so wrong

another bad encounter...

as with other members, I thought the linear scheme is the most appropriate, clearest, obvious and correct interpretation of the poem "a walk"...

every tutorial session with our tutor seem did not much help to our scheme. Our effort went in vain. How could a scheme be so "right" and "interesting" to one, yet is criticized as "not accurately reflecting the scenario..." What and where went wrong?

Scheme 1: Rise of Apollo (Linear Interpretation)

I was amazed at how sensitive and empathetic was Dr. Suchi when she heard the poem and clearly related it to our vague scheme:

1. It is not necessary to impost a function to the scheme, let it remains as a hypothetical scheme. (we did so to justify a "linear configuration of a 'one way' traffic, and the sudden stop at both ends, A 'Jetty' serves the purpose literary and functionally)

2. It is much more appropriate if the "ending part" of the scheme portrays a very different atmosphere to the observer. The design at the opposite ends should not be identical. (I thought to do it such way because 'he' is yet to achieve what he is heading for, and he is still far from his goal)

3. The middle part of the scheme should be continued and amplified on its openings as the space progress forward (apparently Dr. Suchi takes "framed voids " within the bigger frames as 'opportunities', instead of the "gradually smaller frames" at the ending part)

4. The ending part of the scheme should provide the greatest positive feel (as it is ended with "...what we feel is the wind in our faces".

5. Or, the scheme should end at the middle part! (because he is yet to achieve what is ahead, the "goal" is stil vague, intangible, not within his reach etc)

Moral of the story:

role of a tutor is really important, if you get the right tutor, you will learn tremendous lesson.

UNLESS you are lucky to have "critical minded group members".