|
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.
Sample
Paper: "Squalus Acanthias, Or, Where Percy Hid the Meaning"
In the essay "The Loss of the Creature" Walker Percy shows that
the only way for one to fully understand something is to find out for
oneself. His theory of Sovereign Discovery is the only way for any person
to find the ultimate meaning and depth in any concept, idea, or experience.
He proves it by making his reader an active participant, a sovereign discoverer
of the concept itself. Percy does this by never directly stating what
this essay is about. With careful, thoughtful technique Percy leaves it
to his reader to find the purpose of the essay.
Initially it seems that Percy's essay is simply just a poor example of
writing. There is no introductory thesis. Percy opens with an anecdote
of the discovery of the Grand Canyon. Even this is written poorly in that
it is mere speculation, "it can be imagined" (p.565) of what
deCardenas might have seen "there at one's feet" (p.565). How
is the reader supposed to see what the author will be driving at in this
essay?
Additionally there is no definitive summary or conclusion at the end.
Percy simply leaves off with a two-sentence paragraph: "As Mounier
said, the person is not something one can study and provide for: he is
something one struggles for. But unless he also struggles for himself,
unless he knows that there is a struggle, he is going to be just what
the planners think he is" (p.577). This is written poorly as well
for three reasons. Firstly, it is an indirect quote. It is a summary of
what another author said but it is not an exact quote. Percy just expects,
incredulously, that his reader should take his word for it, without even
a morsel of proof! Secondly, he never cites the body of work where the
idea was originally expressed. Finally, it is very cryptic in that it
never speaks directly about any concepts Percy has put forth himself.
How is a reader supposed to come to a final understanding of the author's
point using that as a summary?
All that Percy gives in this work is a main body, and that isn't even
very clear. Most of the essay is ambiguous. The author shifts from point
to point very unsteadily, with no rhythm to the piece. There are anecdotes,
such as the opening with deCardenas, that are very short, and carry no
recognizable relevance to the body of the essay. Others, such as the story
of the American couple traveling in Mexico (p.569), go on for pages, with
multiple turns and relations to the main concepts of the piece. And still
other sketches, like that concerning the dialectic traveler who "stands
behind his fellow tourists at the Bright Angel Lodge" (p.567), that
leave one searching for the deeper meaning that the reader knows is hidden
there. Percy leaves most readers behind when he writes, "he stands
on their shoulders to see the canyon"?
So, if there is no clearly defined thesis here, and no definitive conclusion
to be found, and no tacit committal by Percy to any stated purpose or
goal of this essay, then how can the author or paper stand up to criticism?
At first glance it would be no great leap of faith to assume that this
essay should be easy to shoot down.
On the other hand, how can one say that Percy is wrong when one cannot
tell what Percy thinks he is right about? It soon becomes clear that Percy
and this piece are hard to dismiss as a whole due to the very ambiguity
that stymies readers in the first place! If Percy never ties it all together
and states, "this is my point", then how can one show that point
to be wrong? If the author never commits, then how does one know that
he has erred?
One must now ask questions about the author's intent. Did Percy use this
ambiguous format as a built-in defense against some feared opposing point
of view? Why wouldn't Percy want to tie all loose ends up, and leave a
nice accessible package for his reader? Or is the format some hidden tool
provided to help the reader understand the essay better? Or is it simply
poor writing? It would be impossible to prove that Percy's ambiguous format
was some way for the author to move beyond reach of the critics. That
take on this piece would also seem paranoid. Instead of just dismissing
it out of hand, it would be more responsible to try to search for some
deeper meaning in a body of work that is difficult to understand.
Still, unanswered questions lead to further questions. One must now ask
about the nature of Percy's alleged error in this essay. If one assumes
this essay is an example of poor writing due to any ambiguity or reluctance
to commit on Percy's part, then one must be assuming that all well written
essays define themselves, whether by thesis or conclusion.
Is that true? Is it a rule that all good papers must have a clearly stated,
easily defined purpose? Is there no margin for Percy's free-spirited,
uncommitted format, or any other type of artistry in essay? If a writer
(i.e. Percy) makes good arguments do they automatically become wrong or
unacceptable or moot because the writer does not tie them all up in a
package for his reader?
One can find no proof that would answer any of those questions. No one
can say definitively that because Percy's piece doesn't have a clear thesis
that what he has written is unacceptable or wrong. One cannot prove the
points in Percy's text are wrong merely because they don't fit together
seamlessly. There is no evidence that one should readily dismiss what
Percy has to say because it did not come with the proper summation or
correct package.
If it cannot be proven definitively that the author was wrong or that
the underlying themes of the piece are incorrect, one must question again
about the author's intent: why wouldn't Percy want this essay to be easily
understandable? The only possibility that the reader has left that he
might be able to prove, is the author intended for the essay to be read
this way.
The next logical question would then be why? Why would Percy intend for
it to be read and dissected in this manor? Why would Percy package this
piece this way? Sometimes it's possible to ask an author about his intent.
But in this case, the author has been dead for over ten years. So we must
look for clues in his writing to find why Percy packaged this piece in
this way.
Percy first speaks of "packaging" in the context of students
in the classroom who strive to learn new ideas and concepts. He writes
of students learning Shakespearian poetry, and others searching the biological
workings of dogfish. He writes "The sonnet and dogfish are "obscured
by the symbolic package which is formulated by the media through which
[they] are transmitted" (p.573). That's a lot to digest. But what
Percy is saying here is that the tools teachers use to teach, including
the teachers themselves, actually impede students from gaining any true
perception of the ideas and concepts being taught.
Percy points out that teachers and their tools are also barriers between
the lesson and the students. He writes, "these media which are supposed
to transmit" only succeed in transmitting themselves" (p.573).
Thereby, the student can never gain true knowledge of the ideas being
taught.
Percy has just given us a valuable clue to why he declined to use the
standard form, or package, in writing his essay. The essay is filled with
Percy's ideas concerning seeing and learning new things. And in his view,
when one attempts to grasp new ideas, "packaging" only impairs
one from attaining a complete understanding. Percy left out the "packaging"
in order that the reader come to a more complete, unimpaired understanding
of the new ideas that Percy was trying to express.
Percy's main point in this essay concerns the concept of Sovereign Discovery
of new ideas and meanings. He wants his reader to come to a complete understanding
of that concept. But the foundation of the concept prevents him from just
explaining it to the reader. This is because "avoiding the educator's
direct presentation," (p.575) allows for "reasserting the sovereignty
of the knower over the known" (p.575). Percy is saying that for one
to gain knowledge, one must hold sovereignty over that knowledge, and
that it is not possible to own that knowledge it if was presented by another.
By leaving out any concrete form of thesis or conclusion he forces the
reader to ask several important questions that lead to the hidden thesis,
conclusion, and underlying theory of Percy's exposition. Percy proves
his theory by not directly proving it to the reader. Instead the reader
must discover the proof. Now the reader has a personal connection with
the concepts that allow a more complete understanding.Percy is not only
proving that one learns best when learning firsthand, but in fact, that
is the only way one can fully understand at all.
|