back to 

AP Writing Gateway Page

Exemplary Responses to AP Exam Prompts

2000 Exam in Literature: Open-ended prompt

Many works of literature not readily identified with the mystery or detective story genre nonetheless involve the investigation of a mystery. In these works, the solution to the mystery may be less important than the knowledge gained in the process of its investigation. Choose a novel or play in which one or more of the characters confront a mystery. Then write an essay in which you identify the mystery and explain how the investigation illuminates the meaning of the work as a whole. Do not merely summarize the plot.

Response 1 (score: 9)

     Jane Eyre stands in the attic of Thornfield Hall, dressed for a wedding that will never happen, surrounded by the minister, the witnesses, her would-be husband, and Bertha Mason, Mr. Rochester's true wife. The mystery of Thornfield Hall has been solved. The "preternatural laughter" emanating from the third floor of the house belongs to the insane woman that Rochester has cared for and hidden for years. The solution of the mystery has invalidated Jane's' intended marriage, exposed Rochester as a potential bigamist, and dashed Jane's hope for happiness. The solution, however, is only the beginning. Jane Eyre must face its implications.

   Jane must redefine herself and her world in light of Bertha Mason's existence. Bertha is the living emblem of not only Rochester's well-intentioned hypocrisy, but also the hypocrisy of the society that he claims forced him to hide her. Jane is no stranger to hypocrisy-- the Reeds, the Brocklehursts, and the Ingrams were vivid examples to her-- or to the polite fictions that she has been telling herself about her future as Mrs. Edward Rochester, but she must now, facing Bertha, abandon the naivete that allowed her to create an idyllic world inhabited only by Rochester, herself, and their fairy-tale love for each other. In confronting Bertha, Jane confronts the real Rochester and ironically, the real Jane Eyre. Rochester is not Rochester without Bertha's presence in the attic. She drives him to heroic acts of sacrifice in taking care of her and to desperate measures in attempting bigamy.  Ironically, Bertha also defines Jane, or at least defines what she may become: Rochester's wife. Standing in that attic, Jane meets herself-- a creature deluded by irrational passions. She, too, must sacrifice Rochester beacuse of Bertha, and she, too, is tempted to take desperate measures-- marrying St. John, becoming a missionary, and dying there-- because of Bertha's existence. Bertha's identity may no longer a mystery, but she has become a problem. Bertha confronts Jane with her own unrealistic self image and shows her what loving Rochester might entail. That love is not evil, but it is life threatening-- and exhilirating.

   That wisdom serves Jane well among the Rivers. She can discern the metaphorical madwomen that inhabit the recesses of St. John's soul: his tortured sense of his own unworthiness before an exacting and demanding God and the torment of his love for Miss Oliver.  Like Rochester, St. John denies the existence of that irrational passion, but it also drives him to sublime acts of self-sacrifice in becoming a missionary and desparate acts of cruelty in coercing Jane to accompany him to India.

   Jane Eyre confronts the reader with the probability that what defines us-- what true human nature is--and our society is not the rational or the moral alone. At the core of a person, a society, even a universe, there is irrational passion that inspires us to do great deeds or commit desparate acts. This passion is not necessarily evil, nor is it necessarily easily controlled by reason. Perhaps, the madwomen who inhabit our attics are not demons or bogeyman from beyond, but are our deeper, perhaps truer selves.  Our capacity for great love and great cruelty spring from the same troubled source. Unraveling the mystery of that deeper self is only the beginning of the process. All of the characters in Jane Eyre, especially St. John Rivers, must honestly face the sobering notion that the preternatural laughter emanating from the attic is perhaps the passion that makes them human.

Response 2

(6-7 range; answers the question, analyzes the text, and considers the work as a whole; the middle section-- the analysis-- needs to be more precise and  deeper; it is content to stay on the surface; the conclusion is good)

        As King Oedipus of Thebes stands before his subjects vowing to find the man who murdered Laios, only the audience recognizes the irony of his statement.  Thus begins a series of confrontations into the mystery of the murder on the place where three roads met years ago.  The first step toward a solution to the mystery occurs when Oedipus questions a shepherd, the sole remaining witness to the murder.  Slowly, and with much grief, Oedipus and his wife Iokasta begin to recognize the similarities between a murder Oedipus committed in the past and the story of Laios’s death.  The climax of the mystery occurs when the same shepherd admits to leaving Oedipus, as per Iokasta’s orders, to die of exposure on the mountainside as an infant.  At that moment, Oedipus recognizes the horrifying truth- that he has fulfilled the prophecy he heard years ago.  He has killed his father, Laios, and married his own mother, Iokasta.  The mystery has been solved, lifting the plague upon the city, but the repercussions of his actions will live to haunt Oedipus forever. 

        Throughout Oedipus's investigation into the murder, he comes to realize that it was his own innate flaws that led to his father's death and his marriage to Iokasta.  If it were not for his own temper, Laios would not have died so violently.  If it were not for his own lust for power, Oedipus would never have married Queen Iokasta.  Oedipus comes to realize that his misfortunes were not mere results of fate but rather direct results of his own sins.  This realization is accompanied throughout the play by a metaphor of blindness.  In the beginning, the sole man who knows the full story is the blind prophet Teiresias.  During the emotionally charged conversation between Teiresias and Oedipus, Teiresias foreshadows the realization by saying that Oedipus, with "both his eyes", is blind.  Finally, at the end of the story, Oedipus gouges his own eyes out as a backlash to the sense that misled him his entire life.  The storyline suggests that humans, due to their common nature, must be blinded in some way. 

        Although Oedipus's journey to the truth results in a much stronger understanding of himself and the immediate world around him, it tells a much more profound truth of human nature in general.  At the core of the matter, the story suggests that we are the own catalysts of our misfortunes.  More terrifying still, it implies that these misfortunes are due to our flaws that are innate and omnipresent.  After completing the work, the reader is left with the ominous notion that he himself is the very evil from which he must hide.

Response 3

(5-6 range: too much plot summary; needs to be less descriptive and more analytical; nice attempt at a conclusion makes this more of a 6- than a 5_+).

          Standing in his palace in Thebes, Oedipus Rex, great ruler of the city, has finally realized his unthinkable fate.  He has murdered his father and married his widowed mother. He has had children by the woman who gave birth to him. His long search for the cause of a plague on the city of Thebes has ended with a discovery that has rocked the very foundation of his humanity. For Oedipus, arriving at this condemning conclusion was by no means an easy process. His search for the source of the plague transformed him from a revered and self-righteous king to the lowliest of all humans who blinded himself rather than see the suffering he had caused around him.  His journey was one of self-discovery and humility, and in the end, it is thishumbling process of transformation that provides the reader with the play’s ultimate message. 

            When the play opens, Oedipus is enjoying a comfortable life as ruler of Thebes. Despite the immediate trouble of the plague, the people of Thebes trust in Oedipus as their king, and Oedipus believes there is no problem he cannot resolve. As the investigation progresses however, Oedipus’ fearless facade slowly begins to decay. The audience learns of the prophecy made at his birth and of his flight from Corinth to avoid the crimes predicted of him. They also learn that en route to Thebes he carelessly murdered a group of strangers in a traffic dispute. As these dark parts of Oedipus’ past are brought to light once more, he is forced to face the prophecy he believed he had eluded and recognize his many flaws. During his reign in Thebes and his marriage to Iokaste, Oedipus had managed, with the help of his loyal subjects, to convince himself of his own greatness. He had manufactured a perfect life for himself after thoughtlessly committing murder, and had paid no restitution for his crime. Oedipus had gone on with his life believing he had escaped punishment until the plague hit Thebes. The development of the plague began his self-righteous search for an offender, whom he planned to punish even when he himself had never faced a consequence for his actions. It was this arrogance that would eventually bring Oedipus’ world crashing down around him. Yet with the evidence laid out before him, Oedipus still had great difficulty accepting the truth. Iokaste feeds into his defiance, refuting the prophet’s testimony, the embodiment of the constant voice of denial in his head. The difficulty lies in the fact that, to truly understand his fate, Oedipus must let go of the identity he cherished during his reign as king. With the acceptance of his fate must also come the acceptance of yet another death. This time the victim is the invented character of the noble King Oedipus, savior of Thebes. In his place is left only the tortured remains of a remorseful man. This loss is perhaps the hardest for Oedipus to bear, but his ability to come to terms with it is what finally makes him truly noble. 

            The conflict of Oedipus Rex shows the audience the difficulty of recognizing ones mistakes, especially those that have been long buried. It also incorporates the universal idea of karma, that we cannot run away from our mistakes, and that everyone must pay for their actions. Although Oedipus was once a mighty and powerful figure, his rule was based on sinful actions and as a result, he was never truly the noble leader his image suggested. Just like Oedipus, people often convince themselves of their own infallibility, only to be faced with their shortcomings later on. The ennobling experience is the one that has the individual recognize the consequences of their actions and face their suffering with dignity as Oedipus does. While it is often human nature to look for a scapegoat for our problems, it is usually our own mistakes that are behind the havoc in our lives. The experience of recognizing and coming to terms with our flaws and taking responsibility for them, often makes us feel badly about ourselves. However, as in Oedipus' case, a person who has gone through that humbling experience comes out a wiser and better individual on the other side. In this way Oedipus Rexaddresses the question of appearance versus reality; Oedipus only becomes truly noble when his false appearance of nobility is shattered. Yet had Oedipus not been so careless in his actions, he would never have had to make the painful choice between true nobility and happiness. Oedipus Rex teaches it is possible for human to have both, if they live thoughtful, conscious lives.