Attitudes , livre ebook

Parlor Press, LLC - W. Ross Winterowd

Découvre YouScribe en t'inscrivant gratuitement

Je m'inscris

Obtenez un accès à la bibliothèque pour le consulter en ligne
En savoir plus

131 pages

English

Vous pourrez modifier la taille du texte de cet ouvrage

Obtenez un accès à la bibliothèque pour le consulter en ligne
En savoir plus

A propos
Informations
Extrait

Description

At times Winterowd is playful, and at other times he's the mordantly cynical critic--of the academy, of academicians, and of society in general. His attitudes are leavened by wit, and his insights are never mundane. ATTITUDES is for anyone who has become jaded by the gray monotone of much writing in our profession.

Informations

Publié par	Parlor Press, LLC
Date de parution	15 mars 2010
Nombre de lectures	1
EAN13	9781602357990
Langue	English
Poids de l'ouvrage	1 Mo

Informations légales : prix de location à la page 0,0050€. Cette information est donnée uniquement à titre indicatif conformément à la législation en vigueur.

Extrait

by the same author
Rhetoric and Writing
Rhetoric: A Synthesis
The Contemporary Writer
Composition/Rhetoric: A Synthesis
The Rhetoric of the “Other” Literature
The Culture and Politics of Literacy
A Teacher’s Introduction to Composition in the Rhetorical Tradition
The English Department: An Institutional and Personal History
Searching for Faith: A Skeptic’s Journey
The Uses of Grammar (with Judith Rodby)
Senior Citizens Writing

attitudes
selected prose and poetry
W. Ross Winterowd
Parlor Press
West Lafayette, Indiana
www.parlorpress.com

Parlor Press LLC, West Lafayette, Indiana 47906
© 2010 by Parlor Press
All rights reserved.
Printed in the United States of America
S A N: 2 5 4 - 8 8 7 9
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Winterowd, W. Ross.
Attitudes : selected prose and poetry / W. Ross Winterowd.
p. cm.
Includes essays, poems, and a novella.
ISBN 978-1-60235-150-9 (pbk. : alk. paper) -- ISBN 978-1-60235-151-6 (adobe ebook)
I. Title.
PS3573.I5386A9 2010
818’.54--dc22
2010007937
Printed on acid-free paper.
Cover design by David Blakesley
Word cloud courtesy of http://www.wordle.net. Used by permission.
Parlor Press, LLC is an independent publisher of scholarly and trade titles in print and multimedia formats. This book is available in paperback and eBook formats from Parlor Press at www.parlorpress.com or at brick-and-mortar and online bookstores everywhere . For submission information or to find out about Parlor Press publications, write to Parlor Press, 816 Robinson St., West Lafayette, Indiana, 47906, or e-mail editor@parlorpress.com .

For Marj--to the end of the journey

Contents
Part I. Bricolage
“Chicken” and Poetry:
The Unspeakable and the Unsayable
Insomniac Rhapsody on Vitalism
Writing Theorists Writing: Life Studies
The Seasons: Four Prose Lyrics
Tropical Thoughts
The Orgone Experience; or,
Renewal Is Possible
The Ceremony of Innocence
Part II. Poems
Parsnip
Carrot
Beet
Radish
Rutabaga
Jicama
Potato
Sweet Potato
Pea
Soya
Bean I
Bean II
Oats
Wheat
Rye
Rice
Sotweed
Lettuce
Cabbage
Okra
Deconstructionism
The Jaded Compositionist Meditates on His Calling During an Attack of Influenza
Slither, Bustle, Waddle, and Glide, Members of the Departmental Subcommittee on Allocation of Office Supplies and Faculty Amenities
Meditation at a Scholarly Conference
Hiking Wheeler
Eudora (on having read One Writer’s Beginnings, by another Eudora)
The Deep Structure of Desire
Lenses
With George and Mary
Code Blue
Les Fleurs Sauvages
Mellow Drama
“But a good cigar is a smoke”
How to Read a Page
Part III. Academy Awards
about the author

Part I. Bricolage

As an attitude can be the substitute for an act, it can likewise be the first step towards an act.
—Kenneth Burke, A Grammar of Motives

“Chicken” and Poe try: The Unspeakable and the Unsayable
1
I like to play “chicken” with my students, most of whom in our post-positivist age have never really experienced the power of language, though every freshman can repeat the truisms retailed by English teachers from the early grades onward and wholesaled by “communications” specialists in the academy, the media, and the marketplace: through language, you discover truth, convey ideas, gain professional and economic advancement, convince individuals, sway the masses, sell products, preserve freedom, defeat falsehood, gain status. . . . Yes, we agree, language is like atomic energy, a mighty force that can be used for good or ill, to heal or kill, an instrument more delicate than the surgeon’s knife and more ominous than any other weapon in the history of humankind’s arsenals.
Yet, on a less grandiose scale, in a more immediate sense, in the homely atmosphere of a beige, chalk-dusted classroom, with the whirring continuo of a perpetually ill-adjusted air-conditioning system, I like to play “chicken” with my students.
Here are the rules of the game. I’ll start with an innocuous expletive, “Darn!” I’ll pause and then utter something a bit more potentially offensive: “Damn!” Now the agon reveals itself. Either my oaths will continue to grow worse until I chicken out, can no longer bring myself to the next, more scabrous term, or a student will raise his or her hand, indicating that he or she is unable to tolerate the next move in the game. The student is chicken, though usually it’s several members of the class who are unable to let me proceed.
The tensions that the game generates come not from mere etiquette, not from formulaic Puritan propriety, rather from, I know certainly, dark caverns of psychic constraints that I as a teacher of language use can experience, but not adequately explain. If the game works—and it always does—the mood of the room seems concentrated in the electric focus of the ambient, unvarying ray of sound from the air-conditioning duct, inhuman, inexplicable (since Carrier’s engineers should have been more proficient), and timeless. The pause before we giggle and relax is a suspended moment.
Needless to say, unspeakability comes not only from sexual and other taboos, but from any of the limits set by a given community—including limits of credibility (not many would pay serious attention to the argument that the earth is flat), of genre (as we all know, if something looks like or is called a poem, we lose much of our audience), of beliefs and values (any statements made by officials of the current administration, whoever they might be, are propaganda).
If you think I’m overdramatizing, try “chicken” the next time you have the chance for a parlor game. You’ll experience the mystery of the unspeakable.
2
Both D. H. Lawrence and Henry Miller took to painting, though neither was a Rembrandt, choosing palette, paints, brush, and canvas as a first and primary means of expression.
Years ago in Taos, my wife and I saw a collection of Lawrence’s art, gathered by the enigmatic Saki Karavas in his office in the old hotel that he ran. His cluttered desk was in the middle of the room, and two pairs of his shined shoes sat on the floor by the wall. The admission charge, paid to the desk clerk, was two bucks each. We had just come from the mountain ranch, where we visited Lawrence’s tomb, and had signed the register just beneath the line on which a Nebraskan had penned flowingly, “Lawrence lives!”
“Red Willows” lives in our memory: naked bathers in a stream with a red willow fringe. In the foreground, a young man, crouching like a frog and viewed from the rear. His torso is an optical illusion, a gestaltist ambiguity, an impossibility such as those which obsessed M. C. Escher. At one moment, the figure is a swimmer, about to launch off into the stream. At another, his torso is a penis, the buttocks a perfectly formed glans. He is both swimmer and phallus.
Any interpreter worth his or her salutation can give a perfectly reasonable explanation of this image: D. H. the repressed homosexual doing bugger imagery in a moment of nasty artistry. In language, with such outrages as Lady Chatterly, he had reached the limits of speakability, and hence he changed his medium.
And yet, such a reasonable explanation is far too easy, belies what we sense—when we are playing chicken, when we are being honest with ourselves—about the nature of our knowledge, for we know much more than we can say. Not only is language bound by the manacles of propriety (whatever that might be in our daring game of “chicken”), by the limitations on our gutsiness to utter that which is in principle speakeable; it is also shackled by the limits of the sayable.
D. H. Lawrence, like all of us, knew a good deal more than he could ever say.
Of course Lawrence could have “spoken” his homoeroticism, did speak it both in the suppressed beginning of Women in Love and in the conclusion of that novel. In the last scene, Ursula asks Birkin, “Did you need Gerald?”
“Yes,” he said.
“Aren’t I enough for you?” she asked.
“No,” he said. “You are enough for me, as far as a
woman is concerned. You are all women to me. But I wanted
a man friend, as eternal as you and I are eternal.”
“Why aren’t I enough?” she said. “You are enough for me. I don’t want anybody else but you. Why isn’t it the same with you?”
“Having you, I can live all my life without anybody else, any other sheer intimacy. But to make it complete, really happy, I wanted eternal union with a man too: another kind of love,” he said.
“I don’t believe it,” she said. “It’s an obstinacy, a theory, a perversity.”
“Well—” he said.
“You can’t have two kinds of love. Why should you!”
“It seems as if I can’t,” he said. “Yet I wanted it.”
“You can’t have it, because it’s false, impossible,”