McCoy 203 Fall 2019 – Page 4

November 29, 2019 by Ashley Kupiec - No Comments

Middle Fingers to Order

A few weeks ago in class, Dr. McCoy asked us to line up in alphabetical order by last name. For a relatively large group of people, I think we were able to accomplish the task pretty quickly. Everyone seemed to have a general awareness of where in the line-up they would fall. Having been ordered in this way for most of our public lives, we had grown used to it. While discussing this later in the class period, my classmates and I questioned why we often situate things alphabetically. Thinking of dictionaries, The Bedford, work cited pages, and indexes, we determined that the reason is ultimately to make things easier to organize. Many people learn their ABCs when they’re very young children and they don’t ever forget them; it makes sense to use something so deeply ingrained in our heads to organize most of our lives.

My classmate Sarah brought up an interesting point, however; what even is alphabetical order? Why are the letters even listed in the specific order that they are? Everyone in my group laughed a little; none of us knew the answer to these questions, and we felt a bit silly–why are we so keen on following alphabetical order when we don’t even know why the order exists in the first place?

November 29, 2019November 29, 2019 by Isaac Schiller - No Comments

Composbite

There is snow on the ground. Those walking outside without mittens, jackets, and scarves might physically develop a condition known as “frostbite.” I know that to acquire frostbite is to have the tissue under one’s skin frozen. It’s a condition that could land one in a hospital. That’s science. That’s just how my body works. It’s my irrational mind that tells me to put on flip-flops while leaving my dorm. My brain is part of me that decides to make risky decisions that the spirit of frostbite (which hovers ten feet above Geneseo in November) loves. But is my brain not a part of my body? And although my actions are irrational, can they be separated from the organ that creates my risk taking behavior? Continue reading “Composbite”

November 29, 2019November 29, 2019 by Hannah Smith - No Comments

Defining Poetry

In this blog post, I am going to be talking about a rather interesting excerpt from The Bedford Glossary of Critical and Literary Terms’s definition of poetry. The Bedford says, “Second, poetry is often contrasted with fiction. This distinction, however, has proved more problematic because some poets and literary historians have characterized poetry as fiction (or even as the ‘supreme fiction,’ as in Wallace Stevens’s ‘A High-Toned Christian Woman’ [1922]), as that which is not essentially tied to fact, to history. Seen from this angle, any imaginative artistic work might be called poetic.” I found it very interesting that something could be contrasted with something that many say are the same. Basically it is considered the same thing by some high ups, but not everyone agrees with them. You would think something that has been around for so long would have a genre that was agreed upon. Genre in the broad sense of fiction and non-fiction.

But if you think about the disagreement over where to put poetry, it kind of makes sense. I mean if you look at poetry, some of it is fictional. For example, Edgar Allen Poe’s work, Elizabeth, is a known work of fiction. But on the other hand, people write poems about their lives. One example of this is Arthenia’s Birthday by Randy Johnson, which is about the loss of Arthenia. Both of these are poems that fall on both sides of the spectrum. But if there are known poems on each side, why do people try to put poetry in either category?

For my INTD 105 class, we read an essay by Mark Twain called Corn-pone Opinions, in which Twain talked about people’s need to conform to society. Twain wrote,

“The black philosopher’s idea was that a man is not independent, and cannot afford views which might interfere with his bread and butter. If he would prosper, he must train with the majority; in matters of large moment, like politics and religion, he must think and feel with the bulk of his neighbors, or suffer damage in his social standing and in his business prosperities.”

Now since, according to Twain, we as people are constantly trying to conform to society, maybe we too try to shove things into categories. I wrote a blog post at the beginning of the semester about our need to categorize things into genres based on our need to characterize Vlepo in which I discussed more how we are always trying to push people into boxes. I think maybe the same thing applies to poetry. Maybe we are all trying to shove poetry into a box, where really it should be the box things get shoved in too. Shoving poetry into either fiction or non-fiction would be like putting your moving box in your stuff instead of putting your stuff in the box. Poetry should be a box that contains the two boxes of fiction and non-fiction inside of it, not the other way around.

Now you may be thinking why should I care about what category poetry falls into, but I think it reflects the society around it. It especially represents my life; put together on the outside, but in a huge state of confusion on the inside. Imagine how much stress you would have if you wrote a series of poems but now you are told to categorize all your poems under one title. It is restrictive to our creativity and boxes us into either only fiction or nonfiction expressions of themselves. And although we like to put things into boxes, no one wants to feel like they are trapped in one.

November 27, 2019 by Hailey Cullen - No Comments

Professor Everett

It’s on page 87 of I Am Not Sidney Poitier, by Percival Everett, when a peculiar character is introduced. His name is Percival Everett. Yes, the same name as the author, Percival Everett. He is made known as Not Sidney’s college professor that teaches the aptly named course, the Philosophy of Nonsense. I have to admit, when I read Percival Everett’s name as a character in his own book, I was shocked. It is certainly something I have never seen done in a novel before. Of course, Everett uses the names of other real people in his novel, but to use his own name takes a certain level of audacity that I wonder if only Everett could pull off. Everett’s character with the same name proves to have a considerable role in the story of Not Sidney. I would like to explore this character to see if I can better understand why Everett included him in the novel and even more so, why he named him after himself.

From his first interaction with Not Sidney, Professor Everett appears to be a quirky, yet friendly college teacher. He asks Not Sidney several random questions that concur with his position as a professor of nonsense, “‘Do you play golf? And I don’t mean miniature golf.’ ‘I never have.’ ‘Good. It’s a stupid game.’” This conversation is one example of the arbitrary nature of Professor Everett’s first communication with Not Sidney. These “random” attributes of Professor Everett continue throughout the book.

After Not Sidney sits through his first lecture of the Philosophy of Nonsense, he quickly realizes that he does not understand what Professor Everett is talking about. So, Not Sidney goes to his professor after class to tell him that he is unable to follow the lecture. To this, Professor Everett candidly admits to being a ‘“fraud, a fake, a sham…”’. I believe that author, Percival Everett intended for this to be humorous to the reader. Here is a character with a respectable career and a PhD for goodness’ sake admitting to not know what he is discussing in his own lecture! But I also believe that with Everett’s writing, there is often a deeper meaning behind just the comedic aspect of a situation. It seems as if Everett may be poking fun at himself or even towards larger ideas like college professors and institutional learning. This is interesting to me as Everett is a Professor in real life also. In fact, he is a Distinguished Professor of English at the University of Southern California according to google (emphasis mine). If Everett’s own livelihood mirrors that of the character Professor Everett, why would he mock it so?

To better understand this question, I will define satire in terms from The Bedford Glossary of Critical and Literary Terms. According to this source, satire is a tool used by writers that wish to use various devices like irony and sarcasm to display the vices of human society. Unlike comedy, satire is not just for entertainment, but for moral purpose that could include provoking a response from its audience to reform the human failings being depicted. From the ironic characterization of Professor Everett’s character as a bumbling and logically incapable man, it becomes apparent that Everett intended this character to be a satirical representation of either himself or the “typical” college professor.

Since satires are generally meant as criticisms of human failings according to the Bedford, Everett must be saying something about colleges and institutionalized learning. Everett emphasizes Professor Everett’s illogical way of thinking and cluelessness in the classroom, leading me to believe that he thinks that college professors aren’t as capable as our society would have you believe. Perhaps he wants the reader to think that of all college professors or perhaps he is merely calling himself out for his own misgivings as he does use his own name for the character. Everett’s inclusion of Professor Everett in I Am Not Sidney Poitier, provides a commentary about college professors and college education. Because of this, I am able to reflect on my own college education thus far and compare.

I personally have found my teachers this semester to be very competent in the subjects they teach and well-versed in the way they teach their students. It is only my first semester, so maybe I just got lucky, or maybe it is because SUNY Geneseo is a college that prioritizes its student’s education by providing the most qualified professors. Either way, I have not had any Professor Everett-like teachers. However, if Everett is commenting on the entire institutionalized education system, I can understand his distress. College is majorly expensive, with even a state school like SUNY Geneseo’s cost going upwards of $25,000 a year. The argument of a college education’s worth is swiftly becoming a debate in modern society. I have heard the argument that a college degree is the new high school diploma and that it no longer sets its receiver apart from job competition. If this is true, college students will be paying more with a smaller reward than previous generations. Perhaps Everett is hinting at this controversy with his depiction of Professor Everett.

More evidence for Everett’s disdain for the college education system can be seen with Not Sidney’s story. Not Sidney never even finished high school, but was able to pay his way in through his enormous inheritance. This implies that colleges are greedy, money-hungry institutions with little respect for the student. Then, when Not Sidney becomes disinterested in school, he quits without consequence because of his wealth. Is Everett suggesting with this that a college education is only necessary in order to get a job and not worth the actual educational aspect? I personally do not agree with this idea. I believe that college is not only for achieving a degree, but for stepping out of your comfort zone and honing your academic skills. However, if our society continues to only place value on money, degrees, and results instead of the process of education, perhaps this is where a college education is headed.

Percival Everett includes a bizarre character to Not Sidney’s story who he ironically names after himself. After thorough consideration, I am confident that he does this purposefully to provoke a commentary about a college education in America. By him doing so, I am inspired to reflect on my own college journey to see if it compares to the one Everett describes. In this way, Everett is successful in his attempt at satire as he is able to get the reader to think about the possible vices present in human society.

November 25, 2019November 25, 2019 by Hannah Smith - No Comments

Art, Wine, and “Logic”

Percival Everett’s Logic can have many meanings. More specifically, the poems may be understood as discussing art and wine like your average lifestyle magazine. Not to say these poems are not well written and beautiful, but I just think that these interpretations are especially interesting. While I picked up on the wine, my friend, Lauren Silverman picked up on the art, helping form this idea.

First, I am going to start with wine. Now I first thought of this when I was trying to “unpack” what Everett meant when he wrote, “preserved in Paris maybe,” in poem four. It hit me here that wine can be stored for a long time before it’s bottled so that it tastes better, and that France is one of the major wine growing countries. Then, I noticed other hints of wine references such as “cellar” in poem five, the discussion of colors in poem four, the “olive skin” in poem three, and the “broken into pieces,” in poem one. The reference to the cellar can draw to wine cellars in fancy restaurants or homes. It talks about rats coming from dirty rags, which means there must have been something there to draw the rats to the cellar. I don’t know much about wine or rats but I have a feeling rats would be attracted to wine. The colors reference in the fourth poem could refer to the different colors of wine: white, and red. The reference to olive skin tones made me think of wine country. In places like Italy and Greece, grapes are grown for wine, and their native skin has more yellow undertones. The grapes grown are mostly used to make wine. Finally, the wine bottles can be easily broken into pieces, causing me to connect most of the poems under wine. I’m sure if I knew more about wine, I could find other connections, but the only things I know is stuff I picked up from my relatives.

Next, I am going to discuss the connections to art. For this one, I’m going to discuss it poem by poem. The first poem I think is about the composition of art. When you are painting a picture, you have to divide your painting up into sections in a circular fashion so that your eye is constantly being drawn to different parts of the piece with one focus. Instead of asking about the focus, maybe Everett is asking “which way it points”, as in which way is my eye drawn. Also, the question if “it can be broken into pieces” can be a reference to the division of the work so your eye moves. Everett asks directly about color, which is a major aspect of art. Even if the work is in black and white, it was the artists choice to use that color scheme. Art can also be compared to other art, so maybe that’s what the “host of familiar cases” is in reference to. In the second poem, all things are made up of molecules and atoms, so the art fits under that umbrella of all things. Also, when discussing parts, you can again be talking about the components of art: either in mediums or composition. In the third poem, it talks about parts, which lie the other poems can be used to discuss composition. It then goes into a description of a woman, which can also be a reference to art, since the woman could be painted. In the fourth poem, it talks about color samples, which could be used to paint rooms. This may not seem like art, but murals can be painted with room paint since they are painted on walls. Also, it discusses Paris, which is home to many art museums, including the Louvre. Places like this can store art in their storage facilities, where no one can see them. These storage facilities could be described in the fifth poem, or as they describe it: a cellar. In the sixth and final poem, Maybe the seven men were painted. This one might be a stretch but if they are painted and the painting is destroyed, “Seven men are lost, but not seven,” paintings.

I have no idea if any of these are right, but I think the art one is especially strong. If I had to guess, I would say that one is more likely, but I find it very Everett like for a poem to be written about wine. In this I mean, Everett seems like the kind of guy who knows a lot about wine and does the thing where you swirl it around and talk about its legs. Whether or not the interpretations are true or not, interpretations like these help us better understand the text at hand. Also, knowing more interpretations can help us decide what we think the text is about. Poetry does have a message, but it is what you get out of it that really matters.

November 25, 2019 by Leila Sassouni - No Comments

Logic and Common Sense

I tend to associate the term logic with the idea of common sense, or practical sense. I assume that it takes basic knowledge or common sense to be able to break down a math problem, such as 5 times 5. As a student who progressed through both elementary as well as high school math courses, I know how to break this down. I count the number five, five times, and that is how I find the answer. But, to another individual who did not receive the same education as I did, this is not common sense. They may question why they must add up the number five, five separate times. Or, without me having learned the foundation of addition and multiplication in the first place, I, too, would have no idea what I am doing. Logic is way more complex than it is said to be; it is in fact not common sense.

The term logic, as defined by Lexico, is “Reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity.” The term is well associated with a recent class discussion in which our class discussed a section of poems, entitled “(Logic)”, in Percival Everett’s re:f (gesture) anthology. While as a class we tried to break each poem down, piece by piece, I know I continued to struggle with figuring out how to interpret the words.

One of the readings in this section ignited the most confusion for me, as it is written, “Let us assume X./ Even such signs have/ some place, some/ language X./ Constituent parts/ compose this reality–/ molecules, atoms, simple/ X” (66).

To start, there is no practical knowledge within these statements. I do not understand how my knowledge can apply specifically to, “Constituent parts/ compose this reality…”. What does this even mean? How is this logical in the sense that it is regarded as common sense? Then, there is the aspect that there is math written in the English language. Math and English are two completely different languages, each with different meanings and symbols. It says, “Let us assume X” which appears as the start of a mathematical equation or a statement written in words. But, aside from its linguistic structure, nothing about this reading actually makes sense or encompasses the foundation of the English language. How would I know what “molecules, atoms, simple / X” means without having previously studied that branch of science? This is not common sense.

The term sense, within the phrasing of common sense, according to Lexico, is “a way in which an expression or a situation can be interpreted; a meaning.” While in some regards this definition does live up to its expectations because in order to make sense of logic I must find meaning and make interpretations, in other ways it does not associate. When piecing together the terms common and sense, common means that it is something that is known or that many people tend to know, and sense is the meaning or interpretation. This essentially implies that common sense, even in logic, is known by everyone because of the fact that it is categorized as common sense. But doesn’t that accumulate more confusion for people who do not have a basis for this knowledge?

Last year I was in an Introduction to Logic class to fulfill a math credit since I preferred to take an “easier” class than one like calculus where I would be drained of all of my energy. I went into this class as a second semester freshman under the impression that there would be very limited brain work in this course. I had the saying “Logic is common sense” in my head, convincing me that I made the right choice to enroll and that I would receive an easy A. I could not have been more wrong. I would approximate that for 90% of the semester, I was completely unsure of what I was being taught. I would attend the Teacher Assistant hours during the week, overwhelmed by the continuous sequences on the board, trying my hardest to go back and understand the foundation of the work my class was doing. Logic requires understanding various formulas in order to break statements down. Logic includes knowing how to prove the validity or invalidity of mathematical statements, and to be able to interpret oddly shaped symbols.

One questionable validity or invalidity statement written on the board one day said, “Mr. Aarons is a wolf but also a professor.” How was I supposed to know how to interpret this or answer this? How does one go from having a prefix of mister, to identifying as an animal and then also a professor? How was I to infer whether this statement written in English was invalid while using math? And most importantly, how was I to prove that this was a logical statement when nothing that was written made sense or had the foundation for common sense?

My roommate, who was also in my class, stared at me with the most confused expression on her face. Neither of us knew what we were doing.

In light of both this course as well as Everett’s anthological section “(Logic)”, it can be explicitly said that logic is indeed not common sense. To succeed, an abundance of brain power is necessary, as well as outside mathematical knowledge.

November 25, 2019November 25, 2019 by Ashley Kupiec - No Comments

What’s in a name?

Percival Everett’s abecedarian set of poems Zulus from his book re: f(gesture) comments on the importance of naming children. On two separate occasions, the speaker states, “Always name offspring” (Everett 20, 28). Zulus makes a statement on the power of names, and their necessity in forming identities; it highlights the tragedy that can occur when a name–the first gateway into identity–is carelessly left blank.

The cautionary phrase is first evoked in the “F” section of Zulus: “F is for Frankenstein, / who did not name his baby. / Always name offspring” (20). I have actually just read the romantic novel Frankenstein by Mary Shelley in my Nature of Inquiry class, and the speaker’s statement could not be more accurate. Many people think (myself included until I read the novel) that “Frankenstein” is the name of the re-animated monster in the story, mainly because modern-day media often portrays it as such. In actuality, Frankenstein is really the last name of the scientist who creates the monster, Victor Frankenstein. In the original novel, the monster is nameless, generally referred to as the “creature.”

November 24, 2019 by Amanda Neri - No Comments

Not Quite Different

Looking back at the previous novels I have read in English, I have realized some are not entirely different, especially with some of the main characters in the novels. In Percival Everett’s novel, I Am Not Sidney Poitier and Percival Everett’s novel, Frenzy, there is intertextuality between the characters Not Sidney Poitier and Vlepo. Intertextuality is defined in the Bedford as, “the condition of interconnectedness among texts, or the concepts that any text is an amalgam of others, either because it exhibits signs of influence or because its language inevitably contains common points of reference with other texts…” Even though the characters are from two different novels written by Percival Everett they have some common points.

In the novel, I Am Not Sidney Poitier, the main character, Not Sidney was convicted of murder until further investigation proved that he wasn’t. When he was shown the body, he couldn’t believe his eyes because it looked as he was looking at himself. This tells the reader it is probably the famous Sidney Poitier due to examples throughout the novel telling Not Sidney he looked exactly like Sidney Poitier. Being that Not Sidney seemed to be looking at a body that looks like his, no one knew that the famous Sidney Poitier was dead. That being said, like I wrote about in one of my previous blogs, Another World, Not Sidney took over Sidney Poitier’s life at the end of his novel.

In the novel Frenzy, one of the main characters and the narrator, Vlepo is not a normal specimen. The novel didn’t go into detail about what his true form is, except when the reader is reading about all the forms he becomes. For example, “Before I could offer my opinion, I was in the body of a woman, feeling her delirium walking toward a freshly killed deer from which others were tearing strips of flesh” (17). Vlepo is never just one thing, in this example, he is a woman there is another time he was a goat. He doesn’t have a true form.

It might not seem like these two characters are any bit similar, but they are. They both at one point in their novels change into something they didn’t start as in the beginning for whatever the reason is. They are also both confused about one thing. For instance, at the end of the novel, Not Sidney was giving a speech to a bunch of people who thought he truly was Sidney Poitier, at the end of the speech he left off with a significant line, “I AM NOT MYSELF TODAY” (234). That line not only told the readers that Not Sidney was not purposing taking over for Sidney Poitier due to fame and also because of looks but because he honestly is confused. Seeing his duplicate being dead made him rethink a lot of things like, who was he?

In the novel Frenzy, Velpo was also confused about who he truly was. There were a few times in the novel where he questioned his master, Dionysos asking what/who he was. For example, ‘“You, Vlepo, you represent the human middle. It’s not much of a life, though, is it? -representing a thing”’ (47). Dionysos told him that he wasn’t human but just a thing that represents life. Which from reading the novel you assume that he isn’t a human, because he can shapeshift into maybe different forms and even read people’s thoughts by being controlled by his master.

Identity is very important in everyday life. It’s how you are portraying yourself to others, and the way they see you. Identity, according to Merriam-Webster is defined as “the distinguishing character or personality of an individual”. Well between these two characters, Not Sidney and Vlepo it seems that their identities don’t show how they portray themselves to others. Vlepo doesn’t have much power being that he has to follow his master’s orders and doesn’t make decisions for himself. He is thrown into situations and has no say in whether he wants to or not. To illustrate, at the end of the novel, Dionysos gave Vlepo an important task, ‘“After I have achieved sleep, real sleep. I want you to cut out my heart from this body and leave it unceremoniously on the ground.’ ‘I cannot kill you.’ I said. ‘You can, Vlepo. You cannot defy me, but you can kill me. I wish it so.’ ‘You are my master.’ ‘Yes, I am”’ (154). Vlepo has no power to do what he wants, he just has to respect the wishes of his master, even if it means that he might have to kill him.

On the other hand, Not Sidney is not quite the same. Not Sidney does get thrown into situations that he cannot control but he also has more power to control other situations and stop them from happening. Even in completely different novels, there are still things that Not Sidney can’t control, like his skin color. When he was driving to Atlanta and got pulled over and arrested, he was told it was because of his color. Not Sidney was put on a bus with other people who were arrested but not of the same race. Not Sidney describes, “I sat near the back of the bus, my face pressed against the diamond-patterned cage, my right wrist shackled to the white man’s left” (52). Yet again Not Sidney is in a situation where he can’t control or do anything about it. Not Sidney and the white man meet a family and found a situation where he could get out of this sticky situation, he was in being chained to the white man. Not Sidney knew he wanted to escape and because the family got closer to the white man, they all decided they were going to escape with him. At the end of the chapter, Not Sidney had the power to make his own decision and do what was best for him. To explain, “The train’s whistle blew. It was coming and I was the only one awake. I did not wake them. The locomotive passed, and I walked to the tracks” (79). Having some power to decide on his own Not Sidney did and chose to leave everyone sleeping and go off on his own.

As I described Not Sidney might not have too much power and is thrown into situations, he cannot control but there are still many times where he can control the situation which shows that he has power. However, Vlepo doesn’t have the luck Not Sidney has and isn’t able to make any chooses for himself. He is just thrown into whatever his master makes him do. It seems that Vlepo is confused about his identity through the novel like he has his identity he shows the people around him but deep down he is honestly confused about who he is and how he should show himself to the world. He has the image that he shows to the world which is, ‘“I am Vlepo,’ I said. ‘I am a servant to the god Dionysos”’ (115). To others, he is just the servant who just follows orders that are instructed to him by his master, Dionysos. Even though Vlepo does question what he is he doesn’t do anything about it. He points out at the beginning of the novel, “My usual place was at the side of the god Bromius as his aide, his chronicler, his mortal bookmark. I am Vlepo. For as long as I have known that there is time and a life to know, I have been with god. I am not his creation, but I cannot claim a life away from him” (3). Vlepo, the narrator of the novel Frenzy tells his readers early on what he is and really how he wants others to see him on the outside. Towards the middle of the novel, Vlepo does question who he is and asks his master. Specifically, ‘“Did you create me?’ I asked, finding a tree against which to lean my shoulder. ‘Create is such a slatternly, ticklish word. I wouldn’t say that I created you.’ ‘What would you say? Would you say that you constructed me? Built me?”’ (88). Vlepo feels as he is different than how people see him. He wants to figure out his true self.

Not Sidney at the end of his novel questions who he was. He knows that people see him differently especially after he saw Sidney Poitier, even if they don’t know the true him. Not Sidney not only realized his identity doesn’t match his life but also speaks it to the world in a speech he had told the public who thought he was Sidney Poitier.

Identity is different for everyone since no one is the same. I know for me, there was a time in my life where I was confused about if what I was showing the world was really who I was deep down. There is always going to be that time in your life where you will ask yourself, is this really who I am? I feel like it’s a part of growing up, finding your true self and how you want others to see the real you. There is no exact moment that this situation could happen and that is shown in the two novels. Vlepo and Not Sidney don’t ask themselves the question of who they are until later in their novels.

Even from different novels, Percival Everett’s characters Vlepo, and Not Sidney are not quite different, they both are different than others, and don’t have much power over situations. They also don’t think their identity matches how they present themselves to the world. The two characters are not quite different.

November 21, 2019November 22, 2019 by Ashley Kupiec - No Comments

H is for Teleology

In Percival Everett’s re: f (gesture), the abecedarian poem Zulus contains a multitude of allusions to a variety of people, places, stories, and more. In sifting through these many references, one in particular stood out to me among the rest. The speaker states, “H is for horrors, / so full of them we dine, / for humanity, / on bent Kantian trees” (Everett 22). I had never heard of a Kantian tree before, so using the logic of my last blog post (Archive and Intertextuality), I took to my favorite archive–Google–to see what I could find.

November 21, 2019November 18, 2019 by Hannah Smith - No Comments

Body, Blazon and [B]interdisciplinary

Percival Everett’s Body intervenes in the blazon form. More specifically, the poems may be understood as mocking this idea that the sciences are separate from the humanities. According to the poetry foundation, blazon is, “A literary blazon (or blason) catalogues the physical attributes of a subject, usually female.” This is seen throughout the series of poems as Everett describes different parts of the female body starting with The Hyoid Bone and ending with The Epigastric. Each poem uses flowery language to describe the part of the body, which goes against what many think is proper. As discussed in both Metaphor is Hard Science, and Interdisciplinarity chapter 5, those in both disciplines are interconnected, whether those who study it want to believe them or not.

For some reason, tensions have built between these disciplines, both having a major superiority complex. I admit to having discussions defending the humanities to my biology major friends. One consistently says that people who are English majors don’t work as hard as people, like herself, who are bio majors. My response is our understanding of the nuances of language which makes what she does possible. Now, I have metaphors for proof of this, but the point of this blog post is not to prove that my major is superior to others. The point is that the rivalry between the two affects all levels of the fields.

It is this rivalry that I believe lead to Percival Everett to write Body. I believe this because Everett seems like the kind of guy who likes to stir the pot, per se. This might be wrong, but from his writing, I picked up on how he writes what he feels, no matter what. He likes to shed light on important issues, yes, but he also likes to make fun of them at the same time. I have a feeling this is what he was doing with Body. He was proving he could be both artistic and scientifically accurate at the same time. To put it frankly, he wanted to prove the scientists wrong, and maybe even make them a little angry. If this is true, I might actually like Everett for how petty he is.

This interpretation solves the question I’m sure you had, since I too had it, about what in tarnation led Everett to write a series of poems about the female body. Not only why, but why he wrote it the way he did. He wrote it in a way that only scientists could understand with all of the vocabulary words he used while also making it flow like any other poem. I find this very impressive, but without knowing the conversation between disciplines, it would have left me confused. Although my interpretation is based on Everetts writing style in his past works and what that leads me to believe about his personality.

Now you may be asking why should I care? And to this question, I say that knowing the intentions, or guessing at them, makes the meaning of the piece change. I say guess because we will never know what Everett’s intentions are unless he tells us, which probably won’t happen any time soon. While some say knowing the author’s intentions should not change its meaning, I disagree. Literary Analysis: the Basics by Celena Kusch cites William Faulkner’s introduction of context to his work The Sound and the Fury with a picture he based the book off of. The same can be said about the conversation that Everett was responding to. So, knowing the interpretation could alter how you look at the piece.