“Any emotion, if it is sincere, is involuntary.”
Mark Twain
“I love no one but you, I have discovered, but you are far away and I am here alone. Then this is my life and maybe, however unlikely, I’ll find my way back there. Or maybe, one day, I’ll settle for second best. And on that same day, hell will freeze over, the sun will burn out and the stars will fall from the sky.”
Lemony Snicket
“By necessity, by proclivity and by delight, we all quote” (320).
In Emerson’s essay “Quotation and Originality” the essayist attempts to both criticize and define the concept of being original. In doing this, however, he provides his own original content by pursuing the notion of originality in a way that had not been done prior to his examination. Although he may disagree, the essay’s lack of citation showing examples where the idea of originality is questioned damages the very point it is trying to defend. Rather than cite these examples—if there are even examples to cite—Emerson contemplates the imitations of others to strengthen his claim. While this technique is ultimately effective, whether it was the correct technique to utilize remains subject to discussion.
However, if the reader assumes that this stylistic technique was deliberate, he begins to understand the subjective underlying theme of the piece. Emerson’s failure to utilize quotations that regard originality shows that the message of a piece can be changed depending on the references that are being cited. In this case, the addition of quotations that regard examples of unoriginal ideas rather than those that promote the unoriginality of Emerson’s own idea changes the essay into more of a report on the history of original thought. If the author had added the latter quotations, rather than the former, the report would have become more of a discussion about the thought of mankind.
Although Emerson disagrees with the concept, borrowing ideas from others helps a person understand his own ideas more concretely. In “Quotation and Originality” we see a lack of this support when we understand that Emerson’s thought could have indeed been much more structured to aid his readers by showing them the falsehood of original thought rather than listing examples of this thought. Unfortunately for the essayist—or perhaps not so if this lack of example was intentional—his essay on quotation becomes a prime example that the material you quote can alter the entire definition of your thesis.
That being said, the type of citation chosen for the piece does not demote the intellectual importance of the piece. Rather, it enhances the piece’s meaning to a degree that other kinds of quotation may have subdued. In modern education settings (particularly consisting of Indo-European academic settings of secondary education and higher) quotation is necessary in providing support for arguments in research papers, presentations, and other academic projects. “Quotation and Originality” hereby becomes an example of the importance of correct quotation use. For this reason, students pursuing further education would do themselves well to study this essay with great scrutiny—as its relevant irony exemplifies the thoughts of various academic scholars (not to be confused with Emerson’s definition of the word.)
In school, most students are taught not only to quote frequently but also to expand upon these quotations. By this means, the education system can be viewed as prohibiting for preventing students from thinking individually by forcing them to construct ideas through the basis of others. While indeed this system works for allowing students to begin thinking, it creates a habit of succumbing to the ideas of others, rather than establishing one’s own ideas independently. Emerson appears to accept the same view on quotation when he writes “As they do by books, so they quote the sunset and the star, and do not make them theirs. Worse yet, the live as foreigners in the world of truth, and quote thoughts, and thus disown them. Quotation confesses inferiority” (324). Here Emerson contributes to this defeatist view of the need for quotation. He argues that—by quoting—a person is admitting that he would rather expand on the ideas of others than even attempt to construct ideas of his own.
Of course, this single perspective on the idea of quotation is just that: a single perspective. By stating this view on quotation Emerson makes clear his opinions on the matter—as any good essayist should. However, without the use of a quotation to back up this claim, the essayist is merely stating his opinion. In this way, he demeans his audience by assuming they will accept this idea without applying it to their own personal system of beliefs. While Emerson’s view on the subject of quotation is understandable, it is skewed in the sense that his argument is weakened by the lack of quotation.
This weakened argument comes from the undeniable truth that quotation aids argument. Emerson was a profound writer and an esteemed public speaker, but his writings are in jeopardy of being reduced by the arguments of others purely because those others have ideas that are endorsed by renowned specialists, philosophers, or other commonplaces. Although Emerson abhors this fact—so much so that he criticizes the notion in the essay—it is perhaps a more enlightening notion than he expected. It is fairly simple; people are more apt to be swayed by persuasive writing with sources than without not because they lack the ability to think individually, but because they think only individually.
Emerson feared quotation because he felt it brought about the death of originality. However, the very presence of quotation promotes originality. Because people are avidly thinking for themselves, they require evidence before haphazardly considering alternative ideologies, the dissimilar, and other new information of many forms. The system of education imposes the use of quotation not to stifle originality, but to endorse credibility.
Of course, it is made obvious by contextual information that the essayist is not confronting the education system in this piece—at least, not principally: The highest statement of new philosophy complacently caps itself with some prophetic maxim from the older learning. There is something mortifying in this perpetual cycle. This extreme economy argues a very small capital of invention. The stream of affection flows broad and strong; the practical activity is a river of supply; but the dearth of design accuses the penury of intellect…In this delay and vacancy of thought we must make the best amends we can by seeking the wisdom of others to fill the time (320).
Here, it can be clearly seen that Emerson is focusing on the ideologies of mankind as a whole. In Emerson’s time (as well as our own, to a degree) philosophers thought of and expand minutely on only those ideas that came before them. In the mind of the essayist, these philosophers lacked original thought and intellect. Because of this, people merely follow the conventions of others, rather than thinking abstractly for themselves—contrary to their beliefs on the subject. It is understandable that such a period of inactivity would trouble any intellectual; why would we, as a species, spend so much time going forward only to go back?
Regardless, Emerson later states in the essay “Many of the historical proverbs have a doubtful paternity” (323). Here, he acknowledges that even the oldest truths of our civilizations are unoriginal—an undeniably frightening concept. However, if such a concept holds true to the essayist, why would he attempt to change this system of thought? Would it not be the equivalent of changing the entire thought process of all human life? The cause is admirable in the sense that Emerson wants the minds of his generation to propose new thought on what he refers to as the truth. Yet, for this cause to be justifiable, the essayist indeed should have cited others who share his want for reform; doing so would have heightened the prominence of his desires to a societal need rather than an individual want.
For this reason, it can be seen that the notions of original thought between Emerson’s discussion about philosophers and the modern education of students are not dissimilar. The correct use of quotation alters the strength of the argument that both Emerson and modern students attempt to advocate. Emerson would say this alteration is diminishing rather than supporting. However, he himself states “We are as much informed of a writer’s genius by what he selects as by what he originates” (326). Here he is openly admitting that the value of quotation by an author is equal to the writing produced by that author in a sense that both reveal insight into the mindset of the author himself. Both express the writer’s values and position and allow the reader to connect with him on a personal level.
Because Emerson’s statement is true, he inadvertently admits that quotation is in indeed a factor in creating one’s own original thoughts. An odd concept considering the majority of his essay demeaned the use of others’ ideas when establishing one’s own. The truth is that such people who do this are taught that this is how ideas are formed. And while some may say this compromises the integrity of the thought, others would argue just as strongly that such a way of formulating ideas is helpful to those who have difficulty doing so on their own. This is the primary objective of the modern day education system; aiding students in their forming of original ideas by providing them with assignments that force them to use support for these ideas. Such assignments offer students the comfort of creating ideas by validating the truth of these ideas through other sources; a student who has a faulty idea on a subject becomes certain of the idea after he discovers that others are certain of the same thought.
This does not mean necessarily that this student’s idea came to him only after he read of the author he cited in the assignment. Essentially, it could mean that this student had an original idea that (once he discovered was already contemplated) became an unoriginal idea because it had already been considered by another person in another period of time. Does the existence of this other person invalidate the thought of this student? Because this student’s own though was later discovered to be a thought of someone else, does that mean his thought was never original? Emerson would argue yes; the education system would argue no.
In fact, Emerson himself raises the notion when he states “People quote so differently: one finding only what is gaudy and popular; another, the heart of the author, the report of his select and happiest hour; and the reader something giving more to the citation than he owes to it” (326). In this sentence, Emerson acknowledges that there are many ways of utilizing a quotation. One of these many ways would be that just discussed: the use of quotations to validate one’s own line of thinking. Because the ideas of others can be used in this way, quotation aids the individual thought of a thinker—rather than diminishing it, as Emerson suggests. The use of quotation enhances the ideas of those quoting by helping them establish a basis for their ideas. Therefore, it can be said that quotation does not contradict originality, but helps create it.
It is understandable that Emerson had difficulty writing on this topic, as it is always hard to write on a topic without examples after which to model your piece. However, this was the very point Emerson was trying to make: although his essay could have been written using examples on original ideas, he used examples of unoriginal ideas to show that, although the work is challenging, it can be accomplished. While it was bold of him to make such an effort, the piece itself shows the faults of this method by proving less persuasive than its potential would have allowed.
However, this does not mean that the technique should be discarded as asinine. The application of said technique offers an original outlook on its very topic. Whether Emerson understood this accomplishment at the time he created this piece is indefinite. Yet, he does state towards the end of said piece “And what is originality? It is being, being one’s self, and reporting accurately what we see and are” (329). Here, Emerson states what it means to be original (from his perspective.) Knowing this, it can safely be assumed that Emerson is aware of his technique; for in this piece he himself is being and reporting what he sees.
Of course, now is a more important question is posed regarding this technique. For if Emerson understands his odd choice of style than the question of his choice to use this style can be proposed; if presenting evidence of unoriginal ideas is harder than providing evidence of original ideas than why did the essayist use this structure to begin with? The only fact that he definitely proves by doing so is that authors have a more difficult time persuading readers when they do not use quotes that support their claims, but rather merely discuss these claims. While this is a profound way of writing, it does not offer a different opinion on the subject and, therefore, is based only on the merit of the single author. A different use of quotations could have easily elevated Emerson’s argument.
Concomitantly, Emerson’s attempt at a different technique was fairly executed and deserves recognition. However, the lack of public reform due to this piece proves the disappointment of this technique itself; schools continue to teach students to quote authors and people will still remain skeptical of essays, reports, and other intellectual phenomena that are based solely on opinion—both cases with just cause.
Although quotation happens, the spreading of ideas is crucial to the point that every man deserves to know truth. Emerson himself wrote it so “Truth is the property of no individual, but is the treasure of all men” (326). While it is a noble effort on Emerson’s part to deny any one man right to knowledge of the truth, it is not as noble to deny the spreading of that truth based on the want for more original concepts. One cannot own truth because the concept of truth is original to no man; it simply is. Whether that concept is derived from a paper written by a student who was inspired by a philosopher of the past era or derived from a book written by an author whose idea is not as unique as his readers believe. The barefaced reality is that the truth remains truthful, regardless of how humans have come about discovering it. Quotation remains the paramount method of developing ideas and spreading truth and, therefore, remains the paramount method of maintaining the human existence.
Upon reading the personal blotting books of Ralph Waldo Emerson, I found there to be a multitude of useful information in regards to the essayist’s writing habits. Below are merely four of these quotes whose manifestations aid the reader in his understanding of Emerson’s line of thought.
This quote in particular is one I found to be indefinitely helpful when thinking of Emerson’s work. One could argue (as I believe somebody had during discussion) that Emerson had a multitude of great ideas but that these ideas lacked finite answers regarding the path the essayist wanted his audience to explore. Yet, this argument goes against Emerson’s drive for “man thinking”—the individual, uncorrupted thoughts he had wanted every person to possess. The above quote allows readers to understand the essayist’s reason for leaving his pieces often unresolved, if you will. For Emerson’s goal was to help all of his readers to think for themselves, rather than risk becoming like the construction he was advocating against and telling them what to think and what to do.
As stated many times throughout his work, Emerson is a supporter of individual thinking. This quote remains to be the principle basis of the idea; Emerson believes that it is an individual’s inherent right to make decisions and reach conclusions for himself. Because of this belief, Emerson also finds it wrong that individuals are allowing others to choose these choices for them. However, it should be noted that the idea of the mind not being made out of clay somewhat contradicts the distress Emerson has regarding individuality in itself; in order for individuals to be deterred from their “scholar” mindsets, they must have malleable minds.
From this quote it becomes apparent that Emerson understood the magnanimity of the movement he was attempting to generate—knew fully well that his task of helping others think for themselves was not to be taken lightly. Perhaps this is the reason he chose to speak directly to audiences but allowed them to form their own ideas about his direct discourse. This may also be the reason that he chose to write essays on different ideas and topics, thereby giving him a broader set of readers.
Unlike the previous quotes, this one shows Emerson’s introspective nature regarding struggles. This personal outlook is seen throughout Emerson’s writing when one examines his style; over the course of his essays, he uses language that persuades his audience to think differently, rather than telling his audience to view themselves, others, and situations in a particular way. Additionally, this quote reinforces the renowned notion that there is always hope. While reading his essays, it is important to understand that Emerson believes this precise notion. When the reader understands that Emerson is trying to enlighten the public—instead of demeaning the public by affirming their transgressions—he will then come to think of Emerson more as a companion than an authoritarian.
Works Cited
Emerson, Ralph Waldo. “Blotting Book I.” Ed. Ralph H. Orth. The Journals and Miscellaneous Notebooks of Ralph Waldo Emerson. Vol. 6. Cambridge: Belknap of Harvard UP, 1966. N. pag. Print.
Emerson, Ralph Waldo. “Blotting Book II.” Ed. Ralph H. Orth. The Journals and Miscellaneous Notebooks of Ralph Waldo Emerson. Vol. 6. Cambridge: Belknap of Harvard UP, 1966. N. pag. Print.
Emerson writes in a declarative manner in which he states his point authoritatively. Most likely originating from his days of presenting sermons, this confident voice allows Emerson’s readers to generate ideas while having these ideas guided in the direction the essayist intended.
Sometimes, the essayist can be seen steering his audience in a certain direction through the use of multiple questions in succession. This can be seen in his essay “Circles” where he writes:
If a man should dedicate himself to the payment of notes, would not this be injustice? Does he owe no debt but money? And are all claims on him to be postponed to a landlord’s or banker’s? (180).
Here, Emerson is speaking of the disvalue of the individual in regards to the displacement of money. He makes the first sentence a question instead of a statement to compel his readers to think constructively about the point that is being made, rather than read passively through the point. He then poses the subsequent sentences to allow his reader a broader awareness of the question. Then, to ensure that his readers are engrossed in the question before he moves on, he ends the paragraph.
Emerson can also be seen using a series of questions in the twelfth paragraph of the same piece. In this paragraph, Emerson discusses the interest of idolizing others. He offers the idea that this interest is lost when the faults of the individual are exhibited. Then, as he is fittingly inclined to do, Emerson challenges the notion. He states “Has he talents? has he enterprises? has he knowledge? it boots not” (176). In this quote, Emerson poses a series of questions to make his reader think more deeply about his observance. However, unlike the previous quotation, here the essayist is seen placing the questions in one sentence (while even still making use of question marks.)
Because of this arrangement of questions in one sentence, Emerson drives his readers to think of the three questions as one idea—as opposed to the last quotation, where each question furthered the previous. Also unlike the last quotation, Emerson answers the quote himself at the end of the sentence, rather than ending the paragraph after the questions and allowing his readers time to think. Because he directly answers the questions and proceeds with his argument, the questions become more of a presentation of an idea than an invitation to contemplate. Here, Emerson uses questions as a means of furthering his present concept.
The third paragraph in the piece—as with many of the paragraphs succeeding it—is started with a succinct statement that presents the topic of the paragraph to the reader. He writes “There are no fixtures in nature” (174) and then goes on to say “The universe is fluid and volatile” (174). The two sentences are short and concise, as opposed to the majority of the piece in which Emerson creates longer sentences with elevated diction. Occasionally, his syntax will be inverted when he discusses topics using these long sentences and then summarizes them with more concise ones—such as the ones above.
In “Circles,” as well as his other essays, Emerson speaks of many transcendentalist ideas that most people (I would hope) have thought about at least a few times in their lives without any influence on the topic. Emerson nobly discusses these ideas in the event of others lacking to debate them on their own. However, his method of doing so is slightly skewed, for his style may be considered daunting to some individuals who are daft enough to have the misfortune of lacking understanding of his works.
That being said, Emerson’s understanding of this fact are evident. It is because of the reason previously stated that he uses the literary form he does when writing; Emerson is attempting to present his audience with not only his unfamiliar ideas but also intelligent speech. The concept is honorable and attainable, as can be seen throughout Emerson’s works. His idealistic views, while not pragmatic, are influential because of the distinct writing style Emerson practices. He knows how people read, how they write, and how they respond, and attempts to use this knowledge to disperse his indeologies where he sees fit.
“So much of nature as he is ignorant of, so much of his own mind does he not yet possess” (Emerson 58).
Throughout “The American Scholar”, Emerson discusses the concept that man is not separate from nature. Because this separation does not exist, man can never fully understand himself without understanding nature. Of course, this raises another question: how is man to begin learning of nature without learning of himself? A paradox indeed. The basic idea—if it may be simplified to be called so—is that all things are interconnected. The recognition of the means that links all of these forces together will bring about the knowledge of a scholar (as Emerson so puts it.)
The scholar, one of Emerson’s more prominent terms, may well in fact be the touchstone for such understandings. However, the scholar himself is constructed by the knowledge of prior generations through influences such as literature and art. It is through these influences that most—if not all—can strive to discover understanding. Yet, while he praises the arts, Emerson acknowledges that the stimuli are indeed subject to the influences of their time. Specifically books, which are always impacted by ideas and interests the author has gathered from previous works. Rather than reduce the legitimacy of these pieces, however, knowing that the concepts of most (if not all) books comes from older books strengthens the pieces’ validity by reaffirming the concepts within them. It is through the study of such pieces that one can gain knowledge about the mind of the past—another important influence in the nature of the scholar.
It is imperative that a scholar is subjected to the mind of the past because without it man can never understand the parameters of nature. Luckily, in modern society of the twenty-first century, it is nearly impossible for one to be sheltered entirely by ideals from the past; it comes to him through schooling, media, and social interaction. However, learning of past ideals does not necessarily mean approving of them. It is Emerson’s understanding that a true scholar is aware of the minds of the past without being reduced by them; while studying literature provides useful insight, it does not allow the absence of individual thought. A scholar is a complex thinker. A man who reads without censure is a man who reads blindly, merely accepting the text’s perspective while providing none of his own. This kind of reading establishes a follower, not a thinker.
Scholars think incessantly. Because they do so, they understand that they are not merely the livelihoods they assume, but individuals. Followers (as opposed to thinkers) may often come to think of themselves as their occupations, rather than as themselves pursuing a craft. Emerson says it best when he states “He sees his bushel and his cart, and nothing beyond, and sinks into the farmer, instead of Man on the farm” (Emerson 57). Scholars understand their worth as individuals, rather than their worth as members of a constructed society. Additionally, they understand that being individuals does not distinct them from being a part of nature.
It is important to note that Emerson does not use the term scholars in a traditional sense. When he discusses the scholar, he is not referring to a specialized academic, but an enlightened intellect. He admires these intellects to the extent that he advocates for their growth, as most complex thinkers would. He was trying to use his words to change the way people viewed themselves and those around them—to get people to think differently and abstractly. Whether or not he was successful in this endeavor is yet to be determined and, ultimately, has little relevance. As long as there are complex thinkers, there will be no absence of complex readers. These readers will apply censure to their practice and continue to present intelligent ideas as those before him have done. Man’s curiosity of himself is insatiable. Those Emerson refers to as scholars will continue to multiply, even if not to the extent for which the writer may have hoped.
Works Cited
Emerson, Ralph Waldo, Joel Porte, and Saundra Morris. Emerson’s Prose and Poetry. New York: W.W. Norton, 2001. Print.
Knock Upon Silence is a four part anthology of poems by Carolyn Kizer. All four of these parts contain sets of poems that vary in structural form but are similar in grammatical substance. Placing the four sections in one book allows readers to perceive not only the diversity of Kizer’s works but also the relationships between these diversities. This makes the piece an interesting text to study because multiple styles, techniques, and viewpoints can be learned by scrutinizing it.
The first and fourth sections of the work—titled “Chinese Imitations” and “Tu Fu Translations” respectively—are the closest two related section in the piece in terms of structure. Both consist of many one to two page poems in which the beginning of every line is capitalized, regardless of where the sentences begins and end. The stanzas of these short poems are generally between three and five lines and have no rhyme scheme. The major structural different between the two sections is the use of visuals on the final lines in the stanzas in each individual poem; these final lines are indented in the first section and generally italicized or followed by ellipsis in the fourth.
However, while the structural image of the two sections is similar, the content is not. In the first segment, Kizer uses metaphor to indirectly present ideas through her poems; in the fourth segment, Kizer uses imagery to create illustrations of certain settings. The differing content of the two displays how diverse Kizer is with her work.
The third section of the anthology is organized much like the two previously mentioned; the poems have no rhyme scheme and the first letter of all lines within the poems is capitalized. Being the shortest section in the piece at a mere nine pages, this part of the collection focuses on the idea of feminism (which is ironic seeing how the section is dedicated to two men.) Titled “from Pro Femina” since it is comprised of excerpts from one of her longer works, the piece is divided into three parts. The first part, in which Kizer directly address the reader as female, focuses on the faults of women through a perspective that (although is not openly stated to be so) appears male. The second part juxtaposes the first by addressing the cast that males are attempting to mold women into and how this cast does not fit the lifestyle of most males. The third part contrasts both of its predecessors by stating that women understand their inferiority to men and, therefore, are superior to them. Throughout all three parts, highly elevated diction is used to give intellectual breadth to the (presumably female) speaker. Additionally, unlike the previous sections, the stanzas in the third section of the book are unexpectedly long, ranging from half a page to almost a full page.
Dissimilar to the aforementioned sections entirely, section two of the book is made up of thirty pieces of poetry that come together to create the story that spans the length of an entire month. Being the only part of the book without a dedication, section two—titled “A Month in the Summer”—explores the similarities between structural poetry and prose. Kizer makes this point subtly by openly stating in the first stanza of the first piece that poetry directly follows the line. However, while what follows the line is indeed poetry, it is not poetically separate from the rest of the piece, but structurally dissimilar. In this way, Kizer almost challenges the reader’s understanding of prose by compelling him to comprehend the different connotations of prose and structural poetry and why she uses each one to discuss different understandings.
Kizer uses the mentioned difference to differentiate the mindset of the speaker in the story she’s created. The story itself is about a woman who, in just one month, transitions from being content in a somewhat stable relationship to having a pragmatic outlook on life without said bond. Throughout the poems in the piece, Kizer uses either prose presented in paragraph-form or the short indented layout she had previously described as a poem. In most cases, she uses both. For the sake of discussion, the latter shall be referred to as poetry while the former will be referred to as prose—although both are obvious examples of each.
Because she uses structural styles that are so distinctively different, Kizer allows the speaker of the story to change her attitude depending on which style the reader is experiencing. The prose style reads almost like a book: the metaphors are subtle and the language easily comprehendible. While using this style, the narrator has an undertone of pacified acceptance and is seen partaking in a lifestyle the audience would expect of a person going through a difficult separation. However, this lifestyle is seen as a farce when the perspective the poetry presents is added. Through the poetry, Kizer laces metaphors that display the mentality of the narrator when she does not wish to think about her own emotions. This mentality is often represented by surreal visions that are generally related to the situation. Yet, these visions advocate that the narrator’s internal expression rests exclusively on the separation of her and her lover, rather than the ordinary lifestyle depicted by the prose. The technique of placing both the poetry and the prose adjacent to one another allows Kizer to give her narrator more depth than a single perspective narrative would have.
Carolyn Kizer (who is growing to be one of my personal favorite poets) adds complexity to her writing voice in Knock Upon Silence. She does so by not only using a variety of different styles but also displaying these styles collectively. By placing the four pieces together, Kizer shows the reader several different elements and techniques of poetry and how writers are not restricted to one practice. She also shows the reader that a single piece can be comprised of several different elements, rather than being limited to just one. Through this method of example, Kizer uses Knock Upon Silence to interlace various writing styles and present the reader with an intellectual experience.
Style is one of the most difficult parts of a work to review. Throughout schooling, most students are taught only how to perform a literary analysis—a succinct form of assessment that explores the meanings and significance of the work being studied. However, a review on a work’s style (referred to as stylistic analysis) is much more complex. Unlike literary analyses, stylistic analyses study the way particular words, phrases, punctuation points, and other grammatical specimens are combined to evoke certain emotions, comprehensions, and reading habits from the reader himself.
Style can often pose problematic to critics of literary texts. The reason for this being that there are no definitive guidelines to style, as there is with something more concrete like grammar. Throughout the life of the English language, grammar has remained to be the standard practice by which all clauses in the language are dictated. However, while style can take certain suggestions from grammar, a highly stylistic piece of writing may have several grammatical errors. For example, an author might decide that a five line run-on is necessary in order to increase the reading speed of the reader. While not grammatically sound, this method is done in countless published works.
Because style does not always follow the general guidelines of grammar, it is often thought of to be its own form of linguistics. However, with all forms comes criticism. The criticism or study of style—referred to as most by the term stylistics—is generally divided up by author. Each author has his or her own style of writing which causes the reader of his or her works to feel a certain way. Similarly, these authors often consciously alter their styles of writing depending on the context of the story they are trying to tell. For example, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain is set in the early to mid-1800s. The story, as I am sure many avid readers are aware, involves a young southern boy faking his death and running away from home. Throughout the tale many slang terms are used, especially when referring to Huck’s Native-American companion Jim. Such terms do not actually reflect the beliefs or vocabulary of the writer, but by adding them Twain enables his audience to feel certain feelings for the characters using these terms. Additionally, when Jim himself speaks in the book, he has a distinct twang in his manner of speech; his words are often harder to understand than those of other characters and prove difficult to read aloud. This dialect is certainly not the one used by Twain, yet he changes his style of writing to make the story more believable.
Those who critique style may also find it necessary to divide their criticism by individual works of an author. Daniel Handler is a great example of an author whose style is seen to change frequently. Handler has written books for both child and young adult audiences. Because of the digression, he takes on a pseudonym of Lemony Snicket when he writes books intended for children. It stands to reason, then, that as a writer he must change his style for the appropriate audience to defend himself against the stylistic criticism of his separate audiences. His writing for young adults is much different from his writing for children for this reason. The two styles are so different, in fact, that unless one knew of the two authors being the same, one would probably not form a connection between them.
Because Handler’s writing is so diverse, stylistic critics are force to review the works separately. In this way, Handler can play with different words, sentence structure, and figures of speech to discover how his readers best react to these styles of writing; thus, Handler understands more about his target audience.
Stylistics can often be defined as the study of distinctive styles in an individual work. The criticism of style is important because it helps readers understand the writing process of the author. Intentional alterations in style may involve different varieties in which the writer expects the reader to read a piece. Concomitantly, studying style helps all writers gain new ideas to infuse in their own works. If one wishes to participate in stylistic criticism, he is ensured different perspectives and different practices.
If one is interested in pursuing his knowledge of style or the criticism of, I would highly recommend the following works:
Nils Erik Enkvist’s Linguistic Stylistics, which can be found in the Mason Library at Keene State College under the call number p301 .e6. Not only did I find this book to be extremely informative on the verses of style, but also I found it to be difficult to put down. The book primarily discusses the reasons we study style in a particular piece of literature and the importance of these reasons. It also discusses stylistics—as a whole—a branch of English that every field of study rates differently; a notion I cannot deny.
Additionally, I would also recommend Leo Spitzer’s Linguistics and Literary History: Essays in Stylistics (call number pn511 .s674 1962 in the Mason Library.) The work contains five lengthy essays (referred to as chapters) on linguistics and how the history of certain cultures brings about different styles in each. An example of this would be the second essay in the piece: “Linguistic Perspectivism in the Don Quijote”. While the book does not include an index—as the chapters are designed to be read in sequential order as articles and the consultation of a reference is not expected—it does provide notes for the reader after each chapter to specify the origins of the information contained within.
Alongside the two works just mentioned, The Territory of Language: Linguistics, Stylistics, and the Teaching of Composition by Donald A. McQuade also provides insight on the composition of stylistics. Much like the previous, this work is a collection of essays. McQuade has chosen the essays in this piece in hopes of revealing to the reader the connections between linguistics, stylistics, and the teaching of composition; McQuade hopes to join these three fields of English, rather than separating them, as is often the case. While this work is made for teachers who are having difficulty structuring their classes, I have found that it is also a good source of information on stylistic criticism. There are countless essays written by distinguished writers on the subject of style. Such essays include (but are not limited to) “Brain, Rhetoric, and Style” by W. Ross Winterowd, “Composition via Stylistics” by Louis T. Milic, and “Style through Control: The Pleasures of the Beginning Writer” by Sandra Schor. The resources of each essay are specified in the notes section in the back of the book. The book can be found in the Mason Library with a call number of pe1404 .t47 1987.
If anyone would care to view an example of stylistic analysis, I advise he or she to explore “Doing Stylistics: An Analysis of ‘(listen)’ by E. E. Cummings” by Dan McIntyre of Lancaster University. The piece is segmented into parts that help novices in the field of stylistic criticism break down the process by which the review is executed. It even includes more profound articles of style such as pacing and parallelism and includes notes and references succeeding the work.
English is the language that pertains to the culture, inhabitants, and ancestry of England. Over the past several decades, the English language has spread to many territories around the world—many being settlements of British emigrants—and has become a more influential factor in the medias of many cultures. These medias express themselves via outlets like literature and film, which help shape cultures in terms of interest. Through the study of English, it is a student’s duty to understand these effects and why they are important. This can be accomplished by having a keen insight of the way literature (especially) and film are established, along with understanding the reason for their establishment and the strategies that make the two so successful within their individual genres. It is only after an individual understands the basis for such influences that can he replicate them.
Because literature has such a large impact on society through mediums like early children’s stories, text books, and news articles, it is important that students pursuing a major in English strive to understand both the reasoning behind these texts and the impact these texts have on society. Once students understand the factors that make certain pieces so iconic, they can use those examples to shape their own style of writing, editing, teaching, or any other skill they choose to pursue after their education.
However, a major in English also stresses an understanding of communication; in order to write or speak to others in a clear way, an individual must know the proper ways of communicating with his colleagues. All of these skills can be learned through the courses listed below, which make up the rudimentary understandings of English.
Below is a list of classes that form the perspective of an English major. Please note that these courses do not include general education courses. The requirements are:
These classes form an English major because they portray the ideal of understanding texts and their relation to society. As an English major, it is a student’s duty to make the world an easier place to understand, whether it be through teaching literature or writing literature. The courses above shape these functions through example and application and help students understand that English is not simply a major; it is the way in which our ideas are communicated.
Academic curriculums are designed to enrich students with a wide variety of skills and proficiencies. Such skills, while divided into many subcategories, are generally classified as the four main courses of study: science, mathematics, social science, and language arts (occasionally divided into the topics of English writing and reading.) While all topics are necessary for a balanced skill set, many students decide to study mainly one by the time they reach college. However, within all classes of study, language arts proves an important skill through the form of the essay.
The majority of courses in high schools, colleges, and universities require some form of writing throughout the duration of the class. Often, this writing is presented in the form of an essay—a composition-like piece in which the author presents ideas or facts regarding a particular topic. Indeed, these pieces are so common that many students are taught formulaic strategies to construct these works as early as middle school.
However, it is not without reason that essays are one of the (if not the) most common way to present ideas in an academic setting. Essays show professors that a student not only can relate and expand upon ideas on a subject matter, but also can understand the English language. Essays build foundations of many critical writing skills such as vocabulary, parallelism, and tense usage—all of which make the communication of ideas between two people clearer.
Still, many students find it a chore to write essays because the main idea behind academic essays is (surprisingly) academics. Personally, I find essays to be either exciting to write or distressing to write; there is no in between. While I generally enjoy writing about many things, I find it excruciatingly tedious to write essays in which I merely dump data onto the page. Some instances of such assignments would be papers on histories of certain nations or the chemical aspects of certain sciences. However, I only dislike writing these kinds of papers because they do not allow me to apply my own personal thoughts to the topic and connect the ideas to other topics—which I consider to be the main point of most academic essays. Nevertheless, having written a considerable number of essays for academic settings, I would surmise that the entertainment value of writing essays is based mostly on what the writer puts into the process.
It is important to attempt making assignments as enjoyable as possible. This is because essays are often difficult to write when a student does not enjoy his subject matter. Most instructors can tell when their students have had a difficult time writing a piece by the way the piece reads; essays that are difficult to write are also difficult to read. This is crucial because when essays are difficult to read the reader does not always understand the idea the writer was trying to communicate. Unfortunately, throughout my academic career, I have produced such essays.
I had never liked writing much until my junior year in high school. Before then, my teachers were either unenthusiastic to help me improve my writing or unable to provide the help their good intentions sought. After taking a creative writing class the first semester of my junior year, I became fascinated with the art of storytelling. However, my teacher was not extremely supportive in helping her students grow as writers; rather, she modeled the class after the strong writers, praising them before the rest of the class.
It was then I decided that, if my instructor would not help me, I would help myself. I began reading different types of literature—books, poetry, comic strips, graphic novels. I read anything that mildly interested me and drew, from all of these texts, different linguistic styles. I tried applying many of these styles to my own writing, both academic and personal. Some worked well; others did not.
By second semester of the same year, I had gotten better at writing creative pieces. However, I had not had much time to work on my academic writing because the courses in which I had been enrolled had little or no writing requirements. Needless to say, my academic writing, while not ostentatiously atrocious, did not quite get me the grades I had hoped for. I learned this only after the first writing assignment of my second semester English class. While I do not remember exactly what the assignment was, I do remember that I received a C the report. Of course, a C is not necessarily something to be ashamed of, but it is not necessarily something to strive for either.
I talked to my teacher about my grade. We discussed my standings in her course and how I could improve my marks on future assignments. After our conversation, I paid avid attention to grammar and styles lessons in class and made sure to test out my newfound knowledge on the weekly writing exercises to which my instructor was so devoted.
However, despite my dedication to studies, the next essay still posed a problem. The class was assigned a fifteen page paper. The stipulations were not significant; the paper simply needed to be written about a controversial topic that was debated accurately and formally. Of course, by this point in my academic career I had never written an essay over five pages in length. Needless to say, I was slightly overwhelmed.
I decided to write on the topic of religious cults—not because I am religious or biased against certain religions, but because it was something I knew that I could write fifteen pages about. I was right, but not in the way I had hoped; a fifteen page paper is a fifteen page paper indeed. After an extensive amount of research and writing, the essay was at a good length but lacked the intellectual depth I had wanted it to exhibit. Against my better judgment, I turned in the paper and was greeted the following week with a B. It was not a perfect grade, but it was the one my paper deserved.
After the year ended and summer began, I started writing every day. I began with little pieces—a page of a story or a paragraph of an idea—but progressed into working on more long term pieces. By the end of the summer I had a few complete short stories, one half-finished long term piece, and many excerpts that were never finished and probably never will be.
Senior year, my English course was held off yet again until second semester. I tried to write as much as possible first semester, but my work load consumed the majority of my free time. By the time I had reached second semester, my writing had slowed considerably. However, much to my surprise, my absence of academic writing did not consume my knowledge of academic writing. That year I was asked to write two commonplace papers and one bioethics paper; to my astonishment, I received A’s on all of them.
I wrote the following summer and into my first semester of college, where I was faced with the fifteen to twenty page monster every student at Keene State is obliged to write as a requirement for the ITW course. Having not written an essay of such length since two years prior, I was less than prepared. Still, after spending countless nights in the library researching and twice that time organizing my ideas into a document, I had completed “A Lack of Ethics: Marginalizing the Structure of Animal Society for Human Education and Preservation”. The piece was seventeen pages in length and (unlike my controversial report on cults) presented all the ideas I was hoping for in the most concise package I could manage.
Ever since, I have written academic pieces for my other professors at Keene State, as well as many creative pieces for myself. While I am not proud of the majority of my academic works written during my high school years, I am quite pleased to say that those I have written in college have turned out to be (for the most part) considerably better. Of course, there are still many ways my writing can improve. However, my writing is something I always hope to improve and, therefore, never to perfect.
mblanchette3 ENG215 