Using the Blog Medium: some suggestions

The blog assignment provides you with a medium, a middle ground between journal and formal essay, for shaping your response to reading toward your writing projects. Here are some tips, offered in response to your initial posts, for ways to develop a stronger response and to experiment with future postings.

We can think of the blog as the place where we are making a trial, experimenting, as Montaigne does. [On that score, consider “What Bloggers Owe Montaigne”]

  • Provide a  focus for your response–both in terms of summary (what the reading says, what the project is) and analysis (what you say, your critical thinking in response to the reading–what’s working, what else you notice in the reading). In our terms of essay writing, this focus works toward the resonance or recognition or argument that every good essay needs. Some simple ways to develop that focus:
    • title: at the end, or while writing the blog (I suggest you save or publish the blog before finishing, and then update it once or twice while writing), use this to ask yourself: what am I getting at? what’s my project?
      • at the very least, don’t title it “blog #1”; start experimenting with some creative thinking–you will need a good title for your essays.
    • summary (what you hear the reading say–the initial reading): think 2-4 sentences, an initial paragraph that summarizes in a way that will allow you to later dig in to a key point and elaborate further. In the case of multiple essays from the week, you can still work on putting them into a brief conversation in 3-4 sentences. Practice using keywords and phrases from each text that you think best summarize the idea of the essay. Remember this blog serves in part as a quiz on your reading from the week. You need to demonstrate in the first part that you have read thoroughly; the summary should point to all the reading from the week (whereas the close reading can focus on just one text or essay, if you choose). Quotation and basic paraphrase is useful here.
    • elaboration (what you notice; what you want to say about the reading–what’s working in the rhetoric and poetics of the essays): dig in by providing a  quotation; use the quotation tool (in toolbar) to highlight this, and then respond to the text with your interpretation and analysis. You should also use specific words (and keywords) that we are learning about the essay–and its philosophy, rhetoric, and poetics–to go further in your closer reading.
    • basic paragraphing: though the posting need not be fully edited or as formally organized as an essay, consider some basic paragraph breaks to move from summary to analysis, to distinguish different main points; this will also allow you to do some practice with transitions.
    • tags: after finishing the draft, the tag function invites some reflection on what the focus has been, what some key ideas and keywords are; tags can also be effective later when working on an essay and looking for material–to remember or be surprised by some associations (two different posts that turn out to be related by a tag); tags can sometimes lead to interesting associations to other blogs. Some of the WordPress formats will actually suggest automatically other blogs out there that might relate to your post.
  • Advance your focus by making a (literal and figurative) link
    • the basic links we will use (and mainly use in writing) are quotations and citations.
    • link to keywords introduced in discussion, in our reading, on the Keywords page.
    • consider digital quotation: a link to a site that offers definition or explanation or example for your focus.
      • use the link function in the toolbar
    • consider linking/inserting an image or other media, if relevant and effective for your focus
    • link back to previous texts we have read, or out to other texts you know that we haven’t read
  • Look ahead: to discussion in class, to the next section of the reading, to your next posting. What’s next?
    • one way to conclude effectively (wrap up, but not entirely–since a blog by definition is not a finished product, should have more to say): ask a question. In addition, you can also ask yourself: if I were to write an essay of the sort that Montaigne or Woolf or Emerson writes, what might I do, and why?

I invite you to browse through what your peers are doing. There is not one way to do this blog, so it helps to explore other approaches, then (just as we are doing with the essays we read) experiment.

Emerson’s Essays: experimental experience

Emerson’s “American Scholar” (published individually in 1837) and “Circles” (1841, from his first book of essays, Essays: First Series) are not entirely essays about the essay. But they come close to that focus, if somewhat obliquely (or to use some of his own geometric imagery, tangentially), since both essays do focus in on how this writer, reader, and thinker views the meaning and method of writing, reading, and thinking. To echo Emerson from “American Scholar,” we see Emerson, the very type of scholar he is trying to redefine in that essay (and originally, a Phi Beta Kappa address at Harvard’s graduation), in his “school.” In “American Scholar,” it is a school in which “creative reading” is as important as “creative writing,” but also one in which schools can be problematic, books can be too influential, read wrongly. In “Circles,” shifting the focus a bit more broadly to the method of thinking, we see that thinking as such, not just reading and writing, is necessarily experimental if it is to be natural. Only dead books and dead ideas are finished.

Given what we now know of the essay genre, of its origins in experiment and trial, essay as continuing process, not finished product, I would suggest the appropriateness of understanding Emerson to say that all of our thought, and the reading and writing that (for him, as for any scholar) primarily conveys that thought is necessarily essayistic: it is “thought thinking” (Porter’s phrase) which sounds a lot like Emerson’s famous phrase, “Man thinking.” Thus Emerson writes essays about his essaying.

Here’s the difficulty, and the creative potential, of doing so: of presenting and performing or dramatizing in an essay the experimental experience shaping that and any essay. In his journal in 1839, Emerson writes the following caution that reads to me not unlike Montaigne’s preface to his reader.

I need hardly say to any one acquainted with my thoughts that I have no System. When I was quite young I fancied that by keeping a Manuscript Journal by me, over whose pages I wrote a list of the great topics of human study, as, Religion, Poetry, Politics, Love, &c in the course of a few years I should be able to complete a sort of Encyclopaedia containing the net value of all the definitions at which the world had yet arrived. But at the end of a couple of years my Cabinet Cyclopaedia though much enlarged was no nearer to a completeness than on its first day. Nay somehow the whole plan of it needed alteration nor did the following months promise any speedier term to it than the foregoing. At last I discovered that my curve was a parabola whose arcs would never meet…. (JMN 7: 302)

Emerson fails to finish and complete his planned book that would contain all the thought in the world. “American Scholar” and “Circles” suggests that every book–and every writer and every reader and thinker–must fail at completion if it is to be authentic thinking and not the product of a “mere thinker.” And indeed, in the same journal entry, Emerson goes on to suggest that this statement of his failure is indeed rhetorical, is to the very point of his writing:

At last I discovered that my curve was a parabola whose arcs would never meet, and came to acquiesce in the perception that although no diligence can rebuild the Universe in a model by the best accumulation or disposition of details, yet does the World reproduce itself in miniature in every event that transpires, so that all the laws of nature may be read in the smallest fact. So that the truth [sic] speaker may dismiss all solicitude as to the proportion & congruency of the aggregate of his thoughts so long as he is a faithful reporter of particular impressions. (JMN 7: 302-3)

This is where Emerson’s philosophy of thinking and reading, evident in these essays, also turns toward the rhetoric organizing the essays. They are structured as a parabola rather than a curve. Parabola, in the rhetorical tradition, suggests relation through dissimilarity: analogy, allegory metaphor, metonymy are figures that we can associate with it. Here is the entry from Silva Rhetoricae:

parabola parabola
 par-ab’-o-la from para “beside” and ballein “to throw or cast”
parabole
similitude, comparison, resemblance misticall

 The explicit drawing of a parallel between two essentially dissimilar things, especially with a moral or didactic purpose. A parable.

Emerson suggests that in failing to keep all his various topics and ideas neatly categorized, separated, in failing to keep them from running over into each other, he succeeds in demonstrating or faithfully reporting the relation among all the particular impressions and smallest facts. The encyclopedia turns out to be wikipedia, all the knowledge in the world, linked and unfinished.

We can think back to Montaigne’s emphasis on “relation,” and his warning that he does not teach, only relates. Emerson also emphasizes relation. Another word for essayistic relation for Emerson is generalization. In fact, at the end of his essay on Montaigne, Emerson identifies the lesson Montaigne taught, or rather, related to him through his reading: “The expansive nature of truth comes to our succor, elastic, not to be surrounded. Man helps himself by larger generalizations. The lesson of life is practically to generalize; to believe what the years and the centuries say, against the hours; to resist the usurpation of particulars; to penetrate to their catholic sense.”

Some questions: How does this rhetoric of circulation and generalization inform his poetics, the sentences and words making up these related paragraphs of his thinking?

If a “faithful” writing of nature must be parabolic, must resist conventional or systematic logic and understanding, how then do we faithfully read such writing? How do we “understand” an Emerson essay? How might we write such an essay?

Finally, does the essay “Experience” continue in this performance and dramatization of the experimental nature of thinking and writing? It is published in 1844, in his second series of Essays, not long after the death of his first son at the age of 5. Conventionally, this essay has been read as a break with Emerson’s earlier philosophy from “American Scholar” and “Circles,” viewed as Emerson turning toward a more tragic view of life, giving up in some manner. Do you see that?

My annotated (somewhat digitally creative) reading of the Emerson texts from this week:

“Circles”

“American Scholar”

“Experience”