Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: surrounded by water
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I would include it. Are you apprehensive about including it for some specific reason? I think it sounds fine.
|1. her writing is in many respects quite professional. i feel it begs the question in what respects it is not professional.|
|2. quite passionate about the project. i think it weakens my intent, kwim? i am passionate, very passionate. not quite passionate.|
|3. original yet relevant. sounds like a jab.|
The letter is fine. Having written letters like these myself, I would put an alternate interpretation to what the reviewer said.
The reviewer does not want to cast you as a professional writer. Since a professional writers is by definition a person that writes for a living, such a person might not really need the grant. The reviewer is saying that while you have professional qualities, you are not making a living as a writer, because all things being equal, the review committee is more likely to give the grant to someone they think needs it rather than to someone who doesn't.
Two things here. First, the reviewer is casting himself or herself as dispassionate observer of your writing in order to convey the idea that he or she is not backing you from some emotional stance. (That's what "quite" means here.) Second, the reviewer in the rest of the review has stressed the rational side of your abilities, in effect saying that you possess real skill. What the reviewer is trying to avoid is the idea that you are all attitude and no talent. On the other hand, the reviewer also wants to portray you as being passionate about your writing, because the issuer of the grant wants some assurance that you will in fact finish the project.
The reviewer here is trying to say that you are not a writer who tries to be original by just mixing into your work a bunch or odd or shocking stuff. Some people think that they need to "prove" their "originality" by punching up their work with little surprises. By saying that you are original, but relevant, the reviewer is saying that you do not rely on gimmicks and yet you do have an original voice. So this is not a jab. It is high praise.
The letter is very good and you should use it by all means. I hope the other letters are just as good.
|92 members and 12,861 guests|
|aharlow , alexis161 , AmandaBrooke , anachka , angeebaby , anon_abroad , artemis33 , badwolf092087 , bananabee , belltree , blissful_maia , bluefaery , Celestical , chknlovr , Cricket VS , Crimson8 , Daffodil , Dawn's mom , Deborah , EllaD , elliha , emmy526 , etsdtm99 , frugalmama , Galatea , goodcents , greenemami , healthy momma , IntoTheRoseGarden , itybitywity , joycnm , kateaton , kathymuggle , Kelleybug , Krc , lauren , lilmissgiggles , LiLStar , lilyofjudah , LilyTiger , mariamadly , marmy , MDoc , MeepyCat , meowmix , Milk8shake , Mirzam , mnshsnghl , moominmamma , mostlysunny , MsDandelion , mummabear13 , Natalie12 , NaturallyKait , need2know23 , newlywaaz , newmamalizzy , oaksie68 , oasis84 , peebs , Poline , primalmom , pulcetti , Ragana , rainydaywoman , Reyhan , RollerCoasterMama , SandiMae , sarafl , seekingtruth , Serafina33 , serenbat , Shmootzi , sillysapling , Snydley , sofreshsoclean , Sphinxy , Springshowers , SummerStorm22 , suzywan , SweetSilver , Tigerle , TrishWSU , verticalscope , Wild Lupine , wsandra , Xrsteve|
|Most users ever online was 449,755, 06-25-2014 at 12:21 PM.|