While I didn't directly use one of the examples, I followed the idea to doodle out the structure on a napkin. I'm not the best artist, but I had an even harder time trying to represent my structure digitally, mainly because my attempt to make curved lines into a staircase just looked like a weird squiggle. So does this, but it's (somehow) a clearer version!
To follow the drawing, move from left to right:
- An open half-circle, facing upwards. This represents the introduction, and how it breaks down a whole (the world) into a specific piece.
- Then, a straight line branching out — still relatively equal to the starting point, because this section is something like a sub-introduction, comparing Western men and women and how they do, in fact, both say sorry quite a lot, but —
- — it's not about quantity, it's about quality, and therein comes the break in the line, and one that curves upwards, followed by yet another that moves upwards. These each represent the (currently four) answers to my topic question, broken down into two sections because thematically, the first two and last two are more linked; nevertheless, they all still build on one another.
- They build further, to the last stage: another open half-circle, but flipped upside down, closing a lid on the narrative but, in revealing a different side, showing that it won't be identical to the introductory points — and indeed, the conclusion instead gives bonus info on the opposite of Western women (Eastern) to give the Western explanations further context.
I'd say this lightly follows the Lexicon Valley structure — sometimes it depends on what word or phrase they're researching, but when the topic does, like mine, provide research results that can build on one another rather than have to be broken down separately, we have similar ideas about how to piece them.
As for 99% Invisible's "Icon for Access", I counted 22 citations!
No comments:
Post a Comment