Poetry Project
Growth as a Poet Reflection
At the beginning of this writing process, I jumped in without any thought of direction, organization or message. I am not sure this was the most beneficial, but it got the ball rolling. As my poem began to take shape, I continued this very strict organization of stanza length. However, after my first critique, it became apparent that keeping my stanzas short, limited me to only brush the surface of my true ideas and message of deception through power. So I began to add more detail to each stanza. For example, in my first draft, one of my stanzas read, “It evokes fear/ leaving us to grip it’s every twisted word in hope/ it can save us/ But the cloak it lay over us gives us false comfort/ As power brews a new concoction/ One in which turns us against our own humanity/As it watches in the shadows/ Fulfilled.” I realized how broad I was being and how unemotional the impact was on the reader and even myself. I wanted my readers to feel something and understand what power can do to us. This forced me to add deeper descriptions and images, leading to this change; “These men before us evoke fear;/ leaving us to grip their every twisted word in hope/ they can catch us in their warm embrace./ But as they cover our eyes with their worn palms,/ blinding us from what lay behind the curtain of power,/ the men brew a new concoction, turning us against our own humanity/ as the fumes sear our innocent eyes./ Yet we march forward with bravado/ as they watch; cloaked in the icy shadows./ Fulfilled. This shift in format and details allowed me to explore new ways to deepen the intellectual and emotional messages of how power can lead to deception and how we are the victims of this greedy game.
One of the major changes I made to my poem was from draft two to my final draft. I realized that talking about power as “it” didn’t allow the reader to connect with power and understand who power was and what it did. So I began to mess around with talking about power as male authorities. In draft two, my first lines were, “Power is the string that holds everything together/ yet tears it apart.” After writing my third draft and realizing I needed to make a change, I wrote a new version in draft four. These new lines read, “The men that stand on the podiums before us are the strings that hold/ everything together/ yet tears it apart.” This shift allowed me to represent power through a metaphor and make it unique, clearer and more relatable. I decided to keep this idea throughout my entire final poem changing things like “It evokes fear” to “These men before us evoke fear” and “leaving us to grip it’s every twisted word in hope/ it can save us” to “leaving us to grip their every twisted word in hope/ they can catch us in their warm embrace.” This was probably the most significant change I made to my poem and allowed me to finally begin to feel proud of the direction I was headed in.
Another change I made, was simply adding words that created more emphasis and impact. Even as I reached my fifth draft, I felt that I was missing the wow factor that would bring images into the readers minds of greedy, sly authorities leading us behind the shadows of deception. I also wanted them to understand not only that power could be bad, but I wanted them to feel the anger I did. After my critique with Lori, I realized there was a simple way to fix this by adding descriptive words here and there. One place this change positively impacted my poem was the line, “It watches turning back only to say good bye.” This line was fairly plain without poetic devices so I changed it to, “the men watch, turning back only to wave a supposedly somber goodbye.” This not only incorporated alliteration, but it emphasized how the goodbye was not sincere, which strengthened my overall message. Another change I made was to the fourth stanza, which incorporated how power is a beat. The lines were “the beat of gunshots/ the beat of sluggish footsteps.” It first off, was short and didn’t give the reader enough time to reflect. I realized I needed to incorporate words that brought out the emotions of soldiers in war; being led by lies, but continuing to fight because they feel they are only supporting their country. With my realization I added not only more lines, but descriptive lines like, “the beat of the helicopter blades,/ the beat of gunshots,/ the beat of hearts hammering in uniformed chests,/ the beat of sluggish footsteps,/ the beat of corpses staggering to their graves,/ the beat of the hands applauding the men that follow behind them.” These few changes allowed me to see my poem in a different light and made it easy to continue and add small changes to other parts of my poem.
The last major change I made to my poem, was incorporating a subtle concept throughout my poem. This concept was hands and how they are the true tools that deceive. In the beginning of writing, I had trouble making my poem flow and have a common theme. So after the first few critiques, I realized how powerful it would be to add this underlying idea to my poem. This would not only support another metaphor, but make my stanzas have more connection with each other. Although it didn’t pop out, it made a significant difference reading the poem and made it come together perfectly without having to change my content much. In draft one and two, one can see the disconnect between stanzas. This forced me to make significant changes. The first change was in stanza two, which originally read, “And yet we know power is a mind game/ run by greed.” I changed this to “Yet we know power is a mind game/ run by these filthy hands of greed.” This small alteration actually changed my poem extremely, in the way that my message came across. I could express my emotional ideas and intellectual ideas at the same time.
One of the major changes I made to my poem was from draft two to my final draft. I realized that talking about power as “it” didn’t allow the reader to connect with power and understand who power was and what it did. So I began to mess around with talking about power as male authorities. In draft two, my first lines were, “Power is the string that holds everything together/ yet tears it apart.” After writing my third draft and realizing I needed to make a change, I wrote a new version in draft four. These new lines read, “The men that stand on the podiums before us are the strings that hold/ everything together/ yet tears it apart.” This shift allowed me to represent power through a metaphor and make it unique, clearer and more relatable. I decided to keep this idea throughout my entire final poem changing things like “It evokes fear” to “These men before us evoke fear” and “leaving us to grip it’s every twisted word in hope/ it can save us” to “leaving us to grip their every twisted word in hope/ they can catch us in their warm embrace.” This was probably the most significant change I made to my poem and allowed me to finally begin to feel proud of the direction I was headed in.
Another change I made, was simply adding words that created more emphasis and impact. Even as I reached my fifth draft, I felt that I was missing the wow factor that would bring images into the readers minds of greedy, sly authorities leading us behind the shadows of deception. I also wanted them to understand not only that power could be bad, but I wanted them to feel the anger I did. After my critique with Lori, I realized there was a simple way to fix this by adding descriptive words here and there. One place this change positively impacted my poem was the line, “It watches turning back only to say good bye.” This line was fairly plain without poetic devices so I changed it to, “the men watch, turning back only to wave a supposedly somber goodbye.” This not only incorporated alliteration, but it emphasized how the goodbye was not sincere, which strengthened my overall message. Another change I made was to the fourth stanza, which incorporated how power is a beat. The lines were “the beat of gunshots/ the beat of sluggish footsteps.” It first off, was short and didn’t give the reader enough time to reflect. I realized I needed to incorporate words that brought out the emotions of soldiers in war; being led by lies, but continuing to fight because they feel they are only supporting their country. With my realization I added not only more lines, but descriptive lines like, “the beat of the helicopter blades,/ the beat of gunshots,/ the beat of hearts hammering in uniformed chests,/ the beat of sluggish footsteps,/ the beat of corpses staggering to their graves,/ the beat of the hands applauding the men that follow behind them.” These few changes allowed me to see my poem in a different light and made it easy to continue and add small changes to other parts of my poem.
The last major change I made to my poem, was incorporating a subtle concept throughout my poem. This concept was hands and how they are the true tools that deceive. In the beginning of writing, I had trouble making my poem flow and have a common theme. So after the first few critiques, I realized how powerful it would be to add this underlying idea to my poem. This would not only support another metaphor, but make my stanzas have more connection with each other. Although it didn’t pop out, it made a significant difference reading the poem and made it come together perfectly without having to change my content much. In draft one and two, one can see the disconnect between stanzas. This forced me to make significant changes. The first change was in stanza two, which originally read, “And yet we know power is a mind game/ run by greed.” I changed this to “Yet we know power is a mind game/ run by these filthy hands of greed.” This small alteration actually changed my poem extremely, in the way that my message came across. I could express my emotional ideas and intellectual ideas at the same time.
Globalization: Political Cartoon and Op-Ed
Op-Ed Reflection
In the start of this project, we learned about globalization, including the global economy and how that affects our lives, cultures, third world countries, etc. After this in-depth introduction to globalization we individually chose a topic to research and write about. We researched for several days and wrote many drafts. One of the main things that helped our projects succeed was the many peer critiques. After researching writing and critiquing, we created a cartoon to accompany our writing, visually enhancing our perspective.
After studying globalization and learning about the alternatives to the unbalanced system, I have realized, through my Op-Ed, that although globalization has many great aspects, it is overall being run by the wrong people. It this unfair system, poverty is not being addressed the way it needs to be. Factories will only do so much for a struggling country but alternatives that allow third world countries to independently thrive is what we should be investing in. Researching the Grameen Bank inspired me because by giving micro-loans we can empower third world countries and allow them to have relatively independent economies. I feel that with a little change we can push against exploitative multinational corporations and give third world countries the freedom they deserve.
Although I still feel I could greatly improve my cartoon, I am proud at the progress I have made. At first, I wasn’t using space effectively and not only did it make my cartoon empty, but it made my metaphor less noticeable. I ended up using more space by adding a multi-lane highway. This added to my metaphor about the highway being the globalized economy and it made my cartoon fit the page better. I also learned to incorporate color to further show my metaphor. By adding vibrant colors to the rickshaw, detour sign, and money bag, it showed how amazing the Grameen Bank was and by leaving the multinational corporation truck dull, it showed how the system had little to offer to the third world countries.
As I began to write my Op-Ed, I went full force. However, I didn’t have a solid outline nor did I know where I was headed. So after writing most of my Op-Ed, I felt it was jumbled and wasn’t getting my message across. It was much different from writing a story or a informative paper because not only did it have a word limit, but it was a persuasive paper that could have bias. At first, I really didn’t know how to use my bias without making it sound too bias. However, I realized that I could still incorporate my perspective but back it up with lots of evidence. In each paragraph, I had at least one piece of evidence. So although I was still strongly pushing my perspective on the audience, it was convincing because of the diversity of evidence. I also struggled with organization because I felt limited based on the word count. For example, at first I mentioned the things that were wrong with the globalized system and then things that were good about the Grameen Bank. After talking to Lori, I realized in order to better show how beneficial the Grameen Bank truly was in a short amount of space, I needed my writing to be written with a solution oriented style with parallel structure. I changed my writing so it addressed what was wrong with the globalized economy and then immediately showed how the Grameen Bank fixed each problem. After making this large revision, my Op-Ed finally began to take shape. The final revision I had to make was cutting my writing down to 1,000 words. Although it frustrated me that I was having to shave down my writing, I have realized it was a blessing in disguise. I had to make my writing more concise and that in-turn made it much more powerful. In finishing my writing, I have realized that in writing I need to do three things; use evidence, be concise and have strong, clear organization.
After studying globalization and learning about the alternatives to the unbalanced system, I have realized, through my Op-Ed, that although globalization has many great aspects, it is overall being run by the wrong people. It this unfair system, poverty is not being addressed the way it needs to be. Factories will only do so much for a struggling country but alternatives that allow third world countries to independently thrive is what we should be investing in. Researching the Grameen Bank inspired me because by giving micro-loans we can empower third world countries and allow them to have relatively independent economies. I feel that with a little change we can push against exploitative multinational corporations and give third world countries the freedom they deserve.
Although I still feel I could greatly improve my cartoon, I am proud at the progress I have made. At first, I wasn’t using space effectively and not only did it make my cartoon empty, but it made my metaphor less noticeable. I ended up using more space by adding a multi-lane highway. This added to my metaphor about the highway being the globalized economy and it made my cartoon fit the page better. I also learned to incorporate color to further show my metaphor. By adding vibrant colors to the rickshaw, detour sign, and money bag, it showed how amazing the Grameen Bank was and by leaving the multinational corporation truck dull, it showed how the system had little to offer to the third world countries.
As I began to write my Op-Ed, I went full force. However, I didn’t have a solid outline nor did I know where I was headed. So after writing most of my Op-Ed, I felt it was jumbled and wasn’t getting my message across. It was much different from writing a story or a informative paper because not only did it have a word limit, but it was a persuasive paper that could have bias. At first, I really didn’t know how to use my bias without making it sound too bias. However, I realized that I could still incorporate my perspective but back it up with lots of evidence. In each paragraph, I had at least one piece of evidence. So although I was still strongly pushing my perspective on the audience, it was convincing because of the diversity of evidence. I also struggled with organization because I felt limited based on the word count. For example, at first I mentioned the things that were wrong with the globalized system and then things that were good about the Grameen Bank. After talking to Lori, I realized in order to better show how beneficial the Grameen Bank truly was in a short amount of space, I needed my writing to be written with a solution oriented style with parallel structure. I changed my writing so it addressed what was wrong with the globalized economy and then immediately showed how the Grameen Bank fixed each problem. After making this large revision, my Op-Ed finally began to take shape. The final revision I had to make was cutting my writing down to 1,000 words. Although it frustrated me that I was having to shave down my writing, I have realized it was a blessing in disguise. I had to make my writing more concise and that in-turn made it much more powerful. In finishing my writing, I have realized that in writing I need to do three things; use evidence, be concise and have strong, clear organization.
The Vietnam Project: Historical Thinking and Veteran Interviews
Project Reflection
For this final project, we constructed a piece of writing about the Gulf of Tonkin incident using historical thinking skills to analyze the evidence we used for our writing. We also interviewed a veteran to understand what a soldier goes through in war and submitted the interview to the Library of Congress. Prior to this project, we learned about the Vietnam war and what is means to tell a true war story. To understand this concept, we read The Things They Carried, by Tim O’Brien. In reading this book, we learned what a true war story entails and how to know what to believe and what not to. We also went the the Southern Ute museum in Ignacio to talk to veteran Rod Grove which gave us an idea of how to conduct our interviews and what questions should be asked. Lastly, to prepare us for the writing portion of this project, we analyzed nine documents supporting two different perspectives on the Gulf of Tonkin attacks and used historical thinking skills to give us a better idea of how things like bias affects the source. We also learned how to “read the silences” and analyze what is not being included in the document. This gave us the evidence for our writing, where we were able to incorporate the skill of historical thinking into our own papers. After completing both the interview and writing, we exhibited both small clips from our interviews and excerpts from our writing at the Animas City Theater.
For the interview section of this project, my role was logistics, meaning I was in charge of paper work and such. I kept track of signed papers and made sure all my other group members were on task. Overall, I felt I did a good job with my role. I had most everything done on time, and it seemed to be a seamless operation. But I would like to appreciate Lyle for taking the leadership role especially when I was sick. If I could choose a role again, I would still choose logistics because I am organized and feel I am better at that than speaking and technical jobs. The interview was extraordinary and inspirational. It taught me what war can do to you and the “truth” of it all. Paul Wade, the veteran my group interviewed, said, holding up a picture of his childhood friend killed in action, “This here, the etching and his picture, puts a face to the war.” For some reason, this stuck with me. Seeing these soldiers as individuals like myself, made the war and their experiences so much more impactful and I think this line and Paul Wade will always stick with me. From this project as a whole, I have realized that the truth of war is a lot more complicated than I initially thought. There is much more that goes into finding the truth and one cannot simply look at something and decide whether it is the truth or not just from their own perspective; it must be analyzed which takes a lot more time and resources than I imagined.
During the document analysis, we used historical thinking skills to understand the true meaning of the documents. These skills include sourcing, contextualizing, close reading and reading the silences. I had the most trouble with contextualization. I think it was hard for me to find the correlation between dates and documents and what these dates could tell us. I feel like I didn’t put in the most effort in this section of analyzing our documents. On some documents, I felt like I had a good grasp of this skill, but others felt “too” hard. I wish I just persevered past my struggle and put forth more of my energy, but I feel like I never fully dedicated myself. The historical thinking skill that came easiest to me was sourcing. It interests me the most, perhaps making it easier to put in effort. I also love analyzing how the author and bias effects a document or writing piece. I feel I really pushed myself to think about the way sourcing affects perspective. Overall, I found it fascinating what one can find when looking deeper into a piece of writing.
The critiquing process for me was extremely beneficial. Because of the detailed student input, I made some significant changes to my writing that, I feel, made it much clearer. Originally I had very general statements, with little detail or evidence. The critique from both you and peers helped me realize this and change it. For example originally I had statements like, “There was a lot of denial on the U.S. side which dismissed these actions and announced them as untrue.” However, I made changes to make it sound more clear and evidence based so it ended up as, “President Johnson and government officials dismissed these accusations through speeches that displayed the U.S. as a hero for countries being overtaken by the communist regime. In the July 28th speech, Johnson outlined this heroism through these last empowering lines:
We did not choose to be the guardians at the gate, but there is no one else. Nor would surrender in Viet-Nam bring peace, because we learned from Hitler in Munich that success only feeds the appetite of aggression. This then, my fellow Americans, is why we are in Viet-Nam (Document 5).”
This helps the reader not only understand my ideas through pure evidence, but they then know that this is a much more reliable source and overall a stronger statement.
For the interview section of this project, my role was logistics, meaning I was in charge of paper work and such. I kept track of signed papers and made sure all my other group members were on task. Overall, I felt I did a good job with my role. I had most everything done on time, and it seemed to be a seamless operation. But I would like to appreciate Lyle for taking the leadership role especially when I was sick. If I could choose a role again, I would still choose logistics because I am organized and feel I am better at that than speaking and technical jobs. The interview was extraordinary and inspirational. It taught me what war can do to you and the “truth” of it all. Paul Wade, the veteran my group interviewed, said, holding up a picture of his childhood friend killed in action, “This here, the etching and his picture, puts a face to the war.” For some reason, this stuck with me. Seeing these soldiers as individuals like myself, made the war and their experiences so much more impactful and I think this line and Paul Wade will always stick with me. From this project as a whole, I have realized that the truth of war is a lot more complicated than I initially thought. There is much more that goes into finding the truth and one cannot simply look at something and decide whether it is the truth or not just from their own perspective; it must be analyzed which takes a lot more time and resources than I imagined.
During the document analysis, we used historical thinking skills to understand the true meaning of the documents. These skills include sourcing, contextualizing, close reading and reading the silences. I had the most trouble with contextualization. I think it was hard for me to find the correlation between dates and documents and what these dates could tell us. I feel like I didn’t put in the most effort in this section of analyzing our documents. On some documents, I felt like I had a good grasp of this skill, but others felt “too” hard. I wish I just persevered past my struggle and put forth more of my energy, but I feel like I never fully dedicated myself. The historical thinking skill that came easiest to me was sourcing. It interests me the most, perhaps making it easier to put in effort. I also love analyzing how the author and bias effects a document or writing piece. I feel I really pushed myself to think about the way sourcing affects perspective. Overall, I found it fascinating what one can find when looking deeper into a piece of writing.
The critiquing process for me was extremely beneficial. Because of the detailed student input, I made some significant changes to my writing that, I feel, made it much clearer. Originally I had very general statements, with little detail or evidence. The critique from both you and peers helped me realize this and change it. For example originally I had statements like, “There was a lot of denial on the U.S. side which dismissed these actions and announced them as untrue.” However, I made changes to make it sound more clear and evidence based so it ended up as, “President Johnson and government officials dismissed these accusations through speeches that displayed the U.S. as a hero for countries being overtaken by the communist regime. In the July 28th speech, Johnson outlined this heroism through these last empowering lines:
We did not choose to be the guardians at the gate, but there is no one else. Nor would surrender in Viet-Nam bring peace, because we learned from Hitler in Munich that success only feeds the appetite of aggression. This then, my fellow Americans, is why we are in Viet-Nam (Document 5).”
This helps the reader not only understand my ideas through pure evidence, but they then know that this is a much more reliable source and overall a stronger statement.
WWI Creative Historians
Regardless of Cowardice
Sven walked out in his tattered medic’s uniform for the first time since returning to Germany. It hung off him as if it didn’t belong. I swallowed and hung my head, staring at the pale white hospital floors. Rubbing my hands at a quickening pace, I began to mumble. A memory stabbed my heart...
Sven walked out in his tattered medic’s uniform for the first time since returning to Germany. It hung off him as if it didn’t belong. I swallowed and hung my head, staring at the pale white hospital floors. Rubbing my hands at a quickening pace, I began to mumble. A memory stabbed my heart...
|
Historical Fiction Project Review
|
4. There were two major parts in my story that I greatly revised. One of these parts was the climax/conclusion, and the other was connecting my story with both Katie and Oli. At first, I didn’t really have a climax. My story ended without an explanation and was really confusing for the readers, who were expecting some great climax and conclusion to my characters internal conflict. At first, my story ended abruptly with Sven’s death. “His neck seeping with crimson blood and his face pale. I sunk to the cold white floor. What has he done?” As I received the critique from everyone, especially Lori, I realized that I was destroying my story by never concluding my character’s struggle of being a coward. I finally ended it with a deeper look into my characters thoughts and internal struggles, completing my story in a much more powerful way. “I would rather be labeled a coward, than mask my true humanity.” This revision helped me realize more about my character and his struggles. It also helped my reader better understand the truth of war, and the true thoughts of Saelac. I also had to greatly change my story, in order for it to fit in well with Katie and Oli’s stories. It was hard because I had already written my story, when I realized there were things I needed to change. I had to revise many scenes, such as Sven’s death. “Sven’s limp body hung from a frayed rope. His neck seeping with crimson blood and his face pale.” I wanted it to be very eerie and have a deeper meaning as the reader dove in. I wrote Sven’s death with a certain image in mind, but when I found out Katie had a different idea, I had to change mine and rewrite it. It was challenging to write this new scene with the same intensity and meaning as my first idea. I finally completed it after editing and playing with different ways I could incorporate some of my other thoughts. It finally turned out stronger and more put together than I thought. “Sven’s limp form was sprawled across a lone street in Strasbourg, his body seeping crimson blood.” As I added this revision, I realized how much better it was than even my first draft. It made Katie’s character more whole and the reader could really get a sense of Sven’s true feelings towards life and death. 5. I chose to work with Oli and Katie for the Challenge Extension. We decided to interweave our stories in order to show the many, long-lasting affects war has on soldiers, and how all of them connect to each other. “I looked down at the green grass beneath me as Dieter read the eulogy that would allow the world to see Sven as we did.” This specific quote shows all of our characters in one scene. However, this is just one of the perspectives of this scene. Oli also had a similar scene from her own character’s perspective. By having three different perspectives it allows the reader to see many different views on the impacts of war and also lets readers see deeper into each characters struggles. |