Evidence of Margaret Avison’s “The Swimmer’s Moment” in William Shakespeare’s “Hamlet”: Hamlet’s Swimmer’s Moment

Hamlet, the main character of William Shakespeare’s play of the same name, struggles prodigiously throughout the show with a dilemma. “The Swimmer’s Moment” as characterized by Margaret Avison greatly parallels this very quandary. Hamlet’s “swimmer’s moment” is his need to decide what to do about his father’s death: Hamlet can seek revenge and lose his own life in the process, or he can choose inaction and watch his life crumble. In essence, Hamlet’s dilemma is his “swimmer’s moment.”

Avison’s “The Swimmer’s Moment” both creates and defines the term “swimmer’s moment” as the instant at which one is about to face inevitable destruction, or instead choose to opt for ignorance. At this moment, one must choose either to “turn and turn” (Avison 9) around the edge of the whirlpool or to challenge “The deadly rapids” (Avison 7) and “penetrate their secret” (Avison 18). Ultimately, the “swimmer’s moment” is imperfect; neither outcome of the choice can yield a distinguishably desirable result. Given the choice of entering “the whirlpool,” (Avison 4) or choosing to ignore “the black pit” (Avison 6) it is impossible to really say whether “one or two have won” (Avison 20). Primarily this is because, even upon entering the whirlpool one will inevitably be “whirled into the ominous centre” (Avison 13); the whirlpool leads to death, but it also allows the swimmer to achieve te majestic secret that lies in the “eternal boon of privacy” (Avison 15). To conclude, the “swimmer’s moment” is the moment that one must choose to enter the whirlpool or to ignore the rapids, and lie forever on the precipice of achieving what dwells inside of what one has chosen to disregard.

Hamlet’s dilemma in “Hamlet” is that he must decide what to do, and ultimately how to execute it. The character’s circumstance is illustrated in his fourth soliloquy:

How stand I then,

That have a father kill'd, a mother stain'd,

Excitements of my reason and my blood,

And let all sleep? (IV.iv.56-59).

Principally, Hamlet must determine if he should avenge his father’s death or instead ignore his feelings toward the supposed murder of King Hamlet and move on like the rest of Denmark has done. However, this is not as simple as it appears; Hamlet is notorious for his over thinking of almost everything, “To be, or not to be, that is the question” (III.i.56). Consequently, Hamlet has spent months analyzing the question of whether he should seek revenge, or listen to his morals. If Hamlet chooses to avenge the death of King Hamlet he has two basic options: murder, or prove King Claudius’s guilt. Whereas, to ignore his feelings towards the ultimate destruction of his beloved family simply requires him to forget the testimony the Ghost gave of the “Murder most foul” (I.v.27) committed by “ that incestuous, that adulterate beast” (I.v.42). However, Hamlet encounters a problem with the ghosts testimony:

The spirit that I have seen

May be the devil: and the devil hath power

To assume a pleasing shape; yea, and perhaps

Out of my weakness and my melancholy,

As he is very potent with such spirits,

Abuses me to damn me (II.ii.600-605).

This possibility adds complexity to Hamlet’s dilemma as he is now presented with an alternative hypotheses in which he must now determine whether it would be right, let alone morally right , to in fact kill King Claudius, the alleged murdered of Hamlet’s father. Therefore, Hamlet’s dilemma of deciding whether to kill Claudius, or to let him live has become complicated as factors such as the Ghost and Hamlet’s tendency to overanalyze have been presented.

Furthermore, Hamlet’s dilemma is his “swimmer’s moment.” This moment for Hamlet is his need to decide to seek revenge on Claudius, and thus plunge into the whirlpool, or to ignore his mourning and become one of the “bland-blank faces” (Avison 9).To begin with, Hamlet is dearly afraid of the ramifications of entering the whirlpool. This is evident clearly throughout the play, “Conscience does make cowards of us all” (III.i.83). This forces him to make a choice that is very much like that of a swimmer. Just like a swimmer, if Hamlet does choose to enter “the whirlpool, then” (Avison 4) he will be facing something that he is truly fearful of in hope of possibly exchanging this fear for some enlightenment, whether it is to discover “The silver reaches of the estuary” (Avison 21) or to achieve the justice and the closure that will evidently come with the death of King Claudius. In conclusion, the dilemma that Hamlet faces seems to model the qualifications of a “swimmer’s moment” as has been presented by Margaret Avison.

Also, just as in “The Swimmer’s Moment” Hamlet must make a choice that will yield negative results regardless of his solution. Firstly, Confucius once stated that “Before you embark on a journey of revenge, dig two graves” this seems to be very true to Hamlet’s situation. In order for Hamlet to carry out his plan to murder Claudius he must inevitably confront the possibility that he could fatally fail in the act, or he could succeed in his revenge but in the end suffer from his very own brand of justice, in the hands of another. Simply stated, Hamlet must risk his own life in his pursuit to end the life of King Claudius. Secondly, if Hamlet successfully ignores his desire to avenge the death of his father he will remain “forever on the rim of suction” (Avison 10). As both the play and Hamlet’s inaction move further on in time Hamlet’s life turns to shambles. As a result of Hamlet’s tardiness in executing a plan, he has started to lose his friends; Ophelia has drowned, “Too much of water hast thou, poor Ophelia” (V.vii.186), along with Rosencratz and Guildenstern being killed, and Hamlet has lost his Mother, Gertrude, to King Claudius. It is clear that as the story goes on, and Hamlet further delays his decision, dire consequences continue to be realized. Thereupon, Hamlet’s decision parallels “The Swimmer’s Moment” in its imperfectness and inability to produce a rewarding result.

Thus, Hamlet’s dilemma is one in which exemplifies a “swimmer’s moment” as both offer a decision that is apparently impossibly hard to answer, and completely undesirable to the one who must answer it. Both “Hamlet” and “The Swimmer’s Moment” feature a choice that is between self destruction and ignorance; between achievement and an artificial life excluding what could be. For Hamlet to ignore the whirlpool he will not only lose a part of his life, his friends and family, he will also remain nescient. However, If Hamlet does choose to enter the “gaping vertical” (Avison 14) he will fulfill his natural desire to avenge his father, but he will face his inevitable defeat. Accordingly, Hamlet’s “moment at the whirlpool comes” (Avison 2) not to create action, but to create drama. Shakespeare has indefinitely used this moment as a means to create one of his most well known and revered works of his great canon of drama.

Works Cited

Avison, Margaret. “The Swimmer’s Moment.” Winter Sun. Toronto: University of Toront Press, 1962. pp.36.

Shakespeare, William. “Hamlet.” Mississauga: Canadian School Book Exchange, 1996.

Print.

Why must Hamlet die?

After all of the wonderful presentations on the various interpretations of Hamlet, I must say that I was most moved by G. Wilson Knight ideas about the Shakespearean play. Knight managed to come up with some very meaningful, and relevant renderings of Hamlet that I feel do a great job of answering many of the lingering questions one may have after studying the play.

I agree very much so with Knight in that the play's theme is death, and that the character Hamlet is very much surrounded by the numerous examples of human kind's mortality. Shakespeare also ties in themes of good and evil that make the play equally balanced in terms of thematic differentiations.

In terms of both G. Wilson Knight's interpretation, to which I also sceptically agree, Hamlet must die because he has "soul-sickness." This "soul-sickness" comes from the fact that he is no longer mentally healthy, he has lost his father to murder and his mother to incest, and cannot seem to function properly. This dysfunction creates a Hamlet that is "inhuman" and incapable of thinking much more than of death, it also fills him with meaninglessness so much so that he has really already died. The real Hamlet, the one that we never meet, is no longer there; the Hamlet that the play knows is one that is infected and confused. Hamlet's infection soon comes to effect the whole play and all of its characters, eventually to the point that everyone dies. Thus Hamlet must die because he can no longer live; he cannot live because his life has been ruined, and he has ruined every other person's lives. Hamlet's disease is why he must die, and it is why he is already dead.

What's Hamlet to you?

Hamlet represents to me the indecencies and the falsities that are in our everyday lives. The play is centred around the theme of death, and constantly hints at the morbid details of the Danish kingdom. Furthermore, Shakespeare includes incestuous events, psychosis, and murder. Despite all this, Hamlet is able to illustrate that life can and is worth living, and that one must maintain hope throughout.

Hamlet is a hero, but an imperfect one at that. He lives in a dangerously dysfunctional world, and he himself seems to be quite dysfunctional. The play focuses on, and is quite famous for Hamlet’s inability to decide, “To be, or not to be”, and on his tendency to over think everything that happens around him, “The undiscovered country from whose bourn No traveller returns, puzzles the will.” The fact that even though Hamlet may be a tragic hero does not seem to effect the fact that Hamlet is the protagonist, and is reasonably able to convince the audience that though life is dreary, or torturous, it is still very much worth living.

"A Girl's Story" - David Arnason

“A Girl’s Story” by David Arnason is a classic example of a short piece of fiction that can be examined under the postmodern microscope. This school of literary criticism is generally defined as a rebellion against the rules of modernism. A postmodern author will tend to ignore the traditional constraints of structure, and form; in place using the power of imagination to formulate a text. Furthermore, postmodernism aptly blends the cultures and classes to create a barrier-free story that anyone can enjoy, and understand. This tendency is perhaps the most important aspect of postmodernism because it allows an author to create a message that most anyone can appreciate.

Arnason uses postmodernism as a vehicle to mock and stereotype the multiple opposing schools of criticism. Firstly, feminism is parodied throughout the text, most notably in the tenth paragraph: “I’m going to have trouble with the feminists about this story. . . . The feminists are going to say that I’m perpetuating stereotypes, that by giving the impression the girl is full of hidden passion I’m encouraging rapists” (Echoes 12, 229). Clearly, Arnason has criticized the feminist theory by explicitly stating that the movement over analyses a phrase’s meaning, and thus places an artificial connotation upon an otherwise satisfactory grouping of vowels. Also, during the reading of “A Girl’s Story” one can clearly pick out the “digs” against the reader response movement. This is evident in the sentence “I could do a lot more of that, but you wouldn’t like it” (228), in this case Arnason has satirized what the stereotypical reader will think of a part of the story. Thus, he makes a bold statement predicting what a reader will like or dislike in a story. Despite Arnason’s alleged hostility towards the literary theories of feminism and reader response, it would be quite reasonable to suggest that this bullying was all in good fun, and nothing more than a ploy to attract readers.

Additionally, the irony of the title “A Girl’s Story” adds to the comic tone of the story. While this title intuitively refers to a story of a female protagonist written by a female author it is quite obvious that this is far from true. Not only is the author a male, he seems to stereotype what a female would write and read in such a story. By doing so he creates almost an opposing environment to that expected of “a girl’s story.” While this is far from what would be traditionally appealing, perplexedly this surprise offers instead a story that ever more interesting and readable. This is mostly based on the fact that when a reader is made uncomfortable by reading something that is so far from the norm it actually makes a piece more alluring. This characteristic also quite fittingly is a facet of postmodernism. To conclude, the use of irony in this story not only fits that of the postmodern movement, it also counter-intuitively excites the reader.

In closing, Arnason’s use of parody and irony help create a postmodern short fictional prose that is not only enjoyable to read, but also somehow complex.

“Things That Fly” - Douglas Coupland

The story’s multiple references to “things that fly” create a philosophical discussion based on the symbolism of flight. Explain how Coupland has managed to parallel the likes of “Calvin and Hobbes” or K’naan, the Dusty Foot Philosopher, by manipulating tone, structure, symbolism, and diction.

Douglas Coupland employs the tools of postmodernism to create a story that is both insightful and engaging. Through the use of structure, tone, symbolism, diction, and many more tools Coupland has achieved a postmodern opus.

By definition, postmodernism is untraditional, it is revolutionary in many cases, and it is rebellious. Postmodernism is a departure from modernism, one in which an author is able to use anarchic construction and casual tone to convey a story or message. This literary school of criticism often seems to be found confusing, and uncomfortable but with a little analysis one can often find a little sense in a story like “Things That Fly.”

Throughout this short story, Coupland continually refers to birds, and Superman; put more simply, there is a recurring theme of “things that fly” throughout the story. Upon investigation, these references are symbols which function as allusions to the story’s meaning. When the narrator asks God to “just make me a bird – that’s all I ever wanted – a white graceful bird free of shame and taint and fear of loneliness” (Imprints, 147) he is illustrating that birds, or anything else that flies, are truly free; they “are a miracle because they prove to us there is a finer, simpler state of being which we may strive to attain” (145). The symbolism goes so far as to imply that perhaps humans have devolved, as opposed to evolved, from animals. That humans have become creatures that are inferior to those of the skies. Perhaps when we look to heaven, to God, we are really looking to the birds, and “things that fly,” and that is what we strive to become. That is why humans have “always liked the idea of Superman” (146) because he is the “one person in the world who is able to fly” (146). We idolize Superman because he has achieved this state of being that is devoid of arbitrary possessions and humanly worries. Superman is free.

This freedom is in particular what the narrator seeks because he seems to have gone through something that has damaged his psyche: “My brains felt overheated. So much has happened in my life recently” (144). The narrator could be hurt for countless reasons, but what seems to fit the best is that he has been divorced. Although this is never stated, or even implied, one can clearly tell the narrator has been emotionally destroyed.

The tendency for a postmodernist to ignore the barriers of “high” and “low” classes and to blend them as one can be clearly seen in the comic “Calvin and Hobbes.” The linkage of philosophy and cartoons is an obvious facet of postmodernism because it is able to ignore class barriers. This is not only true for comics though. K’naan is a hip-hop artist known for philosophizing and intellectual lyrical content. He calls himself the Dusty Foot Philosopher because he feels that although he grew up impoverished and without an education, in Somalia no less, he is still able to engage in profound discussions and maintain an understanding of concepts generally regarded as solely for the “high” class. This “dusty foot philosophizing” also seems to be evident in Coupland’s story. Coupland writes in an extremely informal tone while still alluding to exceptionally complex matters. In a sense, “Things That Fly” is an extension of a “Calvin and Hobbes” comic because it has portrayed a subject that was previously reserved for a well-read “higher” class.

The line drawings and casual diction contributes to both a conversational tone as well as a classic example of the postmodern school. Coupland’s diction is displayed in the opening paragraph when he writes “having just woken up from a deep deep sleep on a couch shared with pizza boxes and crushed plastic cherry yogurt containers” (143). This relaxed diction is a clear aspect of postmodernism in the sense that it creates a deconstructive story. Instead of explaining his message in some sort of academic slang, the author chooses to use a tone that is more often found in a children’s story. Thus, Coupland creates a story that is far from the modernist’s method of structured formality. Additionally, cohesion between paragraphs has clearly been ignored, this anarchic structure, instead of creating chaos, actually entices the reader. Conformity is boring, and Coupland’s rebellious attitude towards structure creates a story that is interesting to read solely because it is different. For example, the first and second paragraph flow like a boat does through ice: “let me describe what happened today” (143), ends the foremost paragraph, followed by “today went like this: I was up at noon; instant coffee” (143). Although there is a connection in themes, the first paragraph could have easily been erased and no one would have known better; this is because the cohesion was so distant that it was completely useless. However, this sense of mayhem helps create a short story that is readable, and one that is able to question society through the imagination.

In closing, “Things That Fly” has embodied the ideals of postmodernism by conveying a message in an unconventional way. The lack of structure, casual diction and tone, as well as symbolism have all contributed to making a work of art out of a children’s story.

"Ode to a Nightingale" by John Keats

Why?

Keats chose to write about an experience with a Nightingale as a means of releasing his sorrows, and also to re-examine his role in nature. Keats’ heightened consciousness has become his art form. By using the poem as a release, he has thus been able to relax and in effect look more intently into the many beauties of nature. Moreover, Woodsworth wrote that “only total absorption in nature could heal thoughts;” it seems to be that Keats has heeded Woodsworth’s advice by writing this piece. Additionally, by using an ode, Keats was able to elevate the entrancement of his verse. Odes traditionally have a meditative quality, and this attribute clearly had a magnificent effect on the verse, as “Ode to a Nightingale” does seem to draw the reader into a trance.

How?

The Romantic period was focused on representing the “picturesque sublime” in a “total surrender to a visual’s impression,” this was clearly done in “Ode to a Nightingale.” The verse is representative of Romanticism in the sense that it is in itself a study in nature. Just like in Romantic art, where the artist used colour, and not shape, to represent reality, Keats has used diction, metaphor and many other artful devices to construct his reality. By relying on these devices, and not so much on the actual subject, Keats has managed to create something elegant, and divine out of something mundane.

What?

The rhetorical devices used by Keats appear to be the vehicle in allowing Keats to achieve his goals. Through the use of rhetorical questions, “do I wake or sleep,” Keats has allowed both the reader and himself the opportunity to analyze the subject of the canto. Diction also has been able to have this effect. By using phrases such as “charm’d magic casements,” Keats has presented a poem that is stimulating. Thus, when recited the stanzas force the reader to study the words, and their subjects, closely with a keen mind. These two devices have thus been able create an intense scrutiny that forces the reader to both think about the beauties of nature, but also their effects. Secondly, by using metaphors Keats has greatly reflected nature’s elegance in the splendour of his images. Phrases like “the fancy cannot cheat so well as she is fam’d to do, deceiving elf” demonstrate the magnificence of nature and also the brilliance of Keats’ mind. Finally, alliteration has allowed the poem to flow like a spring stream. Keats almost regularly uses phrases like “self-same song” and “amid the alien” to create a poem that flows more than a “still stream” would. This fluidity reflects nature's organic look, where nothing ever looks out of place. To conclude, the use of such devices as alliteration and metaphor, Keats ahs been able to create an ode that is able to parallel the beauties of nature.

Informal Essay

Mick Jagger held that “anarchy is the only slight glimmer of hope” and although Jagger is not known for his political views it looks as if he has done a good job of capturing its essence. Anarchy seems to be widely held as a synonym for chaos and disorder, but in fact it is quite the opposite. Anarchism is truly the only philosophy in which the world will ever be allowed to blossom.

To begin with, the abolition of social hierarchies will eradicate the world of inequality and injustice. Anarchy will allow all men, women, and children of all races and creeds to be freed from their rulers. There will be no need to rent oneself out on the market, and no longer must anyone follow the arbitrary rules of some self-serving ruler. No longer will minorities, or majorities for that matter, be unjustly treated; people of all backgrounds will be treated equally. In summation, anarchy brings upon the world an egalitarian utopia, which in every sense of the word is perfect.

Anarchy does not breed chaos, theft and violence. On the contrary, those would be the dealings of capitalism. Would you steal from a fellow man if there was no institution to which the need was fuelled? Capitalism is what causes greed, and to get rid of free enterprise would be to get rid of greed. Anarchy professes the need to get rid of all institutions, bureaucracies, and authorities. In this ideology, people voluntarily work for the good of themselves, and they willingly work for the betterment of their community. There would be no reason to kill, and no reason to steal. Secondly, although the abolition of government means that there are no more judicial laws, it does not mean that each individual must ignore their morals. Anarchism stands for a form of voluntary socialism, in which an organic, and truly democratic, community forms. This replaces the tyranny of representative democracy and in its place creates a forum in which everyone is accounted. In such a community, there is no chaos, and it is not every man for themselves as people most commonly believe. Finally, if Anarchy did cause chaos, then would that not contradict the very idea of anarchy, freedom? The very intent of eliminating the hierarchical structure is to liberate, and to implement a system of individual autonomy. A system of self governing, but at the same time one in which everyone’s freedom is valid. The perception that anarchy advocates the “rule of the jungle” is completely false. Humanity is not free, until each person is freed, and this can only be done if everybody’s freedom is respected and never infringed upon. Thus, anarchism is not the source of disorder; it is the creator of peacefulness and order.

Finally, the elimination of oppression means that humanity can beyond a doubt mature into a liberated civilization. This means that everyone will have the freedom to do exactly what they choose. People will be allowed to live their lives however they please, because isn’t that what life is about? Should we not focus our time on doing things that we love, not being coerced into obeying commands? Our natural absolute right should be to live freely. In addition, when you are emancipated from dictatorship you strive to achieve your own incentives, not that of boss’s. When you concentrate on your own successes then you can ultimately live happily.

Consequently, without anarchy the world will always be a garden full of weeds. We must as a society, as a species, strive to make our world, our garden, beautiful again. To get rid of our oppressors and our hierarchies will be to clear our garden of its weeds and pests, and only then can we admire our world for what it is. Only then can humankind live happily, live freely, and live triumphantly.

Argument

            Despite popular belief, Anarchy does not breed chaos, theft and violence. On the contrary, those would be the dealings of capitalism. Does not our current government see these things, are they not problems already. Would you steal from a fellow man if there was no institution to which the need was fuelled? Capitalism is what causes greed, and to get rid of capitalism would be to get rid of greed. There would be no reason to rob a bank if there was no monetary system. Anarchy professes the need to get rid of all institutions, bureaucracies, and authorities. Does this not include the system of currencies and bartering? In this ideology, people voluntarily work for the good of themselves, and their community. There would be no reason to kill, and no reason to steal. Secondly, although the abolition of government means that there are no more judicial laws, it does not mean that each individual now must ignore their morals. Anarchism stands for a form of voluntary socialism, in which an organic, and truly democratic, community forms. This replaces the tyranny of representative democracy and in its place creates a forum in which everyone is accounted for. In such a community, there is no chaos, and it is not every man for themselves as people most commonly believe. Finally, if Anarchy did cause chaos, then would that not contradict the very idea of anarchy, freedom? If rule of the jungle did apply, then people, the majority of people, would be oppressed, and that is not what anarchy is about. That would be capitalism. Thus, anarchism is not the source of disorder; it is the creator of peacefulness and order.

Cause and Effect

            The newspaper headline read "Intense Blaze at the Local Library," and further evidence would suggest that Gerald Green caused such a fire. Gerald’s great thirst for knowledge would bring him on a trip to his library. When Gerald entered the public institution he promptly forgot about the selection of firecrackers he had collected form a recent trip to his convenience store. Gerald had gone with his father to buy a chocolate bar, but ended up buying a package of cherry bombs. Once he had bought his firecrackers, he had no way to open his car door with his hands full, so he placed his purchases in his backpack. When the duo got home, Gerald had so much fun shooting their fireworks, Gerald decided to make his own fireworks. This would bring him to the library to research chemistry and physics. Unfortunately for the taxpayers though, Gerald had neglected to check his backpack to see if he had actually used all of his firecrackers. He hadn’t. So when Gerald placed his backpack on one of the heaters in the library, it was a cold day, the neglected fireworks ignited. The reason for the fire was thus Gerald Green and his love of firecrackers.

Comparison and Contrast

Although many would say that Joseph Stalin’s regime was very much like Pol Pot’s, it was truly radically different. For example, Pol Pot’s Khmer Rouge considered the rural farmer to be the proletariat, and the true representative of the working class. Based on agrarian communism, Cambodians worked on collective farms and on labour projects. In contrast to the Khmer Rouge rule, Joseph Stalin’s rapid industrialization of the Soviet Union focused on urban industrialization, and greatly ignored agriculture and farm work. As a result many people starved to death in a widespread famine. Secondly, under Pol Pot’s command an estimated 1.5 million people died solely because they were suspected of free market activities. Whereas, Stalin’s Great Purge was a campaign to rid the Communist Party of corruption and treachery. Finally, Pot cited the enemies of the state and society to be the parents of families. Children would be separated from their parents at a young age because the parents were said to be tainted with capitalism. Thus, children could be brainwashed with socialist ideals, and taught to torture animals. In comparisons, Stalin saw ethnic minorities as the greatest threat to the Soviet Union. To combat this Stalin would deport millions of people to Siberia to be exiled. In conclusion, although Pol Pot was influenced by Joseph Stalin’s ideas and actions, their regimes were by far diverse.

Analogy

            Life is like literature. One could be classically formed, romantic or analytical. There are academic types, and there are recreational types. Life and literature are full of stops, and breaks. They can be formal or informal. There are successful writers, and successful people.  Both have beginnings and endings. They are full of surprises and suspense. Furthermore, life and literature can get better with age or wither over time. They can be cut to short, or dragged on too long. Besides, they can begin with a bang, or end with an explosion. Finally they can be full of cliff hangers, or empty of soul.

Metacognition

            Socrates’ designed his Socratic seminars to initiate dialogue, and not to create discussions or debates. Students would examine a text, and respond to it by carefully listening and not interrupting each other.

            In this sense I believe that I was somewhat successful in the first Socratic seminar of my life. I was able to generate meaningful points, although few, and analyses during the course of the exercise, and I was able to listen intently to my peers. Additionally, I feel that the group as a whole was able to effectively discuss, and ultimately criticize, the paragraph.

            In due course I would like to improve both my listening and my participation skills, as well as build up my analyzing ability.  To do this I plan to utilise my preparation time more efficiently by planning what I will say, and also by making notes in the margins.

            If I were to give myself a label based on my performance in this first discussion, I would call myself the “quiet listener.” I would say this because although I did contribute, I spent most of the time intently listening to and absorbing what my peers had to say. Perhaps that is a good thing though, because the famous proverb does say that “we were given two ears but only one mouth.”

"A Fire Truck" by Richard Wilbur

The purpose of Richard Wilbur’s “A Fire Truck” is to illustrate the commotion caused by a passing fire truck. The speaker, who is perhaps the arsonist who started the fire, is greatly disturbed by the presence of the “loud, obvious thing” that has disturbed his “brooding.” The poet is able to demonstrate the obtrusiveness of the truck, while also showing the beauty of the “not extinguished fire.”

Poetry has the ability to take something that is mundane and elevate it into something that unbelievably picturesque, and remarkable. Wilbur displays this characteristic of verse superbly by using lines such as “shift at the corner into uproarious gear.” Wilbur also uses description to create splendour in the situation even though he is clearly been disturbed by the “beautiful, heavy, unweary” fire truck. The poet also uses rhetorical devices such as alliteration, “shocked street,” and imagery, “Redness, brass, ladders and hats hurl past.” Furthermore, phrases like “phoenix-red simplicity” and “blurring to sheer verb” are so amazingly perceptive that they create such a sensation that they grab the reader`s attention, and add a sense of emotion to the poem. Also, the use of action verbs in the first two stanzas creates a sense of intensity that shows that the speaker is completely concentrated on the truck.

What truly makes this poem stand out as such a glorious example of verse is that it is able to create beauty out of simplicity, and that it excites and interests the reader.

You call this literature? Part 3

  While looking through the "Literature" section one would expect to find articles on Woolf and Morrison, Pound and Hazlitt, but instead there is Dan Brown littered all over the place like weeds in a garden. This is not to criticise Brown but what is truly appalling is how a bestseller, based on a juicy story everyone loves to believe, delineates what people talk about, and characterizes what is considered quality literature.

Yes, popular literature has hit an unsurpassed low, to the point that Chapters, "aiming to achieve Wal-Mart excellence" has candles and calendars at the front of the store. To the point that one must travel to the very back of the store to find what they have come to buy, books. Moreover, on the tables nearest the entrance are shiny, colourful, hard-covered beasts that are covered in bestseller stickers. These are the books that are written by Dan Brown and approved by Oprah Winfrey.  We read what Oprah tells us we should read, and are hardly able to find anything by an Oprah approved novelist other than what is the current bestselling novel. It seems all that people want is what someone thinks is "best." Rather, we gather bits and pieces, as if all works were separate, only caring to read the author that the New York Times deems "Brilliant" and "Dazzlingly unique" as if they weren't all written with the same formula.

Some of us have never even heard of any Canadian writers, or at the very least, Canadian writers who don't base their stories in the mid-western U.S. in order to sell more copies. Many of us have never read anything by Atwood or Munro, who are hardly ever considered in Chapters' as one of the "Best Selling Novels," while others like Henighan are being almost completely ignored. It seems everyone would rather read up on astrology and fashion, while picking up duck shaped soap. Everyone wants to "escape." Everyone wants to read for "enjoyment," to dissolve into a world where a beautiful young woman will fall in love with some man who has a dark and foreboding secret. Have we become so passive, so hopeless, that we feel we have to escape our lives and brainwash ourselves with predictable plots, and boring characters? Literature is what makes us human, and if what we're reading is mass-marketed, cliché-driven books, what does that say for humanity?

 

Methods of Development: Example

“Good Old Us” Walter Stewart

            Examples are essential to any essay, and while many essays get by on just a few examples, some are constructed of nothing more than examples. Such is true in Good Old Us,and in many ways Stewart creates a perfect example for the method of writing examples.

            The reader is quickly introduced to an intensity, which continues throughout the piece of writing, and greatly succeeds in creating an emphasis on the content of the essay. This emphasis is important in that it keeps the reader involved and helps prove that “Canadians, as a people, are no better and no worse than anyone else.”  By grabbing the reader’s emotions Stewart is able to make assertions that, although true, may not have been accepted otherwise. Thus it can be proven that Canadians “are in fact looser and dumber” than is generally believed.

            The uses of examples in this essay are used very successfully by presenting ideas, relating to the topic, and creating direction.  Stewart explains that Canadians are not always “the gentle citizens” we tend to think of, but have a tendency to become “wild-eyed, gun toting” citizens of a “state bordering on anarchy.” The first example presented is that of a couple of boys “all of good families” looking for “a little free loving” but instead ended up leaving the victim “naked and dead by the roadside.” This hard-hitting example of the brutality that even the “patient man” can commit supports the thesis, and provides direction for the rest of the essay. Also, Stewart’s example of the “American sociologist” incited riot managed to not only demonstrate Canada’s lack of free speech, but also its blindness to racism. Additionally, the use of perhaps more relatable examples, such as the aforementioned “minor riot”, helps create a connection with reader, while still relating to the topic. Thus, by solely using example in prose, one can still successfully create a well developed, “good” piece of prose.            

Good And Bad Writing

Examples of Good Writing

 

    The first example of "good" writing given has earned its status by adhering to the rule of never being to clever. To achieve this author has been able to delicately balance the use of description, with simplicity. This piece also manages to stay directed and to keep from wandering off. The author has also kept the article interesting for the reader by using description in such a way that it draws one in and keeps them reading.

    The second article has succeeded in keeping the reader interested by not getting to "hyped up." The author has been able to use a quotation without twisting the meaning, or wording to which the subject actually said. Also, the prose has been able to remain informative, while not crossing the line to which anyone short of a physics degree would not understand.

    The final sample has been labelled so because it has a certain merit to it which has managed to somehow created something very interesting out of something that perhaps may not have been so. It has managed to remain simple, informative, descriptive and exciting while not being too clever, wordy or undesirable to the reader.

 

Examples of Bad Writing

 

    The author of the first sample has clearly been unable to refrain from trying to sound clever. The piece is full of redundancies and overachieving words, and is seriously dull. When one writes, they must make sure that the reader is pulled into the writing. This can often be done by using interesting content, rhetorical devices, and description, but can never be achieved solely with the use of a large vocabulary.

    Secondly, the second example of "bad" writing is described as so because the author has also tried to sound clever and professional by using a thesaurus. There is absolutely no way that anyone would be able to understand this after just reading it once. The piece is full of brainy words but mysteriously lacks any truly descriptive terms.

    Finally, the last example of writing has been unable to remain interesting to the reader. The sentences contained do not seem to flow along, and the use of terms like "laws of origin," do nothing but further confuse. The piece appears to think to much of both of itself and of the reader, in that it assumes I understand what it is talking about.

 

The Role of the Audience

 

   The audience is decisively the most important aspect when determining the merit of a piece of prose. This is because the audience is who is destined to read the piece, and sole reason for its creation is to be read. If one is unable to read, or understand a piece of writing, then its existence is purposeless. It is very important to tailor prose so that the  intended audience will indeed read it, and certainly never forget it. One must remember to never forget who you are writing for, to not speak over them, and to most importantly keep them reading.