I'm a little worried this means there really *is* a substantive problem, but he's not telling me what it is. This professor is known to be a crazy perfectionist, though.
Surely he'd tell you if there were a huge problem, though, especially this early. I might be able to understand if it were next April and he just wanted to get you through the defense, but now you actually have time to work through any giant holes.
I kind of hate you. My introductions always suck -- I always have eight million concepts I need to define before I can get to my actual thesis statement.
Oh. Well, yeah, I don't generally have that problem. I had to go a bit into the history of the aisling as a concept, and I did an incredibly brief overview (like, two pages) of the current state of Boland criticism, but that was about it. I spent most of my mental energy and space on working through why her representations of women are not essentializing, while the ones she criticizes are (I was seeing this as bedrock for my argument, and I guess as almost a miniargument in itself). But yeah, no special concepts a reader would have to be familiar with first; it was more like I had to define my point of view before I could get to the meat of my argument, if that makes sense.
Huh. Kenyon was the first time I remember having a legitimate discussion of a text.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2009-09-08 03:11 am (UTC)Surely he'd tell you if there were a huge problem, though, especially this early. I might be able to understand if it were next April and he just wanted to get you through the defense, but now you actually have time to work through any giant holes.
I kind of hate you. My introductions always suck -- I always have eight million concepts I need to define before I can get to my actual thesis statement.
Oh. Well, yeah, I don't generally have that problem. I had to go a bit into the history of the aisling as a concept, and I did an incredibly brief overview (like, two pages) of the current state of Boland criticism, but that was about it. I spent most of my mental energy and space on working through why her representations of women are not essentializing, while the ones she criticizes are (I was seeing this as bedrock for my argument, and I guess as almost a miniargument in itself). But yeah, no special concepts a reader would have to be familiar with first; it was more like I had to define my point of view before I could get to the meat of my argument, if that makes sense.
Huh. Kenyon was the first time I remember having a legitimate discussion of a text.
Wow.