No, unfortunately this isn't a character. We've seen bits and pieces of this attitude all semester.
I would treat it as if it were a character. Say that the writer has clearly portrayed a deeply confused and angry character. One that, as another poster pointed out, dismisses others personal lives while elevating his to godlike status, the only one of importance.
And so on, critique it as if it was a character. You truly have a unique chance to tell the guy what you think about him under the premise that he only wrote a character. Say that you think it was an excellent character exercise that lets you see into the mind of someone with anger issues.
I would totally do this.
The writer clearly wants to be personal and for people to take him personally.
So treat him as a non-person in your analysis.
Dickish, but that's probably what I would do.
edit: I'm sorry, that sounds ruder than I meant. I don't mean you should treat the writer as a non-person, I mean that you shouldn't take the bait of being personally torqued off by it. Just analyze it dispassionately as if the writer is just the writer. I mean, it's what you should do anyway. In this case, though, not taking the bait of conflating writer with character will have the added bonus of probably pissing the writer off.
IMO this is not some experimental or original work. It reads to me as hackneyed railing against doing basic writing exercises, and a way to get some digs in w/r/to other students' contributions to the class or some work they were all discussing. I wouldn't be surprised if it took me longer to read it than it took for him to write it.
If I were the instructor I wouldn't pretend he did the assignment and would move on to critique someone who did. A lot of people have difficulty sharing their work for critique or taking criticism and IMO there's no room for trolls when people are making themselves vulnerable.
That said, as a contributor/student I'd take my cues from the instructor. If he wants to critique this as a real submission then I'd try to contribute, treating it as a real submission.
The only discernible theme I was able to pull from this piece was a degree of anger, particularly against women and homosexuals (despite numerous failed attempts to say otherwise). A sort of meta theme, of having procrastinated and/or cobbled together the work in a last minute manner to cover up a lack of creativity or appreciation of the monetary costs of a college course (to himself and others) appears at one point, but is quickly dropped for another rant. If the piece is intended as a means to portray a common, petty anger found amongst the misogynistic and homophobic elements in modern culture, it succeeds somewhat, though clarifying the voice of the character might be useful as right now it seems confused and unfocused.
Or something like that.
Wait, what? Really? He mentions the word women twice in his rant. First one cant be attributed in this way. And on the note of woman's studies hating a class doesnt mean you hate woman more than you hate men. And he mentions gays once.
There is no real supportive evidence Enc of your arguement here. If you want to offer criticism's at least base them on the rant. Hate and anger are the overriding themes here. Not hatred against woman and homosexuals.
I really have no idea how you even came to this conclusion, it's confounding.
"Did not follow assignment" -- "Poor to no character development"--"The character seems unbelievable and 1-dimensional" --"Could have communicated the same feelings, character, and story with less writing"
Things like that. Obviously treat it as just another writing piece.
0
Options
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
I like Enc's write-up. I think it's the correct approach.
Any response other than shocked/righteous outrage will be outside of what he's expecting; doing an honest and well-thought-out critique of it as a piece of fiction deprives him of the opportunity to use the discussion period as a further platform to expound on his personal views. If you start talking about whether the character is right or wrong to think something, you're opening the door to Douchebag's View of the World, Part II (A Spoken Word Performance).
Keep it about the writing; you don't care that the narrator appears to be hateful because fictional characters can be as odious as the author wants them to be. What you care about is whether the character is believable or not, whether the writing effectively conveys the character or not.
Baseless slander is not the right approach, and is not even worthwhile to bring up in class. You can't go seriously calling a rant some sort of homophobic piece without strong evidence to back that up. What enc basically does is reduce his critique down to name calling of this 'fictional character' that everyone in the classroom knows is the author.
Calling someone a homophobe is not meaningful and if I was in that classroom and a student went down that path without evidence I would walk out. Do not turn the author into a victim, that only validates the authors point of view.
This sounds like the "Fuck you" monologue from the movie 25th Hour.
(Monty walks into the bathroom. He looks in the mirror. In the bottom corner, someone's written Fuck You!)
Monty: Yeah, fuck you, too.
Monty's Reflection: Fuck me? Fuck you! Fuck you and this whole city and everyone in it.
Fuck the panhandlers, grubbing for money, and smiling at me behind my back.
Fuck squeegee men dirtying up the clean windshield of my car. Get a fucking job!
Fuck the Sikhs and the Pakistanis bombing down the avenues in decrepit cabs, curry steaming out their pores and stinking up my day. Terrorists in fucking training. Slow the fuck down!
Fuck the Chelsea boys with their waxed chests and pumped up biceps. Going down on each other in my parks and on my piers, jingling their dicks on my Channel 35.
Fuck the Korean grocers with their pyramids of overpriced fruit and their tulips and roses wrapped in plastic. Ten years in the country, still no speaky English?
Fuck the Russians in Brighton Beach. Mobster thugs sitting in cafés, sipping tea in little glasses, sugar cubes between their teeth. Wheelin' and dealin' and schemin'. Go back where you fucking came from!
Fuck the black-hatted Chassidim, strolling up and down 47th street in their dirty gabardine with their dandruff. Selling South African apartheid diamonds!
Fuck the Wall Street brokers. Self-styled masters of the universe. Michael Douglas, Gordon Gecko wannabe mother fuckers, figuring out new ways to rob hard working people blind. Send those Enron assholes to jail for fucking life! You think Bush and Cheney didn't know about that shit? Give me a fucking break! Tyco! Imclone! Adelphia! Worldcom!
Fuck the Puerto Ricans. 20 to a car, swelling up the welfare rolls, worst fuckin' parade in the city. And don't even get me started on the Dom-in-i-cans, because they make the Puerto Ricans look good.
Fuck the Bensonhurst Italians with their pomaded hair, their nylon warm-up suits, and their St. Anthony medallions. Swinging their, Jason Giambi, Louisville slugger, baseball bats, trying to audition for the Sopranos.
Fuck the Upper East Side wives with their Hermés scarves and their fifty-dollar Balducci artichokes. Overfed faces getting pulled and lifted and stretched, all taut and shiny. You're not fooling anybody, sweetheart!
Fuck the uptown brothers. They never pass the ball, they don't want to play defense, they take fives steps on every lay-up to the hoop. And then they want to turn around and blame everything on the white man. Slavery ended one hundred and thirty seven years ago. Move the fuck on!
Fuck the corrupt cops with their anus violating plungers and their 41 shots, standing behind a blue wall of silence. You betray our trust!
Fuck the priests who put their hands down some innocent child's pants. Fuck the church that protects them, delivering us into evil. And while you're at it, fuck JC! He got off easy! A day on the cross, a weekend in hell, and all the hallelujahs of the legioned angels for eternity! Try seven years in fuckin Otisville, Jay!
Fuck Osama Bin Laden, Alqueda, and backward-ass, cave-dwelling, fundamentalist assholes everywhere. On the names of innocent thousands murdered, I pray you spend the rest of eternity with your seventy-two whores roasting in a jet-fueled fire in hell. You towel headed camel jockeys can kiss my royal, Irish ass!
Fuck Jacob Elinski, whining malcontent.
Fuck Francis Xavier Slaughtery, my best friend, judging me while he stares at my girlfriend's ass.
Fuck Naturel Rivera. I gave her my trust and she stabbed me in the back. Sold me up the river. Fucking bitch.
Fuck my father with his endless grief, standing behind that bar. Sipping on club soda, selling whiskey to firemen and cheering the Bronx Bombers.
Fuck this whole city and everyone in it. From the row houses of Astoria to the penthouses on Park Avenue. From the projects in the Bronx to the lofts in Soho. From the tenements in Alphabet City to the brownstones in Park slope to the split levels in Staten Island. Let an earthquake crumble it. Let the fires rage. Let it burn to fuckin ash then let the waters rise and submerge this whole, rat-infested place.
Monty: No. No, fuck you, Montgomery Brogan. You had it all and then you threw it away, you dumb fuck!
Except the Fuck You monologue was actually creative and introspective.
:edit: Which you could use as criticism about his piece. It's not anger, it's petulant whining.
I think there is evidence of hostility towards women and homosexuals in the piece. The author uses "faggot" twice as a pejorative, talks about "cocksuckers" and seems to prefer curses with feminine connotations over masculine.
0
Options
Captain Marcusnow arrives the hour of actionRegistered Userregular
Everyone prefers curses with feminine connotations over masculine. There's not really a male equivalent for "bitch". Granted, if the author describes how much he hated all women, or perhaps how he really enjoys beating up queers outside the gay bar, you'd have a point. As it stands you are reading way too much into common insults.
Is that because he is homophobic or is it because he wants to envoke anger in the reader? We could complain that there are more curses for women in the english language than men. He is useing cocksuckers too generally to be specifically targeted at gays or women. He is just saying it to be insulting.
The context does not support the arguement that he is homophobic. There is lack of strong evidence that the character is homophobic. There is strong evidence that the author is trying to get the reader riled up and angry.
Any time you attack someone on a personal level you have lost any form of constructive dialog, avoid it.
0
Options
mrt144King of the NumbernamesRegistered Userregular
That was pretty hard to read as a gay person. I would submit it to my social justice office and have him sat down with a counselor, if I was you.
0
Options
EncA Fool with CompassionPronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered Userregular
The gays and the straights.
Not a connotation actually used by the LGBT community in this fashion. "The Gays" is a phrase typical of groups that run contrary to LGBT values. But even not looking at that:
I wish to allow individuals free reign over their lives, as long as they don't directly harm another, even though the direction they take their lives disgusts me, fills me with fury.
This is just as creative as telling a story of two deep-dicking hillbilly Kansas City faggots cocking off in the plains. Bleeding Kansas, a bit too rough maybe.
That's all I have. I'm angry. Angry at History, at English, especially at Women's Studies.
Angry that those cocksuckers down at the advising center are always packed by mini-cocksuckers. First year Freshman faggots who can take any fucking class and fulfill some requirements.
I really don't think it's a stretch, considering the frequency of use and the stream of consciousness process of the writer.
Lets not mistake malice for genius. This is a rant, probably crafted in about ten minutes right before the exam. This is not something that was created to make any point outside of providing anger and hate and lashing out at those around him. Yes, there are works that use a similar method to produce a strong character or intriguing narrative, this is not one of them. Beleive me, I see enough CRW term papers each semester to know the difference.
If I were in that class, I'd write something similar. Possibly more toned down with a couple more revisions to get the same points across without violating your school's ethics and syllabus rules (what I wrote up there for a five minute deal and is admittedly rough). But I wouldn't pull any barbs at all.
Remember, you are paying $900+ for that course, when people do things like this they are not only degrading the fact that everyone there has willing paid good money to be there, but also has the audacity to insult those paying in an attempt to improve themselves.
0
Options
kaliyamaLeft to find less-moderated foraRegistered Userregular
Boring, badly-written and narcissistic. It's like some crank's manifesto. EIther he's a trolling neckbeard or a sociopath or both. I wouldn't bother engaging it.
The best indication of the narcissism, was his highly personal and boring rant including the line: "And let me tell you another thing. No one cares about your personal life. No one. Not a soul. I can assure you, this is not just me. All of you. Anyone who brings up their personal life just serves to irritate the entire class."
A reaction is what the dude wants, and no matter what you say or how you spin it, he's made it clear he really doesn't care about everyone's critiques I think it would annoy him more if you say nothing. If the whole class can go along with this, even better.
Just out of curiosity, how is he with critiquing other people's work?
No, unfortunately this isn't a character. We've seen bits and pieces of this attitude all semester.
I would treat it as if it were a character. Say that the writer has clearly portrayed a deeply confused and angry character. One that, as another poster pointed out, dismisses others personal lives while elevating his to godlike status, the only one of importance.
And so on, critique it as if it was a character. You truly have a unique chance to tell the guy what you think about him under the premise that he only wrote a character. Say that you think it was an excellent character exercise that lets you see into the mind of someone with anger issues.
I would totally do this.
The writer clearly wants to be personal and for people to take him personally.
So treat him as a non-person in your analysis.
Dickish, but that's probably what I would do.
edit: I'm sorry, that sounds ruder than I meant. I don't mean you should treat the writer as a non-person, I mean that you shouldn't take the bait of being personally torqued off by it. Just analyze it dispassionately as if the writer is just the writer. I mean, it's what you should do anyway. In this case, though, not taking the bait of conflating writer with character will have the added bonus of probably pissing the writer off.
This is exactly right. You have a very unique opportunity to dress down this "character" in front of a whole class.
Something to keep in mind here is that we're talking about academia here folks - an environment known for allowing people to say whatever they want in the pursuit of education. I'm not saying the content of this piece has anything to teach you but I do think that the writer has a right to write it. You also have the right to critique it exactly how you see fit. Let that be the lesson here. Go at it.
Not a connotation actually used by the LGBT community in this fashion. "The Gays" is a phrase typical of groups that run contrary to LGBT values. But even not looking at that:
Except you are taking it out of context.
The rich and the poor. The young and the old. The strong and the weak. The intelligent and the ignorant. The fat and the thin. The men and the women. The black and the white. The gays and the straights.
In the context of the flow of the paper "the gays and the straights" is perfectly fine for flow. Considering right before that is "The black and white" and before that is "The men and woman". Are you saying the author is racist because he used "The blacks"? Your arguement here is much weaker than the authors paper. Its not worth bringing up.
I wish to allow individuals free reign over their lives, as long as they don't directly harm another, even though the direction they take their lives disgusts me, fills me with fury.
This is just as creative as telling a story of two deep-dicking hillbilly Kansas City faggots cocking off in the plains. Bleeding Kansas, a bit too rough maybe.
That's all I have. I'm angry. Angry at History, at English, especially at Women's Studies.
Angry that those cocksuckers down at the advising center are always packed by mini-cocksuckers. First year Freshman faggots who can take any fucking class and fulfill some requirements.
I really don't think it's a stretch, considering the frequency of use and the stream of consciousness process of the writer.
So 4 uses is frequent? Hardly. It is such a huge stretch to call it a major theme of the authors work. Also his use of cocksuckers would match up to 'sucking up' or 'suckups' instead of a sexual act. Also I covered the woman's studies remark. The author could have just simply hated the class, that does not mean the author hates women. The first quote in this block has nothing to do with being homophobic or anti-women.
Lets not mistake malice for genius. This is a rant, probably crafted in about ten minutes right before the exam. This is not something that was created to make any point outside of providing anger and hate and lashing out at those around him. Yes, there are works that use a similar method to produce a strong character or intriguing narrative, this is not one of them. Beleive me, I see enough CRW term papers each semester to know the difference.
Bingo. This a rant, crafted in probably about 10 minutes.
If I were in that class, I'd write something similar. Possibly more toned down with a couple more revisions to get the same points across without violating your school's ethics and syllabus rules (what I wrote up there for a five minute deal and is admittedly rough). But I wouldn't pull any barbs at all.
Remember, you are paying $900+ for that course, when people do things like this they are not only degrading the fact that everyone there has willing paid good money to be there, but also has the audacity to insult those paying in an attempt to improve themselves.
I dont care how much you paid for your class, do your work. Critiquing it is not a waste of your time. Dealing with garbage like this is not only part of this class, but it's a skill that is important in life. There are ways to deal with this and diffuse it, which is what needs to be done. There are several helpful people in this thread suggesting how to do exactly that. For example suggesting disconnecting the author from the actual work, to critique it impersonally.
What you are suggesting is you should throw gasoline on a fire.
0
Options
EncA Fool with CompassionPronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered Userregular
I get Draygo's perspective on making the situation simmer down, and we have a difference of opinion on this. In the past I would have agreed with you, but my own experience has taught me that you teach others how to treat you. If you roll over on things like this, the saga continues. Of course, if the guy is as bad as he sounds nothing may get through to him, so reacting at all might be a bad call. But personally, if it were me and I were required to reply to it, I wouldn't spare the man's feelings out of professionalism. He lost that privilege when he tossed respect for his peers out the window. Again, I would craft it to match the ethics rules, but I would call it what it is and not pull any punches.
To the OP, it would probably be a good call to follow up with your professor and see what they have to say about peer reviewing this piece. If you want to go full professional on this, that would probably be the first step. Depending on if the professor is even wanting you to review this at all, which I would bet they don't given how most GTAs are required to react to inflammatory materials, act accordingly.
What I don't get here is Draygo's defense of this work. You are doing somersaults to find innocent readings of this tripe. In a lot of schools this would be a blatant violation of ethics requirements and would be grounds for academic misconduct review.
0
Options
ceresWhen the last moon is cast over the last star of morningAnd the future has past without even a last desperate warningRegistered User, Moderatormod
edited November 2011
This is not the place to critique the piece; billwill can do his own homework. All we are here to do is answer the question and give him some ideas for how to approach the assignment reasonably.
ceres on
And it seems like all is dying, and would leave the world to mourn
It's very difficult to read. It's also interesting that he took the time to use your and you're properly but then you see who's instead of whose... and is instead of am?
Reaching hard, you can say it does have... some of the elements of a story. But even the writers who do use this kind of approach actually present those aspects within the framework of a character, etc. However being a dick in response to dickery wastes everybody's time in class... Get in touch with your professor to see if you have to crit it.
tastydonuts on
“I used to draw, hard to admit that I used to draw...”
0
Options
FFOnce Upon a TimeIn OaklandRegistered Userregular
Give him high praise for such an insightful piece, citing such a piece as existential "A piece about not having a piece", do detail about how the writing express his emotion of angst and the frustration of a writer who ran into a writer's block, who detail his struggle against the world (compare him with Holden in "Catcher in the Rye", "American Psycho" with a more political agenda, Also his writing style is very "stream of conscious" Narrative mode like T.S Eloiet mixed with Dorothy Parker's Cynicalism, etc, etc.
So basically... just troll the troll.
0
Options
JohnnyCacheStarting DefensePlace at the tableRegistered Userregular
Begging to be Butchered offers a short, rant like narrative about a character that is angry at the world. While the piece is filled with mildly creative descriptions and topical references to pup culture, lack of proper sentence structure and the omission of necessary objects in several sentences make the piece difficult to read coherently.
Concerning the narrative of the piece, there does not appear to be any specific narrative purpose or plot depicted outside of a sort of slice-of-life anger not unlike a pre-teen's rant on a social media blog. With this in mind, I would have normally assumed this piece to be written not as from the perspective of the author but of a young, angry, homophobic pre-teen raging against the world. However, this message is muddied by frequent references to the author's personal life, including a meta narrative about the class the piece is produced in, and thus has quite a few problems with clarity of voice.
The only discernible theme I was able to pull from this piece was a degree of anger, particularly against women and homosexuals (despite numerous failed attempts to say otherwise). A sort of meta theme, of having procrastinated and/or cobbled together the work in a last minute manner to cover up a lack of creativity or appreciation of the monetary costs of a college course (to himself and others) appears at one point, but is quickly dropped for another rant. If the piece is intended as a means to portray a common, petty anger found amongst the misogynistic and homophobic elements in modern culture, it succeeds somewhat, though clarifying the voice of the character might be useful as right now it seems confused and unfocused.
Revision suggestions are difficult to nail down, as the piece is confusing in focus and scope. It would be safe to say that going back over the work for clarity of voice and correction of grammar and spelling would be substantially needed in order to take the work seriously. It might also be a good idea to consider the audience of the work before writing, as currently it seems to be directed towards the author's swollen ego, the students in the class, and society as a whole depending upon the sentence and section. Clarifying this would greatly improve the work as a whole.
All in all, it is a good first draft for a deranged, lazy, and hateful antagonist or anti-hero. Spend more than an hour on your second revision and you may have something pretty solid to work with for a longer narrative.
Angry, idiot, douche or whatever, the dude has talent.
It may have been written to get a rise out of the class, but it's well written. I would just look at the piece objectively and keep emotion out of it. In a sense he did what he set out to do by getting a reaction out of the class.
Give him an objective look at his work and go from there.
No, he doesn't (at least not to judge by this single sample) and no it isn't. It's not even basically grammatically correct and it has serious problems with brevity, voice, focus, vocabulary, usage, etc. It's really not very good writing, mechanically.
He's a pissy, spoiled college brat who doesn't understand why the world doesn't pay him and blow him, currently dealing with the realization that all the times he told himself "it doesn't matter what they call me, because they'll be working for me one day!" were compensatory bullshit. He needs to learn the rest of us don't think he's as special as his mom says he is.
143999Tellin' yanot askin' ya, not pleadin' with yaRegistered Userregular
None of the "treat it like straight fiction" responses here seem to take into account the idea that juxtaposing a straight critique against this "fuck you" piece will probably get him off just as easily as the "expected" kneejerk response would.
I stand by my original assertion. Tell the class the Calvin Coolidge "You Lose" story.
Posts
I would totally do this.
The writer clearly wants to be personal and for people to take him personally.
So treat him as a non-person in your analysis.
Dickish, but that's probably what I would do.
edit: I'm sorry, that sounds ruder than I meant. I don't mean you should treat the writer as a non-person, I mean that you shouldn't take the bait of being personally torqued off by it. Just analyze it dispassionately as if the writer is just the writer. I mean, it's what you should do anyway. In this case, though, not taking the bait of conflating writer with character will have the added bonus of probably pissing the writer off.
If I were the instructor I wouldn't pretend he did the assignment and would move on to critique someone who did. A lot of people have difficulty sharing their work for critique or taking criticism and IMO there's no room for trolls when people are making themselves vulnerable.
That said, as a contributor/student I'd take my cues from the instructor. If he wants to critique this as a real submission then I'd try to contribute, treating it as a real submission.
Wait, what? Really? He mentions the word women twice in his rant. First one cant be attributed in this way. And on the note of woman's studies hating a class doesnt mean you hate woman more than you hate men. And he mentions gays once.
There is no real supportive evidence Enc of your arguement here. If you want to offer criticism's at least base them on the rant. Hate and anger are the overriding themes here. Not hatred against woman and homosexuals.
I really have no idea how you even came to this conclusion, it's confounding.
Things like that. Obviously treat it as just another writing piece.
Any response other than shocked/righteous outrage will be outside of what he's expecting; doing an honest and well-thought-out critique of it as a piece of fiction deprives him of the opportunity to use the discussion period as a further platform to expound on his personal views. If you start talking about whether the character is right or wrong to think something, you're opening the door to Douchebag's View of the World, Part II (A Spoken Word Performance).
Keep it about the writing; you don't care that the narrator appears to be hateful because fictional characters can be as odious as the author wants them to be. What you care about is whether the character is believable or not, whether the writing effectively conveys the character or not.
Calling someone a homophobe is not meaningful and if I was in that classroom and a student went down that path without evidence I would walk out. Do not turn the author into a victim, that only validates the authors point of view.
Except the Fuck You monologue was actually creative and introspective.
:edit: Which you could use as criticism about his piece. It's not anger, it's petulant whining.
The context does not support the arguement that he is homophobic. There is lack of strong evidence that the character is homophobic. There is strong evidence that the author is trying to get the reader riled up and angry.
Any time you attack someone on a personal level you have lost any form of constructive dialog, avoid it.
Not a connotation actually used by the LGBT community in this fashion. "The Gays" is a phrase typical of groups that run contrary to LGBT values. But even not looking at that:
I really don't think it's a stretch, considering the frequency of use and the stream of consciousness process of the writer.
Lets not mistake malice for genius. This is a rant, probably crafted in about ten minutes right before the exam. This is not something that was created to make any point outside of providing anger and hate and lashing out at those around him. Yes, there are works that use a similar method to produce a strong character or intriguing narrative, this is not one of them. Beleive me, I see enough CRW term papers each semester to know the difference.
If I were in that class, I'd write something similar. Possibly more toned down with a couple more revisions to get the same points across without violating your school's ethics and syllabus rules (what I wrote up there for a five minute deal and is admittedly rough). But I wouldn't pull any barbs at all.
Remember, you are paying $900+ for that course, when people do things like this they are not only degrading the fact that everyone there has willing paid good money to be there, but also has the audacity to insult those paying in an attempt to improve themselves.
The best indication of the narcissism, was his highly personal and boring rant including the line: "And let me tell you another thing. No one cares about your personal life. No one. Not a soul. I can assure you, this is not just me. All of you. Anyone who brings up their personal life just serves to irritate the entire class."
A reaction is what the dude wants, and no matter what you say or how you spin it, he's made it clear he really doesn't care about everyone's critiques I think it would annoy him more if you say nothing. If the whole class can go along with this, even better.
Just out of curiosity, how is he with critiquing other people's work?
This is exactly right. You have a very unique opportunity to dress down this "character" in front of a whole class.
Something to keep in mind here is that we're talking about academia here folks - an environment known for allowing people to say whatever they want in the pursuit of education. I'm not saying the content of this piece has anything to teach you but I do think that the writer has a right to write it. You also have the right to critique it exactly how you see fit. Let that be the lesson here. Go at it.
In the context of the flow of the paper "the gays and the straights" is perfectly fine for flow. Considering right before that is "The black and white" and before that is "The men and woman". Are you saying the author is racist because he used "The blacks"? Your arguement here is much weaker than the authors paper. Its not worth bringing up.
So 4 uses is frequent? Hardly. It is such a huge stretch to call it a major theme of the authors work. Also his use of cocksuckers would match up to 'sucking up' or 'suckups' instead of a sexual act. Also I covered the woman's studies remark. The author could have just simply hated the class, that does not mean the author hates women. The first quote in this block has nothing to do with being homophobic or anti-women. Bingo. This a rant, crafted in probably about 10 minutes.
I dont care how much you paid for your class, do your work. Critiquing it is not a waste of your time. Dealing with garbage like this is not only part of this class, but it's a skill that is important in life. There are ways to deal with this and diffuse it, which is what needs to be done. There are several helpful people in this thread suggesting how to do exactly that. For example suggesting disconnecting the author from the actual work, to critique it impersonally.
What you are suggesting is you should throw gasoline on a fire.
To the OP, it would probably be a good call to follow up with your professor and see what they have to say about peer reviewing this piece. If you want to go full professional on this, that would probably be the first step. Depending on if the professor is even wanting you to review this at all, which I would bet they don't given how most GTAs are required to react to inflammatory materials, act accordingly.
What I don't get here is Draygo's defense of this work. You are doing somersaults to find innocent readings of this tripe. In a lot of schools this would be a blatant violation of ethics requirements and would be grounds for academic misconduct review.
Reaching hard, you can say it does have... some of the elements of a story. But even the writers who do use this kind of approach actually present those aspects within the framework of a character, etc. However being a dick in response to dickery wastes everybody's time in class... Get in touch with your professor to see if you have to crit it.
Critique done.
So basically... just troll the troll.
I plus1 this approach
No, he doesn't (at least not to judge by this single sample) and no it isn't. It's not even basically grammatically correct and it has serious problems with brevity, voice, focus, vocabulary, usage, etc. It's really not very good writing, mechanically.
He's a pissy, spoiled college brat who doesn't understand why the world doesn't pay him and blow him, currently dealing with the realization that all the times he told himself "it doesn't matter what they call me, because they'll be working for me one day!" were compensatory bullshit. He needs to learn the rest of us don't think he's as special as his mom says he is.
I host a podcast about movies.
I stand by my original assertion. Tell the class the Calvin Coolidge "You Lose" story.