Anne Lamott: Her Thirst and Aunties

I think I overly enjoyed this reading far more than the rest that we have read so far. But then again, we are only in the fifth week, so I expect a more fun reading to respond to in the future. But for now, it's Anne's turn to shine.

I think the majority that I enjoyed of this paper is her confidence that she expressed through the reading. The second story about the aunties was the one that expressed a stronger point of view than the first reading, but it held an honesty that is not easily explained.

Her voice is also something to admire. I loved reading her Thirst section because the message that she conveys at the end of the chapter. "I love stories because they show where we began, and therefore how far we have come, from the blame and delusions of our drinking days to the gentle illusions by which we stay sober." It shows the growth that she endured and how she overcame drinking, but she also isn't shunning it away from who she is as a person. Rather, I feel as though she has come to terms by the end of the chapter and is neither embracing nor denying it. It (her drinking problem) simply existed, and she cannot return time to stop it from happening.

The chapter dedicated to her aunties (thighs and butt) was oozing with character. For a few sentences I actually felt as though she did bring along two older ladies with her to Mexico. I love the confidence overall that shown in this reading and the observations she took in. I myself can feel a bit less confident than most times, and just like her, I take into account other people around me, who are petite and tall, whereas I am short and not as petite. But I too, still proudly extend myself because I don't feel as though there should be any instance of feeling inferior to those around you because we are all born equal, we just come in different shapes and sizes.

The instance in which she observed the young tan and pretty teens made me laugh. I really do see them in that light when they are looking at themselves in mirrors and are not as happy with what they have. It is eye opening to us the reader to see that at first she has an uncomfortable air around her, but as she realizes that she is beautiful in her own way, she almost pities the girls.

I like how she addresses that as we get older, so does the rest of us. Which I still have a hard time understanding, because I have this young mentality. But I see my mother, my sisters, and my father all getting older and wrinkles appearing where they weren't before. It makes me realize that life is short, and beauty is a defining part of your life, but it shouldn't be the entire thing that defines you. I prefer the character side to define who you are. Who's with me?

KZ

Lamott

 My favorite aspect of Lamott's writing was that she talked about hard things, things that we try to not think about, or pretend doesn't exist, like an addiction or being self-conscious. But she talked about them in a way that didn't scare the reader away, which I'm sure had to do with her very casual tone. Even when talking about something as serious as being an alcoholic. Rather than spend time preaching or scaring readers away from the dangers of alcohol, she merely drops the hard facts on as we scramble to catch them. She only briefly mentions that two of her friends killed themselves and doesn't even bring up the fact that all the alcohol and pills she took in the first full scene could have easily landed her in a hospital. Instead, she trusts the reader to have more common sense than her 20-year-old self. In fact, Lamott puts a lot of trust in the reader. I think this is probably what made me enjoy her writing. There was no need to remind the reader that three Valiums, a (possibly illegal) sleeping drug, and three or four beers is not a safe combination or that it was a sign that her alcoholism was getting worse and not better.

When it came to "Aunties," I loved Lamott's unlikely comparisons, such as calling her thighs Aunties I believe it was in Intro to Creative Writing that I first heard that bringing unique parallels, metaphors, and comparisons were what pulled a description out of the simply descriptive to powerful. New parallels force our brains to think through the connection and if we don't see it right away, we ask "How is A like B?" and so we keep reading.

After I finished the reading and thought back on it, I realized neither of Lamott's endings were predictable in any way. Her beginning and end didn't necessarily connect in an obvious way, either, like in "Aunties." I had actually forgotten what the first page said and so was pleasantly surprised by the ending. As for "Thirst," the end was a complete surprise. I expected read that she eventually overcame her addiction, but I did not think she would end up talking about her struggles and that of others so fondly. It brought out Lamott's own unique "wierdness" (as Dillard said), and I liked that because it made you see the author a little differently for being so enamored with stories of "ruin."

-Justyne Marin

Lamott the Brave

Anne Lamott is incredibly brave to write what she does. In both "Thirst" and "The Aunties," she goes beyond the call of a writer and becomes vulnerable, exposing herself to us and revealing intimate thoughts in an upfront way that many, I'd generalize, just don't do very much--at least, not so publicly. Her approach to these very personal--though public, if you look at the commonality of them--issues is not raw, as it's buffered by humor and craft, but it's straightforward enough to still carry weight and emotion.

Even though I don't wear thigh-revealing swimsuits and I don't have a drinking problem, Lamott's approach to disclosing her own issues made it easy for me to identify with her, applying thoughts and traits of hers to some of mine on various other issues. I'm not entirely sure why this happens, but I'd love to know. Is she using some secret writing craft, some strategically-placed adjectives or well-chosen verbs that throw me into her shoes (or swimsuit)? Or perhaps it's not writing craft but witchcraft? It's possible, too, that I simply ate the right food before reading these chapters, and that my full tummy merged with themes that are just universal enough to make these chapters applicable to and about me.

Or, perhaps, she's just a good writer. Perhaps instead of trying to find secret formulas and shortcuts, I should read and write more. After all, don't most experienced writers tell us to do that?

To me, Lamott's brave and humorous writing not only makes for a pleasant and entertaining read, but goes beyond that to actually help those who do experience or have experienced what she has. I think it serves to let them know that they're not alone, that there's hope for change, and that it's okay to share. If an author can entertain, write well (for we all know entertaining books aren't necessarily well-written books) and do something good for people, I'd say they're more than successful.

Well done, Lamott.

-Alexander Hirata

Anne Lamott

From the first line Anne Lamott's piece breathes honesty.  She explains her addiction through what seems like an unfiltered lens.  Lamott isn't afraid to explain her world and her thoughts to the reader.  One aspect of Lamott's writing that I appreciate is this honesty.  Her vulnerabilty is coupled with specific/meaningful sentences gain trust with the reader.  While reading both Thirst and The Aunties,  I felt as though she could easily be reading these chapters too me, her voice is strong, comfortable, and sometimes even conversational. All of these techniques of voice help to draw the reader into her story.  She is able to take a serious issue, alcoholism, and still make a reader, who may be against alcohol, still feel comfortable reading about someone who has the problem.  The vulnerability works in her favor and I think that is something we as writers can all learn from.

Lamott has many sentences that are short and completely effective.  She proves that a writer does not need long eloquent sentences to still make a reader fall in love. Often times, I feel as though the only way to my reader is by using extremely long sentences.  Lamott teaches me the complete opposite.  She uses line spacing and short sentences to create effect. In The Aunties, Lamott shows us this technique: 

"I think.

I'm almost sure."

(201)

Lamott also has sentences showing her honesty, as mentioned in the first paragraph.  In Thirst  she writes, "But whatever it was, learning to eat was about learning to live-and deciding to live; and it is one of the most radical things I've ever done." (198) Also in The Aunties she writes, "...sometimes he thinks that heaven is just a new pair of glasses. I was trying to remember to wear them." (200)  

I really enjoyed her last chapter, The Aunties because I liked seeing her be able to redefine beauty.  She describes all of her fears and insecurities about herself and comes to a realization that we are all insecure.  Maybe insecurities would come later, but that feeling exists in everyone at some point.  She says, 'They were still of an age when they could play without wearing the glasses of puberty that would make them see all their flaws." (203) Of course here she recognizes that they didn't see the "imperfections" but she also has a tone that makes readers understand the universal truth that someday they will experience it. Hopefully as writers, our sentences and tone can capture a vulnerability that allows the reader to treasure each word we write. I think Lamott does a great job of modeling that for us. 

Angela Payaban

Blog 4 by Ruthie Heavrin

Anne Lamott is a truth teller. Her honesty with the reader is presented in a light mood through humor. With this tactic, the reader is able to develop trust with Lamont's voice, but they do not become burdened with her baggage. Not that alcoholism is merely baggage and is indeed a serious disease, but it is hard topic to swallow in six mere pages so the humor is like a spoon full of sugar to help the point of the piece be taken without a heavy drape of depression. The first piece, “Thirst,” is driven by the author's commitment to stop drinking and her apparent failure. It shows a different side of alcoholism – it doesn't seem like a problem while it's happening. In the moment, it was completely normal for Lamott to be drinking over 32oz of beer along with her sleeping and pain pills. The light hearted take on the issue really shows the reader that the alcoholic doesn't consider their actions and habits to be that of an alcoholic. It becomes normal, even funny and that's the scariest part of this piece. The second piece, “The Aunties,” depicts a stage in Lamott's life that is post-alcoholism. Although she does not say this, it is clear she has overcome tribulation in her life through her voice and constant reminder that beauty is in the mind, not the be-hind. The spiritual message is not blatant like in the placating stories found in Guide and Insight but is told through raw humor. Perhaps this is the reason behind Sari's choice in this week's reading. Stories with a Biblical or spiritual message do not necessarily have to be heavy and tear jerking. Lamott makes us laugh. My favorite section is on page 187 of “Thirst” which reads, “It only took me one more year to admit that I could no longer control my drinking. And finally on July 7, 1986, I quit, and let a bunch of sober alcoholics teach me how to get sober, and stay sober. God, they were such a pain in the ass.” In this excerpt, Lamott does three major things that we as readers should adopt: she is honest, she is specific, and she is ridiculous. The specific date shows that it was apparently a very important day for Lamott because she remembers it and shares it. That makes the day important for the reader as well. Admitting she can't control her drinking is honest and vulnerable – this creates trust with the reader. Saying that sober alcoholics helped her stay sober is ironic and ridiculous, but it creates an image or at least an idea that sticks. If only Adventist forums let us publish works that call sober alcoholics a pain in the ass. Until that day comes, we can still be honest and vulnerable and ironic and humorous in a real way that speaks to our audience. If our audience is going to focus more on a certain word choice than the overall theme of our pieces, then we must work around that and be creative. Lamott speaks to her readers in a real way and so must we.

Lamott's Choppy Sentences and Fatitude

As I think I’ve mentioned before, I am taking Advanced Expository Writing this quarter and Anne Lamott’s writings seem very similar to the “creative” nonfiction we have been reading. Even her first sentence in Thirst draws you in because you know she is about to be honest and vulnerable about a somewhat taboo topic.

I love her use of short, choppy sentences because I like to use them and I think they have a lot of power. I think I may tend to overuse them though, because Lamott uses them sparingly, and they pack more of a punch. She asks rhetorical questions, mentions well known pop culture (Peanuts comic), and includes humor, like understatements, to make her pieces feel conversational. I felt like I was reading a letter from a friend, not a stark, professional essay. Establishing that level of comfort and rapport with your reader seems like such a difficult, but necessary part of writing, both for creative nonfiction and the types of articles we are writing for this class. Our audience is not strict professor types looking for perfect grammar and big words. Our readers want to connect with us through our conversational tone. They want to relate to us through our honesty in experiences and opinions. And they want to trust the words we say as real and researched.

Though Lamott uses more…“colorful” language than we would include in our articles for Adventist magazines, I appreciated that she included a few to show her personality and sense of humor and honesty in her thoughts and feelings about the situation she is describing. I trusted and related to her, especially in The Aunties, because I believe all girls have felt at some point that a part of their bodies is inadequate and compared it to others. She doesn’t try to wrap up in the ending as perfect like so many “spiritual lesson” stories tend to do, like a lifelong problem or insecurity being fixed in one day. She realizes why these doubts occur, but they don’t completely disappear. I loved the words and phrases Lamott made up, like “Butt Mind,” “fatitude,” and calling her thighs “elderly aunties.” These conversational phrases allowed me to connect with her as more of a friend than just a reader. I thoroughly enjoyed these pieces and hope to someday be able to write with the honesty and friendly tone Lamott effortlessly combines.

-Katie Huffman

Don't let go completely! (Post 4)

What caught my attention most in the first part of this reading was Lamott's use of understatements. When she describes the series of moments that led to her resolution to get sober, she states two horrific deaths in one sentence and her "point of resolve" in another four words:"Two of my best sober friends...shot themselves in the head and died. This got my attention"(188). She writes from a later perspective but keeps the thought processes like those she had as an alcoholic, which makes the first section candid and real.

I never knew why alcoholics became and stayed alcoholics until I read this: I knew they were alcholics and that they perhaps didn't want to quit, but Anne Lamott shows us how frustrating the cycle of 1.becoming an alcoholic, 2. deciding not to drink alcohol ever again, 3. drinking it again, 4. staying an alcoholic, 5. deciding not to drink alcohol ever again...is. It's almost as though alcoholics work really hard to justify their alcoholism--or ignore it. Her sentence,"I love to hear of their efforts not to see what was as plain as day" gives us a sense of how preposterous it is that alcoholics try so hard to remain blind.

Lamott keeps a very honest tone into the next section. I love the names she gives certain moods ("Butt Mind"), and how she describes how comfortable she was with herself...until something happened one day at the beach--something we don't find out about right away. I laughed out loud when she said "I had decided I was going to take my thighs and butt with me proudly wherever I went" (202). From this telling line we see that SOMETHING bad is going to happen at some point in the near future. We wonder: when is it going to happen? What's going to happen?

Then it happens, and I laughed out loud when I read how she compares the four teenage girls to "dogs from hell."Her incident is unexpected: will she lash out at the teenagers? Will she continue to feel awful about herself? She doesn't and that's surprising and wonderful! She instead feels sorry for them that they are already so self-conscious and will be for awhile--until they realize that they've got to let it go (IF they ever realize it. From what I see on television, many older women never let go).

Her conclusion--that she has a "wry fondness" for herself instead of a "desire to disguise" herself is meaningful and unpredictable. It is a cross between the two ways this story could have ended: she could have said we should overwork our bodies and always try to make them look amazing, OR that we could just totally ignore our images and 'let go.' She chooses the middle path: don't OVERwork it, but work it a little. Don't let go COMPLETELY, but let go a little. How wonderful is that?


--Laura Strawn Ojeda

Poetry Response

I love poetry. I really fell in love with listening to recorded readings of Shel Silverstein's children's poems. They are, in my opinion, the ultimate creative challenge of writing. "Bone" by Mary Oliver on the surface looks like a poem about, well, bones. But in reality, it is a musing on the state of the soul. Everyone has one, and everyone needs one, but it's intangible. It can't be seen, felt, or understood. Great poetry has always been able to convey a message beyond the blatently obvious, which is where poets have a greater task in front of them than other writers do. "Bored" by Margaret Atwood is a poem about boredom, a subject that we as college students are all too familiar with. Poetry, however, is personal. It need not apply to everyone, and that's half the fun of writing it. It is a raw and honest expression of what is on our minds or in our hearts. I think it's safe to say that many of us will never become poets, but the ability to condense an entire story into such a confined amount of space still applies for our purposes. -Joshua Boyak

Out of context, in context

I'm really not a huge fan of poetry. Like at all. When handed these sheets of poems I internally pouted. I really can't commit myself to submersing into creative works when I feel nothing for the collection of lines.

However, there were a few lines, that if taken out of context from the piece, further proceeded to be placed into context into my life, reached me in ways that you couldn't possible imagine.

From Bone, by Mary Oliver,

"I believe I will never quite know.
Though I play at the edges of knowing,
truly I know
our part is not knowing"

I don't know. I come close.

I'll have to settle for close.

Poetry Packet

I enjoy reading poetry, yet I don't read it often. Whenever I do, I try to just relax and soak it all in. Even when I do not understand what the poem is about (the meanings of some of my favorite poems are still a mystery to me) the images, sounds, rhythms, and word choices can draw me in. I'll just talk about a couple of my favorite poems from the packet. I could be totally wrong about their meanings, but I like them anyway.

Bored, by Margaret Atwood

I liked this poem because it was full of visuals. "the intricate twill of the seat covers", "drying the dishes", just a couple of the visuals in the poem. I think that this poem is about her father, and all of the boring monotonous things they used to do together. However, looking back she remembers being happier then. If she could go back to those days she wouldn't see them as boring anymore, because now she can see how precious that time was. It's a sweet poem and it's full of interesting enjambments. She puts one image or thought into your mind at the end of a line, and then changes it or adds to it in the next line. There's something fun about reading an enjambment done well.

 New Road Station, by Tracy K. Smith

This poem was interesting to me first because of the visuals. "it moves like a woman/ corralling her children onto a crowded bus." Great visual and a compelling enjambment. My second reason for liking this poem is the sudden shift at the end. The first time I read it, the ending totally changed my line of thinking. At first I was visualizing a busy city with people hurrying onto buses, the last line yelled "war" in my mind. Then I read it again and saw all that I had been missing. It was not just a busy city, it was a frantic crowd. It was women trying to get their children to safety. I love being surprised by deeper meanings poems.


Kayla Santos

Poem Packet by KZ

If there is one thing that I can't get into, its poetry. It's not that I dont enjoy them, I just have a hard time deciphering them. I think the reason behind this has to do with my high school years. I would always analyze works and have people (more specific teachers) tell me that I was incorrect. To have someone tell me that I was analyzing it the wrong way (and by wrong I mean by their perspective) made me disillusioned and cold towards poems.

But I do like Pablo Neruda and Atwood and Mary Oliver. I haven't heard much of the other poets, but I also thought that their poems were interesting. I preferably liked Neruda's poem, and the way it is in Spanish holds a better ring to having it read more fluently. Thank goodness that I can read in Spanish. It helped me better understand the poem as a whole about the beauty in nature (God, I hope that I analyzed it right).

Kathy Z.

Thoughts on the Collection of Poems

I did not get into poetry until I reached my adulthood. I liked reading them, but only by my own will, since my old elementary school in Korea forced students to memorize poems during breaks. In writing them, I never rhyme--I always do free verses, because I do not feel so confident in rhyming. But I now enjoy reading them, since visualizing the verses in my head is so much fun.

"Bird" by Pablo Neruda made me feel like I was in a large bird cage--the garden-like one, even though the birds in the poem had freedom. The art of poetry comes from telling the story, visual and deeper theme in minimal use of language that has rhythm. That cannot be done unless the poet has great understanding of the language itself. Therefore, it is one of the forms of art that are difficult to achieve.

"Bone" by Mary Oliver gave me peculiar feelings within the structure of the verses and use of words. The shift of visuals is weird--from happy pink to sad gray--and the connections between stanzas are loose. Playing with words cannot be done if the poet does not know what he or she is writing about. Poetry is all about understanding, in my opinion.

Probably I may write more poems or not, but I think I will still enjoy reading poems.

Hae-Lim Lee

Blog 3 by Ruthie Heavrin

Blog 3

Each one of these poems read with a unique voice and concluded with an unexpected message. The selections provided a broad range of poetry which was a treat to read. There are aspects of each poem that I love, but my favorite of the five pieces was “Black Stone Lying on A White Stone” by César Vallejo.

I found a Spanish reading of the poem on youtube so I followed along as I listened. By the end of the poem, I was almost in tears. I'm not sure if it's an original recording of Vallejo himself, but the reader spoke with such passion that the poem became refreshed in it's own meaning. One interesting translation would be on line 3, stanza 1 of the classes' copy. It reads, “I will die in Paris—and I don't step aside--.” In Spanish, the second part of that line literally translates into “and I don't run, myself” or “I, myself, don't run.” Which, to me, has a different kind of connotation than what the translator, Robert Bly, wrote. Vallejo saying that he does not run away and Bly writing that he does not step aside could show different types of fear and/or courage in the speaker of the poem. Not running is showing more of an acceptance of fate while not stepping aside is showing more courage.

Here is the link in Spanish. Begin around 40 seconds: http://youtu.be/loJCOCyQ7zE?t=40s

This connotation has an effect later in the poem to make César Vallejo, the dead man, to appear to be more of a martyr – as if he were sticking up for something more than his deep depression or to be just a man accepting his demise, but still awaiting it with fear and curiosity. Either way, the poem still reeks of truth – humans suffer.

My favorite line is the sentence that composes the second stanza. In Spanish, the sentence reads,

Juevés será porque hoy, jueves, que proso

estos versos, los húmeros me he puesto

a la mala y, jamás como hoy, me he vuelto,

con todo mi camino, a verme solo.

In Spanish, the rhyme and rhythm is evident with all the “o” endings and vowel sounds within the verses. The content is also beautiful because it truly puts the reader in the deep sorrow and hopelessness the speaker feels. The day he will die is a Thursday because that just happens to be the day he is writing and feels so close to death at that moment, he knows his death in imminent.

As for the title, I'm lost. Since a black stone upon a white stone is a contrasting and jarring image, my best guess is the title was meant to act as a parallel with the poem in the sense of how contrasting and jarring the voice is. Stanzas one and two are written in first person as if it were a suicide letter then stanza three shifts into third person like a newsfeed about his own death then jumps, once again, into first person and the end of stanza four. The speaker is so hopeless and tired of the world beating down upon him, he imagines and daydreams his own death.

Reflections: Five Poems

I’m not going to be very insightful about this.  I’ve never made this clear, but I just can’t stand poetry in general.  It seems as though every poem I come across has too many metaphors and not enough story or material worth thinking about.  I’m a very literal person and I don’t like it when anyone or anything I come across starts dancing around a main subject and gives too many metaphors and euphemisms, and poetry seems to do that more often than getting to the main point.  However, there were some poems in this assignment that interested me, and they were a majority.

Pablo Neruda’s “Bird” shows how the narrator reflects when watching birds flying about.  His details grab my attention.  Maybe there are people who don’t like these sorts of descriptions, but I grew up with these abundantly detailed works.  I’d like to argue that “Bird” is similar in at least one way to Mary Oliver’s “Bone,” in which the narrator picks up the small bone of an immense sea creature and then reflects upon the mysteries of the soul (and, quite possibly by extension, those of the world and the universe) and the human race’s quest to solve such mysteries.  Both appear to think of bigger things after looking at smaller, possibly everyday things, anyway.  “Bored” by Margaret Atwood was also intriguing, since the narrator reflects upon her past, gives the readers many gritty details, and then finishes the poem by saying that she feels nostalgic and misses those times.  There seems to be something in her new life, far away from this old lifestyle, that she doesn’t like.  However, we never see her new life, so I don’t know how it really compares.  However, as I expected, there were some poems that just left me confused or that I just didn’t like as much.

“Black Stone Lying on a White Stone” by César Vallejo wasn’t a poem I can see myself reading over and over.  I like that this narrator knows what will happen to him much later on in life; I just don’t like that it has to be such a depressing subject as death by beatings (in Paris, no less, which will always be in my mind as some romantic getaway).  I can’t really talk about this poem without ranting, so I’ll just say this: It reminds me of high school since we had to read this at least two years in a row.  It was depressing then, and it’s depressing now.  The final poem, “New Road Station” by Tracy K. Smith, still confuses me as any other poem would.  However, this is a poem I want to like.  I think I understand some of the metaphors, such as history being like a rushed bus driver in a still world.  However, the final line completely threw me off the first time I read the poem.  The only thing I can safely say I hate about this poem is the first thing that comes to my mind – yes, I’m saying I hate myself, not the poem – when I read that line.  Is the narrator really talking about atomic bombs, such as those used in WWII, or is that just my limited knowledge rushing in to fill in the blanks all over again?

This assignment showed me two reasons why I dislike poetry in general.  The first is one I’ve talked about before: simply put, so much metaphor and my inability to understand.  The second reason deals more with my own approaches to poetry: rushing to find answers, fill in the blanks, or just get a message.  I’m afraid I don’t understand the real ideas that poets try to get across because I prefer to get to any point as quickly as possible.  So, I’m often left confused at certain ideas like those in “New Road Station;” or I think I have the answers when the author perhaps tried to say something different, as in “Bird,” “Bored,” and “Bone.”  In the end, I can only say this.

What do I know about poetry?

Idida Z. Casado

Descriptive Lines in Poetry

Although poetry can be difficult to understand and interpret, what drew me to poetry, were the beauty in a poet's descriptions.  Sometimes, with the strange breaks in the middle of sentences (ex: Bone) or seeing a phrase that is not complete, yet it is given a line of its own, poetry can often lose a reader.  Despite the confusion, I feel that I can learn a lot about how authors of poetry create intense and beautiful lines.  In poetry, I have read many single beautiful lines. This is probably because poetry has no rules.  Even when a piece as a whole is complex, there can always be lines that you remember because of description and how that hit you emotionally.

In the given poems, some of them, as a whole, were more difficult to understand. Still, I did connect with at least one line from each poem.  In some instances, I wasn't even sure why I was in love with the line, but I was.  I want to mention specific lines in various poems that I enjoyed the most because of those descriptions that leave questions and emotion in the reader.

In "Black Stone Lying On A White Stone" the first line "I will die in Paris, on a rainy day, on some day I can already remember."  The fact that the author is anticipating his death is interesting. Also, I liked that he gave the readers a place, Paris, and a rainy day.  One can just imagine the author writing this line as he's falling in love with Paris, staring outside a window at the falling rain.  In a short line, the reader is given the ability to use their imagination. When I first read this, I imagined him finally finding  a place he could love. So, he knew he'd die here.  Sometimes, our imaginations may lead us astray and what we imagine may be different than what the piece is about. However, creating those beautiful lines can leave lasting impressions and cause a reader to pause.

"Bone" written by Mary Oliver is full of descriptions.  The ending section says, "I believe I will never quite know. Though I play at the edges of knowing, truly I know our part is not knowing, but looking, and touching, and loving, which is the way I walked on, softly, through the pale-pink morning light."  I enjoyed that she tells the reader she doesn't understand and she may never. Still, knowing may not be the most important part.  But looking, loving, and being in existence and participating is important. Her word choices of "play at the edges," "softly," and "pale-pink morning light" all give a dainty or quiet tone.  By providing color she adds a different dimension to one's imagination.

I think my favorite was "Bird" by Neruda. As I read it aloud, there was a nice flow to the piece. This reminded me that word choice is important, but the flow of the work is just as great.  I really loved the line, "I saw how wings worked, how perfumes are transmitted by feathery telegraph..."  Wow.  Who would think do describe wings in this way?  Something so simple and what is not often thought about is described with so much care.  Imagine scents flowing off of a message from a bird or that wings glide, their flight itself is a beautiful message or telegraph. This line can be interpreted in many ways; which is also an interesting part, as well as confusing aspect of poetry.  We can all take away different meanings and understandings of a piece.

For me, getting captured by one line can be the most exciting part of reading.  I may be reading poetry wrong or any work for that matter.  Still, I like finding a line that allows me to imagine and uses good similes or descriptive words.  So as a writer, I need to try and find ways to describe ordinary life in the most captivating way.

Angela Payaban

5 Poems (Blog 3)

The most powerful and intriguing poem out of the five we read was 'Bored.' I'm not sure if Margaret Atwood is writing about her father here, but when I read it I thought about mine. I used to 'help' him on Sundays a lot: I'd watch as he fixed our dirt bikes or the cars (and attempted to teach me how to change oil); I helped him and my mom dig holes for wooden posts to frame our garden (which was hard work for an eleven-year-old!); I pulled weeds in the garden and dandelions from the lawn; I (tried) to help build our playhouse and our zip-line, which my dad made from scratch; I went canoeing with them and my sister on the river. I did so many things that I, at the time, thought were 'boring' but now I look back at those memories with fondness. I'm here in college, and my parents are far away. I don't get to spend time like that with them anymore, and I know that if I went back with my current understanding of life, I would enjoy those quiet hours of 'boring' labor. Atwood's last six lines reveal that she feels the same way, and I wonder how many of us feel that way. The good thing about looking back on those boring moments is that now we can appreciate them and love them for their boringness. Life is so busy now--we should love the short hours of boredom we get with our loved ones!

Atwood's use of repetition helped relay the message of her boredom in the beginning and middle of the poem: "Holding the log while he sawed it. Holding/ the string while he measured, boards" and "Or sat in the back/ of the car, or sat still in boats,/ sat, sat, while at the prow, stern, wheel." The repetition of "Now I wouldn't...Now I would...Now I would..." at the very end is powerful: it drives her meaning into us. No longer does repetition stand for boredom: it now is a tool to drive the meaning of her poem--and her regret--into our minds. She is using what made her bored (and what allowed us to see her boredom) and turning into something meaningful, both for her and for us.

 Atwood's word choices allow us to see the small things she speaks of, "acid crumbs of loam, the granular pink rock, its igneous veins." I admit that I had to look up a few words in order to understand what they meant, and I think they enrich the poem. Another poem used rich imagery: 'Bone' by Mary Oliver. Her lines about the sea were my favorites--I love how she describes its "dark-knit glare" and asserts that, though we cannot see through its face, we know sand lies at the bottom. I think this is a great analogy to describe the soul, or the mind, or the 'heart' (not the physical heart). However, there are some great places in the ocean where one CAN see the sand on the bottom...and I love to swim in those...but her analogy still works. I don't know why she divided her poem into sections, though--especially when the section number came in the middle of the sentence. I found it unnecessary and distracting.

The other poem I enjoyed was Pablo Neruda's "Bird," but I wanted to find the Spanish version so I could read it in its original language, and I couldn't find it anywhere. Nevertheless, I enjoyed it. It didn't make a lot of sense to me, but I felt that sense was within grasping distance. I like how Neruda describes the day "It was passed from one bird to another,/ the whole gift of the day." This may not have a lot to do with writing itself, but I do love how he describes the day, because each day really is a gift.

The other two poems were mediocre to me, and I'm not sure if that's because I just don't understand them or because they are so abstract that I just don't like them. I listened to Tracy Smith's reading on NPR and found it slightly stilted and almost frustrating to listen to. Maybe she doesn't like reading her writing out loud--I know I don't! But it's an important part of being a writer, so I'd better get used to it. Smith's poem was one of the two that I read several times and failed to grasp, and I looked on the comments under her reading on NPR. Everyone seemed to love it, so maybe it's just me! I don't know.



--Laura Strawn Ojeda

I Don't Understand Poetry

I don’t understand poetry. I don’t understand what its draw is, or why people write it, or what its structure is, or what its meanings are. I don’t understand why it’s so impacting and emotional, and because of that, I guess I do know what its draw is.

Once, in San Francisco, I saw James Earl Jones recite Walt Whitman’s “O Captain! My Captain!” His deep, distinctive voice and acting history alone are enough to make the poem an experience, but he was also backed by the entire San Francisco Philharmonic. The philharmonic paired perfectly with Jones’ intonations and timing, and at the end of the relatively short poem, I almost cried. Jones receive a standing ovation.

Growing up, poetry was, to me, something from the past. Shakespearean-era people read poetry. I didn’t wear tights and a neck ruffle, so it wasn’t for me. We touched on the medium briefly in high school, but it wasn’t until that reading in San Francisco that I understood its power.

I don’t have a natural talent for reading, writing, or understanding poetry, but every now and then I’ll come across a piece that really moves me. I was excited to receive a packet of poems in class a few days ago.

Professor Fordham mentioned hearing Tracy Smith reading her poem on NPR, so I visited the NPR website and listened to the news clip listing the Pulitzer Prize winners. The last segment was Tracy’s reading, and it was good to hear the author read her work. I read it out loud to myself first, so that I could see (or hear) two variations of the reading. Surprisingly, Tracy’s reading was very anticlimactic for me. Her reading was straightforward. Perhaps she wrote it to be read like that. Perhaps she read it simply in order to highlight the power of the words themselves. Whatever the case, it was far from the experience I had with Jones and the philharmonic.

To be honest, I didn’t see how Tracy Smith’s poetry is Pulitzer-worthy. At least, I couldn’t see it with “New Road Station.” I’ll admit, though, that I’ve only read one of her poems, and that the art is new and still foreign to me.

My favorite poem turned out to be Pablo Neruda’s “Bird.” Even though it was translated, I felt like the rhythm of the piece was more like one you’d find in a spoken word poem. It was easy to read, and there was a simple, catchy beat to it. By far, it is best read out loud.

Perhaps getting into poetry is like treading through food that people say is “an acquired taste”--it just takes time an effort. While I’m still not really into poetry, I’m willing for, and even desire, more exposure.

-Alexander Hirata

Poetry

I love the ability to write about a single moment. To draw it out and feel it, taste it, and write about it with such imagery as the poetry did this week. Even though the first two poems were translations, I still enjoyed them and thought that the translator did an excellent job. I found myself reading every poem multiple times and then reading them out loud.

It's strange to hear yourself read a poem out loud because it never quite sounds the same as it did in your mind, even though it is your mind and your voice, something still gets lost in the translation. But, I found that I concentrated on different lines than I did when I was only looking at the words. Physical sound added a whole other layer and made me look at the words differently. When looking at a poem, it is the line breaks that emphasis the words, but when reading it aloud, it is your own natural pauses and the natural rhythm of speech that give the piece its music.

My favorite to read out loud was "Bored" by Margaret Atwood, especially those last three sentences: "Now I wouldn't be bored. / Now I would know too much. / Now I would know." Those were the most powerful to me, whether reading the poem out loud or in my head. They summed up all the emotion in the poem, that sense of loss and regret. It was such a beautifully sad poem that anyone can relate to: the fact that there is a countless number of moments we didn't realize as precious until we were adults and could never have them again.

"Bone" by Mary Oliver was also fun to read. She used so many alliterations ("house of hearing," "fractions and facts") and sometimes just her wording of things ("Though I play at the edges of knowing"). The numbered breaks at first seemed random, but they actually reflect Oliver's changes in thought. Each is three stanzas and in the first she talks about the soul, then spends time on the whale's ear bone, then on the mystery of things we know to exist but have never seen or touched, and finally she returns to the soul. I notice now, that she begins with the end, the fact that we do not understand the soul, then goes on to explain how she came to that conclusion. Looking at it this way, Oliver's poem is quite organized and follows a natural, but planned, pattern of thought. My favorite part was the end of the second section: "the soul / might be like this / so hard, so necessary - / yet almost nothing."

Overall, I thought all the pieces were beautifully written and I got a lot of enjoyment reading them to myself.

-Justyne Marin

Poems: Boredom, Enjabment, Structure, and Personification

My favorite poem from this selection was Margaret Atwood’s piece “Bored.” It resonated with me because as a child my mother told me I was never allowed to say that word unless I wanted to be given a chore to do. Needless to say, I never said I was bored-but I often felt it. As kids it is easy to be ‘bored’ when we aren’t doing something we want to be doing, whether that is playing or watching tv or eating. The narrator in the poem discusses all the times she spent with her father, wishing she could be doing something else, but she looks back now and knows better. Looking back she can recognize that the time they spent together was precious and important and not boring. This piece could have been written as an essay, but writing it as a poem allowed her to pick and choose small moments to focus on and group together and do beautiful repetitions and lists: “Or sat in the back/ of the car, or sat still in boats,/ sat, sat while at the prow, stern, wheel/ he drove, steered, paddled.” This is often how I like to write my poems and fiction or nonfiction pieces. Lists are concrete and help create imagery and connection.

A theme I noticed throughout the works was enjambment, where the lines flow one into the next without any punctuation. In Cesar Vallejo’s poem “Black Stone Lying On A White Stone,” (a very odd, out-of-body experience poem about dying) the line “they beat him hard with a stick and hard also/ with a rope” is split into two stanzas. This is probably my least favorite poetic form because I get so confused as to where a thought begins and ends. I appreciate the dashes, commas, and periods because they mark the end of a line or thought. Thinking about space, I understand why an author would feel compelled to connect different lines and stanzas without punctuation in order to keep them similar in length and width, but I prefer clarity over symmetry.

I was also stumped by the structure and spacing of May Oliver’s poem, “Bone.” While I enjoyed the piece and the personification of the soul, I did not understand numbering it into 4 different sections. It would break in the middle of a line and I didn’t notice a new thought that would require a new section. The message of the poem, looking for something you know you’ll never find or asking questions with impossible answers (so many biblical puzzlements come to mind) and the beautiful language (“dark-knit glare”) Oliver uses was overwhelmed by the perplexing numerical separations.

A number of the poems used personification. Pablo Neruda’s “Bird” opens with “It was passed from one bird to another, the whole gift of the day.” A “day” is not a physically solid object that can be passed around or given as a gift. A day is 24 hours. A day is abstract and filled with sunlight. I enjoyed the second stanza of the poem, where the narrator discusses figuring out how things work, observing, and learning the secrets of the universe and not knowing how to put them into words. The poem “New Road Station” by Tracy K. Smith also personified the idea of history, describing it as “mov[ing] like a woman/Corralling her children onto a crowded bus” or “the bus that will only wait so long.” I appreciate Smith’s similes because they are strong comparisons that readers can visualize and unite with the abstract idea of ‘history’. Though we are not writing poems for this class, it is a good idea to keep up with new works and authors and see what we can learn from them-like using lists, personification, and unique spacing.

-Katie Huffman

Best Ad EVER

I hope you'll watch this--not only because it is an awesome advertisement, but because it is such a good model for integrating one's message into one's story.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgPmaNMReKQ&feature=player_embedded

Seriously, isn't this advertisement awesome?

Now, excuse me as I go drink some green tea.

Sari

Dillard liberates

It would be pretty safe to assume that everyone who is taking this class finds enjoyment in writing. None of us would put ourselves through the heavy burden of countless hours of creating colorful syntax, following by dozens of edits and revisions from fellow peers if there wasn't some sort of passion that drives the writer in us to press forward.

After reading Annie Dillard's tips on how to approach a written work, there was one in particular that stood out. There's no need to paraphrase, "If something in your narrative or poem is important, give it proportional space. I mean, actual inches. The reader has to spend time with a subject to care about it. Don't shy away from big scenes; stretch them out."

This is my second class with instructor Sari Fordham. A true flag barer of expanding the talents of young writers. With all that sort of goodness wrapped into one person, it can't be helped that the student feels safe with her navigation.

However (and I offer myself to be the sacrificial lamb), please take into consideration of the aforementioned note from Dillard. I know this class is huge on proper paper structure, but doesn't poetic licence take precedent? English major students are romantics at heart. To limit the artist due to spacing structure hurts our vibrant spirits.

So, whataya say?

Israel Carreón

Reflection: Anne Dillard’s Notes for Young Writers Introduction

It wouldn’t be a bad idea to take notes of Anne Dillard’s…notes.  Most if not all of her ideas make sense from one viewpoint or another.  While reading and rereading, I found myself thinking a little more about the things she mentions and agreeing with most everything else.  However, I can’t as easily agree with two of her notes: “Don’t misspell dialect” and “Don’t describe feelings.”  I’ve seen published works that had misspelled dialect before – all too often, actually – and the second one seems contrary to the old rule of “Show, don’t tell.”  I can still see how these two notes make sense; I just can’t agree with them as readily as with any other note in this piece.

Those are the only two notes that I can’t agree with.  Many other notes made me think and agree with Dillard’s views.  It’s also interesting to hear from someone more experienced that “Publication is not a gauge of excellence” and, for someone who’s as much of a fan of fictional stories as I am, “Eight books of nonfiction appear for every book of fiction.”  I haven’t explored many nonfiction aisles of bookstores and libraries, but I have always been able to find something that’s at least somewhat based on the author’s real life and past.

In short, I mostly follow Dillard’s lines of thought, learn some new things from her, and only get confused on two out of almost forty tidbits of her experiences.

---Idida Z. Casado

Annie Dillard - Thank You for Speaking MY Language!

It is so refreshing to be able to read something Sari has handed out in just a few minutes! The advice is half rules-of-English and the other half advice-for-aspiring-writers. Maybe the best advice I've read was this: "Write books you'd like to read. Follow your own weirdness." I love that an award-winning writer is telling me that it's okay to write what I would want to pick up in bookstores. It has long been my belief that the first person you write for is yourself, because if you don't enjoy what you're writing about, then how is somebody else supposed to enjoy reading it?

Some of the advice almost made me want to start laughing, like "You'll have time to read after college." I certainly hope so, because I barely have time to read during college. And then there was "Don't describe feelings/ The way to a reader's emotions is, oddly enough, through the senses." A few years ago, I would have said that that sounds counter-intuitive. But all emotions are responses to sensations. If we see someone getting beat up, we feel badly for the person being beaten and want to dish out justice to the bully. Sensation before emotional response.

One more and I'll wrap it up: "Never, ever, get yourself into a situation where you have nothing to do but write and read. You'll go into a depression." I might go so far as to add: "and lose your sanity." Humans are creatures of experience, and as much as I may love it, reading and writing all day everyday is not experiencing anything. Writing and reading is rooted in human experience; as such, we as writers have to get some experience of our own. If we haven't experienced it for ourselves, it isn't true to us. And if it's not true to us, then we have failed.

-Josh Boyak

Thoughts about Annie Dillard's Article

Okay, let me start with what I felt: I thought she was joking at first. She was telling the readers not to be an writer. Especially in the beginning, when she tells not to choose a job in writing, I felt like she was trying to discourage me. Excuse me, but I have been learning to use this language called English when I just learned to read Korean! I have been making stories since I could hold a crayon and pencil. Although most of her advices were helpful and must-know for writers, her overly sarcastic tone made my tendons pop out of my forehead.

However, as I read through, I got a grip of what she was doing--she was telling the young writers some important tips. "Don't misspell dialect" from page XIII is the one I heard of: it can offend the actual speakers of the dialect, as it can be mistook as mocking. "Don't describe feelings" on the same page is a different version of "Show, don't tell." If there has been a reader who got angry and threw this piece away, those readers made big mistakes.

As a writing student, I heard these tips over and over again, but Annie Dillard used some form of shock therapy to reinforce these important truths in the art of writing. I feel like I received some electric shock wave. Now I am reminded again.

Hae-Lim Lee

Blog 2 by Ruthie Heavrin

I was about three seconds away from finding Annie Dillard's address on Google and writing her a nasty gram in my worst possible writing just to spite her and all her rules. Then I read the last sentence and applauded Dillard for recognizing what I was thinking the entire time I read her endless list of do's and do-not's. That last sentence read, “You need to know these things somewhere in the back of your mind, and you need to forget them and write whatever you're going to write” (xvii). When it comes to writing, there are more areas of grey than there are of black and white. Readers can of course decide what is good writing and what is bad writing but not all readers can pin-point why a book or article is enjoyable or just waste of paper. That is where Dillard's rules come in: the writer should know what does and does not work.

Over time, a dancer forgets that they are stepping in patterns and does not consciously think about each move, but rather just moves as they have been trained for years. As beginning writers, we should of course learn the steps and even have them beaten into our heads so they don't exit through the back door as soon as they enter, but Dillard is correct when she concludes that the rules need to be forgotten before sitting down to write. Like motion memory, the rules will perform themselves.

A dancer on stage mouthing the beat and stomping their feet in deliberate steps would almost be painful to watch because the audience expects them to know the routine without a second thought.

When I read Dillard's suggestion to forget what our sixth grade teachers have taught us about “walk” and “say,” I immediately accused her of being a hypocrite for telling us to forget those rules, but to somehow keep all the ones currently being fed to us. How refreshing it was to read the last lines and know that I'm not alone and the jumbled mess of post-its above my desk that read, “No passive verbs!” I have even learned to cringe at the sight of the exclamation point. Suddenly, the entire article took on a new meaning. Those sixth grade teachers replacing “trot” for “walk” and “exclaim” for “say” are only trying to expand the vocabulary of pre-teen writers who probably use the same word six to seven times in the span of three sentences. There will always be new rules for writing based on the experience and level of the one doing the writing. As soon as all of Dillard's guidelines are memorized, practiced, and forgotten, new ones will spring up. All in all, they are an effort to improve an art, but I'm still going to write whatever I want.

Annie Dillard's tips for young writers

I have to admit that some of the tips that Annie Dillard mentioned in the paper today was something that I have heard before being here at La Sierra. Something tells me that Sari was the one to instill these into me, like Annie is trying.

I liked reading the tips; they were really enjoyable. Some that resonated with me was:

• you'll have time to read after college (thank god)
• Don't misspell dialect (because I do to add an effect towards a person's personality)
• Don't describe feelings, instead write the emotions through the senses.

And most importantly (at least to me),

• Put it away and rewrite it later.

I don't know how many times Sari has mentioned that we should put off our writing and come back to it later. Since I am doing my portfolio for my UNST class, I have had to look through some of my old writings, since my freshman year up until now. I am shocked at all the typos and grammatical mistakes, not to mention the awful descriptions or lack thereof. I couldn't agree more that when you put something away and go back to it, you see it in a different light. Some other tips included what you should write about versus what you don't like to read, which I agree. Why would you want to write something when you yourself don't like it? You're going to be force-feeding other people that will grow to dislike you as a writer and there goes your reputation.

Kathy Z.

The Wit and Wisdom of Annie Dillard

Reading Annie Dillard's "Introduction: Notes for Young Writers" was a similar experience for me as was reading The Wit and Wisdom of Mark Twain. The primary differences are length--Dillard notes are much shorter than the collection of Mark Twain's; subject--Dillard solely about writing, save the one point on voting; and focus--Twain's collection has a much heavier emphasis on wit, while Dillard's is more wisdom, or advice.

We've either heard most of the advice that Dillard gives us as writers in this piece or are able to recognize it as common sense. Yet the funny thing about common sense is that we often don't follow it. Most of the rules are simple and memorable. Don't do this. Do that. Remember to. Yet while I see Dillard's short advices as true and wise, I can't help but wonder why I fail to follow many of them.

As we can do with many things, it is easy to excuse our inactions, especially with the ultimate roadblock: time (or lack of it). But it's no excuse. If we are serious about writing, we cannot afford to say "we don't have time." Whatever the activity--reading, writing, studying grammar, revising, editing--we can make the time if we need to.

There were many pieces of advice that stood out. The most important one, however, was the last one: "You need to know these things somewhere in the back of your mind, and you need to forget about them and write whatever you're going to write." To me, it sums up most of the advice for writers: just do it.

-Alexander Hirata

Annie Dillard

Dillard's piece was very information. It was also quite depressing. I love writing fiction, and I've always known the odds of being published were against me, but she makes it seem even harder than I thought. 

"Eight books of nonfiction appear for every book of fiction."

"...many magazines publish only famous people and reject better work by unknown people."

Just two of the many discouraging things she says in the piece. As discouraging as it is, though, they are things that are important to know. After all, there is a business side to the art and any writer who wants to be published needs to know how it works. I think the overall tone of the piece helps soften the blow a bit too. She sounds as if she is genuinely trying to help, and not just kill young writers' dreams.

Aside from saying how hard it is to get published, she did give some helpful tips for increasing your chances. Much of what she said I have heard before, but it is always good to hear it again. Not using extra words is an important rule to remember, as is using senses to reach readers' emotions.

Overall, I appreciated the piece and I will definitely hold on to it.

Kayla Santos

Annie Dillard's Notes (Justyne Marin)

"Never, ever, get yourself into a situation where you have nothing to do but write and read." That sentence surprised me because as a writer, a lot of times that's exactly what I wish I could do. But I think Dillard has a point. If I had no other responsibilities and had the freedom to only write and read, I would read, definitely, but I would probably wouldn't write. And if I did, I'd get too involved and caught up in what I feel and think about the piece rather than what the story needs. For me, I need the outside world, as Dillard says, in order to keep it in my mind so that I don't get too caught up with my own opinions. Though I did love her line: "Follow your own weirdness." It lets young writers know that even though she is telling us to separate our feelings from our writing, that doesn't mean we our writing will be mechanical or systematic. Each writer is unique and can describe the world in their own "weird" way.

Another thing that surprised me was her remark about novels based on true stories. She says: "Publishers won't touch these," but I feel as if I see lots of these at the book store all the time (I even recently saw one based on a woman who survived the Titanic, whether this woman really existed or not, I have no idea). I understand when she says "The novel based on fact is a muddy hybrid; readers can't tell what's true," (as in the case I just mentioned) but I don't think readers go into a book loosely based on the story of someone who survived the Titanic and expect every event in it to be completely accurate. I have a friend who reads a series of books based on the lives of various monarchy that have lived and died centuries ago in England and France. I read one and it was really just a slew of adultery, illegitimate children, jealousy, rivalry, and so on and so forth. My friend said she read them because they were exciting, even though she knew they were just the author's ideas of what happened between these people. So I'm not sure what to make of Dillard's advice here. I think it's a good point to keep in mind, but there seems to be at least some kind of market for these kinds of historic fiction/drama novels.

The rest of her advice, though, was solid and I found myself taking mental notes every few lines or so. This is definitely a list of things I will put into practice.


-Justyne Marin

Annie Dillard's Advice for Writers

I found myself circling and underlining a lot of Dillard's advice because it was affirmation of tips I had heard or read before or things that seemed relevant to my writing. While I don't plan to exactly follow her first piece of advice to "live at least a year in very different parts of the country," (XII) I love to travel and recently realized what a great resource it can be for writing. Writing about things, people, events, etc. in a foreign country is exciting, but getting out of your comfort zone can also be a great excuse to write. I always bring paper and pens with me on trips because it is the time I am most relaxed and inspired to write.

The majority of Annie Dillard's advice did come off as blunt and honest, but it didn't discourage me from writing. I looked at her tips as suggestions to improve my writing, not as advice to give up. I was especially pleased by her comment to "Write books you'd like to read. Follow your own weirdness," (XII). Right now I enjoy reading Young Adult literature and I have written stories and plays that fit into that category, but as I get older I might find that a different genre appeals to me and I don't want to get stuck writing the same thing over and over. Just within the last few years I have come to embrace my weirdness and so I appreciated Dillard acknowledging that we are all a little weird and that we should just go with it.

Even though many of her tips were "the basics" and things I already knew about writing, Dillard wrote in a light, conversational tone. She wasn't sugarcoating anything, but was very direct, like it seems she would be when critiquing a friend's work. She didn't spend more time than was necessary on any one tip, following her own advice of not using any extra words (XIV). I felt that she respected me and my knowledge as a reader because she didn't talk down to me or act like these were things I should already know and excel at. She also knows how quickly the reader can get bored, so she broke the article down into readable chunks.

The thing that stood out to me the most was her advice about "no dull dialogue" (XIV). I am a huge fan of dialogue and try to keep it fresh and realistic, but often my over-use of dialogue results in a lack of description of setting and feelings and senses. "Capturing the typical isn't a virtue," (XIV) was helpful too because as a child I often wondered why stories were never about everyday life and as I got older I realized that would be boring to read. Something exciting or tragic or important has to happen; some kind of change must occur. Writing about the annoying things in life only works if you are a comedian, otherwise it is just a long list of whining and complaining.

Members of the literature world often talk about characters and books as if they are living things that make their own decisions and the truth is, a good character or book will dictate its own future. Dillard acknowledges that "Over and over you must choose the book over your own wishes and feelings" (XV). It is an odd phenomenon that an author can't just have a character say or do whatever they want, they have to stay true to what the character would actually say or do, but the authors that work toward the overall "unity" and truthfulness of a novel are often the most successful in my opinion.

I was surprised when Dillard told us that nonfiction is such a popular area of literature. As she suggested, I do have a list of books I want to read, some new and some classics, and I do hope I will have time after college. In terms of publishing, her advice was disheartening; a famous person with mediocre ideas is more likely to get published than a non-famous person with great writing. Though the publishing world is hard to enter, reading this only made me want to try harder. I want to be one of those rare novels that makes it. I still have a lot to learn, but with advice from pros like Annie Dillard, I feel I have a better chance.

-Katie Huffman

Annie Dillardisms

Although Annie Dillard’s article may seem heavy because she is up front about how often fiction books are published in comparison to non-fiction books, altogether the piece was enjoyable.  Her tone was that of a mentor or a teacher who lived her life doing the opposite of what she wrote about in the piece.  I imagined her throughout her life, writing down in her personal journal these notes to herself for future reference. Now, her notes have been shared to all of us.

            I appreciated the way this piece was written. It almost classifies as a list, but to me her words are more like "Dillardisms."  She provides helpful tips for young writers. Tips that will ultimately help any writer become a better one. Even though she makes it clear that fiction novels are hard to get published, I like the realistic point of view she gives young writers. Yes, it may be discouraging, but at least we will be better prepared for what is to come, especially if fiction is our forte or passion. 

            I found myself agreeing with many of these Dillardisms.  Since this piece felt conversational, I found myself writing notes to myself next to hers or asking her questions about her statement.  There were many lines I loved but the two that stood out to me as being very honest were, “The more you read, the more you will write. The better the stuff you read, the better the stuff you will write” (XVI) and “You need to know these things somewhere in the back of your mind, and you need to forget them and write whatever you’re going to write.” (XVII) Even though she provided tips, she recognizes that sometimes, the heart wants to write what it wants to write.  Let your words flow when you have them.  Ultimately, if you desire to write it, you should at least try to pen it down and give that thought some life. 

Angela Payaban

Annie Dillard (Post 2)

Wow, talk about a discouraging piece! Annie Dillard really brings young writers down to reality, and she did that for me. I, like most English majors, wish to be a published author someday, and I know how difficult it is to break in to the publishing world. I want to write for young adults and children, however, not 'adult' novels or nonfiction. Still, Dillard's statistics: "the chance of any manuscript coming into a a publishing house and getting published is one in three thousand" (XVII) brings the harsh reality straight into my hopeful mind.

Thankfully, I decided a long time ago that I would become (or go to school for, at least) a professor or editor so that I would not end up a homeless person scratching out stories on tattered napkins. In spite of Annie's daunting fact list about publishing, I found myself enjoying and appreciating the rest of her introduction. Some of her pieces of advice were old news to me (read books if you like to write, don't use passive verb constructions), but a lot of it was fresh and new. The way she spaced her article made it interesting and easy to read; it caught my attention, almost as though its title could have said, "42 Things Young Writers Cannot Live Without Knowing" or something more interesting than that.

I also like how Dillard says that "you'll have time to read after college" (XII). What a relief! I always think about all the books I want to read, and I pick one and read it, even though I barely have time. It's nice to know--from such an assertive author--that the time will come when I will have time to read all those books. Come to think of it, my parents both work but they constantly read, so I think it's true. Another thing she said was to read a grammar book two to three times a year, and she cited our class book as a great one to start with. I have it, so I guess I'd better get cracking!

When Annie mentioned how our country has a "cult of celebrity,"(XVII), I felt sad. It's sad that fresh, potential-filled writers have a minimized chance of success just because America would rather read and purchase books from a known author than they would from someone they'd never heard about before. I guess our culture isn't one to try new things, which is a shame!


--Laura Strawn Ojeda

"Politics and the English Language" by George Orwell

It seems that Orwell was in  a prickly mood when he wrote this piece; the whole paper is basically a ranting hate list of things writers do wrong. Here are some things that, as a writer, I found to be positive and negative.


Positive

1. All examples are given at once: This allowed him to make his point about each of them without halting every time to give the example.
2.  Each concern was sectioned off: When targeting a specific problem, like "dying metaphors", he gave the segment a heading.

Negative

1. I think the piece could have been shorter and still gotten the point across. It's ironic that he mentions cutting out unnecessary words when his lists are unnecessarily long.
2. Blaming politics for all of the problems in "modern writing" isn't completely believable to me. Yes, I agree that political jargon is purposefully vague and dry, but I can't see that it has influenced other types of writing. I think making the mistakes he mentioned has more to do with laziness than trying to sound like a political leader.

Kayla Santos

George Orwell’s “Politics and the English Language”

Honestly, I liked this paper if only because it shares a lot of characteristics with some of my rough drafts and finished papers. The greatest similarity I noticed was the way he jumps from quoted material to ideas that didn’t need the quoted material to ideas that did need the quoted material. On page 2, he gives us five blocks of quoted text from other papers. He then doesn’t reference them between pages 3 through 6, until the very end of page 7 – roughly, the space between the quoted material and his arguments for why the quoted material uses language in a faulty manner is six pages apart.

While he does point this out, he also uses his language in the very same way he protests against. While he doesn’t use tired metaphors (unless some of the metaphors I came across and was confused by were “tired metaphors” when he wrote this), he does use long, lengthy phrases here and there that could be further shortened (“the scrapping of every word or idiom which has outworn its usefulness” on page 11 for, perhaps, “cutting out meaningless words and phrases”). He does point out many ideas that I agree with, though. While I still think it’s easier to write simple, quick phrases (“I think”) than long, over-the-top ones that mean the same thing, it is easier for me to use such long phrases when I have to write a longer paper in a rush, for example.

From this paper, I've learned a few things. While some can use quotes the way Orwell did in this paper, others can't (when I quote material, I have to immediately give my thoughts on it). When listening to an overblown speech or reading an exceedingly long paper, one can find out when the author forgot to think his or her words through or might be flat-out lying: whether there are clashing metaphors, large words are thrown in (especially one after the other), or does something else that confuses audiences.  The next time I write a paper, I'd better be sure of two things: I don't use clichéd phrases and my ideas come through clearly.  Page 8 gives me six questions and page 12 gives me six rules that I can use.  If nothing else, at least I can learn these things.

Idida Z. Casado

Thoughts on "Politics and the English" by George Orwell

It gave me chills to read this piece. I could not agree more with Orwell's idea that people destroy language and language destroys people too. I saw this happen in Korea--teenagers on street were using distorted language, even using web abbreviations while talking. Of course, they were not behaving well--loud and rough in a convenience store. Probably many people might have heard of the expression, "You are what you eat." In this case, it would be "You are what you say."

The examples given were so odd--did really people of professional level wrote this? In case of examples 1 and 3, I could not even tell what the first sentence was saying. The writers of these passages seem like trying to sound smart, but their works just turned into some kind of babblers. Orwell points out some of the cliche expressions and words that can trap the writers into fixed patterns from page 3 to 6. "Meaningless Words" sections came to me as strong agreement, because quite often the words he gives as examples, such as "romantic" or "natural," do not come to me as a surprise or impression--just hanging flatter. Readers these days are spoiled and overly stimulated--they want stronger things to read. It is difficult to live up to those expectations as a writer.

Why writing about politics is not desired, as in page 8? Because the world is going crazier every minute, and politics are not favored by people. Who can blame someone who goes on a vacation on election day? We live in a world that if you say something electronically, a war can break out in comments section between total strangers. Writers have a task to not offend the readers while making arguments. Now that is like walking a plank while holding a spoon in the mouth with an egg in it.

The industry of writing becomes harsher and more difficult as the years go by. Now I am scared to graduate.

Hae-Lim Lee

"Politics and the English Language"

Man, was Orwell a stingy old man or what? I mean, I was shaking my head laughing at how irritated he was about how muddied and cluttered the English language has become. 13 pages of "writers are using 20 words where 8 will do." I almost stopped reading after page 7 to say "Um, duh?". And perhaps that was what I found so entertaining about reading this piece: the fact that it takes him 13 pages to make a point I came away with in 10 words. Not pages, not paragraphs, not even sentences. Words.

Dying Metaphors: Fancy way of saying "cliches."
Operators or Verbal False Limbs: Why can't you just say flat out what you're doing?
Pretentious Diction: Let's dress up our words and make them look pretty!
Meaningless Words: Plain and simple: We've used these words so much that we might as well be talking to a wall.

While the reading has been insightful, I feel like Orwell should have taken his own advice and been a bit less winded with his argument and just squashed it down to his six rules at the end on page 12:

1. Never use a metaphor, simile, of other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.
2. Never use a long word where a short one will do.
3. If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.
4. Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.
5. Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.

At least that, I wouldn't have minded reading.

Josh Boyak

George Orwell "Politics in the English Language"

For the five pieces that Orwell pointed out, he mentioned that the writers today lack imagery, and that they don't know what they are saying with because smart words bunched up in a sentence screws up what they are trying to say. That thought actually made me laugh a bit inwardly because I too felt that way sometimes. I would write it because it sounds pretty. The "incompetence" in political figures talking to us in this language is proof enough. They say it to sound smart but how can we as Americans follow if we are just getting confused by what they are saying? If anything, its a ploy to get us Americans to believe that they are acting smart to look impressive, brainwashing us in the process.

Another interesting viewpoint was the "Dying Metaphors" Orwell presented. I do believe that metaphors have been slowly dying out not just because people have failed to know what they mean or because they are being remade like so many songs today, but I also believe that some metaphors that are being overused have started to become kind of cliche. By creating cliches, people would rather avoid them.

"The Operators or Verbal False Limbs" is the elimination of an active voice and simple verbs. I like simple verbs because it gets the point across without it acting too showy. By turning the simple verbs into phrases, as Orwell is mentioning, you are cutting down the verbs true reason for existing in the speech you are delivering. And having an active voice makes you sound like you want to take action, not passively overstepping the boundaries.

When I got to the paragraph entitled "Pretentious Diction," I feel as though Orwell is offended that English people are using Greek and Latin roots to come up with more words, as if the Anglo Saxons didn't have their own plethora of word banks. I don't find anything wrong with having more words to choose from, but I do understand what he means by it. By creating new words, we are diminishing the use for the others.

The paragraph concerned over "Meaningless Words" was very interesting, and I felt like he is critiquing a aristocrats that have no real input to society (at least to him). Was it wrong of me to think of it like that? To have him explain that people who critique their works by using words that "lack meaning" made me wonder if I do that as well.

As he begins his examination of the five selected pieces, Orwell begins giving the reasons why political words are often vague. One instant that caught my attention was due to the fact that people are not strong enough to know the harsh truth behind the political reasons to cause harm to other people, "political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging, and sheer cloudy vagueness."

I also agree with "if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought." Today, youth are very impressionable, watching television and wanting to copy everything they see from it. Bad language coming from reality TV programming and other de-foundational programs targets their ways of thinking, and also resulting in bad grammar.

Finally, the notes about keeping your English simple was when he was more instructive than critical for me. I was glad to see some tips that he mentioned, which I plan to use for my other pieces of writing, especially for publication. I don't want to end up being all fancy with words and have no one understand what I am trying to say.

Kathy Zinzun

"Politics and the English Language" by George Orwell

I'm positive Orwell would be even crankier if he were alive today and discovered that English has gotten "worse" since his essay was written. What I found funny was that many of the jargon, foreign words, and metaphors he despised so passionately are still being used and are more common than it seems they were in his time with countless new ones tossed in as well.

As most of my peers found the reading entertaining, so did I once I got a page or two in, and found myself agreeing with a lot of Orwell's complaints. I never liked reading political language because it was so stiff and hard to understand, but I thought that was only because I simply didn't understand it. Orwell's lament about how political and "technical" language is inherently difficult on purpose makes me feel better about it, though. It is true that politicians use more words and bigger words for the sake of being vague while also sounding important and intelligent. It's constantly frustrating how they glaze over the details that are most important, but it's more frustrating that it actually works.

Though I agree with Orwell's dislike of tired metaphors and stale language, I think what needs to change is the idea that stale, pompous language shows intelligence. It doesn't, it only confuses your audience. It's also more difficult to write in simple terms, more often than not. The only way to get out of this is to be aware of it, I suppose, and not be fooled, as Orwell says.

-Justyne Marin

Blog 1 - Ruthie Heavrin

George Orwell – Politics and the English Language

Orwell shows passion for description, original metaphors, and clear views in today's English writing. There is also a level of frustration in Orwell's voice. The issue I had with this article was how strong the author's came across as well as how easily he blamed politics and economics for the decline in language. The entire article, save the last few paragraphs screams the shared opinions of an overheated language prescriptivist with his examples of poor writing and endless lists of words to avoid. Yet, toward the end of the article, he covers himself by declaring any word and any structure is open game, as long as it it clear. This point is agreeable. So why then, did Orwell make a monster out of politics? To make an excuse for bad writing.

I agree with the author's description of politicians being “some kind of dummy...which seem to have no eyes” which is a great example of how to turn a dry metaphor into a fresh one (Orwell, 8). That is an image many have witnessed while watching elections and debates. The men and women pry at the hearts and the minds of the voters with vague, wordy sentences that not even the clerk that wrote the speech understands. This phenomenon is not new. Each career choice, whether it be a governess or a governor, has specific language and jargon involved. Politics have not ruined English, prescriptivists and too many rules have. If a word or metaphor works, use it. Sorry Orwell, but now you have become the word Nazi you write against.

"Politics and the English Language" by George Orwell

The following is a list of various aspects that caught my attention in George Orwell's "Politics and the English Language."

1. The imagery used by Orwell is wonderful.  He shows his craftsmanship by first unveiling "dying metaphors" while interweaving his own creativity in metaphors and similes.  His images were new, fresh, and helped to refresh the reader, knowing that new metaphors and similes are possible! Orwell writes, "an accumulation of stale phrases chokes him [the writer] like tea leaves blocking a sink." (p. 8) I laughed because he brilliantly used a simile to combat the idea that common phrases can be a hindrance to a writer.  Orwell was not limited in his metaphors and similes, he comes up with many creative ways to make his point, right when the readers feel like there is no hope left for the English language. 

2. The idea that "if thoughts corrupt language, language also corrupts thought," (p. 10) is fascinating.  I agree with the concept of thoughts affecting language, because according to Chomsky and linguistics underlying each person's language, there is a innateness to that language.  Everyone has the thought of language, meaning that our thoughts directly help to affect how or what we speak.  We think about how to form sentences or what words apply to what we want to say. 

The statement of language corrupting our thoughts shows that all what we hear, what we surround ourselves with, will affect what we think. This is a common thought of parents when they don't swear in front of their children. They don't want language to corrupt their children's thoughts. But, did the first language ever spoken automatically corrupt thoughts of the speakers? Or was it the decline of language that caused the corruption? If so, how can we believe that language has truly declined when really, language is always changing and adapting? Orwell says that we are untidy with our speech and that causes foolish thinking (p. 1), but according to social linguists, language changes because of social factors. So, perhaps it is the society in which we live that ultimately affects our speech and then our thoughts. 

3. I enjoyed that after discussing lists in class, we were able to read a piece that incorporated lists.  Lists are pleasant to the eye because they provide organization for the reader. Rather than writing multiple pages to prove one point, Orwell's lists give direct examples. I appreciated seeing this in his writing and knowing that lists are not part of why English is dying. Orwell made it a point to create a list for his readers so they could easily follow along. (Thus, my own list for this response!) 

4. While reading, I realized I am at fault for the problems he sees with the English language.  Unfortunately, the "jargon" he speaks of is common in my writing. I felt discouraged because Orwell is harsh and my words seem inadequate compared to his writing ability.  Therefore, I have much work to do, but I know that there is hope! If he can successfully write, so can I! :) 

Angela Payaban