HKDSE Lit Eng common mistakes
HKDSE Lit Eng · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
Writing a plot-summary answer that retells what happens in the poem, novel, or play instead of arguing about how the writer creates meaning, so the response reads as a book report.
Under time pressure candidates fall back on the safest thing they know, which is the story. They have often revised plot more than technique, and they misread 'discuss' as 'describe'.
What to do instead
Before writing, convert the question into a claim about effect, e.g. 'The speaker's grief is made unbearable through the shift from regular to broken metre.' Then make every paragraph a technique-to-effect unit: name the device, quote it, explain the effect on the reader. Ban yourself from any sentence that only reports events without linking to a technique.
Dropping quotations in without analysis, or paraphrasing the text instead of quoting, so evidence sits beside the point rather than proving it.
Candidates memorise short quotes for safety but never rehearse the two or three sentences that unpack them, and they fear misquoting so they paraphrase into vagueness.
What to do instead
Practise a fixed unpacking routine on each prepared quote: identify the specific word doing the work, comment on its connotation or sound, then state what it reveals about character, theme, or tone. Learn a small set of short, exact quotations (three to eight words) rather than long ones, and always follow a quote with at least two sentences of comment.
Ignoring the directive word and the precise focus of the question, so a question asking 'How far do you agree...' or 'Discuss the significance of...' receives a general essay on the text's themes.
Candidates skim the prompt, recognise a familiar author or theme, and start writing the essay they prepared. They also do not distinguish between 'how' (technique) and 'why' (theme) questions.
What to do instead
Spend the first two minutes underlining the directive word, the key noun, and any limiting phrase, then write a one-sentence thesis that answers exactly that. Check the thesis against the question before writing. In revision, sort past-style prompts by directive word and practise planning (not full essays) for each type.
Treating characters as real people with psychological problems rather than as constructed figures, e.g. diagnosing Hamlet's depression or blaming a character's 'bad personality' instead of analysing how the writer builds the character through language, structure, and others' speech.
Film and television adaptations encourage a realist reading, and candidates find character easier to discuss than craft. Schools sometimes teach character 'traits' as lists.
What to do instead
Reframe every character point as authorial technique: 'The writer reveals X's instability through fragmented syntax and the interruptions of other speakers.' Ask of every character claim: which words, images, or structural choices produce this impression? Use the character's language, stage directions, or narrative point of view as evidence.
Writing context or biography as substitute for analysis, e.g. explaining that a poem reflects the poet's life or a period's history and then stopping, without showing how that context is produced in the text.
Candidates believe background knowledge earns marks and have memorised historical facts. They confuse 'appreciation' with contextual commentary.
What to do instead
Use context only as a supporting sentence that returns to the text: state the contextual point, then immediately show the textual feature that embodies it. If a contextual sentence cannot be followed by 'we see this in...', cut it. Prioritise close reading over background in every paragraph.
Producing an unstructured answer with no clear line of argument: paragraphs that each make an unrelated point, no introduction stating a position, and no conclusion that answers the question.
Candidates write points in the order they think of them and run out of time before planning. They have not been taught that examiners reward a sustained argument, not a list of observations.
What to do instead
Use a 90-second plan: thesis, three or four topic sentences that each advance the argument, and the key evidence for each. Make each topic sentence a claim, not a topic label ('The writer uses imagery' becomes 'Imagery of decay makes the speaker's loss feel physical'). End with a conclusion that restates the position in the light of the evidence.
Poor time allocation: spending too long on the first text or the opening paragraph and leaving the second text or final question underdeveloped, or writing one very long answer and a rushed second one.
Candidates over-invest in the text they know best, or lose time drafting a perfect opening. They do not rehearse under timed conditions.
What to do instead
Fix a minute budget per section before the exam and write it at the top of the script. Do at least three full timed papers, practising the discipline of stopping a paragraph when the clock says so. Leave five minutes to check that every question has a complete answer with a conclusion.
Misusing or over-using literary terminology: labelling a metaphor as a simile, calling any repetition 'anaphora', or listing device names with no explanation of effect.
Candidates learn glossaries by rote and deploy impressive-sounding terms to signal knowledge, without checking definitions or connecting them to meaning.
What to do instead
Keep a personal glossary of only the terms you can define and illustrate from your set texts, with one example each. In essays, always pair a term with its effect: 'the anaphora of "never" accumulates refusal until it becomes a verdict.' If you cannot state the effect, describe the language plainly instead of naming a device.
Neglecting the second text or the unseen material, or answering a comparison question by writing two separate mini-essays with no points of contact.
Candidates revise the set text they like and avoid unseen practice because it feels unpredictable. Comparison is taught as 'Text A then Text B' rather than as integrated argument.
What to do instead
Build comparison paragraphs around a shared point of comparison (treatment of time, use of a first-person speaker, handling of an ending) and move between texts within the paragraph using connectives like 'whereas', 'similarly', 'by contrast'. For unseen material, practise a repeatable reading routine: read twice, annotate for speaker, situation, structure, and one striking language choice, then write a short response.
Vague, unsupported evaluative language: calling a text 'very interesting', 'deep', or 'the writer uses many techniques to make it vivid' without specifying which techniques or what effect.
Candidates imitate the tone of literary praise they have seen without the evidence, and they lack the vocabulary to be precise about effect.
What to do instead
Replace every evaluative adjective with a specific claim about effect: 'interesting' becomes 'the abrupt final line undercuts the tenderness built up earlier'. Build a bank of precise effect verbs (undercuts, intensifies, distances, implicates, unsettles) and practise rewriting your own vague sentences into evidence-based ones during feedback sessions.