In a review of the thesis should be paid particular attention to whether the procedural requirements have been complied. The proofreading of the thesis is the last step before printing, when this error can not be seen, it is usually for a change too late. There’s thesis certain procedural requirements to be followed, misspellings are used by most professors, especially in the natural sciences, but also for economists, educators and lawyers rather tolerated – which does not mean that spelling with no value is placed.

The thesis – the last step to the title

At the end of studying a thesis must be written many times. For them, there are certain procedural requirements, if errors exist, are easily modifiable in proofreading the thesis. The situation is different with the content, here serious mistakes were made, it is usually used for corrections too late. Basically, ever worked careful when creating the final work, the lower the cost in the subsequent review. Most of the students are finished with their dissertation until shortly before the deadline, in the hustle and bustle errors are often overlooked.

Since a student hardly works without a computer, the spell check is the slightest problem, otherwise it looks with the formatting form. Many PC performs an unwanted life of its own, so footnotes disappear, the font size suddenly at the beginning of the work other than at the end, table formats become independent and much more. Even if the content should be relevant, most professors still place great emphasis on the outward appearance, so it is sensible to neglect these details in any case in proofreading the thesis.

Paraphrase: we do when we paraphrase repeated this already expressed a text. This is a major obstacle in the literary commentary since it leads to dilute the content instead of explain. But many candidates in the dissertation are also paraphrase, precisely when their general knowledge fails them: instead of providing an organized reflection highlighting the exploitation of the corpus in the light of their personal knowledge, they begin to comment on the proposed documents. Hence a total absence of demonstrative reasoning.

The tendency to generalize: it affects a number of candidates (sometimes value) experiencing difficulties in prioritizing and selecting their knowledge: they want to while neglecting the specific aspects of the subject: that is to say its delimitation. Their duty and looks like a kind of very general presentation or speech. Another scenario: you are to a subject like a problem already treated, and you want to reuse your knowledge … the risk of falling into the general forgetting taking careful account of the specific subject that is before you.

Too much personal involvement: the difference in writing of invention, the essay is not an exercise in style. We do not expect the candidate gradations, anaphora, colorful metaphors, etc. You do not need to emotionally or emotionally involved in your work, or challenge the reader as you would for example in a newspaper article, speech, debate, letter, etc. You must instead objectify your duty, that is to say, made ​​objective by a neutral and sober expression, which takes into account the communication situation imposed, so no poetry, no exaggerated lyricism, and of course not polemical spirit! The goal is to convince in a language that must always be supported.

Well over 50 novels, Great essays and reflections on the current situation has already written Richard Millet. He is therefore regarded as one of the most important contemporary writer who was awarded the essay prize of the Académie française deservedly in France.

It is not surprising that Millet’s most important books have been published until recently by Gallimard, probably the most traditional publishing house in Paris. Alone, a political campaign against the novelist led to its dortigem retirement as editor. This was Millets “Eloge on Breivik” ( 2012). In this – now translated to German – essay, he takes off on the “formal perfection” and the “literary dimension” indeed Breivik, posing as a reason for the Oslo massacre the loss of identity within a multicultural society in the debate.

The reactions in the French and West German feuilleton were negative to hateful and concentrated on these two excerpts, in spite of the sincere well-founded explanation as Millets, he thought Breivik’s atrocities for “monstrous”.

Millet was unimpressed by the media witch hunt – he knew and knows about the manipulation of the published opinion and has therefore no needs retreated to an observation post from which he dissects the dissolution of Western culture. Result of this now almost unique independent time diagnostics are especially the essays “anti-racism as a terrorist against the literature,” “Phantom language,” and “The exhausted mind”.

The stylistic brilliance Millets completes the razor-sharp analysis of politics, society, language and literature, which are collected entered into his lost items. Millet is a writer, WaldgГ¤nger and partisan; surrender he rejects in all properties. By the end, he tells of countless attacks by unperturbed, he would be a “guardian of decline”.