| Bob,
Good to talk to you again. Glad to hear that you and Dr. _______ have finally agreed to settle out of court.
Anyway, thanks for sending me a copy of the essay you want my advice on. My understanding is you’d like an outside reader’s appraisal of its academic merit, as there’s been a bit of a fuss about it over there at Athabasca University.
Here goes.
The student – you’ve blacked out the name and ID number on my copy – has divided his (?) paper on socialist president Salvador Allende, Augusto Pinochet and the Chilean media into several sub-sections, so I’ll deal with each in turn.
1. INTRODUCTION
"The year was 1973, the date September 11. Although I cannot remember specifically what was happening in the newsroom at CFCN radio and television, it was no doubt a typical day… The writer was at City Hall, digging out stories relative to the city, police, school board and other downtown activities."
Nice opening. The student immediately establishes time and place, thrusting the reader into the hurly burly world of journalism. Blathers on a bit, maybe, but does set the scene for the breaking news of the Chile coup.
But Bob, look more closely. Do you see what the student’s doing here? "I cannot remember specifically…" – in other words, he isn’t necessarily to be trusted. Just like Ishmael in Moby Dick or the "idiot" Benjy in Faulkner’s The Sound and the Fury, he’s what we ivory tower types like to call an "unreliable narrator," leaving it to the reader to work out where the truth lies. Quite a bold strategy for an undergraduate paper!
OK, let’s see where he goes with this.
2. SOME ALLENDE HISTORY
"Salvadore Allende was elected president in 1970, the first ever communist to be elected in a democratic vote… Such a transition to socialism would require major structural changes… and the implementation of an effective agrarian reform. Other goals included providing better health, housing, and social security, and ending discrimination against women."
See what I mean about "unreliable narrator?" In the first place, the student blurs any distinction between Communist and Socialist, using the two phrases interchangeably to describe Allende and his agenda.
But what about the actual goals of that "socialist" agenda? Pretty much the same objectives followed by all western nations – including Canada – since the Second World War, I’d say. What’s more, looks like Allende did a pretty good job in his first year: economic growth, wages up, inflation stable and unemployment down. No surprise, then, that he was re-elected in 1971.
So how, then, are we to understand the coup of September 1973?
Look at some of the phrases the student uses to set the scene: "drop in aid and economic sanctions;" "ran into problems getting spare parts, technology, and new machinery;" "inflation returned… while shortages of goods were occurring;" "land reform disrupted production." Brilliant! No sense of agency or direct responsibility at all. Everything just "sort of happens." The reader is instead left to work out for himself just how General Pinochet was able to mount a successful coup.
But wait, the student does provide – in a single, wonderfully understated sentence – a key to understanding the coup’s success: "The upper classes owned most of the mass media, and used it against him (the CIA also gave money to conservative newspapers and radios to do a vicious smear campaign playing on fears of communism)."
See how the student’s teasing the reader here, Bob? Just how and in what sense did the "upper classes" control the media? On whose orders did the CIA operate? What about their well-documented other activities, such as supporting anti-Allende strikes and opposition parties? By failing to address any of these basic questions, our "unreliable narrator" simply underlines their importance to any full understanding of the coup.
3. THE COUP
Actually, Bob, this section’s pretty ho-hum. The student runs through the bloody details of Pinochet’s coup – the violent death of Allende, "probably by his own hand" we’re told; the "Caravans of Death" that executed thousands of Allende’s supporters; the imprisonment, torture or exile of hundreds of thousands more – without really coming to any point.
But then comes the paper’s masterpiece.
4. QUOTES FROM GILBERT
Rather than do any additional research, the student simply lifts whole passages from an article assigned for the course (Jorge Gilbert, "The Response to the Chilean Dictatorship"). Indeed, by my count a full third of the paper comes from this single source.
Yes, yes, I know, Bob. Purists will say that this amounts to blatant plagiarism. But look again. The student makes no attempt to cover his tracks. Rather, this section marks the (temporary) exit of our "unreliable narrator" and the entrance of the traditional "academic expert." It’s simply a shift in narrative voice. The student offers no interpretation of the facts, instead letting the "voice of authority" speak for itself. A daring strategy, I agree, but I think it works well here.
5. A VIGNETTE
"I was young, so my memory is a little vague. I remember lots of debate before and after the election of President Allende. If you were elected President every media outlet talked about the new President and new programs."
Here the "unreliable narrator" returns to wrap things up. Once again, he offers us his personal recollections of the coup, reminding us at the same time of his inherent unreliability. And just in case we were tempted to place trust in his words, note how he slips into a perfect parody of undergraduate prose. That last sentence, in particular – pure garbage.
Look, Bob, as a serious research paper this is obviously a piece of crap. No thesis or argument to speak of. Research is pitiful, as are the attempts to provide references and a detailed bibliography of sources.
But read as an intellectually subversive parody of a research paper, this is a work of great imagination. Through its own deliberate shortcomings, it forces readers to rethink the Pinochet coup for themselves.
This is clearly the product of a subtle and deep-thinking individual. Hell, Bob, in a place like Alberta, you could do worse than elect someone like this.
Cheers,
Jim |
Copyright ©2004 FFWD. All rights reserved.