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

Assessing the Assessment

Maslin describes 35Up as “growing increasingly rueful with age.” (Maslin) I beg to differ, but to a certain extent. I believe it presents a more personal side of the participants. Whereas in the past prequels (i.e. 7Up, 21Up and 28Up) the participants expressed their opinion on a certain topic or answered one of Apted’s questions, by 35Up they are confessing secrets and showing a more vulnerable, human side that goes through ups and downs in life. Such was the case with Suzy, who had experienced the sickness and death of one of her parents and Tony, who confessed cheating on his wife, Debbie. However, the prior was not always the rule. We are presented cases which evidence that some of the participants are indeed (what Maslin calls) “drooping a bit”: “The study's less obvious casualties are Jackie, Lynn and Sue, three working-class women who variously married early, became single parents, took on dead-end jobs…  And Symon, the study's only black participant, had five children and a sausage-packing job at 28." (Maslin)

Maslin points out that the series has become much more than a documentary which depicts England’s social-economic disparities. It also reveals “a reality that cannot be found in nature… an astonishingly intensive view of their [the participants’] lives and evolution.” (Maslin) I could not agree more. We are presented with how socialization takes place among the participants, who are of diverse class, gender and race, with a single factor in common, age, and how such factors (or their social location) could shape their lives over times. She further argues that Apted’s original goal was “to study the effects of privilege or the lack thereof, but he leaves it to viewers to draw their own conclusions.” (Maslin) We can evidences this with Bruce, who at age 7 wanted to be missionary while attending a pre-preparatory boarding school and at age 21 was reading Math in Oxford University. Due to his family class, he was most likely to teach in one of the schools he studied in; however by age 28 Bruce was teaching in one of London’s less privileged schools at the East End and by age 35 lived and taught in Bangladesh, accomplishing the goal he described as a child. The audience might agree that although he advocates a noble cause, he did not make the most of his opportunities in contrast to other participants, such as John, who through his education and privileges became a successful barrister.

Finally, Maslin notices that the Jesuit Maxim does not apply to all participants and some “contradict it in fascinating ways”. (Maslin) Nicholas and Neil were the exceptions. While Nicholas, who was a small farm boy at age 7, “subsequently earned his Ph.D. in physics and now [at age 35] teaches at the University of Wisconsin”, Neil, who was “outstandingly winning and handsome at 7, … was by 28 a homeless derelict, mentally unstable” and at age 35 still a lost cause, regardless of being “a person of exceptional intelligence and thoughtfulness.” (Maslin)

As evidenced earlier, “many of Mr. Apted's former 7-year-olds have begun to squirm under the burden of such scrutiny”, but not all of them. 

Reference:

Maslin, Janet. "Review/Film; That '7 Up' Group Is 35 Years Old Now, And Drooping a Bit." New York Times[New York] 15 Jan 1992, n. pag. Web. 13 Oct. 2012. .

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

Reflection On My Sociological Essay

I believe personal essays have a greater appeal to the reader; however, I do not enjoy writing them as much as I like to write formal essays. It’s weird, I know. Each person I have told this to tends to finds such fact odd since personal essays are “easier to write”. I beg to differ. I have always had difficulties writing personal essays mainly because I do not talking much about myself. Some might say the reason is because I am a private person.  Since my essay #3, Nicholas: Just a small town boy? , was not personal I did not find it challenging. I enjoyed writing this essay because it permitted me to apply so much of what I’ve learn as a Sociology major student in a course which is not from my major. I felt excited, like a kid in Christmas or as if I was being tested on my sociological knowledge. It’s a weird feeling to explain, but hopefully as a writer you might understand me.

 If I could choose to add something to my essay it would probably be the page length. Nicholas is a very complex and interesting character and I felt that I left a lot unsaid because I did not want to write more than the maximum amount of pages or bore you to death with a bunch of sociological theories and terms.

 This essay was different than the past ones because I felt comfortable writing it, which might be noticeable in my flow of ideas (or throughout the content).  Also, I did not feel limited in my use of resources. As a formal essay, I was able to cite multiple sources! I know that I could have been able to do so in the past essays; however, because they were personal essays I think the citations would have made the content a bit odd.                                                                

 I am a strong believer that writing can improve and essay #3 is not the exception. If I had the option to improve the essay I would have infused more of my voice because I acknowledge that the reader sometimes likes to read the writer’s personal opinion rather than him or her giving insight on a topic. Regardless of the changes, I do not regret what I wrote or how the essay resulted.

Mission Statement

My mission statement for essay #3 is to explain how the character of my choice, Nicholas, was destined to be greater than how he was portrayed in 7 Up. I want to provide insight into how his socialization was different in comparison to the rest of the Up Series’ children, and influenced his life choices. Also, I want to explain how futures tend to be predicted without taking into consideration the child or his changes, but his family. Finally, I want to prove how the Jesuit Maxim is incorrect because it undermines a child’s ability to change over time.

Finding Your Voice

On Voice and Telling the Story, Telling the Truth, Guillermoprieto and Orlean address the importance of expressing your voice when writing. As Orlean argues, “voice is -as the world tells us- the way a writer talks.” (159)  By incorporating our voice, we no longer write facts but learn to tell stories that speak to our readers.

They use their personal experiences to depict how they developed a writer’s voice. Guillermoprieto narrates that reporting news led her to find her voice, “my driving desire as a writer is to make it impossible for the U.S. reader to ignore Latin America. I do that by telling stories. Stories are the opposite of hard news…” (155) Orlean explains how reading out loud helped her hear how she told her story, “I find that sometimes when I give reading of my published work, I skip parts that seem boring to me. Then I wonder, would it have been better to edit that out in the first place? When you read aloud, extraneous material falls away.”(158)

In each of the past readings (I have done for my English course) I have disliked some of the author’s quotes or opinions. However, after rereading these pieces I found the exception to the rule: I did not dislike any of Guillermoprieto or Orlean’s views. If anything, I found admiring how much preparation and time these women put into their writings, “I do enormous amounts of reading before I begin reporting…Once I begin to write, I spend days and days working on a lede” (Guillermoprieto 156); “I have to sit at my desk and really work at finding the strongest image possible.” (Orlean 159)

I absolutely loved how Guillermoprieto quoted my favorite book and author, One Hundred Years of Solitude and Gabriel García Márquez, to exemplify how people tend to be ignorant towards people and events outside of their comfort- zone, ““He spends the rest of his life saying, “There was this massacre,” to which people respond, “You’re crazy. That never happened.” I never stopped being angry about that.” (155) Reading this made me reminiscence on how the massacre of the banana plantation workers had struck me when I read it in the book. I could easily relate the moral of the story to daily life experiences in Dominican Republic, where politicians act ignorant to the effects of their corruption on the poor.

After thinking about how much I enjoyed the writings, I asked myself, how were these pieces different from the prior (I had read)?  A single answer came to mind: I could relate to every word they said and apply advises given.  In past writing assignments I had been advised to not be robotically formal in my writing. My writing fellow encouraged me to incorporate more of my voice rather than just explaining facts. If I had read these pieces earlier, I would have prevented many headaches from thinking what I should and should not say in my essays!  Through these pieces I learned that like Guillermoprieto and Orlean, we can all struggle in finding our voice. Among some of the advises provided by them were: to be specific and hook the readers through the details, to blend information, observation and my reaction to the material or assignment in question, change the story’s pace and read your stories out loud. It may take time, but by applying these steps (or advises) and through hard work or harsh experiences we can get there.

Reflection on my writing

Personal essays have a greater appeal to the reader by narrating stories with feelings, conflicts and dramas in which the writer can become different characters at the same time.  I always enjoy writing them because feel like I can get away from all the formality and express myself as I would among family and friends. Born and Raised: Change is inevitable, my essay #2, was no different. Even though it was a simple topic to write about, it required me to recollect past experiences, which were not always the best. I drafted and redrafted the essay over and over again because I did not want to over-expound personal details of my life at ages seven and fourteen. Despite of my attempts, I still believe I was a bit too personal. If I had the opportunity, I would omit some of the things I mentioned and would infuse more analysis into (why I had) some of my thoughts and (did certain) actions at those ages. I believe that the changes would have given the essay an adequate balance of analysis and emotion, rather than conveying more of one side than of the other.  I do not regret what I wrote or how the essay resulted, but I do believe there was room for improvement.

Ethics in personal writing

Ethics in Personal Writing and Taking Liberties: The Ethics of the Truth depicts how two women of different races, background and class can be connected on a similar issue. Dickerson and Ung explain (their connection) how personal experiences have led them to make radical decisions and cross ethical boundaries. Seeking justice for her assaulted nephew, Dickerson admits, “I had to lie through my teeth to get this story.”(185) While facing a family dilemma as well, Ung claims, “in the narrative of Lucky Child, I claim my sister’s story as my own- an imaginative premise.” (Ung 187)

It would be dishonest of me to say I agreed with all of their actions. I do not. I believe both Dickerson and Ung could have used other methods rather than lies, regardless if it was for a cause.  Also, despite letting her family read her memoir drafts, I did not like how Dickerson was reluctant to let anyone read her drafts or change her family-inspired writings, “tell me what bothers you and I’ll think about it. I made no promises.”  Her family members had the write to an opinion if they believed to be portrayed incorrectly or biased in the writings. Rather than admitting the possibility of an error, Dickerson gives reasons to her defense, “I believe it’s condescending only if you think there’s something wrong with the way people talk.” (186)

I have always been family oriented. More than once I have found myself stating that nothing matters more to me than my family. I liked how this was the case with both writers, “my allegiance to them [her family] trumped my allegiance to journalism” (Dickerson 186-187); “whatever I achieve is shared with my family, Lucky Child has been, from the outset, our collective achievement.” (Ung 188)

I could easily relate to these women. I would not be human if I said my life has been all about rainbows and butterflies. I have also experienced harsh times and believe, as an old Proverb says, “desperate times call for desperate measures.” I still do not agree with their lies, but I think Dickerson and Ung had noble intentions at heart, to discover the truth behind a crime and be a voice for the forgotten Cambodian women. They were misunderstood by others, “some of my non-writer friends thought the idea of writing about the guy who had shot and paralyzed my nephew was horribly exploitative” (Dickerson 185); “Some Khmer people told me: Let the dead stay buried.” (Ung 187) 

At times, I wished I could have changed certain circumstances my family was going through, but all I could do was write documents or letters that could help ease the problem.  Although I have not faced grave experiences as the writers (which I must point out seemed like plots to Drama films), I relate the most with how their families’ experiences enabled them to go the extra mile as they could, through their writing.

Reference: Dickerson, Debra. “Ethics in Personal Writing” And Ung, Loung. “Taking Liberties: The Ethics of the Truth.”Telling True Stories: A Nonfiction Writer’s Guide form the Nieman Foundation at Harvard University. New York: Plume, 2007. Print.

The Spirit of Vision

On The Spirit of Vision: Writing from the Inside/Outside, Chang argues the importance of accepting every aspect of who we are in order to understand our own view of the world and others’. She sets herself as an example of how rejecting her cultural past over the years had changed the understanding of her world, “I found that it was easier to keep my home culture at home and assimilate at school… I had erased my ethnicity”, and her view of others, “at school, I crinkled my little nose at the other Koreans who exposed their Korean ways to the world. I laughed at them.”  (Chang, 46)

While reading through the first paragraphs of the article I thought, “How could I possibly like or relate to the work of someone that negates part of her identity?”  I obviously disliked some of the things Chang narrated, but to my surprise I found myself liking,relating and even respecting her experience. I did not like how Chang rejected anything involving Korean heritage; however, I understood the reasons she did so. An experience, either positive or negative, can change us and, suddenly, we might never be the same. “My hand had been slapped, and my medium of expression retreated deep inside like an insecurity. This was my first experience writing.” (Chang, 46) Being scolded at her first experience writing changed Chang negatively; however, this is not always the case. Discovering my grandmother’s journal has made me passionate for writing, a positive change. 

Also, Chang found easier to silence her past and assimilate to her present. After years gone by, she realized her error during the tutor training seminars. “In the seminars… I allowed the silent part of my cultural past to unfold through reflections encouraged in the seminar.” (Chang, 46)  I did not like the attitude she assumed.  I believe that a person should not prolong the redemption of his or her problems and if Chang felt uncomfortable with her cultural background, she should have taken action or reflected on negating her heritage long before her sophomore year.

Ironically, despite not liking a couple of her initial views, I can relate to not accepting completely my cultural background. Since I was a child I have been taught to be proud of my Dominican heritage, which I am; however, I do not necessarily favor all Dominican traditions, views or attitudes. I personally find absurd to eat rice and beans every day, to applaud after your flight lands or to speak loud all the time, but I would not negate or reject my culture because of these aspects.

Chang realized the error in her ways. I absolutely liked her change, regardless of the time it took her. Accepting her cultural background influenced her greatly, “my culture wrapped me like a warm and comfortable blanket to stand up for who I am, to speak with a louder voice than I had before.” (Chang, 47) Chang’s new state aided the students she tutored that felt as she had in the past. Most importantly, her newly recovered heritage provided her with a new vision of her world, her inside, and of others’ worlds, the outside. Being able to appreciate, accept and embrace such visions was Chang’s greatest accomplishment. This I respect the most.

 *Reference : Chang, L. (2010). The spirit of vision: Writing from the inside/outside. The Writing Center Journal, 30(1), 46-47.

On “Seven Up”

Seven Up presents how early socialization took place among children of diverse class, gender and race that had a single factor in common, age, and how such factors could shape their lives as they grew up.

At a first impression, I imagined the children as typical seven year-olds able to carry out simple tasks and recognize truths from lies; however, to my surprise, the children were quite different to my initial thoughts.  Whether by answering questions relating to politics, love, and society in a mature manner or expressing themselves articulately, the Seven Up children demonstrated levels of knowledge, consciousness and maturity beyond their age. Apted proves class influences these levels by depicting how children of lower class were less knowledgeable than others, as Paul, one of the orphans from the charity-based boarding school demonstrates, “What is a university?”

Each child was unique and had his pros and cons; hence, choosing both my favorite and least favorite child was not as easy as I expected. After examining the children’s personalities, answers and actions, I reached a decision. My least favorite child was Andrew, one of the three wealthy boys that attended the preparatory school at Kensington. Why he was my least favorite child is the same for many others, his condescending attitude. Andrew, in particular, felt the need to be the focus of attention, was constantly interrupting Charles and John to express his opinion and was not child-like because of his snobbish, which  he exemplified by stating he read The Financial Times except on Monday because stocks did not change. In contrast to Andrew, my favorite child was Bruce, who attended a prestigious boarding school and wanted to be a missionary. At the age of seven children tend to be less egocentric; however, they still focus on obtaining their wants.  This phase is known as the concrete operational stage. (Giddens 2012: 85) I chose Bruce because he was the exception to the rule. Unlike most of the Seven Up children, Bruce was concerned with solving Third World countries issues such as: poverty, hunger and education. Also, I found his love towards God and religion delightful. I imagine Bruce’s words giving Apted and the Seven Up team hope to that generation, especially, after the disastrous interviews with Andrew, Charles and John. Bruce was a seven year-old visionary. 

If deciding which was my favorite and least favorite child was a hard task, choosing the child that I could relate to the most was almost impossible. After analyzing the children and remembering myself at age 7, I decided that the child I related to the most was Jackie. We both have five siblings and our family lived in a working class neighborhood.   I recall having two best friends, Tara and Jennifer, and how we would always make fun of each other’s crushes. Regardless of similarity in background and friendship, the reason I relate to Jackie the most is because when I hear stories of me during this age, my relatives describe me as a charismatic and amiable little girl similar as Jackie depicted during the interviews.

  In general, I found Seven Up an excellent piece of both sociological and documentary work.

*Reference: Giddens, Anthony. Introduction to Sociology. 8th. W. W. Norton & Company, 2012. 85. Print.

Blast from the past!

 Hello Stranger. Why stranger? Well, I believe we never stop learning about each other; there is always something new to discover. In my case, here's a start: I am a Sociology major, whose ultimate goal is to become an International Law lawyer.I find passion in the development and defense of Human Rights.

I reopened my forgotten blog with hopes to reviving my old passion for creative writing. Feel free to explore my blog and maybe through my words you can get to know more about me.