aliasfan
Member
i have like a week to do my mw and i have only just started...is this ok 4 a draft introduction:
-
Finished your HSC? Check out our University Discussion, Non-School forums or help out next year's HSC students! -
YOU can help the next generation of students in the community! Share your trial papers and notes on our Notes & Resources page
Ok I really suck (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter aliasfan
- Start date
X
xeuyrawp
Guest
Heya, generally ok, but can I ask what specific part of your MW this is?aliasfan said:
What's with your title/question? A beacon of hope? You need to phrase the title into a specific, coherant question- "Is Anastasia a beacon of hope?" is really not anything academic.
The first footnote is a bit pointless, though, I mean most historians know the date and the event of Anastasia's death, you don't need to footnote it.
"These, while expressing some historical fact, focus on the emotional side of the Anastasia story. " - That's an interesting point, and I'd mention that a lot of history is moving away from political/event history, and towards emotionalising history.
"To begin, we will look at the sources actually recounting assassinations that took place in the town of Ekaterinburg, and see how and why they differ. " Don't say that. From the outright, make a judgement or statement, don't ever say "this essay will", "I will", "we will", etc. It's not kosher. State immediately that "the evidence clearly shows that ..." or "the evidence, although contradictory, can be shown to be" or something similar. A good way of remembering to do this is : In an essay, don't say what you will do, just do it. Although an intro shows what you will do, it'd doesn't express your intent, rather what is factual.
The last paragraph contains a pretty irrelevant quotation, about the prelude to the blood bath. The latter quotation is good though. The final sentence is a bit aggitating that you say "the context influences the historians"- that's a bit basic...
Try to analyse specific details of the event's representation, and try to avoid pop-culture as much as you can, or if you want to address it, keep it to one paragraph.
The "Romanticize; to view or interpret using emotions rather then logic. " is a good paragraph, except for the opening sentence. Keep opening sentences specifically relating to the sources.
Like I said, if this wasn't your essay, but rather your synopsis, you can't just be all journalistic on it and write in free-prose. You still have to keep it relatively formal.
K
katie_tully
Guest
This is just a bit of constructive criticism, but it sounds too romanticised? Pw may have already said this, but it appears just slightly too informal, like a narrative of the events rather than an analytical study.
Sphyx
Asphyxiated
Heh. I was going to do Anastacia for my mw and my good friend decided to do it as well. Needless to say I had the right to it since I am a Full Blooded Russian - but as it turned out, I decided against doing it, and then so did my friend. Tragic, I know.
Anyhow...
I think the major criticism you are going to attract is the lack of sophistication. You don't need to state the obvious such as "these views express the context of the writers." Integrate such statements more, perhaps even avoiding the word "context" altogether, as it is more or less implicit in your discussion.
Also, stay away from commiting the same mistakes as the 'historians' you are analysing.
Eg:
"The world is captivated. A sense of hope is born." This is kinda cringeworthy, especially since later you go on to say that the romanticism of Anastacia has affected their relevance (also another point I'm not totally sure about - relevance to what? Don't just state the point - elaborate)
Also, you seem to struggle a little in the grammar department, in particular your comma use is a little erratic. Eg "Throughout this essay, the various recounts and sources regarding Anastasia and the subsequent ‘frauds’, will be analyzed to see how they interpret the facts and if the romantic views they express change their relevance in any way." - most of these are unnecessary and interrupt the flow of your point.
Despite the fact that this is just an introduction, you haven't really stated anything fleshy, although you have started to do so in your last paragraph. I doubt you are going to create many marks by just dancing around the subject, and the introduction is no place to do this either. Remember the word limit is very strict, and your main priority in an introduction is to succinctly present your main points then just power on into your actual arguments.
Having said that, I think you can do great, and obviously the main bit of the entire thing is the body with all the itsy bitsy historiographical parts, so focus on that. Good luck!
Anyhow...
I think the major criticism you are going to attract is the lack of sophistication. You don't need to state the obvious such as "these views express the context of the writers." Integrate such statements more, perhaps even avoiding the word "context" altogether, as it is more or less implicit in your discussion.
Also, stay away from commiting the same mistakes as the 'historians' you are analysing.
Eg:
"The world is captivated. A sense of hope is born." This is kinda cringeworthy, especially since later you go on to say that the romanticism of Anastacia has affected their relevance (also another point I'm not totally sure about - relevance to what? Don't just state the point - elaborate)
Also, you seem to struggle a little in the grammar department, in particular your comma use is a little erratic. Eg "Throughout this essay, the various recounts and sources regarding Anastasia and the subsequent ‘frauds’, will be analyzed to see how they interpret the facts and if the romantic views they express change their relevance in any way." - most of these are unnecessary and interrupt the flow of your point.
Despite the fact that this is just an introduction, you haven't really stated anything fleshy, although you have started to do so in your last paragraph. I doubt you are going to create many marks by just dancing around the subject, and the introduction is no place to do this either. Remember the word limit is very strict, and your main priority in an introduction is to succinctly present your main points then just power on into your actual arguments.
Having said that, I think you can do great, and obviously the main bit of the entire thing is the body with all the itsy bitsy historiographical parts, so focus on that. Good luck!