Hmm. Well, I got to practise my essay-writing some more in that exam, and I'm pretty sure that at this point I have more or less sharpened my skillz at the ol'dissertations to such a degree that I could use them to slice millimetre thick incisions through any sort of essay that might suddenly come my way. For example:
"The Nazi revolution was complete by August 1933," To what extent do you agree with this statement?"
Sliced!!!!! DICED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! CUUUUUUBED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Look out behind you, it's a "To what extent was Imperialism a popular policy in Britain from 1880-1902? essay!
BEHEAD'D!!!!!! GUTTED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Oh crap, it's a "Revenge was the sole motive for the creation of the Treaty of Versailles" - To what extent is this statement true?
*I throw my metaphorical ninja sword at the essay and dissect it with wicked logic and a touch of rhetorical skill, before kicking it to death with my hobnailed boots of metaphor and my wooden stick of relevant examples, before pissing a warm stream of historian's opinions over its mangled corpse.*
I am so good at essay writing now. I have got it down to such an art, I could write an essay about ANYTHING without even blinking an eye. I mean, I'd have to be allowed to make up some stuff or do a bit of revision first, cos, you know, if you asked me to write an essay about chloroform bonding or oxbow lakes or something then I really wouldn't have a clue. But if I had a basic knowledge of the subject which I was allowed to sort of flesh out with made up examples and non-related discussion of trivial issues, I reckon I could write a kickass essay about anything, from Mendez's One Hundred Years of Solitude, to whether or not the boers were a bunch of pussy-boy farmers.
(I actually used those words in my middle essay, btw. "The boers were a bunch of pussy-boy farmers". Well, something like that. That is one of the joys of history essays. You are allowed to write whatever racist/biased/misogynistic shit you like, just so long as you put it in quote marks. For example, "I hate black people". I'M NOT RACIST, IT WAS A QUOTE FROM A RACIST PERSON I AM JUST USING IT TO EXPRESS A POINT OF VIEW!!!. Damn niggers.)
Now, let me let you in on a little secret: The key to good essay writing in the Me Style is contained in just a few incredibly easy to remember rules. Follow these rules and you will get a guaranteed A at A-Level History (and English Literature). I really hope that I got an A now, or this entire post will make me look like a right dickhead. Well, my history teacher specifically told me that I was "bloody good" (his words, not mine), and he went to Oxford. A year ago. I think that he spent most his time drunk. He told us he lives in a squat with no electricity. He still lives like such a student. IT DOESN'T MAKE HIS COMPLIMENT OF ME ANY LESS VALID.
(Yes, I really am writing a blog about essay-writing. On my day off school.)
Rule the First: It's History, just write about whatever the fuck you want. This is an important rule to remember. Many candidates are lacking in imagination and stick stringently to the specific topic described by question. If they're answered a question about, say, the popular effect of Imperialism, well, that's all they talk about. Now, that's ok, I guess, for some, the stoic, steady candidates who will be happy with their B pluses and get boring jobs in cubicals and rot to death over a period of five years. But the really smart candidates, the outstandingly exceptional ones (I find myself hard pressed not to use the word 'genii' in this context), they realise that basically you can write about whatever you want, as long as you somehow link it back to the original question. And this is History... everything can be linked together in some way.
Writing an essay about the Treaty of Versailles? Can't remember the day, month, OR year in which it was signed? No problem, just start talking about colonial problems in the Balkans in the late 1870s! You can link it back and it makes you look much smarter than the rest of the date-spewing, fact regurgitating drek that takes AS level history. Doing some discussion of Nazi propaganda techniques? Don't really know what you're talking about? Who cares, just give a detailed account of the Cuban Missile crisis, or the 1066 invasions. Fuck it, write a book review of the latest Anthony Horrorwitz piece of shit! Who cares? If you link it together and you'll get extra marks for being special!
This is like my number one rule for, A: Appearing clever, and B: Making your essay varied when you're running out of things to say, and C: Filling page space. As soon as the revelation struck me that I could write about anything, all my worries about History exams were over.
Rule the Second: Remember all the key information using aide-memoires. The word aide-memoire is a piece of Arabic lexicon meaning "By the many heads of Allah I shall cut down the infidels with my spear of knowledge and my suicide bomb of preparation". Basically, it means that the easiest way of learning key stuff is to simplify it to a stupid degree and then hope that your brain has the mental fortitude to unpack it again. In this manner, I managed to squish the entire political career of British statesman and Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli KG PC, 1st Earl of Beaconsfield, leader of the Conservatives and espouser of the pro-patriotic pro-imperial policies of Empire into the idea that he was a bit of a jew and thus was all for conquering other nations for money. I also realised that this meant that he was more interested in protecting British economic prospects in the Balkans than helping the Christians in the Ottoman Empire... because he was a jew! It all fit perfectly (and acted as a little memory-jog for the Nazi anti-semitism... so you see, all the racist shit that I say isn't racist... IT'S REVISION) and so I re-christened Disraeli "Jewsraeli". I guess I could have just noticed that the word 'israel' is contained INSIDE HIS NAME but that is beside the point: the name Jewsraeli stuck.
I also somehow got it into my head that he looked kind of like a goat with some funky sideburns. Not sure how I got that impression, but, hey I wasn't complaining. So in the exam, when I needed to write about Disraeli, I thought to myself 'Hmm, jewish goat with funky sideburns... aha! Pro-imperialist! Anti-Russia! I win!'
To be honest, I looked him up yesterday and I do think that I was onto something with my 'goat' theory;
Not joking, I see a similarity.
Rule the Third: No matter what the question is, start your essay with a critical evaluation of the definition of the words contained in the title. This is a brilliant technique, and allows you to use my patented Standard Opening (tm):
The issue of *Insert Issue here* is a very interesting question that historians have argued for years, and is one that still generates a great deal of heated discussion. There are two sides to this debate which can argue with equal ferocity, which is what makes it one of the great debates of the time (This is good because it flatters the examiner by implying that the question is intelligent and controversial. You can always use this start becaue the question is ALWAYS controversial. I mean, they are hardly going to give you "The holocaust was a bad. To what extent is this true?" as the question, ARE THEY? No, they're going to be devastatingly original and feature a controversial topic variation that we've never seen before. Wow, another question about the Treaty of Versailles? Hold me before I disgorge my own liver with excitement.)
However, when answering this question (Ooh, remember to always use lots of redundant words... it makes you look smart!) ... it is important to first define the meaning of "Insert key word here*. This is a very emotive and personally descriptive word which can mean a variety of definitions, from *Insert Definition 1* to *Insert Definition 2*.
(This is the masterstroke. Basically, you waste a page arguing about what the fuck you are meant to be discussing. As well as being piss-easy to write, this technique makes me look really smart, because it shows that I am using a much deeper metaphorical spade to dig below the sandy surface of the rhetoric of the question. Examiners love this shit. So all you need is to think of two different definitions of the key word in the question. Can't think of a second definition? Then you're probably too stupid to do history: if you use a little imagination, ANY word can have a second definition, and if you can't think of one, just make it up. I mean, can 'popular' REALLY also mean 'influential and well-followed in the social sphere'? I don't think so, but did that stop me from putting it in the ol'essay? NO IT DIDN'T.)
So in conclusion, just write whatever you want, re-imagine all the historical figures as grumpy farm animals and spend the first page engaged in a pointless semantic debate, and you'll be on easy street for quick marks.
Hmm. When I put it that way, my patented essay technique doesn't seem that smart at all. In fact, it seems pretty damn stupid.
Oh maaaaan, I'm gonna fail History hardcore stylee. Oh well.
I found this picture on the back of one of my revision sheets. I don't remember drawing it at all. Oh well.
No comments:
Post a Comment