In view of the shortage of time I previously had, I have only begun taking Literature modules from this semester again. To be honest, the more I delve into the concept the Literature, the more I hate it. I understand why "model" or guided thoughts needed to be fed when I was taking this as an O Level subject. However, why do the lecturers still expect solutions to fit within the mould? That simply goes against the idea of Literature, where people have the freedom to interpret what they read, with evidence from the text to back them up, of course. Why would literary texts always seem debatable to begin with? Texts are never straightforward and limited to a single perception.
I decided to take a little risk with these ten marks for the discussion board for Singapore Literature and venture off the beaten track. And I think I might have been a little too bold and I'm prepared to lose the marks thoroughly. I've never felt so awful about any modules so far and solutions have never felt so beyond my reach.
Oh Lord, I really need your help. I need your wisdom to see what the model answer is, and of course for a little less boldness to stay on the beaten track and contribute the model answer. Isn't that what the lecturer wants? Why, really, did the University remove half of its face-to-face sessions? Especially when the target audience of the course do not have the theoretical background in literature and require more examples to help them think critically.
Instead of whining, I ought to head back to my TMA and write on the safe side. Though, it has been a terribly disappointing start to Term 2.
