Our launch posters this week tapped into several interesting themes and questions, including how humans relate to nature, the similarities and differences between the two articles, questioning how we could expand the environmental conversation, and how Savoy's definitions of respect and responsibility could affect how an environmental essay is composed. Our response group was wholly interested in exploring the possible methods of expanding the conversation around environmental issues to be more inclusive.
The general consensus is that there are viewpoints being left out or blatantly ignored, whether on local, national, or global levels. One of the strongest undercurrents of the comments is the idea that we should approach environmental issues with empathy and a desire for understanding. An interesting consideration mentioned is to investigate the source of our beliefs and values that has led us to damage the environment. Understanding the flaws in our cultural views may assist in promoting tangible change by addressing those flaws.
Tuesday, November 8, 2016
Friday, November 4, 2016
Launch Post: The Future of the Environmental Essay
In Lauret Savoy's "The Future of the Environmental Essay," she criticizes out current political climate in regards to the nature of the environmental essay and what it means for an essay to be one. She argues in the article that "[t]he discourse has proceeded in a narrow frame, with too few voices and storied lives of people not of Euro-American descent—experiences that transcend history and point to deeply embedded conflicts in this nation." She says that there are too few alternate voices being published and, more crucially, too few alternate voices being heard.In her essay "The View from Point Sublime," she goes into detail about her family's trip to the Grand Canyon when she was a child, an experience that made her realize the wonder of the natural world. This was paired with histories on similar expeditions by Clarence Dutton and the Spaniards when they first came to these barren lands, and even a discussion on Kant's views on the sublime
When thinking of the future of the environmental essay, Savoy had this to say: "[p]erhaps the future of environmental essay resides in two words taken to heart and made real: respect and responsibility. Respect, the willingness to look again (and again); Responsibility, the ability to respond, the capacity to attend, to stand behind one's acts."
What do you glean from this statement? How would you construct an environmental essay with these two words in mind, and how would it differ from essays from the past?
Launch Post
In "The Future of the Environment Essay" Savoy is talking about how only one view of nature and the environment is shared. She is troubled by this and believes that other views are important and offer contrast to the current conversation. Savoy also believes that the definition "environment" also needs to be expanded.
In "The View from Point Sublime" Savoy shares her personal experience at the Grand Canyon. The article also helps articulate what she talks about in the first article. When she talks about the Grand Canyon she shares historical examples of how people were amazed by what they found in the canyon and she shares how Kant thinks the canyon is an emotional experience, but Savoy herself describes a much different experience. I think that in this way, her personal experience is a prime example of what she talks about in "The Future of the Environment Essay".
What are some ways that the conversation about the environment could be expanded? Why are these ways important and what do these views bring to the conversation?
In "The View from Point Sublime" Savoy shares her personal experience at the Grand Canyon. The article also helps articulate what she talks about in the first article. When she talks about the Grand Canyon she shares historical examples of how people were amazed by what they found in the canyon and she shares how Kant thinks the canyon is an emotional experience, but Savoy herself describes a much different experience. I think that in this way, her personal experience is a prime example of what she talks about in "The Future of the Environment Essay".
What are some ways that the conversation about the environment could be expanded? Why are these ways important and what do these views bring to the conversation?
Launch Post
In "The Future of the Environmental Essay," Lauret Savoy argues that the environmental essay has been confined within too narrow a set of parameters. Not only does the definition of "environment" need to be expanded to include places other than those traditionally explored in this type of writing, but the voices of a more diverse range of writers also need to be brought into the genre. As Savoy puts it, environmental writing has featured "too few voices and storied lives of people not of Euro-American descent." On one level, Savoy asserts that it is important that these writers are able to express their stories to audiences because their experiences often "point to deeply embedded conflicts in this nation" that need to be acknowledged and discussed.
Savoy also seems to be arguing, however, that these writers' experiences often speak to environmental concerns in ways that may be new and/or unexpected to readers who are generally accustomed to encountering environmental writing that falls within the narrow parameters that Savoy references. The experiences of marginalized groups, she suggests, often interact with environmental issues in ways that are overlooked. An example she gives is that of African American abolitionists who wrote and spoke against the use of tobacco in cotton fields. These writers' experiences of and perspective on slavery were tied to their concern over this issue. Furthermore, the same "[d]eeply rooted values and economic norms" that shape how our nation interacts with and, in many cases, exploits the natural environment are also linked to other issues, such as "sanctioned violence for power and profit… class conflict… [and] the exclusion of peoples of color in a still deeply radicalized America." Savoy argues that bringing a wider range of voices and topics into the genre of the environmental essay is important because it will help us to understand these issues more accurately and to engage in conversation about them. Doing so will be a step toward "acknowledging and honoring difference as enriching and, at the same time finding, across divisions, common interest, and common humanity."
In "The View from Point Sublime," Savoy shares her personal experience of visiting the Grand Canyon. After briefly discussing how Point Sublime and the Grand Canyon in general were historically written about and consequentially perceived, Savoy describes her own response to Point Sublime. She notes, also, how this response differed from how Kant details the emotional experience of viewing something "sublime."
How do you see the ideas that Savoy puts forth in "The Future of the Environmental Essay" coming into play in "The View from Point Sublime?" Why are the differences between Savoy's perspective and experience and what Kant describes significant, and what does each say about humanity's relationship with the natural world? Do you see other connections between the two articles?
Savoy also seems to be arguing, however, that these writers' experiences often speak to environmental concerns in ways that may be new and/or unexpected to readers who are generally accustomed to encountering environmental writing that falls within the narrow parameters that Savoy references. The experiences of marginalized groups, she suggests, often interact with environmental issues in ways that are overlooked. An example she gives is that of African American abolitionists who wrote and spoke against the use of tobacco in cotton fields. These writers' experiences of and perspective on slavery were tied to their concern over this issue. Furthermore, the same "[d]eeply rooted values and economic norms" that shape how our nation interacts with and, in many cases, exploits the natural environment are also linked to other issues, such as "sanctioned violence for power and profit… class conflict… [and] the exclusion of peoples of color in a still deeply radicalized America." Savoy argues that bringing a wider range of voices and topics into the genre of the environmental essay is important because it will help us to understand these issues more accurately and to engage in conversation about them. Doing so will be a step toward "acknowledging and honoring difference as enriching and, at the same time finding, across divisions, common interest, and common humanity."
In "The View from Point Sublime," Savoy shares her personal experience of visiting the Grand Canyon. After briefly discussing how Point Sublime and the Grand Canyon in general were historically written about and consequentially perceived, Savoy describes her own response to Point Sublime. She notes, also, how this response differed from how Kant details the emotional experience of viewing something "sublime."
How do you see the ideas that Savoy puts forth in "The Future of the Environmental Essay" coming into play in "The View from Point Sublime?" Why are the differences between Savoy's perspective and experience and what Kant describes significant, and what does each say about humanity's relationship with the natural world? Do you see other connections between the two articles?
Tuesday, November 1, 2016
Meta Post- Organic Form
In general the consensus from this weeks launch post and the queries that followed it is that there is a difference between free verse poetry and organic form but that the differences can be subtle and sometimes techniques overlap. In many ways organic poetry seems to be very similar to free verse but with the form taking on a shape (sometimes literally) that reflections the author's apperception of the subject, such as a sloth moving slowly. This allows the poem to take on a symbolic image that is separate from but adds to the symbolism or meaning of the words themselves. In general it seems people agreed that free verse does pay attention to the relationships between lines but not in the same way that organic form or traditional poetry does.
Personally when I write free verse I think about how the lines look, whether they are visually appealing or not, but most importantly I think about how the breaks between lines change the flow of how the poem is read. I base my line break decisions on this rather than appearance most often so that it is creates a pleasant sounding flow of inflections and pauses that is almost musical to me. I suppose I write poetry the way I imagine an old time story teller would speak around a camp fire, with dips and peaks in inflection and a steady flow and emphasized pauses.
This seems to be more of how free verse thinks about the relationship between lines. Organic poetry considers these things, but also tries to make the form take on a whole new meaning by conveying additional information that may not be expressly written in the piece. Organic poetry also seems to make more use of traditional methods such as rhyme schemes and other techniques.
Most of the comments about this article revealed that many of us hadn't thought too much about what makes a poem free verse versus other methods such as organic poetry. Many of us think about fancy techniques such as iambic pentameter and think since we're not using old, formal methods that it is free verse, which often worries little about meter and rhyme and instead focuses on flow and rhythm, or perhaps not on these at all, turning out more like prose. It seems it would be worth it to think more carefully about poetry and different types or forms to understand the differences and similarities of them and how different forms can some times overlap or even merge completely.
Personally when I write free verse I think about how the lines look, whether they are visually appealing or not, but most importantly I think about how the breaks between lines change the flow of how the poem is read. I base my line break decisions on this rather than appearance most often so that it is creates a pleasant sounding flow of inflections and pauses that is almost musical to me. I suppose I write poetry the way I imagine an old time story teller would speak around a camp fire, with dips and peaks in inflection and a steady flow and emphasized pauses.
This seems to be more of how free verse thinks about the relationship between lines. Organic poetry considers these things, but also tries to make the form take on a whole new meaning by conveying additional information that may not be expressly written in the piece. Organic poetry also seems to make more use of traditional methods such as rhyme schemes and other techniques.
Most of the comments about this article revealed that many of us hadn't thought too much about what makes a poem free verse versus other methods such as organic poetry. Many of us think about fancy techniques such as iambic pentameter and think since we're not using old, formal methods that it is free verse, which often worries little about meter and rhyme and instead focuses on flow and rhythm, or perhaps not on these at all, turning out more like prose. It seems it would be worth it to think more carefully about poetry and different types or forms to understand the differences and similarities of them and how different forms can some times overlap or even merge completely.
Meta Post - Levertov Essay
This week's discussions focused solely on craft - the launch post delved into Levertov's explorations of organic form vs. free-verse poetry, and what that meant for the creative process. The main focus of the launch post is differentiating between free verse and organic form poetry, and asked responders to chime in on whether they have used organic form poetry before. It also asks them if one form was superior to the other.
The responders had a lot of interesting things to say regarding form in poetry. One response by H.P. Ramencraft talked about the "subtle [differences]" between the two forms, in that while free verse deconstructs rhythm and rhyme between lines, organic form poetry tries to use rhythm and rhyme to "capture the essence of its subject matter." They later went on to talk about an example of how they have used organic form to capture the slow, deliberate movements of a sloth, which I think is a really clever and interesting way to incorporate organic form.
Another responder, lll.midsummer.lll, talked about how, after reading the article, their understanding of what constitutes organic and free-verse poetry has changed. They go on to talk about why organic poetry is so interesting and how it adds a new dimension to poetry.
Overall, there were a lot of good responses to this week's posts, and it was very interesting to see how the responders utilized organic form poetry in their work!
Meta Post- Organic Form
In this week's launch post, the writer decided to focus on the differences between organic poetry and free verse. They mention that organic poetry all stems from apperception, and is more focused on the rhythm of a poem, whereas free verse doesn't pay attention to the relationship between the lines. The writer poses the question of whether the class prefers organic poetry or free verse, and if we have experience in writing either.
The first response to the launch post talks about how they have experience in writing both organic poetry and free verse, and how the difference between them does in fact reside in their structure. The writer felt that the crucial difference between the two forms of poetry is that organic poetry is "a comprehensive exploration into the more nuanced complexities of rhythms between lines" (organic poetry follows a natural order due to it's use of apperception; It's describing a chain of perceptions, or rather, how those perceptions come to fruition, so the structure itself is cohesive because it portrays one's natural train of thought) while free verse is a "comprehensive deconstruction of rhythm and rhyme within lines" (it's structure is no structure at all-- it's meant to break the rules).
The second response talks about how the writer hasn't much experience in organic poetry, and how the majority of their poetry would probably be classified as free verse. They go on later to say that they aren't exactly clear on the distinction between free verse and organic poetry, and if they're as different as Levertov makes them out to be. The writer also reflects on their own usage of form and rhythm in poetry.
The first response to the launch post talks about how they have experience in writing both organic poetry and free verse, and how the difference between them does in fact reside in their structure. The writer felt that the crucial difference between the two forms of poetry is that organic poetry is "a comprehensive exploration into the more nuanced complexities of rhythms between lines" (organic poetry follows a natural order due to it's use of apperception; It's describing a chain of perceptions, or rather, how those perceptions come to fruition, so the structure itself is cohesive because it portrays one's natural train of thought) while free verse is a "comprehensive deconstruction of rhythm and rhyme within lines" (it's structure is no structure at all-- it's meant to break the rules).
The second response talks about how the writer hasn't much experience in organic poetry, and how the majority of their poetry would probably be classified as free verse. They go on later to say that they aren't exactly clear on the distinction between free verse and organic poetry, and if they're as different as Levertov makes them out to be. The writer also reflects on their own usage of form and rhythm in poetry.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)