In case you haven’t noticed, I have a few pages of literature essays I’ve written in the past month or so. Check ‘em out; they relate directly to this blog. Thanks!

Related to essays, one of my other classes is based almost entirely on the literary essay. The book list for this class is as follows:

  • The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat, by Oliver Sacks
  • The Education of Richard Rodriguez, by Richard Rodriguez
  • Mortal Lessons on the Art of Surgery, by Richard Selzer
  • The Star Thrower, by Loren Eiseley
  • A Sand County Almanac, by Aldo Leopold
  • Plaintext, by Nancy Mairs

I don’t know how well these names are known outside their respective fields (to include anthropology and psychology), but one thing that my professor impressed upon us is that writing is not these people’s day job. To quit everything in order to write, you have to be either independently wealthy, crazy or Stephen King (qualities which are not necessarily mutually exclusive). So when they say “don’t quit your day job,” it’s not personal – it’s solid financial advice!

Janice Harayda pointed out the retardedness of discussion group questions in the back of a certain book. I cannot help but to agree that yes, they are retarded. I have a few books with such questions in the back, and reading them makes me roll my eyes at best. But asking questions that have little or nothing to do with the book? That’s just dumb. Philippa Gregory books are prone to such dumbness. Why can’t book groups come up with their own discussions? Or is it unfashionable to mark up a book with a pencil, pointing out sections to oneself to come back to later?

I’m so disgusted, I’m going to go to class now.