Lyotard and O'Hara

The first of these reading assignments, Introduction to The Postmodern Condition, is perhaps maybe one of the most confusing pieces of literature I have ever read. So confusing that I'm not going to fill a blog post with what I barely understand from it. But I will say this about the piece Lyotard does discuss something to the effect that even though narratives are not based on "proven facts" there is still some merit to what is personal truth. That truth can be just as powerful. The second reading Personism: A Manifesto, discusses poetry, minimalism, and something he made up called personism. Personism is the idea that it is better to keep poetry between the poet and the intended audience, and to keep it only to that. That manifesto overall is relatively entertaining and says some very philosophical ideas, such as: "But that’s not why you fell in love in the first place, just to hang onto life, so you have to take your chances and try to avoid being logical. Pain always produces logic, which is very bad for you."

"Keeping Close to Home"

"Keeping Close to Home," brings some interesting racial issues to surface, from a African-American woman's perspective. She discusses issues like assimilation and her basic struggles or just life as an educated black woman. One of the more interesting points I thought that she brought up on the issue of assimilation was that assimilating might allow an African-American to be more successful, however, it is important to stay in touch with their people in order to make a difference to your people. Another issue I thought was very interesting was what she said on language, which does not just pertain to African-Americans. She says on page 233, "If I do not speak in a language that can be understood, then there is little chance for dialogue." That is true in any situation, you have been understood if you want people to listen and react to your message. Overall, I very much enjoyed her essay.

From a Native Daughter

Haunani-Kay Trask's essay, "From a Native Daughter," discusses the differences between the Hawaiian history she had learned from her native relatives and the recorded "western" history. I do agree that most of the history I have read about Hawaii describes the islands as a savage, uncivilized place, and most of this history is written by the western (white) man. Thus, the native Native Hawaiian history is lost. I think this happens in many historical events. For example, often times there is a difference between the way the Civil War is taught in parts of the U.S. I think that most of these differences boil down to a simple difference in opinion and outlook. Nearly any kind of story you tell is going to be different than how your friend tells it, for example. I think it is just human nature to bend and twist things into your favor, but it doesn't make it right.

"Blaxicans"

Richard Rodriguez's "Blaxicans and Other Reinvented Americans," brings racial issues to the table. He discusses how he feels he has lost his identity as a Mexican-American in the mush of politically correct terms like "Hispanic." He also mentions how America is no longer a "black-white" nation because of the mixing of races and cultures. One quote I think puts it best is, "The girl said "Blaxican." By reinventing language, she is reinventing America. " (p. 422). He is saying how there is no longer separated races, that America has completely blended. I totally agree. I think back to my friends, my friend Radha is Indian, my friend Guillermo is part Mexican, my other friend Guillermo is Peruvian, and my friend Serena is Japanese. But it wasn't until know that I really focused on that. We all blend together. Back to the first issue he presents, I do feel that some of those p.c. terms just erase the racial identities that immigrants/minorities do have.

Looking Around and The Moral Point of View

This latest reading from Lamott's Bird By Bird gives more insightful and interesting bits of advice for any writer novice to advanced. In Looking Around, she stresses the idea of how it is a writer's job to present a new vision of pre-established ideas to their readers. I think this is basically the goal of all writing, who really writes to present the same ideas as someone else? Of course we all want to bring fresh, new ideas to the table. In The Moral Point of View, she mentions how moral position is not a message, but rather what you truly care about. Basically, she is telling the reader to write about what they care about, and what they like. She actually says, "So write about the things that are most important to you." (p.108). I agree with this; however, we do not always have this luxury. Anyway, I do believe that when you are either writing or speaking about something you are passionate about, it is the most interesting or simply just the best work you'll do.

Subjectivity

I think that subjectivity played a large part in the structure of my essay and the structure of any critical essay. I think in my essay it basically fueled the whole thing. My whole essay's basis ended up being what I thought of the two pieces of art. For example, my whole premise behind the body paragraphs on the pieces of art was what I thought of them, without backing up my opinion. Subjectivity can be as effective as factual evidence. For example, most of Susan Sontag's "In Pluto's Cave," is just her opinion without factual evidence, but it just as effective as factual evidence. However, within her article she does also back up some of her opinions, which I think it is necessary to eventually do that in order to have any of your opinions taken seriously. In regards to my paper, I could use more factual evidence in order to have my opinions to be taken more as truth. Ultimately, I believe opinion should drive this paper, because it about what I think is art. Thus, I think I could have used even more personal thought or personal examples to prove my point.

Getting Off Topic

When writing an essay it makes it more effective to get off the topic and quickly associate it to the ultimate goal of the essay. For example, Nancy Sommers' "I Stand Here Writing," is an essay that takes several different "off topic" stories and relates to one central theme. This allows the paper to be more personal and also allows it to have more a creative flow. In addition, in Sommers' article it allows her to freely move from example to example and cover many different kinds of examples. It allows to her to talk about her own personal accounts as well as other examples from her life. I think in my paper that would have helped because it would have made it easier for me to move out of the five-paragraph theme structure. The task of having to associate the "off topic" story/example to the central theme forces you to move out of the strict five-paragraph model. Also, it would have made my paper more interesting. It wouldn't just be a critical view of to pieces of art; it would have some kind of personal touch. Also, it would read more like a natural train of thought, than an essay.