I’ve been going over my supervisor’s edits on my second and third chapters of my thesis. I have two supervisors, both with very different approaches to critiquing my writing. Currently I’ve only had feedback from my second supervisor (I always want to abbreviate that to S2, but it seems like I’m indicating a preference that I don’t actually have.) The feedback that I get from them is what I call thematic – they point out issues with my consistency and challenge me in order to make my arguments stronger. They tend to leave me with a list of issues form which I go off and re-write myself. What they don’t do is edit directly onto my work. As is the foundation of a good supervisory team, my other supervisor (S1) is the opposite. They go through the minutiae of each line, scrutinising how I have made my arguments. Questioning my use of terms and asking me to clarify my language. While I have had a fairly positive meeting with S2 and come away with my list of issues, I am yet to meet with S1 for the deconstruction of my writing. This image from Biblioklpet (a blog I have just started following) of Ezra Pounds notes on Eliot’s ‘The Waste Land’ caught my eye as something similar awaits my thesis in the near future. I am both unsettled and comforted by it. I’m dreading the dissection my with work in quite such vigorous detail, but if Eliot could endure it I have no reason to grumble.