Evil Writing
The Rundown:
|
Supporting blog posts/random rants in chronological order (dates unspecified because everything in a semester blurs together for me):
The prof wants to know how changing genres (tweets, microfiction, haiku, formal poem) impacted my "writing and meaning making."
I'll be honest: as a writer, none of these genres fell within my "happy zone." I'm not a poetry person, I don't think in terms of short stories, and tweeting my thoughts/status/whatever feels downright unnatural. Every one of these pieces has, in some way, been dedicated to obstructing meaning. I don't make a habit of baring my soul online, or in general; so no matter the veracity of the tweets, they rarely slip below surface level. On the bright side, at least I know I'll be working with some sort of fiction for the idiot Twitterive. Changing tweets to microfiction, I was just trying to make something vaguely entertaining, so I found the weirdest line I could and put it in a bizarre context. No real deep meaning intended. The Anzaldúa-inspired microfiction was probably the closest I got to "feelings" with a slightly auto-biographical twinge of meaning; but this idea was also a small part of a multi-genre paper I did for Writer's Mind, so it's not like anything was a secret. With the Anzaldúa exception, I don't think I really started anything with a plan. Yes, I was changing meaning, but there wasn't a clear "meaning" to start with, so that's no surprise. Planning-wise, especially on the poems, I picked lines as I came across them and figured out what they said as I put them together. One-step process. Yes, there were moments I wished I'd had other words to work with, but you work with what you have and don't dwell on it. Wow, this really makes it sound like I just slapped everything together without any thought whatsoever. Ouch. I honestly don't know if I'm trying to create or distort meaning with any of these pieces. Maybe a little of both. Oh well, hopefully I'll have a better idea of what I'm doing with the idiot Twitterive. :) My group (Dibella, Franz, and Pickell) has chosen to focus on the advantages and drawbacks of a vegetarian/vegan lifestyle for our project. Honestly, it's not a topic I'm interested in, but it's what the rest of the group wanted, so cool.
This is where things get a little messy. At this point (almost a full week after getting the assignment), I would like to be talking about all the awesome facts I've learned and still hope to learn during the course of this research project...but I can't. I don' t want to sound whiny/high strung/OCD/whatever, but this thing is due Friday; and while I probably shouldn't be writing this where my teacher can see it, there's no way, between classes and other homework, that I can do my best work on 2 interviews and an edited video in 1 week. It's just not feasible. Well, deep breath, hope for the best. Though, as Tim Gunn always says on "Project Runway": "This worries me." In other news, Mangini suggested - nay, encouraged - that we question the teacher's approach to this project and attack questions of authorship, work labor, credit, and organization.
>.> Yes, he went there. So, as long as it's on the table, I suppose I do have a few things to say about group projects in general and this teacher's approach to it in particular. (Please be advised, I have general, overarching bad feelings toward group projects stemming from some undesirable events in elementary, junior high, and high school. Should I slip into rant-mode, it is likely in response to some past, scarring event that has nothing to do with either of my 2 current research projects. That is all. ^^) I suppose my biggest issue is with how credit is distributed in group projects. Not that I prefer those instances when group members are expected to, for all intents and purposes, tattle on each other, but the typical "everyone gets 1 grade approach" doesn't work any better for me. In fact, I often feel that using it expresses a certain sense of naivety in the professor behind the assignment. Groups, assigned or chosen by the students themselves (which sometimes isn't as open and full of choices as it sounds), will have different people. Wow. Shocker, I know. But seriously, when you get stuck with or pick a group, you don't necessarily know how the members differ in work ethic, effort, competence, or any of a number of other factors. For instance, I've had groups before where team members have said, right off the bat, that they don't care about the project/class/life, which tells me the amount of dedication and effort they'll bring to the project is lacking. This, unfortunately, puts those who either want/need the grade or know they can and will do better work in the position of needing to compensate for other team members. And at the end of the day, they all get the same grade, regardless of the fact that 1-3 people did the work of 6. Groups work it out between themselves and everyone pulls his or her own weight? Sometimes, and I really enjoy group projects when that's true, but that's the exception. More often than not, someone winds up overworking and someone else |
Supporting random emails:
Well, I went ahead and made the Google doc and sent invitations through your Rowan emails. It's set so you can edit with just the link if you're using another account.
I also took all our blog questions and roughly grouped them into different categories within a chart. We'll probably still have to talk, either in person or cyber-person, but this might make it a little easier to see everything at once and where the overlaps occur. |