Living to tell my tale

I tend to be a perfectionist and I knew that if did not start my project with anticipation I would be stressing on the small details and would not have completed it in time as the deadline approached; hence, my research project, living to tell my tale, is almost finished. So far I have interviewed my friends, recorded and researched my community, talked about my life and edited the video. I am still missing a reference page for pictures and works cited and the ideal song to place as background music, but I do not know if I should even include music because it might interrupt one of my interviews.

 For this project I have a timeline, which depicts aspects of my life and mindset now at age 19 and focuses on future predictions of my community (i.e. Washington Heights) based on present times. I have spent a lot time working on it and hopefully everyone that watches it enjoys,especially myself in a couple of years.

The man behind the camera

Observing the interview of Roger Ebert with Michael Apted was an interesting experience. For some strange reason since I had learned of the existence of Up Series I had not seen the creator of these masterpiece documentaries. Unfortunately for Apted and like Jackie, Lynn and Sue (the three working-class participants) he was really affected in his appearance by age. Time certainly took its toll.

I am fascinated by the series; however, I’m afraid that after learning about Apted’s experiences, inner thoughts and details in making the series now I am more hooked than ever. In this interview I discovered interesting details I did not know of like how (when age 22) covering 7Up as a researcher for Granada Television was Apted’s first job, and that as the series progressed he “felt a terrible urge to play God” by anticipating what would happen in the lives of two of the participants: Tony and Neil (Apted, 2006). Apted also believes that some of the participants have moved from their initial class system; the class system in England was eroding, but not to the extent to make a definite conclusion.

Apted confirms that the series initially had a political agenda because World in action was a leftist, socialist program; however, over the years he learned “we cannot predict lives. The series shows us that life and its changes are eternal” (Apted, 2006).  After 7Up, the series does not give the audience a strong political context because Apted believed it seemed trivial. The series was focused on the characters and the politics of the films were the lives of the participants. Their lives were the political statements not their opinions on a certain matter. Before Ebert had finished his sentence, Apted interrupted him by making the clarification that 21Up is an exception to the rule.  Apted argues that we see in the participants changes from the old England to the new. They talk about trends which were revolutionizing the nation: the libertine, the rock music, etc... He sees himself as fortunate by being able to record the awakening of this liberal generation.

The Up series became much more than it was expected. He recognizes that apart from viewing the participants’ lives we can relate to each of their lives in a certain way; “there’s something in it for everybody” (Apted, 2006).  I now know that I am not the only person that can identify with the Up Series characters (some more than others). As I see Suzy in an unhappy and desperate state at age 21, Peter struggling with his loneliness at ages 28 and 35, Nick selling his father’s farm at age 42 and Tony as a conservative grandfather in Spain at age 49, I wonder what will be of my life at these ages and how such changes will determine my future. I guess I will also find out every 7 years.

Reference:

Ebert, Roger. “Seventh time 'Up' for Apted”. (October 12, 2006)  Interview with Michael Apted.

On introversion and the Up Series

In Clive Thompson on the Power of Introversion, Thompson provides us with insight of how introversion has been frowned upon in American society and how being introvert is far from a negative quality. It is actually useful when performing teamwork. “[A] new picture is emerging. Forcing everyone to act like extroverts harms the quality of our work and our lives.” (Thompson 2012) On a different matter, In The Up Series directed by Michael Apted and Keeping Up With the Seven Up, Schneider and Corliss provide us with a review of the Up Series and how it has had an impact on its audience’ life , the understanding of society, science and art over the years.  The Up Series, they argue, is a sociological masterpiece of films, the greatest work of humanity, that has gone beyond the agenda the original documentary exposed (i.e. how social classes and inequalities in England determined an individual’s life) to provide a “powerful meditation on the meaning of existence."(Schneider 2007) 

Corliss believes the series has become “less a window into their [the participants’] lives, more a mirror into our own [lives].”(2006) This quote immediately caught my attention, as the one I related to the most. As the series progresses and I watch the participants evolve and devolve (like Neil or Jackie) over the years, I have wondered how my life would be every 7 years. Will it play out as I have planned or will it be completely different than my expectations?  

Initially, I was struck and confused with these articles. I could not understand how such could possibly relate. However, as I continued my reading I did find a connection: an interesting quote by Schneider. Neither do I nor would Thompson like or agree with Schneider, who argues that “[t]he extroverts and introverts as children are extroverts and introverts in middle age.” He disregards the participants’ ability to change and how the widespread view of the series and face-to-face interviewing with Apted may have lead to more introversion and pressures when decision-making. I believe his view contributes to the stigma against introversion and agree with Thompson when he argues that “[t]o really get the best out of people, have them work alone first, then network later.” (2012) Regardless of the degree of introversion, as the participants overcome their desires for privacy, reveal themselves and show us their lives each 7 years, “these septennial TV celebrities have become, in a modest but modern way, true movie heroes.” (Corliss, 2006)

            I do not want to seem biased towards Corliss’ viewpoint; however, once again I found the quote I like the most in his article. Corliss argues that “Apted wants to be faithful to his subjects' dreams, moods and rancors, we have to wonder what important elements are lost as he reduces the two days of interviews he does with each subject to 10 or 15 mins…Sometimes the truth, whatever that is in understanding a person's life, is also at risk.”(2006) Most of the readings on the Up Series have exalted Apted for his contribution in sociology; however, it is always interesting to read articles where Apted’s editing is questioned like Thorne’s "The Seven Up! Films: Connecting the Personal and the Sociological". What we see is what is known of the participants, but what happens with what we do not learn?

*Note: Some parts of the response may have a larger font than other. My blogger is having problems with this.

References:

 Corliss, Richard. "Keeping Up With the Seven Up." Http://www.time.com. Time Magazine, 1 Dec. 2006. Web. 6 Nov. 2012. .

Thompson, Clive. "Clive Thompson on the Power of Introversion." Wired.com. Conde Nast Digital, 21 Mar. 2012. Web. 06 Nov. 2012. .

 Schneider, Dan. "Hackwriters.com - The Up Series - Dir Michael Apted - Dan Schneider on the UK Documentary Series." Hackwriters.com - The Up Series - Dir Michael Apted - Dan Schneider on the UK Documentary Series. Hackwriters.com, 2007. Web. 06 Nov. 2012. .

On Interviewing

In Reporting on Your Own and Writing about People: The Interview, Kalita and Zinsser provide us with guidelines for effective interviewing of people. Interviewing, they argue, is more than reporting what we discover or asking and answering questions, but is a process in which we learn peoples’ actions and thoughts, and unlearn what we think we know. “We’re telling our subjects’ stories, not our own.” (Kalita 49)  Whether an experienced writer like Zinsser or a rookie future sociologist like me, Interviewing is best (and early) mastered through practice. Consequently, to apply their approaches we must start by interviewing.

Interviewing is itself a process. According to Zinsser, first, we must choose an interviewee “so unusual that the average reader would want to read about the person”, second, if we do not know the interviewee, we must get him or her to trust us in order to avoid awkward silences or fear; third, we must do our homework, have an idea of what questions to ask and be prepared to direct the interview based on our intuition or on different directions than our initial and finally, we must choose a method (based on our preferences) of taking notes of the interviewee’s answers. (104)

Kalita’s approach focuses on how to report our own community to a general audience. From her experience she explains that “journalists personally connected to that context [his or her community] should use extra caution to get facts and perspectives precisely right…  We obviously must stay free of obligation, but we shouldn’t also get in the way of our own work.”(49)

Kalita and Zinsser’s guidelines will be extremely useful for my multimedia project, “Living to Tell My Story”. Rather than simply applying my ethnographic method, their approaches give me a better understanding of the process of interviewing and more flexibility with what questions to ask and how to interact with my interviewees.

For my project I have many interviewees in mind: my parents, friends and neighbors I know I want to record my interviewees and take notes (just in case); however I am still debating if I should “do my homework” and prepare a specific questionnaire focused on my life or follow Michael Apted’s manner of interviewing in the Up! Series, a mixture of broad  questions based on intuition and the interviewees’ answers. Since settling this issue has been my main problem (so far) with my project, I may reach a midpoint between both approaches: ask my interviewees specific question about me (e.g. Where do you see me in 14 years?) and questions based on their answers [e.g. Do you believe Washington Heights, my community, will be more than what people expect (i.e. "Dominicanland") ?] Surely, I am noticing that Kalita and Zinsser could not be more right, the process of interviewing is much more than I had expected.

*References:

Kalita, S.Mitra. “Reporting on Your Own”. Telling True Stories: A Nonfiction Writers' Guide from the Nieman Foundation at Harvard University. New York: Plume, 2007. Print.

Zinsser, William. “Writing About People: The Interview”. On Writing Well: The Classic Guide to Writing Nonfiction. New York: HarperCollins, 2006.

Reviewed proposal for "Living To Tell My Story"

For my multimedia project I want to depict my present life and how past and future changes experienced will frame who I will become as time passes by. As a future sociologist I want to be able to trace past trends in order to make future predictions. I am not a multimedia wizard; hence, I’m going to create a simple PowerPoint to help me explain my viewpoints and research.  To get started on my project I will record many aspects of life at the moment through pictures and ethnographic approach I will apply an ethnographic approach, “firsthand studies of people using participant observation[1] or interviewing”, to those who know me the best, my family and friends. In order to make more concrete predictions I will also investigate and read multiple sources like newspapers or journals. (Giddens, 39)

---

[1] “A method of research widely used in sociology and anthropology, in which the researcher takes part in the activities of the group or community being studied.” (Giddens, 39)

Annotated much?

Note: If you're reading my blog and find that my posts tend to vary a lot, good! Sometimes reading random pieces of writing are better than reading a single theme over and over again. The following are my first annotated bibliographies. Writing them was harder than I thought, but hopefully I did a good job. Here I go!

Thorne, B. "The Seven Up! Films: Connecting the Personal and the Sociological."Ethnography 10.3 (2009): 327-40. Print.

In the article “The Seven Up! Films: Connecting the Personal and the Sociological," Barrie Thorne argues how over the years the UP! Films loosened from Apted’s original theme, how social classes and inequalities in England determined an individual’s life, and focused on each individual’s humanity. Throughout her article, Thorne depicts how the Jesuit Maxim became a hypothesis rather than a fact as the series’ now emphasized each individual’s evolution throughout life’s course, his family or intimate relationships and his unique personality in a social context. Thorne acknowledges Apted’s challenges (as an ethnographer) to review and update each film, but she believes the shift provides “a growing sense of complexity and contingency… [that] unsettles the linear image of pre-set destinations.” (339)  In addition to offering an overview of the films’ shift to human nature, Thorne’s article also provides insight of how sociological patterns and issues can be discussed in an individual manner.

Apted, Michael. "Michael Apted Responds." Ethnography 10.3 (2009): 359-67. Print.

In the article "Michael Apted Responds," Apted discusses what he believes is the nature of the Up! Films and defends his decisions and the outcomes of each film from critics (i.e. Barrie Thorne, Mitchell Duneier and Paul).  Throughout the article Apted argues that the films are inspired on his view of the world and that there is no philosophy in them because each film was unplanned; that as the series progressed, he felt a burden to modify his initial decisions concerning sociological context and the audience reception and to make new decisions such as: controlling his determinism to focus on each participant’s close-up. Apted acknowledges his work gets him in trouble, but he still criticizes the writers’ attempts to predict the outcome of each film due to his editing and the series’ shift in theme. Apted argues his editing style became more neutral over time, especially, after the participants began to choose exercise power of what would be omitted in each film and that the humanizing and outcome of the series was inevitable, “the retreat from class politics, was organic and inexorable, and not the will of some bottom-line.”(366) In addition to explaining the inside story behind the series in order to satisfy critiques with the truth, Apted also clarifies what the series is and is not, why larger social issues were be included or excluded.

Ebert, Roger. "The Up Documentaries (1985)." Rogerebert.com. Sun-Times, 25 Oct. 1985. Web. .

In the article “The Up Documentaries (1985)”, Ebert provides an overview of the the subjects’ changes from 7Up! to 42Up and relates his experiences viewing the series over time.  Throughout his article, Ebert argues that regardless of the erosion in the English class system, the subjects’ had different personalities as children that did not determine who they would be, if they ended up doing what they wanted to do or were living unhappy lives in future years. Also, that as the series develops he got to know the subjects personally, “because I know what they dreamed of at 7, their hopes at 14, the problems they faced in their early 20s, and their marriages, their jobs, their children, even their adulteries.” For Ebert, revisiting the subjects over time led to a self-examination of his life at ages 7, 14, 21, 28, 35 and 42 and why he was in the place he was at his current age.

Looking around in our world

In Looking Around, Lammot argues the importance of paying attention to details, communicating our viewpoints and having reverence when writing. Writing is not a superficial process in which we state facts. “It’s simple in concept, but not that easy to do.” (Lammot 98) As we write we learn to examine the world we live in and develop a sense of self-compassion, hence, we learn to “see people as they really are.” (Lammot 98)Lammot recognizes we do not have a perfect world; however we should forget our narcissistic ways because we all live in it. Hence, there is no reason to conflict with each other or set ourselves apart from the world because it is a “dark place”. Lammot’s piece provides a refreshing and realistic viewpoint of the world. This immediately caught my attention as I chose the quote I liked the most: regardless of the pessimism we encounter on our daily-basis, she argues our focus should be “given to each syllable of life as life sings itself.” (Lammot 102)

Lammot also believes writing helps us see people “suffer and find some meaning therein.” Our self-compassion enables us to write characters which are recognizable and relatable to the readers.  Our goal as writers, she argues, should be to provide the reader with a new way of seeing things, “things that can catch us off guard, that break in our small, bordered worlds.” (Lammot 100)  The prior quote was the one I could relate to the most in the reading. It might bore you to read how I constantly mention my struggles, to express my voice and engage the reader with my words, ; however, if I do so it’s because it has been a recurrent issue for me when writing. Each time I write I attempt to accomplish my goal: to expand the reader’s knowledge with new perspectives on a matter, my viewpoints.

Finally, Lammot argues the importance of reverence, “as awe, as presence in and openness to the world.” (99) When we do not possess or practice this quality we shut down as we limit ourselves and our viewpoints as writers. I would like to agree with Lammot as she explains that “when what we see catches us off guard, and when we write it realistically and as open as possible, it offers hopes”; unfortunately, I find this quote improbable, which is the reason I dislike it. A writer can attempt to provide hope for the reader; however, he or she would find hope not only by reading the pains of the world and humans, but by the thought those things could always be worse and that if they are worse they have to get better.  With Lammot’s view I believe that the writer would end up providing the reader only with hope. Yes, we do have to be as open as possible and realistic, but if the world is becoming a worse place for future generations, we should not pout about or expect it to become better with our hopes, we can be optimistic but not only be optimistic; we must change the patterns that have made it this way.
Reference: Lammot, Anne. "Looking Around." Bird by Bird. New York: Anchor, 1997. Print