Ok... so the english final is tomorrow. And I'm sitting here trying to prepare my essays for tomorrow but i am totally incapable of doing it. I don't know why. I just don't know wha tI want to write. I can't type, I can't think straight, nothing seems clear. Normally I can sit down and have at least some idea of the essay I'm about to write. Today, this is not the case. I have two essays I need to write, and no idea how to write them. One of them is agreeing or disagreeing with Faulkner about how good writing can not be accomplished unless it is about some fundamental issue of the human heart, namely love, honor, pity, pride, com passion and sacrifice. Of course, there's a catch. Not only do i need to agree or disagree, but I need to do so based solely on the books we read in class, which at the moment is totally usless to me. I don't really want to agree, because I don't undderstand why it is mandatory to be writng about some sort of emotion in order to have extremely good prose or wonderful writing or something, but apparently it's necessary, given that I can't back that point up with any of the books we read this year in class. What am I supposed to say? I think that The Awakening was a good book in spite of the fact that I think it sucked? But Ic an't object to it because it didn't deal with some inner human emotion. So, I think it's bad in spite of the emotion it deals with, but that's a really weak poin because it's all a matter of opinion. The fact that Faulkner happened to get awarded a Nobel Prize doesn't make his work good to everybody still. I personlaly found As I lay dying a very n\unenjoyuable book, but apparently because it's faulkner, the rest of the world FUCKING LOEVS IT. (It should be noted that I'm writnig this entire thing with my eyes closed, just typing arbitraryl) Ok, so I was just alking with anthony, and I'm still unsure of whate xactly I [plan on writing, however here goes. Ok, so we've got a book like the Grapes of Wrath. let's say I did not like the grapes of wrath, the first problem I see is what if I did like it? What makes a book "good" doesn't that change with the reader? What might be good writing toone person, may not be good writng to another person. Ok, so that's thefirst problem I see. Anyway, let's say that I consider the grapes of Wrath a good book. Ok, so with this good book, according to Faulkner here, it's good because it must deal with some sort of emotional thing like love or pride or sacfirice or wahtever. But what if it really doesn't evoke some sort of emotion? Then it's a political book which I consider good, and therefore defies Faulkner, great, that's a nice counterpoint for me to argue. Now can I really use the same logic with everybook this year? Not really, what's more, is that just because the book didn't evoke ane motional respons wwith me, doesn't mean that it won't with somebody else. Moving right along, do I need to worry about the intent of thw riter? Faulkner says that the writer need to write to intentionally involve the emotions mentioned earlier, like love and such, but what if that point is ttotally lost on me? What if I completely miss all the sacrifice stuff in The Grapes of Wrath, ut I still think it's ag ood book? Does that make it ok under Faulkner's definitikon of good writing? Ihate my english class, and I hate how everything I think of ssems to have a nive siomple self0congtractidiccting counterpoint. I realyl can't type today. I keep on trying to tyupe, and then hitting random keys or wrong keys even though I'm trying to type something important. I keep hittin gletters fo wrods I want to type early and therefore fuck up what I'm writing.
Ok, new paragraph, lets' go through this and try to think about what exactly Im going to write. in the intro paragraph there is going to be some quote from Faulkner's speech, and his main points summarized and shit, and then I'm going to say I disagree, and perhaps summarize why i disagree. I disagree because I don't think it is intrinsically necessary for the wrtier to be writnig about some emotion in order for the writnig to be good. and furthermore, what may be good writng toone person may not be to another. Ok, now for 3+ paragraphs of supporting evidence from the books I read this year in English, and nothi g else.
Nex paragraph is about the Awakening. Murphy will be told that I don't like the Awakening, which I really don't. I now need to somehow explain that in spite of the fact tat iwas writtne with some sort of emotional response in mind, it was laost on me, and even if tasn't lost on me, I still don't think it's a good book, because it's im ply not interesting. Wow, glancing at what I've written so far, I am really incapable of typing correctly li,e this, what is going on. So, the awakening wasd a bad book, because it wasn't interesting, and I cou ldn't care less about what was going on, but in spite of the fact that I didn't really like the book, nor consider it good literature, it did in some ways cause me to think about the woman's pride, and wants, and how she longed to be something she wasn't, and coulnd never really be. Wow, I already forgot what I was writng about at the beginning of the sentence. My mind is reaklly wandering today, how am I going to write an entire fuckinf essay. ACK ACK AC K AC K. Ok, so the Awkaening is a bad book, but it does invoke emotional response, and therefore is conteradictory to Faulkners point because just ecause it was writtne for emotion, it is still bad. Of course, this doesn't really dispute anything, merely fall out of the bound. I need to hink of a book that is good, but without the emotion. Ok, so I change my point. I think the Awakening was a good book, but I don't think it was because of the emotional response, actually, the awkaening wasn't too bad, I found it very difficult to read, however the fundamental issue of a woman bweing what she doesn't want to actually was kind of interesting to me. Too bad, I guess I'll just abandon using the Awkwening as a point for this.
Ok, so mayb eI agree. If I agree, then the awakening is great. In spite of the fact that I found it hard to read, the book is good because it dealt wi9th the emotions of the woman who was what she didn't want to be, and that was cool and stuff. Hell, even stupid works of silly fantasy fiction for example, will invoke some sort of emotional response because if they didn't, the'yre probably not very interesint books, and tehrefore, why are they being read at all. Ok, that's my new approach. I do agree, although I don't know if I really do. So, change the intro paragraph so that I do agree, and that Faulkner is right, good writn can not occur unless it invojkes some sort of emotiion, although I tned to disagree that it needs to be pride, love, compassion, pity, or whatever the other ones he gave. It might e something else, because the scope of humano emtion is far more than those few.
Next example will be perhaps The Grapes of Wrath. ok, so the grapwes of wrath is a good book, because I felt pity for the joads, who had their pride, stripped from them, and how they made all these sacfrifices, and whatnot. Ok, grapes of wrath works for me as well. I gues I do agree although I stil lhave my doubts, but I guess I can abandon all sense of self questioning and introspection in light of the essay which I need a good grad3e on, but that is a inherently oxymoronical, no simply self contradicting point. How can I write with emotion about this topic and have it be good, when I don't truly belive what i'm writing. By definitoin, i wil lwrite a bad esayu, topo bad for me, I guess.
Ok, so that's two of my requisite threee exa[les, and I will now move to my third which will be... umm... The Crucible by Arthure Mi9ller, ecause I felt that umm. well I'd really like to use a book like the things they carried as an example, except that we didn't read that in class, and is therefore not on the list of acceptable examples, which again sucks for me. Back to the crucible. the character I'm thinkin gof was john proctor. Ok, so john proctor makes the sacrifice of his life in order to reveal the fraudulence of the witch hunt stuff ([provided I remember correctly, whichi s very unlikely) and that's all emotional and shit, and therefore, this is agood book, because Ilike the book and i like it because of the emotinoal response it makes me have. la dee da I think I'm done with this essay, ok, now for preperation for the next essay.
the next essay I have to write can be afrom a great variety of topics and I think I'm going to gowith the one that Miller is in. It is basically that in Miller's 1987 interview, he said that he would like that he worked so that in his works, there was always a moment of truth were the audience was made to fell a little more human. Now, I need to thin of 4 examples from what we've read this year. Well, in the Crucible, the moment of truth is where John is finally hanged and the witchnt is revealed and we feel deep pity for what John had to do and stuff, and then in death of a salesman, we have that moment of revelation where Biff breaks down for Willy and everybody feels sorry for their pitiful family, and then they are made truly aware of how crazy Willy is when he goes back to being crazy and lying to himself about how his life is like, and throughout the play we see how all he ever did was aspire to be something he wasn't for all the wrong reasons. Well, I don't know what the real moment of truth there was, but I'll think of a better one. Ok, that's two down, how aboutr a third. Umm... In the grapes of wrath, right at the very end where rose of sharon cares for the old dying guy, that part is soert of toucghing, in a weirdass twisted sort of way, That's like a moment of truth, right? Only one more example necessary. Umm, in the awakening, here the omwan drwons herself to escape her miserable existence, that's sort of interesting. The only way out was death, and it made me erally question my who life and do i like wha ti'm doing and stuff. Ok, that's four, can I write that all? Can I summarize itbetter for purpose of writng on a 8.5x11 sheet such that I can write it again tomorrow? Probably, but after dinner or something. In the meanwhile, I'm going to try to get the vocab i need to know from somebody, as well as the literary terms that I need to know, that I don't. I might be back later tonight to ramble some more.
