Having written several drafts of the extended essay, I sent iteration nine to a limited number of students last week, mostly to people who have written one themselves although not exclusively. The feedback was excellent and helpful and I made some changes based on suggestions. I will share the essay more widely now and welcome any comments – although won’t be making any adjustments for a few weeks as I need to let it rest and look with fresh eyes after returning to BOW (except for changing mad malapropisms that might be identified, or very obvious typos/editing hangovers)
Feedback:
Firstly, an exceptionally well researched and thought out essay. I feel somewhat inadequate to comment on it. However, it reads well and the arguments are well made and substantiated. There are a few instances where you use the first person singular and I would not, but I know you like that and today it seems to be quite acceptable in academic writing. As a general feeling I would say that the first 2/3rds seemed better than the last 1/3rd, but that is just a feeling and no more. There are a couple of small things in ‘Track Changes’ that I was not sure of.
A couple of other thoughts,
- An abstract will help as it will succinctly provide the reader with a thread they can hold onto as they read. I feel this is necessary as you are discussing a difficult concept for most of us and we need that stability.
- I cannot recall who your CS tutor is and wonder if they are really well qualified to comment other than on structure etc. I am not sure of the OCA rules, but this essay could be published in a journal where it would be peer reviewed by qualified persons. Something you should consider. You may have to make some modifications but the bulk of it is there.
In terms of referencing, the only comment I can make is that where you have:
: Carlo Rovelli writes in Reality is Not What it Seems, ‘Our culture is foolish to keep science and poetry separated: they are two tools to open our eyes to the beauty and complexity of the world’ (2017: 88).
you need to place the citation directly are the surname as:
: Carlo Rovelli (2017: 88) writes in Reality is Not What it Seems, ‘Our culture is foolish to keep science and poetry separated: they are two tools to open our eyes to the beauty and complexity of the world’.
There are quite a lot of instances like this.
Finally, make sure you are OK on word count – I did a global check 8920, but not subtracting all the references etc.
I’ve read it – quickly and without the level of attention it deserves, and would be required to ‘critique’ – and I don’t think you need to be in any way reticent about sharing it more widely. It is intelligent, well-informed and interesting – dense, yes, as befits an essay at this level and at this stage, but readable. We usually talk about form matching content in the context of works of art, but it applies to your essay – inevitably. It is ‘entangled’ – as befits its subject matter – but I think you have managed, heroically (!
), to hang on, by your fingertips, to a sense of of focus and direction – well done, it can’t have been easy. And I think I would only caution against too much temptation to overly amend between Assignment Four and the final version. It would be easy to be tempted – but I would rely on tutor feedback to guide you how far to go.
), to hang on, by your fingertips, to a sense of of focus and direction – well done, it can’t have been easy. And I think I would only caution against too much temptation to overly amend between Assignment Four and the final version. It would be easy to be tempted – but I would rely on tutor feedback to guide you how far to go.So – I wanted to read it, because I thought it would be interesting, and it was. I can relate it to my own work, too, which is useful. I say again, ‘well done’.
[reading this] is like riding a tiger, but I think I just about stayed on!
It’s an exceptionally complicated subject and yet I think you do manage to keep a hold on it (I only say ’think’ as I’m assuming that I understood as much as as I really did…), so big well done there. You might get assessors who know less about the subject than you now do, so hopefully that will make them err on the side of favourability rather than marking you down for their own lack knowledge on quantum… things.
I do have some notes, mostly typographical but a couple on content. I’ll refer to page numbers below but be aware that I opened a Word doc in Pages and so page numbering might have gone a bit screwy. If in doubt, search for the text string…
- 6: “Let it be not, this is essay…”
- 7: “from the last century”
- 7: “the sciences have been just as, if not, guiltier” is better as “the sciences have been just as, if not more, guilty”
- 16: “ponders out our place in reality”
- 17: “as Susan Sontag tells us”
- 25: you first use “rhizome” three sentences before you describe it – I think it needs a definition on first use
- 29: “out of space” = “outer space”?
- 32: On Photography was published in 1977 not 1971
- 41: “Michael Fried based his book 2008 book”
- 42: “even if it id is lacking”
- 44: “un/define” should be “undefine”
- 45: “its still speaking with like the child it was”
- Overall comment: don’t chop it down at this draft but I suspect it might be a tad too long and will need a nip and a tuck for the final version
- My tutor highly recommended a three-part structure to the main body of an essay of this length and at this level, where you have four chapters. I don’t think you need to chop out a whole chapter but have a think about whether the contents of Chapter 4 could be split across the end of Chapter 3 and the start of your Conclusion (which is shorter than I expected)
There was another student who sent me some valuable comments in the word doc some of which I incorporated, others I had to dismiss as I cut words and they became non-applicable but I will revisit these again when I return to the work in a few weeks’ time. This person also queried the comments made about citations in the first comment above. I will go through the UCA Harvard file and my final draft with a fine-toothed comb.
Well-written and argued but I’m wondering if there are too many quotes and there needs to be more on photography – it’s difficult as a general reader with a small amount of understanding of quantum mechanics Do you have a scientist friend who could read it and confirm the ‘science’ and also say if your photography examples are in-line with the science, i.e. does your essay give them more understanding of how far approaches to photography are changing in response to these scientific theories?
I agree with xxx re the final third – it seemed as if you were moving on to a different subject so perhaps there’s a clearer way to link it in.
and then
I enjoyed reading the re-vamp – also I realised that I was understanding it much more quickly than before so it shows the value of spending some time to absorb new concepts and words. I think you’ve done brilliantly to get it into shape and connect the concepts so well with photography.
Clearly too long, but that isn’t an issue at this stage – just about the edit, much of that will come from guidance from your tutor.
Despite its length, I did feel it was cramped, there’s a lot of (very) interesting things going on, much of it applicable to my own work and research – unsurprisingly. However I feel it needs to be pared down, both in the scope of the ideas and also the references. Wendy once remarked to me about “footnotes” suggesting “don’t make them too long or have too many things going on in them – I paraphrase! Suggesting that it could appear to be showing off, though if anything, in your case, it might suggest the opposite!
I found that the lengthier sections with your words – without interruption, were the most interesting, where your ideas came to the fore rather than being subordinated by the – admittedly – difficult theories. And that’s where I think the paring will end up – removing some of the references so that the reader can focus on your voice, with a refinement of the broad range of considerations around the main subject. As my current theory tutor says – focus! (maybe I’ve been as guilty 😉 ).
Also there is are passages where the reader is invited to listen to both the personal – almost first person – before being carried back into a third person.
It’s much easier to absorb on the second reading!! I agree with the general view that you’ve managed to collate some complex concepts into a coherent argument but probably feel that there is another cut or two to remove some of the more anecdotal and peripheral bits which I think slightly confuse the objective of the essay and it’s critical journey – when you do so much reading and research it becomes a labour of love and a challenge to leave bits out but that’s the importance of editing I suppose. Like Stan says, I’m sure your tutor is best to advise. The conclusion I understood completely first time around which prompted me to start reading the essay again to see what I’d missed / misunderstood.
I think this area of non-linear representation is really really interesting so I’m looking upon this as a real learning opportunity and it’s quite enjoyable to read. I’ll reserve the right to come back with more once I’ve completed read 2!
This is a mammoth task and, as you say, the scope is slightly too large for the course requirement. But I did understand and was engaged by what you were saying. The conclusion is especially strong and the examples too.
Are you leaning too heavily on Barad for a rounded critical viewpoint on the topic? I wonder if looking at some other new materialists / relevant theorists like Jane Bennett, Bruno LaTour, Diane Coole might add something? Although that takes us back to the scope. Perhaps the title (or subtitle) needs to locate the focus in Barad?
I also wondered if you had this:
Dolphijn & van der Tuin, ‘New Materialism: Interviews & Cartographies’
If not, I can send it to you if you like.
Another one was John Searle’s ‘The Construction of Social Reality’ – it feels like a key background text and maybe you have already read it. In particular, his take on function (mostly ch1 &2).
I really like the first person approach and your reasoning behind it, but there are sections which are too anecdotal and take away from the more academic work you have done. e.g. p8 ‘Another viewer…’ I don’t think this is appropriate evidence for this kind of writing.
It does need a really good proof and it still a little bit dense in parts. I wonder if you have anyone who hasn’t read it before, who will be able to tell you whether it is accessible to a more general audience?
This might also be of interest to you: https://newmaterialism.eu/
Followed by:
On further readings and reflections, it’s probably not worth diluting the work with other new materialists – although I think you would enjoy LaTour. The first section just needs rewriting to bring it up to the standard of the rest. Obviously you are completely free to ignore me, but I would give each paragraph a title, pull out only those sentences and quotes that are really strong, then put the lot on slips of paper, shuffle them around and begin rewriting in mostly your own words.
Found this whilst googling some words that I did n’t understand! Don’t know whether you’ve already seen it or it’s completely irrelevant but saw the name Barad!!
http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/57600/1/Scott_exploring_material.pdf
It’s much easier to absorb on the second reading!! I agree with the general view that you’ve managed to collate some complex concepts into a coherent argument but probably feel that there is another cut or two to remove some of the more anecdotal and peripheral bits which I think slightly confuse the objective of the essay and it’s critical journey – when you do so much reading and research it becomes a labour of love and a challenge to leave bits out but that’s the importance of editing I suppose. Like Stan says, I’m sure your tutor is best to advise. The conclusion I understood completely first time around which prompted me to start reading the essay again to see what I’d missed / misunderstood.
I think this area of non-linear representation is really really interesting so I’m looking upon this as a real learning opportunity and it’s quite enjoyable to read. I’ll reserve the right to come back with more once I’ve completed read 2!
SJField - OCA Level Three Study Blog 