An Analysis Of Gwen Harwood's Poetry

Study Notes
Personally responding to the poetry of Gwen Harwood
Overview
For some time, there has been debate over what is the ‘true spirit’ of this module, with particular emphasis on how a student should ultimately respond – personally or through ‘readings’. This study guide will dispel your uncertainty and support your classroom studies by guiding you towards a personal response which should be at the heart of anything you compose.
We will explore Gwen Harwood’s poetry through the syllabus rubric, an important framework to follow, as this is from where your examination question will be derived. We will start with the rubric and past HSC questions, because you need to have the ‘product’ you are expected to produce firmly in your mind
And we should remember that a signpost belongs in the context of a particular problem area. It might be no help at all elsewhere, and should not be treated as dogma. So philosophy offers no truths, no theories, nothing exciting, but mainly reminders of what we all know. This is not a glamorous role, but it is difficult and important. It requires an almost infinite capacity for taking pains (which is one definition of genius) and could have enormous implications for anyone who is drawn to philosophical contemplation or who is misled by bad philosophical theories. This applies not only to professional philosophers but to any people who stray into philosophical confusion, perhaps not even realizing that their problems are philosophical and not, say,
To know all this, or to know enough to get by, is to know the use. And generally knowing the use means knowing the meaning. Philosophical questions about consciousness, for example, then, should be responded to by looking at the various uses we make of the word “consciousness.” Scientific investigations into the brain are not directly relevant to this inquiry (although they might be indirectly relevant if scientific discoveries led us to change our use of such words). The meaning of any word is a matter of what we do with our language, not something hidden inside anyone’s mind or brain. This is not an attack on neuroscience. It is merely distinguishing philosophy (which is properly concerned with linguistic or conceptual analysis) from science (which is concerned with discovering