(no subject)
Oct. 27th, 2003 11:05 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
And I am done witht the paper. I am so very pleased abotu that, I was terrified of not doing well I had such hopes.... And I really like the professor, and want to do well for him. I want to do well for all the classes, but for some reason I am compelled to do extra well for this class. There are times when worrying about whether or not a person thinks you're smart enough can be beneficial.... In this case, I get very good grades. It kinda relates to people calling me stupid throughout most of elementary and high school, because I never paid any attention, and never knew what was going on. Oh yeah, and I can't multiply to save my life. Or type, or program, or do anything that anyone around me has ever been really interested in. So the things I was good at, and the ways in which I was smart enough, always seemed somehow invalid, because no one cared. So now that people do care what I know, I have to prove that it's enough or something, that I'm not a fuck-up or an idiot. I'm not particularly eloquent, and I think I'm a terrible writer (mostly though, I think this is because so many people said I was horrible), and there really isn't much academicly that I really feel I'm good at. Except taking tests, I'm generally very good at that. Generally. I'll get to that. So I have to prove myself. To them and my parents, but just as much for myself. I need to knwo that I'm not an idiot, because that's generally how I feel--stupid, useless, and otherwise a waste of carbon. And a font of equally useless information.
So anyway, the paper. We read Beowulf on class, as just about everyone has to sooner or later. And after a quiz in which we had to write a 10 minute essay on what is a monster, the professor suggested that my response might well be the source of a good paper idea. So I borrowed Grendel from him, and took copious notes, and noticed many interesting points, most of which supported my ideas, that monsters are necessary as a tool with which a class defines themselves, and a thing with which to unite people against something. And then there was the anarchist revolutionary, who was the friend of the boy who was to usurp Hrothgar's throne. Hrothulf himself was spouting revolutionary poetry, nad generally amusing me, and there was the priest I quoted in a previous entry. The original intent was to tie it in to modern politics, but it got too long, so the allusions were more subtle. Two words, really. But it was enough. So my argument was more or less as follows: Monsters are a construct designed to a) unite various groups and individuals behind a single cause, b) maintain the status quo and the glory of the current prevailing power, and c) draw attention from the prevailing power's faults and his own monstrosity. Conclusion: (And I hate doing concousions, I tend to write such that I could pick from several and the body would still support it, once I can actually decide what it was I was saying.) Sooner or later the monsters will revolt, whether they be peasants or dragons. They will subvert the structure, and then they will be on top, and you will be reviled. And then the cycle starts again. So while monsters do well for the short-term, they do very poorly for longterm conflict management.
And tests. I'm dropping SF, I can't keep up. I cna't afford the books, and when I have them thereisn't enough time to read them, and if' Im going to be in literature classes, I'd rather be in the ones that definately are required than one that isn't. And we took the midterm today. I *so* bombed it. There were 25 quotes, we chose 20, identified author and title and significance, in 30 minutes. And they were *really* obscure. I read some of the books, and I recognised nothing. I think I answered 15 or so, and not very well. THose count for 1/3 of the grade, as well as 2 essays due on Monday, and I havne't read enough of the books to do well. So I'm dropping, This is by far the single worst testy I ever took. And I thought it was deeply unfair. They didn't have to be so bloody obscure.... The sad thing is that I was kinda enjoying it. Ok, so only sort of. I'm not really fond of SF, and now even less.... At least, of the stuff that's generally considered classic. It was good, but it didn't catch at all. And some of it just outright annoyed me. Yes, I'm justifying. I'm also taking 17 credits at the moment, which is not a good idea this semester. Too much stress. If I drop, I'll be down to 14, which is easliyl manageable, and I'll catch up over the summer or something.
So anyway, the paper. We read Beowulf on class, as just about everyone has to sooner or later. And after a quiz in which we had to write a 10 minute essay on what is a monster, the professor suggested that my response might well be the source of a good paper idea. So I borrowed Grendel from him, and took copious notes, and noticed many interesting points, most of which supported my ideas, that monsters are necessary as a tool with which a class defines themselves, and a thing with which to unite people against something. And then there was the anarchist revolutionary, who was the friend of the boy who was to usurp Hrothgar's throne. Hrothulf himself was spouting revolutionary poetry, nad generally amusing me, and there was the priest I quoted in a previous entry. The original intent was to tie it in to modern politics, but it got too long, so the allusions were more subtle. Two words, really. But it was enough. So my argument was more or less as follows: Monsters are a construct designed to a) unite various groups and individuals behind a single cause, b) maintain the status quo and the glory of the current prevailing power, and c) draw attention from the prevailing power's faults and his own monstrosity. Conclusion: (And I hate doing concousions, I tend to write such that I could pick from several and the body would still support it, once I can actually decide what it was I was saying.) Sooner or later the monsters will revolt, whether they be peasants or dragons. They will subvert the structure, and then they will be on top, and you will be reviled. And then the cycle starts again. So while monsters do well for the short-term, they do very poorly for longterm conflict management.
And tests. I'm dropping SF, I can't keep up. I cna't afford the books, and when I have them thereisn't enough time to read them, and if' Im going to be in literature classes, I'd rather be in the ones that definately are required than one that isn't. And we took the midterm today. I *so* bombed it. There were 25 quotes, we chose 20, identified author and title and significance, in 30 minutes. And they were *really* obscure. I read some of the books, and I recognised nothing. I think I answered 15 or so, and not very well. THose count for 1/3 of the grade, as well as 2 essays due on Monday, and I havne't read enough of the books to do well. So I'm dropping, This is by far the single worst testy I ever took. And I thought it was deeply unfair. They didn't have to be so bloody obscure.... The sad thing is that I was kinda enjoying it. Ok, so only sort of. I'm not really fond of SF, and now even less.... At least, of the stuff that's generally considered classic. It was good, but it didn't catch at all. And some of it just outright annoyed me. Yes, I'm justifying. I'm also taking 17 credits at the moment, which is not a good idea this semester. Too much stress. If I drop, I'll be down to 14, which is easliyl manageable, and I'll catch up over the summer or something.