The lowdown
There were three readings. The Fascination of the Miniature by Steven Millhauser, an introduction from A Short History of Nearly Everything by Bill Bryson, and Reflections on a Mote of Dust by Carl Sagan. We shall start with Millhauser. In his excerpt, Millhauser suggests that humans often go about life looking at things the same way, never looking at things with interest until they are distorted in some shape or form. Millhauser uses the miniature as an example of this size distortion. Millhauser says that when these distortions occur, "The eye is irritated into attention" (121). Once this distortion has our attention, we tend to recognize things that we might not have seen before. Moving on. Bryson took things a little bit further. Instead of focusing on a miniature, he focused his introduction on the miniature particles that make up anything and everything. The atom. Bryson indulges us by letting us know about how many hours a lucky person might live, and how lucky we are to be alive based on the decisions and actions of our forebearers. Bryson mentions everything of coincidence, and nothing of fate/destiny (yes, fate/destiny is an incredibly romantic topic, but who the fuck really knows how everything "goes down" in our "existence". I'm rambling, I will stop........now.) Finally, Sagan reminds the reader how small he or she really is in the scheme of things. He points out that everything humans say and do, all take place on a pebble.
Disclaimer: The above might not be the best of summaries, but bear with me, let me share with you my insights about the readings. For I shall be Mister Rogers. Will you be my neighbor?
Ok, to begin with, I realize what the three articles have in common. They all talk about things on a very small scale. The interesting part about this relationship, is that while Millhauser speaks of army men, Bryson takes the human being, and looks at it from a very small scale "...if you were to pick yourself apart with tweezers, one atom at a time, you would produce a mound of fine atomic dust..."(123). Sagan takes this notion one step further, and looks at humanity on a very small scale (with the help of course from Voyager 1). (Reffering to "Pale Blue Dot") "That's here. That's home. That's us." Sagan (124).
Ok, so what I took from this is that the authors of the various works feel that not enough people look at the small things. Bryson and Sagan obviously feel that the majority of humanity doesn't understand how irrelevant we as a species are. Time goes on, things on earth are born, die, and are forgotten. According to Sagan, no matter how grand or feeble the accomplishment of man, it doesn't change the fact that earth is the universe's kidney stone. I find Bryson's introduction, and Sagan's "Reflection" to be enlightening, but at the same time very condescending. Maybe it's I'm giving the human race too much credit but I mean, regardless of how small we are or how insignificant our actions, we are still "here". We still exist. Whether it be by chance, or by the divine bowel movements of (the) God(s), we still live, breathe, eat, shit, and die. I think that regardless of our accomplishments, or as Sagan is so quick to point out, our flaws, the human race, our species means something. If we were put here by something, to carry out some sort of plan, who is to say that we are not currently carrying out that plan, and in essence, making a difference in the universe. On the other hand, if we are here as the result of millions of millenia of coincidence, have we not become learned in the process? Some would argue "No". Some might say that people have taken joy in killing other people since the dawn of humanity. Myself, I would reply "Yes". Humans have grown, and learned valuable lessons and harvested a multitude of ideas that could change worlds (assuming there are other worlds out there to change, and for some strange reason, I think that Sagan believes that there are other worlds out there. And based on his "Reflection" It seems as if he is ashamed of our world.) Amoeba's (as far as I know) are not capable of loving one another. Birds do not write prose. Shrimp cannot arrange symphonic bliss. By now, you might be thinking, "If you are Mister Rogers, then your neighborhood sucks." Well, forgive me for rambling, forgive me for having hope, and confidence in our species. It may be because I am young and naive, and have yet to be exposed to the many harsh "realities" of the (as Sagan would put it) tiny speck of dust we live on. But while Sagan, Bryson, and Millhauser prefer to look at things on a much smaller scale, you might say that I on the other hand, prefer to look at things on a bigger scale.
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
Introduction to the text or: How I learned to stop worrying and love the book
The summarization
The introduction to the textbook is "Writing Matters". This of course is a very strong title/statement that only the most ignorant of people would disagree with. That aside, the actual introduction begins by explaining the relationship between seeing and writing (so coincidental that the book is titled (no underline feature available so I shall use quotation marks) "Seeing and Writing 3". Moving on. The the authors suggest that writing is a skill, and that skills take time and practice to perfect. The textbook advises making detailed observations about things that the writer encounters. From these observations, the writer can make inferences about what is happening and then make conclusions. The textbook also goes into detail about the importance of drafting and revising the drafts. Halfway through the introduction, the reader is given a set of compositional tools that will help the reader better to understand parts of the writing process. These tools include structure, audience, point of view, tone, metaphor, and context. These are all great things, the textbook advises that a writer should know his/her audience before creating a piece. The textbook also defines what a metaphor is and how they can be much more fun and interesting than just simple observations.
The big difference between the textbook and LaMott's essay is that the previous is a textbook. The text does a better job of describing certain aspects of the writing process, as well as ways to make the thing you write more enjoyable to yourself, and your audience. LaMott's essay is the children's summary (with one or two expletives) of the introduction of the text.
Now lyrics from Destroyer's Song "This Night"
They led us on, they said "It would be your's"
Take down the border, stop patrolling the shores "Let us in"
We wrote a winter song. "C'mon, C'mon, C'mon, C'mon, C'mon"
Don't shelve the opera, you've been working this long on it.
Twelve years on the eastside, and still so...... house proud
I observe that the songwriter is feeling mistreated. I feel that he is not the only one that feels this way.
I can make many observations about these beginning lyrics of an incredible song, but I know that it would take me thirty years to finally understand the message Bejar is trying to get across. But that is ok with me. I probably never will know what he is talking about, but that doesn't bother me one bit.
The introduction to the textbook is "Writing Matters". This of course is a very strong title/statement that only the most ignorant of people would disagree with. That aside, the actual introduction begins by explaining the relationship between seeing and writing (so coincidental that the book is titled (no underline feature available so I shall use quotation marks) "Seeing and Writing 3". Moving on. The the authors suggest that writing is a skill, and that skills take time and practice to perfect. The textbook advises making detailed observations about things that the writer encounters. From these observations, the writer can make inferences about what is happening and then make conclusions. The textbook also goes into detail about the importance of drafting and revising the drafts. Halfway through the introduction, the reader is given a set of compositional tools that will help the reader better to understand parts of the writing process. These tools include structure, audience, point of view, tone, metaphor, and context. These are all great things, the textbook advises that a writer should know his/her audience before creating a piece. The textbook also defines what a metaphor is and how they can be much more fun and interesting than just simple observations.
The big difference between the textbook and LaMott's essay is that the previous is a textbook. The text does a better job of describing certain aspects of the writing process, as well as ways to make the thing you write more enjoyable to yourself, and your audience. LaMott's essay is the children's summary (with one or two expletives) of the introduction of the text.
Now lyrics from Destroyer's Song "This Night"
They led us on, they said "It would be your's"
Take down the border, stop patrolling the shores "Let us in"
We wrote a winter song. "C'mon, C'mon, C'mon, C'mon, C'mon"
Don't shelve the opera, you've been working this long on it.
Twelve years on the eastside, and still so...... house proud
I observe that the songwriter is feeling mistreated. I feel that he is not the only one that feels this way.
I can make many observations about these beginning lyrics of an incredible song, but I know that it would take me thirty years to finally understand the message Bejar is trying to get across. But that is ok with me. I probably never will know what he is talking about, but that doesn't bother me one bit.
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
Shitty First Drafts
First, I will begin with the most boring part of the assignment. The Summary. (I find the summary portion of any assignment to be very boring because it makes me feel like the professor doesn't trust that I actually read the assigned material. Regardless, it is required, and well.....damn o.k enough beating around the bush. Here we go.)
Anne LaMott, the brilliance behind this essay, begins by explaining that not every writer sits down and simply let's fascinating words and sentences fall from his/her pen. LaMott fully explains (and annoyingly re-iterates) that behind many literary masterpieces, there are many "shitty first drafts". LaMott explains to the reader that even thought the first draft may be "shitty", beautiful things can come from shit (like pretty flowers, and by pretty flowers I mean momentary sparks of genius). "Just get it all down on paper, because there may be something great in those six crazy pages........" the "down" draft as LaMott puts it. Amazing things may come out of this down draft. Next, is the "up" draft, where you fix things up. In this phase, LaMott explains that the writer refines the "down" draft to more conveniently convey his or her message to the reader. After the "up" draft comes the "dental" draft, or final checkup. This is the last stop before the writer finds out whether or not he/she is getting a paycheck this week, or directions to the nearest bar/loan office/bank ( I do not encourage theft). Towards the end of the essay, LaMott describes some of the voices in her head that scream at her when she is trying to write. (I (possibly) fully understand why LaMott would include these insights with her readers). LaMott is trying to explain to her readers that everyone has trouble writing. Everyone has trouble writing first drafts and getting started on pieces of work. She also lets the reader know that many writers (including herself) have trouble being confident in their work, either when it is just beginning to take form, or when it is hitting the professors/chiefs/President's desk. She explains that writers should block out insecurities they might have about their work. The writer also suggests that she has a friend(s) that enjoy shooting mice that are trapped in a jar...............In the head.
And now, a few questions that will (should hopefully) be addressed in the following paragraph.
1. How does LaMott's version of the writing process further clarify the ideas for adult writers? (Hah, I think I copied this question down wrong when it was on the board.)
2. Anything new or different here?
3. Does it change how you feel about the process, and/or your own ability to write.
Let's begin
Well, to start off, I enjoyed this essay up to about the third paragraph. The first two paragraphs of the essay shed light on an issue that I have thought about ever since I started reading great literary works. I used to think that writers such as Twain, Vonnegut, and Kerouac were born with a gift that few others had. The gift to sit and let their thoughts flow so free and smooth, that there was no need for a second draft. LaMott's essay informed me that even the great writers had rough draft ( I still don't believe that they were shitty, but I believe they had rough drafts none the less). Regardless, the point LaMott is trying to get across is that the writing process consists of stages. This is nothing new to me. I have been learning about the writing stages since I was in fifth grade. I understand that in order to produce a good piece of work, you should go through a rough draft, a second draft, third draft....etc, and finally a final draft. I really didn't like the terms LaMott used to describe the various drafts. "Down" draft, "Up" draft, "Dental" draft, (Back draft haha, I'm an Idiot.) C'mon LaMott, I'm not an Idiot (coincidence or irony? you decide.) You could have just said rough draft, and second, third, and fourth draft, and final draft. For Pete's sake, I am terrified of the dentist. To conclude, ( and please forgive me for my rambling.) this does not change the way I feel about the process, or my ability to write. The writing process, as programmed into my brain since the days of monkeybars, is the same then, as it was now, as it will always be. LaMott simply explained the writing process to me through her own perspective. I personally think LaMott's perspective is very boring (Except for the part about Burroughs being inside of her head.) and I believe that she filling the right shoes when all she did was write restaurant reviews. She probably wrote for the Wisconsin Chronicle (no offense intended to Wisconsinites) and I am glad that I never read any of her reviews.
P.S. If William S. Burroughs is inside of your head Mrs. LaMott, please listen to him. Although you may not understand half of the things he says, (because I sure know that I don't understand much of what he is saying.) listen to him, he might tell you the secrets of becoming a successful exterminator.
Anne LaMott, the brilliance behind this essay, begins by explaining that not every writer sits down and simply let's fascinating words and sentences fall from his/her pen. LaMott fully explains (and annoyingly re-iterates) that behind many literary masterpieces, there are many "shitty first drafts". LaMott explains to the reader that even thought the first draft may be "shitty", beautiful things can come from shit (like pretty flowers, and by pretty flowers I mean momentary sparks of genius). "Just get it all down on paper, because there may be something great in those six crazy pages........" the "down" draft as LaMott puts it. Amazing things may come out of this down draft. Next, is the "up" draft, where you fix things up. In this phase, LaMott explains that the writer refines the "down" draft to more conveniently convey his or her message to the reader. After the "up" draft comes the "dental" draft, or final checkup. This is the last stop before the writer finds out whether or not he/she is getting a paycheck this week, or directions to the nearest bar/loan office/bank ( I do not encourage theft). Towards the end of the essay, LaMott describes some of the voices in her head that scream at her when she is trying to write. (I (possibly) fully understand why LaMott would include these insights with her readers). LaMott is trying to explain to her readers that everyone has trouble writing. Everyone has trouble writing first drafts and getting started on pieces of work. She also lets the reader know that many writers (including herself) have trouble being confident in their work, either when it is just beginning to take form, or when it is hitting the professors/chiefs/President's desk. She explains that writers should block out insecurities they might have about their work. The writer also suggests that she has a friend(s) that enjoy shooting mice that are trapped in a jar...............In the head.
And now, a few questions that will (should hopefully) be addressed in the following paragraph.
1. How does LaMott's version of the writing process further clarify the ideas for adult writers? (Hah, I think I copied this question down wrong when it was on the board.)
2. Anything new or different here?
3. Does it change how you feel about the process, and/or your own ability to write.
Let's begin
Well, to start off, I enjoyed this essay up to about the third paragraph. The first two paragraphs of the essay shed light on an issue that I have thought about ever since I started reading great literary works. I used to think that writers such as Twain, Vonnegut, and Kerouac were born with a gift that few others had. The gift to sit and let their thoughts flow so free and smooth, that there was no need for a second draft. LaMott's essay informed me that even the great writers had rough draft ( I still don't believe that they were shitty, but I believe they had rough drafts none the less). Regardless, the point LaMott is trying to get across is that the writing process consists of stages. This is nothing new to me. I have been learning about the writing stages since I was in fifth grade. I understand that in order to produce a good piece of work, you should go through a rough draft, a second draft, third draft....etc, and finally a final draft. I really didn't like the terms LaMott used to describe the various drafts. "Down" draft, "Up" draft, "Dental" draft, (Back draft haha, I'm an Idiot.) C'mon LaMott, I'm not an Idiot (coincidence or irony? you decide.) You could have just said rough draft, and second, third, and fourth draft, and final draft. For Pete's sake, I am terrified of the dentist. To conclude, ( and please forgive me for my rambling.) this does not change the way I feel about the process, or my ability to write. The writing process, as programmed into my brain since the days of monkeybars, is the same then, as it was now, as it will always be. LaMott simply explained the writing process to me through her own perspective. I personally think LaMott's perspective is very boring (Except for the part about Burroughs being inside of her head.) and I believe that she filling the right shoes when all she did was write restaurant reviews. She probably wrote for the Wisconsin Chronicle (no offense intended to Wisconsinites) and I am glad that I never read any of her reviews.
P.S. If William S. Burroughs is inside of your head Mrs. LaMott, please listen to him. Although you may not understand half of the things he says, (because I sure know that I don't understand much of what he is saying.) listen to him, he might tell you the secrets of becoming a successful exterminator.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)