next »

[tee_bee]

Sorry, can't use whole sentences: too revealing. Here's two doozies from MPA students this term:

convalescence to mean convergence
illicit to mean elicit

I know there's more. After all, I am only 50% done with grading.

Is it just me, or are undergraduate levels of illiteracy becoming the norm in terminal Master's programs. All I know is that I've got the rep as the "writing hard@ss now." And I am proud of it.

[t_r_b]

Well, for people who don't know the difference between fiction and nonfiction, who don't have any clue why historians do what they do, and who deep in their hearts believe anything they haven't personally experienced is boring while ancient history is anything before they were born, I have to go with a solid "Yep, pretty hard to grasp".

I learned the difference between fiction and nonfiction in elementary school. The distinction was reinforced repeatedly during the junior high and high school years. Are these terms really that unfamiliar to the general public? Heck, you walk into any public library and you've got a sign on one side that says fiction and another on the other side that says non-fiction. Of course, most folks seem to ignore both signs and go straight for the sign that says "DVDs," so maybe I expect too much.

In any case, I've got another sentence, about the same book. Three of them, actually, from the same student:

"Although entertainment is a reason many authors write novels, this novel serves another purpose to inform readers of an important event that occurred in history.... I also believe that there could have been more of a story about how x killed y. After I read that part, I was wishing that there was more for me to read about what what happened."

This student got a pretty good grade on the assignment, notwithstanding that she too is under the impression that this work of history is a "novel." But I love that her primary criticism of the book amounts to, "why didn't he give us more blood and gore?"

Incidentally, the killing of y is a central event in the book and is described in pretty vivid detail. But perhaps my student wanted something more like, "blood and brains oozed out of y's cracked skull as x coolly wiped off the hatchet with which she had split it open."

[polly_mer]

Well, for people who don't know the difference between fiction and nonfiction, who don't have any clue why historians do what they do, and who deep in their hearts believe anything they haven't personally experienced is boring while ancient history is anything before they were born, I have to go with a solid "Yep, pretty hard to grasp".

I learned the difference between fiction and nonfiction in elementary school. The distinction was reinforced repeatedly during the junior high and high school years. Are these terms really that unfamiliar to the general public? Heck, you walk into any public library and you've got a sign on one side that says fiction and another on the other side that says non-fiction. Of course, most folks seem to ignore both signs and go straight for the sign that says "DVDs," so maybe I expect too much.

Ah, the simplicity of a man who hasn't had the joy of visiting our public library, where the paperback fiction is stored in whirly holders at the ends of the aisles devoted to nonfiction.  To be persnickety, some fiction is filed in the section with the big Nonfiction sign, even in normal libraries.  Under the Dewey decimal system, the 800s are devoted to literature with graphic novels and comic strips filed in the 700s.  We don't even have to push on the numbers where things like Whitley Strieber's encounters with aliens are filed.

In any case, I've got another sentence, about the same book. Three of them, actually, from the same student:

"Although entertainment is a reason many authors write novels, this novel serves another purpose to inform readers of an important event that occurred in history.... I also believe that there could have been more of a story about how x killed y. After I read that part, I was wishing that there was more for me to read about what what happened."

This student got a pretty good grade on the assignment, notwithstanding that she too is under the impression that this work of history is a "novel." But I love that her primary criticism of the book amounts to, "why didn't he give us more blood and gore?"

Incidentally, the killing of y is a central event in the book and is described in pretty vivid detail. But perhaps my student wanted something more like, "blood and brains oozed out of y's cracked skull as x coolly wiped off the hatchet with which she had split it open."

Or perhaps she should have read the whole work instead of skimming the parts that Wikipedia and Cliff notes indicated were important.

[t_r_b]

Or perhaps she should have read the whole work instead of skimming the parts that Wikipedia and Cliff notes indicated were important.

Oh, I think she read the book. The rest of her submission (apart from the part I quoted) was pretty good and on-topic.

Here is the latest winner:

The book they're writing about "is based merely on speculation and uses detailed documentation from the [specific archive]."

???????

This one gets a gold star for actually looking up the name of the archive in the bibliography. Why then she thinks the book is based merely on speculation, I have no idea.

[polly_mer]

Or perhaps she should have read the whole work instead of skimming the parts that Wikipedia and Cliff notes indicated were important.

Oh, I think she read the book. The rest of her submission (apart from the part I quoted) was pretty good and on-topic.

Here is the latest winner:

The book they're writing about "is based merely on speculation and uses detailed documentation from the [specific archive]."

???????

This one gets a gold star for actually looking up the name of the archive in the bibliography. Why then she thinks the book is based merely on speculation, I have no idea.

Perhaps speculation does not mean what she thinks it means?

[scheherazade]

From an evaluation of a work of history, for a history class:

"If he would have focused less on all the pointless facts and history of the time it would have made for a better novel."

<bangs head slowly, repeatedly against desk>

Sacrilege!!!!!!!

My student's opinion, or my head-banging?

The opinion, of course.  The head-banging is a natural response to such utter cluelessness.

But, history tells a story, no?
TD

Every time a person says this, a historian dies.  And whatever you do, don't say that history is like "his story," because that's a lethal attack against the crowd of historians gathered to look at the first one's body.

[t_r_b]

Every time a person says this, a historian dies.  

Don't tell our secret! If the political scientists find out, we'll be toast.

Perhaps speculation does not mean what she thinks it means?

Perhaps, but does "merely" also not mean what she thinks it means?

Another one, along the same lines as the previous one, from an otherwise excellent submission:

The author "drew very few assumptions about events that occurred, however, when he did make those assumptions he used hard evidence to develop his theories."

?????

Judging by the rest of her submission, this one suffers from that unfortunate malady I call "fact-interpretation dichotomy syndrome." There are facts, and then there are interpretations, and facts you can trust and interpretations are essentially unfounded assumptions, even the ones founded on hard evidence.

[scheherazade]

Every time a person says this, a historian dies.  

Don't tell our secret! If the political scientists find out, we'll be toast.

Quick!  Clap together your translation dictionaries! Clap, I say!

Judging by the rest of her submission, this one suffers from that unfortunate malady I call "fact-interpretation dichotomy syndrome." There are facts, and then there are interpretations, and facts you can trust and interpretations are essentially unfounded assumptions, even the ones founded on hard evidence.

I read that as an assumption on your part.

[t_r_b]

Judging by the rest of her submission, this one suffers from that unfortunate malady I call "fact-interpretation dichotomy syndrome." There are facts, and then there are interpretations, and facts you can trust and interpretations are essentially unfounded assumptions, even the ones founded on hard evidence.

I read that as an assumption on your part.

You are entirely correct, as usual, but as least I have hard evidence to back it up.

[conjugate]

Every time a person says this, a historian dies.  And whatever you do, don't say that history is like "his story," because that's a lethal attack against the crowd of historians gathered to look at the first one's body.

I had no idea Herodotus's remains were so popular.  You historians disturb me sometimes.  (Okay, I know what you meant.  But surely there is a distinction between a "story" and a "novel," as in "a true story.")

Concerning T_R_B's other post, perhaps "drew very few assumptions" was meant to be "drew very few conclusions," which would mean simply a misused word?  I'd be much less puzzled by the sentence if that were the case.

[scheherazade]

You historians disturb me sometimes.

Only sometimes?  We have to kick it up a notch.  (Oh, and thanks for the new tag line!)

[dellaroux]

Incidentally, the killing of y is a central event in the book and is described in pretty vivid detail. But perhaps my student wanted something more like, "blood and brains oozed out of y's cracked skull as x coolly wiped off the hatchet with which she had split it open."

Lizzie Borden?

[polly_mer]

Incidentally, the killing of y is a central event in the book and is described in pretty vivid detail. But perhaps my student wanted something more like, "blood and brains oozed out of y's cracked skull as x coolly wiped off the hatchet with which she had split it open."

Lizzie Borden?

Lizzie gets a bum rap because she was acquitted of all charges.

Several years ago, I read a fascinating, nonfiction account of the incident so it looks as though she probably did do it, but she was not convicted and she returned to live in the house after the trial.

You historians disturb me sometimes.

Only sometimes?  We have to kick it up a notch.  (Oh, and thanks for the new tag line!)

You're going to have to go some to beat out the lit crit people for disturbing.  Most of the time, historians make sense to me.  But those lit crit people give me the creeps.

[t_r_b]

But surely there is a distinction between a "story" and a "novel," as in "a true story."

Quite right. History, as I noted above, generally takes the form of narrative, which makes it a kind of storytelling: a story grounded in evidence about the past. Some works of history mimic the style of fictional narrative in various ways (and vice versa). But the nature and method and purpose of historians' evidence-based storytelling is very different from the usual connotations of "storytelling." Even the telling of "true stories" is often very different from academic history, in that the former allows for considerable creative license for entertainment purposes, while the latter places greater emphasis on methodological rigor and adherence to evidence.

Concerning T_R_B's other post, perhaps "drew very few assumptions" was meant to be "drew very few conclusions," which would mean simply a misused word?  I'd be much less puzzled by the sentence if that were the case.

I'd be much less puzzled if that were the case as well. In fact, if that was the case, the student was trying to make a rather sophisticated and insightful observation about the book.

Lizzie Borden?

Not quite, but the two cases bear some similarities.

Most of the time, historians make sense to me.  But those lit crit people give me the creeps.

Word.

[grasshopper]

Judging by the rest of her submission, this one suffers from that unfortunate malady I call "fact-interpretation dichotomy syndrome." There are facts, and then there are interpretations, and facts you can trust and interpretations are essentially unfounded assumptions, even the ones founded on hard evidence.

Yeah. It sounds like somewhere along the line, someone tried to explain to these tender souls the problems with positivist history, threw in something about the impossibility of objectivity in interpretation, and this is what they came up with.