Category: Uncategorized

Throughout my prior years of education, I was always interested in English courses.  My interest was first sparked in fifth grade when we were given a formula for constructing paragraphs.  We would restate the question as the introductory sentence, write three details using evidence, then restate the first sentence as the concluding statement.  I was able to breeze through copious amounts of paragraphs and ace every single one of them. I followed similar variations of this writing formula for many years after my fifth-grade class.  I absolutely loved being able to follow the same formula for each of my different writing pieces. Once I reached my senior year of high school, I realized I wouldn’t be able to write that way forever.  I started engaging with literary works that had deeper meanings within them than what was only on the surface. My reading and writing skills reflected each other too much at this point. My writing was simplistic because my reading levels were too simple.  I only figured this out last year, and never received a chance to change myself because we didn’t engage with many difficult literary works within my senior year English class.

When I was picking my classes at orientation in July, I was not thinking about the specifics of the classes.  I was filled with nerves and choosing whatever class the advisor was recommending to me. One of the classes that caught my attention was English 203.  It dealt with a specific author, Percival Everett, and I thought it would be interesting to spend the semester reading texts from only one author. I thought all of the texts would be similar and I would breeze through the semester.  I was very wrong.

Upon my entrance into my first year of college, I had expectations of the English classes being somewhat easy because I had already taken college-level English classes in high school.  I knew it would probably be a little more difficult than high school, but I never thought it would be to the extent of English 203. The first aspect of the class that lead me to believe it would be much different from my previous years of English study was the blog post assignment.  We were given the whole semester to craft ten blog posts and post them onto a blog forum filled with other students in the class. We were given the freedom to choose topics and write about them using concepts and texts from class. This freedom was so different than any other assignment I had received before college.  Another aspect of the class that surprised me greatly was the level of discussion among the class. I came into college expecting lectures, but this class was much different. During one of our first class periods of the year, we viewed a tweet and were asked to have a discussion. The tweet depicted the back of a pair of pants that appeared to look like a face.  The face appeared to have an expression of suspicion. All of the peer groups within the class then began speaking aloud what they thought the meaning of the tweet was. My group thought the pants were suspicious, and we stated this out loud to the class. Beth then asked, if the pants were suspicious themselves, or are the pants suspicious of the person looking at the tweet.  This was one of the first questions asked within the class that really inspired me to start thinkING. I knew texts, pictures, or anything could have more than one meaning, but I never took it upon myself to question those other meanings. As I stated throughout several of my blog posts, I used to always view things for how they appeared on the surface. I would no longer be able to do this in English 203.  

As we began dealing with text by Percival Everett, I remained mostly confused.  The Bacchae was my biggest struggle of the semester.  I have very little knowledge regarding Greek mythology, so when I began reading the book, I had no idea what was going on.  I had to do quite a bit of research regarding the topics in the book to grasp the meaning of the text. When the class began discussing deeper meanings within the text, I was completely lost.  Looking back at the “suspicious pants” tweet, I knew everything contained different meanings. A reader can only find and understand the meanings if they understand what is given on the surface.  If one couldn’t see a face within the picture of the pants, then they wouldn’t understand why people claimed they were suspicious. I didn’t understand The Bacchae on the surface, so I struggled very much with discussions regarding the deeper meanings.  Though, discussions did aid heavily in my understanding of this text and other texts. One class, in the early period of reading the text, the class broke down sections of the reading and deciphered what happened.  I was able to see other peoples’ perspectives to aid in developing my own. Different perspectives give a text more meanings than one person can see on their own. Someone can view something completely different than someone else.  Thinking back to the “suspicious pants” helped me realize this throughout the semester.

The novel that solidified my goal for English 203 was I am Not Sidney Poitier by Percival Everett.  We were introduced to the novel by watching one of Sidney Poitier’s films, so the only information I had going into the book was that Sidney Poitier was a black actor in the 1960s.  The novel told the story of a boy growing up with the name “Not Sidney Poitier”. He is given a label at birth that he has to constantly explain to others throughout his life. When I first began reading the novel, I did not see it as a struggle with identity.  I viewed the novel as a life story of a boy with a bizarre name. I didn’t think there was an underlying message or deeper meaning throughout the text. My opinion changed drastically during a discussion in class. Amanda and I were talking about the beginning of the book and I made a comment that the book wasn’t deep.  Amanda agreed with me and we continued discussing the book. Beth overheard me make this statement and told me this book will be one of the deepest I will ever read. I was in utter disbelief. How could a book that appears so simple on the surface be one of the deepest books I will ever read? I continued reading the book with a more open mind and realized the novel was the deepest I had ever read.  The meaning I ended up taking away from the book is a message Percival Everett often preaches. Identity shouldn’t be based on a label or a categorization. At the end of the novel, Not Sidney states, “I am not myself today”(234)after attending an award ceremony and allowing others to assume that he was Sidney Poitier. He no longer believes that his name represents who he is on the inside. He chooses to be who he wants to be regardless of his label.  If I had never changed my perspective on the book, I wouldn’t have understood the ending.  

This class helped me to discover a new way of reading.  Nothing has only one meaning. The “suspicious pants” aided me in understanding that not everyone has the same perspective.  Different perspectives aid the reader in finding a deeper meaning within texts. Discussion helps a reader see the different sides of a text and unlock concepts they might not have seen while only reading through their perspective.  I will now read with an open mind and listen to people around me to help with my thinkING.

            In the beginning of this semester, I wrote a blog post about an epigraph in our course syllabus. The epigraph was a screenshot of a tweet; a picture of pants simply entitled “Suspicious pants.” My original post about the pants was all about perception and how by digging deeper into something, one can always bring out more information. However, not everybody will notice the same things that other people notice. When I looked at the pants, I saw a face looking back at me, but other people might just see pants; just as Percival Everett says, “It’s incredible that a sentence is ever understood”. This is a quote that was on the whiteboard on the first day of classes. I will be using the epigraph of the pants in this essay as well, for it explains the way that my writing developed throughout the semester.

            The class work really began when we read The Bacchae, an old Greek play by the playwright Euripides. I treated this book exactly how I would treat any book in the beginning of the semester. I read it one time through and went to class as if that was enough to prepare me for a discussion. During the discussion, I interjected with maybe one idea. Obviously, since I only read it through once, mostly due to procrastination and time limits, most of the class discussion was handled by other students in the class. After The Bacchae, we went on to read our first work from Percival Everett, Frenzy. During this reading, I am not proud to say it, or rather write it, but I handled it the same way I handled The Bacchae; I read it one time through and acted like that was enough for me to have an in depth discussion about the novel. Again, I was wrong, because I only interjected with one or two minor ideas while the rest of the class carried the discussion. If this book was the pants tweet, it would be as if I glanced at the picture for maybe a few seconds, and then decided I was ready for a discussion without even seeing a face. After this, I decided to get a little bit more serious about how I read things for class.

After Frenzy, we moved onto Percival Everett’s novel, I am Not Sidney Poitier. This time, I made sure that I knew what was going on in the book. As I read through the novel, I left notes in the pages. Whenever I found something that seems interesting, confusing, or important to the plot, I left a post it note right next to the line. This way, during the group discussions, I would have more to say. For example, when Not Sidney gets a girlfriend who has much lighter skin than him, and she wants him to meet his parents, I left a note that said, “He’s darker than her, will meeting the parents be uncomfortable?”. This way, if I need to write anything about any race themes in the book, I know where to look. I also set myself up a question, so I can know what to look for in the following chapter. In addition, I will have something to contribute towards the discussion. The more I say, the more I understand, and then the more I understand, the more I learn. Halfway through reading this, I remembered the pants; a regular pair of pants hung on a chair that if you keep looking at, becomes a face. The same goes for the novel. There are certain sections of the novel that I found very confusing, like the ending, or when he fesmerizes people. I would reread any confusing parts like those so I can make better sense of them. If I can see a face by looking at pants long enough, I can find information by rereading a confusing text. Maybe, I can even bring up a point in the discussion that nobody else found. Sadly, I didn’t find anything that anyone else didn’t find, but it still made me more prepared for the class discussion.

            Because both my writing and my awareness of the text improved after leaving notes in the book, I decided to keep doing it. When we moved onto the next book, re: f (gesture), right off the bat I would start leaving notes. Because this book is a collection of poems, I had enough time to read and reread all of them before class. Because I reread it, I had a better understanding of what the poems are about, and I get to notice any connections that I didn’t notice the first time around. For example, the middle section of re: f (gesture) is entitled (Body). This section goes through a celebration of life in nineteen poems, so, of course, these poems relate to each other. However, it is not too apparent the first time reading them. Originally, it just seems like nineteen poems about nineteen different body parts. After reading it the second time though, I realized that it sounds like he’s telling a story through the poems; a sort of celebration of life. I explained this in one of my blog posts; Celebrating Life. In my first five blog posts, except the collaborative one, I got around an 82 or 83 for a grade. Now thanks to a pair of suspicious looking pants on a chair, I got an 86. After looking at the pants long enough and coming up with ideas, I had a better understanding of what that tweet was about, because it began to look more and more like a suspicious face. Similarly, the more I focused on (Body) by rereading and leaving notes, the more information I began to understand, the better my grade became in the end. In the blog posts continuing after this one, I kept my idea of really reading a text and understanding it before writing anything about it. So, after post six, all of my blog posts have improved in quality, as represented by the slightly higher grades I have been getting for them.

            This is something that I need to hold onto in the future. Moving forwards, I definitely need to really focus on what I read in order to fully understand it. Tactics like rereading a text and leaving notes in the pages boosted my grade before, and with enough determination, it will continue to do so. I wish I can say that after seeing my grade improve with my sixth blog post, that I strived for more; that I felt rewarded and decided to shoot for an even higher grade, but sadly that is not entirely true. If it were, I would have defined whatever words we were assigned to define in The Bedford Glossary, I would have done the chapter readings from Literary Analysis, and I would have read the assigned pages for Reflective Writing. However, I am a student that will accept a mid-eighties grade, so I did not, and I know that it is a bad mentality to have, so starting next semester, I will definitely fix that. It just takes a while to shift your mentality; I have to keep practicing until it becomes natural to want those high nineties grades, and self-discipline is key. However, if I continue to not read any of those sources, it becomes clear that I did not learn a full lesson from the pants. So, while I am writing this, I still have not read any of those, but by the time I finish editing this paper, I will definitely read Reflective Writing, because I know that it will help me in writing this paper. I need to look long-term into my future too. I am studying English and adolescent education, so most likely, hopefully, I will become some sort of English teacher. In order for me to achieve my goals, I need to always remember the pants. Keep digging into what I need to do, and I will learn more. Keep digging into my classes, my exams, my papers, my practicums, and eventually, I will get to where I need to go. Then I can spread what I have learned to others. I will get students, and during the first week of class, they’re going to be staring up at a tweet of a pair of pants entitled, “Suspicious Pants.”

“Thank you,” I said. “I came back to this place to find something, to connect with something lost, to reunite if not with my whole self, then with a piece of it. What I’ve discovered is that this thing is not here. In fact, it is nowhere. I have learned that my name is not my name. It seems you all know me and nothing could be further from the truth and yet you know me better than I know myself, perhaps better than I can know myself. My mother is buried not far from this auditorium, and there are no words on her headstone. As I glance out now, as I feel the weight of this trophy in my hands, as I stand like a specimen before these strangely unstrange faces, I know finally what should be written on that stone. It should say what mine will say:

I AM NOT MYSELF TODAY.”

-Percival Everett

During my first two weeks of Beth’s English class, I focused on this epigraph that came from the novel I am Not Sidney Poitier, by Percival Everett. We had to talk about what our chosen epigraph made us think about. At the time, I didn’t even know what an epigraph was. According to Cambridge Dictionary, an epigraph is “a saying or a part of a poem, play, or book put at the beginning of a piece of writing to give the reader some idea of what the piece is about.” Now, here I am at the end of the semester, with increased knowledge, and I will continue to discuss this epigraph because what I had once believed was the truth, turned out to be entirely wrong. As a writer, I think it’s important to reflect on how I’ve grown as an individual with the different pieces of literature we read and discuss the factors that led me to alter my beliefs.  

As a human being, there have been many situations that put me in a tough place where it was hard for me to admit I was wrong. Sometimes, I’d rather suffer than hear a simple “I told you so”. When I started working on my first blog post, there wasn’t anything that grabbed my attention and excited me enough to talk about. Looking back on the words I said, I can conclude that I was remarkably incorrect on where the epigraph originated from. Although it was academically, I was being put in a spot in which I had to accept that I stated wrong information. This was a turning point for me as a writer because after this incident, I became more of an open-minded person and someone who was able to admit their wrongdoings. I made an assumption based on what I had read just to later realize that the epigraph was nothing like I had once assumed. My initial understanding of this epigraph was that the words spoken were said by Percival Everett, not Not Sidney Poitier, who was the main protagonist of the novel. 

As the days went by, and we were introduced to Not Sidney Poitier, my original interpretations and thoughts had drastically changed. As I skimmed through the novel at the beginning to increase my background and what we were going to be reading, I saw the epigraph. A lightbulb immediately went off in my head and I was instantly reminded of my very first blog post. After we completed I am Not Sidney Poitier, I began to gain a better understanding as to why these words were spoken by Not Sidney. He was connecting back to what he had once known and accepting his name Not Sidney Poitier. He states, “I have learned that my name is not my name” (Everett 234). The first time reading this line in September, I skipped by it because there wasn’t a connection to be made. When we were divided into groups to make a collaborative blog post, we were able to use these words to focus on the importance of names and the labeling that occurs because of it. We were able to take multiple examples and tie them together to form an argument. 

After discovering that I had been wrong in my first post and after working in groups on a blog post, over time, I tried to pick a concept that connected all of the different works we did in class because I realized that if I did this, I could create a better structure for my posts and it would prevent me from making assumptions on little information. One approach I was able to take was with the term “intertextuality”. As defined by The Bedford Glossary of Critical and Literary Terms, written by Ross Murfin and Supryia M. Ray, intertextuality is  “The condition of interconnectedness among texts, or the concept that any text is an amalgam of others, either because… and so forth” (215). Throughout the semester and as I wrote blog after blog, I constantly used this term as a starting point. I believe that if I use intertextuality over New Criticism, which “…based their interpretations on elements within the text rather than on external factors such as the effects of a work or biographical and historical materials” (287), I can make connections to what I read and gain a better understanding of others and literature. 

When I first enrolled in this course, I was hesitant to speak up in class on the topics that were being discussed. I didn’t have the intelligence that I do now to confidently raise my hand and give someone feedback or give my own opinion. I didn’t even know what I wanted to achieve by the end of the semester. What was I going to take away from these stories we were reading and these movies we were watching? Everything had a purpose. Each class we were able to take what we learned and connect it to something we had done previously or even our own experiences. As the days went by, I was able to generate a common theme that life is all about connections. Literature is all about connections. By being able to retain multiple views on the world and what you’re doing, you can simplify the tasks and expand your mind to more ideas and intentions. In one of my recent blog posts a few weeks ago, I had pointed out that it is hard to avoid intertextuality as a writer and reader because of our surroundings as students. We want to make comparisons between what we know and what we learn. 

It’s important to have conversations and make connections in life because had I done this when I chose to use this epigraph for my first blog post, maybe I would have been able to unpack the epigraph in a way in which my mistakes could have been avoided. Mistakes are supposed to happen, especially in college, and if I wasn’t able to correct what I had said, I wouldn’t have been able to grow in the way that I did. Since then, I am able to see the world more clearly and use this circumstance to guide me in the direction to improve myself as a writer and even as an individual. 

I have taken the little things from inside this classroom to the outside. When I’m talking to my friends, for example, I frequently use the term I have come to love, as said by Beth, “unpack”. If they state something that baffles me, I tell them to unpack what they mean. Something so simple and straightforward, ended up having an impact on me.  It’s the little things that will change you as an individual and open up your own mind. 

“…yet you know me better than I know myself, perhaps better than I can know myself”. I set my standards low. I don’t expect the most out of myself as a way to avoid getting disappointed. This line stuck out to me in August in one way, and today it says something different. I know that I am always able to do better than I believe and people have continued to tell me this throughout my life. There are so many people out there that know me a different way that I know myself because other people set higher standards. This class is a perfect example. I had the people I needed in order to help me be successful. I used so many different pieces of literature to form valid arguments and connections in this world. This epigraph is only a part of all of the work that altered my perception in this class. It stuck with me this whole semester, which is why I had to end with it too. It opened my eyes in the world of writing and because of it, I have become someone new, someone better that can see the world in a way I couldn’t before.

Who has the audacity to overlook the prompt, to shoot from the hip and run into an essay, head on, with no outline? Surely no Education major with a concentration in English would have the boldness to commit these crimes against the writing process. That is why I am suspicious of myself, not my current self, but my former self, before this course. I thought to myself “how could you be doing this poorly in a college English class after receiving straight A’s in high school English”? That’s when reflection came in, and it hit me hard. It “hit hard” not because I thought I was a bad writer, but rather I was unrefined. Unrefined, because of carelessness and thinking I knew it all. The suspicious pants at the beginning of the course meant little to me, and I had no other reason to use them except because it was the easiest epigraph to understand. Now I know fully what they mean to me and what they symbolize: the pants were suspicious of my writing. I know it may sound ridiculous, but these suspicious pants found in a silly old meme show me how I never cared to use my untapped potential as a writer. 

I am suspicious of how I got this far shooting in a direction before aiming. How was I ever supposed to make a basket without looking at the process of getting the ball to the basket? That is why, when I entered this course, the ball was swatted directly back into my face. Outlines, outlines and more outlines. I realized that I was missing this key piece that would make up my blogs. I loved the act of freely writing with no real direction and felt like I could never put the same energy into my writing while using an outline. I discovered the usefulness of outlines while doing our group blog. At times I felt that our group lost focus and would stray away from our thesis. Looking back at our group’s blog post entitled “The Power of Names in Establishing Characters,” our thesis statement was “Everett makes a statement about the power of names; names themselves can reveal an incredible amount about an individual’s characteristics and personal values.” To this day I believe our thesis statement summed up our argument well; however, we deviated from that thesis often. Our group frequently found ourselves going off on tangents that often did not lead back to our main idea; that is until slowing down and creating an organized plan came in. We collaboratively created an outline that showed the contents of each paragraph as well as the objective of each paragraph. This outline did nothing to hinder our writing, and in no way stifled creativity as I thought it may. Our group went on to write paragraphs that not only connected to the thesis, but also provided valuable information and developed an interesting talking point. 

The first blog I wrote in the class revealed the most. This first assignment was a blunder to put it lightly, mainly because I completely overlooked the prompt. I remember my actions during this moment well. I skimmed over the prompt, skipped over entire sentences, and assumed I knew it all. I oversimplified the assignment and did not check for understanding, because reading the prompt took more effort than I wanted to give in that moment. In “Reflective Writing,” it is stated that teachers or “tutors set tasks that are tailored to the needs and practices of the particular discipline you are studying” (8). This quote related well to my situation, as the assignment was “tailored” to my needs and was designed for me to learn. However, I opted out of learning that particular lesson because I chose not to read the directions carefully. I now know that reading and comprehending the prompt is crucial to writing the assignment, and is necessary before creation of the outline. 

My writing has greatly improved since the submission of my first blog post that was entitled “Suspicious Godly Pants.” Considering the prompt for the blog was to “select one of the course epigraphs (see above), and based on what you have read, done, and experienced during the first class periods, what does your selected epigraph get you to thinkING about?” the title of my blog seems awfully silly. I dumped all kinds of wild thoughts into that first blog post, expecting a good grade to accompany it. This post had silly humor such as, “These pants, had Zeus actually worn them” and “let’s pretend that the Greek gods wore modern day khaki pants and that these in particular are owned by the most powerful god of them all,” but that is about all it contained. The topic may have been interesting to some, however the significance of the work was nowhere to be found. I left out the answer to the crucial question of “who cares?”. Not only did this essay not follow the prompt, it also never told the reader why they should care at all about Zeus’s hypothetical pants. I could go on and on about the missing aspects of this blog and all the things that need to be added; however, that information was necessary to better my writing after reflecting on it. 

The pants were suspicious of me, and rightfully so, because before the class I rarely reflected on my past writings. Once I wrote an assignment and submitted it, the assignment might as well have been put in a paper shredder, as I felt no need to reread it. “Reflection” was not in my vocabulary. If I received a good grade, I’d write something similar for the next assignment; and if I got a bad grade, I’d complain about it for awhile and move on without trying to understand what I did poorly. This class may not have made me perfect at reflecting, but I know that I have taken a step in the right direction. I feel as though I now take the professor’s commentary with more than a grain of salt and genuinely care to improve my writing. I care more to improve my writing, not for grades, but rather to enhance my skills and feel like more of an intellectual. Grades in college will be important to me until the day I graduate, but I can say that I take great pride in my writing now. 

Finally, I wrote a blog entitled “A Reflection on the Subjectivity of Writing.” I wrote this blog to discuss how beauty is in the eye of the beholder and a piece of writing can be great to one person and horrible to another. Subjectivity, to me, is based on a person’s biases that they develop throughout their lives. Subjectivity in “The Bedford” is considered the “perceptions and thoughts arising and based in an individual’s mind” (430). I still find my original idea in the blog to be true, but I have revised my idea since the beginning of the semester. What I have revised about my idea is that a work of literature can be good, but likely isn’t great if it has not gone through revision. Revision, and proper usage of the English language, is necessary to make a great blog. I once thought that if I had good substance and interesting ideas that my writing would be great; however, I now understand that great writing requires outlines, pacing, preparation, and most importantly, reflections. 

The pants were suspicious of my work, but no longer. I have progressed as a writer, and I continue to improve with every blog that I write. Reflecting on the works that I have created have allowed me to not make the same mistakes again, and in turn my writing has benefited greatly. The only thing left to do is to keep writing, keep reflecting, and keep improving. 

At the beginning of the semester, I remember staring at that picture of pants hung over a chair, and thinking how is this relevant to literature? Throughout the course of the semester I soon answered my own question. The purpose of the suspicious pants epigraph was to represent interpretations and the uniqueness of everyone’s ideas and thoughts on the subject at hand. This epigraph and its meaning has stuck with me throughout the entirety of the semester, leading me to conclusions that I didn’t even think I could come to. The different ideas that I had come up with had come to me based on the uniqueness of my own interpretations of the literature in class. The idea of perspective and interpretation goes along with most things that we did in class this semester and it offered me so much growth along the way. 

In one of our first in class discussions, I recall having a war over whether or not it was pronounced elemen-tary or elemen-tree. This discussion brought about the idea that interpretations can differ depending on where someone may be from. For example, I personally say elemen-tary and I happen to be from upstate New York, while most people from down state New York often say elemen-tree. This just shows how easily an interpretation of something may differ. By looking at this interpretation in class and outside, I was able to write about these differing interpretations and what they mean in my first blog post. This first post was something that was extremely difficult to write for me, I was not used to having to pick my own topic on something and have to write something deep and meaningful about that topic. Needless to say it did not end well, and I was more than a little discouraged. I continued on throughout the first couple posts without any help, which only caused my grades to drop even lower. Once I realized that I needed help, my topics and interpretations of those topics improved greatly over the semester. 

One of those topics is that of the Common Core standardized education in the public school system and how it takes away the students right to interpret and internalize something in their own way. With standardized education comes the added consequence of a lack of uniqueness in students writing. Students are not able to form any opinions of their own, and are often taught for their final exam, rather than taught to learn and understand the subject. The unrealistic expectations of students is mentioned in Will Greer’s article, The 50 Year History of Common Core, which states that it is “mandated that 100% of students be proficient, or at grade-level, on state standards by 2014.” This expectation was completely unrealistic, and since students were more focused on learning for their exams, they lost the whole idea of interpreting something and formulating an important opinion on it. I had my own personal experience with this in the beginning of the semester, since I had come from a Common Core based education at a public school my writing was not up to the standard that it should have been. I thought that I could figure it out myself, but once I decided to ask for help, Professor McCoy’s interpretations and ideas given to me helped me out of the hole that Common Core writing standards had dug for me. 

The idea of rules was something that I had also spent a good amount of time interpreting and pondering during the semester. Mostly when looking into Percival Everett’s novel, I am Not Sidney Poitier, I looked into the idea of how the rules work in this fictional world. Most of the time, these rules were interpreted by corrupt individuals who used them against Not Sidney. Such as when Not Sidney was arrested for “sassin’ an officer of the law”(Everett) and also for simply being black. These officers had interpreted the laws how they wanted to, which was corruptly, and also gave them more power over Not Sidney. I interpreted the idea of rules as the concept I listed above, and this gave me the idea of writing about the idea of societal rules and how they can often dictate someone’s every move. This whole idea offered a wide set of interpretations along with it, and I was even able to make a blog post out of it. This was a post that I was sure was going to go well, but yet again I was disappointed with the results. This was the post that pushed me to go in and receive help, and it was also the post that showed me that it is okay to ask for help when you need it. 

Our lesson in the library about using our resources was also something that I will take with me during my whole time here at Geneseo. The lesson taught us how to properly use the library databases and how to use our resources to the fullest. Not Sidney, in I am Not Sidney Poitier, often found many lessons and resources in his local library. It was here that he found a book by an Austrian Psychiatrist which outlined a theory called Fesmerization: “a method of gaining control of a subject without the subjects awareness”(Everett). Not Sidney had taken this with him and used it throughout the whole novel to his advantage. He interpreted it in a way that he could use it during his whole life, and it boded well for him in many different ways. For example, Not Sidney had decided to join a fraternity, but when he realized how degrading the hazing process was he decided enough was enough. In order to get himself out of this toxic situation, Not Sidney had Fesmerized his roommate and asked him not only to kick Not Sidney out of the fraternity, but also to “start a recycling campaign on campus”(Everett). In doing this, Not Sidney had effectively started a campus wide recycling project, and he avoided joining an incredibly toxic group of boys, which saved Not Sidney from the degradation that he would have suffered otherwise. The great thing about most resources is that they can be interpreted in many different ways, depending on the resource being used. Once I decided I needed help, I used my resources to better my own writing, and with all the resources available to me it seemed to improve from there. I began learning how to properly write a blog post once I learned that it’s okay to ask for help and to use resources. 

The entirety of our English 203 course was based on the idea of intertextuality and how Percival Everett used intertextuality throughout all his pieces that we looked at during the semester.  Professor McCoy also introduced to use the idea of New Criticism which is defined by The Bedford Glossary of Critical and Literary Terms by Supriya Ray, as “a type of formalist literary criticism characterized by close textual analysis”. When comparing intertextuality and New Criticism, it all comes down to the interpretation of different literary texts. When looking at a piece New Critically you can only interpret it based on the work in front of you, but when looking at a piece intertextually you can interpret it based on other pieces of literature as well. The ideas of both of these concepts was something that drove me to write better blogs by incorporating other pieces of literature, but also being able to observe one piece and use it to my own advantage in the blog post assignment as well. 

Once I began to become more comfortable with the writing style of blog posts, I began to think of what to write about rather than how to write about it. This brought about the idea of writing a poem for my post titled Poetry, Everett Style!, which was about the 7 Deadly Sins and how Everett alluded to them in his final poem in his poetry book re: f(gesture). Poems in themselves have many layers, and are often complex to write and read. The beauty of poetry, is that it can be interpreted in many different ways, and none of them are necessarily wrong or right. In my poem I decided to write of the 8 Evil Thoughts, which is where the 7 Deadly Sins of Christianity are derived from. I depicted them in a way that was supposed to show a critique of the Christian faith, and how people often break the rules they are supposed to follow. This post in particular was a big growth post for me, as was really interpreting Everett’s poems and trying to capture his essence in my own work. 

In my final blog post of the semester I decided to write about nonsense, or more so the concept of nonsense and if something can truly be nonsense or not. I toyed with the idea that if something is nonsense, can we make it into sense just by educating ourselves about the subject at hand? I came to the conclusion that it is all based on interpretations of the subject; whether or not the reader or listener believe it to be nonsense or not. Professor Everett in I am Not Sidney Poitier is a prime example of someone who seemingly speaks nonsense, but has alot of education and knowledge to offer his students. Not Sidney learns many important lessons from his class called The Philosophy of Nonsense, and he often uses these lessons in his real life. Often times during class conversations, some things that my peers would say would go right over my head and I personally declared it nonsense. After class time, I would find myself pondering the conversations that had went on and educating myself on the subjects we were covering in discussion, and slowly the nonsense became knowledge for me. 

The blogging assignment in its entirety is something that was so incredibly useful in bettering my own writing. The whole idea of the blog post assignment was to find different ways of interpreting and connecting the literature we were given over the course of the semester, and to make intelligent claims from these pieces of literature. These blogs were something that caused a tremendous amount of growth in not only my writing, but my own confidence in my writing. And the suspicious pants seem to come full circle here, the idea of interpretation and how each person’s interpretation can be different was something that ran through the entire semester. There was a huge lesson to be learned simply by looking at the picture of the suspicious pants, and that lesson will stay with me during my entire college career. 

Percival Everett is an extremely intelligent author and English professor who has a knack for getting readers to think deeply about his literature. Everett is a genius when it comes to English concepts, expertly manipulating the English language to do what he wants. His writing is sophisticated and calculated in order to get readers to think through different lenses. Everett also uses allusions and references to complicate his stories as well, making his literature that much more difficult to fully understand. Throughout Everett’s works he makes readers ask questions like “what the heck is going on, is that really the end of the book, what is with this title, or is this author insane?”. All of these questions are fair questions to be asked when reading his novel entitled “I Am Not Sidney Poitier”. “I Am Not Sidney Poitier” is very thought provoking for the reader and there are many surprises along the way. These surprises shape the question: Is Everett messing with us?

Percival Everett may just be messing with us when it comes to “I Am Not Sidney Poitier”. There are so many oddities and surprises throughout this novel that completely catch the reader off guard. A few major oddities include Not Sidney’s potential super powers, his mother’s absurdly lengthy pregnancy, his seemingly endless money, his superpowers, Wanda Fonda and the ending of the novel most of all. We find out early in the story that Not Sidney was in his mother’s womb for an extremely long time, “Two years” (3) to be exact. Considering the average time in the womb is only nine months, this length of pregnancy is exceptional. Why Everett would make this an aspect of the story is to be determined by the reader, but I think he is just trying to make Not Sidney seem sort of mysterious and different. Later in the story we come to find out that his mother became very rich by investing her money. Not Sidney said that “When I was two, in 1970, she invested every dime she had in a little-known company called The Turner Communications Group that would later become Turner Broadcasting System” (6). This is by no means impossible, but it is another odd part of Sidney’s life, having an absurd amount of money off of one investment. When he asked Ted’s accountant, Podgy, about how much money Not Sidney owned, Podgy replied with “Let me just say ‘vast.’ The actual figure may frighten you” (27). He also oddly enough has almost no motivation to spend that money either. Most kids would love to spend vast amounts of money on absurd things, but not Not Sidney. He ends up driving a fairly humble car considering the amount of money he possesses and he really only spends a lot of money to get into college. Not Sidney also meets Wonda Fonda, Jane’s interestingly named niece. Wonda Fonda instantly shows a fondness for Not Sidney and she is attached to him the whole time that they’re together. While on Ted’s boat, Wonda Fonda shows Not Sidney this odd cherry tattoo and explains to him that “it has to do with sex” (25). This part of the book is an extremely odd moment, because why would a young girl have a tattoo like this especially for the reason that she explains? The last oddity that I will mention is his super powers, although this book is overflowing with weird occurrences. Not Sidney discovered that he has the ability to “fesermerize” people, which is essentially mind controlling them. He uses this power many times throughout the novel as an attempt to get what he wants from people and more often than not it works. He was going to use it in an attempt to get out of jail and he uses it to get Wonda to take off Jane’s top while on the boat. Not Sidney talked to a judge and “considered attempting a bit of Fesemerization, but I was terribly afraid of the effects of ineffective staring” (49). This quote shows that he really may have this power over peoples minds and the power followed him into adulthood. Instinct may tell the reader that fesmerzation was a figment of Not Sidney’s child imagination, but he believed in his abilities even as he grew older. Not Sidney’s fesmerization abilities are an interesting aspect of the story and Everett really tries to make the power seem real to the reader. There are countless instances that will leave the reader in disbelief of what is actually happening in the story and Everett toys with the reader’s mind in that way.

The final oddity in “I Am Not Sidney Poitier” is the bizarre ending. Everett leaves readers wondering about everything that just happened, as every reader is left waiting for Ashton Kutcher to yell “You just got Punk’d”. The ending is truly incomprehensible unless you are Everett, because he makes Not Sidney announce that he is in fact actually Sidney Poitier the actor. This surprise ending comes out of left field, because there wasn’t much evidence of him being the actual Sidney Poitier prior to the award show final scene. Not Sidney’s story reflects countless of Sidney Poitier’s movies, but to go from living out each movie to then announcing at the end of the movie that he is the actor is mind boggling. The only way that I could equate this final scene is like watching all of the “Star Wars” movies and at the very end of the last movie in the series, Luke Skywalker, the protagonist played by Mark Hamill, tells everyone that he has been actor Mark Hamill all along. The ending that consists of Not Sidney accepting an award as actor Sidney Poitier is a fantastic moment where Everett tricks us all. 

Percival Everett masterfully makes readers question what is actually happening in his novel “I Am Not Sidney Poitier” and it makes the journey through the book all the more exciting.

I have been thinking about the meaning of nonsense recently and whether or not something is truly nonsense, or whether we just haven’t been offered the knowledge to make it into something that makes sense to us. Often times older literature, such as Shakespeare, can be seen as nonsense to someone who wasn’t offered the knowledge to understand the meaning of what is actually being said. But when pondered and discussed, we can make connections and often make sense of the literature at hand, despite it being difficult to understand. Often times in class I would listen to the conversations at hand and initially be incredibly confused, but when I thought about the conversations post-class I would uncover so much knowledge simply as a result of my classmates comments within discussions. By educating myself on the things that I thought were nonsense in class, I was even able to make some blogs out of the topics discussed. In this post I would like to discuss the “nonsense” within Percival Everett’s novel, I am Not Sidney Poitier and his poetry book, re: f(gesture). 

When we look at the novel, I am Not Sidney Poitier by Percival Everett there is one character who seemingly speaks nothing but nonsense: Percival Everett (more widely known in the novel as Professor Everett). Professor Everett taught a class called The Philosophy of Nonsense, which Not Sidney had enrolled in during his time at Morehouse University. During this time, Professor Everett seemed to constantly spew actual nonsense most of the time, but Not Sidney soon realized this was not the case. He had learned so much from his supposed nonsense, through episodes of learning such as Professor Everett’s mentioning that Not Sidney should avoid becoming “a sheep”(Everett). This piece of knowledge ran into Not Sidney later in the novel when he decided to join a fraternity and saw that the hazing and abuse was not worth becoming a sheep in a sense. Professor Everett offers Not Sidney the advice that if he can “imagine that he doesn’t have limitations” (Everett).  Contextually, this advice seems like something nonsense filled, but Not Sidney takes this advice and carries it with him throughout the novel, moulding it in his own interpretation into something much more significant, perhaps something much more sensical. Although Professor Everett seems to be filled with nonsense, his words actually carry meaning when pondered by Not Sidney. 

Looking into Percival Everett’s poetry novel, re: f(gesture) can offer us some insight into the idea of what nonsense actually is. I want to look specifically at poem 5 in the set of poems titled, Logic. When I first looked at this poem, and honestly most of the poems in this poetry novel, I was confused as to what it really meant. At first it looked like pure nonsense, but after a discussion in class I discovered that it could have many possible underlying meanings. The poem goes as follows: “From rags and dust- a rat is formed in the cellar. It was not there before. Only rags and dust.”(Everett). While discussing this my classmate Liz brought up that this poem conjured up the theory of spontaneous generation, which I had mentioned in my past few blogs. Since I had the opportunity to ponder this with my classmates, the nonsense that I originally saw in this poem slowly faded into something that I could make sense of. 

My question at hand is whether or not true nonsense exists. Is anything truly nonsense if we can ponder and research to our hearts content? I believe that nonsense only exists because we allow it to exist. Since someone believes something is nonsense, it is nonsense in their eyes until proved otherwise. When we look at literature and the idea of nonsense surrounding complex literature, can we even categorize it as nonsense? Nonsense is all about the perspective of the person who is taking in the supposed nonsense. It is only nonsense if we allow ourselves to believe it is nonsense, and it only begins to make sense once we educate ourselves on the subject at hand.

            Your name is your identity, it’s who you are. Names are important, and everybody has at least one. Actually, most people have at least three names, you get a first, middle, and a last name; heck, some people get two last names. My brother is special though, he only has two names; I mean, what kind of person doesn’t have a middle name? Anyway, Percival Everett seems to think names are important too. In his book, re: f(gesture), he brings up the importance of names twice. In the poem F, he writes “F is for Frankenstein, who did not name his baby. Always name offspring”. In the poem N¸ he repeats the line, “Always name offspring”. It appears that Everett finds names important. So, when Everett published a novel in 2009 and decided to name his character Not Sidney Poitier, there is a level of importance to it.

            Throughout Everett’s novel I am Not Sidney Poitier, Not Sidney is repeatedly asked about his name. Whenever he tells somebody that his name is Not Sidney, they obviously become confused, as would you if someone said their name but put “not” before it. Because of his strange name, he was sometimes bullied in school. Not Sidney decides to drop out of high school because he’s rich and he can, and he then thinks he’s ready to just drive somewhere and start a new life. He says, “I was a fighter of windmills. I was a chaser of whales. I was Not Sidney Poitier”. This is the point in his life where he decides that he wants his name to mean something. He then leaves home and is immediately arrested for being black. When he gets arrested, he is chained to another inmate who seems aggressive and rude. When Not Sidney is asked what his name is, he simply replies “Poitier”, because this will minimalize confusion, and maybe this time he won’t get punched. Upon his return from jail, he enrolls in college. He thinks that with a degree, he really can make his name mean something. He goes to see one of his professors, who Everett named Percival Everett, and Everett tells him “…you’re Not Sidney Poitier and also not Sidney Poitier, but in a strange way you are Sidney Poitier as much as you’re anyone”. As confusing as this may seem around the halfway point of the book, it makes sense in the end. In the final pages of the novel, he shows up at LAX airport, and there are men holding signs that read “Sidney Poitier”, so he goes with them. He is put in a private car and ends up at a film festival where he assumes the place of Sidney Poitier and receives an award. So, Not Sidney Poitier lived his whole life being compared or mistaken for Sidney Poitier to the point that he becomes Sidney Poitier in a way.

            It is strange to think of yourself as someone you’re not. For example, I go by two names. My actual name is Anthony, and whenever I meet somebody, I introduce myself as Anthony. When I get to know somebody enough, they begin to call me by a nickname that my family gave me when I was an infant, Nino. So, throughout my whole life, up until high school I went by Anthony in school, and Nino at home. When I got to high school, my entire personality changed completely. I basically became a whole different person. Around the same time, my friends began calling me Nino too. Now my high school is small, so everybody knows each other. This means that now everybody knows I go by Nino. I was being called Nino in school and at home, and the only people who called me Anthony were teachers, meaning in a way I became Nino. However, this changed again when I went to college. Everybody started calling me Anthony again, so I started introducing myself as Anthony again. Whenever I got close friends though, they would start calling me Nino. This apparently created a problem in my mind that I didn’t realize was there until I solved the problem earlier this semester, a whole year later. When I meet people, and I assume everybody can relate to this, I don’t show them my full self. I become very reserved and don’t let them see who I am until I begin to see who they are. So, I introduce myself as Anthony and they meet only a part of me. After hanging put with that person maybe two or three times, I start to relax around them. Usually, that’s the same time that they would start calling me Nino. So, Anthony was a partial version of me, whereas Nino was all of me. At some point in this semester, I realized that by going by two names, I began to break apart my personality from one person into two. So, at the end of I am Not Sidney Poitier, when he says “I have learned that my name is not my name. It seems that you all know me and nothing could be further from the truth…I AM NOT MYSELF TODAY”, I understand what he means. It doesn’t matter what your name is, or what you go by, who you are is internal. Your name is not your identity. Your name is not who you are.

Pervical Everett’s poem titled “Logic,” in the greater anthology of re:f(gesture) uses extremely ambiguous metaphors and juxtapositions to express the idea that concepts, such as numbers, are timeless and unbreakable. Moreover, he details the insignificance of naming, and the ineffectiveness of words to alter anything other than a human being’s understanding of the world. 

Starting with stanza two, Everett writes: “Let us assume X. Even such signs have some place, some language X. Constituent parts compose this reality — molecules, atoms, simple X.” The metaphor comparing X, to the fundamental building blocks of the universe, emphasizes the idea that no matter the name given to a thing (which is itself a name given), it does little to change the composition of that thing. As Everett deems a language X, and atoms and molecules X, he exposes the consistency of existence. Meaning, language X still exists without “X,” while atoms and molecules exist without “X.” Furthermore, take a language — English for example. Without the word “English,” the English language does not decompose. Take molecules and atoms and remove the “molecules and atoms,” and they are still there, composing every part of everything ever been given a name. With this being said, one may as well call them “X,” as their existence can not be defined by a name. 

In stanza four, there is a line that reads: “There are samples of colors somewhere in a case, standards like weights and measures, preserved in Paris maybe, like the meter, sealed in a case where no one can see them.” The metaphor comparing the interminability of ideas to samples of colors and weights being locked in a case somewhere in Paris, emphasizes their timelessness. Color, weight and length are constants in the universe. Color is the visible perception of the electromagnetic spectrum. Weight is the mass of an object, multiplied by the acceleration due to gravity. Length is one of the three dimensions (excluding time). They are constants in the universe, and have been for millennium. Ironically however, the names we give them are not. They change over time, or cease to exist completely if we meet our demise. The aforementioned metaphor exposes the irony of attempting to fetter to a name that which as existed nameless for time uncountable. Furthermore, the segment that says: “…in a case where no man can see them,” continues to accentuate this point, because that is why we as a species, named these abstract principles to begin with. We named them to attempt to touch them, or get close to them. When in reality, they are safely locked away, where no name or phrase will prove to be the proper key. As the names we provide these perpetual things such as “color,” or “meter,” eventually wither and crumble like they will, the things will still stand stubbornly on, until they are given a new name to disregard. 

Stanza five in its entirety continues to express this theme, as Everett pens: “Seven men can be obliterated, burned or hanged or drowned in a lake and forgotten. Men gone, but not seven. Seven men lost, but not seven. Seven is, will be. All men will die, but not seven.” The juxtaposition between the mortality of men, and immortality of “seven,” furthers the notion that there are concepts that unbreakable. The three direct juxtapositions that Everett presents in this quote are: “Men gone, but not seven,” “Seven lost, but not seven,” and “All men will die, but not seven.” These serve to illuminate the fragility of man, when compared to the intangible constructs they create. Although “seven,” was formed by man and represented by him (as does the group of men “obliterated”), seven still far exceeds the lifespan of its creator; as even when seven men are not present, seven still exists, and will continue to exist in the debris, ash, gallows and the lake in which those men drowned.

The notion of existence versus nonexistence, and the futility of names to influence such, is a theme that Everett discusses on multiple occasions. Similarly in his novel I Am Not Sidney Poitier, he demonstrates the irony of the protagonist’s name, Not Sidney Poitier, having no effect on his life course, as he lived Sidney Poitier’s life almost exclusively. However, in re:f(gesture) the stated theme is articulated through the use of metaphors, such as comparing infinite existence to being locked in a case in Paris. It is also articulated through the use of juxtapositions, as perceived by deeming a complex system of microscopic moving parts (atoms and molecules) as the singular letter “X.” It are these devices which allow “Logic,” ironically, to honor its name and present a concept that is as timeless as the ones given in the poem. 

The inspiration for this post ironically stemmed from a lack of understanding of the poem “Zulus,” rather than an in-depth understanding of it. The poem, which is derived from the poetry book re:f(gesture) by Percival Everett, is one that has taken me for a loop. In fact all of the poems in the book have confused me more than that of any other work that I have read. While it is true that Percival Everett’s register is intentionally murky, but “Zulus” traverses beyond being esoteric, and ventures into simply being indiscernible. Whereas his novel I Am Not Sidney Poitier is bemusing as well, it contains a clear narrative (in terms of plot) that facilitates one’s dissection of the novel when seeking themes. Here there is no clear narrative, and the poem relies too much on Intertextuality. Considering that “Zulus,” is derived from a novel of the same name, by the same author, the work is entirely intertextual. Without proper exposition on the novel, the reader is left fumbling in the dark. I respect esoterism, but it is also impossible to dive into another’s mind. Therefore, “Zulus” overreliance on Intertextuality diminishes its meaning as viewed by a wider audience. 

Firstly, it must be acknowledged that the poem as an abecedarian provides marginal structure to the piece. For context, the denotation of abecedarian is: “An ancient poetic form guided by alphabetical order. Generally each line or stanza begins with the first letter of the alphabet and is followed by the successive letter, until the final letter is reached.” The abecedarian allows the poem to drive on in its agenda, but the problem lies with the reader being unaware of that agenda from the get-go. For example, the starting stanza of the poem begins with: “A is for Achitophel. It was he who put Absalom up to the big naughty.” Not only are the two characters mentioned in this line from the novel Zulus, but this line is also an allusion to the poem published by John Dryden in 1681 titled “Absalom and Achitophel.” This opening presents a relative dual-intertextuality, as it borrows content from not one, but two separate works. Therefore, to view the entire picture that Everett is painting, one must be somewhat familiar with the poem by John Dryden to completely understand this opening. As an English major, I relish the challenge of discerning complex pieces, but old-English, as presented in Dryden’s work, is difficult mountain to scale even for an English major. Overall, there is virtually no promotion a broader understanding by Everett. He instead chooses to cater to a very niche group — one composed of individuals who have read both Zulus and “Absalom and Achitophel.” This pattern of including character names and circumstances from other works, including Zulus, occurs frequently throughout the duration of the mind-rattling read. 

Allusion could also be a form of intertextuality. My favorite high school English teacher is someone whom I admire very much, and he said: “Everything is a text,” on the first day of class. Therefore, historical allusions have every right to be a text, and are therefore subject to Intertextuality. Allusion is denoted as: “An expression designed to call something to mind without mentioning it explicitly; an indirect or passing reference.” With that being stated, Everett incorporates many historical allusions into “Zulus,” and they have a similar impact as the aforementioned use of characters from other texts. For example, the allusion to ancient Greek Philosophy that reads as follows: “A is for Anaximander who said that the element of things is Boundless,” does not involve a well-known philosopher (at least to the common person, and certainly me.) Speaking of which, I did not even know that Anaximader was an ancient Greek Philosopher until I googled his name and read two or three sentences about him. The common reader is simply not going to take the time to research Animaxander and his teachings. While Everett does include greater-known Philosophers such as Aristotle, and Plato, it is the inclusion of names such as Animaxander’s that will trip readers up before they can process the previous allusion. Moreover, the allusion to an 1838 battle between the Boers (dutch farmers) and the Zulus continues to emphasize esoterism over understanding. The conflict between Zulus and Boers is not a widely taught topic in high schools, and is in fact skimmed over rather quickly if my memory serves me correctly, which it usually does. 

Everett’s emphasis on esoterism over enrapturing wider audiences demonstrates the potential pit-falls of Intertextuality. Whether that Intertextuality is expressed through the picking and placing of characters from other works into a new work, or via obscure historical allusions that most likely only a Major in the subject would comprehend; the works insistence on being a culmination of numerous influencers sacrifices public appeal and comprehension. In conclusion, Intertextuality in “Zulus,” allows only a niche audience to read it, and understand at least the majority of allusions and so on.