You are going to help me with an essay. I am going to provide you with the rubric, guidelines, an example and the variables (thesis, topic) that need to be discussed.
Here is the guidelines and rubric:
The Nature of the Task
At HL, students are required to write a 1,200 –1,500 word formal essay which develops a particular line of inquiry of their own choice in connection with a non-literary text, a collection of non-literary texts by one same author or a literary text or work studied during the course.

External Assessment
The HL essay offers students an opportunity to develop as independent, critical and creative readers, thinkers and writers by exploring a literary or language topic over an extended period of time, refining their ideas by means of a process of planning, drafting and re-drafting. The essay requires students to construct a focused, analytical argument examining the work from a broad literary or linguistic perspective. It also requires them to adhere to the formal framework of an academic essay, using citations and references.
Any text, texts or work previously studied in class may be selected, with the exception of the texts used for the internal assessment and the works the student plans to use in paper 2.
Determining the Topic
The chosen topic should enable a broad literary or linguistic focus for the essay. In achieving this, the course’s seven central concepts may be a helpful starting point for students in generating or determining a topic for the essay. While students do not have to trace their essay back to one of the seven concepts and the assessment criteria do not require it, working with one of the seven concepts will allow students to begin thinking about their topic as they refine their ideas and arguments. The seven concepts are briefly discussed here in relation to the assignment:
Identity
The student might be interested in an aspect of the representation of identity of a
particular character or group of characters in the text, or on the way in which the text
relates to the identity of the writer.
Culture
The student might be interested in an aspect of the representation of the culture of a

particular place, institution or group of people, or on the way inwhich the text itself
relates to a particular culture.
Creativity
The student might be interested in an aspect of the representation of individual or
collective creativity, or lack of creativity, within the text, or on the way in which the text
represents the creativity of the writer.
Communication
The student might be interested in an aspect of the representation of acts of
communication, or failures in communication, in the text, or on the way in which the
text itself represents an act of communication.
Transformation
The student might be interested in an aspect of the representation of transformation or
transformative acts in the text, or on the way in which the text itself is a transformative
act either of other texts through intertextual reference to them or of reality by means of a transformative effect on the reader’s identity, relationships, goals, values, and beliefs.
Perspective
The student might be interested in an aspect of the representation of a particular
perspective or perspectives within the text, or on the way in which the text represents the
writer’s perspective.
Representation
The student might be interested in an aspect of the way in which the text represents
different themes, attitudes and concepts, or in the extent to which language and literature
can actually represent reality.
Here is how a suitable QUESTION OF INQUIRY might arise using concepts as starting points. The following are some examples of how this could be done:
Identity—how does Ralph Ellison, in his novel Invisible Man, succeed in making his narrator a convincing spokesperson for the concerns of African-Americans in the 20th century?
Culture—how does Robert Capa represent post-Second World War France to qualify/exemplify the brutalities of the French population on former Nazi collaborators in La Femme Tondue? (Language A: language and literature only)
Creativity—how do Mario Testino’s portraits manage to convey the personalities of those portrayed in original ways? (Language A: language and literature only)
Communication--which view of love does Matt Groening convey in Love is Hell? (Language A: language and literature only)
Transformation--in what ways does The Alan Parsons Project’s Tales of Mystery and Imagination offer a transformative re-reading of Edgar Allan Poe’s tales?
Perspective--how does Mary Shelley’s protagonist in Frankenstein use the motif of dangerous knowledge to show the perspective of fear and anxiety of excesses in scientific enterprise in early 19th century Europe?
Representation--through what means does Juan Rulfo successfully convey the representation of realistic and non-realistic characters and situations in Pedro Páramo?​
However, using the seven concepts is neither prescriptive nor exhaustive. Other literary focuses, theoretical approaches or areas of exploration could lead to lines of inquiry such as:
How does F. Scott Fitzgerald foreshadow how Gatsby’s unnatural attachment to the past causes his downfall in The Great Gatsby?
In what ways would Marxist theory about the stratification of wealth and power explain the violence that runs through the action of the novel A Hundred Years of Solitude by Gabriel García Márquez?
To what extent was the characterization of the protagonist in Patrick Süskind´s Perfume influenced by Franz Kafka´s The Metamorphosis?
Assessment Criteria for Higher Level Essay
There are four assessment criteria at HL:
Criterion A
Knowledge, understanding and interpretation
5 marks
Criterion B
Analysis and evaluation
5 marks
Criterion C
Focus, organisation and development
5 marks
Criterion D
Language
5 marks
Total: 20 marks
Criterion A: Knowledge, Understanding and Interpretation
How well does the candidate demonstrate knowledge and understanding of the work or text chosen?
To what extent does the candidate make use of knowledge and understanding of the work or text to draw conclusions in relation to the chosen topic?
How well are ideas supported by references to the work or text in relation to the chosen topic?
Marks / Level descriptor
0:
The work does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.
1:
There is little knowledge and understanding of the work or text shown through the essay in relation to the topic chosen.
References to the work or text are infrequent or are rarely appropriate in relation to the chosen topic.
2:
There is some knowledge and understanding of the work or text shown through the essay in relation to the topic chosen.
References to the work or text are at times appropriate in relation to the chosen topic.
3:
There is satisfactory knowledge and understanding of the work or text shown through the essay and an interpretation of its implications in relation to the topic chosen.
References to the work or text are generally relevant and mostly support the candidate’s ideas in relation to the chosen topic.
4:
There is good knowledge and understanding of the work or text shown through the essay and a sustained interpretation of its implications in relation to the topic chosen.
References to the work or text are relevant and support the candidate’s ideas in relation to the chosen topic.
5:
There is excellent knowledge and understanding of the work or text shown through the essay and a persuasive interpretation of their implications in relation to the chosen topic.
References to the work or text are well-chosen and effectively support the candidate’s ideas in relation to the chosen topic.
​Criterion B: Analysis and Evaluation
To what extent does the candidate analyse and evaluate how the choices of language, technique and style, and/or broader authorial choices shape meaning in relation to the chosen topic?
Marks / Level descriptor
0:
The work does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.
1:
The essay is descriptive and/or demonstrates little relevant analysis of textual features and/or the author’s broader choices in relation to the chosen topic.
2:
The essay demonstrates some appropriate analysis of textual features and the author’s broader choices in relation to the chosen topic, but is reliant on description.
3:
The essay demonstrates a generally appropriate analysis and evaluation of textual features and the author’s broader choices in relation to the chosen topic.
4:
The essay demonstrates an appropriate and at times insightful analysis and evaluation of textual features and the author’s broader choices in relation to the chosen topic.
5:
The essay demonstrates a consistently insightful and convincing analysis and evaluation of textual features and the author’s broader choices in relation to the chosen topic.
Criterion C: Focus, Organization and Development
How well organized, focused and developed is the presentation of ideas in the essay?
How well are examples integrated into the essay?
Marks / Level descriptor
0:
The work does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.
1:
Little organization is present. No discernible line of inquiry is apparent in the essay.
Supporting examples are not integrated into the structure of the sentences and paragraphs.
2:
Some organization is apparent. There is little development of a line of inquiry.
Supporting examples are rarely integrated into the structure of the sentences and paragraphs.
3:
The essay is adequately organized in a generally cohesive manner. There is some development of the line of inquiry.
Supporting examples are sometimes integrated into the structure of the sentences and paragraphs.
4:
The essay is well organized and mostly cohesive. The line of inquiry is adequately developed.
Supporting examples are mostly well integrated into the structure of the sentences and paragraphs.
5:
The essay is effectively organized and cohesive. The line of inquiry is well developed.
Supporting examples are well integrated into the structure of the sentences and paragraphs.
​
Criterion D: Language
How clear, varied and accurate is the language?
How appropriate is the choice of register and style? (“Register” refers, in this context, to the candidate’s use of elements such as vocabulary, tone, sentence structure and terminology appropriate to the HL essay).
Marks / Level descriptor
0:
The work does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.
1:
Language is rarely clear and appropriate; there are many errors in grammar, vocabulary and sentence construction and little sense of register and style.
2:
Language is sometimes clear and carefully chosen; grammar, vocabulary and sentence construction are fairly accurate, although errors and inconsistencies are apparent; the register and style are to some extent appropriate to the task.
3:
Language is clear and carefully chosen with an adequate degree of accuracy in grammar, vocabulary and sentence construction despite some lapses; register and style are mostly appropriate to the task.
4:
Language is clear and carefully chosen, with a good degree of accuracy in grammar, vocabulary and sentence construction; register and style are consistently appropriate to the task.
5:
Language is very clear, effective, carefully chosen and precise, with a high degree of accuracy in grammar, vocabulary and sentence construction; register and style are effective and appropriate to the task.
Gpt, remember that we are trying to aim for a 5 in all criteria.
Here is an example of an essay that got a 5 in all criteria:
The static nature of James Wilson in House
House is one of the most iconic TV series among the drama genre; it managed to garner
much critical acclaim and a very devoted, cult-like fan base. The TV series took the viewers
through eight seasons, each marked by powerful drama between characters, several
antagonists, political commentary of the most varied nature and, of course, dark humor. House
has a dynamic storyline; the lead character is constantly forced to repeal the wrath of various
adversaries, and each episode features a unique and unexpected medical intrigue. Among this
ever-changing environment and storyline, one character manages to remain unchanged
throughout the series: Dr. James Wilson. Wilson retains his impersonal, compassionate,
selfless and loyal nature throughout the eight seasons of the series. Though far from being a
flat character, Wilson is static in terms of his goals, feelings and unquestioned loyalty to
House’s well-being. This essay seeks to explore the manner in which Wilson retains his
identity throughout the entire series.
The core aspect we need to delve into is that of “identity”; in the strict sense of the
word, Wilson’s identity is relayed to the audience in a very resume-like manner. We pointedly
find out Wilson’s religious affiliation (“A lot of Jews have non-Jewish relatives, and most of us don’t
keep kosher”, he reveals1, without his religion ever being used as part of the plot in any way)
and his academic background (revealed to us thanks to him wearing a “Graduated from
McGill University” sweater2). Even his name is made known to the audience only incidentally,
halfway through the first episode. This austere manner of presenting the audience with
Wilson’s biographical background provides stability and a certain degree of artistic
immovability. His academic background, religious affiliation or family ties never come up
during the series; this is worth looking at in light of other characters’ biographies. Chase, a
colleague of Wilson’s, is constantly modulated based on his millionaire father’s erratic
behavior. House, the 50 year-old lead character, is very much still caught up in feuds he had
back in college. Wilson’s identity, however, never comes back to influence his behavior or to
change the audience’s impression of him. Providing the audience with stable and minimal
information about Wilson’s basic identity helps preserve Wilson’s ever-static nature.
Identity, however, ought to be looked at from a broader perspective. Wilson is not just
a good oncologist from a middle-class Jewish background; he is also a husband, a friend, a
former adult films actor, an important director of the hospital, a lover, a widower, a wanted
fugitive and a cynical man. While Wilson certainly is all of those things, his character simply
fails to live up to the standard of being anything other than House’s nemesis. At some point
in the first season, the audience is told that Wilson is an active member of his hospital’s board
of directors. Wilson is only ever shown in his capacity as a director once. “You can’t make my
vote void by making me stand in the hallway”3, Wilson says, in the context of a contentious
administrative matter. That is the extent to which his influence on the board is ever invoked
throughout the series, despite other characters with similar directorial appointments being at
the forefront of administrative intrigue systematically throughout the series. Wilson’s core
professional identity remains static, despite the occasional plot developments that place
Wilson in lateral contexts; the audience cannot help but visualize him strictly as a doctor.
Wilson’s previous encounters with law enforcement turn out to have led him to being
a wanted fugitive for almost two decades. “James Evan Wilson, there’s an arrest warrant out in
your name”, a police officer tells, before primarily House proceeds to present the reasons as to
why Wilson was arrested once upon a time. Wilson rarely plays a central role whenever his
own life is a subject of discussion. For instance, in the scene where Wilson’s arrest is being
presented to the audience, the camera hardly focuses on Wilson; other minor characters and
rich décor receive more airtime in that particular scene, despite the entire scene being about
Wilson. The character is physically isolated from matters pertaining to him; perhaps ironically,
the scenes focusing on Wilson’s own life are the scenes where Wilson receives the least amount
of camera work. This helps preserve Wilson’s immaculate image of the well-dressed and well-
meaning doctor.
It is fair to say that Wilson receives a good amount of light mockery from (almost
exclusively) House. This mockery, however, only helps to consolidate Wilson’s image as a
professional, compassionate individual. House’s jokes about Wilson certainly aim to upset
(and perhaps demean) him, but the unintended effect of these jokes is to simply further
Wilson’s core identity. “Wilson’s so good, people thank him for telling them that they’re dying”4,
House tells, in the context of describing Wilson to a stranger. This conveys just how
compassionate Wilson can get; most jokes about Wilson aim to mock his goodness. On another
occasion, Wilson’s co-worker mocks him for being “too much of a good boy”5. Wilson disagrees
and agrees to steal a dollar to prove he’s capable of being devious. However, when it comes to
actually doing it, Wilson backs out and immediately returns the dollar to the cashier he stole
it from, all while a panicked and uncomfortable Wilson is showed on camera. Even mockery
serves the purpose of constantly reminding the audience just how upstanding and righteous
Wilson is.
The scenarios themselves appear to be designed exactly for the purpose of minimizing
Wilson’s ability to take control of his own storyline. One of Wilson’s girlfriends, Amber,
tragically dies in an automobile accident. House attempts to reconstruct the circumstances of
the accident, while Wilson tries to criticize the feasibility of reconstructing the accident
involving his own girlfriend. “Wilson is done talking now”6, one of House’s co-workers says, and
then proceeding to carry on with total disregard of Wilson’s earlier observations. On another
occasion, Wilson is devastated to find out that his wife had been cheating on him. “Turns out
you were right. She was having an affair”7, Wilson tells House, in the context of Wilson
announcing his separation from his wife (a fact House previously speculated on). Even scenes
that focus on aspects of Wilson’s personal life are monopolized by either other characters who
take the lead or House’s earlier aphorisms, which somehow always end up targeting Wilson.
By placing distance between Wilson himself and his personal life, the creators of the show
have managed to retain Wilson’s relative independence from matters concerning his own life.
Wilson has a professional life of his own; his medical cases and patients are regularly
presented to the audience and are part of the script. However, his medical cases are never
presented autonomously; his patients somehow always become intertwined with House or
other controversies related to the main character. The audience simply has no time to pay close
attention to Wilson’s modus operandi. On one occasion, Wilson’s oncology patient (in
remission) and personal friend, Tucker, comes in with severe respiratory issues. Wilson makes
the diagnosis without looking at Tucker, but at Tucker’s girlfriend. He notices that she has
herpes; Wilson concludes that Tucker must have caught herpes from her, causing him
respiratory issues. “I just had a House moment”8 , Wilson says in awe. He personally sets aside
his professional wisdom by reminding the audience of House’s genius, but his facial
expression certainly shows internal satisfaction. “Draw some blood. He has cancer”, House
intervenes, followed by Wilson deciding to conduct further medical tests. House turns out to
have been ultimately right about the diagnostic. The whole episode carries on focusing on
House’s intuitions being confirmed step by step by House’s medical team, despite Tucker
being Wilson’s patient and friend. The one occasion where Wilson would have had the chance
to shine is yet again overshadowed by House. By systematically placing Wilson in a position
of professional inferiority in relation to other nominally equal colleagues, the audience is
always reminded of Wilson’s subservient and pacifying nature.
A good part of this essay focused not on Wilson’s lines, but on what other characters
said or did in connection to Wilson. This certainly rings true to Wilson’s fundamental nature:
his warm-hearted spirit rests not on making himself feel good, but by making others feel good
in his own detriment. Wilson never snaps at others cutting him off, belittling him or
demeaning him. He only tried this once, at House’s supposed funeral. He lashes out. “House
was an ass. He mocked his dwindling friends. He betrayed everyone who cared about him”, Wilson
says in his “eulogy” for House, before being interrupted by an SMS containing one of House’s
catchphrases, “shut up you idiot”. Wilson’s facial expression fades from one of anger to his
regular Wilson self; needless to say, the eulogy stops. Not even in the very last episode of the
TV series did Wilson have the chance to speak out his mind freely, unabashed about the impact
of his words.
Wilson’s character is never held to low standards; it is merely kept to the same
standards the audience expected from him since the very first episode. The audience is never
presented with an unjust or unprofessional Wilson, but an immaculate Wilson that stands in
sharp contrast with the lead character’s outer behavior.
The book we will be covering is persepolis, with a question of inquiry being "To what extent does "Persepolis" successfully represent Iranian culture and history to a Western audience, and what are the potential limitations or drawbacks of using personal storytelling as a means of representation?" The thesis should be "By foregrounding the role of personal experience and individual agency in shaping historical events, "Persepolis" offers a refreshing alternative to more conventional modes of historical representation, highlighting the crucial role of everyday people in shaping the course of history."
And the IB theme being focused on should be Representation