|
Home
Contact
Schedule
Policies
Advice
Responses
Essays
|
ESSAY ONE: On Walker Percy
The
assignment
Write an interesting, tightly-built, well-proven argument about Walker
Percy’s "The Loss of the Creature".
Choose from one of the following approaches:
- Attack the essay. Prove that it fails to live up to one of its own standards,
in a surprising or subtle way. Do this by connecting the definition of
this ‘standard’ to a specific passage in the essay that betrays
that standard. Consider how Percy’s tone feeds the hypocrisy you’ve
identified. Conclude by deciding whether this hypocrisy is enough to ruin
Percy’s credibility in the rest of his essay.
- Defend the essay. Prove that what seems like weakness or self-contradiction
is actually a surprising or subtle strength of "The Loss of the Creature".
Do this by showing how a specific passage in the essay that seems unconvincing
actually supports an idea articulated elsewhere in the essay. Consider
how Percy risks seeming like a bad writer in order to advance his agenda.
End by thinking about why Percy might want to test his reader.
- Build your own argument. Feel free to draw on any work that you’ve
already done in the three responses—as long as it serves to feed
a clearly articulated thesis that is proven, in a step-by-step fashion,
over the course of five pages.
Back to top
Sample
paper: "Experiences
in Everyday Life"
Experiences
in Everyday Life
In his essay “The Loss of the Creature,” Walker Percy gives
many examples of how to get off the “beaten track” (p. 566)
and many methods of staging “recovery” (p. 566). He bases these
examples mainly on tourists, foreigners, and students. However, there
are a select group of people involved that provide the tourists, foreigners,
and students with the experiences they encounter. In his essay, Percy
never distinguishes rather the park ranger, the bellboy, the ethnologist,
the Indian tribe in Mexico, Madame la concierge or the French students
are having a genuine or non-authentic experience within the incidents
they are relevant to. These mentioned characters, the background characters,
are going about everyday life, and have surprisingly remained unbranded
by Percy in this essay. However, without these characters, there would
be no experience, and therefore, they are an important, essential part
of Percy’s essay.
One may argue that Percy makes it clear in his examples of tourist and
student incidents how he would judge the background characters’ experiences
as legitimate or not. Or possibly that these select characters are used
for the sole purpose of the experience itself, and should not be considered
as having a valuable involvement to the essay. However, it is they who
provided the entertainment and enlightenment of the characters Percy does
focus on.
With so many examples of tourists visiting the Grand Canyon, one cannot
leave out the roles of the conventional park ranger or the bellboy at
the Bright Angel Lodge. The bellboy is perhaps a high school student working
part time at the Bright Angel Lodge. Since Percy didn’t give us much
information about his particular character, we can assume that he grew
up in the area surrounding the Grand Canyon. Why then, can he not see
“it?” Percy describes his view as only “one side of the
space he lives in, like one wall of a room,” (p. 566). The bellboy
is not a tourist; he is simply doing his job. By working in the lodge
and seeing the Grand Canyon everyday, in all conditions, he is having
a better experience than the tourist who steps off the bus and takes a
picture. The picture the bellboy has will be forever imprinted in his
mind. By evaluating his character, Percy implies that the bellboy is in
need of getting off the beaten path. Percy strongly misapprehended the
experience the he is acquiring. The bellboy’s experience is all gain.
The park service is portrayed in a similar approach. “To the ranger
it [Grand Canyon] is a tissue of everyday signs relevant to his own prospects--the
blue haze down there means that he will probably get rained on during
the donkey ride,” (p. 566). To get off the beaten path, Percy suggests
you camp the back country. Yet, he suggests once the park service finds
out and realizes what a good idea it is, he’ll place the notice “Consult
ranger for information on getting off the beaten track” at the Bright
Angel Lodge (p. 567). But obviously, for the ranger to know about the
person camping out in the back country, he himself would have had to have
seen them. The ranger’s fault may be taking a sight he sees everyday
for granted, which the majority of us do. Yet, he appreciates more than
just the splendor of the Grand Canyon; so who has the more authentic experience…
the ranger or the tourist from Terre Haute? This same ranger is devoted
to preserve the canyon, and to work to do what he can to protect it. His
experience is genuine because it originates from dedication to the Grand
Canyon.
In a foreign setting, Percy gives us the American’s experience in
a restaurant in Le Havre, France. On his last day, a riot breaks out among
a group of French students, passionately arguing over a recent play. The
American’s experience is ungenuine because without reading Hemingway,
he would not have known how “typically French” these heated
confrontations were. Percy gives us little information about the students.
One must assume they are an intellectual, college age group. Have they
had a genuine experience? After all, they saw the same play and have formed
very strong attitudes about it. They are so opinionated, in fact, that
they cause a riot among themselves. In contrast, they are so close-minded
that they cannot accept the others’ ideas. So, as Percy emphasizes,
one can not experience “it” without taking in the “whole
picture”. The scene is ended when “Madame la concierge joins
in, swinging her mop at the rioters” (p. 571). Her character is not
unlike those of the bellboy or park ranger. She is going about her everyday
life in the restaurant. Undoubtedly she is on the “beaten path”.
Another foreign country encounter happens in Mexico. A couple from Iowa
get lost and find an “unspoiled” Indian village. Their experience
is regarded to as ungenuine because they are too concerned that something
may go wrong to ruin “it”. Upon return home, they tell their
encounter to their ethnologist friend. If he returned with them, what
would his experience be? Without any doubt, he has already preformulated
his expectations of what this experience is going to be like, based on
what his fellow Iowans have told him about this village. Unlike the American
in France, he has read various books on secreted Indian tribes and their
cultures, rituals and religions. The couple strongly seeks his approval
of their “genuine” find. Is he then, truly unpreserved to consent
to their excitement? He knows he will “bore his friends to death
by telling them about the village and the meaning of the folkways”
(p. 570). So then, why does he comply to going along with the couple?
Percy states that the fault does not lie with the ethnologist (p. 570),
but yet, he is more to blame than the couple. He is adding to their “desperate
impersonation” (p. 569). Perhaps the couple is seeing “it”
because they believe they are seeing it. They do not have the expertise
of the ethnologist, and they will never experience this same situation
again. However, who is to say that the ethnologist is not in search of
the same thing?
The other characters involved in this Mexican experience are the Indians
themselves. They are most comparable to the Grand Canyon itself; they
are being considered as an exhibition. Percy identifies them as an authentic
assemblage. However, by his own standards, he is wrong. They, not unlike
everyone else, are in the search of “it”, even if it isn’t
what we may be accustomed to. When encountered by the American couple,
the tribe is undergoing a religious festival in which they are doing a
corn dance to summon the rain god. This ceremony is preformulated, and
has been carried down from generation to generation. And, in all factuality,
it would be quite troublesome if two white-skinned Americans appeared
at a religious ceremony of these people, especially if they were as secluded
as Percy makes them out to be.
The average reader must reread Percy’s essay several times before
beginning to understand what the author was trying to get across. Percy
is a strong writer, but his own writing contradicts the message he is
trying to communicate; to get off the beaten path. Percy preformulated
his essay; it is not original and spontaneous. Several points challenge
what he says elsewhere. However, Percy’s essay makes the reader think
for himself to fill in some of the essential information. Finding fault
with his essay proves his point, we all need to find a way to get off
the beaten path.
Back
to top
Sample
paper: "Percy's Abrupt Style"
Percy’s
Abrupt Style
It has been observed that Walker Percy writes with unusual style in his
essay "The Loss of the Creature," which is basically just examples
that have no summation. The illustrations come abruptly one after another,
without segue, without summary, and without explanation of its inclusion.
This is a style not often seen, and is a rather confusing way to prove
a thesis. But close examination will reveal that perhaps Percy risks seeming
like a bad writer in order to prove his points doubly, once with his words,
and again with his style.
After reading Percy’s confusing article, the reader fortunately will
eventually understand the author’s thesis, which is that in order
to understand and enjoy an experience to the fullest, one must do two
things: "recover" (566) a situation, and not get caught up in
preformed beliefs as to what the experience should be. Percy gives illustrations
of both. For example, he describes a man who recovers the Grand Canyon
by leaving the beaten path:
It [the
Grand Canyon] may be recovered by leaving the beaten track. The tourist
leaves the tour, camps in the back country. He arises before dawn and
approaches the South Rim through a wild terrain where there are no trails
and no railed-in lookout points. In other words, he sees the canyon
by avoiding all the facilities for seeing the canyon. (566-7)
Percy also
includes illustrations of people who are burdened by preformulated ideas.
One is of a man who is trying to have a "French" experience,
and only believes he has had it when he sees French students arguing over
a play to the point of a riot, which is stopped by a concierge and her
mop. Percy explains that every other experience the traveler had in France
was wasted and not enjoyed as much due to his preformed idea of what the
"French" experience should be.
But the reader will notice that most examples Percy includes are never
summarized. Take, for instance, how Percy’s description of the man
getting off the beaten track at the Grand Canyon continues:
...In
other words, he sees the canyon by avoiding all the facilities for seeing
the canyon. If the benevolent Park Service hears about this fellow and
thinks he has a good idea and places the following notice in the Bright
Angel Lodge: Consult ranger for information on getting off the beaten
track—the end result will only be the closing of another access
to the canyon. (567)
First he
is saying how to get off the beaten track and recover the authentic experience,
and then, without a segue, or even the conjunction "but," he
is writing about how this will not work. The reader thinks that Percy
is embellishing the example, but in reality, Percy suddenly switches gears
and is saying the opposite in the same paragraph without warning. An even
better example showing the abrupt style is one of a man recovering the
situation through disaster:
It [the
situation] may be recovered in a time of national disaster. The Bright
Angel Lodge is converted into a rest home, a function that has nothing
to do with the canyon a few yards away. A wounded man is brought in.
He regains consciousness; there outside his window is the canyon. The
most extreme case of access by privilege conferred by disaster is the
Huxleyan novel of the adventures of the surviving remnant after the
great wars of the twentieth century. An expedition from Australia lands
in Southern California and heads east. ...[and he continues]. (567)
Percy never
explains why he used first example at all. We are with a wounded man,
and are suddenly whisked off to Australia. He just presents the first
story and moves on to the next one. Why use this confusing abrupt style?
Is Percy just bad at conveying ideas?
No! On the contrary! The reader will read the vignettes, have emotions,
think, "Yeah! I would experience the Grand Canyon better this way!”,
and then the example is explained by the reader. There is no need for
explanation by Percy, for the reader’s emotions are the explanation.
The abrupt style now can be seen as interesting, rather than badly and
cryptically written, for it proves the essay’s points a second time.
First of all, it is just like a method of recovering authenticity. Take
for instance getting off the beaten track. Leaving the beaten track will
allow the man in the example to experience emotions about the place and
having a sense of finality; he has experienced "it," he has
recovered authenticity. The reader has a similar "trip" by reading
Percy’s essay. Throughout the voyage, he comes across the examples
of people attempting to recover authenticity, and the emotions he feels
are similar to those of the characters in each illustration. By the end
of the article, the reader has had emotions that will make him stop and
think, "Yes! I can relate to that!". This in turn will enable
him, once he has finished the essay, to discover Percy’s points of
the article. The reader, just like the man at the Grand Canyon, has left
the beaten path (by reading Percy’s unusual essay) and has had emotions
that have made him think and have given him the same sense of finality
and conclusion.
Secondly, this curious, abrupt style is similarly another way to prove
the point of not going into an experience with preformulated beliefs as
second time: Reading the piece with the preformed belief of how essays
should be written burdens the reader, for he will ironically miss the
point of the article. But avoiding the restrictions of the preformulated
notion of how an essay "should" be organized allows the reader
to understand Percy’s argument. The way the essay is set up is yet
another example in itself showing that one should not try to experience
anything with preformed ideas as to what the experience should be.
The whole essay is not only method in itself of showing Percy’s thesis,
but it is also set up as a test for the reader. Percy tests him through
the style to see if the reader can recover the experience of the essay
by not being caught up in how it "should" be set up. After realizing
this, the reader can go forth and recover every experience and enjoy every
avenue of life that is set in front of him.
Back
to top
Sample
paper: "Formulation"
Formulation
Many of experiences are used in Walker Percy's essay to defend his theory
that to really see something for what it is, a person must be the first
"finder." Percy feels that no one can have a genuine experience
by going on a pre-packaged event. Percy uses many great examples on how
experiencing something unique, or off the beaten path, is the only way
of really seeing "it." But if you cannot be the first seer or
doer, than you can recover "it" by either a disaster or dialectical
experiences, and than you may experience for yourself in a different way
"it."
Percy's essay is broken into two main sections; one about actually adventurous
experiences and the other about education experiences. It may seem that
by Percy splitting his essay up into sections that he is truly defending
his argument, but really he is putting his essay into a step by step form
for the reader and is doing what he essay is all about not doing: pre-packaging.
Also it may seem that the two sections are split into two totally different
ways of experiencing things, but really his examples in both sections
are not too different at all. It is a pre formulated essay, almost like
a math equation. Both sections start off with ways of experiencing, followed
by many ways of not experiencing. By having this set formula, he has given
us, the reader, a pre-formulated experience.
Percy begins both sections of his essay with ways of truly experiencing
something. Percy starts off the first section of his essay with Garcia
Lopez de Cardenas, a Spanish explorer who discovers the grand canyon for
the first time. According to Percy, Cardenas is the only one that "can
see it for what it is" (565). In part two, Percy begins with a "Falkland
islander walking along a beach and spies a dead dogfish and goes to work
on it with his jackknife"(572). He has had a true educational experience
because he didn't have to look at a book or dissecting manual on how to
do it. This was not a pre-packaged event just like that of Cardenas who
sees the canyon first. This is the start of Percy's "mathematical"
formula. Percy starts off both sections with a true experience. These
people were able to see something for what it actually is. Throughout
the rest of the essay, he will use false experiences against both of these
real experiences in a parallel form, and he makes his own essay into what
he wants people not to have: a pre-formulated experience.
Both of these are good examples of experiencing "it." They are
then used throughout each section as a model for other non-true experiences
to be compared with. For example, after Percy states that Cardenas has
had a true experience, he then goes on to discuss about ways to not have
a genuine experience. Sightseers are the main people who can never see
anything for what it is, and never get the true beauty. They have a pre-determined
notion before they get to their destination. "The thing is no longer
the thing as it confronted the Spaniard; it is rather that which has already
been formulated-by picture postcard, geography book, tourist folders,
and the words Grand Canyon"(566). Most sightseers tend to go on tours
from tour guides which are the most pre-packaged experience possible.
As Percy states "that if it had a certain value P for Cardenas, the
same value P may be transmitted to any number of sightseers--if the place
is seen by a million sightseers, a single sightseer does not receive value
P but a millionth part of value P."(565) This statement that Percy
makes defends the theory that Percy's essay is a type of equation. You
can then draw the conclusion that since Percy was the first to see his
essay, that everybody else from the on that reads it can only experience
a fraction of what he does. By using a mathematical equation in the essay,
he has gone down the most pre-formulated or beaten track of all while
writing the essay.
In section 2, The Falklander who dissects the dogfish with a jackknife
is then compared to a "Scarsdale high-school pupil who finds the
dogfish on this laboratory desk"(572). The pupil cannot have a true
experience because he is to use a step-by-step manual on dissecting. Percy
also includes in the essay a list of instruments needed to perform the
dissection. Just as in the first section Percy uses a mathematical equation,
he includes a list in the second section. This draws upon how parallel
and mathematical his essay actually is.
Both of these examples seem to fit into a formula that Percy is creating
in his essay. One good example to start, compared with a couple examples
that are false experiences. Examples from both the first and second section
are parallel to each other. They both draw from the same source of thinking.
This sort of formulation is comparable to a tour guide directing his sightseers
on a tour, or a step-by-step manual that the high-school pupil would use
to direct the student on how to dissect his fish. This sort of formulation
that Percy is using directs the reader into having a false reading experience.
The reader is being guided on a "tour" of the essay and isn't
allowed to take the off beaten path that the whole essay is about.
After discussing the tourists, Percy talks about a couple who goes to
Mexico. They start off going to guided tours seeing what everybody before
them has all ready seen. Then they decide to get off the beaten path and
go stumble into a small village where hopefully they can get a unique
experience. They see a bunch of Indians and the "couple knows at
once that this is "it‚"(569). They have come to a genuine experience.
They have had a better experience then they people who were originally
on the tour. In section two, Percy then decides to discuss a different
but very similar situation. "A citizen of Huxley's A Brave New World,
stumbles across a volume of Shakespeare in some vine-grown ruins and squats
on a potsherd to read it is a fairer way of getting at a sonnet than the
Harvard sophomore taking English Poetry II"(572).
Is it a coincidence that both the couple and the citizen both seem to
stumble upon a genuine experience? Instead of coincidence, it seems better
to assume that this is just another way that the essay seems to fit into
a formula, and as he says "a way of not experiencing something."
The tactics that Percy is using in his writing makes his argument less
credible, because he is taking the road most traveled in this essay. He
is not allowing the reading to have an experience, but is forming an almost
math equation to his writing, a set and straight path which is almost
impossible to get off.
All of these examples seem to fit into an idea that Percy has set a formula
to writing his essay. Percy loses credibility to his writing because his
style of writing contradicts the whole point of his essay. It doesn't
make sense for a person to write about pre-formulation being a non-true
experience, and then have a formula to his writing. Percy seems to be
a "tour guide" and he tries to guide the readers through as
"sightseers" to try and understand the essay better. Just like
Percy assuming that a sightseer can't see what Cardenas can see, wouldn‚t
it make sense that the reader can‚t understand the essay the way
that Percy does? By his way of formulated writing, Percy loses his credibility
as a writer because now he has become what he wants people to avoid, and
that is the beaten path and pre-packaging.
Back
to top
|