woensdag 2 juni 2010

Questions may travel...

The bad thing about the walking seminar is that, in order to participate, bodies have to be present at specific places at certain times. The good thing, however, is that the question, we discuss while walking, travel very easily. So, this is what we discussed the last times:

Writing about what it not good.

Detached. Calm. Angry. Sad. Argumentative. Empathic. Clinical. What else?

Which difference does it make whether this non-good seems irreducible (e.g. we all die) or someone’s fault (e.g. X killed Y) or puzzling (e.g. why did Y die?) or a social fact (e.g. Y lived in a country in war or with lack of food) – or something else yet again? Neglect, failure, disaster, agression, what have you...

How do you know, assess, judge, feel, find out – that in your field you hit upon something that is ‘not-good’?

What are interesting examples in the literature of ways of writing about what is not good? What makes them interesting?

And the month before:

Comparing: what is it to compare?
What do you compare with what as a part of your research?
How should that help you in answering your questions, telling your stories, etc? Does it?

What is fun/difficult/striking/surprising etc. in the work of ‘comparing’?

What difference might it make to use other terms, e.g. contrasting - or which other other term would be relevant to/in your work?

What are authors/texts in which comparison figures in a way that you particularly appreciate? In which ways do you learn from them; how do you (want to) do similar/different things?

What is it to compare and how have similarity and difference to do with this?

Geen opmerkingen:

Een reactie posten