by Tingcong Lin

The School of English research seminar series is a significant event for the School, an occasion when faculty and research postgraduate students gather to share and discuss their work, and sometimes to hear invited speakers (https://english.hku.hk/event/Seminar_Series/2022-2023/First_Semester). In the postgraduate student session held on 24 November 2022, Emily Rose Nicholls and Ahsan Md Firoz Mahmud each gave a fascinating talk on their current research. Emily’s talk is titled “Elsinore’s Absent Jesters: Hamlet’s Neurodiverse Resonance”. Firoz’s talk is titled “Maternal Ambivalence in Selina Hossain’s Kathkoilar Chobi”. After their talks, they kindly agreed to be interviewed. 

  1. How do you feel about the session in general? Are there any differences between this session and other conference/seminar experiences that you have had? 

Emily: Honestly, it was terrifying! I am only a few months into a 4-year PhD so it felt a bit premature. However, when I was offered the chance to present in the seminar series, I wanted to seize the opportunity. I had presented similar ideas at the Shakespeare Institute’s Grad conference last year, but this HKU talk was tougher because it was longer and pitched to a broader audience. Nonetheless, I met my aims this time because they were personal and interpersonal: I wanted to confront a fear of public speaking early on, and I wanted to get to know people in the School of English. 

Firoz: Well, as it was my first-time experience as a presenter in the seminar, there prevailed a chill of fear all the way. However, as soon as I stepped into the room and took my seat, it felt like any other session. Luckily, the session went superbly for me, and I’m still thankful to everyone who patiently listened to me. The only difference that makes the seminar exclusive is that you know feedback is a sure bet here. The allocated time is much longer than at conferences, and the audience is likely to be more experienced. All in all, this session is exclusively designed for graduate students, and it shows as you bite the bullet! Trust me!   

  1. How do you relate the talk with your PhD project? 

Emily: At this point, I am unsure whether the ideas from this talk will be part of a thesis chapter or a side project towards an article. My main project explores how Hamlet and its critical and creative afterlives serve as a testing ground for broader concerns in literary/cultural theory. As such, I wanted to start with some of my own exploration of Hamlet and the theoretical concept of neurodiversity. I chose this topic for two reasons. Firstly, because it had become important to me personally and in my previous teaching career. Secondly, because the crossover between Neurodiversity Studies and approaches to Literature is a new and potentially exciting dynamic. 

Firoz: In every possible way. As my thesis is predicated on the politics of trauma as mirrored in postwar Bangladeshi fiction, this session contributed to that overall premise since it gave me an opportunity to premiere the ambivalence of motherhood shown by a wartime-rape victim as portrayed by Selina Hossain, an acclaimed novelist from Bangladesh. The female protagonist’s conflicted self, thanks to her repeated traumas and her muffled voice representing a microethnic community, raises a serious issue of concern, which deserves attention both locally and globally.    

  1. What is the best part of your research that you wish to bring out? 

Emily: At its broadest, I would like my research to shed light on the interrelation between critical and affective approaches to studying literature. This is because recent movements in literary studies have tended to separate or even oppose critique and affect. Critique is often regarded as cynical and overly invested in political objectives. Affect is often promoted as a more positive alternative which can articulate our emotional connections to literature. In my project, I want to question the suggested division between affect and critique by demonstrating that Hamlet has always brought the two together within the text itself and in its critical and creative afterlives. 

Firoz: What I’m trying to achieve by doing this research is to critically appraise the litterateurs’ retrospection of the Bangladesh war. In doing so, I’d like to remain alert to a comment I received after my presentation in the seminar: I don’t want to sell humdrum nationalist “trauma porn” in the form of my thesis. It’s easy to fall into that trap. My work as a researcher is to listen to the trauma as objectively as possible and then to critique it to see “how deep the rabbit hole goes.”     

  1. What is the most important thing that you learnt from the session?  

Emily: The biggest takeaway for me was the importance of continually trying to explain my research ideas to a range of different people. Being met with unexpected questions and sceptical or confused looks can be very helpful. I discussed the seminar talk with my supervisor afterwards, and this helped me see how to anticipate potential objections and ensure they are well addressed in my introduction. I also need to be better prepared next time. I didn’t even get to the “Absent Jesters” from my paper’s title! The “Absent Jesters” now represent the arts of my project that are unknown! 

Firoz: I realized how the paper presented in the session can also help with the thesis-writing process. My supervisor said a few words in praise of my presentation, but pointed out to me at the same time why she liked the way I planned my talk. The format I followed was likeable because I organized my talk such that even a layperson could understand my aim. It was conversational and engaging. This session gave me new food for thought — a) how to design a paper that communicates with the audience and is well-received by it, and b) how to deal with “aggressive” feedback in a much calmer and more professional way.    

  1. Do you have any suggestions for other postgraduate students on giving a talk, or on research postgraduate studies in general? 

Emily: Try not to be too worried about these things, but if you are, do them anyway! The advantage of doing it early is that next time, I’ll be slightly less scared, and I’ve set myself a benchmark that is low enough to clear! However, don’t be so stressed that you forget to thank your supervisors for all their support! 

Firoz: I guess it’s better to present your work in progress in the seminar right after the confirmation seminar. You can test it out for the first time. Experience the atmosphere. You’ll manage to weather the session no matter what. Then you can present again in your final year when you should be more organized and when you’re clearer about what you want to achieve.