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.