I woke up yesterday and realized why I didn't like my answer to paper #5. So I fixed most of it yesterday, which means I'm a day behind my scheduled answers. However, since I was scheduled to finish on Friday, but the answers aren't due until Monday, it's ok if I'm running a little behind. But here's my problem (besides the fact that I'm finding this process incredibly futile), this is the second question I have to answer for my advisor.
Most classic works of Soviet history focus on events in Moscow and Leningrad. During the past two decades, however, historians have done more and more local studies, shifting their attention to other cities, provinces, and republics. Write an essay discussing how such studies have or have not changed our vision of the Soviet past. What are the strengths of such studies? What are the weaknesses? Be sure to discuss at least two works, which focus on different spheres of Soviet history (social, culture, intellectual currents, politics, and so on). Be sure to compare them with works that (explicitly or implicitly) focus on Moscow and Leningrad. (Be sure to discuss works that you do not discuss in Part A).
It's that last part that's killing me. Why? Because, people are doing local studies because the archives are open. I think she did that to see how creative I can be. It's making it a bit difficult. And, it's 4:30p and I really want to finish this question today. I haven't started typing it yet. Once I do, it shouldn't take that long. It's just finding the motivation to do it.
Finally, I have new readers. Hi new readers!!! Glad to have you. Ironically, I'd like to think this blog is usually more interesting than it has been lately (it's probably not though).
Ok, back to the localities.