2026 Sample Response 2 - HL

1. How and to what effect does the playwright explore the challenges of communication in this extract?

This extract follows a discussion between two research scientists, Don Caspar and Rosalind Franklin, who appear to have just finished work. The conversation quickly moves from a sense of levity in their exchange about tea, to a deeper consideration of the two characters’ desires and level of satisfaction in their lives. This shift in register is largely driven by Don Caspar, who appears to have feelings for Rosalind that transcend the notion of a polite workspace relationship. Ziegler shows the difficulty that the two characters have communicating their true feelings through diction and punctuation choices. The effect of this is to reveal the nervousness of the two characters though particularly Don Caspar, and being vulnerable with each other, which in the end presents them both in a sympathetic light.

Ziegler explores how it can be challenging to communicate love in a professional environment. For instance, when Rosalind is asked, “(a genuine question) What did you think about me”, she has to consider her response so that she does not say anything inappropriate or offensive that would impact their ability to work together as colleagues. This barrier to communication is indicated by Ziegler’s repeated use of stage directions such as: “Beat. Awkward.” Which makes the character pause, showing how she has to consider her words rather than being honest about what first came to mind. This could also be interpreted as Rosalind needing a moment to consider as she had never thought about her impression of Caspar beyond the workplace, which creates a feeling of imbalance between the characters because it appears he has a clear perception of her.  This is evident through his simple, declarative statement: “But you’ve been happy.” This perceived imbalance indicates another challenge in communication for the two characters.

Another barrier to communication is in this extract presented in the form of Caspar’s low self-esteem. Ziegler suggests this through his instant need to know what Rosalind thinks of him after the playful, non-serious comment that she is “rethinking everything [she] ever thought about [him]” because he dislikes tea and the way he describes himself in dialogue. Despite Rosalind “(honestly, openly)” openly saying that she thought he was “balanced”, an adjective with positive connotations, Caspar cannot believe her. He thinks he is “always about to take a horrible misstep and have it all come crashing down…” The adjective “horrible” and the verb choice “crashing” evoke the high-level of damage Caspar believes himself to  be “always” due. Later in the extract he says that his conclusion is “pretty simple” and he hopes that Rosalind will not think he is “completely ridiculous” showing he does not think his idea is very clever or articulate. This low self-esteem creates a challenge to communication between the two characters because Caspar is afraid of being judged.

A third difficulty with communication that the characters experience is being vulnerable and acknowledging their feelings. This is primarily because it creates awkwardness, which is seen throughout the extract due to Ziegler’s frequent use of ellipsis in Don Caspar and Rosalind’s speech. This suggests that the characters are nervous and so having to be selective  with their words, amplified by the relatively simple and short dialogue until Don Caspar’s longer exclamation at the end. Furthermore, the conversation between the characters leads to realisations for both of them that are potentially difficult to accept: that Rosalind does not enjoy her job very much and Caspar cares about her, which is part of the reason it is difficult to discuss. The perception that Rosalind dislikes her job arises due to the stage direction “A long beat” after Caspar says that she is happy and the repetition of “of course” with a pause in the middle, which reads as if she is trying to convince herself. The perception that Caspar has greater feelings than they had both realised is suggested in the verb choice “yearning” and the final question “what do you want, Rosalind?” “Yearning” connotes romantic longing, earnestness and a great depth for feeling, which contrasts with a relatively mundane environment of the workplace and the superficial conversation about tea.

In conclusion, this passage generates a sense of tension between two characters who have evident depth of feeling but are unable to express it due to social convention. Don Caspar appears to have a romantic interest in Rosalind or a desire to see her “define” herself by knowing what it is that she wants but cannot have. There is, as a result, an ambiguity in the tone: on the one hand the passage conveys a sense of lightness, even humour, whilst on the other drawing subtle attention to something more serious beneath.

2. How is the narrative voice used to evoke a sense of a family living in harmony with the environment? 

In this extract, the author recalls his childhood memories of his father offering coffee to the gods of the land, as well as his implicit teachings to respect the earth, no matter where they were. Kimmerer conveys his family’s reverence for nature, liking it to a human being, and showing how they were embedded in it through the blending of domestic and natural imagery. The first-person perspective deepens the sense of a reciprocal relationship with nature, rather than viewing it as an object for domination.

Initially, Kimmerer conveys the way that his family lived in harmony with nature through the description of the daily coffee morning ritual. He writes that his father wore a “wool shirt”, a natural rather than synthetic material, which introduces his sense of connection to the landscape. Furthermore, he stands “atop the rocks above the lake” with “his face to the morning sun”. This suggests how he embraces features of the natural world and conveys a sense of reverence towards it. Using rich sensual imagery to describe the sunlight “striping” the coffee “amber and brown and black” as it “falls to the earth and steams in the cool morning air” expresses a sense of harmonious interaction between elements - amplified through the verb choice “merge”, which evokes completion and smoothness in the mixing of the offering with the lake. He also shows the family’s harmony with nature through the detail that his father would wait until this ritual was completed to give himself and the speaker’s mother coffee. This is significant because it shows how they elevate nature above themselves, particularly because it is the first activity they do in the day.

Use of the present tense to describe the ceremony is also important as it creates a feeling of presentness and attentiveness towards nature. This is amplified by the speaker’s references to authentic descriptive terminology. For example, he explains that “Tahawus”, meaning “the Cloud Splitter”, is the true name of the mountain described in the coffee ritual, not, as it’s called by non-indigenous people “Mount Marcy”. By using the Algonquin name, Kimmerer creates a sense of personal connection with the mountain and nature as a whole. This is furthered through the personification of the land, as he writes that he imagined the land “murmured to itself, ‘Ohh, here are the ones who know how to say thank you.” This also alludes to how many humans disrespect the land, thinking they can claim it, as with the governor, despite the fact that it is “wild”. Setting up the contradiction between Kimmerer’s family who honour the land and those who do not possess such “intimate knowledge”, deepens the sense of them living in harmony with it.

The narrative voice evokes a sense of the family living in harmony with the environment through extensive use of figurative language. The morning ceremony, he writes, “drew a circle around our family.” This creates a feeling of security as it suggests they are enclosed, shielded. Additionally, it suggests how the family is brought closer together spiritually and emotionally in their relationships with one another. Kimmerer also describes the environment as “beloved” and as a “homeland”. This conveys an empathetic connection to the natural world, through the connotations of domesticity and familial warmth, in spite of the fact that they are living in tents. The issue of ‘naming’ is in itself a kind of related metaphor also; the speaker says ‘When we call a place by name it is transformed from wilderness to homeland’. Using the ‘true’ names for the landscape is a means for the family to feel connected, but also – and perhaps more importantly, he states that it is a means for the landscape to know him also: “I imagined that this beloved place knew my true name as well, even when I did not.”

In conclusion, Kimmerer’s use of an intimate narrative voice powerfully evokes a deep connection between nature and his family. Much of this is depicted through the presentation of the father as a kind of teacher, but one who educates his children through actions as much as words. The extract is in the end about respect – of the natural world, of the idea of family and “the beings” that inhabit the earth.