-
Finished your HSC? Check out our University Discussion, Non-School forums or help out next year's HSC students! -
YOU can help the next generation of students in the community! Share your trial papers and notes on our Notes & Resources page
Crime Fiction - Story (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter p342i
- Start date
RainbowBrite
Member
Not fair that there was a phrase, image and the whole restruction and destruction stuff we had to incorporate.
Not the biggest fan of this story. My trials story was much better.
Not the biggest fan of this story. My trials story was much better.
1qaz2wsxokm
Member
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2006
- Messages
- 110
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2006
LOL! omg omg i cud hab screwed it =S! ma story was about a boy wid his grand father walking on the stepz on a rainy day n it was thunderin etc etc n he told me a story abt war and how 1 such person died in da war when he was trying 2 escape. This story is told wen da grandfather and me (6 yrs old) are walkin up the stairs and it goes on til da grandfather quits journalism due to the war and the ill effects of it... Then the grandad is on the MIDDLE step and says you got choices to make and they cud be DESTRUCTIVE or constructive. THERE is a flash bak and IM GEORGE BUSH thinking bak on my childhoooood! and they 1 of my seceteries ask "how many ppl u want 2 send 2 iraq??" and den i say no1!! so i have DUN DA RECONSTRUCTION part... is dis a gud story im worried i didnt use da conventions =S!
luscious-llama
Ára bátur
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2004
- Messages
- 1,064
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- HSC
- N/A
I'm going to rewrite what you've said1qaz2wsxokm said:
"I could have screwed it up, my story was about a boy with his grandfather walking on thes teps on a rainy day and it was thundering etc and he told me a story about war and how one such person died in the war when he was trying to esecape. This story is told when the grandfather and me (6 yrs old) are walking up the stairs and it goes on till the grandfather quits journalism due to the war and the ill effects of it... then the granddad is on the MIDDLE step and says you have choices to make and they could be destructive or constructive. There is a flash back and I'M GEORGE BUSH thinking back on my childhood and then one of my secretaries asks "how many people do you want sent to Iraq?" and then I say "no one" so I have done the reconstruction part...
Okay mate, sorry about that but I wasn't sure what you... PLEASE DON'T WRITE IN COMPUTER SPEAK..... thank you... what was the crime my dear?
Personaly I wasn't sure if I interpreted it correctly.
I didn't write alot as I didn't alocate enough time towards, it... definately my bad, and i'm not going to do well in it, that is al.
Last edited:
passion89
Member
I found that whole reconstruction/destruction thing threw me off a bit. I cannot believe the crap that I came up with lol.
I had a talk with my teacher later and she said 'please tell me you did NOT write about the man on the bike getting shot. PLEASE'
I had a talk with my teacher later and she said 'please tell me you did NOT write about the man on the bike getting shot. PLEASE'
lilyflower16
New Member
I enjoyed the story, to some extent. I had to make some major nip/tucks to make my prepared story work and the ending was rather cliched, but I'm hoping it will get good marks to make up for the piece-of-crap essay I wrote afterwards lol. Hopefully incorporating all the bits, the setting, deconstruction/reconstruction etc etc will get a few marks and they won't be too mean about the crap ending!
yeah my story was dodgy, question was shite, but it usually is. i wrote about a guy who was chasing a thief. He uses the bike to catch her running on foot, but he faceplants it head over turkey style. nice ay? ay? anyone? yeah so he tracks down the theif. woop-dee-dooo worlds worst story, i cant write crime s.s's..
p342i
Member
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2006
- Messages
- 60
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2006
I adapted my story; had the picture as the entrance to the mansion and subsequent Billiard Room, included a depiction of it, with the bikerider going past as the host greets his first guest.
My story was essentially a clue-puzzle; with the host (Professor Herald Bloom) who has two detectives (the Sergeant) and (the Earl) over for the night. The Seargeant is characterised as the archetypal hardboiled private-eye,
"Sergeant Benjamin L Thompson... a former serviceman and ex-Sergeant of the Los Angeles Police Department. The Sergeant could stand neither the discipline of the army, nor the incompetency of the police force, and so had forged his career as a private-eye. He entered wearing a black hat and grey trench coat, the lowered visor and upturned collar shielding his eyes from all view so that only a permeation of smoke emanated from beneath the unfriendly guise. Bloom considered this man no more than a minor vigil anti; one who pleased neither the suspects he investigated nor those who employed him to do so. He worked by the rule of that pathetic, limiting, and dis-ambitious voice of ‘conscience’: a sound that to Bloom was but a whisper now."
The Earl is effectively a Sherlock Holmes invention, mixed in with Hercule Poirot,
"the disinherited Earl of Middshire, Bloom’s second guest, dressed in a crimson vest, soiled by the rain outside. A pack of curled shoulder-length hair sat damp like a mop on his pale face. He was stylish and smart, by some labelled a genius, for to this youth’s sharp mind not a puzzle could remain undone, not a mystery left unsolved or a leaf unturned. But Bloom knew of this prodigy’s dark side: he had a taste for opium, and the headaches it brought on drew him into the depths of insomnia. He was as insane as he was brilliant, a narrow tangent between the boundaries of both, and in that existence he was totally mad."
Meanwhile the Professor is effectively the blue-blooded host whose tainted reputation has resulted in the detectives coming to investigation him, secretly. But of course he is aware, and the whole night is a complete construction of his. He reconstructs the world in which they enter. He plans a crime (the theft of a gijsaw puzzle) from his own puzzle.
The two detectives try and solve the crime through their individual methods; the Sergeant using unrelenting persistence whilst the Earl, superior intellect.
But in the end they cannot find either the location of the stolen item or its current possessor and so give up. It is then revealed that 'the Butler did it' - literally; as Bloom's manipulation of the event is revealed, he essentially brings 'destruction' upon their world by revealing the falseness of their profession, goal and methods. Once revealed they shout out,
"What? When? Where? Who? And How?"
Whilst Bloom retorts by saying,
"Truth, like art is in the eye of the beholder. You believe what you choose, and I'll believe what I know. Goodnight gentlemen, I shall see you in the morrow."
In the aftermath of the reconstruction of reality followed by this subsequent destruction, the detectives creep over to the now completed puzzle, after the Butler returns to final elusive piece [the reconstruction once again]. In the final denouement, the Earl and the Sergeant see that the final piece bears a word on it; and they wish that they had never left that cobbled street road, up that winding staircase and into the house of a madman.
The puzzle reads:
"Whydunit?"
[By the way, sorry to all those people who didn't want to read all this; I have a terrible habbit of going on and on. I tried to cut it down as much as possible through this summary. It was 19 pages long in the exam.]
My story was essentially a clue-puzzle; with the host (Professor Herald Bloom) who has two detectives (the Sergeant) and (the Earl) over for the night. The Seargeant is characterised as the archetypal hardboiled private-eye,
"Sergeant Benjamin L Thompson... a former serviceman and ex-Sergeant of the Los Angeles Police Department. The Sergeant could stand neither the discipline of the army, nor the incompetency of the police force, and so had forged his career as a private-eye. He entered wearing a black hat and grey trench coat, the lowered visor and upturned collar shielding his eyes from all view so that only a permeation of smoke emanated from beneath the unfriendly guise. Bloom considered this man no more than a minor vigil anti; one who pleased neither the suspects he investigated nor those who employed him to do so. He worked by the rule of that pathetic, limiting, and dis-ambitious voice of ‘conscience’: a sound that to Bloom was but a whisper now."
The Earl is effectively a Sherlock Holmes invention, mixed in with Hercule Poirot,
"the disinherited Earl of Middshire, Bloom’s second guest, dressed in a crimson vest, soiled by the rain outside. A pack of curled shoulder-length hair sat damp like a mop on his pale face. He was stylish and smart, by some labelled a genius, for to this youth’s sharp mind not a puzzle could remain undone, not a mystery left unsolved or a leaf unturned. But Bloom knew of this prodigy’s dark side: he had a taste for opium, and the headaches it brought on drew him into the depths of insomnia. He was as insane as he was brilliant, a narrow tangent between the boundaries of both, and in that existence he was totally mad."
Meanwhile the Professor is effectively the blue-blooded host whose tainted reputation has resulted in the detectives coming to investigation him, secretly. But of course he is aware, and the whole night is a complete construction of his. He reconstructs the world in which they enter. He plans a crime (the theft of a gijsaw puzzle) from his own puzzle.
The two detectives try and solve the crime through their individual methods; the Sergeant using unrelenting persistence whilst the Earl, superior intellect.
But in the end they cannot find either the location of the stolen item or its current possessor and so give up. It is then revealed that 'the Butler did it' - literally; as Bloom's manipulation of the event is revealed, he essentially brings 'destruction' upon their world by revealing the falseness of their profession, goal and methods. Once revealed they shout out,
"What? When? Where? Who? And How?"
Whilst Bloom retorts by saying,
"Truth, like art is in the eye of the beholder. You believe what you choose, and I'll believe what I know. Goodnight gentlemen, I shall see you in the morrow."
In the aftermath of the reconstruction of reality followed by this subsequent destruction, the detectives creep over to the now completed puzzle, after the Butler returns to final elusive piece [the reconstruction once again]. In the final denouement, the Earl and the Sergeant see that the final piece bears a word on it; and they wish that they had never left that cobbled street road, up that winding staircase and into the house of a madman.
The puzzle reads:
"Whydunit?"
[By the way, sorry to all those people who didn't want to read all this; I have a terrible habbit of going on and on. I tried to cut it down as much as possible through this summary. It was 19 pages long in the exam.]
i got half way thru my story and realised i didnt have a suspect introduced early in the proceedings who could of comitted the crime so had to use one of the cops that was there and ended up being a rip of godfather part 2 lol. set in italy too, cause the pic reminded me of it. fuck it its over now anyway.
and the destruction/reconstruction thing was just about restoration of order...the crime destructs order and the solving of it reconstructs.
and the destruction/reconstruction thing was just about restoration of order...the crime destructs order and the solving of it reconstructs.
Princesa
New Member
darcho said:
i did the same thing. The crime destroyed the order and restoration of justice (catching the baddie) restored the order. i incorporated the image as a significant setting - it was in almost 1/2 the story as the crime scene and i completely dismissed the guy on the bike. the caption 'crime disturbs the landscape' i incorporated with the destruction/reconstruction theme as in the crime disturbed/destroyed the landscape (in this case the community my story was set in) and the community was 'reconstructed' with the restoration of order. i mixed hard-boiled with modern conventions, inc a gun fight i used in my trials which my teacher really liked. i left the conclusion hanging, leaving it up to the reader to decide whether the protaganist killed or captured the murderer during the gunfight.
Comon now THAT was easy.
basically:
<insert Story>
<insert a scene from the picture into the story, and make it have an impacting issue>
<finish story, relate it to the scene>
End.
B.T.W, did the person above about the 'computer speak'(Chuckles) even refrence Crime fiction or it's conventions in it?
Just curious...
If you think it's hard check out the ext 2001 question.
Now THATS a bitch
basically:
<insert Story>
<insert a scene from the picture into the story, and make it have an impacting issue>
<finish story, relate it to the scene>
End.
B.T.W, did the person above about the 'computer speak'(Chuckles) even refrence Crime fiction or it's conventions in it?
Just curious...
If you think it's hard check out the ext 2001 question.
Now THATS a bitch
hoomanraviola
New Member
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2006
- Messages
- 15
- Gender
- Female
- HSC
- 2006
haha well in a moment of pure creativity- I decided to have my victim killed off by a bike spoke...
I realised about an hour later that there would be no reason at all someone would try to kill someone with a bike spoke- makes no sense at all especially as he had a gun in his hand- but that stupid guy on the bike just threw me off completely. I guess im a retard for trying to actually completely integrate the stimulus and not just slightly adapt my prepared, which was actually fairly decent
And my last line ends up with the detective going- "lets get this bugger down to the DA's office"...does that even make sense?! I realised later that DA's stands for district attorney..isnt that the prosecution? I just asssumed it was a smart way to say police station.
I realised about an hour later that there would be no reason at all someone would try to kill someone with a bike spoke- makes no sense at all especially as he had a gun in his hand- but that stupid guy on the bike just threw me off completely. I guess im a retard for trying to actually completely integrate the stimulus and not just slightly adapt my prepared, which was actually fairly decent
And my last line ends up with the detective going- "lets get this bugger down to the DA's office"...does that even make sense?! I realised later that DA's stands for district attorney..isnt that the prosecution? I just asssumed it was a smart way to say police station.
hey tell me if i was completely off the track here. im kind of scared i didn't write what they were looking for.
i hadn't prepared a response .. i wrote something along the lines of this.
i wrote from the point of view of a hardboiled detective. He comments on his surroundings and society in general (insert essay ... society permeated by a wretched evil blah blah ). Then he comments on the previous notions of detective figures. ( talks about logical accretion of evidence and how this is hardly equated with reality). Then i made him follow the guy on the bicycle to an apartment. The guy on the bicycle turns out to be a really warped manifestation of a golden age detective, and he basically challenges the hardboiled detective, by asking him if he was a construction of his own society. Some arguement happens ( insert essay). I also introduced 3 femme fatales into the story, but i tied them up to sort of signify the rigid ideologies of previous femme fatale figures. The hardboiled detective basically says to the golden age detective to adapt to the current context and in the end i made the hardboiled detective shoot him. i had a runing metaphor which was a rubrix cube throughout the entire story. My language was a bit clinical, because i had all my essay information in my head when i wrote the story.
um.. yeah. what do you think?
i hadn't prepared a response .. i wrote something along the lines of this.
i wrote from the point of view of a hardboiled detective. He comments on his surroundings and society in general (insert essay ... society permeated by a wretched evil blah blah ). Then he comments on the previous notions of detective figures. ( talks about logical accretion of evidence and how this is hardly equated with reality). Then i made him follow the guy on the bicycle to an apartment. The guy on the bicycle turns out to be a really warped manifestation of a golden age detective, and he basically challenges the hardboiled detective, by asking him if he was a construction of his own society. Some arguement happens ( insert essay). I also introduced 3 femme fatales into the story, but i tied them up to sort of signify the rigid ideologies of previous femme fatale figures. The hardboiled detective basically says to the golden age detective to adapt to the current context and in the end i made the hardboiled detective shoot him. i had a runing metaphor which was a rubrix cube throughout the entire story. My language was a bit clinical, because i had all my essay information in my head when i wrote the story.
um.. yeah. what do you think?
I inserted my generic creative, but after a day's detective-ing the detective went home and got drunk. He then proceeded to have rambling thoughts about the "destruction vs reconstruction" part of the question, and came to the conclusion that there would be no "reconstruction" without justice. Then he went and killed the suspect the next day and suicided.