Be not afraid: It says 25 pages, but 10 of those are appendices/works cited.
Logistically, this project ended up a bit of a nightmare. The original topic I proposed was a comparative analysis of two different Q&A podcasts recorded as a podcasts, but instead it ended up being an analysis on one podcast in comparison to earlier advice columns through a postmodern lens. Not even recorded as a podcast because I did start losing my voice halfway through yesterday when I was supposed to record and so now it’s just hypertext with about 12 pages of appendices also with appendices.
I scrapped the about five pages I had on Sunday because I got sick of fighting with the subject, and began furiously re-writing the entire project, which was good because it ended up better, but bad because instead of having a predicted 9-10 pages to say, I had about 15. Which is like, it’s fine? But also I did start to go a little crazy yesterday.
Anyway, not important.
I didn’t end up doing the first analysis because of a few reasons: the other podcast was really boring and I hated transcribing it, I wasn’t as familiar with it as I would have liked, and I hate fighting with writing in a non-productive way. The podcast’s other form as a alphabetic advice column is I guess something I could have contrasted, but it felt less important to do so with any specific column when I re-configured it as modern vs. postmodern, because I was positing that advice columns as a whole (or mostly so) were modern interpretations of advice media.
What’s important here is that this is a topic I think I could expand so, so much more on, which means some of my ideas are a little thinner than they could be, lacking some support in areas and probably too much in others. For example, the post-modernism section as a whole could have been the paper itself, and I could have expanded a decent bit on basically everything in it. Instead, what I did is Frankensteined a bunch of bits together.
There’s a lot here I’m unhappy with. The comedy bit, which is one of the thinner sections in my opinion, could have both been written much better and way further developed. The conclusion is a bit sucky, only because it looks ridiculous as less than a page after 14 and some change pages of other stuff.
The writing overall is much more academic than I wanted it to be. I would have liked to match this paper a little more with my general online writing persona mixed with a touch of academia, instead of the opposite. But that’s not how it was coming out, and I didn’t want to/didn’t have the time to spend re-writing it the way I would have liked to.
I struggled with when to use citations/hyperlinks and when not to. This is always something I struggle with, understanding when things are prior knowledge/believable to audiences and when they need citations, and this was complicated by the fact that MBMBaM is a podcast I’ve been listening to for about 2 years now, and am well over 300 episodes into. I knew a lot of these things about the podcast’s history and style because of this. Other things, like the comedy bits, were things I was theorizing based on things I’ve talked about in class, but didn’t know how/if I should cite.
Overall though, I’m happy in that I created something that I’m not wholly sick of thinking about after the paper was submitted, which is pretty nice and also very unusual. I would like to keep exploring this topic, in at least that it gives me the chance to keep talking about modernism/postmodernism. I’m starting to think that, though, whenever I get stuck I turn to either feminist analysis or postmodernist analysis, which is so incredibly “English major w/WGSS minor” that I’m almost ashamed.
Anyway, I’m pretty content. There’s a lot I could do so much better, but considering the circumstances, it ended up pretty okay.