I do agree but - I remember a graduate seminar from about 2002 where the audience (including one of the deliverer's supervisors) were excessively candid about the student's use of Lacan. It took a long time to then persuade a smart postgrad not to drop out all together - and he's not touched Lacan since. I think he over reacted - but I also think the cut and thrust got too thrusting when we owed him a duty of care.
Put another way, how would you like to be on the receiving end? The chapter really is bad, from a bunch of bad chapters.
Editors should be there to protect writers from themselves - I don't think that here (where they each have two chapters in addition to prelims and appendices) the editors have done their job.
It's finding a way of being completely honest and constructive - there's a germ of a good idea after five pages that could be cut without loss - without just saying, "And here's a wrong headed statement and here's a self-evident mistake and why are there only electronic citations when a small forest has been cleared to make way for the secondary work on the topic?" and sticking the boot in.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-10-28 08:18 am (UTC)Put another way, how would you like to be on the receiving end? The chapter really is bad, from a bunch of bad chapters.
Editors should be there to protect writers from themselves - I don't think that here (where they each have two chapters in addition to prelims and appendices) the editors have done their job.
It's finding a way of being completely honest and constructive - there's a germ of a good idea after five pages that could be cut without loss - without just saying, "And here's a wrong headed statement and here's a self-evident mistake and why are there only electronic citations when a small forest has been cleared to make way for the secondary work on the topic?" and sticking the boot in.