Tuesday, October 18, 2005 :::
 


me and eileen just have different working styles, and i'm still trying to figure all this and try to make publications work out right. it will be futile to try to read her mind and explain things in her perspective since i'm not her, so i'll just say what this entire first issue means to me.


eileen has this ability to make people do things for her; her tone when she asks and those pleading eyes. in the first publications meeting when she asks the writers to interview people and write articles for her, they were like hesistating " err..yea..ok..", and she goes, " okie! deadline is this fri! ". suddenly the writer is left all on her/his own, with a interview to do, with totally no contacts nor an outline of what is required.


i have to say all my writers are extremely dedicated and hardworking. they went to find contacts even though they had no idea who the interviewee was, met up, conducted the interview and wrote the article. and most of the articles are very detailed, with complete biographies and such. but what we want in the end is just a tiny portion of it, the vibrancy part, and the rest is heavily edited and cut. i know i'm going to get screwed real bad when the magazine gets printed and distributed. the writers are going to feel cheated when they find out all is needed is so little when they went totally out of the way to get the articles done in such detail. it is already frustrating enough to get someone to do work for us when we can't give anything in return, and after this, i seriously wonder who will be left.


i feel that eileen is great when it comes to getting people to do work, but she has no clue what kind of work to let them do, nor does she tells them exactly what she wants. all that everyone knows is that theme for this issue is "vibrancy of arts" and there are going to be six interviews with undergraduates, lecturers and alumuni. the work out is arrowed out without even a cohesive plan or a flow. and what we get back now are six interviews with different focusses and agendas.


i'm a nitpicker. i feel everything should be planned to the finest detail before execution. and that the writers should know exactly what is expected of them before even agreeing to write. the way she does things completely throws me off. i understand it is not wrong; it is just different. true enough, things get done, but just not the things that we want.


|

::: posted by Richard Wan at 2:12 AM