(no subject)
So, I'm writing here again because I had an idea that I had to share with the world at large, or at least as large as my lj world is..
But, my exam format is quite straight-forward. There are about 15-20 questions on the exam, and you have to answer 4. To study, obviously, you go through your notes, but also you look through old exam papers to see what questions are likely to be asked, and prepare for about 6, in case they suddenly add or don't include questions in a form you can use. All this is a long lead-up to what I actually have to say.
The first exam I wrote was on early modern europe, which was beautiful because there's just so much to say from so many different perspectives. Science, philosophy, theology, politics, literature, all of it. But an important part of the european mindset was fear of the other. What this ultimately led to was my super answer of doom! Vlad the Impaler and the defense of europe against the Turk. See, this has the advantage of being both about the external other (the Turk), but also about the internal other (the vampire). So clearly, vampirism in early modern europe!
And having just done some casual 'research' on the subject (ah, wikipedia...), while Vlad the Impaler was a bit early (mid 15th C), there was a sudden vampire hysteria in the early 18th C, which would then suggest some quiet pseudo-vampiric behaviour from 1500 to 1700, the exact time period of the course. In fact, the witchcraft trials sensationalised matters to a degree that witchcraft involved such things as drinking blood and demons and whatnot. I mean, take a look at Goethe's Faust, which is also late, but gives a good picture of the witches' sabbath, or some of the records of the witch trials and the popular ideas about them. Hmm, I think I could actually have a foundation for the argument...
And this is why I'm not a good historian. I don't play with facts so much as mess around with the ideas behind the facts. But hey, it's fun!
But, my exam format is quite straight-forward. There are about 15-20 questions on the exam, and you have to answer 4. To study, obviously, you go through your notes, but also you look through old exam papers to see what questions are likely to be asked, and prepare for about 6, in case they suddenly add or don't include questions in a form you can use. All this is a long lead-up to what I actually have to say.
The first exam I wrote was on early modern europe, which was beautiful because there's just so much to say from so many different perspectives. Science, philosophy, theology, politics, literature, all of it. But an important part of the european mindset was fear of the other. What this ultimately led to was my super answer of doom! Vlad the Impaler and the defense of europe against the Turk. See, this has the advantage of being both about the external other (the Turk), but also about the internal other (the vampire). So clearly, vampirism in early modern europe!
And having just done some casual 'research' on the subject (ah, wikipedia...), while Vlad the Impaler was a bit early (mid 15th C), there was a sudden vampire hysteria in the early 18th C, which would then suggest some quiet pseudo-vampiric behaviour from 1500 to 1700, the exact time period of the course. In fact, the witchcraft trials sensationalised matters to a degree that witchcraft involved such things as drinking blood and demons and whatnot. I mean, take a look at Goethe's Faust, which is also late, but gives a good picture of the witches' sabbath, or some of the records of the witch trials and the popular ideas about them. Hmm, I think I could actually have a foundation for the argument...
And this is why I'm not a good historian. I don't play with facts so much as mess around with the ideas behind the facts. But hey, it's fun!