Thursday, September 13, 2012
Discussion Prompt #4
Considering the two new explications you read, do you agree with Graff’s argument that essays are generally better when writers have "a countervoice, something to push off against, to motivate their writing and give it a point” (3)? Are the second set of explications stronger or weaker than the first, and why? Connect one of Graff’s points to a direct example from the explications to support your argument.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Graff made an argument that I have never once heard or thought about in any way. I suppose because my writings have always seemed “to say smart things about works”, nothing more and nothing less. I do agree with Graff’s statement on having something to “push off against” when beginning a work. As a student I would find it extremely difficult to write any sort of paper without further research on the ideas and thoughts of others. Gaff comments that many examples of academic criticism is intended for more "initiated" readers; in that case, if Levin or Alkalay-Gut had not conducted reasearch into Shakespeare, Prath, or their other works they might not have been able to comprehend and explicate the poems on the level in which they did. Both of the explications contained quotes and ideas from other authors commenting on the poems. Furthermore, the first set of explications we read included no other ideas from other authors and the second set of explications proved to be much stronger and to delve deeper into the poems. The second set offers more in terms of reasons for writing the poems, possible interpretations of the poems, and a better sense of the intended emotion the poems are trying to convey.
ReplyDeleteI absolutely agree with Graff’s argument. Even in writing my own explication, it was difficult to start somewhere because there was nothing to “push off against,” it was just explanation of metaphors and statements. Especially in reading Alkalay-Gut’s writing on Plath’s “Metaphors” compared with prior one we read, there is very much the sense of “What’s the point?” in the first, where in the second we are actively thinking about poem on much deeper level. In the later on “Metaphors” the riddle revealed is much deeper than what a casual reader would agree to. As for stronger or weaker, the first set of explications seem to just fulfill the need of ‘nodding heads’, a sort of ‘yes-man’ attitude; within the second two, we are asked to actively think over the context and unspoken meanings and to do so critically. The second set of essays therefore appears stronger because of the level of thought not only put in by the authors, but also the level of thought asked on the part of the reader.
ReplyDelete-- Leslie Fox
I agree with Graff’s point that giving papers a “so what” aspect makes them better and that students should be made to “engage with critics” (4), but I don’t necessarily agree that you need a counterargument to make this point. I feel that it is just one strategy that authors use. Graff seems to see this too when he says that students should “agree, disagree, or otherwise engage with them (sources)” (3). As regards the explications, I thought both sets did a good job talking about the poem. As long as the essays have a thesis and stick to it, they seem to me to be well-written arguments. What becomes the problem, as Graff notes, is when students “grope for things to say” (3). One example of this may be seen in the Stewart explication of “Metaphors” when the author goes into a seemingly not-relevant discussion of abortion. Would the explication have been better had Stewart bounced ideas off of a countervoice such as Alkalay-Gut’s insistence that the poem “reveals the concentrated application of Plath’s sophisticated linguistic, figurative, and psychological analysis” (189)? I say that it depends on the author and the point he or she wants to make. In this case, it is likely that the counterargument would have detracted from Stewart’s main point, but it could also be argued that her discussion of abortion achieves the same effect and should have been cut from the piece or changed to something else. While not always encouraged in English classes, secondary sources are often useful, but they can be abused as well, a topic that is certainly relevant to this conversation but one that Graff does not fully address.
ReplyDeleteI absolutely agree with Graff's argument. It is hard to write a paper without having done some research on the topic. When writing my explication I found myself "getting stuck" or most writers would call it writer's block. I knew what I wanted to say about the poem I was explicating, but I couldn't exactly find the words to do so. After reading these two explications, I found that they were more involved with the poem rather than the first set we read.
ReplyDeleteIt’s hard to pick a definite answer to this prompt; in one way, Graff’s argument makes complete and utter sense and at other times it seems a little too forced and not completely necessary. In the explications that we had to read for class I would agree that, in this case, they certainly gave interesting “countervoice” to their essays. For example, Graff argues that “Students need…conversation not only as a prompt for generating their own critical response but also as a model of what critical response to literature looks like. To produce a competent version of literary criticism…they need to see some of the stuff.” That’s a fair argument, one I’d never really thought of before. A great example of Graff’s ideas is seen throughout the “Metaphor” explication; by discounting an argument that Plath’s poem was asinine, the author is able to reveal a deeper meaning that they can help to justify their countervoice. The author quotes another explication and works off of it: “While neither of these observations is in error, a closer look at the intricacies of ‘Metaphors’ reveals the concentrated application of Plath’s sophisticated linguistic, figurative, and psychological analysis…”
ReplyDeleteIt makes sense that writers work off other writers’ ideas, although I don’t necessarily find the second set of explications any stronger than the first ones. Both sets of explications deal with opinions and always will unless they’re able to get a direct answer from the poet. Even if they work off other people, they’re still debating what they think, making it a continuous cycle of debated opinions. Although Graff makes extremely strong and practical arguments, both sets of explications are equally dependable with their content.
I believe that an explication is stronger when there is a critical analysis. First off, it helps the writer decide on a sense of direction. I know when I am presented with an argument that I have to write about it is easier to express myself when I know the existing opinions and then use those to back up my own or help me produce counter-arguments. From a reader's standpoint, although it can potentially be more to read since multiple arguments are being presented instead of one, it helps the reader identify all the issues. When you read a paper that has all the arguments listed, it allows you to know what different people believe and create your own opinion. When you read a standard explication (one without comparing and contrasting opinions) you get sucked into the writer's way of thinking without knowing whether or not there is a better answer out there. For instance, the first explication we read while back of Plath's poem "Metaphors" that was performed by Stewart had me convinced that it was just a simple poem about pregnancy; however, after reading the explication of the same poem performed by Alkalay-Gut that mentioned the other opinions and then expounded on them, I am convinced that the poem is actually something more than a simple poem. Besides giving me more information to pick and choose from to create my own opinion, it seemed to give Alkalay-Gut more credibility since she they gave all sides of the story instead of just her narrower view. It is like how Graff that when you are writing a counter-argument that it gives more “’motivation’ for writing” and ultimately produces a more engaging piece.
ReplyDelete-Daniel Dutton
Gaff created a compelling and swaying argument for counter-voices and research. Granted, research and countering another academic's position is great and rewarding, but there's still something rewarding about engaging a text with minimal or no research. Gaff seemed to forget the power of individual analysis and annotation, which is great whenever research is limited. While this individualized experience is rewarding, it cannot be as rich or strong as research backed writing.
ReplyDeleteFor the sake of this argument, the research backed explications were superior to the non-researched explications. Research helps writers create new ideas and expand on their own. The "Sonnet 138" explication by Richard Levin used examples from the poem to strengthen Richard Helgerson's arguments in addition to his own.
However, one thing to be wary of is the "research trap." This trap involves addressing the research instead of the literature. Example: "I agree with Research A because of A and B reasons. I disagree with Research B because of A and B reasons. They relate to Literary piece D because..." It's easy to see where that can go.
--Jacky Killian
I do see Graff's point in this essay. I think a counter argument is a good jumping-off-point. It does pose intelligent argument because it gives you something specific to argue against. Sometimes, having read another paper on your subject can give you a proving point to your argument as well.
ReplyDeleteI think the references used in these second explications are good examples of how having secondary references can aid in stregthening your argument. Such as in Plath's Metaphors, the author, Karen Alakay-Gut, references past explicators who call the poem "artificial" and a "delightful little pregnancy poem." She uses these understatements about Sylvia Plath's poem to help solidify her argument that this poem is one of Plath's best use of figurative language and psychological analysis.
While this does aid Karen Alakay-Gut's argument. I do not find it to be necessary. Without having to put down these previous explications, she could have made her same point, using her same thesis and it would have been just as strong. It would have seemed more professional and I would have found her explication to be more credible over all.
Thus, while I see Graff's point that "students need that conversation" that literary criticisms provide. I also think that as English majors, we should be practicing making those criticisms for ourselves. With this in mind, I think that I found the second set a little bit weaker than the first set.
I have mixed feelings about Graff’s article. I think when you are in a college class you should discuss the things you are reading with your peers with the guidance of your professor so you can learn other interpretations of the text. I don’t necessarily believe that you should base your work on someone else’s words, though. I think it is fine to research before you write your explication, but don’t use someone else’s thoughts to base your own thoughts on.
ReplyDeleteI feel that the second set of explications are no stronger than the first; they are simply different. My point about “using someone else’s thoughts” is especially evident in the case of Levin’s explication. He is basing his work on Helgerson’s words and, although he opposes some of Helgerson’s thoughts, it is not an original and fresh interpretation of the text. Even his thesis statement states, “Of the many attempts to interpret Shakespeare’s Sonnet 138, Richard Helgerson’s seems to me the best”. Shouldn’t your thesis statement be your own words and not simply stating that “that guy over there got it right the first time.”
So at what cost do we use secondary sources? Of course, having a scholarly interpretation to “lean on” or to “bear against” is going to inspire you and give you something to base your explication on. But can that skew your own interpretation of the poem? I believe it can.
-Ann Reagan
I agree with most of what Graff has to say. I feel that reading without the benefit knowing another person's interpretation of a work forces the reader to interpret everything for themselves, which can yield very unique results. I also feel that reading under the benefit of someone else's knowledge can allow a reader to view things in a way they may not have considered.
ReplyDeleteI did feel this second set of explications were stronger because they utilized other interpretations within their explications, and in doing so strengthen their own arguments. For example, in Karen Alkalay-Gut's explication of Plath's "Metaphors" she offers other people's interpretations as a jumping off point for her argument, which is something Graff explained as being a benefit of utilizing secondary sources.
-Zachary Ecton
I only agree with Graff’s argument that essays are generally better with a counter voice when the writer has to have a lot of information in their paper. A good example would be an argumentative paper where the writer needs as much information on the pros and cons to make a point about what is being argued. I believe both ways of writing can have promising results, but it depends on the topic that is being written. I think both sets of explications are good, but I prefer the first set because it gets to the point. The counter voice takes a while to develop and it seems like you have to talk about everything in the poem. The first set of poem explications got the major points across without it getting lost in side meanings of the poem. One of Graff’s points was made when the second Plath’s Metaphor explication questions the title of the poem and the author’s pregnancy, but in the first Plath’s Metaphor explication it goes by the general consensus about the pregnancy.-Christopher Catlett
ReplyDeleteI have been doing Speech & Debate for about six years now, and in my time I have written plenty of persuasive speeches. One of the first things we learn in our writing is the importance of brining in secondary sources. My stance on bringing in these sources has always been, it depends on who the author is. As students, we don't have the background that our professors have. Therefore, to establish our ideas and arguments as legit concerns, I find it necessary to use secondary sources. However, if you have your Doctorate in writing and analyzing poetry, I think it is safe to stay that your analysis of the poem doesn't need someone else's opinion to "legitimize" it. That being said, I believe the second batch of explications were stronger. For example, in the second explication on Plath's Metaphors, we saw the author cite Anne Stevenson's "critical" view on the poem. Here, the author was able to establish that her following thoughts have been agreed upon by other scholars, and therefore, make for a much stronger explication.
ReplyDeleteGraff has a good point. Making an argument about a work is much easier when you have another argument to counter. While coming up with a thesis that essentially stands alone is fine, there doesn't seem to be any point to it. It is clearly an assignment, whereas if there was something to "push off against," one could almost appear to be writing just because they wanted to counter the former argument. It isn't likely that someone would do that (I suppose I may be speaking for myself only), but the essay would seem to have more of a purpose than just a grade in that case. Is that the point of writing an essay, though? I don't know. It is good to have your own opinions about a work rather than reading another person's essay and saying, "Well, this is interesting, but I think otherwise."
ReplyDeleteI couldn't say whether or not the second set of explications are stronger than the first set we read. I noticed that the second essay on "Metaphors" is a lot more in-depth and its clear that the author did some research to gather a deeper understanding of Plath's state of mind around the time she wrote the poem. The overall tone sounded more intellectual than the first essay's but that doesn't necessarily make it better.
I agree with Plath's argument that when writers have something to stand for and against, it motivates their writing to give it a point. I personally can connect with this as a student and as a writer because if I am not fully educated or passionate about a topic, I lack the drive to explicate or form an original and strong thesis on a piece of work. Essays prove to be more persuasive in context when the writer can accurately give an opinion and support it with research and textual arguments. Graff states that students need to generate their own responses but at the same time model what a critical analysis should look like. This statement is agreeable as we see that a developed counter voice is presented through an educated opinion. The first set of explications are very surface level critiques as they touch on easily noticeable attribute of the piece. However, in the second set of explications we see the author's thoughts stem from scholarly influences and not only express critical and deep thoughts toward the piece. This also allows the reader of the piece to think in the same context and stretch their mindset on deeper underlying meanings, giving it a stronger standpoint. In the second set of explications the ideas are presented in a much stronger sense because they facilitate their arguments using others' scholarly outlooks on the topic.For example, Guts explication proves that one can be successful by beginning an argument with someone else's already proven statements and expand on it to become much deeper. At the same time, Graff used this idea to prove that sing secondary sources and educating one's self is beneficial in explicating a piece of work.
ReplyDeleteI personally do not care too much for this second set of explications because of the other people’s influence in the author’s writings. An explication, in my view, should be the author’s interpretation of the poem being analyzed, and should not be influenced by any outside opinions. Other people’s views definitely have an effect on ones interpretation whether that individual is willing to admit it or not. I know from my own personal experiences this to be true. I have found my literary interpretations change more than once due to outside opinion. As far as an explication goes, I believe it to be weakened because it has been tainted by external opinion and does not show the author’s individual interpretation and analysis. As far as exploring possible interpretations, the more input from external opinion and explications the merrier.
ReplyDeleteI do agree with Graff that it is important to have a countervoice to serve as motivation for your work in MOST situations. I know that I can personally analyze a poem, but someone else's analysis may bring up an important aspect of the poem/work that I missed entirely. I think that analyzing a poem with minimal secondary sources yields what someone personally believes, but I believe for argument's sake or trying to add supporting evidence into your work a secondary source could be a useful resource.
ReplyDeleteIn Graff's article, he mentions that students make claims in their papers that do not answer the questions that readers would be asking such as, "Why is this important?" or "So what?" In Levin's analysis of Shakespeare's Sonnet 138, he realized that knowing what the center of attention of the poem was could be critical to further understanding the sonnet. Therefore, he used an analysis from Richard Helgerson as a secondary source to provide a basis to argue that the speaker's personality was the center of attention. Using a secondary source provided him with enough supporting evidence to give a detailed analysis to answer the topical question.
It is hard for me to choose whether or not this second set of explications is stronger than the first. I like seeing what a writer can come up with themselves in an analysis, but I feel like one can add more in-depth analysis by using a secondary source as supporting evidence.
The piece Graff wrote sincerely struck a chord with me, in that I don’t think I’d ever considered what it is I’ve been made to do in all of these English classes that I’ve taken. It never occurred to me that I was just simply “saying smart things about literature”, until now. But, I’m not so sure I entirely agree with his stance on bouncing off another argument is always best. In his piece he used the expression “in a vacuum” to describe how people are typically taught to write in an English class, and I believe that even though the practice and execution of said technique can sometimes (most of the time, really) come off as incredibly boring it still is extremely vital to someone studying English’s development inside the discipline. Being able to sort of “say smart things about literature” on your own is arguably just as important; or even more important than developing a counter claim or agreeing with someone else.
ReplyDeleteBut, I will say that the” new” explications were much more interesting, and seemed to have a great deal more to say about the works than the previous two explications did. Why exactly, I’m not one hundred percent certain, but I would assume it has something to do with the argumentative nature of both of them instead of the placid take on the works.
The entire time I was reading Graff's argument I found myself mentally saying, “YES!!!! Someone finally gets me”. I felt as though Graff was right on point with the way many Undergraduate readers feel when pressured to analyze literature and write papers. One of the best and most accurate points Graff makes is that often times the form that our essays take is, “say something smart about a text in isolation from other views of it.” I do agree with him. Without really having a view point to counter an argument with, you really wind up pulling teeth when you begin writing an essay and you feel as though you just have to pull a bunch of assumptions out of the air just for the sake of sounding intellectually-inclined. Which brings me to my next favorite part of this article, I found this to be extremely true especially when it came time for me to write my explication. I was coming into the assignment basically praying that some deeper meaning and structure would reveal itself to me if I read and re-read, analyzed and re-analyzed the poem I chose. This method only left me stuck between a rock and a hard place at the end of the day. Graff's argument was completely relatable for me, the “disabled student,” that doesn't already have, “a stock of things to say”.
ReplyDeleteThe second set of explications have a much more cohesive flow and appear to have a more clear purpose. I didn't feel as compelled to say, “so what?” as I was reading these explications. The ideas were easy to follow and actually analyzed the exact same poems in a much deeper manner. The writer's of these explications hadn't read the poems and hoped that a deeper meaning would reveal itself to them. They must have been able to formulate points based on conversation about these particular texts, instead.
I both agree and disagree with Graff's argument. On one hand, I've never really thought about the idea that students need to have something to go off of when writing about something, but I completely agree with him in that area. If there isn't anything to go off of or research, we find ourselves asking "so what?" We have to have the ability to "say smart things about literature." A countervoice is a good help when analzying a poem, article, etc., when trying to say these smart things. We may have our own ideas, but it is sometimes good to have another reader's viewpoint on the piece when it is not solely concerned on our own opinions. In terms of an explication, I feel that too many outside voices essentially hurts the analysis. My understanding of an explication is that it's the readers OWN analysis of the poem. When too many outside sources are involved, it influences the author's opinion and views of the meaning of the poem. This is the reason why these last two explications were not my favorite. I feel as though they are not as strong as the others. Readers are capable of making their own opinins about a poem, so too many outside sources only hinders it. For example, even though Alkalay-Gut's explication starts out with a very valid point about the poem, it's already someone else's viewpoint. How does that show readers that Alkalay-Gut really divulged herself in the poem to figure out its meaning. She uses the ideas of Anne Stevenson and Helen Vendler to show that there are contrasting view points on the poem. There is a place for this, but to disagree with Graff, there should be less outside sources in an explication.
ReplyDeleteI think it does benefit to use Graff's point that a counter argument helps your analysis. Too many times I think I've been told in English classes now that analysis is supposed to be completely objective and have no outside voices contributing. However, too many outside voices can do the same thing Graff was telling us to avoid: trying to sound smarter than you are. The last two explications I felt were both adequate, but I'm still wondering if maybe their use of outside sources was necessary, considering that an explication, as I understand it, is supposed to be the author's own thoughts on the poem. It both gives and takes away from the explication at the same time.
ReplyDeleteI personally think that the second set of explications were more believable because they do use a counter voice. I think that this makes the write seem more believable because they are essentially excepting of the fact that they may not be 100% correct 100% of the time. I think that the second set is much more believable because, like Graff says, you need to be exposed to more than one interpretation of the works in order to quite possibly understand everything that there is to know about them. You have to think about the works in more ways that just one.
ReplyDelete--Jordan Cole
I think in certain aspects of writing having a counter voice would be beneficial. When writing an explication, however, I think that the writer has to give his/her interpretation and back it up with textual evidence on their own, because otherwise their interpretation and reaction could be altered by a preconceived perspective. Each individual is unique, so that would mean that each interpretation would be unique. Having a counter voice in a research paper would be beneficial to help argue your point and give credibility to your own thoughts.
ReplyDelete~Leta Summers