I cannot say whether I actually consider this writing assignment to be a good or a bad thing. A blessing in disguise, perhaps? Sure, it adds untold amounts of stress to my life (especially when my grades are faltering), but in any case, i see it as an opportunity to learn. An opportunity to truly get to know the book.
And yes, perhaps Siddhartha was right in saying, "You are your best teacher", because I felt like I learned more about King Lear in these past 3 days than i would have in any other sort of situation. I don't even think I would have learned as much from a 6-hour class discussion (which usually tend to stray from the main point anyway).
Working alone for a few hours on Sunday night allowed for plenty of brainstorming, and i believe this really opened my eyes to some of the elements in King Lear. The whole aspect of good vs evil, for example, was something that i wouldn't have even noticed if i hadn't taken the time to think about it. The fact that i was so freaked out about this essay essentially forced me to think. And i'm glad about that. Isn't that basically how our school curriculum works? It's all about instilling fear to the point where students are actually forced to think. Most students probably wouldn't study, or even learn for that matter, if they didn't have that loathed 100-point quiz looming over their shoulders.
But enough of that, anyway. I just felt like this assignment simply proved that ideas often come from within yourself. After all, we as a class had never even truly discussed the medieval/renaissance aspects of King Lear. It reminded me how good it feels to work alone sometimes- I was delighted in being able to move so smoothly between ideas. It also reminded me of my favorite passion, surprisingly enough. I myself believe there are things you can learn from just watching birds on your own. You may notice how two birds interact, how they behave, and perhaps see deeper into their lives' meaning. There are so many other things that you just wouldn't notice if you were traveling with a group of birders. You may see more birds with a group, but that's something different.
Monday, November 24, 2008
Friday, November 14, 2008
Connection to Shakespeare
Shakespeare, in my mind, is the most uniquely distinct playright in all history. In all my reading, I've found NOTHING that even remotely resembles his works and style (His plotlines, maybe). Just by looking at a play like King Lear, for example; we can see a powerful, well-crafted, twisting, yet interconnected plot. Sure, these plots may have holes in them- but take a look at Romeo and Juliet. Is that NOT the perfect love story?
Still, in addition, we can take note of shakespeare's craft, which is perhaps even more unique than the very content of his plays. Just look at how he uses words. He does all sorts of crazy things with them. First off, he'll just take an ordinary word and create a new meaning or phrase out of it. Secondly, he'll simply allude to all sorts of things: poems, sayings, myths, songs, gossip, innuendos, pick-up lines, and nursery rhymes. It's just amazing how many different things Shakespeare alludes to in his plays. Last but not least, it seems like shakespeare sometimes gets a little too creative and begins to use alot of other weird phrases (Spare my gray beard, you wagtail?). I mean, some of these don't even make sense!
So in any case, i think it's these elements that compose the weird and wonderful Shakespeare we know. In terms of his style, you either love it, or you hate it.
Speaking of weird and wonderful, i think shakespeare actually reminds me of ANOTHER weird and wonderful sort of artist.
This would be Salvador Dali, whose insanely surreal paintings have spurred countless "WTF?" moments. His paintings, like shakespeare's works, are very unique in themselves. They're strange but powerful, highly intriguing, they convey meaning, and they're sometimes very hard to understand (like shakespearean language).
Some of Dali's paintings even share some of the same themes in shakespeare's writing, especially those that relating to vice and human nature. Like shakespeare's characters, some of these paintings just convey total insanity.
Still, in addition, we can take note of shakespeare's craft, which is perhaps even more unique than the very content of his plays. Just look at how he uses words. He does all sorts of crazy things with them. First off, he'll just take an ordinary word and create a new meaning or phrase out of it. Secondly, he'll simply allude to all sorts of things: poems, sayings, myths, songs, gossip, innuendos, pick-up lines, and nursery rhymes. It's just amazing how many different things Shakespeare alludes to in his plays. Last but not least, it seems like shakespeare sometimes gets a little too creative and begins to use alot of other weird phrases (Spare my gray beard, you wagtail?). I mean, some of these don't even make sense!
So in any case, i think it's these elements that compose the weird and wonderful Shakespeare we know. In terms of his style, you either love it, or you hate it.
Speaking of weird and wonderful, i think shakespeare actually reminds me of ANOTHER weird and wonderful sort of artist.
This would be Salvador Dali, whose insanely surreal paintings have spurred countless "WTF?" moments. His paintings, like shakespeare's works, are very unique in themselves. They're strange but powerful, highly intriguing, they convey meaning, and they're sometimes very hard to understand (like shakespearean language).
Some of Dali's paintings even share some of the same themes in shakespeare's writing, especially those that relating to vice and human nature. Like shakespeare's characters, some of these paintings just convey total insanity.
Sunday, November 2, 2008
Thoughts Regarding the TED Project
Overall, it went pretty well.
My worst fears for this project, as you can guess, were composed of several notions. One of these was the thought that my group was totally disorganized. That was just one thing i was a afraid of. I mean, our group after all was disorganized, and that's not surprising if one considers how huge the project was, the number of members in it, the tasks assigned, and the different approaches taken by each individual. I'm just pondering here, but now that i think of it, no project is perfect after all. There's just no way to create this sort of ideal project unless every group member thinks as one (which I also believe is physically impossible). Every individual is going to think differently, and no matter what group it is, each person is will have a different mindset for the project.
That's why i thought it was a really smart idea to create a task page and allow members to work on little sections of the project on their own. I thought it was a great idea, especially when everybody seemed too lazy to collaborate on one major idea. Collaboration in that sense, is very difficult. Meeting for 3 hours on a saturday to discuss the project would have just meant hell for every academy student.
So i liked the task page in that sense. Still, going with what i said before, i noticed how people treated the whole idea differently. The purpose of the task page, going with what i believed, was for people to clarify whatever aspects they were covering in the project- and if it wasn't that, it was made at the very least to inform people of what you were doing.
Telling people to write up at least 3 tasks for themselves just seemed to defeat the whole purpose of the page. Some people; like me, for example; were made to carry out and perfect ONE major task within the TED project. The 3-task quota forced me to split this task and simply be LESS clear about it. Better yet, the thought of doing 3 tasks also reinforced the idea that it's "quantity and not quality" that matters. Any half-brained student could write up a few sentences, change the title of a page, add an image, and label what he did as three separate tasks.
So that's just one major flaw that i noted within the project, and perhaps it's me who's partly responsible for my group being a little disorganized. It was me, after all, who focused soley on one issue and failed to communicate in regards to anything else. Now that i think about it, i probably should have provided help to some of the freshmen who really had no idea what they were doing. I really think I should have been more supportive and collaborative.
But still, even in spite of that, i think the project went fine. Most of us (the academites) are just glad that it's over. Our presentation went pretty well (aside from the time crunch), and i think everyone did a good job.
My worst fears for this project, as you can guess, were composed of several notions. One of these was the thought that my group was totally disorganized. That was just one thing i was a afraid of. I mean, our group after all was disorganized, and that's not surprising if one considers how huge the project was, the number of members in it, the tasks assigned, and the different approaches taken by each individual. I'm just pondering here, but now that i think of it, no project is perfect after all. There's just no way to create this sort of ideal project unless every group member thinks as one (which I also believe is physically impossible). Every individual is going to think differently, and no matter what group it is, each person is will have a different mindset for the project.
That's why i thought it was a really smart idea to create a task page and allow members to work on little sections of the project on their own. I thought it was a great idea, especially when everybody seemed too lazy to collaborate on one major idea. Collaboration in that sense, is very difficult. Meeting for 3 hours on a saturday to discuss the project would have just meant hell for every academy student.
So i liked the task page in that sense. Still, going with what i said before, i noticed how people treated the whole idea differently. The purpose of the task page, going with what i believed, was for people to clarify whatever aspects they were covering in the project- and if it wasn't that, it was made at the very least to inform people of what you were doing.
Telling people to write up at least 3 tasks for themselves just seemed to defeat the whole purpose of the page. Some people; like me, for example; were made to carry out and perfect ONE major task within the TED project. The 3-task quota forced me to split this task and simply be LESS clear about it. Better yet, the thought of doing 3 tasks also reinforced the idea that it's "quantity and not quality" that matters. Any half-brained student could write up a few sentences, change the title of a page, add an image, and label what he did as three separate tasks.
So that's just one major flaw that i noted within the project, and perhaps it's me who's partly responsible for my group being a little disorganized. It was me, after all, who focused soley on one issue and failed to communicate in regards to anything else. Now that i think about it, i probably should have provided help to some of the freshmen who really had no idea what they were doing. I really think I should have been more supportive and collaborative.
But still, even in spite of that, i think the project went fine. Most of us (the academites) are just glad that it's over. Our presentation went pretty well (aside from the time crunch), and i think everyone did a good job.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
