Sunday, December 6, 2009
Ignorance as a starting point
Lopate says, "Personal essayists are adept at interrogating their ignorance. Just as often as they tell us what they know, they ask at the beginning of the exploration of a problem what it is they don't know - and why. They follow the clue of their ignorance though the maze. Intrigued with their limitations, both physical and mental, they are attracted to cul-de-sac: what one doesn't understand, or can't do, is as good a place as any to start investigating the borders of the self" (xvii). What does this mean for us as authors of essays, and also as readers of essays?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I personally find that ignorance is typically the place I like to start. It seems that I often like to, though not intentionally, adopt a persona that begins with a critique of the ignorance I see in others, but then realizes the ignorance I, myself, as author or persona, also have. I think that we are attracted to this as authors because it has the potential for exposing ourselves when we are wrong to the reader. I think when writing we know what it is that the reader wants to hear, if we have read enough to follow what piece of writing has worked on us and which ones haven't. We can see that the essay form, coming from an singular, personal, non-fiction point of view, has the potential to get preachy and condescending in a hurry. So showing the reader our ignorance has the somewhat counter-intuitive effect of legitimizing our writing. It shows that we have actually analyzed ourselves and our story enough to be able to admit that we are not sure of the meaning of things, or at least that we aren't going to automatically argue our position as correct. Without showing ignorance, the essay I think has the potential for becoming a persuasive argument that no reader wants to hear.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree. I can't stand it when an author is self-righteous and thinks they know everything about the subject they are discussing. I think any author has to show some sense of vulnerability, or else the work is just going to be painful to read.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you, Amanda, but I also think that a self-righteous, all-knowing persona can be useful in an ironic sense. If the narrator thinks s/he's all that, but we can clearly see that s/he is not, it can be entertaining. A sort of tongue-in-cheek pretentiousness can be funny and purposeful, as long as the author behind the persona makes the irony clear. There has to be some sort of self-implication, but I don't think it has to be explicit.
ReplyDeleteI have to agree with David. I really appreciate an essayist who adopts a showy, perhaps a bit conceited swash-buckling manner of dropping his or her words upon the lowly audience. Of course this is simply one part of the author's persona. I do think this approach of "informed authority" is much harder to wield. The trap of employing this type of persona is that, once the author has taken this position -- where else does he/she go? Irony and humor are essential as to not alienate the reader. Using ignorance as a starting point is allows for more movement, and for the full investigation of the "borders of the self," as Lopate puts forth.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I like to read authors who have the ability to present their over-the-top personas with such confidence. But as an author, I am more interested in exploring my own limitations, my own boundaries.
And I think that speaks to what our natural voice or person is. I can't say that I would feel comfortable trying to write with a flashy persona while trying to be ironic at the same time - it might feel forced. That begs another question: should an author try out different personas? Or is this somewhat unethical? I have never thought of the persona as being what stifles or moves the essay forward, as Shawn was expressing. Ignorance does allow for more movement in the essay because there are so many avenues to go down in revealing yourself and your thoughts. I think even the mindset of being sure of oneself at the beginning of the writing process can be hindering to the writer. There's no growth there. There's not much self-revelation either if you are already set in your beliefs or are writing for the purposes of showing something to the audience. So ignorance must be a useful tool and possibly the cornerstone of a great personal essay.
ReplyDeleteI actually am going to say that while this methodology may prove wise and redeeming for some writers, I generally prefer to write about subjects of which I have some understanding. I find that for the style of writing that I typically pursue it is helpful for me to feel like I have a strong sense of familiarity with my subject. Still, in certain writing circumstances, such as "stream of consciousness" writings," I do feel that it could be beneficial to have a sort of carte blanche in regards to the topic at hand. I guess I understand where everyone is coming from with the whole, "it's annoying when the writer 'knows it all'" but I still feel like in certain writing arenas the knowledgeable writer knows best.
ReplyDelete