#peytonic

Hi bub, sorry this took me a while!!

Okay so for…

Sociology - AQA

Eng Lit - Edexcel

History - WJEC, but the most obscure module ever I swear it was Rebellion and Republic (English history) and European history (focus on Francis I in AS and Charles I and V then later Spanish history, so Charles again with Philip II and Philip III, I actually don’t even think they’re doing this module anymore lmao)

So for Sociology, don’t underestimate the content. It is honestly one of the most content heavy subjects I’ve ever taken and I most likely feel that way bc in this instance, actually knowing the details is really important! Like with English you use them to further your arguments but in socio it’s more like, okay I need to use other people’s opinions, their research, their dates to answer this question and then use another person’s research etc. to contrast this blah blah. So try to stay on top of the information, constantly review and make a summary sheet at the end of every topic. It saves lives!!! Please look here for more help: http://etudiantt.tumblr.com/post/118884514042/hi-id-like-to-ask-do-you-take-a-level

English Lit - Know what your essays require of you. Don’t repeat the whole book in an essay, that just shows you’ve read the book you know? And though obviously reading the book helps, it’s far more important to look at what the events mean and what the characters represent, themes blah blah etc. Like basically just go deeper, so the climax of P&P is arguably the first proposal why is that? Aside from Darcy getting his butt handed to him (http://songsofwolves.tumblr.com/post/128038034069 HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHA). It’s also hugely important because it’s one of the best examples of Elizabeth’s position as a transgressive character ahead of her time, whilst Darcy is shown at the height of his arrogance and therefore it’s good to use this instance as a contrast for his later development as a character which further highlights why it’s so important as an event because it indicates the underlying message that there is always the capacity to change that Austen encourages BLAH BLAHLSLHJTH. Basically really engageeeee with the text and learn how to use stuff to your advantage, try to think of things from different angles as well!! 

Also at this stage you’ll be asked to compare between different texts a lot so really look at core themes, techniques, is one technique more successful here? Why is that? Why did the author choose to use that technique? Why is it more effective and what actually is the effect? Put it into context. So the use of a location as a metaphor for a character was imo far more effective in The Yellow Wallpaper. Pemberley is a metaphor/symbolic setting for Darcy like it’s located on high ground, the river and rocks are described in ways similar to his character blaH BLAHHHH. But in TYW, the main character like briefly talks about the locked gates in the garden, the isolation of the house almost absentmindedly and this was far more effective imo mainly bc of her ignorance that this setting was representative of her situation while the reader is entirely too aware of it etc.

History - ahhhhhh my love. Okay timelines and dates and significance. Probably the three most important things although I guess timelines and dates are the same thing really. The whole idea about history being all about dates is so basic lmao, again you need to look at importance. Why was this one event more important than the other? What did it mean not only in the short-term but the long-term? Look at it in context too. I say that a lot but I’m going to try to put it into an example for you of how to use dates and stuff in your argument. Just remember that dates are necessary but they’re not vital, if you get a sudden blank space saying that it happened in the 1960s or trying to get close to that mark is still close enough! Okay so yeah my example…

So the question is about whether Philip II prioritised his religious policy or foreign policy okay? Now throughout your essay you can begin with his religious policy, go through the necessary important dates and events that really show that it was his priority, but don’t say what happened. You don’t need to. The examiners KNOW what happened, instead, explain its significance. As the self-proclaimed defender of Catholicism it makes sense that Philip’s primary obligations would be religious right? And this obviously came through in his unecessary action to intervene with the French Wars of Religion in 1584 with the Treaty of Joinville which he did so despite TWO BANKRUPTCIES at that point (1557, 1575), a revolt in the Netherlands and deteriorating English relations BLAH BLAHLLHALH. So obligatory dates to show that you know your stuff and additional events to really hammer the idea that HE REALLY CARED ABOUT RELIGION OKAY. You need to make this beginning argument so strong, like so strong it seems irrefutable. Use the other themes and factors to show how they paled in comparison to his BURNING PASSION FOR RELIGION, so finance etc. 

Okay so that’s religion done but the question also asks about his foreign policy, second paragraph is where you address this. This is where you argue against yourself. Keep in mind that this advice comes from my syllabus it might be different for others but I think as history essays go it seems logical for all exam boards so I don’t know. OKAY. My basic structure was sort of like 1st argument, argue against, 2nd argument, argue against, 3rd, AA and then conclusion. In your argue against this seemingly indisputable point, you need to show evaluation and analysis and this is how you do it. 

Take that original point that seemed so good for your religious argument and turn it against itself. What do you know about it to show that you have considered things past face value? Well...after 1593 when Henry of Navarre converted to Catholicism, Philip had basically achieved his goal of saving France from the EVIL OF PROTESTANTISM!!! But he remained there anyway, why? He sparked another war between France and England because of this that gave him another bankruptcy in 96 but why did he risk this? It can be none other than TERRITORIAL OBLIGATIONS!!!!! At this point you change the argument, what if indeed he didn’t really care about religion? It was just a background intention which he used to hide his real intentions under? Use other facts, throughout his reign if you can clearly see an intent to secure land, protect land, gain land etc. and it outweighs religious events, use that!!! This is one of the best parts about history is really getting into it and considering it from a different perspective, like even if you don’t know his actual motivation, it seems entirely plausible! Philip actually wanted his daughter on the French throne, but what if this desire came during the whole campaign which in effect was undertaken under the banner of religious duty? In that instance it would show that he still prioritised religion over territory and it merely came up as a sort of opportunity if you will, TADA there you have it, a counter argument to your previous counter argument that sets the essay back to where you started i.e. religion rules!

My main advice is the whole looking at events past face value. Wow peace with the Protestant Schmalkaldic League in 1532 to ally against the Turks? What does that say about Charles’ priorities? He was willing to ally with one of his enemies against another enemy, either way religion seems to come out on top but the Turks infringing on his territory could suggest a further cause etc. Try and find as many of these sort of events that you can, use the dates to either magnify their significance or argue against it. Bankruptcies, peace treaties etc. etc. 

1. peytonic

2. nobodyheard

3. debilitating 

4. mirrors-andbutterflies

5. mysterylunchmeat

6. irrati0nality

7. 2infinity-n-beyonddd

8. my-h-e-a-r-t-s-not-in-it