Some of my reactions after visiting the Tenement museum:

  • Great concept of museum. When I visit a museum I expect unconsciously to go “into” it, and I really liked the “disrupting” concept of the Tenement.
  • The closest I have been to revive bygone years was when I visited the old house of my great-grandmother in the remote highlands of Peru, where I found very old obsolete machines that were looking quite new; but I never expected to find a place where I could be able to “revive” the former migrations in the heart of the city.  So I was thinking on the process that the people in the museum had to reconstruct the shapes, the atmosphere, and facts that happened 150 years ago. How accurate could be the output of this process?
  • Perhaps some smells and sounds could help to “transport” visitors to the 19th century?
  • This is the second time I visit the museum. The first time, the tour leader was exceptionally enthusiastic and perhaps funnier. Now, the tour leader was not that enthusiastic but she was more interactive with the audience. However, it’s clear that the largest part of the experience is the tour leader….  but how can the museum assure to always recruit tour leaders with the same level of impetuosity?  How can she keep that vitality considering she is repeating the same speech time after time? What happens if she fought with his husband in the morning?
  • Beside the leader’s passion and skills to keep the audience interested, there is also his/her knowledge about the core topic. During my first visit, the tour leader told several unique and revealing details, that made me imagine in which conditions this people were living, and made the experience highly enriching. But he was not able to answer a couple of basic questions that some visitors asked. What is the usual background of tour leaders in this museum?  How should the museum face the training process of these guys in order to fulfill visitors’ expectations?
  • Finally, I think it would have been more interesting – and more efficient as well – for the students to visit the museum by their own, and afterward sharing each particular experience (with a different tour leader and building) with the rest of the class.

Reaction to the readings and to the process itself:

I guess the spoiler community has been developed and greatly encouraged by the producers of the TV show. It is a great marketing research platform, as well as an unbeatable source for understanding fans reactions to the story, which is core to their business.

It seems like they’ve done a very good job understanding fans’ motivations, and designing a game that engages them permanently. Even though there are only 5,000 fans on the Internet –versus 20M viewers – this platform also generates an important buzz outside the collective intelligence (i.e. press, reviews, critics, opinion leaders), which is critical when creating and keeping a “brand” for the TV series through massive media… becoming a virtuous circle!

Finally, I found interesting to get deeper into spoilers’ motivations, as well as understanding that it’s more a process than a goal, and it’s more a collaborative sport than a individual one.


Regarding the reading “Writing Sequential Art”, I am still concerned about who should be the master creator of a comic. On the film industry, for instance, the mastermind of a movie is the director – integrator and general manager of the work. However, directors are not the ones that created / originally conceived the story that is being told. That’s why I have always thought that the architect of a film is the screenwriter, and the director is mostly the “builder”.

Nonetheless, I accept that the hallmark comes from the director. A film could be immediately recognized by the director’s work, on an easier and faster way, while the story is more on a second layer of uniqueness and therefore of classification. In this regard I believe comic’s drawers / artists have a similar level of distinctiveness on the final work, and –regardless writers are the ones that originally conceived the story – that’s why they are supposed to “deserve” the authorship of the artwork, if there has to be one.


About the process of creating my own comic, I guess I was not totally clear about how the creative dynamic of a comic works (I did the reading after doing the exercise). So I just tried to make a “documentary” of my Tuesday, instead of previously thinking about the story development, and without predefining if it was going to be a realistic or a humorous piece. That’s why I started to make it realistic (more like a documentary), and when I was adding the “voice” to the character – which I did afterwards – I tried to find a more humorous approach.

It is also interesting how I tried to build a narrative along the story. What I did was to think on a problem / conflict / goal, and “talk” about it repeatedly along the comic (the readings for the class in this case).

The Cycle of Life

– Does he already know?

– Nobody knows.


I chose this format because I believe it makes the story much more open to imagination than any other format.  In fact, I decided to use a dialogue because of the same reason: I believe the representation of a conversation would result on endless possibilities depending on the reader’s imagination.

For instance, it’s pretty obvious that the dialogue is about an important event, but it’s not obvious if it’s is positive or negative. It could actually be about either death, illness or even a new life.  Moreover, he could be a father, a lover, a son, or just a friend.

Finally, the reader doesn’t know who is talking to who (gender, age, relation between them, etc), and I believe that adds a very important layer of “openness” to the story.