Terrorism and the Rule of Law - 75%
International Human Rights Law - 70%
Comparative Constitutional Law - ..........................67%
Kai Moller hates me. :( It is quite tragic that it was the essay on which I spent the most time that I did the worst in.
Since I have spent roughly a fucking week writing my fucking Jurisprudence essay which is the hardest fucking essay I have ever written in my entire fucking life, it means that it's going to be even worse than the CCL one. I might just commit suicide if I get anything less than a 68%, which is what I got for the rubbish I submitted in Michaelmas Term, the essay on Kant. I did it the night before it was due, I literally had NO IDEA what the flying fuck I was writing, I basically looked up summaries of his freedom thing online and rephrased them in my own words, then added some crap evaluation to the last one third of the essay so that it wasn't purely descriptive...and that got me a 68%. How hilarious. Unfortunately, Negri isn't anywhere near as influential as Kant, so there are pretty much no summaries of his work online; as a result, I had to interpret it all on my own, which means that I probably got it wrong. Derrida's work is even worse - I found a summary of his Force of Law article which confused the crap out of me because it read nothing like what the Philosophy professor said that Derrida said in the article. How can it be that a single law review article can give rise to such differing interpretations? That made me want to change my essay, but I was just so sick of thinking and thinking and thinking about it and getting confused every time I tried to write something that I thought I understood, just to discover that I didn't understand it after all when I couldn't verbalise what I wanted to say; hence, I decided to stick with what I learned in class.
I don't think I was aware of what a perfectionist I am until this essay. I've always fussed over everything when I do a written piece of work - the content, obviously; how the ideas flow; how the arguments are structured; whether my introduction sets out, in the correct order, how the arguments will be presented; and of course, stylistic concerns like punctuation (does a semi-colon or the em-dash give this sentence a better effect?) and choice of words (should I use 'affirm', 'substantiate', or 'validate'?). But the extent to which I fussed over this particular essay took me by surprise. I just couldn't step away from it no matter how sick of it I was and how much time I was wasting on it because the arguments didn't make sense, I didn't bloody understand what the philosophers were saying, I couldn't make a certain argument because it was not a fair representation of their views, the structure was awful, the sentences were bland and didn't flow...
All I can say is that I am really glad that it will be over after I reduce the word count to meet the word limit. And on that note, I'm off to finish just that so that I can finally go to bed.
By the way - I LOVE House of Cards. Kevin Spacey is majestic and so is Robin Wright. I love the Shakespearean feel to the show - the theme of power and the usurpation of it reminded me of Richard III immediately (which I saw Spacey in when his Bridge Project staged it in Singapore), and Frank Underwood's "asides" to the camera are a superb touch. What a brilliant show. I can't wait to stream the rest of it on Netflix...in fact, I feel like doing so right now. ARGH.