Verbetering engels schrijfopdracht

mcfaker123

Hallo, kan iemand alstublieft eens kijken of er geen grammaticale of andere fouten in de volgende boekevaluatie zitten??, want het is voor examenpunten en ik maak wel veel fouten (vooral structureel en grammaticaal)

Hartelijk Bedankt!!

First of all, I already have seen the movie “Lord of the Flies”. So I decided to read the book to get to know if there were any big differences .

The first thing that fell into my mind is that the boys appeared more aggressive/dangerous in the movie.

I really thought I would see (read) more violence and agression, because when people especially children get lost on a deserted island, they usually get desperate and start doing inappropriate things like cannibalism.

Another difference between the book and the movie is that in the movie they did find a pilot, but in the book they didn’t. They supposed that he died and they “closed the case”.

In the movie they fell into the water, but in the book they crashed into the trees. Also in the beginning they decided to go walk towards the mountain to see if the island was an island. This scene did not occur in the movie. The boy who killed the pig (Jack) enjoyed the suffering of the pig and he appeared more hazardous. This was not the case in the movie! The story(line) was fascinating and quite easy to read, so you could empathize well with the characters. I found the book to be well-written.

The book has some good points but also some bad ones:

The story is fictional and is in my opinion solely intended for the not-elderly readers.

Sometimes it's annoying when Golding describes a scene or object too detailled.

In the beginning of the story when the three boys went out on an exploration, he described the whole area they walked along!

Golding also put some very boring events in his book.

For example the scene when Percival was crying because he got some sand in his eyes. Afterwards Golding describes how Roger threw stones at (along) Henry.

Overall, it was an “informative” and enjoyable read.

Mrtn

In verschillende kleuren wat punten van aandacht en suggesties. Probeer het nog eens en als je kan, maak er dan meer een lopend verhaaltje van. Nu is het meer een opsomming van wat regels tekst.

First of all, I already have seen the movie “Lord of the Flies”. So I decided to read the book to get to know if there were any big differences .

The first thing that fell into my mind is that the boys appeared more aggressive/dangerous in the movie.

I really thought I would see (read) there would be more violence and agression, because when people especially children get lost on a deserted island, they usually get desperate and start doing inappropriate (=ongepast, is dat wat je bedoelde? "Ongepast" dekt de lading niet helemaal geloof ik

) things like (such as) cannibalism.

Another difference between the book and the movie is that in the movie they did find a pilot, but in the book they didn’t. They supposed that he died and they “closed the case”. ("x" geeft aan dat het een quote is, is dat een quote?)

In the movie they fell into the water, but in the book they crashed into the trees. Also in the beginning they decided to go walk towards the mountain to see if the island was an island. This scene did not occur in the movie. The boy who killed the pig (Jack) enjoyed the suffering of the pig and he appeared more hazardous (een hazard is een gevaar in de zin dat het slikken van giftige stoff een hazard to your health is. Dit gaat over danger). This was not the case in the movie! The story(line) was fascinating and quite easy to read, so you could empathize well with the characters. I found the book to be well-written.

The book has some good points but also some bad ones:

The story is fictional and is in my opinion solely intended for the not-elderly readers.

Sometimes it's annoying when Golding describes a scene or object too detailled (in too much detail).

In the beginning of the story when the three boys went out on an exploration, he described the whole area they walked along!

Golding also put some very boring events in his book.

For example the scene when Percival was crying because he got some sand in his eyes. Afterwards Golding describes how Roger threw stones at (along) Henry.

Overall, it was an “informative” (quote?) and enjoyable read.

Oh, en gecentreerd leest niet prettiger. Dat soort opmaak mag je wat mij betreft in het vervolg achterwege laten.

mcfaker123

Hey bedankt voor de correcties echt waar!

In physics I trust

In ben inhoudelijk niet zo overtuigd van je verslag; je blijft nogal op de vlakte. Je vermeldt helemaal niets over de vele dubbele bodems die Golding in zijn boek heeft en die in de film verloren gaan. Dat het boek enkel voor jongere personen is, klopt helemaal niet! Persoonlijk ben ik van mening dat de film er erg slecht in slaagt die diepere betekenis bloot te leggen...

De novelle heeft ook niet voor niets de Nobelprijs voor de literatuur gewonnen hoor

mcfaker123

Ok, dan voeg ik erbij:

The story is fictional and is in my opinion(!) solely intended for the young readers (although I know some people may say the book is intended for everyone).

Jan van de Velde

(although I know some people may say the book is intended for everyone).

If I were you I would listen better to what "some people" say.

Although certainly not a perfect literary review, Wikipedia has the following text on the subject:

Heer der vliegen (Engels: Lord of the Flies) is een roman geschreven door William Golding in 1954. Hij schreef het naar aanleiding van de gruwelijkheden die hij had meegemaakt tijdens de Tweede Wereldoorlog.

Het boek vertelt over een groep Engelse schooljongens die met een vliegtuig is neergestort op een onbewoond eiland. In de hoop gered te worden zouden ze moeten samenwerken, maar falen hierin jammerlijk. Uiteindelijk degenereren ze tot een groep wilden.

Golding toont, door een combinatie van fantasie en psychologisch doorzicht, hoe de essentie van de natuur van de mens naar boven komt wanneer de grenzen en wetten van de beschaving wegvallen. Hoewel de roman over de dynamiek van een groep schooljongens gaat, worden we toch geconfronteerd met vragen over onschuld, kwaad en de val van de mensheid. Een schaduw wordt geworpen over het geloof in een voortschrijdende sociale ontwikkeling.

De roman wordt ook wel eens een dystopie genoemd. In plaats van een optimistisch beeld van een perfecte wereld zoals in een utopie geschetst wordt, schept Golding een pessimistisch beeld van een imperfecte wereld.

Het verhaal is ook een herziening van de 'onbewoond eiland'-mythe die begon bij Robinson Crusoe. Het lijkt zeer sterk op Jules Verne's Twee jaar vakantie.

Certainly worth reading it again, this time trying to look through the thin veneer of the adventure story to the solid wood underneath, i.e. a description of complete breakdown of "civilization" when human beings are confronted with stressful situations.

In physics I trust

@ Mcfaker: Zonder daar een argument bij te vermelden denk ik niet dat het je tekst verbetert.

En: solely intended for >> intended for ....only.

mcfaker123

solely intended is wel goed hoor kijk maar :

Afbeelding

In physics I trust

Ja, ik vind dat in jouw tekst het beter klonk is intended for....only.

Maar dat mag jij kiezen

mcfaker123

ok bedankt iedereen!

In physics I trust

Plaats je definitieve versie anders nog eens?

Burgie

solely intended is wel goed hoor kijk maar :

Hou er wel rekening mee dat er ook veel mensen toegang tot internet hebben die geen correct Engels praten/schrijven. Opgepast dus met iets opzoeken via Google, merken dat het vaak voorkomt en daaruit besluiten dat het correct is.

Overigens is het wel correct en kan het in deze context gebruikt worden, maar het is een "duur woord" terwijl je in jouw uiteenzetting alles relatief eenvoudig houdt.

mcfaker123

Definitieve versie:

First of all, I already saw(watched) the movie “Lord of the Flies”. So I decided to read the book to get to know if there were any big differences .

The first thing that fell into my mind is that the boys appeared more aggressive/dangerous in the movie.

I really thought there would be more violence and agression, because when people especially children get lost on a deserted island, they usually get desperate and start doing odd (strange/weird) things such as cannibalism.

Another difference between the book and the movie is that in the movie they did find a pilot, but in the book they didn’t. They supposed that he died and they closed the case.

In the movie they fell into the water, but in the book they crashed into the trees. Also in the beginning they decided to walk towards the mountain to see if the island was an island. This scene did not occur in the movie. The boy who killed the pig (Jack) enjoyed the suffering of the pig and he appeared more hazardous. This was not the case in the movie! The story(line) was fascinating and quite easy to read, so you could empathize well with the characters. I found the book to be well-written.

The book has some good points but also some bad ones:

The story is fictional and is in my opinion(!) solely intended for the young readers (although I know some people may say the book is intended for everyone).

Sometimes it's annoying when Golding describes a scene or object in too much detail.

At the beginning of the story when the three boys went out on an exploration, he described the whole area they walked past!

Golding also put some very boring events in his book.

For example the scene when Percival was crying because he got some sand in his eyes. Afterwards Golding describes how Roger threw stones at Henry. The book tells you about the complete breakdown of civilization when human beings are confronted with stressful situations.

Overall, it was an informative and enjoyable read.

In physics I trust

when people especially children get lost on

Gebruik komma's voor je bijstelling.

Mrtn

Dat mag nog wel iets zorgvuldiger als je een mooi cijfer wil halen. Je hebt ook niet alle commentaar gezien?

First of all, I already saw(watched) (have seen) the movie Lord of the Flies. (punt mag daar weg) So I decided to read the book to get to know if there were any big differences .

The first thing that fell (came) into my mind is that the boys appeared (to be, came across) more aggressive/dangerous in the movie. (compared to the book)

I really thought there would be more violence and agression, because when people (komma) especially children (komma) get lost on a deserted island, they usually get desperate and start doing odd (strange/weird) things such as cannibalism.

Another difference between the book and the movie is that in the movie they did find a pilot, but in the book they didnt. They supposed that he died and they closed the case.

In the movie they fell (gevallen?) into the water, but in the book they (the plane?) crashed into the trees. Also in the beginning they decided to walk towards the mountain to see if the island was an island. This scene did not occur in the movie (daar kan je 1 zin van maken). The boy who killed the pig (Jack) enjoyed the suffering of the pig and he appeared more hazardous (?? zoek het dan even op: "A hazard is a situation that poses a level of threat to life, health, property, or environment."). This was not the case in the movie! The story(line) was fascinating and quite easy to read, so you could empathize well with the characters. I found the book to be well-written. (argument?)

The book has some good points but also some bad ones:

The story is fictional and is in my opinion(!) (uitroepteken weg) solely intended for the young readers (although I know some people may say the book is intended for everyone). (beargumenteren)

Sometimes it's annoying (ongepast: spreektaal) when Golding describes a scene or object in too much detail.

At the beginning of the story when the three boys went out on an exploration, he described the whole area they walked past!

Golding also put some very boring events in his book. (komma, doorgaan met het verhaal)

For example the scene when Percival was crying because he got some sand in his eyes. Afterwards Golding describes how Roger threw stones at Henry (which was completely irrelevant to the story? Geef aan waarom het je stoort). The book tells you about the complete breakdown of civilization when human beings are confronted with stressful situations. (kan je daar niet beter mee beginnen dan eindigen?)

Overall, it was an informative (informative? It's fictional?!) and enjoyable read.

Wetenschapsforum

Laatste berichten

Nieuwsberichten

Verbetering engels schrijfopdracht

Verbetering engels schrijfopdracht

Re: Verbetering engels schrijfopdracht

Re: Verbetering engels schrijfopdracht

Re: Verbetering engels schrijfopdracht

Re: Verbetering engels schrijfopdracht

Re: Verbetering engels schrijfopdracht

Re: Verbetering engels schrijfopdracht

Re: Verbetering engels schrijfopdracht

Re: Verbetering engels schrijfopdracht

Re: Verbetering engels schrijfopdracht

Re: Verbetering engels schrijfopdracht

Re: Verbetering engels schrijfopdracht

Re: Verbetering engels schrijfopdracht

Re: Verbetering engels schrijfopdracht

Re: Verbetering engels schrijfopdracht