Creative Non-fiction Workshop Reflection

Advice I gained from conferencing:
Don't make your piece too confusing.
Don't make your piece too unbalanced. If you're trying to show a conflict, show equal amounts of both sides of the argument throughout the story.
Introduce recurrent characters early.
Everything should link together, and the links shouldn't be too well hidden.
Cut ANYTHING unnecessary to the central story.
Keep a consistent voice.

Reflections on my piece:
I wrote the Grandfather Clock in a series of short, half-hour allotments, usually finishing a single section and then waiting nearly a day before moving on. Did it work? To some extent- it did, of course, make for a very divided essay, with parts that were connected only by moral or topic rather than any chronological movement. That led to some confusion, but the style was mostly consistent.
A lot of people stood against the non-chronological nature of my writing- how it really never told a story, or rather, never told a conflict. The conflict is in the underlying writing, the conflict between getting over old things or clinging to them because they hold sentimental value, and it never appeared in a single section. Hemley found it interesting.
I'm most proud of the somewhat snarky style that appears in the beginning and to a lesser degree the sections with my grandfather. Sadly, I still have trouble capturing emotional bits- conveying pain or conflict. Maybe you just say what the conflict is, and readers, if the conflict is difficult enough, will just feel the turmoil for themselves?
I broke with the prompt. I'll be completely honest- while the deck plan of Bjoern is a physical object in my grandfather's house, none of the other plans are physically in my possession. I had used most of them before for historical research, if that counts.
A lot of people disliked these plans, saying that they were unconnected to the sections below them. After the class conference, I was planning to dump them and replace them with ships that hadn't sunk- ships that were outdated beyond imagining but were kept afloat at great expense for entertainment value, like HMS Victory and so on. But Hemley seemed against that- he claimed that the meaning was discernible, and that things didn't always need to be as clear as windex-wiped glass. I'm tempted to do it.
I think more outlining was needed. While the individual sections didn't suffer, the overall organization did. Although writing and then re-arranging the sections afterward was and is possible, that's a trait exclusive to my work. It's so non-chronological that you could flip the second and fifth section and no one would notice.
Still, it's been interesting to write such a strangely laid out work. Even though it might not be perfectly strung together, there are definitely sections of impressive quality, and I'd very much like to figure out how I made them. That's just memory for you.

Reflections of the discussion:
Understanding the advice given to you from twelve people at the same time is a pretty hellish experience. Metaphors of needles in haystacks, or needles in stacks of needles, or stacks of needles in larger stacks of needles, all come to mind. Our instructions were incoherent and you had to feel out patterns in advice in order to understand it. Often that advice was imprecise, conflicting, or just flat out wrong.
Still, it can be useful to get a feel at how people see your work. Oftentimes how your piece is perceived is more useful than what people say you should change. Though it may sound arrogant the person who best knows how to continue your story is you.
I think one-on-one conferences are a lot more valuable, especially when you do them with someone who knows their stuff. Individual people can be remarkably clear about what they don't like about your piece. People in large groups give you general feelings, which, admittedly, are probably more accurate, but they're often veeery tough to respond to.

Decision Making Process Reflection

            The decision making process quickly spirals out of control. When everyone can speak their suggestions freely you get a wildly unstructured duel with no clear winner. I’m sure that a debate wasn’t what was intended to happen, but it’s what we got. That's really a problem, as deciding on three advantages become wildly difficult. The whole thing stops being about deciding on the pros and cons and all about deciding which genre is the best, and since no one can win that fight a lot of time gets wasted.

            After the two presentations we were given all of thirty seconds to talk amongst ourselves, so really the only debate we had was the unstructured debate amongst our groups.

Reading Reflections

Text	Characteristics of as a Mentor Text
Sample: “The Elephant Vanishes” By Haruki Murakami	Lure readers in with an impossible situation, a mystery Subtly align the impossible situation with an actuality in the narrator’s life Craft a narrator that has inside information on the mystery that is slowly revealed Use simple, straightforward style and diction Incorporate action in dialogue Detail the change that occurs in the narrator End magically by tying the mystery to the actuality
“A Gift from Somewhere” By Ama Ato Aidoo	Religion & blind belief When belief works out, people believe in it Being a charlatan and trying to maintain the illusion of your spells working.
“The Story of the Lizard who Had the Habit of Dining On His Wives” By Eduardo Galeano	Allegorical nonsense story Shock Ending Patterning off of traditional fairy tales- the story of true love and the princess and so on. Gender Relationships- Men Usually Dine on Women, but Women are just as capable of dining on men. Power through inheritance
“The Keeper of the Virgins” Hanan Al-Shaykh	A different outlook on being excluded from society- accepted, but no included Religion and symbolism Obsession with a particular, but ultimately unimportant area. Disrespecting law.

“The Pain Scale” By Eula Bliss	Short, cutting paragraphs, often no more than two or three sentences. Mathematics and history paragraphs combine with theological and mythological discussion combine with personal allegory. Visual aids and cues.
“Kissing” Anthony Farrington	“Fun facts”, quotes, and so on, in the sidebars give a greater understanding of the work. Light hearted tone on the memoir, less so on the sidebars, which are often “Words of Wisdom” with little basis in reality.

Workshop Reflection 2

1. The most important thing I learned from workshopping is that things are rarely as clear for others as they are for you. While people could often recognize the central idea or theme of my work and a few of the more subtle details, they often recognized ideas that I had not intended. This brings up an interesting question- should people be allowed to develop now and different interpretations of your work, or should you provide clarity to keep them on the intended track?
2. I learned primarily that subtle nuances are often recognized by other people. Though they are quick to see patterns where none were intended, it wouldn't be smart to underestimate how good they are at seeing patterns that you did intend. People aren't stupid, you know. Keeping things clear isn't always necessary.
3. I must remember to see things from others perspectives. Poems, or books, make a lot of sense when they are explained and when they are analyzed, but when they are read for the first time they rarely convey the intended meaning. This is not always a bad thing, most works should be left somewhat open to interpretation and imagination. But it is important to remember the difference between what the author sees and what the reader sees.

Workshop Reflection

I think a big part of poetry is finding meaning from ambiguity. By allowing people to explain their thoughts on a piece you get an excellent idea of how thoughts move- what ideas are obvious and which are not. I think the first few minutes of discussion were the most useful, as it showed people's original thoughts before taking ideas from others, so in those first few minutes you get a perfect glance into precisely what you work looks like from the outside.
I personally think that twenty minutes is ultimately unnecessary. The first five-ten minutes are sufficient to capture ideas but not long enough that the ideas become too convoluted. The initial ideas are always the most accurate.

Decision Making Blog Post

     Reflect on how your team chose its mentor text. How do you feel the discussion went? How do you feel about your own role in the decision? Explain one way the decision could have gone better.

     I think this was a very fast decision. We selected a poem that many liked, confirmed that no one had any serious complaints about it, and then gave it a stamp of approval, without considering many of the other choices to a serious degree. I won't say it was a bad choice, it's just that, well, it wasn't thought about for very long.
     I'd also like to question our decision to expect one candidate poem from each member of the group. Rather than letting people suggest as we went along, asking for fifteen different poems meant there were too many poems to consider, which, of course, further reduced our time to decide.
     I'll admit, I'm somewhat poor at contribution to group discussion.

Letter to the Whitehouse

Dear Mr. President:

We would like to acknowledge the great effort you have taken on international relations and domestic issues. We thought we would collectively voice our opinion on the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. You may wish to consider this combination of solutions- they may be flawed, they may have issues, but we find that they are, at current, with a little fine-tuning, our best option.

The first issue we would like to address is the Palestinian refugees. We understand that a large Jewish population in Israel were acknowledged as refugees. While this may justify previous actions of immigration, we have to look beyond that. The current problem is that the Palestinian refugees in various places, such as Jordan and Lebanon- the fact that refugees do not get citizenship in those countries, has caused many problems that have been detrimental to a peace solution. We believe that the best course of action would be to give them a citizenship to the country they have been immigrated too. This would provide better education and healthcare for the refugees. This would not only detain the “weapon” of empathy that Israelis have claimed that the Palestinians were using but it would also calm the protest against israel of those claiming it was against human rights.

This problem leads to the issue of housing settlements- who gets them? They are, according to the international law (Geneva Convention IV, Article 49, Paragraph 6), illegal. To allow them to stay under Israeli influence and law would result in severe legal complications, and takes a large chunk of the land promised to Palestine. But forcing Israelis to leave their settlements will be highly disruptive- thousands of dollars will be taken from their rightful owners, a steep rise in homelessness and poverty in Israel will occur, and the entire process will result in thousands of protests and terrorist attacks. So we believe that it would be more logical to give Israelis in housing settlements a choice- leave their homes and return to Israel, or remain under the influence of Palestinian law. Laws concerning Israelis in Palestine will be negotiated publicly, not established by Palestine, as they may become draconian if Palestine attempts to dislodge Israelis from the land.

Security has also been a very controversial problem. Checkpoints walls, surgical bombings and strikes are all very problematic- Israelis are too scared to remove them, in fear of terrorists. Palestine is completely disrupted because of them and execute hundreds of protests against them. So we ask Israel to do something radical: slowly replace Israel counter-terrorism systems with Palestinian ones. Inner checkpoints will be handed over to the Palestinian authorities, allowing them to relax their laws. Then we transfer checkpoints closer to Israel, until eventually the only remaining Israeli-controlled checkpoints are on the Palestine-Israel border. Israeli soldiers in Palestine will slowly pull out as they are replaced with Palestinian counter-terrorist soldiers. Air strikes will be heavily regulated by established laws, then become veto-able by Palestinian authorities, then fully outlawed. Eventually, Palestine will have a fully independent counter-terrorism force. They will be trained as a more defensive force. Acting more as a police force rather than a militaristic force. Funding for the Palestinian Internal Counter-Terrorism Group (PICT) will be the US.

An issue that regards both Israel and Palestine is the ownership of Jerusalem. While most debates on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are more about politics, peace and security, Jerusalem takes a new stance- religious beliefs. Neither Palestine nor Israel are willing to give up Jerusalem, so we cannot give Jerusalem to either. We must make it international territory- similar to the UN headquarters in New York. It will become a semi-independent nation, with logistics, law and order regulated by a single authority established, regulated, and funded by the UN. Jerusalem must not become a fully independent nation- as two neighboring countries has claims on it, it cannot simply leave their care fully. At least two thirds of the government of Jerusalem must be composed of Israeli and Palestinian representatives.

We thank you for taking the time to read through this letter. We understand that we may not see the whole picture, but we hope you are willing to take our idea into some consideration nonetheless. This was an attempt at a neutral and just view on the topic. Thank you for your attention and patience.

Sincerely,

Kimin Kim, Ethan Aoki, and Lukas Daniel-Pedersen

Grade Eight Students at Singapore American School