I’m stuck on a Writing question and need an explanation.
responses (four) should be substantive and thoughtful, but they need not be formal. They should be in standard written English, though, not text-speak. You are welcome to comment “I totally agree with you, Jane” or “Great point, Bill” but these will not be considered substantive enough for credit. Responses should expand on a point, disagree with a point, compare or contrast to another passage or text, or explore a new way to look at the craft point. Make sure you read all the responses before yours, and please refer to others who have responded before you by name when appropriate (e.g., “Although I agree with what Susie said about Wallace’s repetition, I think what he was really after was a sense of . . . .” ). Do not simply repeat a response that has been submitted before yours. This would be plagiarism.
The responses 50 – 100 words.
1- In “The Rose Metal Press Field Guild to Writing Flash Nonfiction,” Patrick Madden writes, “essays often do contain some moral rhetorical quality that threatens to improve not only their authors.” He adds that regardless of the fact that the inclination and shape of an essay do not support suasion or the fact that an essay does not direct a reader to think like an author, essays consist of complex content that sparks thoughts that exceed the mere notions. In this perspective, he adds that the best contrary essays do not challenge moral principles, but instead seeks to explore the validity of humorous platitudes regarding various notions in society. From this perspective, it is clear that essays ought to concentrate on challenging notions that do not interfere with the morality surrounding a situation. In Jeff Gundy’s essay “from the rocks at dusk,” what is the moral rhetoric in the story? Is the moral rhetoric clear and why?
2- Gundy (2012), commences his article by exploring the traits of a great nonfiction writer. He argues, “If the writer can lull the ego into bored torpor or get it to bound away to chase squirrels and sniff around in the leaves, the parts of the psyche that only unfold and stretch themselves when there are no walls around them—which mostly have to do with paying attention to the world outside the self—can get something done” (Gundy, 2012). As a follow-up statement, Gundy describes how contemporary nonfiction writers are not effective at their writing because they are limited by their ego or by what they learned to do at school or a combination of both limitations. I agree and relate with the above statement because sometimes when writing nonfiction, it is easy to forget that as it is your life story, you should tell it as you would a story and not as you would a structured essay. Are there times you have difficulty writing nonfiction because of your ego or because you get carried away by the structures of academic essays?
3-In The Rose Metal Press Field Guide to Writing Flash Nonfiction, Jeff Gundy writes: “I’m convinced that we all are better off when reminded that there are beings and forces not made by human beings but worth our attention; that there are energies larger, older, and subtler than our little human knots.” With this quote, I think Jeff Gundy is explaining that if we want to write about things that are greater and larger than ourselves, we have to step out of our human world and into the natural world. To write about something big, or unknown, or natural, we need to be immersed in it in order to write about it clearly. Otherwise, we will be left writing and thinking from our own limited perspective that is small and personal to us. How does your thinking change when you go outdoors? In what ways is it easier to think when you are in nature?
guy response : Writing outdoors, for me, is a double edged sword. In some ways, I enjoy the tranquility of outdoor writing, however, I am an easily distracted individual, who will focus on anything else if it seems more interesting than a paper, especially if I have been out there for quite some time, and if I am near the end of my creative fuse. That’s not to say, however, my thinking does not change when outdoors. I get much more in tune with my inner self, and my inner sense of understanding, making my writing much more eloquent and sophisticated
4- Patrick Madden writes that, ideally “an essayist has the sense to rise above pettiness and tribal politics”. In short, a writer should not be held down by popular opinion, and write against the grain in a way. While I am not one who can be called the ideal essayist, I still have my moments where I write what I want, over what others think I should write. Have you ever had a moment when you became an ideal essayist, and if so how did it make you feel? Were you more fulfilled because of it?