Tuesday, January 31, 2012

learning journal 8: m-time and p-time

I have to say, I was sad to have missed class on Monday because I was looking forward to the discussion of Edward Hall's "Monochronic and Polychronic Time." I found the article very interesting. Hall's definition of the two organizations of time was astute, and I felt like he had done his research (mostly). I remember as a missionary in South America (sorry, missionary experience time), I was confronted with this difference in time organization frequently. Hall says that in "Latin America and the Middle East, North Americans can frequently be psychologically stressed. Immersed in a polychronic environment..." (265). South America (at least Uruguay) seems to have a firm grip on polychronic time, and I don't know if I would say I was "psychologically stressed" about it, but it was definitely notable. Time as a missionary is scheduled practically down to the minute; not a moment should be lost as a missionary. The people of Uruguay, though, seemed to look at time as Hall says here: "being on time simply doesn't mean the same thing as it does in the United States. Matters in a polychronic culture seem in a constant state of flux. Nothing is solid or firm, particularly plans for the future; even important plans may be changed right up to the last minute of execution." Making appointments with investigators was frustrating, and I can see know why it was so--and put a name to it. This is one example of the ways in which missionary work within the church can conflict with different cultures; missionaries have to not only learn the language of their country, but they should also learn the culture, and be able to interact with people in a way that will suit their organization of time. I think that made more sense in my head. Anyway, fields studies are obviously the same way. England, as a North European country, probably sees time in a monochronic manner, but equally it will be interesting to see if they are more or less monochronic than I was expecting them to be.

Moving on.

There were parts of Hall's argument that I had problems with. I don't want this to turn into a big gripe, and I promise it won't, but let me poke some holes in his argument. First of all, I had trouble with his constant descriptions of the "confused" or "distressed" Americans as they confront other cultures' views of time. This article, as well as some of the others we've read for the class, didn't acknowledge that these issues with time happen generally when one culture meets another: not only when Americans are confronted with other cultures. Any and every culture could find it difficult to understand another culture's organization of time. Just as we might have trouble adapting to time in Central American countries, so might they have trouble adapting to ours. It bothers me a little bit when they take the "let's blame ignorant Americans" attitude, when really it's typically a matter of one culture meeting another.

Also, I thought it strange that he spent so much time setting up the argument that some countries have a p-time organization and other countries have an m-time organization, then he turns around and talks about the times in terms of gender. I was jarred by his statement "M-time is male time and P-time is female time, and the ramifications of this difference are considerable." Oh REALLY? What "ramifications" is he talking about? It undermined his argument quite a bit to rely on gender stereotypes in order to discuss time. Yes, the gender stereotypes is where his argument started to fall apart for me. Any time an author relies on stereotypes it tips the reader off that the author is taking the easy way out. To continue to talk about time in gender stereotypes undermined his argument because then it's natural to start categorizing countries as inherently male or inherently female, while neither is a fair comparison. Ideologies of time seem to be more of a learned trait, so by saying that one time is male and one is female is confusing.

Also, after reading his last paragraph I wanted to poke my eyes out. Okay, I exaggerate, but still. This is his last sentence: "That is, they [the Japanese] shift to the monochronic mode and, characteristically, since these are technical matters, they outshine us..." What? I am not ready to make this ridiculous jump in logic. His language, like "technical matters," is so entirely vague that it's hard to know what he's even talking about. To say the Japanese outshine us because they shift from P-time to M-time more smoothly is a weirdly unwarranted conclusion. Unless he spent as much time with the Japanese as he has with Americans, I would be a little more willing to make that jump with him. Either way, though, this is completely subjective; therefore, he is again undermining himself.

The first part of this article was interesting and insightful, save for the moments of referring to us as the "distressed Americans," but the second half of the article soured the whole thing for me.

Sorry, Ed. If I was your writing teacher I'd tell you to take this one back to the drawing board.

annotated source 02/01

Milne, A.A. "Essays by A.A. Milne." Quotidiana. Ed. Patrick Madden. Nov 2007. Web. <http://essays.quotidiana.org/milne/>

I couldn't find a book collection of Milne's essays, but luckily Quotidiana.org has a healthy number of Milne essays online. Milne is another British essayist I am interested in studying. You probably know him as the author of the Winnie the Pooh books, but he was also an essayist, novelist, playwright, and journalist. Milne also has a quite unique, charming voice that pervades his essays. He also has fantastically beautiful sentences (e.g. "In their lily-leaved pool, sunk deep in the old flagged terrace, upon whose borders the blackbird whistles his early-morning song, they remind me of sundials and lavender and old delightful things.") Stylistically speaking, he does remind me a bit of GK Chesterton, but I don't know how well that comparison will hold up once I've spent more time studying them both. Milne also deals with mundane, everyday subjects, and because of this he becomes another example of a quotidian essayist who finds delight in the everyday. For example, he has an essay called "Goldfish," in which he meditates on a goldfish, beginning with this: "Let us talk about--well, anything you will. Goldfish, for instance." and then ends with "Which is all I want to say about goldfish." This is a perfect example of his essaying on the smallest, least "important" subjects. From these examples I have provided, you could also pick out another aspect of Milne's writing that I hope to emulate in my own writing: a conversational tone. The way he says "let's talk about goldfish," and "well, that's about all I have to say about goldfish" immediately invites the reader into the conversation, and Milne continues to be engaging and witty throughout. In short, Milne is another essayist in the pool of British (Londoner) essayists that I will enjoy studying while in England, and he will be fun to imitate in style.

Which is all I want to say about AA Milne.


Saturday, January 28, 2012

learning journal 7: talking to cemeteries

When I feel without inspiration, sometimes I like to look at a picture. 


And there's nothing that inspires me more than cemeteries. 


Let me tell you why: I love dead people. Also, cemeteries are so full of history and mystery and tragedy and melancholy that it sends me off into some sort of reverie. It's completely delightful and decidedly romantic. 


I mentioned in class on Friday that the deceased will be part of my audience as I explore my project question. I imagine that I'll spend as much time around cemeteries as I possibly can. You see, the classical essayists of London had resting places in London, and I intend to be familiar with the places they were laid to rest. There's something beautiful in studying the arc of life from birth to death, and I hope as much as I can to trace the lives of the authors that I study by seeing where their they intersected with London. Writing essays is studying lives, not only my own life but the lives of people around me, who have lived before me. Not only is it the study of lives, but it is the study of the world. You may think it odd, then, to hear me think that essays are often about the mundane things of life while I also say that they are the study of lives, the study of the word. I think the question lies in perspective. As Alexander Smith said, "the world is all around us, whispering essays, and the essayist need only be the world's amanuensis" (paraphrase). (Amanuensis: A literary or artistic assistant, in particular one who takes dictation or copies manuscripts.) In other words, the essayist must have the ability to discern and discover meaning from even the smallest things in life. The meaning of the world, in other words, can be found in the most mundane aspects of life. Sounds very Wordsworthian, yes, but asi es. 

annotated source 01/30

Chesterton, G.K. Selected Essays of G.K. Chesterton. Ed. Dorothy Collins. London: Methuen, 1955. Print.

This collection of essays was originally printed in 1949; however Chesterton originally published his essays in the late 19th/early 20th centuries. During his life, Chesterton was an illustrator and a journalist, and he wrote thousands of essays. Chesterton is an important British essayist, which is why he makes his way into my sources. From the essays of his that I've read, his writing seems to exemplify the classical British essay as I currently understand it. He maintains a clever and lighthearted tone, which is common among essayists but not universal; his topics are typically mundane, which is also common, ranging from a piece of chalk to idleness to toys to senselessness (which is an abstraction in and of itself, but he goes about it in an amusing way). To demonstrate an example of his charming language, let me favor you with the first sentence from his essay "On Lying in Bed":

"Lying in bed would be an altogether perfect and supreme example experience if only one had a coloured pencil long enough to draw on the ceiling."

Because of his tone, subject matter, carefully constructed sentences, and imagery, he is a perfect essayist to study while I'm in London. I will look forward to studying his writing and attempting to learn from his style.

Friday, January 27, 2012

learning journal 6: watching the english and other things

First, I wanted to share a word from Katie Fox that delighted me: pontificate. I also heard it in Scott Russell Sanders' interview, that I mentioned a few posts back, and it must have been fate because I read Fox within the next day or so.

Pontificate means this: to express one's opinions in a way considered annoyingly pompous and dogmatic.

Okay, so with that said, let me turn to Katie Fox. She seems to be surprisingly and delightfully frank in her writing, a trait that most people lack and I have come to appreciate when I find it. I would have loved to read her introduction along with Babbie's readings from last Friday. This is what she said, that I wanted Babbie to say the whole time I was reading him/her: "while participant observation has its limitations, this rather uneasy combination of involvement and detachment is still the best method we have for exploring the complexities of human cultures, so it will have to do" (4). Fox says outright that there is no perfect way to perform a field study, but proceeds to do the best she can. It's interesting, because she explained the process that most people have to go through when planning a field study. You have to confront the limitations of the study you are about to embark on; otherwise, if you attempt to find the "perfect" way, you will invariably fail. I guess there's another otherwise here: if you ignore the limitations inherent in field studies, you are in danger of believing your opinion to be the end all, be all of field studies. Arrogance will lead you down forbidden paths, paths full of pontification and blather.

We don't want that, do we?

Anyway, how does this relate to my project? My project, admittedly, won't be focused on studying contemporary British culture, although it will certainly be a part of it. Because I am focusing my studies on dead essayists, I will have a unique challenge of studying the past while still trying to observe and understand the present. And this will, naturally, mean that I have to decide what approach I will have when confronted with the living. It's something that I won't be able to get away from, something that I will have to decide. I will say up front that I don't plan on conducting formal interviews--my plans (as of right now) are to observe and, as Alexander Smith said, to keep my eye open to the "infinite suggestiveness of common things" so that I will be attune to people around me and talk to them when I am thus inspired to do so. And inspired by what? the spirit? the muse? who knows what.

All I know is that it is 2:30 am, and I am in the basement of my house doing homework as I have been doing for the past several hours, and I can hear my roommate snoring in the room above me, and I am going to bed.


annotated source 01/25


Meynell, Alice. Essays. London, 1914.

This collection of essays has an obvious connection to my project because Meynell was a Londoner who wrote essays; however, she, along with a few other female essayists of her time, has not in the past been considered canonical. It is likely because her essays may have garnered a smaller audience when she published them, but it also may be due to the face that she seems to be more of an undiscovered jewel in essaying. The essays in this collection that I’ve read chronicle more of her meditations on a subject rather than focusing on her life in general, which is beneficial because many essays of today are more autobiographical rather than essayistic. Autobiography, generally, goes along with the assumption that one’s life is important, so the point is to relay life experiences that the audience must hear. Essaying focuses more on perspective; the writer’s perception of the world around him or her is given more priority than his or her inherent importance. So in this light, Meynell’s essays will give me good experience balancing perception with life experience (and how to do that without being superfluous). I will also enjoy learning more about Meynell’s life in London, and what kind of audience originally received her essays. 

annotated source 01/23

Sanders, Scott Russell. "The Singular First Person." Essays on the Essay: Redefining the Genre. Ed. Alexander J. Butrym. Athens: U of Georgia, 1989. Print.


This is, as the title of the book it comes from suggests, an “essay on the essay.” Sanders starts out by describing a scene of a man standing on a soapbox speaking to the people as they walked by on the busy streets of some unnamed city. The essayist, Sanders argues, is much like a soapbox orator because of the fact that “the essayist has nowhere to hide,” when he/she writes. Unlike writers of fiction or playwrights who can hide behind a narrative or script, the essayist’s thoughts and soul are out in the open for the reader to accept (or reject). Sanders says, “the essay is the closest thing we have, on paper, to a record of the individual mind at work and at play. Sanders is another great tool to have in my belt as I set out to define the essay form for myself. His frank manner of describing an essay will be helpful as I study other essayists—I can see which essayists dwell within the classical form which Sanders describes, and where essayists might deviate from a classical form. One moment of Sanders’ essay that I particularly enjoyed and that will be particularly helpful to me is when he talks about the tangential aspect of essays—“chasing rabbits,” he calls it. Chasing rabbits is going off on tangents as one would never do in a formal or academic paper; it is the delightful meandering that is characteristic of an essay. It is one that is difficult to imitate, thought, because as Sanders admits, you can’t deviate too much but if you deviate too little, your reader will be bored. So this will be something to practice in my own writing. As far as my project differing from this, my project will be an adopting of these forms in my own writing, so it will be different because I will be working on application instead of just defining.
 

annotated source 01/20

Woolf, Virginia. The London Scene: Six Essays on London Life. New York: Harper Collins, 1975. Print.


Virginia Woolf is another of my favorite essayists. She has such a perceptive eye that, more and more, I am finding to be essential in writing essays. The main purpose of this book could probably be summed up as such: a celebration of London, the city that Woolf loved dearly. Francine Prose, who wrote the introduction to this book, said that “Woolf managed to capture something eternal and unchanging about London: its vivid bustle, its energy, its pride in its role as the center of commerce and culture, of government and godliness” (xii). This quote sums up what Woolf accomplishes in these essays. She basically walks through London and talks to the reader on the way, which is completely delightful. Woolf, of course, writes as only she can and her essays about London illustrate her love of the city and the wonderful vibe the city has. As I read her essays, I can (probably very literally) trace her steps down the streets of London. While I will see many changes that have occurred since Woolf wrote the essays, most importantly I will be finding similarities and connections between her London and the London I will be experiencing. When I sit down to write essays inspired by Virginia Woolf, I am excited to see where her walks through London will take me. 
 

annotated source 01/18

Smith, Alexander. "On the Writing of Essays." Quotidiana. Ed. Patrick Madden. 27 October 2006. Web. 

I've already mentioned that I have some sort of weird crush on Alexander Smith. Rather than bore you with the details of my fixation, I will instead annotate the source. You can meditate on his wonderfulness on your own. Smith's purpose in writing this essay seems to be essentially theoretical--he explores the essay as a genre by exploring its different facets and explaining what he believes the essay to be (according to his own writing as well as the writing of Montaigne and other essayists). Smith writes, "a quick ear and eye, an ability to discern the infinite suggestiveness of common things, a brooding meditative spirit, are all that the essayist requires to start business with." Rather than just fill space, this quote really gets down to the core of the personal essay. Smith posits that all an essayist needs to write is a keen perception of the common, mundane, everyday things. This is essential to my writing because in order to be an essayist, you have to understand the importance of the everyday, the quiet moments in life that most people pass by without a second thought. So my love Alexander will help me achieve this in my writing by guiding me, as Lopate does, through the nuances of the personal essay. 

Because you don't need grandeur to find joy, or fame and glory to write essays. 

annotated source 01/13

Lopate, Phillip. "Introduction." Art of the Personal Essay: An Anthology from the Classical Era to the Present. Ed. Phillip Lopate. New York: Anchor, 1995. Print.

Lopate's anthology Art of the Personal Essay is practically the bible of personal essays, and his introduction gives readers a theoretical background and foundation for the rest of the anthology (which is why I chose the introduction alone for this source). Lopate defines personal essays by their characteristics, namely: "The Controversial Element," "Honesty, Confession, and Privacy," "Contradictions and Expansions of the Self," "The Role of Contrariety," "The Idler Figure," etc. (PHEW!). The list does go on, but you get the idea. Within these characteristics, he explains using examples from the classical essayists whom he includes in the anthology (Montaigne, Lamb, Hazlitt, Seneca, etc.), and he builds his ethos by relying not only on his own knowledge but on the knowledge and opinion of his essay predecessors. This is an extremely helpful theoretical piece, because he delineates so many points of the essay that I will be studying as I read in London. Lopate's introduction can tell me what makes Charles Lamb an essayist instead of just a nonfiction writer, for example.

So when I write in my own voice, he will be very helpful because I can go back and analyze the elements of essays that I wish to imitate stylistically.

annotated source 01/11

Lamb, Charles. Essays of Elia. Iowa City: U of Iowa, 2003. Print.

Originally published in 1823, Essays of Elia is a collection of personal essays containing Lamb's musings and observations of life. Although creative nonfiction is autobiographical in nature, Lamb's personal essays avoid a chronological view of time. In the introduction, Lamb is hailed as "a cornerstone of the personal essay tradition." This statement justifies his position as one of the central essayists I'll be studying while in London. Lamb is one of the most important--if not the most important--British essayists in all of time, forever, the end. He merits such high praise because his writing exemplifies the classical essay at its best; in his essays, he starts with one idea or event and meditates on it, sometimes drawing a conclusion and sometimes just letting his thoughts rest on the question. His work will be a major part of my field study as I will be studying Lamb in his own city--London. I will be able to read his essays and more fully understand the context in which he wrote.

And then I will write. Using Lamb as a guide will give me plenty to experiment with, and using his city as inspiration will give me plenty to write about.

Everybody wins.

Tuesday, January 24, 2012

learning journal 5: rosemary's plight

Our activity in class was interesting, and I wondered what conclusions and insights I could draw from it until this morning, when I watched an interview with essayist Scott Russell Sanders. Sanders, talking about essaying, mentioned that an essayist's job is not to impose meaning, but discover it. As I was listening, I questioned the difference between discovering and imposing--because sharing meaning in an essay or story could seem like discovering and imposing depending on the audience.

And then I thought of Rosemary. In our small group discussion, Rosemary was slammed because she traded her virtue for a boat ride across the river (granted, the boat ride was necessary to her meeting Hernando, but I'm still convinced there must have been different options). In our culture, it could be seen as a lesser sacrifice, because we are discouraged from sacrificing our morals as a means to an end. BUT, as I thought of Sanders' interview, I realized that I was imposing my cultural and moral values onto Rosemary's story, which was unfair because we weren't presented with more details about the culture she was raised in. And beyond that, Hernando himself could have had a different set of values, which is why he so harshly rejected her in a moment when she could have used a little mercy.

The point is this: we often make snap judgments based on our cultural norms and religious values, when in reality others may not (and probably do not) share our beliefs and customs. Going into a different culture makes this more apparent, and more than likely it brings out either the best or worst in our own characters. If we are willing to take a step back from judgment, and not impose our cultural meaning onto another people, we are more likely to learn from them. For example, if we go into a culture that doesn't value marriage and chastity as highly as us with our LDS beliefs, we may be inclined to pass judgment when they are more promiscuous than we are. In this case, we are imposing our values on them because they haven't had the same upbringing as we have. If we were missionaries, we would have a chance to share the gospel with them and hope that they would learn to respect their virtue; if not, we could be examples without having the attitude that we are better because we have the gospel. Indeed, the more we judge, the less likely they will be to allow us to study their culture. Anyway. Imposing meaning versus discovering meaning may mean different things depending on our particular projects, but the point is that we have to realize that our imposing our cultural meaning on other people is a harmful attitude when trying to understand another culture.

Putting oneself on a pedestal is not the way to go.

Saturday, January 21, 2012

learning journal 4: thoughts on babbie

I had to employ a bit of extra-creative critical thinking as I was relating Babbie's readings to my own project, so I hope I can relate some of that thinking in a clear and concise way. I plan to focus this post on Babbie's section "The Various Roles of the Observer."

In this section, Babbie describes the difference between and a complete participant and a complete observer. A complete participant obviously participates in whatever he or she is observing; a complete observer, though, is more of a fly on the wall. I wondered, because I am going to be studying writers of the classical British essayist, how can I be anything but a complete observer because the men and women I'm going to be researching are all DEAD? Certainly, there are contemporary essayists that write in the tradition of the classical essay, but my studies will be focused on the deceased. But then I realized that studying deceased essayists will only be half of my project: the other half will be to incorporate their writing style into my own writing. So as I write, what will my role be?

The actual act of writing, of course, involves sitting down with pen to paper or fingers to keyboard. But, especially for a nonfiction writer, eventually the writer has to stop reading books and actually getting out and living. Which, for me, means that as I writer I will have to live while I'm in London, and to do that I will have to be more than a complete observer. But the beauty about being an essayist is that it doesn't matter what exactly I do, I will always be able to find topics to write about. As essayist Alexander Smith says,

"The essay-writer has no lack of subject-matter. He has the day that is passing over his head; and, if unsatisfied with that, he has the world’s six thousand years to depasture his gay or serious humour upon."
<---- Alexander Smith


So, according to this, I suppose I could be a complete observer and write essays. But better than this will be an attempt to participate in London life--in experiencing the history of the place, in interacting with people (people in bookstores, people in markets, people on the Tube, people who catch my fancy in any way), in eating the food, in walking across the bridges over the Thames at sunrise or sunset. Being a complete participant, in a way, doesn't necessarily mean that I will have to interview people, but it does mean that I will have to live life in London as Londoners do--and it will be my mission to find out how I will do that.

I think that's it.


Friday, January 20, 2012

25 questions and research question

Research question:

How can I take the principles and techniques of the classical British essay and incorporate them into my own writing? 

Notes: 

My project will be two fold: reading classical essays and writing in the style of classical essays. Obviously, it will entail a few more details than that, but to put it simplistically, that's it. As far as reading goes, I will study some essayists more intensively, like Charles Lamb, William Hazlitt, Virginia Woolf, Alexander Smith, Robert Louis Stevenson, Alice Meynell, Vernon Lee, etc., then I will read other essays that pertain directly to London as a place. I will study the authors and their essays in context by examining how they intersected with London, and with that, I will look at how they crafted their essays. Etc. 



1) What are the specific dates for the program? (beginning and ending)
2) When paying tuition, will we be paying for both Spring and Summer terms separately or will it be the equivalent of a regular semester where it's all taken out at once?
3) Can our group have a regular schedule for seeing musicals and other plays together?
4) How much time will we be spending with our group members?
5) Can we occasionally tag along with each other to learn more about other group members' projects?
6) I'm a little confused because I've heard both yes and no to this question: are we actually finding our own housing or are the facilitators in charge of that?
7) How do we start the process of getting a library card to the British Library?
8) Because my project is studying essayists and writing in their style, there are a few Scottish essayists it would be a shame not to research. How plausible would it be to spend a week or two in Scotland studying the Scottish essayists? (I know that outside traveling is a no, but if it will pertain directly to my project, would it be possible?) One more note on this: if this would be possible, it might be optimal to schedule this week during the busy times around the Olympic games.
9) How much should I pack?
10) What if my host family are completely psychotic?
11) Will I eat meals with my host family?
12) If so, is it typically three meals a day or would I be responsible for one or more meals on my own?
13) Or, are the meals dependent on the specific host family that I stay with?
14) How do host families typically react to BYU students?
15) Are most host families familiar with the LDS church?
16) How do you approach the subject of the church with a host family?
17) Is it possible that we would be living with one of our group members with the same host family?
18) Will we be able to attend an event in the Olympic games?
19) When I was on my study abroad, the ward members in the branch that I attended seemed to be a little hesitant to welcome us because they knew we would be leaving soon anyway. Is this typical for students to see this or was my experience unique?
20) If I find my project taking a different turn than I expected (as far as writing, or essayists I'm studying), how much autonomy do I have to revise my project in the field?
21) Where could I find examples of syllabi that other field study students have done to organize their projects into a specific schedule?
22) About how many hours a day is it typical to be working on my project?
23) After completing my planned activities and research for the day, do I have liberty to participate in whatever activities I choose? (such as sporting events, museum/show going, etc.)
24) How much time do you typically spend with your host family? 
25) Is there a list of London's literary museums I could take a gander at? 

Thursday, January 19, 2012

learning journal 3: thoughts on history

There is one dilemma that we discussed in class as we discussed the history of England:

How do you summarize London's history into such a short time? 

It's impossible, surely, to summarize thousands of years of London's history into a few class periods--I'm not entirely convinced that it could happen thoroughly in a semester.

That aside, the most important question I came away considering is this: how I will connect the history of London with my own project? I don't know that I've entirely figured out the answer, but I know that the most important way that history will interact with my own project is by studying the history of the essayists that I will be reading. In literature courses, we typically turn to authors' lives and the times they lived in to get an idea of the context in which the text was written. So by studying the history of the essayists I'll be reading, I can connect their personal history with events and happenings that were occurring as they lived and worked and wrote. The ways that these authors intersected with general history of London (and England in general) will be good ground for analysis and discovery.

For example, studying the life of Charles Lamb will tell you that he was was born in 1775 and died in 1834. His parents had seven children, only three of which lived to adulthood. When Lamb was twenty, he experienced a horrible tragedy in his family life: his sister Mary, in a bout of temporary insanity, stabbed to death their mother and critically wounded their father. Because of her mental illness, she was released from prison, and Charles ended up taking care of her his whole life. Because of the shock, Lamb ended up having a mental breakdown himself and spending time in the asylum. What would be interesting to study historically with this specific story from his life is to look at how mental illness was treated and handled during that time period. Because my project is to write in the style of the classical British essay, this information may not seem completely vital, but it's interesting to get a larger picture of the authors I'm going to be studying. 

Especially considering the fact that with all Charles Lamb wrote about his life, he never once mentioned his family tragedy.

Interesting.



Tuesday, January 17, 2012

learning journal 2: culture in photographs

If anyone would be guilty of romanticizing London, it would be me. But I'm a writer, so I'm allowed my fair share of sentimentalism, right? (:

In all seriousness, I know every city has its light and its dark, and London is not exempt from its fair share of trash. Nevertheless, I love London's culture. So this week I'm giving a tribute in photographs, while I point out different aspects of London culture that my section discussed:


One thing we discussed in class was the blend of old and new that London does so fantastically well. The London skyline is decorated with architecture hundreds of years old side by side with modern architecture, and the two styles seem to coexist peacefully


This is a good example of blending architectural styles--St Paul's cathedral, the lovely landmark pictured here, is visible from the Millenium footbridge, which is a more modern addition


Not much to say, I just love this one. There are so many facets of this city, from the Tube to the buses and busy streets and bridges. The bridges are fantastic


Ah look! Here's St Paul's again, with the British flag and a double-decker bus. Three big London hits in one photo. Really, though, I felt like this was a good example of the narrow streets and close quarters. There's the bus, and look how close the buildings are to it! and then the people... yes, oh yes. London is a busy place


What would London be like without the Globe? One thing this exemplifies is the respect that Londoners have for their history. This, of course, isn't the original Globe, but a beautifully reconstructed theatre takes its place as actors take the stage to perform Shakespeare's brilliant plays


This is one of my favorite sculptures/chandeliers in London (@ the Victoria and Albert museum). It's also another example of the fantastically blended modern art with the more classical architecture. Random note: the man who designed this chandelier also designed one for the Abravanel Hall in SLC--theirs is red, though, not green and blue


One thing London values is ceremony. They certainly know how to march around in uniform. I think the changing of the guard is one of my favorite ceremonies, come to think of it, because it seems at first thought completely purposeless to have so much pomp related to something as small as the changing of the guard. However, their attachment to ceremony is commendable, and I can appreciate the fact that sometimes ceremony itself is purpose enough. Pictured here, though, is not the changing of the guard, but the Trooping of the Colours, which is a celebration of the Queen's birthday


Ah, yes. Here's one thing we don't have in America. A QUEEN. Yes, folks, I saw Queen Elizabeth II in her lovely lilac and fantastically flowered hat. She is beautiful, isn't she?


My last few pictures exemplify London's never-failing talent of surprising me. You never know, in London, when you're going to walk around the corner and see giant furniture made out of turf, or 


beautiful graffiti art (this picture seriously doesn't do the whole scene justice. It's astounding)


Also, on my final note, I'd like to say that London knows how to put on Macbeth. I have a jacket stained with stage blood to prove it!


Thursday, January 12, 2012

learning journal 1: a word on culture

When I reflect on culture, my mind instinctively refers back to the most drastic encounter I've had with a different culture. Maybe drastic is the wrong word; apparent, blatant, or obvious may be better words to describe my experience living as a missionary for 18 months in Uruguay.

I expected it to be different, and I was right in that it was different--but I never could have guessed or predicted the things I would learn from the Uruguayan culture. Being a missionary is obviously different than, say, a field study or a sightseeing trip, in that missionary work brings along with it the culture and customs of the LDS church. Sometimes it was difficult to separate the culture of church I'm familiar with to the culture of the church found in Uruguay. I was put off at the beginning by the casual nature of church meetings, by the different interpretations of temple and gospel covenants, by the frankly honest (and in my opinion, rude) comments that members frequently made. It took me awhile to appreciate the beauty of what the people of Uruguay brought to the gospel, and it took me awhile to see their spirituality and the sincerity of their prayers. Once I started to see the differences as reflections of their culture, I started to appreciate our differences.

I appreciated their honesty. When they were talking about another person, they aren't afraid to say, "oh, yeah, the fat one" or "the one with the big nose" as reference points. While at first I considered this a little rude, I started to recognize that when, in American culture, we are referring to someone we do all we can to "nicefy" any defects in their person. "oh yes, he's the one who is slightly rotund," or "large-framed," or some other euphemism that helps us avoid the elephant in the room.

I also appreciated their peacefulness. They took siestas and hardly ever over scheduled themselves and sat around in the evening drinking mate with their amigos.

Yes, I realize that I am stereotyping to some extent, but you get the idea.


And the thought that I can appreciate the culture of London as completely different than my own inherent culture is exciting. While I did spend six weeks in London, I felt that I didn't even scratch the surface of their culture. What I did see, like the general reservedness that first seems like coldness but is in essence politeness (yes, I'm addicted to -ness in this sentence), or the pride in their ancient heritage (age over size), helped me begin to see the persona of a Londoner. So yes, I am looking forward to expanded my knowledge of their culture and learn what I can from them.

Yup, that's all for today.



Tuesday, January 10, 2012

why am i doing this?

That's a good question. When I question my motivation for participating in a field study, I can trace my train of thought back to the moment I received the email from Dave Schuller encouraging former study abroad students to participate in field studies. First, I jumped at the chance to go back to London--I love London, and I haven't stopped thinking about going back since the study abroad I went on in 2010. I realized, as I learned more about field studies, that it was an independent, almost completely autonomous experience where I can study what is most relevant to what I want and need. This was an important turn of mind for me; I realized that I could make this field study entirely relevant to my studies in a creative writing master's program.

First, the classical British essay is fundamentally important to my studies in the genre. Essayists like Charles Lamb, William Hazlitt, GK Chesterton, and Virginia Woolf all published in London and interacted with the city and culture. What better way to gain an experience in the classical essay than to study in the place where many of the canonical personal essays were created? London is also hub to so many of the subjects and topics that interest me--food, travel, family history, to name a few--and exploring these subjects in the context of learning about the classical British essay is nothing short of a magical possibility to me.

I don't know if this is completely answering the prompt, but to zoom out to a more general motivation, I want to participate in this field study because I want to learn from the culture of London, of England, and I want to gain experience through receiving insight into different viewpoints and perspectives. I admit, when I did the study abroad to London, I was more concerned with seeing London than I was with much else. There is, indeed, much to see. But this time I hope to not only see, but learn from London and to make it a part of myself.

And that's why I'm going.