Critiques

Michael Kadish

Gabe,

One of the annoying things about critiquing papers is that every once in a while you get a paper that you can offer nothing to improve it, it stands so well by itself. I could point out little details, I think you should have put her quote first, then your response to her quote, in that order, or that I think the sacrificial chipmunk on the first page should have another adjective for better humor, or that our generation isn't the first to go to analysts. We're just the first crack-baby generation. Things like that, stupid things.

The other things I could advise you on are a little more useful. When you stated that "I could not begin to understand�" and then went on with most of the paper to not only understand it, but to explain it, it was a bit strange, either clarify, or elaborate.

The other little thing; if you look at the keyboard, at the ASDF line, you will notice a button after the quotation mark key, that says "enter" on it. This is a very useful key, and should be used more than the once per page that you used it. You do not speak like I do. You take breaths in between concepts when you are telling a story or explaining. Try to do it on paper.

But, the thing is, like I said before, there's no real advice I can give. Therefore, I give you a big fat "F" because you have intentionally forsaken the important second part of the process, to let the other students offer suggestions. To get a better grade next time, follow these steps:

1) Use "it" more.

2) Don't clarify so much

3) Use more pronouns

4) Make sure the pronouns do not match in plural\singular

5) Misspell words

6) Insult the reader

7) Make statements the reader will immediately find fault with

8) Eliminate any argument or meaning.

9) Repeat yourself

10) Mix metaphors

11) Create images that make absolutely no sense, or have no relevance. For example, your question, Why write unless I want people to shout from the rooftops proclaiming my writing abilities? makes sense with the reader. Try to avoid that.

12) Either all humor or none. Try not to stay in middle ground.

13) When using humor, think Steve Martin\Robin Williams rather than Dave Barry\Jerry Seinfeld. I.e. Strange and unexpected, not people's true feelings and observations

Please follow at least some of these rules next time to give the other students more things to write about.

Vera,

OK, I have to be honest with you, I don't think I completely understood this paper. It is very much in the same style as Amy, and I think she will do a better job of analyzing the paper. I am sure there are that being quintlingual gives you more experience in this image that you are describing, and you were able to describe it rather well in a way that enables, well, Americans to understand the transitions when going through lingual transitions.

But�

I truly lost the point after a while. I understood the first part with your descriptions of living at home with your mother, I thought that besides from a few mixed metaphors it handled the subject beautifully. After that, when you got into the animals, and then into the Jewish culture, then into art & Nietze, I felt thoroughly stranded. I was lost.

I don't want to tell you which to eliminate, or which to make easier connections to, I don't want to appear a Philistine. But, I think I can safely say that you should take the animals, and then into the Jewish culture, then art and Nietze, if they are a focus of your paper, which art and Nietze, at least seem to be, they should be mentioned earlier on.

I think you should also take one set of footnotes, and stick with it. You footnoted, parenthisized sources, and commented in footnotes on different occasions. Pick one, stick with it. Also, if you footnote the reader, mention the actual source. (extremely trivial)

I think my main problem was the connections. Like I said before, you went from languages, to animals, to "Jewish rebels", then into art, and Nietze, I think that whereas some of the individual links were there (language to Jewish tradition was clear.) in many cases, it was hard to determine why one thought followed the next. (Particularly when suddenly truth is the opposite of art.)

Again, like I said to Amy, this is probably just me not being used to artsy wrting.