Ten days have passed since the stressful day of 8 September (my dissertation defence), and I’m looking back upon the occasion with satisfaction. Everything went as planned: during the discussion I never froze completely and was able to defend my position plausibly enough. Despite all the admirable principles behind it, there is something absurd, even perverse, about a public scrutiny like that, what with all the pre-set stances and antagonism implied by the official vocabulary, the formal attire (we wore university gowns), and the fact that most of the discussion is not exactly accessible to most of the spectators. I’m glad we (my esteemed Opponent and I) were not overwhelmed by the circumstances and were able to talk almost informally at times, even add some humour to the discourse. Perhaps this was because both of us have the background (and the mentality) of a middle distance runner. We talked about this shortly before we strode down to the lecture hall. The few minutes before the startgun sounds are often filled with intolerable anxiety, but the gun removes the tension, leaving only concentration (and some aggression, as it is a contact sport). Luckily we were also able to hide the aggression during the discussion.

Another slightly strange fact about this ordeal is that it takes place after the work has been sealed, the crime committed, the damage done. If the dissertation has serious shortcomings even after the pre-examination and still gets printed, the opponent’s job somewhat resembles a post mortem: he is a forensic expert examining the corpse in a car wreck, not a policeman trying to prevent reckless behaviour in traffic. He is merely explaining to the audience how the driver lost control of the car, how his lungs were pierced and head severed. There may be lots of gory detail, but it does not necessarily even get written down. Even before the final investigation, the crash (of a dissertation) has been typed and proofread, bound and shelved, made immutable.

To be honest, there never was much nervousness. There was slightly more in the evening, at the karonkka dinner. As one kind professor instructed me beforehand, the candidate in fact has no reason to be nervous before the public defence. He or she always has the best knowledge of that particular topic, and if any difficulties arise, it’s merely because the opponent is asking odd questions. I think this advice should be delivered to all doctoral candidates along with all the other material on the public defence. 16:07