Billygean.co.uk

Sunday, July 09, 2006

As if on cue

My dad came over today and brought the post with him. Little did I know moments later I would be staring at a feedback sheet for all of my modules. And then, inevitably, blogging about it.

Language and the law got 65. And I quote:

"The trouble with this essay is that it is not actually a very direct answer to the question ... This answer does not do what the question asks."

It goes on like this for some time. Why did you feel the need to give it 65 then? Nobody forced you to, you almost sound begrudging.

Theories of the mind (my Freud and Jung as applied to the novel The Silence of the Lambs) got a "borderline first" initially with comments like:

"Extensive and meticulous. Wide range of [what looks like] aluftus."

It's proper tutor handwriting. However second marker steps in and says:

"There is no debate at the beginning on psychoanalysis and film. ... Some very good analysis - weakness in the lack of culture of the key debates in psychoanalysis and film."

*Blinks* Ah, maybe this is because it was about a book and not a film?

Might this have something to do with your recent publication on psychoanalysis and film? No?

My dissertation has the best feedback:

"Do you really claim that George III was so important in the development of modern psychiatry?"

Possibly. Perhaps I read it somewhere. That's usually the case when you're bullshitting. And why not; he inspired the first psychiatrist and made the nation aware that it doesn't just happen to the poor. Yes *juts chin out*. I do. What's the problem?

"P 34. Reeve's use of 'men' here needs unpacking. Is she (in context) talking about males or about human beings, or are the two senses overlapping in some interesting way?"

What? What are you talking about? That makes utterly no sense (in context) and why are you asking me questions? I have finished! I am a lawyer now, leave me alone!

There is no mention of Reeve on page 34. *Baffled*

"Extensive bibliography, but some problems with edited literary texts. Not all seem to be of the best scholarly quality, and you don't always make explicit (with 'ed.') where the name listed is an editor's."

I KNEW you would find something in there to nit pick at. Okay, a) stock the library with more scholarly editions then b) fuck off with your bloody editors, you obviously figured it out, and c) I think you'll find when you're writing a word in single quotation marks, the full stop has to go out of the quotation marks, not in.

by billygean.co.uk at 9:10 PM |