This experiment was a sharp reminder of the danger of letting your mind experiment with a multitude of ideas without taking the time to properly develop any of them – the length of my rambling attempt at the I/O concrete proof of that (6 minutes over I believe?).
The first thing I’ve realized (upon reviewing my oral) is that I need to be more succinct. Having just a vague idea of the points I wanted to cover in my oral lead me to have horrible pacing – sometimes explaining the same point multiple times (in slightly different ways) for the purpose of ‘clarification, or, going off on unnecessary tangents. Words were often repeated (as if a Drill Seargent trying to ensure those listening have the command drilled into them), and sentences made unnecessary long and clunky (unnecessary synonyms added to them, as I’ve just done with this one).
The second thing to comment on is a pattern I’ve observed before – my preference for discussing overall thematic statement intent (the macro side of literature analysis) without a solid evidence base to rely on (details from the text that support my analysis). In this particular attempt, I start off strong with my analysis into the ‘Don Quixote’ and ‘Mephistopheles’ statues, and what they might serve to represent (in this case, the conflicting personalities of Bruce Bechdel). I’m able to connect this conclusion of mine then to my chosen global topic – community, culture, and identity – through a consideration of the surrounding context of the memoir (looking into society’s attitudes towards homosexuality and how that impacts Bruce). Being able to incorporate another of ‘three IB pillars of literary analysis’ (contextuality) and relating my analysis to the central claim and chosen topic are both positives.
The main issue that I have is when I sought to demonstrate the second part of my claim – the negative impact Bruce’s split personality has (on himself and his surroundings). I claim that due to Bruce’s split personality, Alison herself develops conflicted identities and that she can’t let go of her past, attempting to explain it through statements made in different panels (i.e. how she considers herself “butch” due to her father’s “aesthete”). There isn’t any deep analysis of literary techniques for a majority of this section (aside from a brief comment tone) – the supporting evidence and detail (micro) component is missing (in contrast I think to my previous work on nighttime fires, where for the first time, I really branched out from my tried and tested literary techniques to analyze – trying to break down techniques such as lineation/structure, tone, and P.O.V).
This did improve in my analysis of Sappho’s work – where, to prove my claim that society (in theory) did lead to the positive development of an individual (once again, linking my ideas to the overall topic), I commented on poetic devices such as the rhythm and meter (i.e. use of Aeolic verse), as well as deliberate repetition. Something else that I did well was consider intertextuality, exploring how the two texts took the same topic – societal impact on individual personality – and had different interpretations; in theory = perfect vs practically = flawed). One thing to note is that I did start speaking a lot faster during this portion, as I realized I was running over.
Overall, I think I’ve been able to get a lot out of the experience (some reminders that pay to heed to). The balance of macro and micro analysis should be my target for the mocks – better preparation of the two likely cutting down the length of my response significantly.
