How to Comment on a Graduate Student Paper

I found these comments in my file for the theory class.

“Critical Review of...”

Rewrite

Let’s start with the title: it could be a bit more revelatory and interesting—a minor issue. The intro is strong, but the last sentence of the 1st paragraph is weak. Here is the place where you could insert a strong thesis statement, but instead you simply announce that your paper is going to comment on the article by B. Something that we already know from your title. Likewise, the concluding sentence of the essay is weak: you apologize for not dealing with every aspect of the essay, instead of taking advantage of the final position to highlight your own strongest point, whatever you feel that to be. The time to make this kind of statement is early in a paper, as a kind of captatio benevolentiae.

You might need more context in the second paragraph. What exactly was B reacting against? I would say there are two main traditions: neo-classical poetics in Europe did not really consider the novel as an artistic genre because it was a new, upstart form that did not form part of the classical canon. Secondly, B was writing partly in reaction to the Russian formalists. If you don’t see this context, it becomes hard to see why B establishes the dichotomy between poetry and prose. Poetry (poetics) entails a certain narrower, classical view of genres. I don’t think that it as easy as you assume to extend his “prosaics” to the realm of “poetics.” I also think you need to consider the historical development of the novel as a genre.

In the third paragraph: it is unlikely that B knew Gramsci. You should look up the actual dates of publications of Gramsci’s work rather than just saying that you don’t know whether he knew Gramsci or not. Good summary here, though.

Page 5: “Essentially a genre theorist of the novel, I...” Who is the genre theorist, you or B?

You make good points throughout, but a better thesis statement and conclusion would result in a better, more cohesive paper.

***

Final Grade A -

Most of my previous comments have been addressed. Generally, this is a strong paper, building on strengths of the first version. My main critique at this point would be that the paper could test B’s theory against real examples of novelistic and poetic discourses. It seems a little abstract, too theoretical, in a way. The reader doesn’t really have a sense of what B’s theory would look like when set in motion. The paper could go even further in the direction of proposing an interesting idea about Bakhtin’s theory.

I didn't give a grade for the first version, because I want attention on substance not on "why did I get this particular grade." I didn't have to change any information to publish this on my blog because there is nothing personal here. Everything is about the work, nothing about the writer as human being.

I also gave some interlinear comments that I didn't save.

Now I'm feeling I should have kicked his or her ass even more. But beyond a certain point is becomes counter-productive.

How to Read a Conference Paper

1st of all, I need a written text of approximately 20 minutes in duration. I like my actual text to be shorter, to allow for some extemporaneous remarks. I never use powerpoint unless I am analyzing an actual painting or image. I never, ever put text I am going to read on a powerpoint slide. I'll use a handout if analyzing a poem.

Nobody ever complained my talk was too short

I won't improvise a talk, because I have points I want to make in a particular order, and certain quotes that have to be read into the record verbatim.

I don't write my text as I would an article. I write it in an oral style. As I read it, I often change the wording to make it even more oral. I don't care if I stumble a bit while doing this, or am not smooth at every moment. I never will be anyway, since I will stumble over a text read verbatim too.

Eye contact is key. Reading a text off the page almost guarantees that you won't be connecting with your audience. So I either know my text so well I don't have to be looking at it at all times, or I use enough extemporaneous remarks so that my nose is not in the text. The audience won't mind if you are reading (since that is standard procedure) as long as you still make an actual connection to the listeners.

I'll often move between verbatim reading and paraphrase. I'll find a better way to say what's on the page. But if I feel myself floundering, the page is a good anchor.

It is very easy to disengage from a speaker who is not looking at the audience. Because the speaker will never notice, so it's barely even rude to stop listening. By the same token it's hard not to pay attention to a speaker who is looking at you and talking to you.

Extemporaneous or improvised remarks can be planned. The important thing is that they don't seem to be read straight off the page.

When I read a quote from someone else, that is a dramatic reading. I milk it a lot. I also use voice and intonation to make my point during the entire talk.

I am not perfect or smooth, but I think I am more interesting to listen to than 90% of presenters. This is a combination of having ideas and having an effective delivery. I could work twice as hard as that and be in the 99th percentile, but I don't need to do that.

It's a little like writing. If you take pride in your writing, or speaking, you will already be better than almost everyone else. The average is pretty low.

It's bullshit to say that some people aren't "auditory learners" and hence can't pay attention to a talk with no visuals. Nobody likes a boring lecture by a disengaged speaker. And by the same token even somebody who doesn't normally like lectures will be engaged by an engaging speaker.

I am a bad listener because I know I can do it better than the guy standing up there. I want them to be listening to me and not to that guy.

Perspectivism

Once in New York after a poetry reading, I started to talk to one guy. It went something like this.

"Yeah, a guy came to my university to give a talk about visual poetry and was so boring. He just gave encyclopedia type definitions of visual poetry, concrete poetry. I finally had to interrupt him and tell him to get to the point."

Then, about half an hour later, I found myself talking to another guy.

"I gave a talk on visual poetry last week and this guy was so rude to me..."

Funny

We know you can read.

I almost always bring a paper to read and also engage the audience by my extemporaneous wit as well. I never use powerpoint in a presentation, and the idea that that would be more dynamic is pretty silly. It is odd that we forget our performance skills at a conference==something we would never do in the classroom.

I often squirm impatiently during MLA-style talks. One commentator to the CHE story cite above makes a good point. Just if you pay enough attention to engaging your audience a little bit, you will be way ahead of most people. I am far from dynamic, but I have the reputation of giving rather dynamic presentation, just because of the weakness of the "competition."

Scare Quotes

I tend to take them "out" the second day as I re-read what I've written.

Today I saw Baudelaire’s line “Hypcocrite lecteur, mon semblable, mon frère” quoted as “Mon hypocrite lecteur, mon frère, mon semblable.” Also, Mallarmé’s “Un coup de dés” cited as a “sonnet.” WTF? These examples from critics I respect (otherwise). It show that none of us is immune from boneheaded mistakes. As though Baudelaire would put an extra syllable in his alexandrine!

A critic I know credited another professor (also a friend of mine) in her book for telling her that that line came from Baudelaire and was also in the Waste Land. Well yeah. I would be too embarrassed to admit that I didn’t know that. Come on. Why should the reader give credence to a scholar who has to be told that? I admire the lack of ego, in a way. Thanks to Professor Y who told me that Nevada was east of California. The impulse to acknowledge help is a good one, but you cannot undermine your own authority past a certain point.

Here's the Question

If I choose Gadamer over Heidegger as my critical metalanguage, then am I not retreating from what I claim as the model of thinking poetically that I want to claim for Lorca? Gadamer seems a little too safe. I am stepping back from the late Heidegger where philosophy and poetry merge. But that is precisely what I'm after.

My answer:

A Heideggerian "reading" of Lorca would be deadly. I mean a reading that used his language of care, facticity, etc... The reader would say, "fine, I suppose that's ok if you are already a Heideggerian, but what if I'm not?" That's what I would say myself. What I am after is a kind of thinking in which you can paraphrase or translate, in which you can unlock Lorquian duende and compare it to other things. Without that, it is just inertly what it is.

Gadamer explains how you can understand something. Strategically, I need to retreat to this position of clarity rather than immersing myself in a mystificatory language. That's what criticism is, for me: stepping back to a position of clarity, deciding what can be known and what can't.