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.