The Wicked Witch Of Western Literature

Re: # 6
Yikes! I`m too scared to ever write again. Thanks, Saminasha!

That said, I do find myself sympathizing more with the an- than the pro-.

Dear Diary...

correction:

In presenting this binary, (Me: perfect innocent, Everyone else: S&M writing group), you are really showing the limits of your own imagination in NOT creating a complex discourse group with competing agendas, upmanship, intergroup dynamics and worst, talking down to your audience.

Ali Rizvi,

I`vre read satires of academia and the professionals that populate it, and unfortunately, this sounded more disgruntled than anything. Here are your cliches:

1. Narrator`s sanity vs. the sanity of the discourse group. In other words, ``I`m not crazy, everyone else is!``. This trope is more often than not unsucessful because it violates the demands of three dimensionality; there was nothing reasonable about anyone in this group? The narrator was the epitome of rational good manners? An utter innocent? Why is this remotely interesting to the reader?

In presenting this binary, (Me: perfect innocent, Everyone else: S&M writing group), you are really showing the limits of your own imagination in creating a complex discourse group with competing agendas, upmanship, intergroup dynamics and worst, talking down to your audience. We`ve all been in classes and unless we are a bit childish, we can all appreciate that a classroom doesnt operate by absolutes.

So, in a way, how is the narrator differerent from the antagonist?

2. Pseudo anti colonialism. So your protagonist recommended Earl Grey and scones which you have included to signify Uncle Tomness. You`ve paired that with subject matter dear to the antagonist`s heart-nunnery life. This pairing could be read as the easy shorthand of what the narrator views as the antagonist`s perverse interests. In other words, how could a Pukka Desi deviate from doodh putti chai, rusk and a trilogy on the origins of Sanskrit?

The rahrah anti colonialism is one thing-again, pretty simplistic, but you`ve done something a bit more creepy here which is to conflate the exploration of a lesser practiced religious ideology with deviance-and this is not funny. It just comes off as really limited.

It seems the narrator is trying to point out the doubleness of the antagonist`s classroom dynamics (aggressive and violent) with her quiet and orderly intellectual and literary subject material. A writer who was able to mine the subtleties of this dicotomy would focus and develop this for truly satirical commentary on human psychology. But the narrator goes for the cheap laugh and alienates a potentially sympathetic reader in the process. What you`ve got left as your still reading readers are the walking wounded...and thats not an audience known for its level headedness.

3. Ditto for academic professor-student dynamics. First of all, its a bit condescending to imply that the nature of these are completely different from workplace dynamics -esp in the upper levels. The narrator probably sucks up to his boss with nary a thought and probably is too caught up in the power imbalance of being beholden for a job to make any real critiques of Boss Sahib. Plus, your Boss Sahib pays you, he`s a man, its a clearly business setting and he might promote you if your kissing butt technique is particularly skillful.

This device of Tird is a bit one dimensional. Yes, yes, you are the better ``man`` for not participating in trying to gain the professor`s approval-bully for you! However, given your outraged self congratulation, we miss the insights into why the Tirds are so ingratiating. Another comic opportunity missed. What about your attempts to get the antagonist`s approval (come on, dont bs us, you didnt try once?) Second missed opportunity.

The effect of this energetic defense is not that we appreciate the piece, but that we are tired, because we see the potential.

4. You Are Not Shakespeare. Are you a better writer than the antagonist? One one hand you provided Tird`s poem on pigeons and that was our ``proof``. But where is the antagonist`s work to support your inner writing child? If the narrator TRULY was Shakepeare, he would have provided his AND his antagonist`s texts.

Plus, the whole reference to Shakespeare is stale as Shakespeare`s own identity is still being conjectured: 1. did his sister write his work? 2. Christopher Marlowe? 3. a collective of writers?

5. Your work was edited and you didnt like the results. Hold the presses, we have something never expressed before.

6. Your narrator knows more than your antagonist. Does any really intelligent person ever say that? Your narrator does, and the effect is that narrator comes off as immature and not really more knowledgeable.

A somewhat constructed piece of one dimensional whining. Good luck in your future endeavors!

HA!
Reminded my of my Psychology Professor who hated me, because i knew more than her..she once even asked me to leave the class, for no reason at all.. just because she didnt want me in it....!!???!!

She felt like SHIT when i got a Distinction in her subject ..and boy oh boy did i rub it in!!Just to piss her off i even applied for a job in the Psychology School...that really got to her..she even asked me whether i was serious about teaching i told her... ``nah i dont think i want to teach Psychology here..its a losers job!! Syke scores 10.....DuckFace...zero.!!

Ali Rizvi...

Good to finally see you here...

Excellent rant... I used to have a teacher quite like your Miss Makita... for some weird reason we used to call her AC...

So howz life...

Enjoyed reading it....keep them coming.

Bravo! In a burst of anger, I once told my french teacher she didn`t know how to teach. Nothing angers a teacher more than such a comment from daring students.