My project is rather long even when placed in comparison with the other autoethnographies that we have read as a class throughout the semester. Because of this, it can be easy to get lost in the web of ideas that I try to present. It can only get further muddled with the presentation of a parenthetical second narrator throughout such a story. Therefore, according to Professor Walia’s comments, it would be best to reread my second draft and find consistencies within this parenthetical narrator and further enhance/focus on these points to avoid confusion from the supporting ideas of this narrator. This is also due to the fact that these conversations between Robert 1 and Robert 2 can be so long that it not only detaches from the points I am trying to present at the moment of the writing (causing the reader to forget what they were reading about from before as it is not as simple as presenting a movie flashback that can show differing filters between the present and the past, making it obvious for the audience to realize what is the support and what is the main point), but since there is no stance made in these conversations but rather just a differing viewpoints and overall fight, it can be hard to determine what is right and what is wrong and what should be taken as important and what should not be. The last sentence being so long is a microcosm of what is occurring in my autoethnography.

Furthermore, something I believe that I must do (which is only supported by Professor Walia’s comments) is narrow down what my driving question is. Sure, it is nice to go off on tangents and talk about relatable topics, but this flower must find a way to grow from one strong root, where the other roots are just there for further support. In other words, I need to have one main question, enhance the theories behind that min question, and reconfigure my other points so they act as more of supporting details to that main driving question rather than giving a blob of information hoping they could interpret their own question from these results.

One final thing that I will do is find a statistic from the “outside world” to truly make this an autoethnography. Essentially, what I have is my story with some elements related to the outside world. I need more ties to society as a whole to not only make this an autoethnography, but strengthen my own points to show that I am not alone in these ideas that I present. With these revisions, my autoethnography should be stronger than ever (even if the Rangers are not).

This entry is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International license.