Skip to main content
A-LevelEnglish LanguageReading: text analysis and comparison9093/12 · Feb/Mar 2019 · Q325 Marks

The following extract is taken from a biography of Pete Maravich, a famous basketball player. In the extract, the writer describes Maravich taking part in a friendly game eight years after his retirement from professional basketball. They cannot see him, this slouched, ashen-faced man in their midst. To their oblivious eyes, he remains what he had been, unblemished by the years, much as he appeared on his first bubblegum card: a Beatles-esque halo of hair, the fresh- faced, sad-eyed wizard, cradling a grainy leather orb. One of the regulars, a certified public accountant, had retrieved this very artefact the night before. He found it in a shoebox, tucked away with an old train set and a wooden fort in a crawlspace in his parents' basement. He brought it to the gym this morning to have it signed, or perhaps, in some way, sanctified. The 1970 rookie card of Pete Maravich, to whom the Atlanta Hawks had just awarded the richest contract in professional sport, notes the outstanding facts: that Maravich had been coached by his father, under whose tutelage he became 'the most prolific scorer in the history of college basketball.' Other salient statistics are provided in the small print: an average of 44.2 points a game, a total of 3667 (this when nobody had scored 3000). The records will never be broken. Still, they are woefully inadequate in measuring the contours of the Maravich myth. Even the accountant, for whom arithmetic is a vocation, understands the limitation in mere numbers. There is no integer denoting magic and memory. 'He was important to us,' the accountant would say. Maravich wasn't an archetype; he was several: child prodigy, prodigal son, result of his father's proverbial deal with the devil. He was a creature of contradictions, ever alone: the white hope of a black sport, a virtuoso stuck in an ensemble, an exuberant showman who couldn't look you in the eye, the athlete who lived like a rock star, a reckless genius saved by God. Still, it's his caricature that evokes unqualified affection in men of a certain age. Pistol Pete, they called him. The Pistol is another relic of the seventies, not unlike Bruce Lee flicks: the skinny kid who mesmerized the basketball world with Globetrotter moves, floppy socks, and great hair. Pistol Pete was, in fact, his father's vision, built to the old man's exacting specifications. Peter's father, Press Maravich, was a Serb. Ideas and language occurred to him in the mother tongue, and so one imagines him speaking to Pistol (yes, that's what he called him, too) as a father addressing his son in an old Serbian song: Listen to me, eyes of mine, guard that which is thine ... * * * The game in progress is a dance in deference to this patrimony. The Pistol is an inheritance, not just for the Maraviches, but for all the American sons who play this American game. The squeak of sneakers against the floor produces an oddly chirping melody. Then there's another rhythm, the respiration of men well past their prime, an assortment of mainly white guys: the accountant, insurance salesmen, financial planners, even a preacher or two. 'Just a bunch of duffers,' recalls one. 'Fat old men,' smirks another. But they play as if Pistol Pete, or what's left of him, could summon the boys they once were. They acknowledge him with a superfluous flourish, lingering teenage vanity – an extra behind-the-back pass or an unnecessary between-the-legs dribble. The preacher, a gentle-voiced man of great renown in evangelical circles, reveals a feverishly competitive nature. After hitting a shot, he is heard to bellow, 'You get that on camera?' The Parker Gymnasium at Pasadena's First Church of the Nazarene could pass for a good high school gym a clean, cavernous space with arching wooden rafters and large windows. At dawn, fully energized halogen lamps give off a glow to the outside world, a beacon to spirits searching for a game. As a boy, Maravich would have considered this a kind of heaven. Now, it's a way station of sorts. Pete begins wearily. He hasn't played in a long time and moves at one-quarter speed, if that. He does not jump; he shuffles. The ball seems like a shotput in his hands, his second attempt at the basket barely touching the front of the rim. But gradually, as the pace of his breath melds with the others' and he starts to sweat, Pete Maravich recovers something in himself. 'The glimpse of greatness was in his ballhandling,' recalls the accountant. 'Every once in a while the hands would flicker. There would just be some kind of dribble or something. You could see a little of it in his hands, the greatness. Just the quickness of the beat.' There was genius in that odd beat, the unexpected cadence, a measure of music. The Pistol's talent, now as then, was musical.

  1. (a)Comment on the language and style of the passage.[15]
  2. (b)After the game at the Parker Gymnasium, Pete Maravich decides to record his thoughts and feelings in a diary. Basing your writing closely on the material of the original extract, and using between 120 and 150 of your own words, write his first diary entry.[10]

Mark scheme

Marking points from the official mark scheme (Feb/Mar 2019). The mark or mark type is shown in brackets.

  1. [13-15] (a) Shows perceptive appreciation of content and ideas. Fluidly relates content to structure, form, audience, purpose, genre, style. Shows keen awareness of intentions of passage. Analyses text with sensitive and discriminating awareness of how language creates effects. Moves with ease between part and whole in discussing specific examples of language use and the effect of the whole passage. Strong structure; may be concise; quotation is used fluently, 'embedded' in the argument.
  2. [10-12] (a) Shows consistent appreciation of content and ideas. Able to relate content to structure, form, audience, purpose, genre, style, main aims of passage. Analyses text, with awareness of the effects created. Able to relate part to whole in discussing specific examples of language use and the effect of the whole passage. Strong structure used to convey clear argument.
  3. [8-9] (a) Shows steady engagement with content/ideas of piece. Shows general understanding of structure, form, audience, purpose, genre, style of passage. Thorough analysis of passage is made, correctly identifying a range of features of language, giving examples, and showing ability to explain how they create effects with some relation of part to whole. Clear structure, sustained focus.
  4. [6-7] (a) Shows some engagement with content/ideas of piece. Shows general, overall understanding of structure, form, audience, purpose, genre, style of passage. Appropriate points are made, correctly identifying some features of language use, giving examples, and showing some ability to explain how they create effects. May be a fragmented approach. Clear structure; may be 'line-by-line'; essay may drift in and out of focus.
  5. [3-5] (a) Makes some relevant points about content. Shows some understanding of some aspects of structure, audience, form, purpose, genre, style of passage, but with some failures to identify key features and or misunderstanding. Some relevant points made, identifying a restricted range of examples of language use. Some examples are not related to the effects created. Some examples may be listed without development. Much generalisation. Little structure. Points may be rather disconnected.
  6. [0-2] (a) Comments on content of passage. May be confused. Very few, if any, points made about language of passage. May be unclear. Expression breaks down at times. Very short work. Unstructured.
  7. [8-10] (b) A perceptive recognition of context, audience, form, and purpose supported by a good range of appropriate vocabulary and expression suitable for the task. Responses at the top of this band will be persuasive and confident, supported by a consistent, and at best personal, engagement with context and purpose, using fluent and accurate expression accompanied by a strong sense of audience.
  8. [6-7] (b) A clear and informed sense of purpose, context, form and relevance supported by a reasonable attempt to use language appropriate for the task.
  9. [4-5] (b) An adequate attempt, but marked by an inconsistent and uneven sense of purpose, form, context and style. Generally sound expression and accuracy.
  10. [2-3] (b) The beginnings of an answer, but limited by an inappropriate sense of style, form, purpose and language. Expression and accuracy may be limited.
  11. [0-1] (b) Confused and unfocused sense of purpose, form, context and audience. Wholly inappropriate language and style. Work may be brief or fragmented and expression very limited.

Write your answer and get it marked

On Oracle Prep you can write or photograph your own answer and have it marked by AI against this mark scheme, with feedback on what you missed.

Sign up free →

About this question

Topic
Reading: text analysis and comparison, A-Level English Language (syllabus 9093). Structured question, 25 marks.
Source
A-Level English Language, Feb/Mar 2019 Paper 1 Variant 2, question 3.

Questions and mark schemes are from past examination papers and remain the copyright of the exam board. How Oracle Prep builds its content

Related English Language questions

© 2026 Oracle Prep