FRIDAY NIGHTCORE.
oh man, my friday is uh ROCKIN. i just cleaned my room. THEN! i am going to shower. THEN! i am going to do some homework. omg. so hardcore. SCORE.
ha, to think we were going to have a party this seis de mayo.
OH EM GEE...i totally forgot. if any of you know me, you know this is soooooooooo not who i am. i've, though not aggressively, been in search of a spiritual denomination i agree with forever...and i've decided one doesn't exist. i grew up in a catholic household, and made the choice to not be confirmed. i think religion is great if it has a positive influence on people's lives, but i've not found one for me. anyway, i'm jumbling things up because i am frustrated.
so, we had to write about how a single word, or minor character from the novel Charlotte Temple reflects something about one of the general themes of the novel. I chose the word "mercy", mostly because it's used a bazillion times, but also because it is used with so many connotations. ANYWAY, this is what he tells me (on my 80/100 paper):
"Your religious commitment is evident in this paper and, while I encourage you to continue practicing your beliefs freely, adopting them as a literary critical strategy inhibits your ability to address a text with an open mind. I'm afriad that is what has happened here[...]" ..."...merely noting instances of a term that is shared with the bible and concluding that the work's theme is Christian is inadequate. The devil can quote scripture, after all..."
HAHAHHA..never been soo misinterpreted in my life. Shiii...I wish I knew what my "religious commitment" was...it's apprently evident to him...
here was my response:
Professor Ziser--
I just received my paper back, and was completely surprised at the level of
misunderstanding caused by my points (I'm the one who wrote about 'mercy' and talked briefly
about religion). I suppose I'm taken aback because I, unintentionally, "adopted religion
and beliefs as a literary critical strategy". This is amusing to me, as I am not a
religious person, and am surely not Christian. Ha, though I DO appreciate you
encouraging me to "continue practicing [my] beliefs freely". Even more interesteing is how I somehow
came across as a close-minded, religious advocate, seeing as I have no religion to advocate.
Most of your comments about my paper seem to be focused on my supposed suggestion of
Christianity as a theme in Charlotte Temple, when in reality, I wrote but one paragraph
about the religious definition of mercy (because I do believe the paper would have been
incomplete without referencing the undeniably religious aspect of mercy). I suppose I
started off on the wrong foot by subtitling the paper with a verse from the Bible (which
I found while researching the term) and referencing Christ in the introduction.
I'm not entirely sure what I was trying to achieve with this e-mail. I suppose I felt so
incredibly misunderstood that I needed to clear things up. I'm a little disappointed
that my, what I thought brief, discussion of religion overshadowed my other points. In
fact, I wasn't even suggesting that Christianity is a theme, rather that "mercy" in its
various forms is. I suppose I am a little curious as to what was thought of the rest of
my paper. However, I suppose I can understand how my lack of development created some
confusion.
I am in no way refuting my grade. I know now that I do need to see you before my final
paper and perhaps work on making my thesis and supporting points more clear.
Thanks for taking the time to read this. I don't think I could have sat around knowing
that I, not only wrote a paper that achieved points I didn't intend to, but that I
projected an image of myself so vastly different from who I am.
Marie-Danielle Rekow
SOOO...he responded with:
Dear Marie-Danielle:
This is odd, and once we get to the bottom of it we can probably laugh
about it together. I remember your paper, which I read late at night, as
well as my ginger reaction to it. If I recall correctly, the paper
proceeds from a biblical quote to argue that the major theme of the text is
mercy in its explicitly religious sense, and ends with a
Christian-inflected interpretation of the ending. Given what you write to
me below, it appears I may have overreacted to what I interpreted as a kind
of religiose style of argumentation that forecloses real analysis. I'm
guessing the blame will be shared. Please send me you paper as an
attachment and I will look over it again and write a new comment that gives
you advice other than what you received; we can then schedule a meeting to
discuss it.
Best,
M. Ziser
LAAAAAAAAAAAAAME!! soo, i responded telling him how ridiculous it was that he assumed that i "explicitly" related mercy to religion. hizell nah. re-read my paper, biznatch...i'll show you ginger.
Basically, I'm curious as to what this guy has been through. Apparently religion has wronged him...or else he wouldn't have been sooooo incredibly blind-sided and ignorant to the points i was ACTUALLY trying to make. College Professors are GRAND.
ha, to think we were going to have a party this seis de mayo.
OH EM GEE...i totally forgot. if any of you know me, you know this is soooooooooo not who i am. i've, though not aggressively, been in search of a spiritual denomination i agree with forever...and i've decided one doesn't exist. i grew up in a catholic household, and made the choice to not be confirmed. i think religion is great if it has a positive influence on people's lives, but i've not found one for me. anyway, i'm jumbling things up because i am frustrated.
so, we had to write about how a single word, or minor character from the novel Charlotte Temple reflects something about one of the general themes of the novel. I chose the word "mercy", mostly because it's used a bazillion times, but also because it is used with so many connotations. ANYWAY, this is what he tells me (on my 80/100 paper):
"Your religious commitment is evident in this paper and, while I encourage you to continue practicing your beliefs freely, adopting them as a literary critical strategy inhibits your ability to address a text with an open mind. I'm afriad that is what has happened here[...]" ..."...merely noting instances of a term that is shared with the bible and concluding that the work's theme is Christian is inadequate. The devil can quote scripture, after all..."
HAHAHHA..never been soo misinterpreted in my life. Shiii...I wish I knew what my "religious commitment" was...it's apprently evident to him...
here was my response:
Professor Ziser--
I just received my paper back, and was completely surprised at the level of
misunderstanding caused by my points (I'm the one who wrote about 'mercy' and talked briefly
about religion). I suppose I'm taken aback because I, unintentionally, "adopted religion
and beliefs as a literary critical strategy". This is amusing to me, as I am not a
religious person, and am surely not Christian. Ha, though I DO appreciate you
encouraging me to "continue practicing [my] beliefs freely". Even more interesteing is how I somehow
came across as a close-minded, religious advocate, seeing as I have no religion to advocate.
Most of your comments about my paper seem to be focused on my supposed suggestion of
Christianity as a theme in Charlotte Temple, when in reality, I wrote but one paragraph
about the religious definition of mercy (because I do believe the paper would have been
incomplete without referencing the undeniably religious aspect of mercy). I suppose I
started off on the wrong foot by subtitling the paper with a verse from the Bible (which
I found while researching the term) and referencing Christ in the introduction.
I'm not entirely sure what I was trying to achieve with this e-mail. I suppose I felt so
incredibly misunderstood that I needed to clear things up. I'm a little disappointed
that my, what I thought brief, discussion of religion overshadowed my other points. In
fact, I wasn't even suggesting that Christianity is a theme, rather that "mercy" in its
various forms is. I suppose I am a little curious as to what was thought of the rest of
my paper. However, I suppose I can understand how my lack of development created some
confusion.
I am in no way refuting my grade. I know now that I do need to see you before my final
paper and perhaps work on making my thesis and supporting points more clear.
Thanks for taking the time to read this. I don't think I could have sat around knowing
that I, not only wrote a paper that achieved points I didn't intend to, but that I
projected an image of myself so vastly different from who I am.
Marie-Danielle Rekow
SOOO...he responded with:
Dear Marie-Danielle:
This is odd, and once we get to the bottom of it we can probably laugh
about it together. I remember your paper, which I read late at night, as
well as my ginger reaction to it. If I recall correctly, the paper
proceeds from a biblical quote to argue that the major theme of the text is
mercy in its explicitly religious sense, and ends with a
Christian-inflected interpretation of the ending. Given what you write to
me below, it appears I may have overreacted to what I interpreted as a kind
of religiose style of argumentation that forecloses real analysis. I'm
guessing the blame will be shared. Please send me you paper as an
attachment and I will look over it again and write a new comment that gives
you advice other than what you received; we can then schedule a meeting to
discuss it.
Best,
M. Ziser
LAAAAAAAAAAAAAME!! soo, i responded telling him how ridiculous it was that he assumed that i "explicitly" related mercy to religion. hizell nah. re-read my paper, biznatch...i'll show you ginger.
Basically, I'm curious as to what this guy has been through. Apparently religion has wronged him...or else he wouldn't have been sooooo incredibly blind-sided and ignorant to the points i was ACTUALLY trying to make. College Professors are GRAND.