make em say uhhhhhhhhh
He re-read my paper.
Dear Marie-Danielle:
I've re-read your paper, and I concede that I probably overreacted to the
religious strain that is present but not predominant in your overall
argument. My sensitivity to this issue comes from past experiences with
students who practice a kind of scriptural exegesis on literary texts, as
if everything in the Western canon were apocryphal Christian texts, grist
to the mill. Needless to say, interpreting a text with such a monolithic
and inflexible approach means not learning anything new about the text, and
I try to encourage students to move away from that approach in their
English papers (and I do like people to investigate religious themes, if
they can do so with an open mind).
So that explains my hypersensitivity to the religiose aspects of your
paper, which are after all present.
My additional comment is to stress that you investigate the way that
certain terms are contested rather than enumerate the various senses in
which they are deployed. "Mercy" in CT is, for example, pointed
rhetorically at powerful male figures, whose restraint is being called
upon. This turn of manliness back upon itself--are you man enough to
control yourself?--has a double-edged significance as both subversive of
male power and as a reassertion of it. It would be interesting to note
whether there is a truly feminine version of mercy that doesn't become
sympathy, and I am also curious about Rowson's own merciless pursuit of
Charlotte's death spiral to its gory end.
In acknowledgement of the extra work you've put in communicating with me
about it, I'm giving you three extra points.
Best,
M. Ziser
three extra points...score. i wish he would just straight out say that he OVERREACTED rather than qualifying it by adding a "probably" before it.
i think i'm over this now. i'd still like to meet with him though.
Dear Marie-Danielle:
I've re-read your paper, and I concede that I probably overreacted to the
religious strain that is present but not predominant in your overall
argument. My sensitivity to this issue comes from past experiences with
students who practice a kind of scriptural exegesis on literary texts, as
if everything in the Western canon were apocryphal Christian texts, grist
to the mill. Needless to say, interpreting a text with such a monolithic
and inflexible approach means not learning anything new about the text, and
I try to encourage students to move away from that approach in their
English papers (and I do like people to investigate religious themes, if
they can do so with an open mind).
So that explains my hypersensitivity to the religiose aspects of your
paper, which are after all present.
My additional comment is to stress that you investigate the way that
certain terms are contested rather than enumerate the various senses in
which they are deployed. "Mercy" in CT is, for example, pointed
rhetorically at powerful male figures, whose restraint is being called
upon. This turn of manliness back upon itself--are you man enough to
control yourself?--has a double-edged significance as both subversive of
male power and as a reassertion of it. It would be interesting to note
whether there is a truly feminine version of mercy that doesn't become
sympathy, and I am also curious about Rowson's own merciless pursuit of
Charlotte's death spiral to its gory end.
In acknowledgement of the extra work you've put in communicating with me
about it, I'm giving you three extra points.
Best,
M. Ziser
three extra points...score. i wish he would just straight out say that he OVERREACTED rather than qualifying it by adding a "probably" before it.
i think i'm over this now. i'd still like to meet with him though.