So I made all of the little changes that Prof P noted on my paper. However, I didn't go as far as she wanted, in terms of the major changes. She suggested that I modify my thesis more than I ended up doing. She also called one of my paragraphs "over the top," or words to that effect. I intended to bring it back down, but I couldn't without sacrificing certain things that I believe, through my research and reason. Basically, I think that his productive achievement is a virtue in and of itself. I don't think that this idea is as far out there as most people think. My 'critiquer' suggested focusing more on "the little people," in order to show his "goodness" (I'm coining a few terms here). I think that this is unnecessary, though I do describe Clark's many charitable contributions. As long as he isn't initiating force against people, his productive achievement stands on its own. I know how most people react to this view, but I think it is perfectly reasonable.
Prof P also told me some things that I didn't know about Clark, including a weird plan to buy more forested land than was allowed to be sold to one person. Initially, I agreed that since he broke the law, that does count against him in the "goodness" column. Then I thought a second time. Why should the government take the side of one person over another? If the land is for sale, and there is no national security risk, who are politicians to say who can have it and who can't? Breaking the law should not be allowed, but the law shouldn't have been there in the first place. Clark's talent and ambition pushed him beyond the constraints that government allowed. This wasn't the only time that this happened either. Clark certainly lacked many virtues, but so do the people who would try to punish him for exercising the ones he had.
P.S. Suggestion: never choose a topic that a professor suggests for you. It is likely that the prof suggested it because he/she is interested in it. That interest, at the PhD.D level, implies a high level of knowledge of it. That can make it difficult to make an argument that the prof disagrees with, because he/she probably already has their opinion based on much more information than you have.
Clark and his Nemeses
Mr. Zeke Clayson’s work entitled; To the Top and Back, he describes the rise and downfall of William Andrews Clark. The author starts with the infamous political acts Clark is known for. Then the author continues with many of the positive achievements that Clark had done. The conclusion that Mr. Clayson is targeting is that the good deeds of Clark outweigh the bad ones and that history should take this into consideration in the final analysis of the man.
Mr. Clayson does a good job of giving light to some of Clark’s works during his rise to economic power. Also, he goes into good detail on the political situation that surrounded Clark’s infamy. The author also gives a long list of the many charitable and socially beneficial achievements of Clark. The author does this in an attempt to compare the good with bad, coming to the conclusion that the good should be the legacy of William Andrews Clark.
Oddly enough, the author starts his work with the infamous political legacy of Clark. This starts his paper on the defense since he is trying to fight against this idea. The reader maybe more inclined towards the positive if Mr. Clayson starts with some of the big charitable things Clark founded with some tidbit of information on one of them (i.e. Timmy got a new leg thanks to a charity funded by Clark). Also, the author does not mention a good deed that Mr. Clark did in the first introduction paragraph. Hence, the author wants the reader to consider his thesis without offering any positive arguments. Later in his work Mr. Clayson goes into some length on the business ventures of Clark but goes into greater depth on the political ‘bad’ things that Clark had done. Perhaps giving more space and hence more weight to the good things Clark accomplished may reinforce the author’s thesis.
All in all, this second attempt is better than the first. More detail is presented but the general strengths and weaknesses remain the same. This critic would give this work by Mr. Clayson a B-. This work can be an A with some refocusing.
Daniel Veit
Posted by: nirvana88 | May 03, 2006 at 11:34 AM