This can't be happening...
Monday, December 12th, 2005 12:28 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
mothwingEssay: B3.
Reason: too little text evidence (I didn't know it was required in the introduction, in which I just gave an outline of what I was going to do) and too much use of "unnecessary jargon". She meant terms like "character constellation" and "focalizor". And she thought my sentences were too complex (Crocky agreed. Fine, maybe 5 liners are a wee bit too long, but trust me, that is half the length my German sentences would have when I am not paying attention).
What's a girl to do? I was talking about the character-focalizor. And the constellation of characters. How, pray tell, should I call them?
"The people in the novel, which are organised by the author in a specific way..."
No, wait, there goes another technical term. Alright.
"The people in the book, which the person who has written it has organised in a specific way..."
No, wait, that sentence is getting way too complex. Fine. Next time, SPOs all the way, and no subordination at all.
Her comments read as though she was telling me that I cramped too much content into an essay with too little text evidence. I HAVE given text evidence, damnit. What I had done - and never will do again - is try and focus on a specific aspect of a topic hundreds of people must have taken:
"'Writers like to explore and refine character by creating doubling figures. A main character will frequently see himself or herself reflected in the mirror of someone else’. To what effect might this be used? Discuss in relation to TWO of the set novels."
Fine. With a word limit of 1,500 words and taking into account her comments on my essay, this would have boilt down to some close reading, some very generic statements and regurgitating what our lecturers told us.
In other words, a writing exercise which says: "Yes! I have attended the lecture, am able to recall what we were told and alas, I have read both books!"
And still... I feel sooooo dumb. If I was at home in the moment, I would be working on my Magister thesis.
It was a soddin' first year essay.
I will certainly not draw attention to anything beside the exact content of the question in 1B.
... Well. On second thought, it might have helped to read Emma once more before writing the Essay and not just trusting myself to remember everything from my real first year.
... Still!! First year essay!! Gah!
Reason: too little text evidence (I didn't know it was required in the introduction, in which I just gave an outline of what I was going to do) and too much use of "unnecessary jargon". She meant terms like "character constellation" and "focalizor". And she thought my sentences were too complex (Crocky agreed. Fine, maybe 5 liners are a wee bit too long, but trust me, that is half the length my German sentences would have when I am not paying attention).
What's a girl to do? I was talking about the character-focalizor. And the constellation of characters. How, pray tell, should I call them?
"The people in the novel, which are organised by the author in a specific way..."
No, wait, there goes another technical term. Alright.
"The people in the book, which the person who has written it has organised in a specific way..."
No, wait, that sentence is getting way too complex. Fine. Next time, SPOs all the way, and no subordination at all.
Her comments read as though she was telling me that I cramped too much content into an essay with too little text evidence. I HAVE given text evidence, damnit. What I had done - and never will do again - is try and focus on a specific aspect of a topic hundreds of people must have taken:
"'Writers like to explore and refine character by creating doubling figures. A main character will frequently see himself or herself reflected in the mirror of someone else’. To what effect might this be used? Discuss in relation to TWO of the set novels."
Fine. With a word limit of 1,500 words and taking into account her comments on my essay, this would have boilt down to some close reading, some very generic statements and regurgitating what our lecturers told us.
In other words, a writing exercise which says: "Yes! I have attended the lecture, am able to recall what we were told and alas, I have read both books!"
And still... I feel sooooo dumb. If I was at home in the moment, I would be working on my Magister thesis.
It was a soddin' first year essay.
I will certainly not draw attention to anything beside the exact content of the question in 1B.
... Well. On second thought, it might have helped to read Emma once more before writing the Essay and not just trusting myself to remember everything from my real first year.
... Still!! First year essay!! Gah!
