Attempt at Making Up for Missed Time

So I missed class on March 24 when we were suppose to come to class with a writing that we spent 15-20 minutes on. So as an attempt to minimize the damage I figured I'd post something extra here.

The order of the story made a lot more sense with the additional parts. I'm sure everyone agrees. It makes a lot more sense, and is a much more enjoyable story. I posted on what I thought about after reading it without the parts. While I still think my idea is kind of interesting and maybe worth exploring for a writer, rereading the article in it's entirety reminds me of the value good writing can have.

An appropriate flow and personal touch just makes the whole experience more enjoyable. Being jerked around (whether purposely or not)just becomes a distraction and an inconvenience. It's like driving on an extremely bumpy road, at first the novelty is kind of funny and exciting but to travel any long distance just gets annoying. And I trust McPhee has something to tell us.

We've been mentioning lately whether he considers himself an "activist" or not. I can completely believe that he would resent the name or the groups and tactics associated with self proclaimed "activists," but I don't know if I can believe that he isn't writing articles with a purpose in mind. In fact, I don't believe that any writer just writes for the hell of it. Something is written to be read and everything read has an influence. It would be terribly irresponsible to write to a large audience and ignore the inevitability of an impact on them.

That being said, I don't think he subscribes to any ideology or belief blindly, which is an important lesson on its own. Sort of like the article I just read on the floating nuclear power plant. I have no idea if McPhee is in favor of it or not, I don't think that was the point. He detailed an extremely complex procedures that most people never consider, in an easy to understand way. Something you should definitely be aware of before condoning or condemning anything. Failure to do so, I think, is why "environmentalists" and other "activists" have attracted the negative, fanatical stigma that I can see McPhee taking trouble to disassociate himself with.

I good, well structured, leisurely read can have a more lasting impact than something that screams for your whole attention. You can just feel drained and almost invaded by an article that demands the utmost attention to every part. An article that you just read and sort of just submit to, almost forgetting that you're actually reading, is by far the most powerful. I guess it's kind of dangerous too.

I feel like there's pretentious art out there that prides itself on being cryptic and mysterious, but I don't think it lends itself to literature very well (if to anything at all really). While I'm in love with the idea of jolting readers by manipulating their seemingly innate expectations, I by no means think an article can justify itself on those tactics alone. It seems to me that it should just be used as a kind of hook, which I may still think McPhee is doing by fragmenting the article with the story of the captured bear or the vicious natives.

The way you direct your reader is definitely interesting and I'm glad Russ forgot some of the parts when he gave us this exercise.

-Adam

March 22, 10 (Order of a Story)

I've been thinking about the progression of McPhee's articles more than anything else. The exercise we did had me thinking of the different motives a writer could have for deviating from a standard chronological narrative of a story.

The first thing that came to my mind was the way seemingly unrelated stories can still create similar atmospheres. You can create a feeling without following a logical story or argument, or even making any sense at all, that's the danger of language. The sound of a word alone can almost create a relatively predictable effect on someone, and there certainly is value to trying to cultivate certain moods in readers before presenting certain things to them. It's really in line with creating propaganda, but you can set people up so that they fall in a certain direction. Like, some sort of sad story about some cute sea creature suffocating in ocean trash just before laying out the plan for a recycling program that you need funding for. All those NGO's like Greenpeace and Amnesty are masters at this. As well as pretty well all salesmen. I'm not saying it's good or bad, just effective, and kind of scary.

I had thought that McPhee was presenting us with stories that progressed in the intensity of human harshness. The detachment of each section would have people sort of off centered and a little confused/curious about the little sections, and therefore just taking in the atmosphere more than anything else. All while telling a chopped up story of people trying to hunt down a "monster." So he doesn't have to draw the conclusions explicitly, but he still consciously puts you in moods that will likely have you drawing the conclusions that he wanted.

It was a pretty sneaky idea, but I'm certain that it's done quite often, because I do think it would be effective. I really do like the playfulness of interrupting the expectations of readers. I'm sure there's a bunch of different ways that it can be useful. I've only thought of this one so far.

-Adam