Monday, December 3, 2001
‘As if I never said goodbye’ - THE COMMENTARY
By Joseph Planta
VANCOUVER -- So how does one explain himself after a prolonged absence from his soap box? Good question. It has been over one month -- perhaps the longest absence I’ve ever endured -- since I last dabbled in this space. Honestly, I did expect to be away for so long. November, for me has been a rough month. Actually, it wasn’t that rough, but it was a busy one nonetheless.
I had three papers due within two weeks; two of which were Political Science papers, whilst the other was a History one. To compound an already suicidal workload, I had another major History assignment to finish, as well an English paper comparing two books, which of course I hadn’t read. (Don’t tell Dr. Baker.) I will not admit to liking the process of writing a paper. It’s damned difficult and I don’t know how to explain how I managed to get all of mine done. Like the filling of this space, I like to write close to a deadline. I hate deadlines, but somehow one’s best work is composed in pursuit of meeting that damned deadline. Extensions, I’ve learned are not the solution. The prolonging of an inevitable pain, does not make the process any less painless. The great reward of course is the lifting of the burden once the composition is completed. I can’t tell you how relieving it is when I’m done a paper. It’s damn near euphoric.
I earned much admiration and derision from friends at the amount of books I’d checked out of the public library. Our Wednesday trips to the library ended at the checkout with me trying to stuff books into a bag that was already bursting at the seams. I had taken out a number of books on British politics, as one of my Poli Sci papers was to be about Margaret Thatcher. Another set of library books I’d checked out were on the topic of integration and the European Union, as my Poli Sci paper in my International Political Economy class dealt with challenges of the EU. I found, rather nicely, that some Thatcher books I’d borrowed were able to be utilised for the EU paper.
I found both papers extremely challenging to write. I guess I’ve never been able to keep an initial focus to find the right angle to approach the respective topic. This consternation is often why I spend so long to get started and why I end up pulling a sickening all-nighter. But, I did meet my deadlines and half-decent papers I had writ on both the EU and Margaret Thatcher’s political legacy to Britain.
The biggest trouble with papers I’ve found, in the composition thereof, is the irreconcilable gulf between really pushing your thesis as a mantra, yet trying to remain objective. They (the academics that mark these things) say that to make your argument all the more effective, you must recognise the opposite side. I guess it’s my combative nature or that fact my arguments on any range of topics are actually quite vague, that my papers often read as terribly biased or one-sided. It is something I have rarely come to improve on. That and the fact I swear that the next time I have a paper due, I’ll work ahead of schedule, so to avoid the unbearable stress I always find myself in close to deadline. Alas, this time around, right to deadline did I find myself fretting on a certain sentence’s structure or fiddling to format a page correctly.
I’m actually quite pleased with the effort I placed on the European Union paper I wrote. It was -- of the three I had due -- the one where I worried so much on. I was quite afraid, I wouldn’t be able to get it right, as I hardly knew much about the EU and the concept of integration in the Political Science sense. On Thatcher, I knew my way around, as through my History paper on British Columbian politics. I did finish my EU paper on Emmy night, the fourth of November, in time to see the so-called toned down Emmy’s.
The History paper I wrote on BC politics in the 1970s was a little comforting, since I had a disgusting amount of books on the topic in my personal library. I found some real good related articles in academic journals to use, which assisted me greatly in giving my musings that push of academic integrity. I had written a paper on the Canadian political media, last year, upon which I got a good admonishment on how I should have used more ‘academic’ sources, rather than the political journalism of people like Diane Francis, Richard Gwyn, or Allan Fotheringham. My History paper’s actual topic was to discuss the reasons -- political or otherwise -- of the defeat of Dave Barrett’s NDP government in 1975. I got it done, on time and if I do say so, it’s pretty good.
My Margaret Thatcher paper, was at best, biased and narrow-minded. Being an unabashed fan of Thatcher and Thatcherism, one reading my work could smell that adoration of neo-liberalism. During the time I wrote it, I had this sinking feeling that I wasn’t doing a good enough job at making the work balanced. Oh well, what’s done is done.
Tips for writing papers? Well, first get a head start. A lot of the spade work one does prior to the actual writing of text, is done consuming obscene amounts of writing. Whether text book nonsense or historical horse hockey, the kicker is in the realisation you probably can’t use half the stuff.
I like to start by writing longhand. I never finish a manuscript’s draft in my own hand, but I do start one like that. I do the same for these columns. Starting on the computer is a pain. I’ll often find myself staring into a screen that’s blank, thinking ever so hard on how to fill it. On paper, stuff just starts to kick in and I’m writing. After I get tired, I transcribe the scrawling on paper onto the screen and I get to finish sentences I’ve crafted on paper.
I also like to edit on paper. That’s perhaps the best way. I heard once that we read the screen slower than we read the printed word on paper. Thus, we are prone to missing mistakes on the screen for some reason. A good tip is to print a draft of your writing -- as I also do with these columns -- and edit on paper and input later, the changes on the computer.
But as I said, paper writing is rewarding. One ends up with a finished product that’s their best summation of whatever the hell their thesis is. It’s arduous work, but like everything else someone’s got to do it.
I missed writing The Commentary though. I guess writing here three times-a-week and trying to compose a paper leaves one with little sanity, thus I decided to forgo my work here for greater academic purposes. Now that the glut of school is nearly done I hope to ease my way back into Commentary grind for the holidays and provide you all -- whether you want, or care -- my thoughts on this and that or the other. Thanks for the messages, it’s good to be back.
- 30 -
Questions and comments may be sent to: editor@thecommentary.ca
An archive of Joseph Planta's previous columns can be found by clicking HERE .