After reading all my blog posts, the greatest thing that I realized is that I have gotten more wishy washy in my response to the plays. I constantly play devil’s advocate with myself and I notice I do not always make a decision. I also have not been utilizing as much textual evidence and support as I did in my first post. I have been drawing more of my writing focus towards the emotional realm. I focus more how I imagine the motivations of the actions, rather than just analyzing the actual happenings of the situation. Which, I do not think is a bad thing, but I want to ground myself more in what the language and the situations are saying, rather than how I feel about it.
In my first blog post, I think I did the best job of using textual evidence to support my opinions. I made good use of quotes, which in future posts were starting to die out. I also explored a broad overview of the characters and their situations and how it related in a love based theme. Despite all of that I think my first post was academically good, but I didn’t explore my actual voice. I said what I wanted to say but I did not give it that special flavor/ personality that is me.
In my second post, I thought it was solid and insightful. I only used one quote which was okay because I explored the “Rules of Comedy” that we discussed in class. I would also revisit the notion of the “Rules of Comedy” because it really struck a cord with me. It made me evaluate the way I view life. Part of myself believes that I do view life as a festival, so maybe that is why I am an actor. I want to indulge in all the natural bodily pleasures, within reason of course, because we do not have very long on this earth. I also had a clear understanding of the characters and situation which was nice because you can also tell by reading that I was passionate about the idea that I was exploring, although the thought could be better developed. Although since it’s a blog post I think that its okay that it is not. I could get a better sense of my own personal voice in the blog more so than the previous one.
I do believe that my voice was too evasive in the third post. In the third post, I did not use any quotes and had little textual support. My idea wasn’t vastly concreted in anything, it was almost solely an opinion. I wasn’t very happy with my third post. It did not live up to my previous work.
I notice, that the more I get comfortable with this blog the lazier I can get in my responses. I think I want to head more in the direction of my second post, where I had a voice but used quotes or textual evidence to support claims. I also want to lean a little less towards the emotional state of things because that can be opened up to many interpretations. I think I want to explore more of the themes of these plays and how that is represented in the story. I also want to incorporate the videos that we watch into my responses because I do connect with most of the actors portrayals and yet I never speak of them. Or what I may have done differently if I was the actor or director. This is a great outlet to be able to say the things that you wanted to say in class but never got the chance to. It is good for me to write what I am saying down instead of keeping it inside of myself and letting it die out being buried underneath all my other thoughts.