Do you think a paper explaining why you believe that what you wrote actually reached his criteria would do more harm than good?
You could submit a paper thoroughly detailing the points you wanted to reach and the process you used to do so, then explain why you feel this meets his criteria if you don't think he would react negatively.
Example: he says the main point is that bisclavret is a werewolf and that the connections to homosexuality are tennous at best; well if you could explain what in the story leads you to a different conclusion; then maybe top it with a citation of the essay from the authors foundation (but don't use that as primary justification), would he take that well or as a challenge on his authority?
It really depends on the professor, but if you don't think it would do more harm, this could either 1) change his mind, or 2) make it more clear his reasonings depending on his response, allowing you to move forward with the accurate understanding of his POV. Whether it be dismissal of analysis through LGBTQ lense, or a genuine belief your paper just didn't reach the mark.
Do you think a paper explaining why you believe that what you wrote actually reached his criteria would do more harm than good?
You could submit a paper thoroughly detailing the points you wanted to reach and the process you used to do so, then explain why you feel this meets his criteria if you don't think he would react negatively.
Example: he says the main point is that bisclavret is a werewolf and that the connections to homosexuality are tennous at best; well if you could explain what in the story leads you to a different conclusion; then maybe top it with a citation of the essay from the authors foundation (but don't use that as primary justification), would he take that well or as a challenge on his authority?
It really depends on the professor, but if you don't think it would do more harm, this could either 1) change his mind, or 2) make it more clear his reasonings depending on his response, allowing you to move forward with the accurate understanding of his POV. Whether it be dismissal of analysis through LGBTQ lense, or a genuine belief your paper just didn't reach the mark.
deleted by creator