Sunday, October 28, 2007

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...

Monday, October 22, 2007

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.

Sunday, October 21, 2007

"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.

Wednesday, October 17, 2007

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?

Wednesday, October 10, 2007

"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?

Sunday, October 7, 2007

"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)

Thursday, October 4, 2007

"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