PORTFOLIOS DUE TOMORROW, 12/16

I'll be in my office (Student Media Office, SUB II or the HUB, whatever you want to call it) around 9:15. Your portfolios are due between then and 11 a.m., when I'm leaving my office. I will not accept late portfolios. See you tomorrow!

Robert Browning 3-2-1

For my 3-2-1 response I chose to review a poem by Robert Browning called "Confessions". Robert Browning, in general, uses his poetry to reveal deeper meanings through simple context, and in this poem especially, he plays with the reader's perception of reality and fantasy through his references to drug use in a near death experience, which makes it difficult for the reader to determine whether or not the main character is under the influence of drugs or is just experiencing effects of being so close to death. The poem's title lets the reader understand the context of the poem. A man on his death bed is talking to a priest to confess his sins. He is confessing to the priest a love story of his, all the while daydreaming outside the window and referencing the window sill full of prescription drug bottles as he is telling the story. Not only does he offer altered realities for the reader, but the poem offers more than one possible confession that the main character could be knowingly confessing to. One last important point to this poem is the presence of a religious figure with no other references to religion. The narrator does not ask for forgiveness for whichever sin he confesses to, making the reader wonder why the narrator is confessing at all. The last line of the poem, the narrator proclaims how 'sweet' his encounters with the female were; this leads the reader on to think that the confession may not be his relationship with the girl, but something completely different.

In poetry, I prefer having a poet clarify their meaning outside of their poetry, or if included in their poems, have it be subtle. I like to have to re-read a poem at least a couple of times to truly understand it. In whichever case it may be, I'd like to know 1) if Browning's idea of confession in this poem was the narrator's relationship with the girl or drug abuse, and 2) if the narrator's encounter with the girl actually occurred or if the narrator was tripping out because of all of the medications he was on.

One question I have regarding this poem is what seemed to be more obvious? The confession about the 'inappropriate' relationship or the drug abuse? What do people think was the underlying confession in the poem, and if it was in fact a confession at all because Browning did not include the narrator's remorse for either of the possibilities.

321 on Matthea Harvey

Arta Seyedian
11/02/2011
Engh 396

Three things I learned

1.     Matthea Harvey was born in Germany and spent her childhood in the UK before moving to America at the age of 8. She had both an American accent and an English accent, one she used in public and one she used around the house, until she moved out and started consistently using her American accent.

2.     Her collection of poetry was interesting, because it was the first time I've heard of anyone using a particular set boundary as inspiration for writing. For example, she read to the audience a series of poems that were based off of "What if 1 thing didn't exist?" e.g rain and arrows. She also used headlines for world news as a spring board for her poetry, which I found to be a pretty creative way to go about writing.

3.     Matthea Harvey wrote a series of poems called "The Terror of Future" and "The Future of Terror" if I recall correctly, and she employed a style of poetry where she would write a poem using all of the words between ‘Future’ and ‘Terror’.

Two things that need to be clarified

1.  I’d like to know what the name of this style of writing is – she mentioned it briefly, but despite my tremendous capacity for paying attention, I somehow missed it.
2. I want to know why she’s chosen to distance herself from her English heritage. She hints at it in her poem “Our American Husbands” and she talked about how she has lost her British accent. Why is that?

One question I have

1. 1.     How did she start out doing performance poetry and how did she come to the conclusion that that is what she wants to do?

“Phenominal Woman” – Maya Angelou – 3-2

Things I Learned:

I decided to do my response on a poem by Maya Angelou. This poem is a poem about self-confidence and the value of a woman. In order to understand a bit more about the poem I decided to look into Maya Angelou and the context surrounding the poem. It is very helpful to do this when reading a poem from someone you may not know much about, because poems express emotions and feelings which are mostly related to experiences that the writer may have encountered or lived through. Maya Angelou is an American poet and a civil rights activist who worked with people such as Martin Luther King and Malcolm X. She has also become a recognized spokesperson for women across the world. In one of her works titled, I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings, she confesses to the world how she was raped by her mother’s boyfriend at 7 years of age. Apparently her uncle’s murdered the man that raped her, and Maya stopped talking for a period of 5 years. As a woman, one can only imagine the negative effects, depression and excruciating fear that can overcome one, when you are taken advantage of. The worst part is Angelou wasn’t even a woman, but an innocent child, who was abused and this is something she will carry with her for the rest of her life. After learning this about Maya, I read the poem again and came to a new perspective on the poem. It gives the woman a strong position, because it’s not just about how she finds herself attractive no matter what, but it provides the reader with hope in a way, because even though what happened to her may have traumatized her for a while, she proves the value of a woman in this poem. She call herself a phenomenal woman, and I think she is because of all she’s overcome and how she’s been able to express herself through her writing.

If you want to read more on her bio, you can click below:

http://www.poetryfoundation.org/bio/maya-angelou

Clarification:

I think what’s important about this poem is who wrote it and what they went through, and that’s how I can further connect the true message the poem is trying to send. I went on a blog to see what people thought about the poem, and some people said it was an inspiring poem for women that don’t see themselves as beautiful. This is true, it gives hope for women, but this poem goes past physical characteristics and looks. Looking at Maya’s background, this poem is about a woman’s value, and the characteristics just add to what makes a woman in the views of man, but in reality it’s how you value yourself as a woman in the society we live in.

Question:

I wonder what was going through Maya’s head as she wrote this poem. I also want to know how she was able to openly talk about what happened to her as a child? Does that mean she’s completely overcome that experience? It’s similar to Fiona Apple (who btw is my favorite singer), but she was also raped, and a lot of her music is an ode to the woman and her strengths. My main question is how do you come about being able to openly express these things? I feel I would not be strong enough, but that’s just me and also because I’ve never lived through something like that. I think the final message in this poem, is no matter what, you have to keep going; as a woman in this world, because we are strong individuals with plenty to give.

Objectivism 3-2-1: Interview with Ayn Rand about Philosophy in Her Novels

I watched an interview of Ayn Rand conducted by Mike Wallace in 1959. Ayn Rand is the mother of objectivism and the author of both The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. Rand’s philosophy according to her is: A philosophy based on objective reality and “the concept that reality exists as an absolute, that man’s mind is his means of perceiving it and that man needs a rational morality”. Listening to her views, I came away with a number of points that she stressed and even more questions regarding objectivism.

1 America needs a new code of morality that is not based on emotion or faith, but logic instead. Objectivism finds that logically, “the highest moral purpose [of man] is his own happiness.”

2 She believes that moral altruism will lead to socialism, dictatorship and financial disaster. Rand says that forcing people to act in an altruistic way or to pay taxes is morally wrong. Everything should be privatized and no one should be bullied into helping others.

3 A complete free market economy separated from government is the only way to save our country from financial ruin.

1 If everyone relies on money to survive and state and social benefits for people in need are taken away, won’t the people in need revolt, protest or become violent? Won’t crime rates soar if people are unable to gain access to what they need to survive and won’t this lead to a lower quality of life for everyone?

2 How can Rand assert that a completely unhindered free market would be a good thing if it has never been tested? I’d like to know how she would explain the poverty and death that could result from relying on those who stand to gain from helping others who have nothing would manifest? Why would people acting in their own best interest have to gain from helping people who need it? If nothing, then what is to come of all the people at the bottom of this economic structure?

Question: Would you want to live in a world where selfishness is stressed and anyone in need would be on their own? Do you think Rand’s philosophy will lead to a better society as she claims or that it would lower our quality of life as a whole?

3-2-1 Reading Response Allen Ginsberg

For my 3-2-1 response I feel like I had to choose another poem by Allen Ginsberg. Every poem that I have read completely fascinates me. He's the kind of poet that if I were listening to him read in a random cafe, I would definitely be snapping my fingers and saying "Yes! I totally get you man." His views on society, the world, and the universe are so insightful. Most of his poems seem like short stories because they are so long, but I can see why. Ginsberg has seen a lot happen throughout the decades in an ever changing America. Allen Ginsberg was, of course, one of the leaders of the beat generation where many young american poets had visions to change societal views post WWll. I read that he had his own style and technique called Ginsbergian. The voice of his poems have a natural flow without much restraint. I suppose that he is the kind of poet whose poetry is meant to be spoken out loud instead of silently read. A lot of his poems also seem to be written as speeches geared towards his audiences. He has a confidence and a strength to his words that can be so convincing and make you really think. The poem that I choe to write about is "Song". It's one of Ginsberg's shorter poems but it makes just as much as an impact as his others, if not more.

The poem starts of by stating "The weight of the world is love" Ginsberg is exppressing his feelings about one of the most universal topics written about among poets and authors. I've learned that no matter the century or the decade you can always find a similarity in subject matter and style in poems. Though Ginsberg says he has his own style, I can see bits of romanticism or transcendentalism being reflected, probably due to the subject matter on the relationship of love and the universal society.
Something else that I learned or noticed is that Allen Ginsberg seems to have this awareness or interest in the word or idea of the machine. He writes about it in this poem-"No rest without love, no sleep without dreams of love- be mad or chill obsessed with angels or machines". It is also mentioned in another one of his poems "Howl" angel headed hipsters burning for the ancient heavenly connection to the starry dynamo in the machinery of the night". I'm guessing in both poems it could be a reference to 1950's industrialism and its influence on society and its obsession with consumerism and materialism.
One point that can be further clarified is his relationship with love and how it society has influenced him. He talks about the universal aspect but I would like to have seem him delve a little more personally. Also what are ways that love has uplifted and ways that love has become the cause of destruction. Also a question to ponder upon-"Is the earth and the beauty of human kind less important to love than the idea of power, wealth and possession"? If there were more people who felt universal compassion instead of their own selfishness and greed, then perhaps we would be in a better position. Love is the strongest force, and whether it is used for good or evil, the outcome will always be great.

3-2-1 David Kahneman's Reading at Poets and Prose

On December 7, 2011, I went to see author Daniel Kahneman at Poets and Prose in D.C. Kahneman is a psychologist and was there to discuss his new book entitled “Thinking, Fast and Slow.” The author is a psychologist who has won a Nobel Prize in Economics, and this book discusses human psychology in relation to economics. Although psychology and what little I know about economics interests me, I went into this reading anticipating the confusion I was sure I was going to have to endure. On the whole, I did manage to grasp a few interesting points from the experience.

1 Kahneman divides the human decision making experience into System 1 and System 2. System 1 is the more emotional aspect of decision-making that comes from prior assumptions and habitual experiences in the past. System 1 is responsible for a lot of mistakes because of all of the assumptions involved in this process. System 2, although more logical, is somewhat lazy and tends to rely on System 1. Most people do not have as much control over System 2 as would be necessary for good decision-making.

2 The second point of Kahneman’s discussion revolved around the idea that humans are rational, which is a fundamental assumption relied upon by economists. The author feels this assumption is false and leads to many problems arising for individuals and society as a whole. Kahneman does not believe in assuming that people are rational, but rather that presuming that we are leads to financial crisis like the one we are facing at the moment. System 1 leads people to be optimistic in their decision making process and this optimism is more powerful than System 2, resulting in many people finding themselves in financial difficulty.

3 Humans need to be more pessimistic and more aware about their emotional judgment calls. He talked about how as humans, we are better at solving other people’s problems and seeing the flaws in other people’s logic than our own. He says that if we can improve upon our judgments of other people, and teach ourselves to become more sophisticated along these lines, society as a whole will improve.

I’d like more explanation about how to improve upon our judgment skills and our System 2 level of functioning. Part of me realizes that this is probably discussed in the book, but that leads me to my next point of clarification.

Kahneman said that although he felt reading his book would be beneficial for people, he doubts it will help improve their decision-making process. He said that writing the book certainly did not help him improve upon his own, but then why read it? He stated that he is a pessimist at heart, so this could be part of his reason for saying so, but I still wanted more clarification about why he feels reading his book is worthwhile.

Question: Can people’s knowledge of their own emotions and decision-making process help improve their wellbeing and society in a broader sense or does it simply make it easier for people to anticipate the consequences of these bad decisions? In other words, are bad decisions inevitable?

3-2-1 Response-TooDeep the Poet

As I continuously attend poetry readings I begin to notice the same thing happening every time. They all talk about life. As minute as it may seem, it is the big picture. I’ve noticed that poets constantly try to subliminally send a hidden moral message to the audience in their readings. I must not lie because I, myself, have been guilty of trying to beat a message that’s been heavily on my mind into the heads of listeners of my poetry. Most of the time they get the point, but some of the time it goes right over their heads. I am writing about this because recently there’s been a poet named TooDeep from Busboys and Poets on campus that’s read about suicide. She unleashed some of her realest material about her thoughts of suicide and how she’s never felt like she’s fitted in or has been considered pretty enough. She spoke about women empowerment and how there’s someone out there for her who will appreciate her for simply living. She did spoken word so her words were very strong and powerful and it made me appreciate the art of formulating speech that has the ability to touch the emotions of others. It was one of those moments in my life where it gave me hope that there are still people out there with common sense and the ability to speak up. She showed me, in one sitting, that words are powerful. As cliché as it sounds, it correlates with what I want to say. Words can be helpful and they can be killer when it comes to a person constantly being teased and on the verge of committing suicide. It didn’t hit me that hard until she opened up to us and told us how she was standing on the edge of the building at her job, calling her aunt to tell her goodbye. It made my jaw drop that a person of such her strength even thought about doing that. The fact that there are messages in poetry doesn’t mean that the poet is trying to tell you what to do, they just want you to understand and that is what TooDeep showed me. She was very inspirational and I’m glad she graced us with her presence.

TooDeep was a fast-speaking poet, so it wasn’t clear to me how she got so much information out in so little time. How did she create the effect of time going on forever, when in reality, it was only 3 minutes? It felt as if she was producing a miracle every time she spoke. At times I did feel as though I missed some information because she spoke a little too fast or I was distracted by her hand movements. It was hard to get past at first, but then I caught back up and it all came full-circle. I wonder if she often has those problems from people who watch her perform.

A question I would want to ask the class is if they feel that spoken word is an effective way to pass on moral messages? Also I want to know if you guys even like spoken word because it can’t be effective if no one listens. For the poet, I want to ask TooDeep what made her speak out? It just seems easier to keep your mouth closed.

3-2-1 Response To David Sedaris’ “Letting Go” - Reem

3-2-1 Response To David Sedaris’ “Letting Go”

David Sedaris writes about cigarettes like a true smoker. He wittily contradicts himself throughout the essay in order to poke fun at himself and smokers in general. His sarcasm and wit captures the way a lot of smokers actually feel about smoking so there is truth to what he is saying, but at the same time he’s making fun of himself.

His first point: contrary to popular belief, smokers are not brainwashed. He stresses that seeing smokers and ashtrays anywhere didn’t want to make him smoke and that in actuality, it made him question why anyone would ever want to do something do “fundamentally unpleasant.” As a smoker however, he describes how wonderful cigarettes are.

Point two: He discusses the customs that come with being a smoker and that mutual bond that is created with fellow smokers who may have nothing else in common besides their mutual addiction. He talks about smoking as a skill and how smoking wasn’t a statement until the anti smoking campaign came into full effect in the mid eighties, which I find hilarious. I know many smokers today (if not most) still don’t consider smoking to be some kind of “I’m cool” statement, although he admits to having contemplated his brand of choice very seriously “in the name of individuality.” Something missing was found when he began smoking. Once smoking sections were established, he says things began to change. It was when smokers began to be segregated that he noticed that one in ten of his fellow smokers or teammates had holes in their necks. Smoking is not about coolness. As a smoker, he enjoyed the rituals that come with smoking (packing and what not). Sedaris blames the heaviness he felt in his lungs while smoking more than a pack a day on his working with hazardous chemicals at the time, drawing attention to the denial and defensiveness with which many smokers defend there addiction in a tongue in cheek way.

Point three: it’s not quitting, it’s finishing. Sedaris describes the point at which he chose to become a non-smoker: he “finishes”. He says he is finished with cigarettes, preferring that term over the more common “quit” and we as readers are lead to assume that after his last smoke at the airport, he never smoked again even though he had cartons stockpiled in several different locations. He recalls a german woman who used the term “to finish” with cigarettes with fondness and writes as if recalling her statement is what made him a non-smoker. I’d like some clarification on this point when Sedaris decided to finish.

Are we really to believe that quitting something so addictive can be that easy or is that not the point at all? He relishes in the wonders of smoking and the beauty of the habit and then finishes his essay as if quitting was the easiest thing in the world and I’d like to know why that is.

Another point of clarification for me was his point about how smoking brings people who have nothing in common together. He includes an anecdote about a scary man who he felt would have robbed him had he not noticed his cigarettes and decided to ask for one instead. Sedaris describes the scene as though having a cigarette in hand saved his life from this strange man passing him on the street, but his assertion that smoking attracts “freeloaders” and also brings people together seem to be at odds with one another. His sarcasm makes it easy to see how the answer to this contradiction is that smoking does both these things, but which does he feel more strongly about?

My question is, are we responsible for the choices that we make or do we simply like to believe that we make our decisions free from outside influences?

3-2-1 Response to Kurt Vonnegut’s "Here is a Lesson on Creative Writing"

3 Things I Learned

1.  One of the reasons we read stories is to make life more bearable.  By reading tales of how people are affected by both good and bad fortune, readers can derive hope.

2.  Not all stories follow the same pattern.  The hopeful stories have the main character ending in a state that is better off than where they began (after overcoming some bad stuff).  But, some stories, like those by Kafka actually have the main character end up in a state that is worse in the end.

3.  A truly great story, like Shakespeare’s Hamlet, cannot be adequately described or plotted against the good and bad axis.  In such a story, what is good or bad isn’t easily discernible.  A masterpiece transcends the simplistic categories of what is good or bad and tells us the “truth.”

2 Things Needing Clarification

1. Is the truth always ambiguous in terms of good news and bad news?  Mr. Vonnegut implies that good writing should tell us the truth and uses Hamlet as an example of a masterpiece.  In Hamlet the readers don’t get a clear distinction between what is good or bad.  Through his characterization of Hamlet, is Vonnegut suggesting that stories that depict this ambiguity are better?  In other words, can a story that clearly distinguishes between good and bad be considered as a good story?

2. If the mark of good writing is to write about truth, and we as mere humans can never really know The Truth, why bother writing at all?  Or, is it sufficient to write about the truth as we, or our characters, see it?

1 Question

1. Is the pursuit or depiction of truth the raison d’etre behind every good story, or can there be other reasons to write?  For example, if I write about a character that is being tormented for some reason (a clearly bad thing), and the purpose of my story is to create empathy for the character and to journey and grow with that character, is that sufficient for a good story?

3-2-1 Carolyn Parkhurst Reading

Things I learned:

Carolyn Parkhurst has written 3 novels called The Dogs of Babel, Lost and Found, and (her most recent) The Nobodies Album. She read two passages from The Nobodies Album, which is about a novelist named Octavia who learns her famous son has been arrested for murder. With Octavia being a novelist Carolyn wrote a book within a book. The first passage she read was about Octavia and her isolated and slightly pessimistic perspective. The second passage Carolyn read was an excerpt from Octavia’s book. Octavia (actually Carolyn) had the idea of writing a book containing revised endings from the author’s previously published book. Carolyn admitted that her idea was risky, but she encouraged the young writers in the room to take risks and experiment. She also encouraged us to get a dog. She swore they are a wealth of inspiration and character.

Her dog actually inspired her first book, The Dogs of Babel. Carolyn also encouraged us to read as much as we can. You can learn a lot about writing by reading. She also encouraged us to find publishers who we trust and would like to start a relationship with. You don’t want to be too eager and give your book to just anyone.

Further clarification:

One thing I would’ve liked to know more about is her process of structuring her novels. The Nobodies Album, in particular, seemed to be quite complicated because it was a book within a book. Carolyn was very encouraging and told us to work hard, but I would’ve liked to hear about any struggles she faced such as writer’s block. Also, The Nobodies album seemed to have a few fantastic elements to it, like the story of the mother who haunted her son and husband. I was curious whether she had intended on that from the beginning or whether those elements came about naturally.

Question:

I really enjoyed her reading and I plan on picking up at least one of her books over winter break. My question is when did she know she wanted to be a novelist and when did she begin sending her work to publishers? Did she do any journalism or was she committed to fiction from the start?

3-2-1 Response: The Immoralist by Andre Gide

Andre Gide (1869-1951) was a French author and the Nobel Prize winner in literature in 1947. He is best known for his fiction as well as autobiographical works and is often regarded as a controversial figure. Throughout his life, Gide dealt with his contradictory personality, trying to reconcile his homosexuality with his narrow view on morality. Gide's works can be seen as an investigation of freedom in spite of stifling societal expectations and views.

In 1902, Gide wrote The Immoralist, a work of fiction with shocking similarities to Gide's own life. Although Gide never claimed that the main character Michele was indeed a replica of himself, it is implicit throughout the text; both Michele and Gide are forced to live heterosexual lives due to the construct of the society in which they live, they both transcend the moral expectations of their time, and both of their lives include traveling to foreign lands and embracing new cultures.

The main plot of the story revolves around Michele, the protagonist of the novel whose brush with death as a result of his illness has left him with a new sense of appreciation for life. His wife Marceline has been a caregiver to Michele and has helped him win his struggle against death, however, Michele's true source of inspiration has come from his encounter with young, lively boys in Tunisia, from whom Michele has gained the strength to want to live again. Seeing their healthy, vibrant bodies has invoked in Michele a sense of desire to regain his health. After Michele recovers, he shaves his beard, gets physically fit, and decides to move back to Paris with Marceline, with a new philosophy in life; no longer does Michele preoccupy himself with the future, but rather he has learned to focus on the present. Moreover, Michele no longer sees the need to hold on to material possessions or wealth; he freely spends his money on himself and Marceline and moves to his inherited family farm. There, he befriends the lowly peasants and gains a new sense of admiration for their lifestyle.

Meanwhile, Marceline's health is beginning to deteriorate and she finds herself in the same situation in which Michele had been. Unlike Marceline, Michele is not a passionate caregiver and is often negligent in treating Marceline. Ultimately, on their vacation to Tunisia, Michele abandons Marceline at the hotel and meets the young boy whom he had met years earlier, now a grown man. Although he has promised Marceline that he would be back early, he breaks his promise and along with the boy spends some time in a brothel. When he returns, he finds Marceline in a horrid condition, coughing up blood and shaking frantically. He tries to soothe her and hold her tightly, but it is too late. The next morning, Marceline is dead.

After reading this novel, I found myself still confused as to the title chosen by Gide. Although Michele acted selfishly towards the end of the novel, his constant suppression by society and his marriage to Marceline out of "a sense of duty" should be taken into consideration when evaluating his character. I found Michele to be the victim as opposed to the perpetrator, even though his irresponsibility proved to be deadly, his intentions mainly involved self-exploration and the enjoyment of his life. To label Michele as immoral would be a great injustice to the complex nature of humans.

I would recommend reading The Immoralist as it provided brilliant insight into the complex nature of humanity, freedom, and life.

3-2-1 Response Beijing Coma by Ma Jian

Ma Jian started as a government propagandist, and became an activist in Beijing who subsequently left China (being that they generally frown on that sort of thing). I initially picked up this book in order to gain some history on China and to understand a little bit of the culture there. I’d been paying attention to the news, and I really wondered how significant this ‘trade war’ could end up being (which we’re not officially in yet), and how China would behave as a newly emerging global power. This was the perfect book for that, since it covered basically the last century of Chinese history, at least that part revolving around the rise and longevity of the Communist party.

This book opened my eyes to the atrocities committed during the ‘Cultural Revolution’. It is staggering to witness an entire society shift gears and turn on each other as quickly as it happened in China, and the absolute and instantaneous introduction of an ‘untouchable’ class of people, forged of all of the free-thinkers and political elites. The cultural revolution and work-reform camps (read: Nazi concentration camps) are horrendous to read about. I also witnessed, through Ma Jian’s craftsmanship, the evolution (and devolution) of power and the struggle for control which can happen within any social group. The hunger strike and the subsequent Tianemen Square occupation by the students especially resonates when I consider the Occupy movements today. Finally, the pervasive adoration of American culture and ideals was staggering in my mind. It was (and continues to be if Ma Jian is to be believed) the idea of what America stands for which was the driving force of the occupation.

There was one vague point in the text which I wasn’t too sure about. When the main character had a strange comatic relationship with his caretaker, she subsequently stopped visiting him and much later in the text, she contacts his mother and casually drops information about having a child. I wonder (and you’d really have to read the text to follow) if the child was supposed to be his? That wasn’t very clear. Additionally, I thought it was clear what happened at the ending, but I have discussed it with others, and now I’m still convinced, but I could definitely see how it could be misunderstood. So, I would like Ma Jian to explain whether or not Da Wei (the main character) awakens from his coma or dies from it. I will keep my opinions on that to myself.

I guess this classifies as fiction. My question to pose to the class would be, to what extent should we accept historical fiction as guidance in our interpretation of other cultures when the author could be significantly biased?

3-2-1 Response Open Mic Poetry at Busboys and Poets

I’ve been to open mic music events, but not to open mic poetry before (although there was one experience where a “musician” took it upon himself to writhe on stage for a good ten minutes without doing anything particularly musical). I thought that the event would be good to give me an idea of what kind of poetry is out there or garners interest in the area where I live.

The three things I learned were that one should never read to a crowd from an iPhone or other mobile device - it just looks distracting, experiencing poetry read to a crowd is a different beast than analyzing a poem in a classroom because of the interaction, and overemphasis of cadence and rhyme does not save a poem. I found that the poems which had a really strong voice behind them were the most enjoyable to see performed. As an example, a guy named Kirby who had been writing for several years performed a piece called Love Zombie, which was in the voice of a heartbroken zombie. It seems gimmicky (and probably is a little), but it was really entertaining, and it had the conflict, the resolution, and everything we talked about in class. The poem was clearly worked extensively.

A couple of things which I think need to be further clarified include an explanation about why there were so many comedians performing open mic poetry. There seemed to be quite a few (4 of the 9 “poets” were trying out comedy material). Is that common? A girl named Pamela performed a piece called “William Leaping Into the Sky” about a lost love. The only connection to leaping into the sky was at the very end when she talked about him skydiving. I would be interested to know exactly what she was trying to convey (but I didn’t ask her about it).

There was an underlying theme of world peace and global warming discussion, particularly amongst some of the regulars. Kirby, who performed Love Zombie, also did a boy and his dog-ish piece about a post-global-warming world. Do you think (class) that open mic poetry events are a good way of keeping in tune with what’s important to the poetry audience? It’s interesting that nobody had anything to say about the economy, but maybe that’s just Northern Virginia?

Sign up for conferences!

Choose the "edit post" option -- go to "New Post" in the upper right hand corner. Then click "Dashboard" in the upper right corner of your screen, next to your email address, then choose "edit post" and add your name to a time slot. Everyone must have a conference with me! Please try to choose times near other folks, so that we can consolidate.

What to bring: Bring the two pieces (your workshop poem AND either your workshop short story or your workshop essay) that you plan to revise for the portfolio.

Wednesday, Dec. 7
Meeting in my office, SUB 2, Student Media Office


2 p.m.: Nia
2:20 p.m.:
2:40 p.m.:
3 p.m.:
4 p.m.: Julia
4:20 p.m.: Arta
4:40 p.m.: Chuck
5 p.m.:
5:20 p.m.:

Thursday, Dec. 8
Meeting in my office, SUB 2, Office of Student Media


3 p.m.: Shanel
3:20 p.m.:
3:40 p.m.: Maxine
4 p.m.: Nora
4:20 p.m.:
4:40 p.m.:
5 p.m.:
5:20 p.m.: Marcus
5:40 p.m.: Jorden

Friday, Dec. 9
Meeting in the English Department, 4th floor, Robinson A


10 a.m.: Ruby
1:10 p.m.: Reemi
1:30 p.m.: Abby

Week 12

Pleasure of Letting Go

I read this essay because I had saw that a lot of other people had read about it and I wanted to see what all the discussion was about. After reading the first paragraph, I knew that the author was going to be speaking about the pleasure of letting go of the orphaned birds that she had taken of. I'm not sure that the story was interesting because I personally do not care much for birds; however, I must say that the essay was very well written piece of fiction. I would like to emulate this type of writing or discover how she writes so smoothly. The story flows so well and seamlessly. When I'm writing nonfiction I feel like I use "and then" or I often start with the subject. I like how in this essay, she changes things around nicely so it doesn't read as a boring "this happened" and "and then."