Meta-cognition for A Rose for Emily, Hemingway Style

Andy Vo
10/05/08
Period 2

Meta-cognition

How did I start the process?
- I first made a flow chart of Hemingway’s style of writing. A few bits of info that was placed on the sheet was his constant used of dialog, his relaxing description of the setting that usually have a meaning, the use of two characters having a conversation that is not fully revealed, and some hidden meaning in his dialog and setting. 
What stimulated my ideas?
- Most of the influence for the paper came from “A Clean, Well-Light Place” I tried to copy the same style of easy going atmosphere and extensive dialog between a understanding old man and a rash young boy.
Who is my audience and what is my purpose?
- My audience is readers that like thinking of their own conclusion and reading a story that is almost like a play.
What did I eliminate and why did I eliminate them?
- I eliminated text that gave too much background information. Hemingway’s stories leaves readers right in the middle of a situation and usually is not given any background information.
What troubles do I have?
- Most of the trouble I had was trying to condense the story of “A Rose for Emily” to a two page story, using mostly dialog between two characters, and only one setting. It was difficult to convert a story to a conversation between two characters.
What roadblocks do I repeatedly face and how can I eliminate them?
- I kept getting into roadblocks like “how should I explain this whole event in dialog?” or “what should I make this character say?” It was hard to keep going when I needed to writing in Hemingway’s style. The best way to eliminate the roadblocks is to draw out a less detailed story flow chart and then work on the lines for the characters later on.

Why did I keep what I did?
- I kept the paper that I have because I felt it had a relaxing description of the setting, two characters that are not interrupted in their private dialog, some vague symbols, and a rather open ended ending.
Who helped me at what stages if the process?
- Stephen and Emily helped me in editing my paper. They check my first draft and suggested to me some errors in the writing style. 
What improvement do I see in this piece?
- With a few minor corrections, the modern words and expressions like “c’mon” is removed. By removing the large paragraph at the end, the flow of the story is more constant. Some parts are more vague and allows readers to guess.
What feedback did I get which influenced my decision-making?
- The comments on the use of modern language changed some of the dialog. I also took the advice to make parts of paper more vague to fit Hemingway’s style
What areas still needs improvement and why?
- The area I still need to work on is keeping my writing style out of the story. In this paper where it is important to have the writing style of another person, I need to keep my own style of word choice and structure away from the story.
 What are my paper’s strength?
- My paper has a good flow of the dialog as well as some irony of how the characters think and talk about things that actually did happen. Overall I felt like I introduced the setting and used the dialog to sound like Hemingway.
What are my paper’s weaknesses?
- I feel that the ending does not leave as many questions unanswered as much as I wanted it to. I am also worried about the word choice. I still believe that some words are not entirely a Hemingway style of word choice.
What are my goals for future writing?
- My goal is to full answer the prompt and have each piece of evidence fit in well with the thesis.