As I have prepared this Commentary, I have come to appreciate the values that exist between the conventions of doctoral research driven by a glimpsed destination and that which brings together previously published works. The particular, and perhaps peculiar, historiographical relationship between the works from 'then' and the Commentary from 'now', turns such research into both a reflection and opportunity to reconsider writing already 'out there'. One cannot re-write the works (although the concept of 're-working' is central to my view of the engaged spectator). But one can reflect on the perspectives that informed each original piece within a body of emerging work. A Commentary, then, becomes not only a process of revelation but also one of acknowledgment of differing circumstances of research, publication and style. The unchangeable outcomes of each published piece are thus seen in a different light, juxtaposition revealing not only advances in one's ideas but also the paradoxes and shifts in thinking that retrospection forces and allows. So a slightly declamatory approach in earlier work evolves into more measured tones, perhaps less shrill. But if we each strive to have our own 'voice', no matter how hard we try for a more mature style some of that driving rawness remains. It is an uncomfortable truth that the shrill, unformed but passionate youth lurks in the shadows. This form of Commentary, then, becomes a revisiting of works and ideas that may have lost some of their currency, or perhaps not (hence my reaching back to both my MA Dissertation and the MiP Report). It becomes an attempt to place each work as part of a series not originally intended as such but in which chosen themes, prejudices and preoccupations play an ever-shaping role. It becomes an attempt to place some posterior coherence, convenient and inconvenient, which emerges from a process of reflection and 'looking again'. It is this mixing and juxtaposition of past work and present position that demands one looks from the side as well as straight on. For this reason I use a relational form of past and present tense as a 'vocal' device to show the ongoing 'live-ness' of the themes and ideas and passions that mark the body of work. The Commentary is therefore exposition and critique, but also an expansion. It is a dynamic process embracing the title of the Commentary itself, becoming subject to inevitable reworking since first being registered. Its preparation has allowed the introduction of current research, new ideas and oblique musings that extend the concerns of the extant works, giving a sense of continuing coherence and possible trajectories. It becomes an attempt to accommodate where I was then with where I am now.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:bl.uk/oai:ethos.bl.uk:592762 |
| Date | January 2012 |
| Creators | Keefe, John |
| Publisher | Kingston University |
| Source Sets | Ethos UK |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Electronic Thesis or Dissertation |
| Source | http://eprints.kingston.ac.uk/25507/ |
Page generated in 0.002 seconds