Back on Track.


I submitted the selfsame draft to my second supervisor and received, for the most part, a glowing review, stating that my organization is clear, my knowledge of the subject extensive, and even that he agrees with most of my points. Okay, then. So maybe it wasn’t the shite paper I had thought and been led to believe it was.

*deep sigh of relief and renewed sense of purpose*

It goes to show the differences in personalities of University professors, what they hold to be important, and how their own personal tastes play a large part in their advice and grading. It’s not always objectivity ‘round these parts. I’m pleased and thankful that he took the time to go over the draft with a fine-toothed comb and tell me his honest thoughts. The one bit of criticism I must pay attention to is my flowery and “enthusiastic” sense of style, which needs to be curtailed in the face of scholarly study. That was really the only complaint that he had, so I suppose my prose shall have to be limited to forums such as this. After all, History needs to remain boring, right?

On another note:
We had the Scottish History departmental Christmas party last night, and there were lecturers and professors stumbling along with the recent doctoral students and postgrads, bloated with alcohol and snacks and acting years below their ages, as they absolutely should. The best part of this strange societal and almost ritualistic behavior is that we naturally seemed to break up into historical groups, with the Medievalists lingering in the dark hallway drinking red wine and bemoaning the world, the Modernists just getting absolutely throttled in the kitchen on Miller, and the Early Modernists (of which I am undoubtedly a member of) who went outside in the chill to pollute their lungs and speak of radicalism in its many forms. VERY interesting.

I met a few good people, including two PhD students, one directly before me in his period of interest and the other directly after me. One of the boys has the same two supervisors as I, so we commiserated and traded notes, like any good, subversive muck-stirrers should. Out of the mass of academic-minded critics of Whig/Tory politics that I’ve spoken to here at Uni, these guys aren’t afraid to admit their proclivities to thinking outside of the box and tout their beliefs based on passion and idealism. It’s absolutely ridiculous to use these standards today, but for our period it works *just* fine. In any event, we’re certainly going to hook up and get some drinks soon, and maybe along the way we’ll hang a Hanoverian or quarter a Quaker. 🙂

A few proofs of idiocy and fun-itude:

Buccleuch Place and the row of departmental offices, with the Crags looming in the background.

Very early in the night, before drool and incoherence. See, we’re normal, just like the gang over in Sociology…

Things get a bit more interesting as more Fightin’ Juice is imbibed. Can you pick out the subverts?

Not quite drunk, but certainly better off than the Modernists…

7 Responses to “Back on Track.”

  1. dougygyro Says:
    December 5th, 2003 at 6:52 pm

    "After all, History needs to remain boring, right?"
    Heh, I *SO* have that problem… finals are looming nigh and I'm stuck in that over-caffeinated, sleep-deprived, slap-happy mode where I need to closely watch my writing style so that my normal snide sarcasm doesn't creep into my term papers. I've got a 15-18 pager due on monday, discussing the survivals of Irish/Celtic Christianity in mainland Britain following the Synod of Whiby.
    Lovely. Who needs to sleep?
    I'm glad your second reading went better than your first. And it is indeed quite interesting how the various subdisciplines tend to coagulate.

  2. FunkyPlaid Says:
    December 5th, 2003 at 6:58 pm

    …discussing the survivals of Irish/Celtic Christianity in mainland Britain following the Synod of Whiby.
    Why does this turn me on?
    Thanks for the kind words. I knew it wasn't *that* bad! And I heartily wish you great fortune and clarity on yours, my friend.

  3. dougygyro Says:
    December 5th, 2003 at 9:40 pm

    Umm… that would be because you are a geek. Plain and simple. It's no problem, because so am I… as well as the majority of people I tend to associate with, come to think of it.
    I in turn thank you for your support. It's nice to be able to co-miserate with someone on the same basic subject. I hope to be where you are now (figuratively, sequentially, and geographically!!!) in not the not too distant future.
    By the way, Leo and his kid (whom I've never met, and as such always forget his name) send their regards again.

  4. agntprovocateur Says:
    December 5th, 2003 at 7:49 pm

    like a medical diagnosis… always get a second opinion!

  5. original_aj Says:
    December 6th, 2003 at 2:01 am

    Of course academic history needs to be boring – if you jazz it up you're obviously trying to disguise a lack of content, or being populist. Next thing you'll be writing a book which actually sells or having a TV series or something, which they could never admit to being jealous of…..

  6. FunkyPlaid Says:
    December 6th, 2003 at 5:52 am

    Yah. Exactly. God forbid!
    I've been having a very difficult time getting the dept to consider the veracity of a certain non-academic historian's three *excellent* books on the Forty-Five. It's taken his mention in a new fabulous book by *another* non-academic to even begin to make a dent…and even then, he's dubiously regarded.

  7. original_aj Says:
    December 6th, 2003 at 6:01 am

    We sometimes have fun at re-enactment events when some academic turns up and we have a good conversation with them, until they find out we're only amateurs and then they get all huffy and patronising. Not to mention the way they react when are argument against some theory is "We tried it and it doesn't work"

Leave a Reply