Camfess
#Camfession51216
#Camfession51177
Hey another autistic person here who really struggled with essays my entire degree until like a month ago when I finally figured out what they actually want, because it's not what they literally say. Though I do a different humanities subject to English so I'm not sure how interchangeable the advice will be depending on the structure of your essay questions, I'll just have to say what i've learned and hope it's relevant. But the issue might be something entirely different if the essay question structure is that different from mine.
So I also used to just sit for ages and struggle to think of an argument until I realised the issue was how they phrase the questions - they're so vague! They're meant to be, but it really works against us because our brains don't work that way. I always took the question at face value and struggled with how to concoct an original argument around this, but the questions, at least in my subject, are actually all trying to direct you towards specific debates that we've learned about and discussed in supervisions. Which sounds obvious, but I was just focused on what the question literally said. To actually get good marks, you HAVE to reference those debates, otherwise they think you've not understood.
I also thought, based on the marking criteria harping on about originality, and again taking it literally, I couldn't make too much reference to specific academics or debates because it would be basically copying what they say. But that's not what they mean by originality. They want you to go through the specific debate they're trying to get you to talk about in a detailed and concise way, and the points that have already been made in wider academia, but just FRAME it in a creative way, based on what you think about it, specifically tailored to the question and how it's phrased. Like you can get your arguments from academics then cite them after, you don't have to come up with your entirely own original points. You just have to rephrase them so they're specifically tailored to the question. It's great if you can come up with entirely original points, but that's obviously quite difficult when you're in an area where everything that could be said has been already. The questions aren't just an opportunity to come up with something entirely new, you have to instead show detailed knowledge about a debate and be creative about it.
It's still quite difficult because you have to be well read, in the debate at least, even if not the whole subject, to be able to structure an answer about it properly, especially in the very short timeframe given, but it is basically - what does the question WANT me to talk about? What do I know that's been said about this? What do I think about what's been said - as in the arguments that have been made? And then make that your overarching point, use the academics or your subject equivalent as your evidence, but put what you think about what they said at the beginning of each paragraph, then analyse what the academic said so it leads into your overarching point, which is just like linking back to the question. The intro is just a roadmap through your points, kind of repeating what you're going to argue, but in an even more concise way.