Decisions are hard, as Hamlet pointed out. How does one choose, when the choice is between the path of least resistance and one's own conviction which assuredly will encounter an uphill battle?
In both history course this semester, I have to produce term papers. In both cases, I know what the convention wisdom is on the subject, what is in every history textbook. I also come to a realization, from my own research, that there are supportable alternative views that depart from received views.
Those of you who know me would know that I am a bit of a shit-disturber (I think that's a Canadian expression. That's like a rabble-rouser, more commonly used in the US -- BTW, it's rabble-rouser, not REBEL rouser). Anyway, I derive inexplicable pleasure in seeking the road less traveled. So what do I do?
Let me be more explicit. Take this paper I am on right now. Was Truman responsible for the Cold War? Convention wisdom suggests yes. Personally, from what I have found, I beg to differ.
Now I know that if I say yes, and provide all the typical responses as to why, it would be fine. But where's the fun in that, eh? So my gut says to say No. That however is a bit of a challenge to the status quo. I don't know how the prof (actually the TA) would take it.
Easy way out? Or do what I think?
"A man who is not true to himself gets constipated," wrote Stephen King.
What do you think I will do? OK, so I have now convinced myself. If things don't work out, I blame Stephen King.
Anyone reading this who truly knows Chung, knows the actual answer is you'll be the shit-stirrer (my US statement). Now to support your position and prove that TA wrong!
ReplyDeleteSo true, Blue. You know me well :)
DeleteYou may not like this but one could demonstrate an awareness for the conventional interpretation while providing evidence for an alternative understanding. Thanks.
ReplyDeleteTrue. But as you may know, I'm one for sticking my neck out. Never sit on the fence. I'll regret this, I'm sure.
Delete