In Percival Everett’s re: f (gesture), the abecedarian poem Zulus contains a multitude of allusions to a variety of people, places, stories, and more. In sifting through these many references, one in particular stood out to me among the rest. The speaker states, “H is for horrors, / so full of them we dine, / for humanity, / on bent Kantian trees” (Everett 22). I had never heard of a Kantian tree before, so using the logic of my last blog post (Archive and Intertextuality), I took to my favorite archive–Google–to see what I could find.
Continue ReadingThe 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.
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.
Archives and Intertextuality
On Monday, Professor McCoy allowed us to take a mini field trip around campus with the mission of finding as many “archives” as we could. Merriam-Webster dictionary defines an “archive” as “a repository or collection especially of information.” As my group and I would soon discover, these repositories can be found in a variety of forms, from the library to a bulletin board to a tree. We even discussed how people could be regarded as archives as well; their brains act as a repository for all the memories and experiences they’ve had in their lifetime. I was keeping a record of all the examples we discovered, and I became a bit overwhelmed; I could barely keep up with the quickly lengthening list. As my group member Liz put it, “The world is your archive!”
Continue ReadingNames and Presumption
by; Shelagh Neeley, Audrey Minton, Molly Brown,Hailey Cullen, and Kevin Reed
In our English 203 class, we recently viewed the film Lilies of the Field. The film follows a black man, Homer Smith, who is driving through rural Arizona when he comes across a small farm where nuns are working. There are five nuns in total; Sister Gertrude, Sister Elizabeth, Sister Agnes, Sister Albertine, and head nun, Mother Maria. He stops and asks them for water to fill his car. Once he does so, Mother Maria abruptly asks him to fix the roof of their home and Homer hesitantly agrees. When he finishes the roof, Mother Maria insists he stays the night. She claims that God sent Homer to the nuns to build them a chapel. Instead of leaving, Homer agrees. During this process, the nuns offer hospitality, and show Smith their care for the community in which they reside. These women exhibit a saintly nature with their initiative to build the community a chapel. The names Sister Gertrude, Sister Elizabeth, Sister Agnes, and Sister Albertine reflect the same kind nature as their character suggests. The only nun that is rude and aloof to Smith is Mother Maria. The name Maria means “bitter”, which is an amusing parallel to Mother Maria’s bitter nature.
In the novel, I am Not Sidney Poitier, by Percival Everett, the main character, Not Sidney, experiences similar events to those of the real Sidney Poitier’s characters in his films. Not Sidney encounters nuns in the book who are based off the nuns from Lilies of the Field. Their names are changed to Mother Irenaeus, Sister Origen, Sister Eusebius, Sister Firmilian, and Sister Chrysotom. Although these characters may share some similarities, they are not the same. The nuns from the novel appear greedy and selfish while asking Not Sidney, “do you have our money?” (Everett 197). Mother Irenaeus even concerted with Thornton Scrunchy, a swindler, to get Not Sidney’s money. “Sister Irenaeus and the man were shoving bills back into what I recognized as my satchel” (Everett 228). A nun is generally thought of as pure and god-like, however, the nuns in I Am Not Sidney Poitier certainly do not fit that description. The nuns’ characters in the novel are rude, and in Mother Irenaeus’ case, criminal.
Looking into the origins of the names chosen for these nuns, we see that Everett chose saintly or saint-like names. Irenaeus was a Greek bishop who was most known for widening the Christian community. “Origen of Alexandria, one of the greatest Christian theologians, is famous for composing the seminal work of Christian Neoplatonism, his treatise, On First Principles.”(Moore 2019). Eusebius’ writings related most to Christianity. He was an influential bishop, he was not a saint. “Firmilian Saint Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, one of the greatest prelates of his time. He urged Dionysius of Alexandria to attend the council of Antioch, held to repudiate Novatianism.”(2005) John Chrysostom, “the great preacher”, wrote sermons.
In Lilies of the Field, the nuns’ names typically reflect the personalities of the women, in contrast to I am not Sidney Poitier, where the saintly names are the antithesis of the womens’ character. It seems that Everett deliberately chose names that misrepresent the characters.
We believe that Everett changed the names of the nuns to say something about how names can sometimes be misleading, and therefore aren’t truly representative of their subjects. This can also be seen in the novel through the character, Not Sidney. The story of the novel is rooted in the concept of identity and its relation to name. The struggle that Not Sidney faces being named “Not Sidney Poitier” is the main source of growth and conflict within the novel. Not Sidney searches for identity outside of the presumption that his name brings. Upon introduction most people have an expectation of Not Sidney based on his name. “‘What’s your name?’ a kid would ask. ‘Not Sidney,’ I would say. ‘Okay, then what is it? ‘I told you. It’s Not Sidney.’ ‘Ain’t nobody called you Sidney.’ ‘No, it’s Not Sidney’” (Everett 13). As the novel progresses however, Not Sidney begins to care less and less about the presumption his name may bring. At the end of the novel, Not Sidney doesn’t bother to correct people who call him by the wrong name. “She said, ‘I just love you, Mr. Poitier.’ I didn’t know why. I asked her name. She said it was Evelyn. I wrote: For Evelyn, All the best, Not Sidney Poitier” (Everett 232). Not Sidney understands that his name does not change who he is, so he simply lets it go. This lesson can be traced to his experiences while driving across the south. At one point while driving Not Sidney comes across a gas station where he is introduced to a man called Rabbit Toe. “ ‘Are you Rabbit Toe?’ I asked. ‘That’s what they call me.’ ‘It’s not your name?’ ‘That’s what they call me,’ he repeated. ‘Why do they call you that?’ I asked. ‘I don’t know.’” (Everett 169). This is one of many interactions Not Sidney experiences on the road that shape his perspective of name and identity.
So, if Everett is trying to make the point that names don’t actually represent what they’re supposed to, why should that matter to the reader? It offers an alternative point of view to the traditional idea that names identify people perfectly. Names that are assigned to represent internal characteristics can sometimes lead to unfair labeling. Labels trap people into a certain identity that they may not wish for themselves. This produces negative stereotypes that are hard to see past. For example, when someone thinks of a criminal, they think of someone who has done something bad or illegal. However, this may not always be the case. Someone could be falsely accused of committing a crime or has been arrested based off of unjust discrimination. Also, the use of saintly names within the novel offers a false representation for the type of people the nuns should be. One of our goals as students is to gain a more thoughtful approach to how we view those around us. It is easy to categorize a person and in a sense dehumanize them by making them a “criminal” or a “saint”. If we are more hesitant to label people, we can gain a stronger understanding of others..
Works Cited:
“Dictionary of Christian Biography and Literature to the End of the Sixth Century A.D., with an Account of the Principal Sects and Heresies.” Christian Classics Ethereal Library, 13 July 2005, http://www.ccel.org/ccel/wace/biodict.html?term=Firmilianus%20(1),%20bp.%20of%20Caesarea.
Editors, Family. “Maria – Girl Name: Meaning and Origin.” Babble, https://www.babble.com/baby-names/baby-girl-names/meaning-of-maria/.
Franciscan Media. “Saint John Chrysostom.” Franciscan Media, 13 Sept. 2019, https://www.franciscanmedia.org/saint-john-chrysostom/.
GotQuestions.org. “Who Was Saint Irenaeus of Lyons?” GotQuestions.org, 7 Dec. 2016, https://www.gotquestions.org/Irenaeus-of-Lyons.html.
Moore, Edward. “Origen of Alexandria.” Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, https://www.iep.utm.edu/origen-of-alexandria/.
Nelson, Ryan. “Who Was Eusebius?” OverviewBible, 17 Aug. 2018, https://overviewbible.com/eusebius/.
Pastiche Not Plagiarism
While reading I Am Not Sidney Poitier I found myself many times confused, amused, intrigued, and most often confused. My confusion was easily swept into frustration, as it is so oft to do. However, I remembered Professor McCoy’s advice on scorn, that is to reserve it for what truly deserves it. Sadly my scorn showed its confused face when I became agitated with the novel’s use of reference. On October 25th, My Classmate Susan Dolan noted my frustration with the novel’s allusion to the film The Defiant Ones in her Blog post titled Plagiarism with Purpose. “I remember during this conversation I shared Kevin’s frustration because I also could not recognize what Everett was doing.” (Dolan).” This frustration came, in part, to the lack of understanding I had, but it also stemmed from a moral dilemma I had been struggling with. This moral dilemma was plagiarism.
The Bedford Glossary of Critical and Literary Terms describes Plagiarism: “In which one author steals a passage or idea from another, passing it off as his or his own and failing to credit the original source.”(Bedford 316). They key to understanding plagiarism, however, is intent. The Bedford goes on to explain that “deceptive intent” is required for any copying to be considered plagiarism. It was with this definition in mind that I faced the plagiarism tutorial Dolan described in her post. Dolan describes that the tutorial states “any reference to facts, ideas, or data that are not considered common knowledge must be properly cited.”(Dolan). Within this course I had been given two standards of plagiarism and asked to uphold both of them. I was made to believe by the Bedford that deceptive intent was what characterized plagiarism, but this lesson was telling me that even an accident could make me guilty of plagiarism. This confusion, again lead to frustration, and scorn. Which standard was I to uphold?
While searching for the answer to this, I began to better comprehend what I Am Not Sidney Poitier was doing with its parallels between Sidney Poitier movies. Sadly, what comes with comprehension is critical thought, and thus the question was raised in my head as it was raised in Dolan’s; Is Percival Everett guilty of plagiarism? My initial answer was yes. At face value, Everett is using exact lines, and story arcs from movies to fill the plot of his novel. This made me, understandably, upset. Why should I as a student writer be held to a standard that not even a college professor such as Everett himself cannot uphold? Are the Masters not expected to be greater than the students? Roughly 78 pages of I Am Not Sidney Poitier parallel either The Defiant Ones or Lilies of the Field without a citation in sight (I took the time to count them myself). Everrett even prefaces before the novel begins, “All characters depicted in this novel are completely fictitious, regardless of similarities to any extant parties and regardless to shared names.” (Everett). In other words Everett is claiming that all of these said characters are completely fictitious and that he created them himself, seeing as he does not credit them to anyone else.
Finally I believed I had a just reason for scorn, I was ready to write a blog post about the inequality between student and teacher, the failures of our academic standards, and the ridiculousness of plagiarism. As I was about to begin writing I decided to reserve my scorn, and make sure I had the proper information to support such a presumptive and bold statement. I again turned to the Bedford. As I looked again for the definition of plagiarism I came across the term pastiche. Pastiche is “A literary, musical, or artistic work that imitates another’s recognizable style or pieces together a medley of often incongruous elements from a number of existing works.”(Bedford 316). Yes, as you might guess I was again confused. How was this any different than plagiarism? What was I missing? The key lay in the next few lines of text. Here the Bedford explained “it is sometimes treated synonymously with parody, but is more often distinguished from the latter by its respectful tone.”(316). Pastiche it seems was a loophole from plagiarism. A copy? Sure in some ways, but one of admiration and respect. The intent is key, pastiche is an intent of homage. My scorn began to lessen as I realized that Everett wasn’t plagiarizing. He was implementing a literary device that until now, I hadn’t known. Under the definitions of the Bedford, Everett is not guilty of plagiarism. Without giving it much thought it may seem that he is, but with a more critical lens it is visible that I Am Not Sidney Poitier is making a point. This point however, I plan to explain further in a blog post of its own.
This internal struggle of understanding where the black and white line of ownership and plagiarism left me with an important lesson. This lesson was that writing is never black and white, it is usually grey. Grey is the line between tragedy and comedy. Grey is the line between genius and madness. Grey is the line between Sidney and Not Sidney. Grey is the line between plagiarism and pastiche. As budding writers and students, my classmates and I need this lesson now more than ever. Many of us have learned to write through rigorous structure and clear cut outlines. Now we are in college, where for many of us there is little to no structure, where freedom can either sink us or lift us to new heights. It is through accepting that writing is grey that we can find our own voice and become greater writers. Do not take my advocating for “the grey” as support plagiarism, far from it actually. Rather, I believe we should not let our confusion and scorn force us into decisions that aren’t well thought. Before we label someone guilty of plagiarism, let us think about what their intent was. If I had used this judgment I wouldn’t have been so scornful towards Everett. My tale of confusion and scorn in many ways itself parallels the confusion and scorn Not Sidney faces in his story. My hope, however, is that my life will be seen as pastiche, not plagiarism.
“Baaaa” – Conforming to the Herd and its Rules
In Percival Everett’s I Am Not Sidney Poitier, Percival Everett (the character) warns Not Sidney, “‘Don’t be a sheep, Mr. Poitier'” (90). The professor cautions against joining the herd; it seems he thinks people should be their own person, not just blindly follow the crowd. In my opinion, the novel attempts to evoke a conversation about conformity and its dangers; what are the repercussions when people try to fit in with the herd–with the status quo? I would like to explore this within the novel as well as in regards to our discussions about literature and film in class.
continue reading“The Ship” (and Not Sidney?) are Not Themselves Today
During our class period on Friday, it became Susanna’s job to yell “The ship!” every time the philosophical problem of Theseus’ ship was applicable to some aspect of Percival Everett’s I Am Not Sidney Poitier. Indeed, Susanna said this on multiple occasions (and with amazing delivery!) throughout our discussion. In particular, I would like to examine how this pesky problem applies to the formation of Not Sidney Poitier’s identity in the novel.
Continue readingWhat I Am(./?)
Back on September 16th my fellow classmate, Ashley Kupiec, wrote regarding the nature of identity in Frenzy “It seems to me that both Everett and Dionysus are really talking about identity and the pesky question of ‘who am I?’ ”. This idea came to my mind as I continued to read our latest novel, I Am Not Sidney Poitier. The nature of identity is a major concept in the novel, as made clear by the title itself, through its clear cut “I Am” statement. The “pesky question of ‘who am I?’ ”, as Kupiec states, also becomes a driving source of conflict, comedy, and philosophical growth in the novel.
Not Sidney’s mother died when he was eleven, leaving him with only rumors and memories to answer that pesky question. “My history was shrouded and diced and soaking wet with hysteria and contradiction.” (Everett 29). He never knew his father, never knew any living family, and never even knew why he was named Not Sidney. The latter of these is particularly interesting. The first step toward understanding one’s identity is understanding one’s name and if not understanding it, then accepting it. For Not Sidney, this was a challenge. In highschool when Not Sidney would introduce himself by name as “Not Sidney” the confusion that followed would ultimately lead him to a beating. Not Sidney would eventually grow and become a man who would not take beatings anymore. However, Not Sidney would find that his name would forever be a source of discomfort in his life. Understandably, he came to hold a grudge against his own name. His identity had become tied with the difficulties he faced in life. For Not Sidney identity and name were directly related. “I accepted, then and there, my place in this world. I was a fighter of windmills. I was a chaser of whales. I was Not Sidney Poitier.” (43).
Despite the fact that Not Sidney found his identity tied directly to his name, his own existence is also directly conditional the existence of another person. Not his mother, his father, or his family, but Sidney Poitier himself. Not Sidney feels that his identity is directly tied to his name because the treatment he received from his name shaped the man he had become. However, the treatment he received existed in part because of the existence of Sidney Poiteir himself. In other words, Not Sidney’s identity is tied to Sidney’s existence. Not only does Not Sidney have a name that is contingent on Sidney, he also looks remarkably like Sidney. This idea of dependent identity is also shown in Frenzy through the character Vlepo. Vlepo asks Dionysus, their God, if they were created by Dionysus. Dionysus responds, “I might say your existence depends on me, but nothing more than that.”(Everett 88). Vlepo’s existence, in a much more literal sense, is dependent on Dionysus. Vlepo can only be themself if Dionysus exists. In a similar way Not Sidney can only be Not Sidney if Sidney Poitier exists. But as Dionysus puts it, “It’s not much of a life though is it?-representing a thing.” (49). Dependency on name is a key to Not Sidney’s understanding of identity, but it is an unhealthy existence.
Not Sidney operated under this mindset for some time, until he made his way into college and met Percival Everett, his college professor. Not Sidney takes Everett’s class on “The Philosophy of Nonsense” and finds that it shakes his notions of name and identity. Upon initially meeting and getting to know Not Sidney, Everett sees Not Sidney as many people do upon their first introduction to him, as Sidney Poitier. Everett expresses this to Not Sidney. “I know, I know, you’re Not Sidney Poitier and also not Sidney Poitier, but in a strange way you are Sidney Poitier as much as you are anyone.” (102). As Everett comes to know Not Sidney’s true identity he has an understanding that Not Sidney doesn’t have, that a name does not determine your identity. Everett can be objective about who Not Sidney is, in a way that Not Sidney cannot understand. It is through this objective understanding that Everett sees who Not Sidney is. “I don’t know. You might decide all of a sudden that you’re Sidney Poitier. You’re not, you know. Though you do look alarmingly like him.”(123).
Everett undermines Not Sidney’s fragile understanding of his identity, but for better or for worse, we have yet to see. I predict for the better. Understanding who you are is hard to do when you’re dependent on someone else. Everett in a way is freeing Not Sidney from his 18 year identity crisis.
Now to answer the important question, who cares? Why is identity independence important to us? This idea is crucial for my fellow college students and I. For many of us our identities have been dependent on our family, friends, and loved ones. Many of us are taught what we like and who we are to become. Now we find ourselves in a situation of almost entire independence. We are swimming in a vast ocean of knowledge and opportunity with no anchor. This is our chance to explore new things, and find out what we enjoy. This is our chance to find out who we are, and who we are to become. There are lessons to be learned from Not Sidney’s struggle for independence. Now is the time to begin to answer that “pesky question of ‘who am I?’ ”. The only thing I can hope to do as of now, and what I would advise my peers to do as well, is “Be yourself. Unless you can think of someone better.” (124).
I am a writer of music. I am a blogger of posts. I am Kevin Reed.
Women’s Knowledge (Tiring-esias)
In The Bacchae, women are a mystery to society when constrained by it and become an incomprehensible hazard when released from it. Continue reading “Women’s Knowledge (Tiring-esias)”