My Dear Sir,

It is difficult—nay, nigh impossible—for me to decline any attempt at retaliation, for to do so would leave my work and, as my work is an extension of myself, my very being undefended before the multitude. To be poorly represented when there is the opportunity to vindicate myself of the errors I have thus been deemed to have committed is an injustice I will not bear. If, in your remarks concerning my work, you sought to dissuade me, to perhaps admonish me for my less-than-common diction, for the path in which my logic takes it course, I spit on you. It is not in your field (and yes, I presume thus, and yes, I dare to make myself an authority in my claim) to illuminate to me the flaws of my writing. What should merit the majority of your concern is the content. Let it be a lesser concern that my writing itself may be less than artfully crafted. That can be remedied through revision, and I will admit my frivolous mistakes in diction, but I find that the words I choose hardly detract from the meaning I seek to convey.

It would have been easier, dear sir, if, in the class meeting prior to the writing of this paper, we actually discussed the vision of the film rather than focus on its historical pretexts and contexts. You wonder why I included such in my argument? Because that was all that was said in class. If, perhaps, we focused more on cinematic scenes, perhaps my work would be more deserving of a fitting, proper grade, but I refuse to find myself entirely at fault for whatever substance my paper appears to be lacking. Also, given the film itself, which has in its title an historical American figure, it would seem not altogether unlikely that historical background would be alluded to in the building up of my argument. Apparently, that is taboo, and if not taboo, then discouraged. I know not what you mean, sir. My misgivings cannot be solely my own, especially when I am subject to the teachings of an expert whose goal should be to assist and to educate his students in the manner he sees best fitting to meeting his own ends, his own objectives for the class. Beware, dear sir. I may judge you harshly come evaluation day.

I merely mean to say that I find validity in my argument that is incontestable, that is not a failure in any way and is not representative of my overall capability to write and to write well. I am a firm believer that my diction was more or less appropriate and that, given one or two bull-shitted terms, I am exempt from further and cruel scrutiny of my particular word choice. My argument, logically and content-wise, I believe, was sufficient if not perfectly admissible. It is not disjointed in my eyes, and if it appears such, it may only be a reflection of how the class is conducted. Disjointed, scatter-brained, tangential and incohesive. You've only to use my paper as a mirror to what your class has thus far managed in accomplishing, and whether or not you deem that a success or a failure, I am predisposed to vie for the latter.

Perhaps the grade I was given would not be viewed as an insult were it not for the way in which you replied to my paper. Your curtness, your ease in declaring my methods and my procedure as failed, and your willingness to denounce words that yes, do exist in the God damn dictionary, portray you as a narrow-minded man, fixed in his impression of what is desired, what is right and what is ideal and closed to alternative arguments or insights that threaten your conceived notions. I am narrow-mindedness' worst enemy, my dear sir. You cannot learn anything new if you are already convinced that you know everything there is to know about a subject. Be humble and accept the fact that there are ideas out there as of yet unthought, undiscovered, and that one of your students may be the torchbearer of such revolutionary thinking. I am not that student, but I am the still the victim of closed-mindedness. I assert the right to express myself freely, though respectfully in the academic sphere, and I have done simply that. Yet the reply says otherwise and smacks of unprofessional stubbornness on the part of instructor.

I suppose I can rant and rave all I like and it will amount to nothing, but I will have you know that I detest people of your mindset, abhor people of your ilk, and I should have known it from the beginning. That because you a doctor of something, you assert your authority as if it were irremovable, written in stone, but I will be like the acid rain that corrodes the foundations of your concrete absolutism and erases the face you so proudly wore.