Section 2 (1 Viewer)

[Ashley P]

the facts are really not at all like the fish on the fishmonger's slab!

they are like fish swimming about in a vast and sometimes inaccessible ocean...

words of wisdom from the BOS... sage.

how the hell could you use that to discuss?!:burn: tacitus fished in the ocean of corruption, to catch his fish tiberius

that was the most creative exam i've ever done!

it's over!

 

[dasphoebus]

Fish?

Ok, the question was straight forward, and so was the quote, but after talking to people, how many of you did heaps of linking throughout the essay to "fish". I just summarised the metaphor and spoke and historical speak, but everyone I talked to was bragging about how many fish they mentioned.

 

[dasphoebus]

Re: case study - wtf!?

It was more talking about how context effects composition, and how new evidence and methods reveal different information. Throw subjectivity in there as well.

 

[Mazxoxo]

Re: Fish?

Sounds like the people you're talking to are full of s***.

The significance of the fish was that they were a metaphor for facts. That was it.

 

[dasphoebus]

Re: Fish?

Oh yeah, I realised that, but I want to know how people actually went about answering, and how much overall linking they did.

 

[izzy88]

Re: case study - wtf!?

i quite liked the fish analagy....i talked about how the context and aims and purposes of the historians influence and impact their choice and interpretation of facts/sources/evidence (fish)....the fact that the quote was a couple of lines was good because i could then choses a different part to put in each paragraph although it essentially said the same thing (i hadnt been refering to the quotes in every paragraph in practises because it was so repetitive but my teacher said i had to...)

i also like the fact that 'Carr' was such as easy name to write repetively (cant spell) in contrast to Clendennon which had way to many nnnnnns for my brain to comprehend! (nity picky annoyance!!)

 

[thenothing]

Re: Fish?

You mean to say the exam wasn't about fish?!

 

[dandel26]

Re: Fish?

lol, yeh i used summarised the metaphors

 

[mangela]

Re: Fish?

bahaha the first time i read that i was like holy shit theyre kidding. but after i looked at it i realised it was rather straightforward. i used a few references to the metaphor throughout my essay such as the historian's revisionist '' catch'' or it seemed ''hersh had bigger fish to fry'' ( love the lameness) but not excessively. as long as you made reference to what it meant at the start im sure it was fine

 

[SL33pY]

Re: Fish?

LOL were they screwing around with you, or did they actually mention the different kinds of fish ?!

u got punked hardcore dude

 

[undotwa]

Re: Fish?

bahaha the first time i read that i was like holy shit theyre kidding. but after i looked at it i realised it was rather straightforward. i used a few references to the metaphor throughout my essay such as the historian's revisionist '' catch'' or it seemed ''hersh had bigger fish to fry'' ( love the lameness) but not excessively. as long as you made reference to what it meant at the start im sure it was fine

The way I approached it was that I made E.H. Carr's thoughts on the deliberate omission and emphasis of particular 'fish' (i.e. facts) the centre point of my entire essay. The question was basically asking us to discuss the methodology of historians and how that reflects upon the nature of history itself ("History means interpretation").

My main weakness for that response is that whilst I talked about E.H. Carr quite well and intergrated his source right throughout my analysis of my case study, my analysis of my case study was fairly weak and I couldn't remember enough quotes from my historians. I'm hoping for 23!

 

[thenothing]

Re: Fish?

That selection/omission of sources is a good point, I didn't think of that because I was trying to seperate Carr from the historians essay.

 

[thenothing]

Re: Fish?

In saying that though, I pretty much did refer to it. More, they chose their facts, instead of chose what to not include.

 

[mangela]

Re: Fish?

haha yeah thats a good point - i basically jsut referred each point about fish to a facet of historical perspective..ie. the ociean they choose is the sources they choose, their tackle is their style and personal context etc. but yeah didnt get to bogged down in it. basically said that eh carr is accurate in his statement because the context of the historian and their generation infleunces what sources they use, how they organise them and their interprretation of them.

 

[Boxxxhead]

Re: Fish?

Yeah I talked a lot about context + the selection and omission of facts but I don't think I talked about the source explicitly enough, like I mentioned it within paragraphs briefly and in the introduction/conclusion but I wouldn't say that I did it in great detail. Still okay though.

 

[mangela]

Re: Fish?

i think that soudns fine, boxxhead. i mean its not like it is the source of the first question, if you tied it into your argument then youve analysed it. i perceived the question to make you analyse the sources perspective or comment rather than like deconstructing it and analysing it like you would for the 'what is history' section.

hehe which case study did everyone do? and which historians?

 

[MsMagdalena]

Re: case study - wtf!?

lol prendo.
I was like.. yeah.. changing interpretations over time.. woo!
it was 10 pages of that.
bahaha.
love yew long tym
kimi x

 

[Bobness]

Re: Fish?

to put it simply (i hope) i saw fishing board - or whatever the thing is that displays all the fish - as the various histories available to consumers i.e. for jfk the different types of sensationalism cater for changing consumer preferences due to context like watergate = cynical, '63 = optimism

the fish tackle is methodology. straight out of dot point 3 of the syllabus i.e. how has history been constructed and recorded?

the ocean is the body of evidence i.e. sources, which according to eh carr consists of the "fetishism of fact...fetishism of documents". hmm and its so vast therefore textual corruption can occur as selective choice of sources is needed to pragmatically scientifically analyse issues (i.e. if an historian deems one 'fish' as unworthy of mention as it isn't goverment documentation or an official source, it denies the complete picture of history wie es eigentlich gewesen)

and the fish itself is the aim+purpose of the historian who searches for this.

i thought the best way to integrate was to use changing contexts as shaping the interplay of these factors in creating the full picture. hmm they never specified context, but i extrapolated on how carr's relativist background provides justification for this

bah i think i did too much overthinking

 

[LISOC]

Re: case study - wtf!?

It was more talking about how context effects composition, and how new evidence and methods reveal different information. Throw subjectivity in there as well.

oh phew! i related the quote to context predominantly and hinted at subjectivity...maybe i didn't go as shite as i thought : P

 

[luscious-llama]

Re: Fish?

to put it simply (i hope) i saw fishing board - or whatever the thing is that displays all the fish - as the various histories available to consumers i.e. for jfk the different types of sensationalism cater for changing consumer preferences due to context like watergate = cynical, '63 = optimism

the fish tackle is methodology. straight out of dot point 3 of the syllabus i.e. how has history been constructed and recorded?

the ocean is the body of evidence i.e. sources, which according to eh carr consists of the "fetishism of fact...fetishism of documents". hmm and its so vast therefore textual corruption can occur as selective choice of sources is needed to pragmatically scientifically analyse issues (i.e. if an historian deems one 'fish' as unworthy of mention as it isn't goverment documentation or an official source, it denies the complete picture of history wie es eigentlich gewesen)

and the fish itself is the aim+purpose of the historian who searches for this.

i thought the best way to integrate was to use changing contexts as shaping the interplay of these factors in creating the full picture. hmm they never specified context, but i extrapolated on how carr's relativist background provides justification for this

bah i think i did too much overthinking

I had Napoleon. I'm not sure what I wrote but I answered the question how you've done so without the Carr.

I can't even remember if I write "wie es eigentlich gewesen" for section one. oh well. oh well. oh well. ITS OVER OVER OVER OVER OVER OVER