Received a belated birthday card in the mail today... it's from melissa... my TJC classmate... thanks a lot yah =) It's really nice of you haha... And yup, must catch up when I come back in December.
I got back my Fascism (History) essay on Wednesday... and I was in for a rude shock... I got only 68 CR for the essay... I really expected to do well for that one... and somehow I think I've been unfairly marked. It's even more depressing when u consider that the essay is worth 40% of the unit.
So what I did was I went to look for GF, another European history lecturer whom I'm pretty good friends with, and asked him if he could look at the essay and give me his opinion. The next day (Thursday), he told me that "you should go and ask for a re-mark". So that's what I'll just do early next week... cos' I got to go through my tutor, and then only it goes to the unit coordinator. I was quite irritated at the tutor cos' he e-mailed me back (when I e-mailed him to ask if we could "discuss" the mark) that "I'm quite surprised cos' I thought you did quite well."
Hello? A 68 is NOT well, FYI.
But he was happy to meet me next week.... must remind myself to be diplomatique when I talk to him about the essay.
Of course, the danger of a re-mark is that if it turns out lower, you got to accept the result. However, given that I've already asked for a 2nd opinion from another lecturer who's specialisation is also in modern European history, and he encouraged me to get a re-mark, I'm pretty confident of getting a revised, better mark. Well, what I can be thankful for is that at least I know there's someone in the department I'm good friends with.... GF's a really nice guy haha.
You see, my tutor is doing his PhD... not in UWA though, but in Glasgow I think. But he did his undergrad and MA here... he's taken a year off to tutor in UWA. And it seems to be that people in the unit coordinator's classes seem to be getting higher marks. No consistency at all. Not that I'm greedy or what.... but 68 really seems like an insult to me.
The comments were:
This was quite a good critical analysis of Friedrich and Brzezinski's Totalitarian Dictatorship and Autocracy. The essay was generally well-written; although there were times when your syntax failed (I have tried to point this out at relevant points in your essay).
I was generally pleased by your critical analysis of TDA. I agree with you that F & B's model of totalitarianism is 'monolithic' and seems ill-suited to an account of the nature of Italian fascism in particular. I was also pleased to see that you were able to deconstruct their tendency to equate fascism with Marxism, and explicate the contextual reasons which may have led the authors to hold that fascism and Marxism were similar ideologies. However, I think the big problem with TDA is its failure over the question of ideology. They fail to take fascist ideology seriously. I think that is the fundamental flaw which allows them to equate Marxism and fascism. Indeed, one gets the feeling that they are not all that interested in uncovering the nature of fascism. Their analysis of fascism as totalitarianism fails to illuminate important features of fascism, including the nexus between fascism and gender, and fascism and ethnicity.
If I have a major criticism it is that I would have liked you to have talked about the implications of TDA's analysis for debates surrounding the 'generic theory of fascism'. In addition, I would have liked you to have considered the text in relation to debates about the 'origins of fascism' and the 'future of fascism'. I think that the text has definite implications for all these debates and that the text can be usefully critiqued in relation to these debates. This aside, sometimes I would have liked to go into a little more detail in relation to specific points you made (I've tried to indicate where in the text).
Overall I was generally pleased with your essay, and I can see that you made a genuine effort to provide a critical analysis of TDA in relation to debates within fascism studies that we have covered in this course. Keep up the good work. 68 CR.
______________________________________
Anyway, give thanks in all circumstances. Thanks John for reminding me.
Assuming the 68% stands, for this unit:
1. Class Test - 14.55 / 15 (97%)
2. Tutorial Participation - 11.25 / 15 (75%) - sth I'm quite disappointed also... It's not like I don't do my readings, but I'm afraid to speak up. Scared no one understands my England, scared my contribution isn't good. Definitely sth to work on next year.
3. Critical analysis - 27.2 / 40 (68%)
Total - 53 / 70 (75.71% D) - still not too bad... although I need HD across the year (2 sems.) to qualify for a personal letter of congrats. from the Dean.
The remaining 30% comes from an essay that I'm currently doing, due Monday.
"Assess the 'new consensus' definition of fascism as 'a political ideology... whose mythic core... is a palingenetic form of populist ultra-nationalism."
Palin.. what? Palingenesis means a really chim way of saying "re-birth", as distinct from "restoration". haha.