Saturday, February 25, 2012

learning journal 03.02: found poetry

This is going to be an unconventional post, but I wanted to experiment around a bit. You see, I feel like (as I've mentioned, and as Alexander Smith first said) an essayist is to be the world's amanuensis, or scribe, to find the beauty in the everyday and the quotidian--to discern the "infinite suggestiveness of common things." I recently discovered what is called "found poetry," which is a type of poetry in which the writer finds poetic language in places where poetry wasn't originally intended: travel guides, book reviews, handman's guides, or other unexpected places, and arranges it to make it look like a poem. The reason I wanted to experiment with this is because I wanted to practice finding beauty in unexpected places. I have really enjoyed "finding" poetry, because it has helped me to see that there is poetry and beauty everywhere, even on water bottles. 

In the field, I want to be able to see the world in a different light, to see beauty in unexpected places. I feel like the classical British essayists were experts in this, and I need the practice. Which is what I will be doing in the field!

Here are some of my experiments. Enjoy:


Smart Water bottle

Vapor 
distilled water
and electrolytes 
      for taste

Isaiah 4:5

And the Lord will 
      create
upon every dwelling-place 
                   of mount Zion
a cloud and smoke 
     by day
and the shining of a flaming fire
     by night: 

for upon all the glory
    shall be 
                   defense. 

How to Capture Genius

Wow.

What to say about this dense tome
of creativity?

This is an amazing collection
(from ancient Sumer
to modern Borges)    of human thought.

 It explores the development,
experimentations,
broadenings,
explorations,
of the essay
                   over time,

(and even though it clocks in at almost 700 pages)
 it leaves you wanting to read
much more.

You know,
this is just a taste of mankind's genius
and, like a child discovering gourmet cooking

realize

that there is a whole world of unknown feasts awaiting.

Praise
 praise
  praise.

a pleased customer reviewing John D’Agata’s The Lost Origins of the Essay

learning journal 02.29: myers-briggs personality test

I followed the lead of Kayla and Ari in writing a learning journal about the Myers-Briggs personality test. I'd taken it before because, let's face it, I'm a little obsessed with personality tests (color code test? I'm a blue/white). But I've never analyzed it or even thought about it in relation to my field study project, or my career path in general. Based on the test, here's what I am: 


ISFJ (Introverted, Sensing, Feeling, Judging)
Here's the breakdown: 

  • distinctively expressed introvert
  • moderately expressed sensing personality
  • moderately expressed feeling personality
  • moderately expressed judging personality
My personality type is called the "protector." Apparently, protectors make up as much as 10% of the population, which is fortunate, according to the website, because their primary interest is the safety and security of those they care about. We care about stability, service to others, and a sense of heritage and tradition. This makes a lot of sense because I do really well in a stable environment where things aren't subject to constant change. I always knew I as introverted; I love to be around people, but I typically enjoy a small gathering of good friends over a large gathering of friends and acquaintances (which is probably why I typically avoid single's ward activities! ha). I am shy, and at first meeting I may come off as cold or stiff (which is exactly what my personality profile says), but according to the website I'm a "warm-hearted and sympathetic" person. I'll take that. Where it gets interesting, though, is what the website says about the typical career choices for protectors. It says they avoid positions of leadership because they don't like to be in the limelight (I can't think of anything more true. In fact, I have a story about that. Yesterday I was in a store trying on clothes, and I had come out of the dressing room to show my friend Paige, and the salesperson came by and stopped in front of the dressing room and started commenting on my outfit and how cute it was--and she wouldn't go away! she just kept talking and it was super awkward because I hate too much attention. it just goes to show that even in small groups, too much attention is super awkward for me.) Anyway, the website also said that protectors often seek careers in education or social service; also, they if they seek technical careers they typically like to be independent in their jobs, like in photography or something. Although it doesn't mention this specifically, my love of writing fits in perfectly with this because I do love the idea of being independent, while still being in a position to contribute to society, and have confidence in my abilities (which I still need to work on). It also makes sense that my profile mentioned that protectors often seek careers in education; I love teaching, and I think a combination of teaching and writing would be the ideal career for me. I mean, I would love to be able to write full time, but teaching is probably a more stable "real" job while I write. Well, at least that's the plan. I plan, but I am also open for change. Whatever comes, writing will be part of it. 

The love of independence lends itself well to a field study program. As far as my specific project goes, studying dead people and writing is a project perfectly designed for an introvert--I know that it doesn't require an introvert, but someone who is perfectly content being alone for periods of time is suited for the job. Rather than overanalyze the whole thing, but it's interesting to think about how my personality lends itself to a field study, as well as lending itself to the career path I've chosen. 

learning journal 02.27: inquiry conference

I attended the Cultural Influences on Qualitative Methods panel at the Inquiry Conference, which provided some interesting food for thought about field studies in general. It was neat to see how individual the project were; of the four presenters I saw, each of their projects were unique and seemed tailored to their courses of study. Field studies really can apply to any student who is willing to put some decent thought into a project--anywhere from creative writing to statistics (here's to you, Ari!). All in all, the Inquiry Conference made me even more excited to be in the field.

A couple of the presenters' projects were particularly interesting to me: Natalie Schultheis' project about maternal hopes and expectations for their daughters in rural Mexico and Rebekah Monahan's project about societal food changes in German food culture. Natalie's presentation was interesting because of the insight it gave into rural Mexican women's views on marriage and education. Many times we take for granted all the opportunities for education we have in the USA, and that we (women and men alike) are encouraged to get an education. While that is true, it was also neat to hear what those women wanted for their daughters--whether or not it was education and a career or marriage, they wanted their daughters to be secure and to be taken care of. This shows that no matter how different they may be when it comes to views on marriage and education, essentially we're all the same; we all want the best for our families, and mothers want their daughters to be secure and safe whether you're talking about a rural Mexican town or big city in the USA. While our some value systems may be different, we still love family. 

Also, food. Yes, Rebekah's presentation was really neat. Some of it was expected--I expected to hear about the limited food supply and all that, but what I didn't expect was that the German women actually felt nostalgic about the times when food was simpler because that was all there was available--they saw that once the food limitations were lifted, there were more allergies and health problems because people didn't eat as simply and healthily. This is something we (Americans) have a hard time with, I think. We get used to having everything available, year-round, at the grocery store, and we forget about simple, in-season, and moderation. Because I'm interested in food writing (well, food in general), I really enjoyed this presentation. 

And the Inquiry Conference in general. Good times. 

annotated source 03.02

 Claus, Karl. The Made-up Self: Impersonation in the Personal Essay. Iowa City: University of Iowa Press, 2010. 

Karl Claus takes on the subject of the "self" in the personal essay, exploring the different facets--even facades--that makes up the self in the personal essay. The problem of pinning down the self is exactly where Carl Klaus starts in his exploration The Made-up Self: Impersonation in the Personal Essay. In the prologue, Klaus writes that
           
The person in a personal essay is a written construct, a fabricated thing, a character of sorts—the sound of its voice a by-product of carefully chosen words, its recollection of experience, its run of thought and feeling, much tidier than the mess of memories, thoughts, and feelings arising in one’s consciousness.

Though the cover of the book describes it as literary criticism/reference/writing, Klaus doesn’t give the reader what might be expected by these classifications—a solely informative look at the personal essay form. Instead, he says that “given my addiction to the personal essay, I could not resist the temptation to write about it in the freewheeling form of essays, nor could I resist the enticing roles an essayist can play.” As Klaus sets out to accomplish the feat of a book-length discussion on the essayistic personae, the character, voice, and recollection of classic and contemporary essayists inform the text with a delightfully broad look at the many selves that have given life to the essay. But despite the in-depth look at the work of others, Klaus’ voice weaves itself in and out of Montaigne and Woolf, around bends of Lamb and White, and over the rivers of Dillard and Didion, showing readers that no matter where the essay goes, the essayist is ever at the helm. 

Delightful read.

annotated source: 02.29

Lukacs, Georg. "Soul and Form." Translated by Anna Bostock. Cambridge: Mit Press.

Lukacs was a Hungarian philosopher (Marxist philosopher) and literary critic, and this essay was published in 1911. This wasn't the most fascinating essay/article to read, but it was useful to read because it talked in detail about the differences between essayists and critics. It talks about life versus living, that both are useful but can't be effective at the same time--to tell you the honest truth, I had no idea what he was talking about when he said that. My favorite part, though, was when he said this:

The essayist needs form only as lived experience and he needs only its life, only the living soul-reality in contains. But this reality is to be found in every immediate sensual expression of life, it can be read out of and read into every such experience; life itself can be lived and given form through such a scheme of lived experience. 


The idea of the essayist giving form to life is wonderful concept. To me, it refers to the essayist's meditating on and giving meaning to life's experiences. He says that the critic's "moment of destiny...is that moment at which things become forms." Thus, the critic's job to comment upon form; the essayist, on the other hand, gives form to life. This will help my project because any piece of information that helps me understand the role of an essayist will help me as a writer.

annotated source: 02.27

Orwell, George. "Just Junk." The Orwell Prize. Web. 2 February 25. [originally published 5 January 1946].

This is a completely DELIGHTFUL essay, and my dear friend Bess was good enough to point it out to me. This essay talks about London junk shops and the "treasures" that can be found there. George Orwell is an essayist that was likely find his way into my sources, and I'd like to study his essays while in London. This particular essay was noteworthy because it talked about actual London junk shops and the streets they were on and everything and when I read it, the only thing I wanted to do in the whole world was wander around London until I found every single one of those junk shops. Seriously, though, I can't think of anything more wonderful. This essay is great because it not only by a British author but it is about London--win win. As I am in London, the essays that deal directly with London are some that I will highly value while in the field. Love it.

Thursday, February 23, 2012

learning journal 18: annie dillard's "total eclipse"


Recently, I read an essay entitled "Total Eclipse" by Annie Dillard, which is anthologized in the Next American Essay by John D'Agata. Using some of the essay theory I've read for this and other classes, I would like to do a mini-analysis of Dillard's essay by looking at how her essay aligns with the theory of the classical essay. Annie Dillard is one of the essayists on my list of sources, so reading this additional essay by her allowed me to expand my knowledge of her writing.

The essayist needs form only as lived experience and he needs only its life, only the living soul-reality it contains. But this reality is to be found in every immediate sensual expression of life, it can be read out of and read into every such experience; life itself can be lived and given form through such a scheme of lived experience. (Lukacs)  

If Lukacs’ above statement is correct, essayists carry the responsibility of giving form to life through living life—through the “scheme of lived experience.” From an essayist’s perspective, “giving form to life” means that an essayist does not merely regurgitate a narrative of life; an essayist, rather, meditates on the meaning of life’s experiences and attempts to find connections and conclusions in reality. The very definition of the word essay suggests its connection with life’s experiences; as Lopate says, ““to essay is to attempt, to test, to make a run at something without knowing whether you are going to succeed." In Annie Dillard’s essay, “Total Eclipse,” she succeeds in fulfilling the responsibilities of an essayist because she moves beyond the narrative into greater truths; because of this, Dillard’s essay is easily identifiable as such, and in her essay the reader can find meaning beyond the experience.

In his introduction to Art of the Personal Essay, Phillip Lopate explains that one common trait of personal essays is the essayist’s desire to discover truth beyond the words on the page. Lopate writes that the essay is “a mode of inquiry, another way of getting at the truth." Dillard exemplifies this trait as she meditates on her inability to adequately describe her experience with the solar eclipse: “The mind—the culture—has two little tools, grammar and lexicon: a decorated sand bucket and a matching shovel. With these we bluster about the continents and do all the world’s work. With these we try to save our very lives” (107). Instead of restricting her prose to a mere description of the eclipse, Dillard allows the reader to glimpse into her thoughts, into the meaning that she attaches to the experience. Dillard uses the experience to get at the truth, to explain that despite the fact that all we can do is “bluster about” with the language we have, it is the tool we desperately need to “save our very lives.” Dillard simultaneously meditates on humanity’s dependence on language and attempts to use that language to describe her own experience.

As essayists attempt to gain and interpret life’s experiences, they demonstrate their own ignorance of the world; yet, despite their ignorance, they also demonstrate their never-ending curiosity of the world. Dillard admits in her essay that the concept of an eclipse is at times difficult to grasp “for those of us whose grasp of astronomy is so frail that, given a flashlight, a grapefruit, two oranges, and fifteen years, we still could not figure out which way to set the clocks for Daylight Savings Time” (101). This light-hearted transparency allows Dillard to admit her lack of knowledge while at the same time showing the reader that a partial understanding won’t stop her from benefiting from her experience. It is her inexperience, perhaps, that helps her relate to her readers. In “On the Writing of Essays,” Alexander Smith, quoting Montaigne, says that when writing essays, “I do not understand; I pause; I examine.” The essay, then, is not a demonstration of knowledge as much as an examination, an attempt to enlighten and understand. Dillard’s meditations throughout her essay allows the readers to see her as student and explorer, a seeker of knowledge who is willing to share her findings with her readers.

I will close by discussing one last characteristic that Dillard exemplifies in her essay. Alexander Smith wrote that “The world is not so much in need of new thoughts as that when thought grows old and worn with usage it should, like current coin, be called in, and, from the mint of genius, reissued fresh and new.” As Dillard writes about the solar eclipse, she explores themes of death, the brevity of life, of the inadequacy of language, all of which are ideas explored more than once in the literary canon. However, because she relates these themes directly to her own experience, she begins to renew those themes; in other words, an essayist answers Smith’s call for renewing ideas and thoughts by connecting them to a personal life experience. Making connections where they aren’t readily apparent is an essayist’s trick, a way they can give form to life in a new way, which will awaken readers and ask them to see the world through the essayist’s eyes. 


I don't want it to seem like this is merely an analysis of an essay without having any relevancy to my project. This is the type of critical thinking and analyzing that I will have to be doing as I am in the field. I will have to take each essay and not only compare it to essay theory but compare it to British classical essays as a whole. This was good practice. 



annotated source 02.24

Madden, Patrick. Quotidiana. Nebraska: U of Nebraska, 2010. Print.

Madden's essay style is compared to Montaigne's in that it illuminates commonplace things and commonplace moments. One of the reasons why I wanted to include Madden's writing in my sources is that he really exemplifies a contemporary undertaking of the classical essay style. The first essay in this book, "The Infinite Suggestiveness of Common Things," borrows its title from Alexander Smith's essay, "On the Writing of Essays," and in it Madden explores the value of finding meaning in the everyday, in the mundane. Throughout his essays, Madden often quotes other essayists or philosophers and quotes much like Montaigne does in his essays; this technique shows that Madden is drawing from a larger field of knowledge--acknowledging that he is a part of the greater human experience, which is a common trait among essays. Because I work with Pat Madden on a regular basis in my master's program, this seems a natural choice to add to my list of sources. He practices what he preaches.

Wednesday, February 22, 2012

learning journal 17: being an essayist

Haha! I totally had this post finished, but forgot to actually post it until now. That is the reason for the lateness.

This might sound like an extension of one of my annotated sources, and it partially is, but I've just had some particularly interesting insights about essay writing that I'd love to share. And just to give you fair warning, this post will unabashedly quote and praise Alexander Smith, particularly his essay "On the Writing of Essays." Now that you've been warned, let us proceed.

As I delved deeper into studying this essay by Alexander Smith, I kept noticing his interesting method for talking about the writing of essays. You would think that Smith would, as his title denotes, simply describe the process of writing an essay, or instruct us on how to write an essay--but no, no my Alex. He does, in a roundabout way, include these things into his essay, but instead of focusing on the formula, he gets straight to the source. Smith focuses instead on what essayists should be and what they do that makes them essayists, and by going about it this way, he implies what an essay actually IS, or how a person goes about WRITING an essay. I just admire the way he goes about it. Essaying is not only a genre of literature; it is a way of life. That, very simply put, is Smith's argument in this essay.

Let me give you a few examples:

1. "It is wonderful how the whole world reflects itself in the simple village life." and "I find everything here that other men find in the big world. London is but a magnified Dreamthorp."

Here, Smith is describing the quiet happiness he finds in his small-town life and his simple lifestyle, a happiness that is found in small towns (like his Dreamthorpe) as well as large ones (like London). The fact that he doesn't require a large, exciting, eventful town to write essays is notable, because it exemplifies one of the attributes of an essayist (in other words, he is telling us indirectly about an essayist's tastes and such). Essayists will never run out of things to write about because they are attune to the little, seemingly dull happenings that many people who are only focused on excitement and adventure might miss. You might be wondering why I think a trip to London would be beneficial if I'm really going to be an essayist as Smith describes. My answer is this: I intend to go into my field study experience with Smith's perspective that you don't need adventure or grandeur to live a happy life, or to write essays. That doesn't mean you should shun adventure, it just means that while you're in living life--whatever you're doing--an essayist would pick up on and notice the smaller details in life the some would miss. This might also show you why I'm not just going to London to get exciting topics to write about--as Smith says, if it were only that, it would be more of a vacation and less of a study. Moving on--

2. "[An essayist's] main gift is an eye to discover the suggestiveness of common things; to find a sermon in the most unpromising texts." and "The essayist has no lack of subject-matter...I idle away my time here, and I am finding new subjects every hour. Everything I see or hear is an essay in bud. The world is everywhere whispering essays, and one need only be the world's amanuensis."

I might have gotten by with quoting half of that and getting the same effect, but I didn't want to leave any out. This is similar to my #1 commentary, but I'd like to focus on the "suggestiveness of common things." Common things often sprinkle the pages of essays because, as Smith says, an essayist's responsibility is to find the beauty of the world in the smallest places. In my mind, I relate this easily to a feeling of gratitude and thanksgiving, because I feel like the happiest person is someone who is grateful for the smallest things--who notices the smallest things. An essayist, then, should be a grateful person because he or she notices things that other people may overlook. It is an attitude I am striving to develop--not only because I want to be a grateful person, but because I want to be a great essayist. Okay, one more:

3. "If a man is worth knowing at all, he is worth knowing well."

One of the commonly-discussed topics in essay theory is the question of the writer's ego. What gall must an essayist have to write unashamedly in first person? to exploit the reader by dropping personal stories and information and interpretation into his lap? to assume that the reader cares what the essayist thinks? As Smith puts it here, though, if someone is worth knowing at all, the reader will keep reading. If not, the reader will move on, and that's that. We, as human beings, have a strong desire to know other people and to be known by other people. Essayists survive on that tendency--but also have to be careful, as Smith and Montaigne warn, that they don't veer into self-praise and self-importance. These are the annoying attributes that will make the reader want to move onto another text. Essayists, while they are talking about themselves, must maintain an air of humility, self-deprecation, and an acknowledgment of being a part of the human existence, not apart from everyone else. A man who is arrogant and self-important qualifies as one who is not necessarily worth knowing at all, let alone knowing well. So Alexander Smith would say. And on this point, I may have to agree with him.

Does that come as a surprise?

Monday, February 20, 2012

annotated source 02.22

Doyle, Brian. Leaping. Chicago: Loyola Press, 2003. Print.

I really can't believe it's taken me this long to include Brian Doyle somewhere in my source list. Brian Doyle is one of the greatest contemporary essayists. I've heard Brian Doyle a few times in readings and Q&As, and every time I hear him speak I leave inspired that essayists really do make the world a better place. Without being corny, though, this book is a great example of why Brian Doyle is considered by some to be one of the greatest contemporary essayists. He is, as he admits, a "story catcher," meaning he finds (attracts, I think) stories of amazing, normal, everyday people and writes them into his essays. He isn't just telling stories about himself, although they have their fair share in his writing; he is collecting and sharing others' stories. In this way, he perfectly fits into Alexander Smith's definition of an essayist: the world's amanuensis. This is one trait I will look for particularly as I read Brian Doyle in the context of the classics. He differs in many ways, but he IS an essayist. This, by the way, is an excellent book.

learning journal 16: the inferiority complex

...and why essayists might be inflicted with it. As I was writing my literature review, I remembered a conversation I had in my Creative Writing Theory class last week. One of my classmates and fellow grad student studier of the personal essay was presenting on Phillip Lopate's Introduction to Art of the Personal Essay and our class got caught discussing one quote from Lopate:

"Though long spoken of as a subcategory of the essay, the personal essay has rarely been isolated and studied as such. It should certainly be celebrated, because it is one of the most approachable and diverting types of literature we possess."

My professor, Steve Tuttle, made a comment about the seeming "essayist inferiority complex," and questioned why essayists feel the need to defend their genre so vehemently. It's true, though--you don't see poets defending poetry as a legitimate genre of study, nor fictionists nor dramatists. So why is it that essayists feel the need to defend their genre? As I thought of this, I thought of another simple question: why do I have such a hard time describing and defining my genre? My immediate answer is that no one is going to ask a poet, "well, what exactly is a poem?" Meaning this: people know what poetry is; they recognize it. They know what fiction is, and of course drama is easily identifiable. For essayists, personal essays are also easily identifiable, but that's because we have studied essays. When I say I write personal essays, people say so... what exactly is that? and I have to come up with a half-baked answer that is supposed to "sum up" the essence of what an essayist is/does. Steve Tuttle has also said that we, as Creative Writing MFA students, have to be able to define what we do, so that, I feel, is one of my goals in this field study. I know what an essay is; I know what it looks like, but the more I study essays, and essayists, the more readily I will be able to define what I do (and know how to do it). And thus defend it. 

So that brings me back to my original question: why do essayists feel the need to defend their genre? I believe that essayists feel the need to defend because people need to know what personal essays are. They should be studied as much as any other genre--I don't know that too many would disagree, but being informed is the trick. Essays need to be much more than just the "fourth genre," to take the name from a current literary journal. So that's why I feel the need to, as an essayist, defend my genre. 

This idea has been informing much of what I'm doing right now: my field study (and within that, my literature review), my project, my thesis, my thoughts. It's a good thing I enjoy it enough to be thinking about it this much!


Thursday, February 16, 2012

learning journal 15: expanded self evaluation


For my learning journal this week, I decided to expound on the "midsemester self evaluation," and write about my attitude and experiences I've had in IAS 360. I will admit up front that I had reservations about taking the class, and that will come through in this self evaluation, but honesty in this case is the best approach to take. The “make lemons into lemonade” saying is on the “Interpreting Culture through Popular Sayings” handout we got in class on Monday, and I would like to compare this saying to my experience thus far in the class.

The phrase “making lemons into lemonade” means turning a bad situation into a good one. What I don’t want you to think, however, is that this class is a bad situation, and it is not my intention to offend or criticize. The bad situation is reference more to my attitude than anything else; this class hindered my ability to take another class that I really wanted to take and isn’t offered again while I’m going to be in my graduate program—so I was, in all honestly, a little annoyed that I had to take the class.

Now that I’ve given a little context for my attitude as I entered the class, let me tell you about my change of heart (please excuse the cliché). I can’t say that I’ve completely gotten over not being able to take the other class, but I will tell you that this class is a lot more useful than I thought it would be. Though some of the class isn’t necessarily relevant to my project (e.g. I’m not planning to conduct any interviews in the field, besides informal interviews with those I encounter through serendipity), I have found enough in the class that is useful to my project that it has been worth my while. In other words, my attitude has gone from annoyed to apathetic to begrudging to involved to invested. Being invested in the class means that I am trying to make everything I read and learn relevant to my project in some way, even though some of it may be a stretch. I may not be eager yet, but invested is a good place to start.

What I am eager about, though, is going to London and actually doing my project. And I have realized despite my reluctance that this class forces me to spend sufficient time preparing my project so I will utilize my time in the field more strategically. All in all, the more organized my project will be, the more time I will have to explore London and receive "inspiration" for writing. and life. 


So you have both my complainings and my concessions. And I'll leave it there.

Wednesday, February 15, 2012

learning journal 14: building rapport

Building rapport is something I've thought more and more about lately. As I am in my first year of teaching a freshman writing course here at BYU, I've thought a lot about establishing an authoritative presence in my classroom while allowing for a close, comfortable atmosphere in my classroom where students feel safe to explore and share ideas and opinions. It's hard to strike a balance, because on one hand, I wanted to be friendly and warm but I didn't want my students to question my authority. Last semester, I think I started off too "nice," and had to pay for it later down the road when my students thought they were free to goof off in class and not pay attention because they thought I wasn't going to call them out on it. This semester I've tried to do things differently. I attempted to start off on a very commanding foot, starting the first day with a stern, thorough policy on class policies. I have relaxed since then, but my students saw upfront that I was serious about participation and paying attention in class, and I haven't had too many problems so far. I feel like my students trust me because I have established important policies in a stricter way, while allowing myself to be personable and friendly. Students feel safe in a very structured environment; however, an environment that is too restricting can have the opposite effect. 

As a missionary it was a little different. When I was serving a mission, my companion and I had to create a similar atmosphere of closeness and comfort in lessons with investigators, so they would feel open asking questions and expressing their doubts and concerns. The way to accomplish this, however, was not with a stern, authoritative presence. Yes, it might have worked with some people, but with most of the people we taught, being "cold" was one way to shut down any chance of involvement and trust. Building trust between missionary and investigator often had to do with getting to know them as people, not just as baptisms, and caring about their lives--and showing that care and concern for their well-being. When people sensed that we really cared about them, they were more willing to open up. I guess this isn't too different than teaching in a classroom environment--I have made efforts to get to know my students individually, and that has made a difference as well. 

I'm not sure how I will need to build rapport as a field study student. I won't be interviewing people on a regular basis, and I won't be studying the "living" as much as I will be studying the dead (authors, not zombies). BUT I think it's important to build rapport with people I will interact with on a regular basis. Building rapport with my host family, for example, will allow me to develop a relationship of trust, thus creating a "safer" atmosphere and allowing both me and my host family to feel comfortable around each other. Building rapport with church members will be helpful as well (especially by separating myself from a study abroad student) because I want to have a relationship of trust with the members I'll be working with. 

In other words, it is not just in interviewing and teaching that rapport is necessary, but with relationships in general. Any time you have two people in any sort of relationship, rapport can help bridge the gap and allow people to get to know one another and trust one another. 

annotated source 02.21

Can you tell that I'm getting ahead on sources? I received some inspiration, so I decided to just go for it.

Okay, here's this one:

Galeano, Eduardo. Memory of Fire: Genesis. New York: Norton & Co., 1998. Print.

Eduardo Galeano is a Uruguayan writer (yay hooray!) so his books are translated from Spanish. Galeano is a contemporary writer (he actually came to BYU a few years ago), and his essays are completely different than any of the other essays I've included in my sources thus far. His essays may be better described as prose poems, because they are all very brief and poet yet very exploratory and meditative. Poetry, of course, can also be meditative, but his book reads more like essays than it does poetry for me. Anyway, this particular book explores the clashing of the Old World and New World, focusing on Latin America. Thematically, this is a collection of historical essays, or at least essays with a historical focus, but they do and say so much more. He takes history and inserts his own voice and view and language, and marries them together to produce beautiful, essayistic, and poetic pieces.

He will be interesting to study in context of the classical British essay, because he is so different, but at the same time I would love to see how he intersects with the canonical essayists. And he will be fun to imitate.

Tuesday, February 14, 2012

annotated source 02.17

Selections from:

Sebald, W.G. The Emigrants. New York: New Directions, 1996. Print.

Sebald, W.G. The Rings of Saturn. New York: New Directions, 1999. Print.

Sebald is unique in the essaying world. His books combine nonfiction with imagination that encroaches on fiction; in fact, The Emigrants is categorized as a novel, although it clearly chronicles his experiences and encounters. The Rings of Saturn begins with Sebald in the hospital, having experienced a breakdown after his experience with the walking tour that informed his book. His prose is dizzying and very stream of consciousness, so it's a lot different than many of the essayists I've studied up to this point. However, Montaigne was very stream of consciousness (though the phrase hadn't been coined in the 16th century), as well as Virginia Woolf.

In The Emigrants, Sebald has four main, longer essays that each focus on a different German in exile--the first essay, which is the only one I've read at length so far, isn't just a biography, but an encounter. Sebald interacts with the person he's characterizing, and all in all it's a very good example of what can be done with another person's story. This is one thing I would love to emulate--how to take another person's story and tell it in a meditative and completely different way. Completely different.

One more thing: Sebald is German, although he lived in England for much of his life and is buried in Norfolk county. He wrote in German, though, so his essays are translated from German.

annotated source 02.15

Dillard, Annie. Pilgrim at Tinker Creek. New York: Harper Perennial, 1999. Print

This collection of essays chronicles one year in the Blue Ridge valley (Virginia). Dillard lives in the Blue Ridge valley, next to Tinker Creek, and her essays in this book record her explorations of the valley and creek--but it ends up being so much more than that. Dillard explores ideas and beliefs and images through her observations, and she ends up coming up with some stunning insights. Dillard is a contemporary essayist, but her style often reflects many attributes of the personal essay. The exploratory and meditative aspect of essays is something that Dillard does excellently. It will be great to study her essays in the context of the classical British essay, and see how she parallels certain characteristics of essays and also how she deviates from the essay tradition. Excellent contemporary examples.

Monday, February 13, 2012

learning journal 13: source mapping

Sources. I have been entrenched in the midst of many sources throughout my college career thus far, so I've learned some good research strategies. Source mapping, however, has not been one of them. How I've survived thus far without source mapping is beyond me.

Well, I take that back. I have done a form of source mapping, but it was a more physical form of it. When researching and drafting a paper, I will often sit down on the floor and spread out every single source that I have around me. Because of this, I typically print out online sources because having text in front of me is important--it makes the whole research experience more visual and kinetic. When I participate in this form of source mapping, I can see the texts around me and begin to see how they relate to each other and how I want to organize them in my paper. It's a very sensory experience. But I had never source mapped on paper. I found it entirely helpful. In fact, I think I will have my freshmen students source map, because it was very helpful to see how everything fit together.

In my source map, I had three categories: essay theory, exemplary British essayists, and personal interests. There was a lot of crossover between exemplary and theoretical essays and essayists, which was good to see. The "personal interests" category might sound selfish and slightly irrelevant, but I think it will be helpful because it included the sources I've found for travel and food writing, both of which I am interested in. These personal interests will inform the content of my essays, rather than form, which is something that I will need to focus on as well.

But rather than just summarize my experience, I want to mention one specific insight that I received from source mapping. Once I had my sources on paper, I could see where I was lacking, and one category that thus far I have skipped entirely: contemporary essayists. There are a lot of contemporaries whose writing is very much informed by the classical essay, and some that exemplify the attributes I wish to include in my essays. Before, I didn't think it would be essential to include modern essayists, because I was going to be the connection between classical and contemporary, but more and more I need to look at examples of how current essays demonstrate the techniques that I will study as a part of my project. I need to look at how other people are doing it. This way my writing will be informed by a larger variety of influences, rather than imitating one or another essayist exclusively. (I don't think that will necessarily happen because there is a great variety in the classical essayists themselves, but anything I can add to the pool of influence will be great.) So source mapping was entirely helpful because I was able to see what areas I already had developed, and what areas I could expand on and include.

And that's all I have to say about source mapping.

Saturday, February 11, 2012

annotated source 02.13

Hazlitt, William. "Essays by William Hazlitt." Ed. Patrick Madden. Quotidiana. Web. 11 Feb 2012.

William Hazlitt is another essayist that will be part of my repertoire. Hazlitt was one of the "greats"; he and Charles Lamb were buddies; in fact, at one point Lamb was Hazlitt's only friend because Hazlitt had offended all of his other friends. The friendship of Hazlitt and Lamb is one particular detail I'd like to study while I'm in London. I want to get at not only how essayists interacted with London; I want to, wherever possible, find out how essayists interacted with each other. So I want to study Hazlitt not only because he is a canonical essayist, but because he and Lamb will be interesting to study together. One of Hazlitt's essays, "On the Pleasure of Hating," is indicative of not only his style but his crotchety and temperamental behavior which alienated him from others. Hazlitt will be fascinating to study, and he will also be fun to try and imitate once I get to that point.

Friday, February 10, 2012

learning journal 12: house rules

Watching the English's "House Rules" chapter was particularly endearing and delightful. When you read about a set of "rules" a certain culture has, it's easy to think of the rules as strange compared to ours. Come to think of it, I don't know that we acknowledge our own "rules" until we compare them to another culture's. So I had a few thoughts about their rules and our rules, how they intersect, and how they diverge.

First of all, the "gnome rule." I thought it was hilarious to think that the inclusion (or exclusion) of a garden gnome could be an indicator of social class. I don't know that I have necessarily seen the equivalent of such a rule that deals specifically with gnomes. The man that Fox talked about in the chapter who had a gnome but pointed out that it was an ironic gnome was an interesting example of someone who is trying very consciously to appear more upper class because of the gnome is his garden, but his pointing out that it was ironic lowered him a notch or two in social status; an upperclass person, as Fox states, wouldn't care about what another person thought about his or her gnome and proudly declare affection for it. The reason I'm summarizing this is because whether or not we think about this here in America, we tend to do the same kinds of things. People who want to appear like they have more money surround themselves with expensive, extravagant things--although most of the time for us, it means multiple boats and bigger and shinier cars than we really need--things that aren't necessarily functional, but are sometimes part of a subconscious need for appearing wealthier than one really is (which is probably why we have debt problems). Here, though, we tend to not have the issue of inherited wealth, so our upper class is typically made up of many "self-made" men and women (stereotypically, of course). So I suppose that we all have an instinct deep down inside to appear better and wealthier than we may be, but it is manifest in different ways here than it is across the pond.

So now I get to the usual question: what does this have to do with my project? As a writer, my job is to be hyper observant of the world around me, searching for items or ideas that want to be essays. I may not have the cultural experience in London to have made these observations for myself, but Fox has given me a lot to think about, and when I am actually in London this book will have made me more aware, giving me an advantage and giving me insight into Londoners and how they function. Writing about people is always easier when I have a little bit of context to help me understand them better. It will be interesting to see if I can observe how these rules have changed since the time of the authors I will be studying. Did they abide by the rule that says "you can't sit in your front garden"? Were they more rebellious, like the counter-culture people who defiantly sit in their front gardens on shabby couches? Who followed the rules and who rebelled against them? These are all questions I would love, somehow, to be able to answer.

By the way, is this such a darling gnome I found online? I almost want to get him and place him in my front yard. Then I will tell people it is an "ironic" gnome.

How very presumptuous of me.

Thursday, February 9, 2012

annotated source 02.10

Iyer, Pico. "The Nine Commandments of Travel Writing." Conde Nast Traveler: the Truth in Travel. Sept 2007. Web. 9 Feb 2012.

This is a neat little article about travel writing--apparently Pico Iyer is a pretty big deal, so I'm glad I found another of his articles. He also has several books which I might check out at some point. Anyway, this article starts out with a quote that I really love: "for 20 years I've been writing books which appear on the travel shelves, but none of them, deep down, have anything to do with travel. Yet the first thing any traveler learns is that every rule is made to be broken." This quote exemplifies a lot of advice that Iyer gives in his article. He states that travel books are more about the authors than about travel, and that every good travel book is a quest or a question that's never answered. I was pleased to find a couple of his "commandments" stating that travel writing is more about writing than it is about traveling; also, that you don't have to venture far to travel. These are good things to keep into account because as I'm writing in London, the city will most likely be the context for many of my essays, but it won't be the focus. The focus, rather, is good writing and introspection. Also, his statement that you don't have to venture far to travel is fun because even though I'll be in London writing, I won't have to seek daring and dangerous adventures in order to find good material. Although there is always a place for daring and dangerous.

For example: this time around, I am DEFINITELY going on the Jack the Ripper tour of London. Who's in?

Wednesday, February 8, 2012

learning journal 11: thoughts on other things

I already wrote about Alice Meynell for an annotated source, but I have been researching her in one of my classes. I am really looking forward to studying her life and her essays while in London. What I have been thinking, though, is the difference between studying authors and their works in a library and studying them on Location. Thanks to the wealth of information I have available to me through BYU's databases and library resources, I can find out a LOT about the authors and their writing just in a library. So what will be the difference?

To illustrate what my thoughts were about this, here is a list of facts about Alice Meynell that I have found out online:


               Poet and essayist
       British 
        Converted to Catholicism at 21
       Husband Wilfrid Meynell, publisher and editor
       Settled in Kensington
       Eight children
       Participated in Women’s Suffrage movement
      Died November 1922
      Buried in the Kensal Green Catholic Cemetery in London

      Okay, so I already know she's a British poet and essayist, and I know she was Catholic, and I know she lived in Kensington, she was part of the Women's Suffrage movement, and was buried in London. But there are so many things I can find out while in London! For example, I can research the presses she used to publish her books, and I can find out if they are still standing. I can look up her house in Kensington and visit it. About that: I actually found out that her former home in Kensington is on the same street--Palace Court--as the BYU London center! There's a plaque outside that says "Alice Meynell lived here...etc" so I was thinking I could knock on the door and talk to the person who currently owns the house and see if they know anything about Meynell, get a little bit of history on the house, etc. I can also visit the cemetery where she was buried (I have already mentioned the obsession that I have with cemeteries), and I can visit the sites that she talks about in her essays to get a better picture in my head of what she was feeling and thinking when she wrote. For example, she mentions the Serpentine in one of her essays that I have read, and visiting the Serpentine (river) will help me get a deeper perspective on the context of her essays. 

      See all of these cool things I can learn by being in London? When I analyze how much I can really find out about her by tracing her footsteps through London, I feel like it justifies even more my field study in London. 

Amen.

annotated source 02.08

Best Food Writing 2011. Ed. Holly Hughes. Philadelphia: Da Capo Press, 2011. Print.

This is another branch-out source, and I'm really excited to read the whole thing (I chose to read a few selected articles for today). As I mentioned before, I am really interested in food and travel writing, but because my project is to write in the style of the classical British essay, I will be working on style more than focusing on either food or travel. BUT, the cool thing about focusing on style is that I will still have freedom to write about whatever I want to, which is where food and travel will come more directly into play. The essays and articles in this book demonstrate a variety of food writing, so it's great to see the many different options that are available in food writing. Quite a few essays in this book dealt with food and family, like the essay "Stollen," wherein the author annotates a recipe for Stollen and in the annotations discusses his family and the memories he associates with the recipe. This could be cool in London, because connecting the food in London to my essay writing will be a fun project. Altogether, I might read one or two of these essays every week to get ideas about incorporating food writing into my project.

And then I will eat. (let me eat cake)

Monday, February 6, 2012

learning journal 10: participant observation

I actually read the wrong article (well, then I read the right one), but this post is in response to the wrong article (: I felt like it was interesting enough, though, so I hope y'all enjoy it anyway.

Oh, and I went on a blind date this past weekend, which I'm writing about that for my first Methods assignment. I hate blind dates, so it should be fun! ha.

As I was reading "Participant Observation," I think my favorite part was this: "The most important thing you can do to stop being a freak is to speak the language of the people you’re studying—and speak it well" (359). This made me laugh because so many times being a foreigner means sticking out like a sore thumb, to use the cliche. I find myself always going back to my mission, because being a North American (and blonde) in South America meant standing out--then add uber-conservative missionary dress, a name tag, and a gringo accent and you're good to go. I suppose that the point of being a missionary of the church isn't to blend in necessarily, although I wonder how it would change missionary work if they were to adopt a sort of participant observation style. But again, the point of missionary work is not to study culture as much as it is to share the Gospel.

But I digress. When I was in London the last time, I often visited sites with the study abroad group, so there were about 40 of us together. Maybe it was that I was about 4 or so years older than most of the people in my program, or maybe it was that the other girls in the program were particularly clamorous, but I was often embarrassed by the behavior of some girls in our group. They really STUCK OUT, not necessarily because of their appearance, but definitely because of their behavior. They didn't seem to understand the importance of respecting another culture and behaving appropriately in that culture; rather, some felt like they had to emphasize their Americanness by overacting. In other words, they were "freaks," like this article suggests. I realize that I wasn't perfect in my behavior, but I felt like cultural sensitivity goes a long way. Interestingly enough, the article also says that "The rules for presentation of self are simple: Be honest, be brief, and be absolutely consistent. In participant observation, if you try to play any role other than yourself, you’ll just get worn out" (358). So it seems that even though it's important to be culturally sensitive, one should remain true to oneself. So it might be difficult to strike a balance between keeping one's own identity and personality while still being respectful and "blending in." Interesting.

Because of my personality, it might be easy to blend into the background of London without calling too much attention to myself--because I am naturally shy, and afraid of doing something too offensive or outlandish. However, it's not going to be as easy as that. As I'm interacting with different people for my project, I have to fight the urge to keep to myself. I've heard that before truly learning a language, you have to make thousands of mistakes (so you can learn from them). Although it's hard for me to open my mouth and make mistakes, it will be necessary if I'm to truly interact with Londoners. On top of that, it might be a temptation to avoid (living) people too much because there will be so much to explore as far as dead people. So it will be a job, but I want to make sure and actually talk and connect to people in London.




annotated source 02.06

Iyer, Pico. "Why We Travel." Worldhum. 27 April 2009. Web. 3 Feb 2012. 


Okay, so I acknowledge that it's about time to branch out and expand my vision as I'm looking at sources, although I will probably add a few more essayists to my course of study at some point. This essay is a great find; although it talks about traveling in general, it can easily apply to travel writing (obviously, because it's an essay written about travel). The first few sentences of this essay perfectly outline what it talks about: 


"We travel, initially, to lose ourselves; and we travel, next, to find ourselves. We travel to open our hearts and eyes and learn more about the world than our newspapers will accommodate. We travel to bring what little we can, in our ignorance and knowledge, to those parts of the globe whose riches are differently dispersed. And we travel, in essence, to become young fools again--to slow time down and get taken in, and fall in love once more."


I hope this quote doesn't get taken the wrong way. It does say "we travel to bring what little we can...to those parts of the globe whose riches are differently dispersed," which could indicate the American arrogance that field study so despises, but I think it's different than that. Throughout the article it very humbly explains that travelers travel to learn from the world--but it's impossible to think that we don't bring something to the parts of the world we visit. The traveler probably learns infinitely more, but we can still bring something to the people we visit. 


And that is, essentially, what this essay communicates. And much more: this is a beautiful essay. 



Friday, February 3, 2012

learning journal 9: fashion, of course


Okay, when I first started reading this chapter ("Dress Codes") from Watching the English, I immediately thought of this Youtube clip: 100 Years of Style, East London (which was an advertisement for the opening of a shopping mall). I admit, I was in the group that believed that England, because they are a part of Europe, had very strict rules on dress and fashion that indicate one's social status. So it is true that there are some indicators, but apparently the British don't have clear-cut rules. (Aside: favorite moment from the reading: the grand French lady exclaiming that the British should have better style because "Paris is what, an hour away?") So, obviously if I want high fashion, I have to cross the channel. That's okay, though, because I'm not going to London for high fashion. 


I love what she said about the Queen. She can wear whatever she wants--she's the Queen of England, yo! But I did love how Fox pointed out that although she can wear whatever style she wants, she dwells in the 50s stylistically. And the HATS! Oh, oh, the hats. This isn't restricted to the Queen, of course, but as you can see here, she has pretty fantastic hats.

But let's get down to business. What does dress code and style have to do with my project? It might be a stretch, but more and more, when I think of style I think of writing. Like Fox points out, the English like to be eccentric and different as long as they are part of a group. This was an interesting point, because oftentimes with writing it's the same way. We can't all be like Ezra Pound ("make it new," "make it new," "make it new"), and as a writer, I realize that when I try to establish my persona and my style in my writing, it's a matter of choosing a specific group or specific genre to imitate. "Imitation" often has a negative connotation in writing, so my saying that I want to imitate the classical British essay in my writing might be considered unoriginal, like I have to do that because I can't find my own style.

I beg to differ, though. I think it's important to "make it new," but there are so many nuances of the C.B.E. that are worth emulating. Making it new is easier than it seems, even in imitation, because what I bring to the essay as an individual is different from what any other writer would bring to it. So I'm going to shamelessly imitate while bringing my own style to the essay.

 Make sense?

Thursday, February 2, 2012

annotated source 02/03

Montaigne, Michel de. "To the Reader." Quotidiana. Ed. Patrick Madden. 26 Dec 2006. Web. 2 Feb 2012.

Montaigne was French, not British--I feel like I have to say that upfront as I am presenting his essay as a source. The reason why I am including Montaigne in my sources is that even though he was French (his first language was actually Latin, interestingly enough), he is considered the father of the personal essay. He, in fact, named the genre by calling it the "essay." The word "essay" formally means "attempt or try" which makes sense because the heart of the personal essay is the idea of experimenting with ideas by trying them on, attempting to understand the world around them. Anyway. This particular essay "To the Reader" is one of Montaigne's shortest essays--don't think, though, that I chose it for the length. I chose this because this essay was the preface to his book of essays; thus, this preface comments more on the essay as a form rather than essaying per se. In it Montaigne states, "had my intention been to seek the world's favor, I should surely have adorned myself with borrowed beauties: I desire therein to be viewed as I appear in my own genuine, simple, and ordinary manner, without study or artifice: for it is myself I paint." He is setting forth the essay as an honest, frank form of literature in which the author attempts to portray him or herself in a genuine manner instead of "borrowing beauties." This, along with other statements in this essay, are at the heart of the essay, and all other essayists since have him to thank for the genre. Most of the classical British essayists (especially Lamb) interact directly with Montaigne's writing, so I felt like he had to be in my course of study somewhere.