Kevin:

Peer Remixes:

I like what you did with David's narrative. Swapping narrators, while a common theme (trope, b*tch!) in the class' narratives, was a good choice. This gives Dave the opportunity to juxtapose both perspectives in an interactive narrative.

I think what you did with my narrative was appropriate. You got straight to the point (although, in some cases, I think you missed the point) where I digressed and expanded where my prose was truncated.

I understand what you did with Kris' narrative, though I think you missed an opportunity to clean up his occasionally awkward writing (not that I'm an expert on eloquent writing - I should be so lucky). For example (this is the very first sentence):

That seems awfully "prepositionized." Anyway...

Overall, solid job: 10/10

Final Narrative:

Inasmuch as my remix (your final remix) was essentially the manifestation of the idea you mentioned in class, I'm comfortable with the cut and paste. I suppose I would be comfortable otherwise, but for a reason I cannot define I am glad it was my rendering of your idea.

I can dig it: 10/10

David:

Note: I had a longwinded evaluation written ten seconds ago, and for reasons unknown, it killed itself during the "save" process. So, f#ck that response. I'll attempt to summarize it, though.

Peer Remixes:

I'm not sure if you actually remixed my narrative. It reads more like a response to an article. It may be that you were inviting me to expound on my position concerning the interests of non-human versus human animals. I'm not sure that I would want to weigh down my narrative with that discourse, though. My intent was to accurately recall actual events in my life, as opposed to writing something that is "based on a true story." I suppose I could whip out the artist's license and make such a shift, but I did not want to, mostly because I've already written/read hundreds of pages on the topic (weighing of human/non-human interests) and am not really in the mood to dig any deeper. Further, I don't know if the piece would have benefited (again, I'm not sure if I care, either, because it truly was an attempt to recount the events as accurately as possible). In any event, I will assume your intent was, in fact, as I've described it.

After reading this "remix," I wondered whether a) you did not understand the assignment or b) I did not understand your intent, as it reads much like your remix of my narrative. I will give you the benefit of the doubt, though, and assume your intent was to broaden the breadth of topics discussed in Hend's piece concerning the city. As such, I think it's wholly appropriate.

As I said to Kevin, the narrator swapping theme seems fairly popular in this class, and I think you have employed it well enough. I think, though, that you may have made the connection between the doc's soliloquy and the child's a bit too strong. The connections Crystal makes are sort of like if someone were to follow around one character with a camcorder and, as soon as the character walked passed another person, the camera person shifted their attention to that person, thereby making the connections quite faint. It seems as if there is too much of the child's story in the doc's story, and Crystal appears to have avoided that purposely. Not a big deal, though...just saying.

Overall, good job: 10/10

Narrative:

...great story. It reminds me of a story I began about a decade ago, where I attempted to describe a short period of time in more detail than anyone would ever care to know. For example, I would describe a fifteen second interval over several pages. I wanted to eventually create a two-hour film that told the story of one minute in time. Anyway...

My only concern is your word and phrase placement; that is, some words/phrases seem inappropriate, not semantically, but aesthetically. It's probably nothing to worry about, and it could just be that I have bad taste.

Again, good job: 10/10

Blog Home