Hello, everyone.

My name's Ms. Keller, and welcome to today's lesson.

In this session, we are going to be exploring how Ciaran Carson uses language and structure in his poem "Belfast Confetti".

So by the end of today's lesson, we will be able to explain how Carson uses language, form, and structure to convey a sense of the chaos and horror of the troubles.

So let's explore today's key words.

We have lots of different words.

We have some methods such as in enjambment and caesura, which we will come on to exploring later, but I'd just like to pause and explain the difference.

So in a line of poetry and genre is when the idea or the sentence continues beyond the end of a line, or stanza, or couplet.

So we might find half of it in one line and half of it in the next line, or half of it in one stanza and half of it in the next.

Whereas, caesura is almost the opposite.

It's a pause or a break in a line of verse, often marked by punctuation.

And then the three other words we've got underneath are great words that we might use to describe our interpretations of the poem.

So we've got the word civilians, which refers to non-military individuals, so people that aren't involved in the fighting.

Volatile, which is an adjective that means unstable or liable to change.

And finally, chaos, which is complete disorder or confusion.

And we did have that word in our outcome today, which means we are really gonna be focusing on this idea of chaos and how Carson uses language and structure to convey it to the reader.

So how is today's lesson going to look? Well, in order to analyse "Belfast Confetti," we're going to start off, start by exploring interpretations of power and powerlessness.

And then in the second half of the lesson, we're going to explore interpretations of chaos.

So power versus powerlessness.

So this is the first idea that I want to consider.

So here are some different types of people who were involved in the troubles.

We had soldiers or fighters, so both actually because we had the soldiers who were perhaps fighting for the British Army, but we also had lots of paramilitary groups, so fighters who were part of those groups.

Civilians, which we just said were people that weren't involved in the fighting, but perhaps just lived in the areas where it was taking place.

And then finally, we have leaders or governments.

The people that perhaps aren't in the war zone at all aren't in the scene of the conflict at all, but they're making the decisions that drive what takes place there.

So my first question to you is, who do you think have the most power and the least power out of these three groups of people? So take some time to think really carefully, and discuss this with the people around you, or if you're working on your own, that's okay.

Just make some notes on your paper or in your exercise book.

So pause the video for as long as you need to, and click play when you're ready for us to discuss it together.

Welcome back, some really fascinating discussions taking place there to start the lesson off.

So let's discuss it together then.

So what I've done along the top is I've put some space for us to think about how each of these people might be powerful.

And then on the bottom, I've put some space to think about how they might be power less.

So let's just pick up on some of the great ideas that I overheard starting then with the soldiers and fighters.

So it's arguable that they were quite powerful, because they were the ones fighting for this change.

They were the ones holding the weapons.

And I think it's probably fair to say that holding a weapon that could cause harm to somebody or kill somebody else does, unfortunately, give you quite a lot of power, because people are likely to do what you want them to do if you're pointing a weapon at them.

And more than that, they're also trained for this conflict, as well.

So we might even be able to infer that perhaps, they might be calmer in a chaotic situation like this compared to some of the other groups, civilians, for example.

However, we could also argue that they're quite powerless, because soldiers or paramilitary fighters must follow orders without question.

There are leaders of these groups who issue the orders, and it is up to the soldiers to enact these orders.

So they're not necessarily using these weapons to bring about a change that they thought of themselves, but rather they are just following orders.

So moving on to civilians then.

So we could argue that they're powerful, because they are the majority, they are the biggest group out of these three types of people.

And potentially, that if they all spoke out in disagreement about something, they might be able to bring about a change.

However, and this is where their powerlessness comes into play, because the conflict is having the most damaging effect on them, it's hurting them.

They might have lost people close to them, so it's likely that they could be living in fear, because they're living in amongst this conflict and horror and chaos.

So perhaps, the chances of them gathering together to speak out if they disagreed might be quite low, because they're so fearful of what might happen to them.

And this last group then, leaders and governments.

So how are they powerful? Well, we could argue that they're the ones deciding how and where this conflict will play out.

They're the ones issuing the orders and deciding where the fighting is going to be taking place.

However, they do have a public responsibility and a duty of care.

Now, what I mean by that is not necessarily that this could influence their decisions, but they do have to be aware that the decisions that they make, they make on behalf of everybody else.

So in terms of a public responsibility, in order to continue being a leader, you do need the support of people behind you in the decisions that you make.

So now, we've talked about this idea about how they could be, each group could be powerful or powerless.

Has this changed who you thought was most or least powerful? It's interesting to think about.

So in this poem, Carson presents the civilians as powerless, while the fighters are depicted as powerful in this particular description of them that we get in "Belfast Confetti." So what I would like you to do is to grab your copy of the text, and identify any evidence that you can find that supports this interpretation.

So you are looking for things that might show us that the civilians are powerless or that the fighters are powerful.

So pause the video here while you discuss this with the people around you, or make some notes if you are working on your own.

And when you're ready to feedback together, click play and we'll carry on.

Okay, welcome back.

Some really interesting discussions taking place there, and I was particularly impressed by some of the different quotations that you are identifying in the poem.

So let's just pick up on a few responses that I overheard.

So what I've done here, is I've just split those two ideas apart, so that we can add some evidence in under each one.

So I'd like to start off then by thinking about how Carson presents the civilians as powerless.

So well done if you also picked up on this quotation, "I was trying to complete a sentence in my head, but it kept stuttering." So how could we interpret this language then? How could we view that as a depiction of civilians being powerless? Well, we could argue that the chaos makes the speaker anxious, and we could see that or read that into that verb they're stuttering.

Perhaps they're trying to prepare a response for the riot police, and that this questioning maybe is quite common.

They know they're going to be questioned.

So before they've even encountered the riot police that are already thinking to themselves, how am I going to answer these questions? And onto that second interpretation then, so the fighters are depicted as powerful.

So we could have identified this quotation from the end of the poem.

"What is my name? Where am I coming from? Where am I going?" So here we have got three of the questions that the speaker says that the riot police ask them.

So what impression can we get from these questions then? It implies that the riot police have the power to demand this sort of personal information from civilians.

What is your name? Where are you coming from and where are you going? So they have the right to know the whereabouts of civilians, and also what they're doing out of their houses perhaps.

So this suggests that perhaps they have control over where people can go.

So we could also argue that both of these quotations also demonstrate how overwhelming the speaker finds their powerlessness.

So we learn a lot about the speaker's feelings in both of these quotations.

So I'd like to pause again for a discussion and for you to really get the chance to unpick that idea with the people around you, or by exploding or annotating some of these quotations on your copy of the text, or in your exercise book, or on your paper.

So take a moment to really think about this idea.

How can we argue that both these quotes also demonstrate how overwhelming the speaker finds their powerlessness? So pause the video here, and click play when you're ready for us to discuss it together.

Okay, welcome back.

Some really interesting discussions taking place there.

And again, I was really impressed with how people were using their empathy skills.

So they're really trying to place themselves into the shoes of the speaker, and imagining how they might have felt if they had to experience this type of conflict.

So well done if you were doing that as well in your discussions.

So then let's explore how these quotations can be interpreted as quite overwhelming.

So this first one, "I was trying to complete a sentence in my head, but it kept stuttering." So we could argue then that the verbs trying to and stuttering imply that the speaker is frantically trying to think, but is repeatedly interrupted by the chaos.

So they keep trying to follow this train of thought, but it keeps stuttering among all the noise, and the chaos, and the conflict that they're witnessing.

And the second quote then, these three questions that the riot police ask the speaker, well, organising the questions in a list in this way, what, where, where implies that the police's questioning is rapid and blunt.

Each of these questions is very sure, and it's followed straight away by another question, which could actually emphasise how intimidating these police actually are to the civilians.

They're asking these questions perhaps in quite an aggressive and blunt manner.

So another challenge for you then.

So I've taken away the quotations that we were just using, but I've kept those initial inferences.

So these key ideas.

So civilians are still presented as powerless, and the fighters are still depicted as powerful.

And I've also kept some of our analysis of those quotations.

I've kept the idea that the speaker is frantically trying to think, and I've also kept the idea that the fighters or the police are perhaps intimidating to the civilians.

So my challenge to you is can you find another quote from the poem to support each of these interpretations? So pause the video here while you take some time to go over the poem again, and when you think you've identified another piece of evidence that could fit in each of these gaps, click play and we'll go through it together.

Welcome back.

Some really interesting quotations that I overheard people discussing there.

So let's see if you've chosen the same ones that I have.

So for that first one then, we could have chosen the quotation.

It was reigning exclamation marks there from the beginning of the poem.

And we could add a little bit on to this analysis by saying that the exclamation marks could symbolise fear and urgency, implying that the speaker is frantically trying to think, but is interrupted by the chaos.

We've still got that same inference at the end there that the speaker's frantically trying to think, but this time, we using exclamation marks here, and their symbolic link to the idea of fear or urgency or these other negative emotions that we would usually see an exclamation mark used to convey.

So onto the second one then.

So the fighters were depicted as powerful.

We could have chosen, "I know this labyrinth, why can't I escape?" So how could this show us that our speaker is feeling quite intimidated? Well, the rhetorical question here shows the speaker's fear.

He's trapped like a rat in a maze emphasising how intimidating it might be to civilians.

So we've got that word labyrinth there, which means maze, and I don't know about you, but it really gave me that impression of a rat or a mouse trapped in a maze, and perhaps trying to escape even though it's an area that they're quite familiar with.

So let's actually take this use of rhetorical questions a little bit further, because already in the lesson, we've explored these two quotations in different ways.

So I'd like to bring this analysis of this method and our ideas about it together.

So I'd like you to discuss how could we interpret these questions as also linked to the speakers in a conflict? So, so far, we've discussed how they link to this external conflict that the speaker is witnessing, but how could they also link to internal conflict? So pause the video here while you have a think, and take some time to discuss it.

And when you're ready to feedback together, click play and we'll carry on.

Welcome back.

Some really interesting interpretations of those rhetorical questions there.

And I like the way that we were really starting to think about how the speaker of the poem might be feeling inside while they're experiencing this.

So we could have said something like, "Carson arguably explores inner conflict and Northern Irish identity in these rhetorical questions.

Choosing to frame them as repeated by the speaker and not asked by the police directly, which is suggested in Carson's use of the first person pronouns, emphasises how they echo questions someone may ask themselves about their identity, their heritage, and their ambitions in life." So here, we are picking up on this idea that these questions could have two different meanings.

If they're asked by the police, they might be just simply trying to find out about who this person is and where they're going.

And there, we get this intimidating depiction of them as able to control the movements of civilians.

However, looking at it in this way and thinking really carefully about those first person pronouns, my and I, it could also be questions that somebody might ask themselves perhaps if they were having a bit of an identity crisis.

Where am I coming from? Where am I going? That journey that perhaps people think if they look back to their childhood, and then they look to their future.

So we could read these questions in that way.

"Furthermore, Carson draws on ideas of familiarity and unfamiliarity to comment on how civilians watched as their homeland changed into a chaotic war zone during The Troubles.

It's possible to read a note of frustration in the phrasing of the question framed through the negative modal auxiliary verb 'can't' instead of the positive 'can', implying this speaker no longer feels a sense of familiarity in their hometown." So here, we're looking specifically at this idea of why can't I escape? Instead of saying, "how can I escape," the speaker says, "why can't I escape?" They know this place really well.

So it's quite surprising to them that this familiar landscape that they know so well suddenly seems so very unfamiliar, because it's almost changed in front of their eyes.

So let's pause here, and check our understanding so far.

So the description of how it was raining exclamation marks, presents the speaker as powerless because.

So take some time to look at these four options, and decide which one you think best completes the sentence above.

Have a think, and when you're ready for me to reveal the correct answer, click play.

Welcome back, and well done to those of you who said B, he is trying to think as chaos and danger are reigning around him.

So now, it's time for the first practise task of today's lesson.

And I'd like you to bring together all of the discussions that we've had so far with the people around you or if you're working on your own, in your exercise book, or on your notepad.

I'd like you to discuss or think about the following questions, and make some notes.

And I'd like you to support your ideas with evidence from the poem and your knowledge of the wider context.

So let's have a look at the questions.

So number one, how might civilians feel powerless in times of war? Number two, how does Carson convey this in "Belfast Confetti?" Number three, what does the word "fusillade" suggest about the power held by the riot police? And remember, that a fusillade is like a rapid burst of gunfire is where usually means, but here, it is used in a metaphorical sense.

And finally, number four, which three words would you use to describe the speaker's feelings and emotions during the poem? And most importantly, why did you choose those particular words? So take some time to discuss and debate with the people around you, and make your notes.

And when you're ready to discuss it together, click play and we'll carry on.

Welcome back.

So here is how some of our Oak students responded to these questions.

So number one, how might civilians feel powerless in times of war? Well, Jacob said, "Civilians involved in a war might feel powerless, because they're forced to live through the dangerous violence happening in their homes and can do nothing to stop it." And Jun said, "I agree, even though they do have the power to speak up and protest, I can understand why they might be afraid to do so." So here, Jun's response, although it's shorter than Jacob's, is really good, because it develops Jacob's original idea.

So he's taking what Jacobs said, and he's developing it a bit further.

So Jacob's bringing up this idea that's feelings might feel powerless, whereas Jun, has developed it further to think about why that might be.

So just pause here for a quick discussion that how could they have added supporting evidence into their responses? So just take a moment to think, and click play when you're ready to continue.

Okay, welcome back.

It seems that lots of us were able to find some fantastic evidence there as I overheard lots of different quotes being suggested.

One that springs to mind for me with a particular point that Jacob and Jun are making here is they might have wanted to use that quote about how the speaker feels like they're trapped in a labyrinth, and why can't they escape.

This idea that a familiar place suddenly feels so very unfamiliar to our speaker.

So this could emphasise perhaps the sense of powerlessness that they feel.

Number two then, how does Carson convey this idea in "Belfast Confetti?" So here we might be able to see some different examples of evidence.

So Jun says, "Carson illustrates how intimidated the speaker feels in the quote, "It was raining exclamation marks." Whereas Jacob says, "I agree.

The exclamation marks could symbolise the shrapnel from the bomb, conveying the terror the speaker feels seeing the explosion.

Carson has firsthand experience of this conflict." So what was really great about their discussion here was they had this fantastic analysis of the evidence.

Jun put forward that piece of evidence, and then Jacob really effectively analysed it, thinking about the use of symbolism and how that might link to the speaker's feelings.

So that was fantastic, and it even went as far as suggesting some contextual knowledge, but I would argue that they could have developed this a little bit further.

So I'd just like to pause again for a quick *Friday discussion.

How could they have developed this discussion of the wider context? So have a think and click play when you're ready to continue.

Okay, welcome back.

Lots of great suggestions there.

So the one that spring to mind for me was the use of a conjunction.

So a word like "so".

Carson has firsthand experience of this conflict, so it's likely that his descriptions might be quite realistic.

Okay, so number three, what does the word "fusillade" suggest about the power held by the riot police? So Jacob said, "Here, Carson suggests the police are powerful, because the word 'fusillade' is an example of military language, referring to rapid gunfire, which suggests to the speaker is overwhelmed." And Jun says, "Yes.

It gives the impression that the police have the power to demand answers, not simply make inquiries." So now over to you.

I'd like you to see if you can give them a what went well, and even better for this part of their discussion.

So pause the video, and think for a moment, and click play when you're ready to feedback together.

Back some really interesting suggestions for Jacob and Jun there.

So we could have said that what was really good about this discussion is there was a really good analysis of evidence zooming in on that keyword "fusillade".

But we could also argue that Jacob's response diverts a little bit from the question focus.

Because remember we were asked about what this word suggested about the power held by the riot police.

However, in Jacob's response, he is discussing how the speaker feels overwhelmed.

Jun seems to recognise this, because in his response, he brings that focus back onto the riot police by saying that it gives the impression that the police have the power to demand answers.

And question four, then which three words would you use to describe the speaker's feelings and emotions during the poem? And why did you choose these words? Well, Jun said, "I think the speaker is feeling intimidated, terrified, and frantic." And Jacob said, "I would imagine the speaker is feeling panicked, overwhelmed, and hopeless." So one final question to you, do you agree with their choices? How do they match up to the words you'd chosen, and why do you agree with them or why do you disagree with them? So pause the video while you have your discussion, and click play when you're ready to continue.

Okay, so we've made it to the halfway point of today's lesson.

So we've been exploring interpretations of power and powerlessness.

So now, it's time for us to explore interpretations of chaos.

So the first thing I'd like to think about is how does Carson depict the scene of conflict? How does he describe the conflict that is happening? So what I would like you to do is have a little look at what some of our Oak students had to say about how Carson depicts the setting of the poem.

And my question to you is, which of the students has the best response? So pause the video here while you read each of their responses carefully, and decide which one you think best answers this question, how does Carson depict the scene of conflict? So pause the video here, and click play when you're ready to continue.

Welcome back.

I can hear some really spirited debates taking place there, which is fantastic.

I always think of it as a fantastic sign when we don't always agree, because that tells me that everybody's having to support their responses with evidence and knowledge of the wider context, and links to the writer influences and intentions in order to make their argument seem more compelling than the rest of their group.

So well done if you were doing that.

There was a few things that actually all of our Oak students' responses had in common.

There were two common themes.

The first one is they were all picking up on this idea that in some way, it was chaotic and overwhelming.

So Andeep said that the civilians were trapped in the middle of the chaos.

Sam used the word "chaotic", and Jacob used the word "overwhelming".

So we had lots of links to this idea.

And the second common theme was that it was described like a war zone, and this word turned up in both Sam and Aisha's descriptions of how they thought Carson depicted that setting.

So I'd like to take them one at a time.

So let's just start with this idea of the setting being depicted as chaotic and overwhelming.

So many people have described this poem as having a frantic, breathless toe.

So one way that Carson does this is through the use of words that emphasise speed or urgency, such as suddenly, explosion, burst, rapid, stuttering.

All of these words really help to pick up the pace at which we might be reading this poem.

Also, Carson uses caesura and enjambment, and remember these two important keywords from the beginning of the lesson, all to do with where the line breaks fall in relation to the ends of the sentences.

So for example, Carson writes, "Why can't I Escape? Every move is punctuated.

Crimea Street.

Dead end again." We've got lots of really short, punchy phrases there, which, again, helps to speed up the pace of this poem, and give it that frantic tone.

So onto the second interpretation, and that the setting is described like a warzone.

So many people believe that the trouble shouldn't be classed as a war since it lacked some of the traditional characteristics of war.

For example, there was no official declaration of war.

There was no official announcement that a war had begun.

There was no conventional battlefield.

There were no official uniformed combatants, which means that there was the fighting took place between these unofficial groups primarily.

So we could argue that it's likely Carson disagrees with this view since the poem attempts to convey the devastation for civilians living in Belfast at the time.

And Carson was one of these civilians, and experienced the chaos firsthand when someone opened fire on a taxi that he was riding in.

So we've got this idea that what we know about Carson suggests to us that it's likely that he wouldn't take this view, that the shouldn't be classed as all, because he's experienced this chaos and this horror himself.

So what I would like you to do then is to find some evidence from the poem to support this interpretation.

So take a moment, have another look through the text, and when you're ready to feedback together, click play, and we'll continue.

Welcome back.

So let's have a look at some evidence that you might found to support this interpretation.

So you might have picked up on this idea from the second Stan of the poem that the streets are named after the soldiers and the battles in the Crimean War.

And also, Carson uses words from the semantic field of the military of war in describing the types of equipment and vehicles and the groups of people that we see.

So this really helps to build up this scene of a warzone.

We have a riot squad.

We have a Saracen, which is a military vehicle, and then Kremlin-2 mesh, and Makrolon face shields, which are both pieces of the riot gear worn by riot police.

So we are thinking about those plastic face coverings that they wear.

So what is the effect of Carson's use of language here? So just take a moment to think about these quotes, and discuss 'em with the people around you.

And then click play when you're ready to feedback your responses.

So we could actually argue that these different examples of language give the impression that the setting is quite impersonal.

It could actually be anywhere in the world.

And in fact, in this poem, there are more references to war than to Northern Ireland.

So we could actually argue that Carson's use of language helps to create the warzone scene arguably in more detail than it creates a scene that we could conceivably see was in Northern Ireland.

So time to check our understanding again then.

This time, true or false.

So some people have argued that The Troubles wasn't an official war, and Carson appears to agree with this view.

So pause the video while you make your wind up and click play when you're ready for me to reveal the correct answer.

Welcome back, and well done to those of you who said false.

So now it's time to justify this response.

So take a moment to read these two possible explanations and decide which one you think supports our ideas above.

So click pause while you have a think and then click play when you're ready for me to reveal the correct answer.

Welcome back, and well done to those of you who said, B.

Carson implies that Belfast is also a war zone by choosing to name the streets using references to the Crimean War.

So now it is time for the final practise task of today's lesson.

And my challenge to you is this.

I'd like you to write a paragraph answering the following question.

How does Carson create a sense of chaos and danger in "Belfast Confetti?" I'd like you to set yourself a challenge to add detail to your response by using as many words from the word bank as you can.

So here is our word bank.

On one side we've got lots of examples of tentative language.

So these are words and phrases that we use to show personal interpretations.

And then on the right hand side, there are lots of useful words that you could use in your analysis of this poem.

So do bear that in mind or your writing your paragraph and see how many of them you can use.

So pause the video here while you give this a really good go.

And when you're ready to feedback together, click play, and we'll carry on.

Welcome back.

It was really impressive to see so many of you giving this a really good go.

It is not easy to analyse a poem.

It is not easy to write about that, and it's not easy to use a lot of this quite complex vocabulary in your response.

So well done really rising to that challenge.

So what I would like you to do now then is take some time to self-assess your response and ask yourself the following questions.

Did you support your ideas with evidence from the text? Did you analyse Carson's use of methods in relation to danger and chaos? Did you develop your ideas in detail using words from the vocabulary bank? And did you use tentative language? So there is a reminder of those different types of vocabulary that you could have used.

So do take a moment to go back through your response and perhaps underline or highlight everywhere that you used one of those words.

So pause the video while you review your work and click play when you're ready to continue.

Okay, so we have made it to the end of today's lesson and a really, really big well done for all your hard work today.

Let's just summarise some of the things that we've covered in today's lesson.

Enjambment and caesura are used to create a chaotic atmosphere.

Rhetorical questions are used to represent the speakers in a conflict.

The speakers struggle to speak may represent the lack of voice Civilians have in conflict, the street names linked to soldiers and battles from the Crimean War, illustrating that the troubles were a war too.

Carson uses lots of words linked to speed and urgency to convey a sense of fear and chaos.

So thank you very much for joining me in today's lesson.

I hope you have a fantastic day, and I look forward to seeing you again soon.