Letters

I never really thought about letters as a story, that is until recently. I mean, I always knew that letters were a way of telling something, but I never thought of a letter as a way of writing a story. Sure, there is the book Dear Mr. Henshaw, but I had always HATED that book. This kid was writing his life to this guy. I remember, not finishing the book because of how much I hated it. My teacher thought that that was funny. Of course I got in trouble, but that’s not the point. I never understood why a person would write their life in letters. But there is one writer, I do not remember her name, but I remember her life being written in letters and put into a book. I believe that these letters were to herself, a nickname, just a way of expressing herself and getting everything out that she wanted to. It makes sense and is a good way to keep a diary. Rather than the “dear diary” entry, which is what most young girls do, she made a nickname and wrote to that person.

I can see why writing a letter is a good way to take that energy and write it down, yet I don’t think it necessarily needs to be addressed to a relative or friend. I do believe that writing for oneself to let it all out and let all of the expression and emotion is for the better. It’s like in poetry. The poet writes for himself/herself, not for anyone else, even if the poem is written about someone else. To express, for oneself, opens a door or a window that shut, or at least cracks it open for the person.

Nietzsche

For me, this article was wacky. Yes, I understood the gist of it, but it was also a bit random. The first section seemed to have nothing to do with the rest. But then I thought about it. Nietzsche writes about psychologists and what they do. Well, after a brief moment, I realized that it fits the rest of our reading in a post-conventional way.

Psychologists explore the way the mind works. Psychologists seek the truth, in methods that consist of disproving themselves as well as proving themselves.

According to Nietzsche, historians lack historical spirit, which is to say, they either have no morals, or they contradict their own morals. People once praised usefulness, if you were useful, you were considered a good person. If a person was useful, he was praised. But, the person had to be considered a good person in the eyes of society. In other words, in order to be good, you had to be useful, but in order to be useful, you had to be good, and in order to be good, you had to be noble. The nobles decided this by basing it on your social status, intelligence, your money. But they were lazy, the nobles were lazy. So the only useful people were the damn peasants. (in your face!)

Though it seems that there is still that psychological contradiction. What is right for one person isn’t always right for another. Then there’s the whole post-conventionalism thing. You there are rules, but they’re stupid, and you don’t care, so you break them…..those rules aren’t right for you.

But we still have to deal with the fact that the judgment of good is not defendable because of the fact that some people are post-conventional, and what is right for one person isn’t for another. Thus, no one, Absolutely NO ONE, can defend what is good and what is not good.

And the funny thing is, is that in many cultures, the word good has that same meaning of social status. But why is it that nobility meant a person was good? Why was there that segregation of the truthful noble man and the lying common man? Was it really real? Nietzsche proposes that those who were considered to be noble were the Celtics, the white men of Europe, rather than the coloured man.

Nietzsche also suggests that the social superiority was tied into the spiritual superiority. That the pure and impure were symbolic. That the priest, through religious acts and religious purity caused pathological disease because of the old Biblical teachings. This suggests that the priests need to be careful in their ideas and sophistication as human beings.

For me, I don’t agree. I agree with the post-conventionalism and psychological contradiction because it’s true. I speak from experience, but the rest just does not fall into place for me…

Setting the Record Straight

I really liked this article in Making Sense, and not just because it had more pictures than words. The pictures help to bring the point about what can be considered comics and how they date back really far in the past. And Scott McCloud made several excellent points about how comics today are perceived to be action heroes with cheap animation and stupid stories, and how they are not the only “comics” that exist.

The hieroglyphics of the Egyptians are considered comics because they tell a story through the pictures and language of their people. This is something that I never would have thought of. I knew that they told vivid stories of their people, but they crossed my mind as comics. I believe that this is because I perceive comics to be the same as McCloud did when he was a young boy; the only difference, I loved comics.

I was never able to figure out why I loved comics, but I did. It could have been the story plots, the simple yet complicated images, the heroes and villains, or maybe that it was more pictures than words. It definitely was not that last one. I always loved thick books better. But still, whatever it was about them, they captivated me.

McCloud mentions how he decided to become a comics artist and practiced his drawings over and over. This activity is a good thing to practice when passionate about an activity. I’d have to agree that that was the best first step that he could have taken, and I like where it has taken him. McCloud’s comic is informative, but in a fun way.

The Historical Structure of Scienfific Discovery

I must first ask myself the question, why is this important? I really don’t understand why chemistry is important to writing. But then I have to think about the fact that these few discoveries, such as oxygen, sodium chloride, etc., are important to our lives. If we didn’t know about any of this, we still wouldn’t know why we exist or why we are important or what our roles in society are. Besides, having all of this scientific bumbo jumbo gives writers something to write about, whether they really want to or not. It also gives us insight to the sciences and their history.

There is also the fact that these amazing aspects in life were discovered by accident. The men who discovered Sodium Chloride and Oxygen didn’t discover them on purpose, they stumbled across them. It wasn’t a faulty thing, it was actually a great thing that they were discovered.

The Loss of the Creature

People have to see sights for what they are, not what they hope the sights will be. The story about the family that goes to the grand canyon gets their hopes up to see something that is glorious and magnificent, only to find that over a hundred other people did the exact same thing. This family already knew that the grand canyon was a beautiful place, also a tourist area, yet they chose to vacation at this spot anyways; hoping to get the full effect of its beauty. The family in question did not find what they were looking for at all; there were so many other people there looking for the same thing, or something similar to what they were looking for.

We also see the idea of the outbreak of typhus, leaving a family with the canyon to themselves. This experience could be considered on the aspect that the family does not have other people telling them what to look at and how to interpret it. The family can see any part of the canyon that they want to and not have to deal with other people disrupting the quiet peaceful atmosphere.

On the other hand, sightseeing with a group of people can be a lot of fun. Being able to see what others think about what is going on, having fun with either friends or family, and just taking everything in as an outsider can be very exhilarating.

BB

I'm choosing only to write about "Writers Block" in this "blog" because it is something that I have been faced with time and time again.

It's not something that is fun, and it just pisses you off when it hits you. You feel as though you have no control over it, but in reality, you do. You can think of something that was going on earlier that day, or maybe last week, it may not be new, but it is still an idea none the less.

Lamott mentioned that you can remember using the idea before, but I don't think that that matters. So what if you have used the idea before, it was the idea, not the complete context. Look at J.K. Rowling, she used the same idea 7 times, look where that got her. Everyone believes that Rowling is awesome, that she's a genius.

Many great authors would not be great authors if they hadn't used the same ideas. Rowling is one, Tolkien, Shakespeare, just to name a few.

I know that I reach writers block time and again, but I stumble through it. I'll pick up a poem I've already written, edit through it, and in the process, think of another; it all works out.

So I don't think that writers block is a bad thing, at least not for me, but then again, I'm not an author on a deadline...

PERSONISM: A MANIFESTO- Frank O'hara

I love poetry. I write quite a bit of my own, and for me, this article by Frank O'Hara touches on some of those beliefs, ideas and feelings that I have about poetry.

A poem is personism. It is meant for the person in whom it is being written for or about. It is the most inner emotions of the writer and how they feel about that person. It is, in my opinion, only one of the greatest forms of art. For me, without poetry, I would not survive. It is something that I must have. It is a way to express everything that I am feeling, as it is with everyone I know who writes poetry.

And I must say that I agree with O’Hara when he says that poetry’s “…aspects is to address itself to one person (other than the poet himself), thus evoking overtones of love without destroying love’s life—giving vulgarity, and sustaining the poet’s feelings towards the poem while preventing love from distracting him into feeling about the person.” Poetry is not meant for anyone other than the poet and the subject in which the poet is referring to.

O’Hara states that a minimal aspect is to evoke love without distracting oneself. I do not necessarily say that I agree with this. Yes, poetry can be about love, but that is not all that it needs to be about. There are many other topics that it can be about. Try writing about death, anger, a friend, it really does not matter, a poem can be written about anything. Yes, poetry does distract the writer about their feelings toward the person that they are writing about, but only sort of. It keeps the “relationship” between the writer and the subject on a level of infatuation or the idea of… whatever that idea may be.

A poem is not written to be interpreted by others. No one wants their poems to be interpreted by stupid high school students, the poems were not written for that purpose, they were written on a deep personal level with the intention of expressing feelings, whether or not the other party learns of those feelings or not. And sometimes it is just better to get the feelings out, not necessarily tell the other person about them.

But on the contrary, it is very fun to interpret a poem. It can be interpreted however the reader wishes to, regardless of whether they have the correct message that is behind the poem. And it is also fun to read poetry, whether or not the reader is interpreting the poem. It can be exhilarating to know that there are other people who share the same interests as you. And it’s nice to know that there so many poems out there.

So who are we to say what a poem means when we were not the person who wrote it. We do not have that right and we should recognize it, even if we feel the need to interpret someone else’s poem.

Jean-François Lyotard: Introduction to The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge

"...the hero of knowledge works toward a good ethico-political end -- universal peace."

To use your greater knowledge for the good of mind kind. It all sounds so much like a Miss America Pageant. It does make sense, but only to a point. In which that point is meant to use your knowledge for good, not evil, but not in the sense that you should use your knowledge to make the world a better place, that just ain't gonna happen.

Philosophy on the other hand, is more like a personal thing. We all have our own different philosophical views. Granted, many of ours are similar, but none are identical. We make think that our philosophical views are identical, but that's just for those of us who are too afraid to speak up.

But on the whole, knowledge is a good thing to possess. We don’t all want to be stupid about stuff. Which is weird that the research mentioned in this article was about where the most educated people are, and how they happened to be “in the most highly developed societies”. Which would make sense that nations such as England, France, Germany, China and America possess smart people, but these people, in America at least, aren’t as smart as they appear to be. But that’s just my opinion. And if you take into account that a lot of the people who are smart came from areas where the people they were around were not, and were able to climb up the social ladder.

"keeping close to home"

This article really jumps out at me. While reading it, I couldn't stop thinking about home or where I grew up, how I grew up and and just everything that correlates with it. For me, this article is saying "do not forget where you came from or the people who helped you get where you are today. remember to take all of what you know and believe with you, do not let anyone influence you to turn your back on who you really are."

Bell Hooks brings up so many points that relate to our college experiences. We have no money, we all come from different places, and we all have a different set of beliefs and values. She also talks about how "class" was a big thing where she went attended school. I'd say it is still an issue today, but not that big of an issue. But Hooks mentions how class was perceived as your social status in money and where you grew up instead of your where your set of values lye. I think for me, that the set of values is more important. But I also think that I say this because I'm one of those college students with no money but a high set of values and beliefs. I stand my ground when I need to and when I see fit; I back down when I realize that I need to; and I don't take shit from people when I don't have too.

On that note, I really think Hooks should have spoken up when she heard the way that her "friends" were talking about "lower class" citizens. It really shouldn't matter. Given the fact that they know her and what she is like, if they were really her friend, they wouldn't have cared. Had she spoken up, they could have heard everything that they were talking about from her point of view; a point of view from someone who has experience in that area, who has lived that lifestyle. Instead, they were being bias.

From a Native Daughter

What really stuck to me about Haunani-Kay Trask’s essay was in her last two pages. She tells of real experiences of her land and her people, which are also stories that have been passed from generation to generation. How the story of her and her people is misunderstood. Trask asks the question of whether people seeking to learn more about the history and ancestry of Hawaii want to learn it from the ancestors or from the haole (whites).

Trask makes a valid point. Who knows the history of Hawaii better than its own people? And if one truly wants to learn the history, that is who they should learn it from, not from someone who knows only part of it. She also mentions that a person studying the French culture will learn all that they possibly can about it, including the language; which the Western historians fail to do when studying the native life of Hawaii.

It makes more sense to learn about a culture from someone who either lives or has lived in that particular culture. I wouldn’t ask one someone from Europe to tell me all about the history of Korea, I would ask someone who is a native Korean, born and raised there.

How is it right for someone to write about a culture that they claim to know a lot about when they cannot truly know the life and experiences that it brings?

"Blaxicans" and Other Reinvented Americans

I'll admit, when I first read this title, I thought that the author himself was half Black and half Mexican. I know that that sounds stereotypical, but we’ve been talking about personal narratives and writing our own experiences, so I jumped to conclusions.

I find Richard Rodriguez’s opinion very intriguing in his article. How he brings up the points about the gringos making all of these “classifications” for everyone. But I don’t necessarily think that these “classifications” become a big deal unless we make them a big deal. For one, on an application, why does an employer want to know our race, who cares, especially if we are good at what we do. And it becomes a big deal when segregation is involved, which I do believe is outrageous and completely wrong by the way. If our country wasn’t as integrated as it is….I wouldn’t be the same person I am today. Some of my best friends were not born in the United States, but they are Americans. Some of them were born in America and their parents are from other countries, and they too are Americans. My best friends are Korean, Indonesian, Black, and Hispanic. The funny thing about my Black and Hispanic friends, they prefer to be called that over African-American and Mexican. I’m not sure why, but they do. Except my Latino friends. I cannot call them Hispanic or Mexican, they are Latino….It really depends on the person.

When Rodriguez was asked what his nationality was, what he considered himself to be, he said Chinese. He said this because that’s where he had been living for quite some time. I really think that him saying that really does bring the meaning to the phrase “Home is where the heart is.” People use that phrase all of the time, but I think that they use it out of context. You cannot classify a specific place as your home if your heart wasn’t there or isn’t there. I cannot classify the Czech Republic as my home, I can only separate the fact that that is where my ancestors come from, but my home is in the United States, wherever I’m living while I’m there, as long as my heart is in the right place. I really think that that is what Rodriguez is saying in that paragraph.

It also caught me off guard that it was a little girl who said she was, along with her parents “Blaxican.” I didn’t expect it to be from a little girl, like I said, I thought it was our author himself. I have heard this term before, several times. It is a way of “reinventing”; a new race, a new stereotype, a new form of racism itself, that shouldn’t be experienced. It is wonderful to know that the little girl saw her parents together, and not as separates, it’ll make her stronger in the future, but other people will take it wrongly, which isn’t fair. We shouldn’t see people for their outside, we should see them for who they are inside. Not their intestines, but their personality, their heart, their mind. Shouldn’t we be colorblind? Shouldn’t we accept the difference in each other? Rodriguez mentions people being more acceptable to the unfamiliar than we once were. He seemed happy by it, and why shouldn’t he be? We live in a culture full of diversity and cultural influences. And there are many different influences that make us who we are. So who are we to judge others because they are different?

"Looking Around" and "The Moral Point of View"

“Looking Around”

“Writing is about learning to pay attention and to communicate what is going on.”

For me, this quote means that we observe all that is around us, our being, others, the planet and all everything natural about it. It means looking at what is out there, figuring out what it means for us, and then telling others what is it that we believe about it; what we agree with, and what we do not agree with. Where Anne Lamott mentions that writers are to see people as the really are, and that we need to know who we are first, I think that only part of that is true. I do not believe that we have the right to judge others, but that by learning and observing others, we come to know ourselves. Thus, we cannot fully know who we are before we can see people for whom they really are. I know that that sounds discombobulated, but it’s really not if you think about it. For me, I believe that the people we are around shape who we become, whether or not we want to admit it. I have a little bit of my parents in me, their parents, my siblings, friends, cousins, aunts and uncles too. Why is this? Because I grew up around them and am still around them quite frequently, thus, they shape who I am and who I am becoming.

So basically I agree that as writers, we need to observe our surroundings, as well as ourselves, but I do not agree that we have to know who we really are before we can observe who others really are.

“The Moral Point of View”

In this chapter, Lamott writes about writing what we believe. But not only what we believe, what we believe and are passionate about. I agree. If we are not writing about something that we are passionate about, then why are we writing? If it is not something we care about, we cannot put true feelings and experiences into it. I also do not believe that we can write about someone else’s beliefs is we do not believe them ourselves. Sure we know their feelings and their experiences, but we cannot relate. We may care about what they went through yes, but can we see it through their eyes, and which side do we take?

Lamott writes that “Human rights begin and extend to your characters, no matter how horrible they are. You have to respect the qualities that make them who they are.” To me, this says that everyone is entitled to their own opinion and that we don’t have to agree with them, but we have to respect them and their beliefs. Our differences are what make us unique. If we were all the same, we wouldn’t have our own opinions or beliefs, we wouldn’t be entitled to think either. And the point that I believe Lamott is trying to make is that that is how writing is as well, and how it should continue to be. Not everyone is going to agree with what everyone writes, but that’s ok; as long as we respect the person and what they believe, then everyone is entitled to write them down.

"Writing is a radical loss of certainty"

“Writing is a radical loss of certainty.” –Nancy Sommers

Writing is a loss of certainty. If we are supposed to write about what we know, than we can only truly write about ourselves. But do we know everything about ourselves? I don’t think we really do. Generally, children don’t remember anything before they are two years old, so how are we supposed to know about that. And little things here and there are thrown out of proportion, especially during the teen years. That is why I agree with Nancy Sommors, that “Writing is a radical loss of certainty.”

Let’s’ break down this sentence. The definition of certainty is “known or proved to be true” according to www.merrriamwebster.com . Radical, according to the same source means, “ending or disposed to make extreme changes in existing views, habits, conditions, or institutions”. While loss means “failure to gain, win, obtain, or utilize”. And the definition of writing is “to make a permanent impression of”. By breaking the sentence down, we learn that the sentence as a whole means, “to make a permanent impression of extreme change in existing views, habits, condition or institutions in the failure to gain, win obtain or utilize what is known or proved to be true.”

In simple words, “writing is a radical loss of certainty” means “to make a permanent impression of extreme change within your beliefs because you fail to obtain or utilize the knowledge that you posses within those beliefs.”

When writing a paper, the student doesn’t know all of the facts, thus, he cannot proclaim to be a professional at what it is that he is writing. The teen telling a story of the encounter with her now “ex-boyfriend” cannot give all of the facts, only her side of them. And the poet, the poet can only know her feelings and what possesses those feelings. But she cannot be certain that that what she is writing is true for the person she is writing of. And is she being overdramatic when she writes that “his blue eyes are as deep as the ocean”? Of course she is. But can we picture what she is writing, and do we believe her, if only for the moment? Of course we do. The poet is writing what she knows, and what she knows is what she feels, what she perceives about this stranger she is writing about. Know does the poet really, truly believe that the subject in which she is writing about really has blue eyes, no she doesn’t. That’s what makes her writing an extreme change within her beliefs. She dramatizes the knowledge that she posses, making it radical and not certain.

In writing, we tend to dramatize what is we are writing about. We end up making a change in what we believe by writing something that we don’t believe; or at least we leave the impression that we don’t believe in something that we actually do by writing the contradiction to it. But because we fail utilize the knowledge of what we know is true in our writing and use it correctly. Once we do this, our writing won’t be “a radical loss of certainty”, which it is now. Why is this way now, because we just want to get through what we are writing most of the time, or bring drama to what we are writing in order to make it more interesting to the reader. Thus, I agree with Sommers quote in that “writing is a radical loss of certainty” because “only fools are positive.” (Moe Howard)

"I Stand Here Writing"

Segue-Proceed to what follows without pause.

Nancy Sommers mentions this word in her article "I Stand Here Writing". At the end of her article she writes "Having the courage to live with uncertainty, ambiguity, even doubt, we can walk into all of those fields..." Her quote there and the definition of segue remind me of taking life as it comes, not proceeding with caution and basically, whatever shit happens, it happens...oops. I have to say that I agree with that. Growing up being told to "proceed with caution, be careful, and think before you act" really isn't how I perceive life to be taken. I know that it can be a bit discombobulating, but that's just how I am.
I think that Sommers really hits it on the nose when she mentions that at the very end. Of course she uses it in the idea of writing, but it fits into a greater scale for life. Why? We only have 0ne life, unless of we believe in incarnation.....then we have more than one life. But shouldn't we live life to its fullest? Shouldn't we embrace every moment, even if that moment doesn't turn out so good? When you're lying on your death bed, wouldn't you rather want to be able to say "yea, I had fun, made some mistakes, but I don't regret it, I got to experience just about everything I wanted too." instead of "yea, i regret never going on a cruise or telling my sister how I really felt. If I could go back, I'd make those changes."
Those are facts of lives. Sommers says that we can't change them and we should just embrace them. They make up our dictionary or encyclopedia or movie! Whatever you want to call it, the facts of our lives, (sounds like a tv show) make us who we are. All of the bad things we did, our wrong choices, all of our good choices even, they are something greater and we can feed off of those.
All of our experiences in life, our facts, we can use those to write. Whether we are writing fiction or non-fiction, we can feed off of our history and get all of our ideas from there.
"despite the accumulation of grim.....my mother is an optimistic person." I'll admit, my mother isn't very optimistic, but she tries. I know I've made mistakes, but I'm optimistic about my future. Sommers is trying to teach her daughters that there is more out there and that they can be optimistic, even with all the shit that is out there, that they can use it to better themselves and learn from it all. Why shouldn't we all be like?
I think that there is only one person who can truly say to where we can understand. She's an extremely famous young women who can relate to Sommers grandparents. Her name is Anne Frank. I believe that it was her last journal entry where she said it, but I may be wrong; it's what I'm leaving you with. The truth, the facts, and how we question our authority, even though we just accept it...If Anne could be optimistic in life, why can't we be optimistic in everything about ours?

Despite everything, I believe that people are really good at heart."--Anne Frank

Finding Your Voice

"And the truth of your experience can only come through in your own voice."

We cannot have someone else tell our story, if we do, there will be bits and pieces missing. And for that, we need to find our own voice, so we can tell our story. And then you know, every story has more than one side to it, so you need to be able to tell your side of the story. In a court case, everyone only knows their side of the story, pieced together, you find the truth amongst the lies, which is definitely a good thing. But Lamott says that we try to copy our favorite authors which isn't something that she suggests. But for me, I think that in order to find our own voice, we need to mimic the style of others, because by doing so, we develop a mixture, that becomes ours. The great thing about our own voice is that it is the one real thing.

I guess a good way of looking at this is that our voice is just another way defining ourselves. It plays a key role in our lives as to who we are and how we think. The way we speak sure does reflect the way we think. Whether we're being serious, just messing around or not even sure what is going on. Having a voice is a good think, not in the sense so we can say everything that we want to or because we are tired of being silenced, but because it is a way to express ourselves, to let people know who we really our through our writing.

Bird by Bird

I like to write, granted I’m sometimes horrible (majority of it). But that’s not the point. Almost everything that I write is from my heart. It is something that has been on my mind and tearing at my insides. Oddly enough, I write mostly poetry, it’s an attribute that defines me. Ask just about anyone that I’ve known for more than three months, and they’ll tell you, “Erica is almost always writing in one of her notebooks”. A funny story, I graduated early, worked really hard for it, but I still went backed and walked with my class (bunch of wild losers). Well, my boss lived about an hour from work, he just finished college a few years ago, and he tells me, “I’m going home this weekend, what would you like for graduation?” I’m shocked and have no idea what to say, I tell him he doesn’t have to get me anything; he argues that he does because this is a big step in my life. Well, that next Monday Mr. Mo comes back, calls me into his office and gives my present. I creative writing journal, one of those magnetic ones, along with a new journal, and a gift card for barnes and nobles. I’m very grateful for the presents mind you, but I had to ask why journals, his reply “you’re always writing. Half of the time I can’t get you stop and get back to work”. Mr. Mo is a funny guy.

What this story has to do with Lamott’s few chapters here is that she says to find someone who is encouraging of your writing, who will criticize it, but not just to criticize it alone but to actually help you. And that’s what my boss did. He had read a few of my short stories and a few of my poems, and he was encouraging me to continue writing. I remember him telling me just before leaving for Wisconsin to remember to write down all of my thoughts and ideas, no matter how emotional they get, don’t be afraid to let them out. If it’s something that will hurt someone, write it down, but don’t give it to them. I was able to find someone who encourages my writing, whether it’s horrible or actually good. But like Lamott, and I have to agree with her, having one or two people read your work, that you actually trust is good to have. I have only ever had a few people that I trust with my writing, my three friends Aimee, Tama and Samantha, my ex boyfriend (his name isn’t important), and my coworker Jacob. Aimee, Sam, Tama and Jacob would give me constructive criticism, tell me what was good and tell me what was bad. They would suggest changes here and there and sometimes I’d take their advice, and sometimes I wouldn’t. They’d remind to go more in depth with a character or what I was feeling and trying to get across. But I think mostly, they wanted to steal my ideas…..I’m totally kidding.

Lamott reminds us to go deeper into what we’re writing, discover more about it, observe what’s around us. Don’t be afraid to dig deep, and don’t take your first impression or idea too seriously, but do remember to get them all down. And it doesn’t hurt not to be a stubborn, arrogant….use your imagination to continue this…and actually listen to what others have to say. Just because it’s your thoughts and emotions and it sounds concrete to you, doesn’t mean it is, it might still be a little foggy. So have a friend look over it, but don’t let the friend be a jackass about it.

The Wall, The Screen and the Image: The Vietnam Veterans Memorial

I've never been to Washington D.C. I've always wanted to though. To be able to see the buildings that give tribute to our history would be astounding. The Vietnam Veterans Memorial isn't a building that I ever really spent time contemplating about or even seeing, but after reading this article by Marita Sturken, I would actually like to visit this monument. I think that it is amazing how the black wall are not only screens that are projected upon, but also shield itself. I never knew that there were, I'm sorry, are statues that were built to go with this monument. I do like the fact that there are two different statues that represent the men and the women of the war, but I don't like the idea that there are two different statues. It would have been a lot more meaningful to have one statue represent both the men and women of the war. Which calls to my attention, why did they have to add more to the monument? Extra statues weren't really needed to get the full significance across.
I always thought that the Vietnam Veterans Memorial was in a shape of a V to stand for the "Vietnam" War. I never thought of it as representing anything else. I found this interpretation to be very weird. Ok, so the monument was designed by a female, that doesn't mean anything. And if we look at the fact that she didn't know anything about this war or what it meant to the people who served in it, she did a pretty good job at making it stand for something, really stand for something. It is a place for people who lost someone they loved, whether they were relative, friend, or someone they fought in the war with.
It doesn't matter that this monument has gone through huge amounts of criticism, everything that is great goes through it.

Freewriting

As I was reading Freewriting by Peter Elbow, I instantly thought of middle school and one of my best friends. We had most of our classes together and our lockers were across from each other, so the classes that we didn’t have together, left availability to sneak a letter into each others’ locker.

The reason this comes to mind is free writing in itself. Elbow claims that free writing is “most effective way I know to improve your writing”, is so true. My example of passing notes for one is an occasion where free writing can help to improve writing in general, but only if someone keeps the notes for later. In my case, I have almost every note that I passed in middle school. Only one of my friends is aware of this, she in fact has a good portion of the notes that I am missing. Whenever we get together, we pull out all of these notes we passed and we read through them. We laugh about what was going on in our lives that was so important that we just couldn’t pay attention in class. We laugh about how we how many mistakes we made as we were writing because we were in such a hurry and didn’t read over it to make sure it made sense, yet at the time when we passed it on and read it, it made perfect sense. But whenever we look at these old notes, we realize that because we wrote them for each others’ eyes only and not for a grade, they were fun and it didn’t matter what we wrote. (Well of course it mattered to us, but it wasn’t as important as making sure we would get a good grade on it. We didn’t grade each other on the content and grammar of our notes. Had we though, we may not still have these ridiculously funny notes).

It’s kind of like drawing a picture when you’re bored, a lot of people write when they’re bored. To their friends, relatives even just little poems and rhymes. No one ever sees them half of the time, but because we are writing for the heck of it, we are improving our writing. I don’t necessarily believe that we learn from just writing without going back and reading the last sentence when we are at a loss for words. I think that we do learn from going back and reading that last sentence or two to help us continue writing. So I can’t say that I can completely agree with Elbow in this aspect of writing about nonsense and just writing for the practice of it. What I can agree on is that writing for fun and just writing to write, whether or not anyone sees it, does improve our writing.

Shitty First Drafts and Perfectionism

Without shitty first drafts, we wouldn’t have amazing finished works. Lamott hits it right on the spot when she says on page 22 “very few writers really know what they are doing until they’ve done it.” I say this because it’s not only true with writing, but it’s true with a lot of other things in life. A mother doesn’t know how to change a diaper the first few times she does it, but she eventually gets it right. A nurse isn’t going to know how to draw blood the first few times, and that’s why she has to go to school to learn how. I really love how Lamott compares the first draft to a child, how it is allowed to be wild and free with all sorts of mistakes because it is an amazing way to let our visions come through. That’s how childhood is, isn’t it; full of mistakes and we let our visions and ideas run wild as if they are real. We have to make mistakes in our first draft to get to the real idea or what it is we are really looking for. We may think we know exactly what it is that we want to write about at first, but we end up changing our mind through each new idea; much like us college students and our majors. We know what we want to major in, but we change our mind if it isn’t what we thought it would be or even if it is too hard for us.

“Perfectionism is the voice of the oppressor, the enemy of the people.” –Anne Lamott

They say that practice makes perfect, but they also say that nobody is perfect, so why then do we let perfection control us? By being perfect, we are not allowed to make mistakes, but by making mistakes, we shape ourselves. Our mistakes make us who we are, whether the mistake itself is small or immense. For me, I would rather be able to make mistakes in my writing than in life, because in life, we only get one chance, even though we learn from the mistake and know not to make the same one. But with our writing, we are allowed to make as many mistakes as we make, we can go back, learn from them and fix them. We should really take advantage of being able to make mistakes in our writing. It seems to be the only place where we can make them without being judged dramatically and be forgiven for.

How To Say Nothing In 500 Words

To say nothing in five hundred words is in fact easier than saying something in two hundred words. Roberts makes a point to mention that instead of bringing up every reason why football should be abolished in one essay, to keep the focus on one major issue. I have to agree. When I write, I try to keep my focus on the topic at hand, although I will admit that I tend to have many subtopics going through my mind. I find it easier to write a paragraph on each subtopic with all of my valid points, than to crank out a paper on many different subtopics with very little to say about each one. After doing this, I am able to depict which will make my stronger paper or essay. Which is one of the points Roberts is trying to make.

I also noticed that Roberts mentions many elementary skills to writing, that I was once taught by my loony tenth grade writing teacher. Be creative in what is being said, do not let it become so dull that whoever is reading it falls asleep, but better yet, use some flamboyant words; not everywhere, but in a few places. Do leave some dull points because the paper should not be too flashy. And sometimes it can be said better when it is dull than when it is spiced up. The more information you have to write the paper, the better the paper will be. Which brings up my subtopics issue from the previous paragraph. Having a set amount to write can be difficult. One either has more to say, or not enough. To write everything that is running through your mind, to not use the first few ideas and be blunt about it is better. I really like Roberts’ concept here, it makes a lot of sense. Though, shouldn’t this have been a given? I mean really, is it that hard to say what you really mean when you say it all the time to your friends and usually have more to say than what you really needed to in the first place.

But if you don’t have a lot to say, Roberts suggests rearranging the wording, so that you can say everything, which of course is not in fact easier than having too much to say. When you do have too much to say, you can break it down into what is more important. (As previously stated). The main thing that is taken from me in this article is that Roberts put a fun little twist on getting the basic points of writing across. Rather than informing us how to make our papers better and not boring as they apparently tend to be, he makes us interested in what he has to say by goofing around with is style and getting write to the point. (I meant to do that. It’s my lil pun). Which is exactly what Roberts is trying to get across.

The Owl Has Flown

The article “The Owl Has Flown” by Sven Birkerts brought to my attention, that I cannot think of a single philosopher that is living today. That is very tragic. Of course I can think of philosophers before my time…but none today. Birkerts make some very valid points that I was able to catch right away, which I of course liked. (I did not feel stupid because of it). As he was talking about intensive and extensive reading, I automatically knew that he meant reading for a purpose and reading for information. I think along with that though, a lot of people today, read what they do because they either have to or want to be able to say, “oh yeah, I read that”, even if they cannot interpret it or give a deeper evaluation as to why it was important. As a student, I am able to confess that in the past, I have skimmed over a book for the sole purpose of being able to pass a test and not get anything out of what I read, let alone remember the title or author; within two days, I forgot everything. My generation has truly lost its value of tradition. Yes, we still practice traditions that have been going on for years, but do we ever really stop to think of what they really mean? June weddings, the point of the bouquet, why women wear white and men wear black. We don’t appreciate the values behind our traditions or the wisdom and knowledge that it brings. We are too busy in our lives today to take time out and reflect in our own silence. It is more about “going with the flow” or “doing as others are” rather than taking time to find out who we are and our purpose in life. Maybe we should all take some time and read the book about our purpose in life, and actually reflect upon it!

Purpose Driven Life by Rick Warren for those of you who have no idea what I was talking about.

Imagination and Reality

“The reality of art is the reality of the imagination.”

“The honest currency of art is the honest currency of the imagination.”

-Jeanette Winterson

Our imaginations are only imaginations until we express them, then they become a reality. If what we imagine becomes a reality, it is only as good as its artistic value. Thus, if it is truly good, then it will enter the cycle of reuse. Take Picasso or Mozart, what the two of them created has artistic value because people like it and want it. From our knowledge, it is their creations, and no one else can claim them. Granted, people do not necessarily understand what Picasso’s message was in his painting, or even if he had one, but that is what makes it unique, admired and wanted. People like knowing the truth, but they also like being right; by this I mean that the viewer or listener of the piece of art can interpret any way that they please, letting their imagination run, creating an art from the art. It does not matter how many times we have heard Mozart’s Symphony No. 41 Jupiter in C major, every time we hear that silence at the second minute and then the chorus of violins strike up with the marching drum, we still do not expect it and the feeling that overcomes us is a dramatic feeling that the imaginer wanted us to capture in our own imaginations. Once a person expresses their imagination, it becomes an honest reality.

In Plato's Cave

Alright, so I'm not really getting why sex has to do with photography other than it is considered voyeurism and that that is a truth to life, and so I just wanted to state that now, even though I will be coming back to it later.

Now, this "In Plato's Cave" by Susan Sontag makes many good points relating to photography and art that I never thought of. That a painting is only life how that person sees it, how the painting is very subjective and opinionated, while a photograph is a document of life itself, an image of truth. How Sontag states that photos are captured experiences on page 466 is true, but not something I ever thought of. I like the way she puts it though. Today, photos are seen all over the web, people can download and send photographs of themselves, friends and family to, well, their friends and family. They can also just post them google for everyone to see. Or the fact that she mentions that photographs are proof that an event or experience actually did occur.

Sontag goes on, (this the whole sex scandal part), about how photography has "become almost as widely practiced an amusement as sex…" on page 469 (it would be on that page), which spreads out throughout the rest of the article. Mentioning that the photographer becomes the "voyeur" while taking the photographs of (what the hell, let's be sexist in this posting) his "subject" where "only he has mastered the situation", pg 471. In this same paragraph, towards the end, photography is voyeurism of all meanings of life. I can see where Sontag is getting at this now….The photographer has to separate himself from the photographed, much like in a play with a cast and audience.

Another well justified point is that photography is an everyday common sort of thing! YAY! Thank you Tom, myspace is a vast improvement on that. So much so that people are realizing the beauty of nature. Finally! It's about time! Continuing, Sontag points out that people are trading in killing animals for photographing them, which makes a lot of sense. Who REALLY wants elephant tusks when they can have a picture of a friend, or complete stranger, standing just near a LIVING one. Not even someone standing next to it. Having a picture of the elephant all on its own great too! I know some people who would pay lots of money for a picture of a living elephant, rather than the elephants tusks.

Which is yet another thing! (I'm almost done I swear…haha) Photographs make a longer lasting impact. Sure they fade, but they can remade and so can their image every time it's thought of. But pictures really do show the reality of what has happened and what is happening, or should I say "just happened" since the image has already been captured? It really does show lots of things no one ever believed or wanted to believe were true.

Bird By Bird: School Lunches & Polaroids

School Lunches? Why on earth would someone who is trying to teach others to overcome writers block and become a better writer want to tell her audience about school lunches? Because Ann Lamott realized that there is so much there to write about. She picked a random subject for her students to write about and discovered that there was too much material. "...taking short assignments and then producing really shitty first drafts...can yield a bounty of detailed memory....characters lurking in the shadows". In the first two chapters, she mentions that a person should just keep writing and not worry about any errors until they are done writing. I have to say that this suggestion, along with the statement of short assignments producing more material then we could have thought there to be is bizarre. On the other hand, the fact that she thinks about it and breaks it down, contradicts what she is suggesting. She first tells us to sit down and write everything that we think of, yet she herself does not! Lamott, at first does, but then she realizes that she has too much material, so she sticks "with the contents" which is to say the least, any of what she could have written about. I know I am not one to say whether or not what she could have written about would have been better, but there is no way to know now, because she opted out writing what was going on through her mind, which could have been great. She later realizes that she cannot remember why raspberry jam was not well suited for a P.B.J. so she calls a friend. They begin talking and she realizes so much more that she hadn't thought of, which as she puts "came back with horrible clarity". Just a page after this- page 37 the first paragraph- she states that there's no way to know if any of her material is usable, but she just needs to keep writing and get it all down. Didn't she just contradict herself again

Okay, I realize that everybody contradicts themselves all the time, it is inevitable, but it is one of those "do as I say, not as I do" concepts that our parents teach us and we of course disregard. But the point is, why is she contradicting herself in a manner where she knows that if her readers are paying close enough attention, will be able to notice? I had no idea at first why she might do this, then I realized what Lamott might mean by this, if it was not a mere accident; it was something that was unimportant, but she would remember it in the event that she wanted to use it. Is that not the point? If you most definitely will remember it, there's no need to write it down. On the other hand, is it really that important...I suppose it is not that big of deal if the writer leaves something ridiculous out of their first draft, even if they are to be writing everything that comes to mind.


Which brings me to the chapter "Polaroids". We will not actually know how our first draft is going to turn out, until we have completed, regardless of how we envisioned it to turn out. Lamott goes on to discuss one situation that everyone hates, having to write when you really do not want to and absolutely have nothing to write about, but it sounds somewhat interesting. So you think about it, take notes as they come insight, knowing you still have no idea what you will be writing about or how the finished project will look like. But in the end, you find it, you reach your finish line, much like the young girl on crutches who is determined not to give up and keeps going until she reaches the finish line, even as the members of the crowd are starting to leave.


I think this has a lot to do with how we as students, progressing our writing, tend not to write. We do not generally write everything that comes to mind or that is important. We as writers tend to write until our brain runs out of ideas and we then stop. We reread, edit, erase, and add more right then and there, versus waiting or talking to a friend. Instead, we continue to write in circles about something that may or may not be important or that great to write about, leaving us to write in more circles. Though Lamott contradicts herself in saying to write everything, to continue writing down all of our thoughts, yet leaves out some of hers in writing about sandwiches, she's making a very impertinent point: If it really is useless and only has a little to do with the subject at hand, then save yourself the trouble of writing in circles and leave it out.

Which brings me to my last point, "thank you!" as you are shouting with your head and hands thrown upwards, that Lamott has proved her point. At first we think there is nothing to write about, but in the end, there is an endless amount to write about, with me being a prime example.....

Cafe Painting

When we were first given this assignment, I will admit that I was psyched. I like art, I've always been more of an appreciator than an artist, so I knew that I would be able to have fun with the assignments; especially since we were told to be creative. So thus, I give you my thoughts and interpretation of our "Cafe Painting".


I instantly thought of a jungle, more specifically, the jungle from Lord of the Flies, by William Golding. I could see the scene where the hog was running from the boys, and started laughing. But as I looked on, gazing at this painting, I noticed so much more...The many shades of green; how it is darker in some areas, mainly the bottom right hand corner and lighter in others, the upper left hand corner. The fact that there is also a highlight over that last corner I mentioned, emphasized that there is so much more going on beneath.

Noting the above, it really dawned on me that this painting is from an outsiders view. From far above what lies beneath. I had noticed it before, right when I saw the painting, but I hadn't focused in on it until that moment. This specific painting is a symbol or metaphor, if you will, to human life. The first stages of friendship or companionship is getting to know that other person, but the outside can be very misleading, and often times is at first. From the outside, this painting is very peaceful and serene; on the inside though, terrible things are happening. There are poachers, thieves, animals killing other animals, thus leaving the left over components spread through the jungle, and so much more. It is dark and brutal underneath the outside.

Bringing back that I mentioned this is much like meeting a new person for the first time. This new friend can be, or appear to be, this amazing person through their lies and deception; while underneath it all, they're struggling, fighting their inner demons that tell them their not good enough, or too good, and quite possibly that you're deceiving them, whether or not you are. This painting represents, that what you see isn't always what you get, that there is so much more that lies beneath it all. It represents the conflicts that people in general, go through everyday, fighting their inner demons just to make it through each day.

I couldn't take my eyes off of this painting, which was because I was immensely fixated on what lies beneath it. Much like finding what lies beneath my friends or that new acquaintance, even myself at times. This painting is the embodiment of deception and misconstruction which is that of life.

And on that note, I would like to share two poems that I wrote, in which I also interpret this painting.


Curtain Call

Perform it all,
For me and them-
It's curtain call,
And I'm condemned.
I must sit
And I must stare-
Must watch your skit
And I don't care.
Don't care about your act,
It's just a plain sick joke.
Screw this friendship pact,
'Cause you always seem to choke.
All eyes on you
Have their attention.
I see your eyes,
I see your scars-
You cannot hide,
Behind those bars.
It's curtain call,
And you are late.
You performed,
Before your date.



Mistrust

I put my trust in you,
But all it was,
Was mistrust.
I put my faith in you,
But all it was,
Was mistrust.
I told you all my secrets,
But all it was,
Was mistrust.
I thought I trusted you,
I told you all I knew.
You knew just how I feel,
You know just how I deal.
I told you everything,
I never kept anything.
You knew it all,
Even the names doll.
You used it,
You abused it.
You picked me,
And you tricked me!
Now you call to brag,
And all this, is a drag.
You stole my mind,
Thoughts, ideas, jokes and names.
The friend you are is not my kind,
You are the one to blame.
I mistrusted you,
What a fool I've come to be.
Because now I see,
What you kept from me!
I put my trust in you,
But all it was,
Was mistrust.