I have always considered myself to be a people person. As much as I love making other people smile, I also consistently seek out other people when I need to vent, cry, or verbally process. After re-reading my blog posts for our class, it is clear that I take this very “person-centered” approach to my writing style. In other words, I rely on specific outside examples (whether they be cultural, social, personal, etc.) to support my arguments. Instead of solely grounding myself in my own thoughts, I reach outwards; which at times makes a strong and well-researched claim, but at other times, may take away from my authority as a writer. However, before I reach outwards, I analyze the question I am exploring or the topic I am examining in complete detail. I have always liked analysis, whether it be in terms of analyzing people, academic reading, or writing. It is clear that my blog posts take advantage of this “people-centered” value and my passion for deep and thorough analysis.
Before I delve into a broad examination of my posts, I think it is important to compare and contrast my first and last blog posts. My first post, entitled, “Grieving 2.0: Can we ever move on?” begins with an analysis of the five stages of grief and brings into question whether Martha, from Black Mirror, ever arrived at the final stage of acceptance. I proceed to analyze various moments from the show that led me to arrive at the claim that it is not until Martha develops an unhealthy attachment to the technological replica of Ash that her grieving process truly goes astray. After this analysis, I take a close look at examples of how people can grieve publicly in our digital climate today. This when I look outwards and cite examples such as funeralOne and the growth of virtual candles to show how technology has infiltrated into realms of death in our modern world. My final blog post, entitled, “Afraid of Everyone Who Wasn’t Them: An Examination of Interconnected Stories,” takes a far more analytical approach to a section of the book, Station Eleven, as I specifically examine the significance of the alternating structure of various chapters. My piece is incredibly heavy in close-reading techniques, and instead of reaching outwards to cultural/societal examples to support my points, I reach out to the class for advice. I pose questions such as, “Why do you think Emily St. John Mandel chooses to alternate between the stories of Frank and Jeevan and Kristen and Francois in such a deliberate way?” or “What comment does this make about the importance or lack thereof of identity in terms of interconnected stories?” Even though my desire reach outwards is present in both blog posts, I think it is important to note how it shifted in terms of who I reach out to. It is telling that my final blog post takes into account the opinions of people in our class, which shows how connected and comfortable I became with the group.
More broadly, it is clear that I like to flaunt what I know about music, history, literature, etc., into my academic writing. From a comparison of A Head Full of Ghosts to the gothic elements in Edgar Allan Poe’s The Fall of the House of Usher, to an analysis of the gun violence in Dead Set through a comparison to the rhetoric used in the Cranberries song “Zombies,” to redefining the nature of preservation with parallels between the embalming technique and the controversy of Harper Lee’s Go Set a Watchman, to a close examination of theories from Abbey Smith Rumsey’s book, When We Are No More: How Digital Memory is Shaping Our Future, and to cultural references such as the deaths of JFK and Robin Williams, my posts explore a plethora of outside examples to enhance my points. An examination of this has led me to question what kind of balance I should establish between analysis and outside support in my writing. I like to show what I know, but does this make my argument too general and less authoritative?
I also decided to put each of my blog posts in the “Writer’s diet test,” an automated feedback tool that examines whether your writing is “too flabby or fit” by identifying how often you use verbs, nouns, prepositions, adjectives/adverbs, or passive voice. Although each of my blog posts resulted in different counts for each category, my use of adjectives and verbs were consistently very high. I do not necessarily think that this is a bad thing, but it does speak to the idea that I like to make my writing look and sound “pretty” as opposed to getting to the point. I enjoy dancing around the claim I am trying to make until the end of my paper, for then I know it will have the most impact on the reader.
Writing this post made me think about how my academic advisor, Dr. Suzanne Churchill, stands by the concept that the best and most advanced ideas form within the space between two or more people. To her, the space separate from one’s individual head is where the conversations that produce complex and well thought-out ideas occur. In a way, I engage in conversations like this as I use multiple sources to develop my arguments and avoid being caught up in my own thoughts. DIG 215: Death in the Digital Age has given me the outlet to explore conversations of substance both inside and outside the classroom and has made me feel capable of developing complex arguments. Composing this reflective piece made me realize how who I am and what I value does translate into my writing, and I am excited to see how my writing will morph and change just as I do during my next two years at Davidson.