McCoy 203 Fall 2019 – Page 5

November 18, 2019 by Amanda Neri - No Comments

Next time won’t you sing with me

The other day in class we started reading a new book, called re: f (gesture). Inside this book of poems are abecedarian poems, which according to Merriam-Webster means “of or relating to the alphabet; alphabetically arranged”. The poems were set up in alphabetical order where the first sentence of every poem would be a new letter in order of the alphabet. After reading the poems we were placed into small groups and were to discuss what we read without using anything other than the book of poems itself.

Within my group, we keep throwing around some ideas here and there trying to pick apart the poems to see what we could exactly find. The next instructions within the group were to pick one of the letter poems and to discuss that poem. My group picked the letter “K” and we read the poem once again and started discussing what we thought it might relate to. One of the lines in the poem made us transition our conversation to Greek gods. For instance, “Hades would agree” (25). I was kind of confused about how one minute we were talking about this book of poems and the letter “K” to the next minute we ended up talking about Greek gods. I asked my group, “How did we end up talking about the letter K to talking about Greek gods”. Little did I know that question was the question of the day, and this discussion was about to lead us to that question.

Going off my question it got me to think, is alphabetical order really necessary? What exactly is the purpose of having alphabetical order if we just are going to end up going out of order anyway? The answer is structure, according to the Bedford structure is “often equated with form, the arrangement of material in a work, that is, the ordering of its component parts or the design devised by the author to convey content and meaning”. Having structure to the alphabet makes this more organized and easier to find. For example, if you want to look something up in the Bedford like the word structure you know that you have to go to the pages that start with the letter “S”. Having the structure makes it easier to find whatever it is that is needed to find.

With that being said, even though having structure is very useful there also seems like there is a downfall to having it. Using the example of how my group started with talking about the letter “K” to all of a sudden talking about the letter “H”, it seems that even if there is structure it can be broken in some way or another. Even in the Bedford, that structure is broken because if you go to look up a word it usually redirects you to another word.

It seems to be that structure leads to the organization, but that could also mean that the structure is meant to be broken. The alphabet is kind of just set up the way it is so it’s very organized, but more times than none that organization is just there to look pretty. Going back to my original example, it just seems like there really isn’t a point in the alphabet other than it just being organized.

That brings me to then think of when I personally use the alphabet, to see really how useful it initially is. Just like before when I couldn’t think of the word, I wanted to use. I knew it started with a specific letter, so I found myself looking into that section with the letter. It made it easier to narrow down my choices of remembering what the word could be.

Another example would be, in the beginning of the year, when professor McCoy was teaching how to go about our blog posts she told us that we can’t just jump to step “Z” we have to take it one step at a time which means starting from step “A” then going to step “B”. That made me realize that the structure of the alphabet can be helpful, for the organization of it but also helping with real-life situations. This is one situation that even if the alphabet is flexible you shouldn’t go out of order and keep the organization how it was.

The question I had in class, “How did we end up talking about the letter K to talking about Greek gods”, struck the question of why does the alphabetical order really matters? Until this moment I kept thinking there was an actual answer to the question I had, I feel as now thinking about it there necessarily isn’t. Yes, it matters for the structural point of view, and to have an organization but it also doesn’t matter. The alphabet is supposed to be flexible; it isn’t meant to be set in stone. That was proven in class when we started discussing the book we are starting to read, re: f (gesture).

November 18, 2019 by Shelagh Neeley - No Comments

The Power of Opinions

Percival Everett’s “Body” intervenes in the kind of disciplinary tensions that Joe Moran outlines in “Science, Space, and Nature.” More specifically, the poems may be understood as arguing, criticizing, and/ or questioning the ways of Science. Science is one of those things that people shouldn’t really argue with, or debate with anyone. This goes for Politics and Religion as well. This is due to everyone has different opinions on things and everyone see’s things a much different way than you do. The way that science works is that people formulate a hypothesis, something to test, something to do multiple experiments with until that hypothesis is proven. There are multiple tests that can, and might be conducted to prove that hypothesis. There are also multiple steps that must be conducted. Those steps are: identify and define the problem, review texts that are relevant to this problem, formulate a hypothesis, something that can test this problem, construct an experimental design (a plan), conduct the experiment, compile raw date and condense it down to a usable form, and finally, present findings and conclusions from those experiments. If the hypothesis can’t be proven, they become falsified, according to Moran. “At the same time, Popper does not completely abandon science to relativism, because he suggests that, if theories are disprovable, they can be tentatively accepted until they are falsified.” (Moran, 153)

Another point of view of this, is in Percival Everett’s book, “re: f (gesture)”. In this book of 3 sections, Zulus, Body, and Logic. The part that connects with Moran’s chapter, is the Body section of this book. One thing that I found interesting was the poem about “Tongue”. It states “The fibers of muscle run in assorted directions, divided, as it always divides: extrinsic, intrinsic. Halved symmetrically, it tells another story on the other side of the fibrous septum. The extrinsic muscles originate externally, only the terminal fibers contained in the organ. The threads of either half find the interruptions, full of interposed fat, supplied by the nerves.” (Everett, 47) This poem I feel talks about the both sides of the view of how way things should be treated, the Humane way, and the Scientific way. Basically, humanities and the sciences. Each of the parties has different view points on things, just like how everyone has different view points on things. It’s just like how there are different parties in Politics and just like how there are different religions. Everyone has a different view point on things. There are multiple sides to things, specially in science according to Moran. “Kuhn’s scientific constructivism can be interpreted in two, competing ways. On the one hand, it can be seen as a radical awareness of science as the product of institutional politics and cultural contexts, in which ‘there is no standard higher than the assent of the relevant community.’ In this formulation, theories produced within discrete paradigms, such as Newtonian and Einsteinian physics are completely incommensurable because they are each engaged in affirming the truth-value of their own paradigm, and ‘cannot be made logically or even probabilistically compelling for those who refuse to step into the circle.”’ (Moran, 154) Newton and Einstein were trying to figure out the same things, so their arguments basically counteract eachother, because…. they had different viewpoints on things, on two things that they were trying to prove.

It’s just like if you were in the sky, in an airplane, looking down on the earth from a different perspective, you see a huge square, well, what looks like a square to you from the sky. But in reality, it’s a cube from the people on the ground’s perspective. You could argue with some about how that’s a square, but the person on the ground will tell you, “No, it’s a cube, I will even send you a photo of it.” But the person in the plane wouldn’t agree and stick to their argument even though there are proven facts that it is indeed, a cube. I’ve heard the statement that, “If I wasn’t there, it didn’t happen.” Well, that’s not entirely true. The world just doesn’t stop time just for you so you can see whatever is going on.

November 18, 2019 by Elizabeth Roos - No Comments

Description Without Metaphor

Percival Everett’s “Body” intervenes in the blazon form. More specifically, the poems may be understood as celebrating the capability of language to convey an artistic form without the use of literary devices such as, and especially, metaphor. Throughout the entirety of the work “Body,” not a single concrete metaphor is used—a complete divergence from the standard blazon form, which, aside from typically describing “the physical attributes of a subject, usually female,” (something that “Body” participates in), almost always deals in concrete metaphor. While most blazons include lines like “her goodly eyes like sapphires shining bright,” Everett’s “Body” does no such thing, and yet it is still recognized as a blazon, perhaps not just because it describes a female body, but because it describes a female body with language that can be described as artistic in form.

It’s a difficult idea to wrap your head around. Metaphor is one of the most simplest and well known literary tools known to writers and readers alike. Especially in poetry—when one must convey an idea with as few words as it takes to fill a stanza, metaphor is a powerful tool to communicate that idea across with what can be as little as three words (“eyes of sapphire,” for example). But what happens when metaphor is taken away? What happens when you can’t form an analogy, or tie an idea to another well known idea in order to communicate how you feel about a subject? What sort of language do you use? Will your reader understand what you’re saying? Will it even be considered objectively “artistic” if you do?

Everett’s “Body” is an example of what happens when one doesn’t use metaphor to communicate an idea when writing poetry. Instead, the poems are almost completely description; description of physical attributes, and description of action. It is the words and phrases that Everett uses in order to convey a tone of praise and sensuality. In the first poem “The Hyoid Bone,” all the Everett does is describe an “arch of bone, greater cornu, reaching/reaching, stretching above the lesser.” Words and phrases such as “violence” and “sick pain” convey a feeling of discomfort to the reader, without using metaphor to describe it. Everett does not write “violent as a stone might fracture” or “the sick pain of a dog” because stones and dogs are not present in this occasion. In this occasion, only the body part being described exists.

To use a metaphor (or, more specifically, an analogy) of my own, think of “Body” as if it were a stereotypical piece of modern abstract art. Either sculpture or a painting, but no recognizable objects can be seen, just an unidentifiable formation of colors and shapes. For example:

To compare, your standard blazon is your stereotypical piece of Romanticism art. Art that focuses on glorification, and, different from the abstract modern art above, has identifiable objects recognizable to most people. For example:

Philip James de Loutherbourg, *Coalbrookdale by Night*

These recognizable objects, such as the figures and the trees and the sky, can be compared the metaphor that characterizes the blazon. While both “Body” and your average blazon have words and phrases describing the physical attributes of their subjects, “Body” has no metaphors, no allusions to an outside world, only describing the focus of the poems: the subject. The body. Which, in itself, is a form of praise, I suppose; nothing else exists to cause confusion, or to muddy the picture that is being painted. All that is present is the body. But I diverge. Just as both the abstract art and the Romanticism art can both be described as paintings, both “Body” and your standard blazon with metaphors can be described as blazons. Just one common element has been excluded.

However, there is a downside that I am able to identify in “Body” because of its lack of metaphor. Metaphor and analogy are more than just flowery prose and artistic language; they are tools used to grant clarification in a work of writing, and they can be used to describe something that is otherwise indescribable. They might not be able to paint you the perfect picture, but they can paint the next best thing. By not using metaphor, “Body” comes off as not fully comprehensible; at least, not to anyone who doesn’t know Latin or hasn’t study human anatomy. Many of the words, especially the anatatomical names, hold little meaning to your average reader. At best, they can convey meaning through how they might sound; “cornu” in “The Hyoid Bone” has the same “o” sound as “bone,” keeping consistency with the cracking, solid tone of the poem.

Regardless of whether or not Percival Everett intended for “Body” to be read by someone who had studied anatomy and Latin or not, I believe these poems can teach us an important lesson about what separates artistic and scientific language. For the past few days in ENGL 203 we have been investigating what the purpose of metaphor is; from reading the article “Metaphor is Hard Science,” by Dr. Valerie Prince, to today’s reading “Science, Space and Nature,” from Interdisciplinary, by Joe Moran. With this reading of Everett’s “Body,” I have arrived at the conclusion that the use of metaphor does not separate art from science, or subjectivity from objectivity. There can be art without metaphor, just as there can be science with metaphor. The two are not mutually exclusive, or else “Body” would not succeed as an artistic work.

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

Isn’t it Ironic

Irony is one of the most versatile literary devices. Versatile in the way it can be used in any genre and is in most novels even if just in a small way. Irony, which is defined by The Bedford Glossary of Critical and Literary Terms as “A contradiction or incongruity between appearance or expectation and reality.” Irony is one of those terms that I struggle to define without an example, but basically irony is when something said has a double meaning or something happens that the characters didn’t expect. One of my favorite novels All the Bright Places is filled with irony.

All the Bright Places by Jennifer Niven is about two teens in Indiana who meet in really low points in their lives. Since I don’t want to spoil this spectacular book for anyone who has not read it, I suggest to stop reading here as I will have to go into the plot for the ironies to make sense. Now that you have been warned about this I also feel I need to give a content warning since this book deals with suicidal thoughts and actions, mental health, bullying, and child abuse. At the bottom of this post, I will leave all the resources the author provides for these serious issues.

The two main characters of this book are Violet Markey and Theodore Finch. Violet has just come out of a traumatic car crash after a party in which her sister lost her life. Since then, her life has seemed empty and worthless which leads her to break onto the roof and stand on the edge of the bell tower to jump. It is here that she meets Theodore. Theodore is an outcast at school since he voiced to a friend that he goes through the motions of living for extended periods of time. He refers to this as time asleep and times where he is fully alive awake. After “waking up” after months of being “asleep,” Theodore goes back to school and considers jumping off the belltower. From here out, Theodore does whatever he can to get close to Violet. He requests her for his partner for an assignment about exploring Indiana. He makes it his goal to make her happy again, while he himself questioning “Is today a good day to die?… Is today the day? And if not today–when?” This sad statement is repeated throughout the book and leads to several failed suicide attempts and finally to his death. This can be seen as ironic that he is drowning in his own mental health while trying to get someone off the ledge. I think it is good to note that Theodore is undiagnosed bipolar and deals with social alienation according to Course Hero, where Violet’s suicidal thoughts are temporary, from an event in her life, not a chemical imbalance.

This irony continues throughout the novel where Theodore pushes Violet to move on from her accident and write again. This leads to another ironic moment in the novel. When in Violet’s perspective, she describes scenes in a picturesque way, even making up little stories about all the people they meet on their travels. This is seen as ironic as she says things like “Ten months ago, I would have sat beside them, drinking beer and fitting in, and writing witty commentary in my head: She puts the words out there on purpose, like a lawyer trying to lead a jury. ‘Objection, Miss Monk.’ ‘So sorry. Please disregard’ But it is too late because the jury has heard the words and latched on to them–if he likes her, she must like him in return… But now I stand there, feeling dull and out of place and wondering how I was ever friends with Amanda to begin with.” As you can see, she does exactly what old her would’ve done, but says she can’t.

The next scene is ironic in multiple ways. On the bell tower, Theodore talks Violet down from killing herself, but then shouts “‘Thanks for saving me, Violet. I don’t know what I would have done if you hadn’t come along. I guess I would be dead right now.’” This statement leads to many people praising Violet and writing about what a hero she is. This is ironic because she is not the hero everyone thinks she is. It is Theodore that saves her, and even in the end, Violet couldn’t save Theodore. This is originally ironic due to the recognition she gets for saving someone who in reality saved her. It then becomes ironic because, at the end of the day, nothing Violet did or could’ve done could have stopped Theodore from killing himself.

Another way Theodore’s killing himself is ironic is in how he does it. When first talking to Violet, the quote Virginia Woolf’s suicide note to each other. This is ironic because, in the end, both Finch and Woolf kill themselves in the same way. For those who don’t know, “In March of 1941, after three serious breakdowns, Virginia Woolf wrote a note to her husband and walked to a nearby river. She shoved heavy stones into her pocket and dove into the water.” This particular quote is pulled from a scene where Theodore tries to drown himself in his bathtub. This is another allusion which makes it so ironic that he chose this method.

These are only some of the more prevalent ironies in this novel. Hopefully, this better explains irony, and makes you want to read this important novel on mental health. This novel not only sheds light on important topics but is also one of the most well-written books I’ve ever read.

Suicide prevention: American Association of Suicidology (ASS) American Foundation for Suicide Prevention (AFSP) IMAlive National Suicide Prevention Lifeline (suicide hotline: 1-800-273-8255)

Diagnosing Mental Illness in Teens: Helpguide Mental Health America (MHA) National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI) National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) Teen Mental Health

Survivors: Mayo Clinic SOS: A Handbook for Survivors of Suicide by Jeffrey Jackson (published by AAS)

Bullying: Stomp Out Bullying StopBullying

Abuse: Childhelp National Child Abuse Hotline: 1-800-422-4453

November 17, 2019November 17, 2019 by Leila Sassouni - No Comments

Common Knowledge and the Theory of Multiple Intelligences

Intelligence, according to Lexico, is “the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills” (Lexico). As a psychology major, I have to take a course called Child Development. In my class we recently had a test on the topic of intelligence.

In his 1983 book “Frame of Mind”, Howard Gardner proposed the Theory of Multiple Intelligences (Levine). He said that intelligence can be evaluated in eight ways, rather than by just one ability. The alternative ways of intelligence he proposed are: musical, interpersonal, spatial-visual, linguistic, bodily-kinesthetic, intrapersonal, naturalistic, and logical (Levine). Musical intelligence describes someone who understands music, its rhythm, and its patterns. Interpersonal describes someone who can more easily understand and relate to people. Spatial-visual refers to people who are good at visualizing things mentally. Linguistic verbal refers to someone who is good with using words in both writing and in speaking. Body-kinesthetic means that people with this strength have good physical control and coordination. Intrapersonal intelligence describes an individual who is mindful of their thoughts and feelings. Naturalistic intelligence is said to be someone who connects well to nature and enjoys exploring the environment. Lastly, logical intelligence describes an individual who possesses strength in analyzing problems and performing mathematical equations (Cherry 2019).

This shows that people have different ranges of abilities. While there may be one skill that a person is considerably weaker in, they may have a strength in a different skill.

For instance, while I consider musical talent to be a weaker form of intelligence for myself, I consider my linguistic intelligence a strength since I can very easily write articles and assignments without enormous difficulty.

In spite of how applicable each of these forms of intelligence is, there is still an abundance of controversy. Many theorists criticize Gardner’s theory for its ambiguity since they think each form is too general, and because they feel that his theory describes an individual’s personality traits and talents rather than their knowledge.

This controversy leads us to the question: is there really more than one kind of intelligence, as proposed by Gardner?

In class on Friday, our class read aloud Percival Everett’s re:f (gesture). Sitting in a circle, we went around the room, each of us reading a letter of his novel from the alphabet and its interesting description following. We were informed beforehand by Professor McCoy that there would be words we would not know, and that she may not know either. Following our class reading, Professor McCoy randomized us into groups and asked each of us within the groups to pick a letter from the text we read and break it down, without using the internet for help. My group picked the letter F, being that we found it the most humorously written. The letter F included a line that said, “F is for fuck.”

Schiller, a member of our group, raised the question: what is common knowledge? Schiller continued, asking how it is that we could know what other people know? What is the basis of knowledge?

As mentioned, I am in that Child Development class where we just focused on theories of intelligence. I responded to Schiller, acknowledging the Theory of Multiple Intelligences, and essentially said that there is not just one standard kind, according to Gardner. Rather, each person has their own strengths and weaknesses in different kinds of intelligence; therefore, there is not one standard. I exemplified this and said that for instance, we may look at Leda, a name mentioned in the F letter text, and we may have no clue who that is. But, through context clues and through our knowledge from other courses we have taken, we can make somewhat of an assumption of who she is.

For example, Ashley, another member of our group, said that she remembered learning about Leda in one of her other courses, and said this woman was a Greek goddess. After she told us that, we saw that several of the following lines also referred to Leda and Greek mythology. Ashley’s outside knowledge, as well as each of our group members’ knowledge, brought together multiple forms of intelligence. But, in light of our uncertainty beforehand, does this mean that Everett’s references were not classified as ‘common knowledge’?

This leads us to define the word common. Common, according to Lexico, is “occurring, found, or done often; prevalent.” Both intelligence and this concept of ‘common’ relate to standardized tests and exams that we, as students, were expected to take in our earlier years of education. These tests, consisting of English and math, do not reflect the other capabilities that students have. As reflected by Gardner’s theory, a student who takes this test may struggle in either English or math, but may excel in music. However, musical intelligence is not a measure that is tested on these standardized exams. It is just that the people who create these exams, as well as educators, expect and/or assume that the information us students are taught in school is categorized as ‘common knowledge’. In fact, it really is not.

As a student who thinks in a more English-oriented way and who struggles a sufficient amount in math-related areas, in high school I may have come across a math question and felt flustered. I may have felt this way because what is common knowledge to one person is not the same as it is for me. My writing capabilities are undoubtedly not the same as everyone else’s, and similarly, someone’s advanced mathematical capabilities are not the same as mine. We are then led to ask: is common knowledge actually common?

Linking back to our class discussion yesterday of re:f (gesture), can we as both readers and critical thinkers say that if we do not know what a word in a text means that it is not common knowledge? Especially if you cannot look it up?

Intelligence and its connection to common knowledge further demonstrate that while some theorists believe there is one standard intelligence, that maybe, just as Gardner proposed, there are actually alternative forms. What is common to one person may be more uncommon to another.

November 15, 2019 by Amanda Neri - No Comments

That Was Deep

Before reading the novel, I am Not Sidney Poitier, and knowing little to no background information I was determined that it was going to be a very boring dry novel. When we were in our small groups after reading a few pages about the novel discussing it I remember talking to one of my group mates, about what we thought the novel was going to be like. I agreed with her in saying it wasn’t going to be very deep just straight to the point. When we brought that up to professor McCoy, she told us to just wait because our mind sets will soon be changed. I can proudly say that I completely agree with professor McCoy’s comment after finishing the novel, I just realized how deep the whole thing really was.

What is brought to my attention now is the title of the novel, I am Not Sidney Poitier. Throughout the whole novel Not Sidney had to either correct people when they asked if he was Sidney Poitier or tell them that he was not Sidney Poitier. At the end of the novel when, he was being called Sidney Poitier, having to walk down a red carpet and make a speech he didn’t correct anyone. He stood in front of this crowd, who thought he was the famous Sidney Poitier not knowing who he truly was and made an honest speech. The last sentence of the speech and also the last sentence of the novel was the most powerful line to me personally, ‘“… I AM NOT MYSELF TODAY”’ (234). When I read this speech I laughed, it was strangely just so funny to me how that speech was the ending of the book, and just how after that line the whole novel was over. That speech was the moment I realized how deep this book really was.

The title is the part of the novel that displays the deepest part of the novel, to me at least. The title set the tone for what Percival Everett was intending to write in his novel. According to the Bedford, tone means “the attitude of the author toward the reader, audience, or subject matter of a literary work”. Having the tone set for the readers will give them get a sneak peek of what is about to come. This title of the book is kind of ironic in a way, since Not Sidney’s name is Not Sidney the title is true.

Except for the ending of the novel where, Not Sidney was arrested when he said that he wasn’t Sidney Poitier. He was told he was arrested for murder and was taken down to the deputy station. Not Sidney answered all the Chief’s question and they came to the conclusion that Not Sidney couldn’t be the killer of the dead man they had. The Chief decided to show Not Sidney the dead body they had to see if Not Sidney knew him. After seeing what he saw Not Sidney was shocked. Not Sidney started describing what he saw in this man that he was looking at. To demonstrate, “He was just like me. He looked exactly like me, a fact that was apparently lost on Donald and the Chief. I wanted to say, ‘That’s me.’” (211). In this description Not Sidney illustrated that this man looked exactly like him, which implies that it could be Sidney Poitier because of all the people who pointed out to Not Sidney that he looks like Sidney Poitier earlier in the novel.

It seems that in making the dead man be Sidney Poitier, Percival Everett is letting the reader’s mind wander. There could be many interpretations on to why he decided to make the dead man Sidney Poitier, to me it’s because he is showing how looks can be deceiving. According to the Merriam Webster dictionary, looks can be deceiving is used to say that something can be very different from how it seems or appears to be. The ending of the novel demonstrates that situation with Not Sidney. After Not Sidney had seen what the dead man had looked like, he wanted to go find the murderer of the person who killed a man that looks exactly like him and to get the money he wanted to give the sisters. One thing led to another and he was able to get his money, he had to fly to LAX for a vacation from everything that’s happened. When Not Sidney got to his destination everyone called him “Mr. Poitier” and he was confused on why they seemed to recognize him. Since Not Sidney looks exactly like the famous Sidney Poitier, and it seems to be that Sidney Poitier has been killed, Not Sidney has taken over the role.

According to the Bedford the definition of image is most commonly, a visual representation of something (such as a photograph) or mental picture of some visible thing or things. Not Sidney’s image at the end of the novel has been changed completely just because of his appearance. His image started off being a kid who was told he looked like Sidney Poitier to now a man who still looks like him and being called Sidney Poitier. Just because of one event switched around Not Sidney’s life forever.

In changing one thing about Not Sidney, it just changes him completely. It changes how he is viewed and how even others see him. This just shows how powerful identity is and even how powerful words/actions are. Even in Not Sidney’s speech himself he told his audience that he didn’t know who he was because of his actions that lead him to where he was at that moment. That’s why the title of the novel is so powerful, and how it just set up so much meaning for what was yet to come.

November 11, 2019 by Hailey Cullen - No Comments

Copy That

In the novel, I Am Not Sidney Poitier, by Percival Everett, Not Sidney experiences many of the same events as the real Sidney Poitier did in his movies. I am confident that this is done purposefully by Everett to produce both a comical and satirical effect. However, there is little difference between what Everett writes in his book and what happens in the movies. Everett takes dialogue, plotlines, and characters directly from the films, sometimes even word-for-word. This seems to be a clear-cut example of plagiarism. After many English lessons about the horrors of plagiarism, I can’t help but speculate about the ethicality of Everett’s actions. I’ve decided to utilize some of my class resources to assess what qualifies as plagiarism and compare what I find to the book.

In a past English 203 class, Dr. McCoy gave us access to the Milne Library Plagiarism Tutorial. This online course allowed the class to refresh what we already know, and possibly learn something new, about plagiarism. While reading the section on paraphrasing, I realized quickly that “I Am Not Sidney Poitier” is full of it. Paraphrasing, according to the course, is when a writer uses another person’s ideas or work and puts it into his or her own words. Everett does this by using Sidney Poitier’s film plots, with a few modifications, to enhance the satirical nature of his book.

Both the movie and the novel start the same with a bus full of inmates and either Sidney or Not Sidney’s “right wrist shackled to a white man’s left.” In the movie, Poitier’s character is joined to a man he nick-names Joker. Everett adjusts this to Not Sidney being shackled to Patrice instead. He also divereges from the movie’s ending where the men form a bond that results in their capture, to Not Sidney leaving Patrice with the young woman and boy they stayed with the night before. This allows Not Sidney to escape and continue on with his own narrative.

These adaptations may separate Everett’s version from the original, however, Everett still copies other parts from the film in great detail. This is evident in the scene where the two men must help each other across a river. In the film, Joker responds to Sidney Poitier’s thank you after they survive the river with “Man I didn’t pull you out, I kept you from pulling me in.” This is almost verbatim to Patrice when talking with Not Sidney after the same event, “She-it, I ain’t pulled you out. I kept your ass from pullin’ me in.”

The Milne Library Plagiarism course emphasizes that if paraphrasing like this is done without citation, it is considered plagiarism. Everett certainly doesn’t cite the Defiant Ones in his book. The question is, has Everett changed the plot and the plot’s meaning enough for the novel to not be considered plagiarism?

To better understand this question, I will return to an earlier class discussion about Theseus’ Ship. The Ship of Theseus is a paradoxical situation that scholars still debate today. It begins with the original Ship of Theseus being placed in a museum. As time goes on, the initial wood begins to rot and is replaced by new wood. Once all of the wood is replaced, is it still the same ship as before? Because it is a paradox, there is no one right answer. I might argue that it is the same ship, as it has the same purpose as before. Yet, someone else who is thinking more literally might claim that since it is made from different materials, it cannot be the same ship. Thus, is the fundamental argument of plagiarism in art and literature. If an author uses another person’s work for inspiration, is that plagiarism? And if not, how much of the original work can the author use before it is?

Everett largely uses parts of the Defiant Ones in his novel. Although he changes some aspects, one could still argue that he plagiarized. Everett makes references to other various Sidney Poitier films through out the novel as well, one being Lilies of the Field. We watched this comedy about five nuns acquiring a young, black man, Homer Smith (Sidney Poitier’s character) to help build them a chapel, in class. Not Sidney also happens upon five nuns in the novel, but instead of building them a chapel, he offers them $50,000 of his own wealth. This would be an obvious reference to anyone who has seen the film, Lilies of the Field, but what about those who haven’t?

I now want to look to the Bedford Glossary of Critical and Literary Terms definition of allusion. According to the Bedford, allusion is any indirect reference to “a person, event, statement, theme, or work.” The author’s use of this is often assuming that the reader will understand the reference. In other words, the reference is considered common knowledge. I think that Everett’s use of Lilies in the Field could be considered an allusion. But whether or not the reference is common knowledge isn’t quite as clear. I know that I personally wouldn’t have understood the reference if we hadn’t watched the movie in class. The film was released almost sixty years ago in 1963. So, while it might be a classic for an older generation, it is probably not as well-known by younger readers. If the allusion made by Everett isn’t realized by the reader, Everett becomes dangerously close to committing plagiarism.

After analyzing parts of Everett’s text and studying some class resources, I have decided that one could argue that Everett’s work in this novel is definitly plagiarism. I cannot say for certain if it is because I am not qualified to make that claim. What plagiarism is or isn’t is such a fine line with literature that it is like Theseus’ Ship. There are many right answers and no one indefinite one.

In my opinion, Everett’s depiction of Not Sidney’s life as a young, black man in American is well worth his risk of plagiarizing. At first, when I read the parts of the book that almost completely copied the movies, I was confused. I thought that the replication of the plots was unethical and unnecessary to the plot. After further consideration, I have realized that Everett does this purposefully to provide a commentary on the types of roles Sidney Poitier played throughout his career compared to Not Sidney. From the films I have seen, Sidney Poitier often plays a good person who is put in a bad situation. He is usually at the mercy of the people around him and is discriminated against because of his skin color. He is persecuted against and called derogatory names. These films took place in a much older America, but I think perhaps Everett is trying to say that discrimination of black people is still rampant today. Everett uses the plot lines to further depict Not Sidney as someone who is also judged for the color of his skin. Even though Not Sidney is different than Sidney Poitier’s characters, he still experiences the same circumstances being a black man.

Everett teeters on the line of plagiarism in his book I Am Not Sidney Poitier. Nonetheless, he does so to create a social and political narrative about black people in America. The funny and ironic novel uses the plot lines of past Sidney Poitier films to bring attention to the inequities faced by black people today.

November 11, 2019November 11, 2019 by Isaac Schiller - No Comments

That Not Sidney Sure is Something

While supporting characters within the world of I Am Not Sidney Poitier, are flat caricatures, Not Sidney is characterized as being made real through a combination of story, dream, history, and his own lived reality. Supporting characters in the novel serve as conceptual backdrops, Not Sidney alone experiencing the world through the modes of reality, unreality, and hyperreality. I Am Not Sidney Poitier therefore creates verisimilitude for Not Sidney and for the audience.

Continue reading “That Not Sidney Sure is Something”

November 11, 2019 by Amanda Neri - No Comments

Another world

After finishing the novel, I am Not Sidney Poitier by Percival Everett, I believe that the author was trying to make a point in his writing. I might not know from personal experiences, what black people in society go through today or have went through but, within the novel there was a bunch of parts that highlight black people and possibility what is an everyday situation to them. The main character, Not Sidney Poitier might have been different than others due to his skin color, but at times in the book it seemed that people only saw him as different due to his skin color. They defined him as being black and not due to the person he is.

In the novel, I am Not Sidney Poitier there were a few times where because of Not Sidney’s color of his skin he was treated differently than others. For instance, when Not Sidney was leaving Atlanta to go to Los Angeles Not Sidney saw in his rear-view mirror, “…a flashing blue bubble atop a black-and-white country sheriff’s patrol car” (46). Not Sidney described that he was terrified as he watched the officer come over to his driver side door. The officer did what any officer would do and asked for his license and registration. When Not Sidney went to grab his information the officer proceeded to say, “That thar be far nuff, n*****! Sitch on back straight and git out the veehickle!” (47) When Not Sidney tried to explain to the officer that he was just doing exactly what he asked, the officer just started to freak out and continue to say “Ya’ll done heard me na, boy! Move na! Move yo black a**. Na, git out chere, right na!” (47) The officer kept yelling at Not Sidney telling him to shut up and do as he says even though that’s exactly what Not Sidney was doing. He then proceeded to arrest him and when Not Sidney asked why he was getting arrested the officer told him, “Well, fer one thang, sassin’ an officer of the law, which around here is the same as resistin’ arrest. Now, there’s speedin’ and failure to stop immediately when I turned on my light. And then there’s bein’ a n*****” (48). The officer used the excuse of Not Sidney having colored skin for one of the reasons he is being arrested. This just shows a person who feels as people with color are different than people who aren’t ones of colors and feel they should be treated differently.

When Not Sidney was in grade school, Not Sidney had a situation he took to his principal, on how his teacher did sexual things to him he didn’t want her to do. When approaching the principal about it he just laughed at him. Not Sidney tried taking this situation to more drastic measures and went to the superintendent. When Not Sidney told the superintendent everything that happened, she decided to call the principal to see his point of the story Not Sidney gave. When she hung up with the principal her response was, “then the sound of her voice came back and now it was laughter, crackling, witch-crackling laughter… She hung up the phone, looked at me, and laughed harder” (43). In this exact situation, if Not Sidney wasn’t a man of color not only the principal but also superintendent would have treated the whole situation differently. They probably wouldn’t have laughed the whole thing off like it was no big deal and actually try to help Not Sidney when he just went to them for help.

On the other hand, later in the novel when Not Sidney was dating, he was invited to his girlfriend’s house for thanksgiving dinner. At one point of the night Not Sidney heard something that his girlfriend’s parents were saying about him, ‘“He just bought it. Paid cash for it. He’s somehow involved with Ted Turner, but none of this is clear. What is clear is that he can buy and sell everyone we know a couple times over.’ ‘But he’s so dark,’ Ruby said. ‘He’s so f****** rich is what he is.’ Ward paused. ‘I knew there was something about that boy I liked.’ ‘He’s so black.”’ (144-145) After finding out about Not Sidney’s wealth the father looked passed the color of his skin, but the mother still was worried about it. When the parents first meet Not Sidney, they first judged him by his skin color, not even knowing if he is a good guy or not, but instead they went right to the color of his skin.

In class we also watched a movie called the Defiant Ones, where Sidney Poitier played the role of Noah Cullen, who was a man of color and was previously arrested and on a jail bus. In the movie Noah was chained to a white man who played John Jackson otherwise known as Joker. Since the two of them were chained together they were forced to do everything together until they were able to unchain themselves from each other. Having said that when the two men didn’t agree with each other they started to fight. There was one fight they landed on the ground where this little boy pointed a gun at the two men. When the little boy hit his head on the rock from falling, he woke up to Noah trying to make sure he was awake and the little boy started to freak out and ran to Joker. Even when the little boy took them back to his mother, his mother was still very wary of Noah. When the mother made food for Joker, Joker had to specifically had to tell her to give Noah some food and coffee also. This film took place in the late 1950s, so people had different says about people of color then present day. That scene gave me the idea as a viewer that in that time period, all people see in a person is the color of their skin.

In the novel Everett is trying to portray a message, in showing his readers exactly what might happen to people of color. According to the Bedford, intersectionality is “a theory positing that identify is grounded in multiple, intersecting social categories and that discrimination and oppression are compounded at the crossroads of such categories.” In using intersectionality in his novel, he is showing readers what it’s like, and how people of color might be treated. Since I don’t know from experience how a person of color is treated, I personally don’t know how it feels to be in a situation like that. But it seems to be something that’s worth bringing up if Everett uses more than one examples in his novel.

Everett is trying to show the readers by his writing how people treat others of different race. The definition of race, according to the Bedford is, “A term commonly used to classify or distinguish human population on the basis or hereditary, observable physical characteristics, particularly skin color, but now primarily considered a social or cultural construct by anthropologists, scientists, scholars, and literary critics.” People of different race, are being treated differently; most people do not realize that they are because they aren’t in the same situations. Knowing so Everett is making a point and trying to make his readers aware of our surrounds, most importantly that there is another world outside of our own.

November 10, 2019November 10, 2019 by Elizabeth Roos - No Comments

Should Genre Fiction be Considered Lowbrow?

Wikipedia defines genre fiction as “a term used in the book-trade for fictional works written with the intent of fitting into a specific literary genre, in order to appeal to readers and fans already familiar with that genre.” One might imagine a writer of genre fiction to already be familiar with the genre that they are writing in, having knowledge of its literary tropes, archetypes, and clichés—and choosing which of these elements to implement in their work, or not. A genre writer of fantasy might choose to implement the “chosen one” trope, but might not include the overly-common setting of a medieval Europe-esque kingdom. Regardless, that writer’s work would be considered genre fiction—a work that was constructed to fit a pre-existent literary category.

But does this make a work of genre fiction on a lower tier when compared to other works of literature? The opposition to genre fiction is commonly cited as literary fiction, or a work that is generally regarded as having more literary merit than genre fiction. But why is this? And what dictates literary merit? First, I wish to address what the definition of literary merit is. As I understand it, literary merit is meant to clarify the quality of a work of literature. If a work is said to have high literary merit, then that piece of work is most likely high in value. It might have a stronger narrative, pose and grapple with more philosophical ideas, and can be viewed as “highbrow.” Conversely, if a work is said to have low literary merit, then that piece of work is most likely low in value. Think of works such as Twilight by Stephenie Meyer or Fifty Shades of Grey by E.L. James, which by a majority of the readerly population are seen as objectively “bad” books.

But how can one accurately say that a book can be objectively bad, when the word “bad,” in itself, is a very subjective term and is almost always tied to one’s opinion? What is “bad” and “good” concerning the quality of a literary work? I realize that I am raising more questions here than answers, so I will return to the idea of literary merit—which is different from the broader terms of “good” and “bad.” Literary merit is the literary critic’s word for defining whether or not a piece of literature is good, but it is also more than that. The goal in defining a work’s literary merit is not in deciding how good a book is, but instead the value and quality of that work—how strong is its prose, how real is its dialogue, how sound is its narrative?

So, genre fiction can be defined as work that has less literary merit because it was written with a pre-existing literary category in mind, right? Well, no, not exactly. Just because a work was written using pre-existing fabricated tools (such as fantasy or sci-fi tropes, which have transferred from writer to writer since the creator of that trope first used it in their story) doesn’t mean it has less literary merit than a contemporary novel of literary fiction. For a popular example of a work of genre fiction, let’s look at J.K. Rowling’s Harry Potter series—a young adult fantasy series, this is a textbook example of what one might consider “genre fiction.” It is a book that is meant to be read for escapism and pleasure, not provoke philosophical questioning and debates, right? Once again, this is not necessarily true. Philosophical ideas are questioned in the Harry Potter series—though those who deem it a simple work of genre fiction might dismiss them. Ideas about love, death, and growth are implemented heavily throughout the story. Because of Harry Potter’s fame, there have been articles and research done on these ideas—but I feel that other great works of genre fiction don’t receive this treatment, because they are commonly dismissed by some literary scholars as “lesser” because they might be fantasy, science fiction, or other non-contemporary genre.

There is also the discord surrounding the science fiction genre. Usually labeled as a variant of genre fiction, science fiction usually garners more attention from literary critics when compared to fantasy or romance because of the way it can address philosophical questions that our society hasn’t arrived at yet—questions surrounding artificial intelligence, what it means to be human, and so on. This discord has even showed up in my ENGL 201: Foundations of Creative Writing course. In this course, we only address works of contemporary and historical fiction and cannot submit works of genre fiction (including works of sci-fi), however, one of the example short stories we analyzed in one of our discussions was a work of science fiction called “Zimmer Land,” by Nana Kwame Adjei-Brenyah. Clearly a work of sci-fi, “Zimmer Land” displays use of virtual reality to pose questions about justice how violence should be represented in a future society. Many, including my professor in that course, would label this as literary fiction, while others, who were simply told that this short story had sci-fi components, would have simply labeled it as genre fiction without a second glance, preventing an in depth analysis from being made.

This blog post stemmed from an idea I came across during our class time spent researching the definition of genre in The Bedford Glossary of Critical and Literary Terms. Unfortunately, I could not find the definitions for genre fiction, literary fiction, or literary merit, though I do have the definition for genre, which we found in class: “from the French for “kind” or “type,” the classification of literary works on the basis of their content, form, or technique.” I would like to clarify that it is not the classifications themselves that has resulted in the demotion of genre fiction such as fantasy, sci-fi, romance, and others. Instead, it is the literary critics who have refused to dissect works in those genres because of the way they perceive them as lowbrow. If my opinion was asked, and I would have to answer the question “should genre fiction be considered lowbrow?” my answer would be no. Genre fiction, just like any other fiction, literary or otherwise, should not be classified as lesser simply because of a pre-existing stigma surrounding works resembling other works.