Department of Spanish and Portuguese

Faculty of Modern and Medieval Languages

SP12 Examiners' Reports

Report for May 2007

There were only 15 candidates sitting the SP12 examination in May 2007, perhaps because there were at least as many dissertations submitted in the area of Latin American Culture, of which many were Optional (i.e., substituting for the Examination). The Examination results were not quite so high on average as in previous years (the median mark was 66% as compared to 67.5% the previous year), but there was a very high upper quartile of 70.25%, reflecting the fact that a third of the candidates achieved Firsts, while another third achieved results at the lower end of the II.1s, with one II.2 awarded, and the rest in the higher II.1s.

Following the trend of recent years, answers were fairly widely spread across the questions, with no question attracting more than six answers. The two most popular questions in this regard were Question 6 (on Political Poetry - six answers) and Question 13 (Post-Dictatorship Argentine Film - six answers), with Question 10 (The Experimental Novel - five answers) coming in a close third. Discussion here will largely be confined to these sets of answers, as the numbers of answers allow some general issues of interest to be brought out.

The answers on Political Poetry were a little disappointing overall, in that the majority of candidates made very little explicit reference either to the poetic manifestoes of Huidobro, Vallejo, Neruda, et al, or to the concept of the manifesto in (often avant-garde) poetic practice. Without some discussion of these, the answers turned into a rehash of the old chestnut as to whether avant-garde poetic techniques produce revolutionary effects, but with no theoretical support. Only two answers attempted a complex approach to this question, looking at the ideological glue which allows aesthetic experimentation to be tied to revolutionary political aims, and the complex cross-cuttings that occur in the work of different poets.

Question 13, on Argentine Cinema, presented a long list of key terms (trauma, complicity, subjectivity, authority, cinematography, etc.) which candidates were invited to compare. There was only one outstanding answer, fully au fait with the effects of experimentation with film form, and able to complicate notions of filmic representation. Candidates who looked at three films produced (perhaps predictably) more ambitious answers than those who confined themselves to two, although it should be perfectly possible to write a sophisticated answer on two films, allowing, for example, very close attention to cinematography. It was clear, however, that some candidates were desperate to pair up "trauma" with "memory" (not in the list of words available for discussion), and were somewhat at a loss having to write about "authority" as the nearest option, and several of the answers on this topic were bland, rehearsing well known points. It is unimpressive to see the (in)famous Plaza de Mayo in Argentina being referred to, with some cultural insensitivity, as the Plaza Mayor.

By contrast, the majority of answers on the Experimental Novel (Question 10) were outstanding, perhaps because the difficulty of some of the texts produces a self-selecting group of students, or perhaps because candidates were inspired by the complexities of the writing. Some answers addressed an outstanding range of writers for a single essay: Cortázar, Puig, Vargas, Fuentes and Morelli, yet managed to keep these within a tight frame. Candidates should be careful with core concepts: the 'lector cómplice' was misquoted as the 'lector culto', for example, which slightly misses the point of Morelli's controversial duality.

In general, the best answers are those which manage to bring out the conceptual and/or stylistic complexity of the texts they are working with, as opposed to answers which look for neat pigeon-holes and reductive comparative frameworks.

There were no instances this year of candidates relying on SP5 texts for their SP12 answers. Once again, the critical commentary, on an interesting poem by Homero Aridjis, remained unanswered.

Report for June 2006

There were 27 candidates for SP12, and they produced a pleasing set of results overall. Eight achieved Firsts, seventeen gained II.1s, with only two II.2s, giving a very high upper quartile of 69.75% and a very high median mark of 67.5%.

There was also a good spread of answers across the questions, although one particular question (number 8 on literary or cinematic engagements with the urban) produced fourteen answers, all on cinema with the exception of two. Some of the essays on this topic were innovative, but several candidates failed adequately to address the second half of the question concerning the way the films/texts question "forms of representation". This was crucial for a fully rounded answer on this theme.

The next most popular set of answers was on popular culture (question 15), which produced nine answers. Here, several candidates assumed that the title was denigratory, and therefore missed the crucial idea of an active appropriation of popular culture by Latin American writers. In particular, candidates who spent some time defending their writers against the charge that Latin American popular culture is "a bastard, mongrel soap opera" were missing the point in two senses: first of all, the idea of a mongrel or hybrid culture is often embraced by writers such as Puig, and secondly, very few of the writers studied for the topic are producing works of popular culture - they are, instead, producing an "image" of popular culture, or are playing with and transforming it.

Equal contenders for the next place in the popularity stakes were question 6 (political poetry) and question 18a (Octavio Paz). For the most part these were predictable questions which presented no difficulties, perhaps accounting for their popularity. There were 6 answers on avant-garde poetry and five on the experimental novel, with the latter producing some very adventurous answers on lesser-studied authors such as Onetti.

There were two cases of candidates relying very heavy, in one of their answers, on Part I texts (Cien años, La casa de los espíritus, and La tía Julia). While it is permissible to use one Part I (a or b) text for an answer in comparison with new material, an answer which only looks at Part I texts or one which is mostly focused on such a text with very little commentary on the Part II material, is unlikely to impress the examiners.

No candidates chose the poetry commentary, perhaps because the poem was by a poet (Oliverio Girondo) unfamiliar to most candidates, even though his work is prescribed for the avant-garde poetry topic.

Report for May 2004

There were 16 candidates for SP12, and they produced extremely pleasing results overall. Seven achieved Firsts, and another seven gained II.1s, with only two II.2s, giving a very high upper quartile of 70%.

Candidates showed plenty of enthusiasm for the texts and topics which they wrote about, and many answers showed real engagement with the unique features of Latin American cultural production. There was also a good spread of answers across the questions, especially given the relatively small numbers taking the paper.

The most popular question was 15 (Popular culture, 7 answers), with students showing a very good assimilation of the work of Latin American theorists such as Jesús Martín Barbero and Néstor García Canclini,. The question ideally required some accounting for social issues ("una región fracturada y empobrecida"), and not many candidates took up this aspect of the quotation under discussion. This was followed by question 19e (Neruda, 5 answers), which for the most part produced less interesting answers, with several candidates producing a standard overview of Neruda's work from the Veinte poemas to the Canto general. The more successful answers were able to engage with detailed examples of Neruda's fraught relationship with language, examining how the thematics of language are played out in stylistic and formal terms. Some of the best responses on Neruda, however, came under question 6 (Political Poetry) in comparison with other poets, particularly Vallejo. Next in popularity was 20f (Carlos Fuentes), with 4 answers, some of which showed an outstandingly detailed knowledge of Fuentes' complex texts.

All the other questions were answered by three or fewer candidates, with some very good, innovative answers on Poesía femenina, La novela de la dictadura (the latter including complex self-reflexive texts such as Yo el supremo) and the Short Story. Answers on Escritura femenina (novels) did not always deal well with the opposition set up in the question between political writing and a feminine stylistics: there is no reason why this opposition could not have been challenged.

Only one candidate chose to undertake the poetry commentary this year, but there are rarely more than two or three in any case.

Report for June 2002

Sixteen candidates sat this paper, fourteen wrote compulsory dissertations in substitution for the paper, with a further three writing optional dissertations. The overall quality of answers was high, with six of the examinees gaining firsts (37.5%), and an unusual 57% of compulsory dissertation students gaining firsts (8 candidates). The dissertations were therefore of extremely high quality, evincing some highly original topics researched with great care. In particular there was some fascinating work on Visual Culture, often richly illustrated showing great historical and social awareness.

With regard to the examination, the topics format of the paper once again proved to be popular, since 30 of the 48 answers came from Section A (Topics in Latin American Culture). There was a remarkably even spread of answers across many different texts and topics, with very little bunching. Although Octavio Paz attracted the largest number of answers, this was still relatively a relatively small selection of students (5). An equal number of students fulfilled the poetry requirement of the paper by answering a poetry topic from Section A (4 answers on Vanguardista poetry, and 1 on women's poetry). All in all, it was very pleasing to see students attempt such a range of answers, with adventurous work on Historical Fictions, the novela de la tierra, and City Cinema, for example.

The one piece of general advice worth emphasizing is that for questions relating to visual arts (as well as cinema), the best responses were those which made some effort to show awareness of the formal specificities of the media they were dealing with as well as showing an ability to link form to broader thematic and conceptual concerns.

Report for June 2000

(First year of compulsory dissertations)

11 people opted to take the paper, while 20 wrote dissertations on it, making overall numbers similar to last year but with many more people undertaking dissertations.

Performance on the written paper was very good in a relatively small but clearly highly competent and thoughtful group. Four firsts were awarded, and the rest were II.1s, a good number of them quite high. There was a lot of original material, and signs of real thought and engagement rather than standard safe answers.

14 different questions were answered, but there were clusters on 6 questions: dictatorship, experimental fiction (the most popular question), popular culture, Neruda, Vallejo, and Borges. As far as sections are concerned, 19 questions were answered from Section A, Topics; 9 from Section B, Commentary and individual poets; 5 from Section C, Individual writers of narrative. There was no significant variation in the range of marks awarded in each section. The preponderance of answers to the Topics section, however, shows the increasingly comparative approach taken by candidates, with some very pleasing, knowledgeable and sharp essays.

It is difficult to generalize about the dissertation; there was a pleasing variety of approaches and themes. Again the standard was almost universally high, with a handful of really outstanding work, original, well researched, clearly thought out, and professionally presented.

Report for June 1999

(Prior to compulsory dissertations)

Thirty-one candidates sat this paper, and a further four wrote dissertations within the area of Latin American culture, confirming its status as one of the most popular Part II papers. The overall quality of answers was high. In the examination, 10 scripts were awarded first-class marks (32%), while three of the four dissertations also achieved first-class marks. The dissertations were of extremely high quality, but it should be noted that dissertation candidates for the year 1998-99 were self-selecting: it is expected that marks for dissertations will come more closely into line with the overall paper average with the advent of compulsory dissertations in 1999-2000.

The topics format of the paper once again proved to be popular, since 48 of the 93 answers came from Section A (Topics in Latin American Culture), with Section B (Poetry) and Section C (Narrative) attracting 21 and 24 answers respectively. Answers were fairly evenly spread across the questions, however, and while Pablo Neruda attracted the greatest number of answers (8), this is well down on the days when Neruda and Allende could easily attract 15 answers each. Other popular authors/topics were Juan Rulfo (7), La novela de la dictadura (7), Popular Culture (7), César Vallejo (6), and Jorge Luis Borges (6), with Octavio Paz, Escritura femenina and Magic Realism coming close behind. In extreme contrast to previous years, no candidate answered question 22(m) on Isabel Allende. Future candidates should note that as from 1999-2000, there will be no individual author questions in Section C on Allende, Onetti, or Cabrera Infante, while a number of topics have also been changed (see on-line reading list for details).

There were a surprising number of answers on the Novel of the Mexican Revolution, one of the topics that is being phased out due to overlap with Part IB. A few candidates did indeed recycle Part IB texts with no evidence of their having read new material at Part II (for example, rather too many candidates seemed to believe that El llano en llamas could be categorized as a novel for the purposes of this question). Candidates who answer topics with historical background should try to be accurate with dates and facts: it is, for example, unimpressive to read that the Mexican Revolution took place in the nineteenth century…

Despite previous advice to candidates in Examiners' Reports dissuading them from producing a Michelin guide to the life and poetry of Pablo Neruda, this is precisely what a number of them decided to do when answering question 21(d). More specifically, a number of answers here failed to address the issue of how the poetic voice is constructed in Neruda's poetry. Answers to question 21(e) on César Vallejo were also a little disappointing, with a number of candidates opting to answer on only one collection of Vallejo's work (Trilce). Candidates should always show evidence of having read at least two texts by an author or poet, and all the more so with a question like this that remains incomplete without some discussion of dialectics in Vallejo's later poetry.

Candidates seem to have found the concepts behind question 17 on Magic Realism difficult to grasp, with several candidates unable to make any connection between "suspension of disbelief" as an important concern in realism and Carpentier's emphasis on belief in his argument on lo real maravilloso. Some similar difficulty was also experienced with the title of question 14 on the Short Story, with only one candidate relating the title's key concept to literary self-referentiality. Answers to question 16 on Escritura femenina needed to pay more attention to the metaphorization of the body rather than focusing exclusively on writing.

Answers on Borges, Cortázar, Puig, Avant-garde poetry, Political poetry and the Novela de la dictadura were particularly impressive, and despite the criticisms above intended to be helpful to future students, there was very pleasing evidence of high-quality work undertaken by candidates for this paper.