How to Write an Essay  

(Paper, Thesis, Bad-Check, or Whatever.) 

By: Antwan Crump  

 

Objective: WTF is an Essay? Why (TF?) should I care?

There are several reasons for writing essays. In some cases, you could just be presenting an argument, idea, or standpoint—in others, you may simply be building upon a thesis (or psychotic rant about the “chastity of the Lord”/ de facto “sexual exuberance of the devil”).

In any case, the point and reason behind these structured paragraphs are to effectively, efficiently, and coherently express and expound upon a subject or idea.

The length of these essays can vary from just a few paragraphs (like a prayer), to full-fledged, book-length, novels (like a longer, harder to memorize prayer #Quality #NotQuantity).

Remember, the point of these things is to create a stable and clear argument—so, it’s always important to follow a proper argumentative format—that is to:

Write in the persuasive voice. 

Though you may be writing for reasons of self-indulgence, pandering, (chronicling your neighbors’ movements), or whatever else; remember that not everyone (if anyone) who reads it will automatically agree with you (even if they say they do).

With that, you want to write your paper as if trying to convince the person right there and then. Write engagingly (action, metaphors, compelling examples, etc). Stay focused (don’t trail off on unnecessary tangents…the president can get away with that…but we won’t).

And above ALL – DON’T BE BORING!!!!

There’s a huge misconception in popular society that the literary world is filled with a bunch of “narcissists” (true), who are so self-centered (accurate), that they’ve flooded bookshelves (false. #DigitalGetDown), with trite and tedious goop (*cough*). 

Worse yet, THEY DON’T EVEN REALIZE IT!

Okay, though some of those things may be true, it’s quite untrue that authors obliviously write boring crap that they then serve up to the masses as impactful bombs of 2-ply revelation.

Some do.

But not the good ones.

Just remember that your paper, whatever it may be, could be something more than just doe-eyed navel-gazing. Write as if you intend for someone to read it without the task being considered a chore.

*Make it something that you’d read for yourself.*

 

You still with me?

I don’t care, I’m gonna‘ keep going. 

*drops to knees* 

*does stanky-leg*

“WITNESS ME!!!!!”

 

Structure: #Flows #BeforeHoes

If you’ve ever spent more than a few seconds looking at the blackboard as a child, then you should have a pretty decent idea of the Scientific Method. 

Regardless, here’s a refresher—Essentially the Scientific Method is a series of steps that help scientists (researchers and surviving Nazi’s) properly identify an unknown outcome based on a series of steps (in one out of the three, those steps were very sad #AndHot).

Anyway, the point is that they are building to a conclusion. In a similar way, you are as well. Because of this, it is imperative to state your conclusion up front (in the form of an idea or thesis) and then reverse engineer the argument using facts, statistics, reason, (death-threats), and literally anything else that can effectively move your discussion forward.

 

*Stagnant meandering is a big no-no. Beware of repeating statements or saying the same thing in a different way*

 

So, our structure should look something like this:

• Thesis/Idea/Premise – These are all just different ways of stating your conclusion upfront.
• Body (#TheMeat) – This is where you will build on your thesis via various examples.

*The Body will be where your argument will form and compound on previous facts. Prior to writing, you may want to write a bullet-pointed outline that allows you to see what will work (and won’t work) in presenting a solid and convincing case. From there you can assess and alter the work as needed, but it helps to go in with a game plan.*

*This can be as long as necessary (subject to any word restrictions/requirements).*

And lastly…

• Conclusion (The “I told you so.”) – Here, you will restate your thesis—only, this time, linking it to the various points of your argument. Essentially, you’re writing, “…and that’s why I’m right you, {Insert Needed Profanity Here} limp-tard!”

 

Okay, maybe not so hostile, but you get my point.  

#ProfanityRocks

#F@CK! #$H!T! #P!$$! 

“HAHAHAHAHAHAHA”

 

…moving on. 

 

Here’s an example of an Outline (/How I do mine/ When I do them/ I don’t do them):

 

Thesis/Idea/Premise: Joe H. has poor depth perception.  

• Sometimes, it becomes important to generalize your argument for the sake of broadening the barriers of the discussion.
• By specifying that “Joe H. has poor depth perception,” you may be leaving yourself open to argumentative weaknesses (due to Joe being a unique individual…with a single eye).
• Ergo, those who don’t know Joe H. have no reason to attribute your conclusion to anyone but him.

 

*You want your argument as iron-clad as possible.*

Rather than that, say:

New Thesis: People with one eye have worse depth perception than those with two.  

Along with your thesis, always make sure to softly back it up with some examples of your reasoning. This can be anything from a general fact/understanding to something reasoned, or even an opinion.

*Remember, you’re allowed to make as large a leap as you’d like—but you’ve got to make sure the bridge is built so the others can cross as well. The essay/paper IS that bridge.*

 

Next, we move on to THE BODY…which is smooth talk for “your supporting evidence”.

Here, we will make our first REAL effort of convincing the reader over to our side of the argument. To support your stance, you always want to have somewhere between 3-5 (academic standard) points of varying evidence to support your claims. 

(You can obviously do as many as you want if you’re writing for personal reasons…Just make sure that it all comes tightly together in the end.)

 

Using our premise above, we build out.

Thesis: People with one eye have worse depth perception than those with two.  

BODY points (Supporting Evidence): (I’ll follow the standard and use 3 points of evidence.)

• Define Depth Perception (the ability for one to judge the distance/depth of an object).
• Both eyes are required to have the best chance at properly judging distance. Should an individual have a damaged retina (ex: Stevie Wonder, Ray Charles, Bill Cosby, The actor from “The Blind Side”(I think), etc), they would then have worse depth perception than one who does not.

Here, you can essentially make a point that they all have poor depth perception because what happens to Joe H. happened to them twice, and now they can’t see at all. 

Logically, you can then only conclude that even if it happens just once (as in Joe H’s case)—it would still greatly impair Joe’s vision and (by proxy) his depth perception.

As you can see, we’re slowly building our case and argument. For your final piece of supporting evidence, you’ll want to use a concluding detail that ties in with the rest of your discussion. 

Here is where many people like to cite work (which you should ALWAYS do) and lead to their conclusion. 

For us, I’ll go with, (the fictional)

Ex:

• According to the National Association of Sight, Taste, and Yare (N.A.S.T.Y.), “People with two eyes have a better perception of depth than those with just one or none at all.” 

Or, you can go religious.

Ex:

• According to the Bible, “…An eye for an eye. A tooth for a tooth”. So, from this, we can properly assume that: 

1.) Joe H. was in a fight 

2.) He isn’t favored by the Lord. 

3.) Jesus took his eye.

4.) Joe H’s depth perception ain’t sh!t.

 

Now, that doesn’t really forward the argument…and with that—I think I’ve made my point.

NEVER CITE THE BIBLE!

 

…unless you’re trying to be funny.   

(…Or, I guess, of course, unless you’re talking about the bible.)

I’ve got nothing against belief, however, if your intent is to win the discussion–you may want to stick with evidence that doesn’t boil down to just “faith”.

It defeats the purpose.

*If you must include religion (or any opinion-based evidence other than your own), try to do it in a way that supports your argument without being a tentpole for it.*

–This is imperative, even if only to avoid cluttering the debate at hand with inconsequential rhetoric.

Anyway, that’s your BODY (#YouSexyThang).  

Build on this as much as you’d like. Just try to keep your paragraphs tight and easy to read. You don’t want to lose the argument because you’ve forgotten what it was or because your readers can’t follow.

 

Now, let’s bring it home—

 

Conclusion: Simply put, you restate your thesis and wrap it all up with a few sentences that connect the focal points of your argument. 

Ex:

“For the aforementioned reasons, I believe that those with two eyes have a vastly superior perception of depth than those with just one. Despite the religious implications of losing an eye—scientifically, there are no benefits pertaining to sight. Because of this, I also believe that Joe H. has poor depth perception (and probably done smacked up a ho or two).” 

 

#Flows #BeforeHoes #Again

 

And, there you have it. Wrapped up all nice and tight like Santa’s G-String. (#HoHoNO!!!)

Welcome to the world of the macabre. In this long-awaited anthology, we delve into the dark nuances of the human spirit. From the apocalypse to murder and brutal realities we remorselessly explore them all, in search of the truths that evil holds. Can you face the darkest corners of your psyche or will you cower back to your fairytales and superhero mythologies? When you tire of the lies—we’ll be waiting for you here…in the dark.