#academic texts

[dessathealien]

Reading a book for a test this saturday. In essence, about the complications of defining a teaching curriculum here in Brazil. It's a leftist book, but the way of writing makes me go like "ah yeah, rich leftists that never studied in a public school or cleaned their own houses or cooked their own food". I may be totally wrong, but the writing itself really makes me think so.

Then the APEX is bringing another author to defend a point and they choose a part about how the author says that the soldiers in WWI didn't talk about what they saw when they returned because "they became more empoverished in their communication experiences because of the horrors seen" to argue that this made it impossible for these men to transmit knowledge through oral tradition and I'm like "oh sure the historical raising of boys to find it harder to talk about their feelings because it's a Woman's thing PLUS PTSD had nothing to do with it".

Seriously, this book... some things I'm like "sure okay" but others have me raging at the sheer oversimplification some authors do of certain things to support their points lmao

Also I'm again at my utter AAAAARGH with badly written academic texts (and this was PUBLISHED AS A BOOK) This book suffers from bloating and running in circles and not making it clear sometimes if its criticizing or defending something and sometimes bringing up something but not properly using it, while other times making wild jumps from something to justify this other view without really offering evidence for it.

I remember studying in International Relations and some texts were amazing but others made me want to gouge my eyes out because "oh important intelectual and theoretical base for us" BUT THE GUY CLEARLY WROTE IN AN OVER THE TOP WAY THAT MADE IT ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE TO GET WHAT HE WAS WRITING.

And I'm not talking about summaries or simplification, I'm talking about organizing the freaking ideas and connecting them in some semblance of order that makes comprehension of the logical reasoning possible, and a lot of the authors we read missed this memo.

It doesn't help that before I made a bacharel in Biology and oh boy, if we wrote like this THERE, we were in trouble.

[halloweenreaper]

Anytime I'm concerned about fucking something up, I remember that this made it into an academic text and I suddenly don't feel so bad anymore.

[eli-zab3th]

Do you know that feeling of when academic texts actually want you to learn something and want to help you learn something and you feel like you're in this together, just you, the text, and the authors?

[feministhorrorarchive]

Julia Kristeva’s Powers of Horror: An Essay on Abjection examines the subject of abjection, in which Kristeva draws on the theories of Sigmund Freud and Jacques Lacan to examine horror, marginalization, castration, the phallic signifier, and other concepts that pertain to feminist criticism and queer theory in the context of the horror genre.

[buckmebuchanan]

Academic life got so much easier for me when I realised that long written work does not require you to know everything about the subject, you don't even need to know much, as long as you know like, 4 very specific points and work around them, assessors think you know your shit.

Assessors gotta read a lot of work in a little time. All you gotta be is coherent, understand the general arguments of like two sides, and a couple of very specific tidbits and assessors will pass you. Anything more is dependant on what grade you shooting for.

[thosefunnyones]

[feministhorrorarchive]

Barbara Creed’s The Monstrous-Feminine challenges other critical writings on horror films that conceptualize women as victims through feminist psychoanalytic critique. She analyses the seven “faces'' of the monstrous-feminine: the archaic mother, monstrous womb, vampire, witch, possessed body, monstrous mother and castrator.

[feministhorrorarchive]

Carol J. Clover’s book, Men, Women, and Chainsaws: Gender in the Modern Horror Film, is a cultural critique of gender in slasher and rape-revenge films from a feminist perspective. Although many believe that these genres are meant to offer sadistic pleasure to their audiences, Clover argues that these films are designed to align spectators with female victims, who she refers to as the "final girls," rather than male spectators, especially when they ultimately defeat their oppressors.