My Evolution Through First-Year Writing

This week completed my first week of college English class. Surprisingly, it’s not as overwhelming as I thought it would be, and is so far more interesting and engaging than high school English. We were assigned our first unit which will be focusing on medium in literature and society. Last class we read a journal article by Jane Tompkins called ’Indians’:Textualism, Mortality, and the Problem of History. I found this piece to be extremely thoughtful and almost mind-boggling, as Tompkins discusses how history will always be inaccurate and unreliable because all facts are somehow derived from perspective and therefore bias. She argues that the mere relaying of history and, in fact, any kind of information through any medium, is automatically affected by the bias of the person relaying it, even if subconsciously. I was frustrated when I read the article because not only was Tompkins essentially discrediting every historical account, but she was providing no solution to this systemic problem. She states that “the historian can never escape the limitations of his or her own position in history and so inevitably gives an account that is an extension of the circumstances from which it springs” (Tompkins 20). Or, in other words: History is all perspective. Oh well. I became frustrated and perplexed because, in my opinion, a conclusion that discredits all of history isn’t sufficient. As I kept reading, however, I noticed that Tompkins seemed to go back on her words and reach a second, modified conclusion. This time she argues that, despite the problem with history, as a historian one must acknowledge the influencing perspective and continue anyways. I accepted this conclusion more readily because I agree that the recording and analyzing of history is vital to society, and it would be lazy to just give up because of potential biases that may skew accuracy. History is important and cannot be ignored. Overall, the article made me think a lot about how closely intertwined facts and perspective really are and how pretty much everything I have read, even historical happenings and textbook passages, is the product of someone’s personal perspective. I’m interested to see how the concept of medium will tie into this philosophy.

This week we worked on the unit 1 final essays. For the project, we are required to choose a historical event and discuss how it is portrayed differently through different sources and mediums. I chose Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment and did a lot of research on not only exactly what happened, but the psychological factors behind it. This was particularly interesting to research because I’m a psychology major. As I consulted several sources, including the written testimonials from Zimbardo, a documentary, and a Hollywood feature film, I began to realize Tompkins’s point. I thought I knew exactly what happened throughout the experiment and I felt confident writing about it, but I recognized that I actually have no idea which source most accurately portrayed the events. All three were different and varied in dramatics, sensory and emotional connection, and author/creator. As I wrote in my paper, I concluded that “bias is subconscious and unintentional, and is nearly indistinguishable from fact. For this reason, it is essential to consider a variety of mediums by different authors in order to form one’s own, most accurate opinion.” This realization, coinciding with Tompkins’s, was slightly frustrating, but for the most part enlightening.  I’m starting to notice that analyzing literature and medium in the real world isn’t as straightforward as it used to be.

Finally done with Unit 1. With no time wasted, we’re already onto the next: genre. We read two pieces on the topic— An Introduction to Genre Theory by David Chandler, and The Evolution of Genre in Wikipedia by Malcom Clark, Ian Ruthven, and Patrik O’Brian Holt. I found Chandler’s writing to be the most impactful and thought-provoking. He discusses what the term ‘genre’ even means, how it changes, and how it is impossible to pin down. As he puts it, “there are no ‘rigid rules of inclusion and exclusion’” (Chandler). Just like in Unit 1, the readings have already ripped apart pretty much all of my previous thoughts and assumptions about the topic. I am asked to step back into the world of abstract thinking and question what I know, how I know it, and if it is even possible to know anything for sure. Who knew genres were so complicated. Anyways, the discussion we had in class cleared some things up and focused my thinking back into the world of practicality and realism. We listed genres that exist, subgenres, overlapping genres and the distinctions between each. In addition, we discussed the definition of ‘genre,’ how it is ever-changing throughout history and across cultures, and why it is so hard to pin down. By the end of the conversation I realized that the concept of a genre is way more complicated than it seems on the surface and how empty the term really is. I’m starting to see some patterns here. I left the class arguing with myself, still trying to determine what ‘genre’ even means, and how weird of a word it becomes when you say it too many times.

I just completed my final compilation of work for Unit 2. It included a genre report in which we explain and answer questions about a certain genre, a contra-genre review in which we look at a piece of literature as if it was a different genre, and lastly an accompanying essay in which we analyze the concept of genre as a whole and tie it back to Chandler, Clark, Ruthven, Holt, and O’Brien. I chose the genre of satire. The genre report was pretty easy but it did require a bit of prior research, which helped me to better understand the working definition and limits of genre For my contra-genre review, I critiqued the children’s book The Rainbow Fish by Mark Pfister as if it were a satire on communism. This was actually kind of fun because it gave me a chance to be creative. I played around with the formatting and images to make it look like it was written as a book review for the blog The Huffington Post. The comparison between Rainbow Fish, the generous fish who evenly distributed all of his special scales to his underwater community, and a communistic government, was actually way easier than I expected…and the obviousness of the parallels and symbolism that I found was pretty crazy. Additionally, it surprised me how easily on genre can be interpreted as a different one, and how this difference in perspective can change the meaning of the literature entirely. Because of this, the contra-genre review blurred the lines between genres and made me confused once again. Ugh. Moving on, I worked on the less creative portion of the unit—the accompanying essay. Here I talked about genre as a whole and referenced the Chandler, Clark, Ruthven, Holt and O’Brien readings. I come to the conclusion that nobody can come to a consensus on genre because its characteristics and qualifications depend on the perspective of the reader. Essentially, genre can be whatever you want it to be. I explain this thought further in my essay when I state, “although society yearns to neatly label everything, language and literature are facets that cannot be pinned down. Categorization of writing is ever-changing and always subjective. It is the responsibility of each individual person to question and reflect on a text’s genre for themselves, if they even chose to do so at all.” I am getting more frustrated because nothing in literature seems to be set in stone at all. Even the differences between genre and medium are so minute and specific that sometimes I find the two indistinguishable. Although this unit was interesting, after all that work I feel like I’ve reached the same conclusion as last time—that everything just depends on perspective.

Cover of The Rainbow Fish by Mark Pfister

Since we finished Unit 2, now we’re in the final stretch of the class. Thank God…I don’t know how many more ways there are to talk about perspective and subjectivity in literature. Last week we read Stanley Fish’s How to Recognize a Poem When You See One and discussed the concept of audience. This reading was more interesting and actually sparked quite a conversation in our class. Fish, a teacher, wrote about how he asked one of his classes to analyze the piece on the board and told them it was an English religious poem from the seventeenth century. The class did just that and extracted all sorts of hidden meanings and significances. However, the piece was not a poem, but just an assignment for the previous class listing authors’ last names. Fish used this experiment to support his theory that the meaning of literature is entirely dependent on the perspective of the audience, and how audience interpretation can be even more important that author intention. I, as well as some other kids in the class, found the experiment to be kind of slimy and not genuine. Of course his class interpreted it as a poem—their teacher told them it was! If the class was asked on their own what they thought was on the board, they probably would’ve said a list. That’s what it clearly looked like. Nonetheless, I understand Fish’s point about how interconnected genre and audience are and how they overlap and rely on one another. He claims “that all objects are made and not found, and that they are made by the interpretive strategies we set in motion” (Fish). In other words, the meaning of literature, regardless of what the author intends, is entirely constructed based on the audience’s interpretation. Wait wait wait—ugh. Not again. It’s always perspective! I should’ve guessed… Why do we even have distinct terms and labels if their definitions are so messy and overlapping?

Almost done with the semester, I just completed the final Unit 3 paper. I had to write about something I am an expert in, in a particular genre and medium, and tailor it to the appropriate audience. I wrote about art, specifically Dadaist art, because I’m really interested in this historical artistic movement. I formatted the paper like an online news article from the Northeastern newspaper, The Huntington News, and targeted it towards an audience of Northeastern students. This project was more fun than a typical essay because it gave me another opportunity to be creative and informal. It was also easier than I thought it would be because the tone and language came naturally once I was in the mind-set and started writing. After, I wrote an accompanying essay explaining my project and either agreeing or disagreeing with Fish’s philosophy. I agree with Fish theoretically, that meaning and genre are fluid and undeterminable, but not practically, when it comes down to it. As I explain in my writing, “I believe that individual interpretation has a vital impact on the significance of literature, but, realistically, there are intrinsic characteristics of art or writing that help to label it in some way.”  Many things are reliant on perspective, but let’s not get carried away. There are classifications and qualifications that exist in this world and they cannot be ignored. Audience and authorial intent are vital in interpreting a piece of literature, but the most telling information comes from the original content of the piece, itself. This is what should determine the labels that are associated with a piece of work. Perspective can only be so influential.

Mechanical Head (The Spirit of Our Age), circa 1920 (Mechanical Head (The Spirit of Our Time)

When it was time to reflect on the past 3 units, I found it hard to differentiate between the discussions and readings of each. This is because each concept— genre, medium, and audience— fundamentally connect. They all are fluid and subjective in nature and overlap in description and definition. The labels are used to try to categorize elements of literature, but in reality are useless because their definitions depend entirely on an individual’s perspective. Through the readings in this class, I was told to consider than nothing in literature is set in stone, and anything can be interpreted as anything. Basically, this entire semester, although extremely informational and enlightening, left me with more questions than answers. I have three terms with empty, yet somehow overlapping, definitions, and am intrigued, yet frustrated, with the ambiguity of literature.

Tompkins, Jane. “‘Indians’: Textualism, Morality, and the Problem of History.” Critical Inquiry 3.1 (1986): 101-119. Print.