250 words, 140 characters, or 5 syllables? It doesn't matter how you slice or dice it; they all are limiting in their own respect. 
    
    First, I selected a quote from Anzaldua and set off to write a 250 word pierce of microfiction. I must say that being a very descriptive, some would say wordy, writer, I struggle with maximum word counts. I began with a set direction aiming for a simplistic and short way to say what I needed to say, yet my fingers told a much better complex and symbolic story. Within this assignment I grew as a writer by inserting color, adjusting tone, shifting tense, removing prepositions, utilizing thesaurus, and limiting words. 

    Next, I took this piece of microfiction entitled "Greyt Expectations" and used it to inspire a haiku. I must say that while I prefer the narrative form, the 3 stanza haiku did hold some weight as the words I selected were the windows of meaning taken from the microfiction. Some things I did learn, however, are that I should vary my word length and make my prepositions beefier, yet my verbs tend to be strong! 

    Then, in the same fashion that I wrote the first piece of microfiction based upon the Anzaldua readings, I explored my tweets and selected 2 of them that wouldn't normally coincide and enmeshed them into the same piece of microfiction. Since I started with my own style and voice, it was much easier to incorporate these outside quotes into my writing and make them flow. Within this piece alone, I took a risk writing the inner and outer thoughts of one character alone, all presenting a rather complex plot that I believe reader's can add their own experience.

    Finally, I took my microfiction that was inspired by my tweets and tried to create a found poem based upon the words I wished to emphasize. For this assignment, I tried the haiku once again and found that since the tweets were not cohesive thoughts, the poem, already limited by syllables, became limited in meaning. I feel this was stretching the heart of the writing beyond its intended purpose.

    Essentially, shifting genres forced me to think critically about each and every word I placed into my writing. Furthermore, I found myself saying if I only used this word, or if I only posted this thought. The biggest lesson I learned is that revisiting the same text at times may seem monotonous, yet it allows me to edit thngs that I wish to explore in hindsight of the first attempt!

    Writing forces us to peer into our past with a renewed purpose and a refined consideration for that which we already experienced. We begin to study the people, places, and things that we once skimmed over. This allows us to “see…with a new clarity and a new understanding and a new seriousness.” (Berry 7). Details that were once taken for granted are now grasped as significant. In a sense, writing drives metacognition, or thinking about our thinking.

    How often do we go through life passively, while writing compels us to become active participants in life’s experiences? It is not until we reach a point of retelling our stories that our eyes are opened to new details, developments, and deductions. In pursuing this further, if we do not commit our stories to ink, they just become faded memories (Pagnucci 72); more often than not a missed opportunity to record results in a missed opportunity to remember. There is always the potential to share our stories, but it requires us to awaken our subconscious by pushing past the obvious and addressing the obscure. 

    In a way, we pretend to be “alive to [the story] as never before” (Berry 7). We begin to question and make observations. What did we really see? Are there things we overlooked? Do we hear the words of the conversation the same now as we did then? Are our beliefs the same? We start making mental footnotes of all that our senses encountered as if we were revisiting the memory physically. In essence, just in remembering, we explore the memory by exposing each layer – the characters, the climate, the conflict, and the conclusion – as a writer would.

    Once again we are faced with the idea of metacognition. We are not done revisiting and rewriting our story until we have answered two critical questions: 1) Am I being true to myself? and 2) Am I being true to the memory? The first is answered by establishing and critiquing our “vantage point” (Pagnucci 77), while the second is answered by exploring and depicting the flashback. Ultimately, the answers to these questions are personal and debatable, yet it is our story so we are the ones who have the final say. Period, point blank, end of story!