Retelling Versus Arguing: The “Making, Not Breaking” Question on The Verger
A pre-board question runs: “Foreman’s inability to read was the making, not the breaking, of his fortune. Discuss.” The facts are these: Albert Edward Foreman serves as verger and churchwarden for sixteen years; a new vicar discovers that he cannot read and dismisses him; Foreman, then in his fifties, uses his small savings to open a tobacco and sweet shop, and within ten years has ten shops and a healthy bank balance. At the bank, the manager asks him to sign a document, discovers that he cannot write his name, and suggests that he learn; Foreman thinks it over for a week and decides against it, saying that he does not hold with education. Student A retells the story from the dismissal to the bank scene and ends, “so his illiteracy helped him.” Student B writes, “The story proves that education is useless and only business sense matters.” Both get about half marks.
1. What is wrong with each answer, and what thesis should replace them?
Read the worked answer
Student A - narrative without argument. Every sentence is a summary; the question word is discuss, which asks for a judgement, not a plot. The closing clause “so his illiteracy helped him” repeats the question in different words instead of proving it. Retelling earns credit for content only; the analysis marks are left untouched.
Student B - overgeneralisation. B turns one man’s ironic career into a rule about schooling. That is not what the story says. Foreman’s success comes from thrift, steady work and cheerfulness, not from illiteracy; the vicar, not education, is the target of the satire.
A defensible thesis. “Illiteracy closed one door for Foreman and left another open: the dismissal shows an institution judging a man by a single skill, while the shop shows capacities that no reading test measures. The story is ironic rather than anti-education - it satirises those who equate literacy with worth.”
Why this thesis works. It answers discuss (a claim is made and qualified), it uses the phrase “making, not breaking” instead of dodging it, and it keeps the story’s irony rather than converting it into a moral slogan.
2. Which two incidents would you use as evidence, and what exactly does each prove?
Read the worked answer
Incident 1 - the dismissal. The new vicar discovers the illiteracy and acts at once; Foreman receives the news without self-pity or protest. Use it to prove that the church measured him by a single qualification and forgot sixteen years of service. The vicar’s haste, not Foreman’s ignorance, is what the scene exposes.
Incident 2 - the bank interview. The manager assumes that a wealthy customer must be able to sign his name and offers to teach him. Foreman considers the offer for a week - note the deliberation, which rules out laziness - and then refuses, saying he does not hold with education. Use it to prove the story’s complication: he is content, but his refusal is also a man protecting a life that has worked. That is why the ending is ironic rather than triumphant.
What not to use. The ten shops are a result, not evidence; listing them proves nothing about why the illiteracy was a making. Quote behaviour and speech, not balance sheets.
3. The paper allots 60 words. Turn your thesis into three topic sentences and show how the word budget is spent.
Read the worked answer
Paragraph 1 - the claim. “Foreman’s illiteracy was the making of his fortune only in the sense that it forced him out of a post that had no future.”
Paragraph 2 - the evidence. “The vicar’s instant dismissal shows an institution ranking literacy above sixteen years of service.”
Paragraph 3 - the qualification. “The bank scene, where he weighs the manager’s offer for a week and declines it, keeps the story ironic rather than anti-education.”
Word budget. Topic sentence plus two clauses of support, about 20 words each, gives 60; if the paper allows 100, add one quotation of his refusal in paragraph 3 and a single closing judgement on the vicar.
Why this plan scores. The three sentences already state an argument, answer the exact wording of the question and keep the plot in a supporting role - which is what separates a first-division answer from a summary.