Understanding your reactions to the Opening Lecture
Click to read opening lecture
“…perhaps understanding cannot be obtained through traditional “student-esque” thinking. It is to be appreciated in each person’s individual mind, because not everything is so clearly in black and white. There are so many shades of gray.”
Well done! The intention of this assignment was to introduce you to the novel and this foreign concept of thinking abstractly. The results are fascinating. Like a true character study, these responses reveal a truth about each of you as individuals. What I found most intriguing was the struggle some of you found in conquering the “vagueness” of the prompt. This struggle stemming from an inherent need to have direction—perhaps in an attempt to continue more so along the path of knowing what answer to give in order to satisfy a desired grade to receive. Some of the higher notes of your responses were in your insightful mix of fact and opinion. True opinion, or argument, is rooted in substantiated fact. The two co-mingle, existing not one without the other. You see, without facts we lack a basis, or foundation, unto which we build our opinions. Taking what Prof. Dintenfass presents to you and spinning a web of your own perceptions, philosophies, and/or moralities was our overall goal in this process. Where success was found- and in such varying mediums- was in responses where the opinion was in general solely (notice the lack of the word predominantly) based on experience. The experience of reading the lecture, not searching for an answer to give the teacher, but in searching for an insight to self, thus breaks down the barrier between “engfish” and genuine expression.
So many of you I found, interestingly enough, wanted so desperately to revert back to whether you will “like” or “dislike” the novel, whether you will find it “easy” or “difficult” to understand, and, consequently, how this lecture helped you accomplish this feat. The point is moot. In the end, personal taste is inevitably individualized. Concluding your responses with a note on likes or dislikes of the novel contradicts the core of your very opinion. Ultimately, you will like or dislike the novel of your own experience, your own accord, no matter how easy or difficult the experience is. However, this has nothing to do with abstract thinking. Focus your arguments on facts, not preference. Your audience doesn’t care whether you liked the idea or not, they want to hear your argument. Taste is a side note, let your audience decide for themselves If they like or dislike something, again, what they want to hear from you is your interpretation of... dare I say it… fact.
Step one will be breaking tradition and figuring out how to express your real opinion. Not on the structure, length, or taste behind the assignment. Instead, we need to get to the core of the argumentative issue: fact, fact, fact! Pull from facts, ideas, and/or concepts, and express not whether you like, dislike, agree, disagree, but show your audience your interpretation, show them your opinion in how you present it—from here it will be obvious whether you like or dislike the text. Do not focus on whether you were correct or incorrect in your brainstorming, because, again, in doing so we contradict the idea that is being discussed: that of varying perspectives. On a surface note, no, this is not a love story, a mystery, etc, but I challenge you to find a successful experience in abstract thinking by connecting these concepts to the novel. In a traditional, literal sense there is no love story, but can we really say that one does not figuratively exist within the context of the novel? Only time- and thought- will tell.
One of my favorite responses touched upon this very idea of showing the reader something, not telling. What was mentioned was the showing of the experience of darkness, making the novel all the more successful because it avoids just simply telling the reader about the subject. This is true to all great writers. You need to draw your readers into your argument or narrative in a way that allows them to interpret for themselves—mold what you have presented their own opinions.
“…write from personal experience to show his understanding of darkness and try to recreate it in us so we can see what he is trying to say through his novel, instead of merely explaining what darkness is.”
Of course, one repetitive item I feel the need to address, for while appearing insignificant on the surface proves key to differential meaning, was the use of the article “the” in reference to the title. Alas, it is not the Heart of Darkness, but simply Heart of Darkness. Why does this matter? Well, here’s a perfect example of closing the perspective of reading. Utilizing the article implies individual uniqueness. It implies to the reader that this is a sole item, a singular facsimile. In fact, one of the most substantial points in the novel pertains to the idea that this was, is, not just a singular occurance. This ‘darkness’ was presented in a way that is determined to be viewed as a possibility in all men. It existed then, it exists now, and it will exist in the future should all the right factors fall into place. We lose this perspective in looking at the novel, even just the title, as just one, singular event—especially when all singular events have an expiration date.
One final point I want to make was how astounded—and pleased—I was to find that so many of you expected this to be a summary of the novel and were proven wrong. This epitomizes the “student-esq” thinking that we experience in high school. Opinion, criticisms, philosophies do not include summaries. This is how you write! You speak of approach to an idea, the construct of your opinion, and how you got there. As a reader I don’t want to hear a summary of the text, there is no meaning in that—I can read and judge for myself. I read your opinion, criticism, approach, philosophy, etc, to learn something new. I read to learn another way of thinking, approaching, deviating, discussing. Reading and writing are so intertwined, and should be approached in the same manner. Read to discover another person’s view of an idea/concept, and write to express your own. Hence we find the cycle of the English language continues.
“…our inner student and inner reader both [need] to combine for an overall understanding on a studied material.”
In closing, it wasn’t what you said that determined your scoring, but how you presented it. Of course, here we find a range of skill. We have some who never deviated away from “engfish.” These responses were deluded with language more directed towards a teacher-generated response than an original thought, or there was a failure to adequately express your opinion in a way that either referenced the lecture itself or was understandable to the reader. We had minor grammatical/structure issues, or in general there was a misdirected approach. Opinion can be positive or negative, an respected equally either way, but as we’ve said so many times in class, you have to back that up with fact. Some of you projected opinions that became more of a soapbox rant than a well-executed argument. Next, we have those in the middle who projected a mixture of both “engfish” and true opinion-- this hesitation to trade in your student-mode thinking will hopefully diminish with time. Finally, we have those who have not just embraced the idea behind the assignment, but were also entirely successful at using the lecture as a springboard to generating an individual opinion.
Of course, there were no failures to this assignment, only those who experienced it differently than others. Learn from your classmates. Comb through some of the following successful responses, and, whether or not you agree or disagree with what they have to say, form an opinion for yourself on how you can use these stylistic elements to better execute your own arguments.
Some posts worth reading (submitted by students):
(1)
In the Heart of Darkness Conrad not only calls into to play the various injustices accociated with "Age of Exploration" era Imperialism and Merchantilism but also challenges the ideal of "The White Man's Burden" which states it is our moral responsiblity to not only educate but civilize the peoples of lands we deem less developed. As stated in the lecture notes Conrad obviously is pointing out the evil in the exploitation of cultures (which contain a plethora of environmental, cultural, social, and astronomical knowledge, which is lost as their associated cultures are lost) and wildlife (as demonstated in the case of the elphants). However, Conrad also brings into question whether God appointed us as the dominant species to protect or use nature. "The conquest of the earth, which mostly means taking it away from those who have a slightly different complexion or slightly flatter noses than ourselves, is not a pretty thing when you look at it too much. What redeems it is the idea only. An idea in the back of it; not a sentimental pretense but an idea; and an unselfish belief in an idea-something you can set up, bow down, before and make a sacrifice to...."(Page 69: Heart of Darkness). This passage seems to connotate that no matter how one may believe (perhaps even in the most positive manner) that one is doing good by colonizing, converting, and conquering; those intentions may be ill-wrought, by those in power, thirsty for more. Heart of Darkness is more than just a challenge to Imperialism, it is a challenge to Western and Christian beliefs at their core. Can one not also argue that the our involvement in foreign country's affairs (for example: Vietnam, Iraq) is just an extension of this early Imperialism? After all, we are in another country attempting to spread democracy (note: early explorers were also attempting to spread western ideals, the difference is miniscule) and as some spectate, using their resource, oil (note the similarity between that and the exploitation of ivory).
(2)
I think that the author of the lecture did a really nice job presenting the material in a manner that is easily understandable by most people. He first presented the idea in the way of a teacher, explaining that when he reads the novel Heart of Darkness as an English professor he believes that it is dark, confusing and lacking any real clarity. But, when he "switches his cap" to one of an author, he can only give the highest praises to Joseph Conrad. Dintenfass goes on to say that when reading something as an author, or perhaps in any other context than professorial, that value lies not in the clarity or an easy ability to grasp the meaning, but in the actual conveyance of experiences themselves. Not all experiences, as shown by this essay and undoubtedly this novel, can be summed up in 100 light and fluffy pages, but are in need of another way to be expressed. The expression of these experiences is, what I think, takes a novel to a different level, a more abstract version of actual events. I would venture to say that many of the occurrences in the novel were in fact an event, emotion or experience that Joseph Conrad had the pleasure of, or pain, having during his own trips to the "heart" of Africa. Sometimes these personal experiences can be too brutal, as I believe the case with Conrad was, to keep inside of you, and there needs to be an outlet to alleviate the horrors of certain experiences. I believe that Conrad combined these experiences and fragments of his imagination in order to release the pain inside of him, from what he had seen, heard and felt.
(3)
Professor Dintenfass raised a few interesting and quizzical points in this lecture to the freshman class. First and foremost, that all the great writers of human history tended to pick out a struggle or complication in their society and write about it in a literal sense. Most writers in this day and age, tend to write a story about anything that pops into their head, and throws their characters into a world were no real and tangible topics are addressed. Instead, the great writers try to give you an interesting yet insightful and learned story that addresses the problems of their time. Another point that was intriguing was the notion that Conrad hadn’t totally captured the horror of human condition that he had seen in Africa. Maybe he wasn’t trying to write an auto biography, but instead link true events to a very deep and alluring story. The most interesting point made, was that if you try to address the story less like a puzzle, then you may find that parts of the story can actually relate to your life and expiriances.
(4)
This lecture was extremely though provoking in the terms of the compasion between how novelists or readers and writers or students,in Dintenfass'own words, "delineate" the multi-sensational experiences in daily life. Immediatly after reading the description of how the two different groups of thinkers respond to an experience, I desired to know which type of thinking do I predominantly use? At first I was ambiguous to the answer of this question because after recalling many experiences, I saw that I thought both ways much of the time. But towards the end of the article, this quote cleared things up for me; "...It is precisely because the world appears to us to be multiple, ambiguous, and paradoxical, that we must strive to speak and write clearly" This quote illustrates the crucial dependence between the two respective styles of thinking. Without one or the other we would never be able to make sense of any experience. I learned from this lecture that sometimes stories and depictions of experiences are vaugue purposely, in order to provoke a certain re-creation of the multiplicity of sensations portrayed in the story, in your own mind. The best thing about vaugueness is that there is no one specific correct answer. This includes this very response I am typing at this moment, you left it open-ended and vaugue to get us to think about what the lecture notes meant to us individually as compared to reading them to search for the one definite answer that explains the meaning of this lecture. This lecture gave me a much needed background to Heart of Darkness concerning the style in which it is written. I think reading this lecture will help me, while reading the novella, understand why Conrad left the story so vaugue.
(5)
When I first started to read Professor Dintenfass's lecture on "Heart of Darkness" by Joseph Conrad I was hoping for nothing more than a simple, surface level explanation of the book. However, I soon realized that the lecture was not primarily concerned with the basic storyline of the novel, but rather was focused on the different approaches people have used to make sense of it. While most of the suggested approaches to the novel were interesting, such as the Freudian psychological approach, the part of the lecture that really resonated with me was the Professor’s problematic “two hat” approach. The Professor talked of how he struggled with trying to look at the novel from two contradicting viewpoints; teacher and novelist. He said that as a teacher he wanted an “orderly” understanding of the novel, while as a novelist he didn’t want to understand and preferred “messiness and confusion.” I liked this approach best because it describes how I approach a novel with my own two hats; student and reader. As a student, I want, like a teacher, to have one clear answer for what the novel is about. However, as a reader, I want, like a novelist, to just appreciate the book for all its quirks and idiosyncrasies. Therefore, I enjoyed this lecture because it really helped me to get a better understanding of how I’ll approach “Heart of Darkness.”
“…perhaps understanding cannot be obtained through traditional “student-esque” thinking. It is to be appreciated in each person’s individual mind, because not everything is so clearly in black and white. There are so many shades of gray.”
Well done! The intention of this assignment was to introduce you to the novel and this foreign concept of thinking abstractly. The results are fascinating. Like a true character study, these responses reveal a truth about each of you as individuals. What I found most intriguing was the struggle some of you found in conquering the “vagueness” of the prompt. This struggle stemming from an inherent need to have direction—perhaps in an attempt to continue more so along the path of knowing what answer to give in order to satisfy a desired grade to receive. Some of the higher notes of your responses were in your insightful mix of fact and opinion. True opinion, or argument, is rooted in substantiated fact. The two co-mingle, existing not one without the other. You see, without facts we lack a basis, or foundation, unto which we build our opinions. Taking what Prof. Dintenfass presents to you and spinning a web of your own perceptions, philosophies, and/or moralities was our overall goal in this process. Where success was found- and in such varying mediums- was in responses where the opinion was in general solely (notice the lack of the word predominantly) based on experience. The experience of reading the lecture, not searching for an answer to give the teacher, but in searching for an insight to self, thus breaks down the barrier between “engfish” and genuine expression.
So many of you I found, interestingly enough, wanted so desperately to revert back to whether you will “like” or “dislike” the novel, whether you will find it “easy” or “difficult” to understand, and, consequently, how this lecture helped you accomplish this feat. The point is moot. In the end, personal taste is inevitably individualized. Concluding your responses with a note on likes or dislikes of the novel contradicts the core of your very opinion. Ultimately, you will like or dislike the novel of your own experience, your own accord, no matter how easy or difficult the experience is. However, this has nothing to do with abstract thinking. Focus your arguments on facts, not preference. Your audience doesn’t care whether you liked the idea or not, they want to hear your argument. Taste is a side note, let your audience decide for themselves If they like or dislike something, again, what they want to hear from you is your interpretation of... dare I say it… fact.
Step one will be breaking tradition and figuring out how to express your real opinion. Not on the structure, length, or taste behind the assignment. Instead, we need to get to the core of the argumentative issue: fact, fact, fact! Pull from facts, ideas, and/or concepts, and express not whether you like, dislike, agree, disagree, but show your audience your interpretation, show them your opinion in how you present it—from here it will be obvious whether you like or dislike the text. Do not focus on whether you were correct or incorrect in your brainstorming, because, again, in doing so we contradict the idea that is being discussed: that of varying perspectives. On a surface note, no, this is not a love story, a mystery, etc, but I challenge you to find a successful experience in abstract thinking by connecting these concepts to the novel. In a traditional, literal sense there is no love story, but can we really say that one does not figuratively exist within the context of the novel? Only time- and thought- will tell.
One of my favorite responses touched upon this very idea of showing the reader something, not telling. What was mentioned was the showing of the experience of darkness, making the novel all the more successful because it avoids just simply telling the reader about the subject. This is true to all great writers. You need to draw your readers into your argument or narrative in a way that allows them to interpret for themselves—mold what you have presented their own opinions.
“…write from personal experience to show his understanding of darkness and try to recreate it in us so we can see what he is trying to say through his novel, instead of merely explaining what darkness is.”
Of course, one repetitive item I feel the need to address, for while appearing insignificant on the surface proves key to differential meaning, was the use of the article “the” in reference to the title. Alas, it is not the Heart of Darkness, but simply Heart of Darkness. Why does this matter? Well, here’s a perfect example of closing the perspective of reading. Utilizing the article implies individual uniqueness. It implies to the reader that this is a sole item, a singular facsimile. In fact, one of the most substantial points in the novel pertains to the idea that this was, is, not just a singular occurance. This ‘darkness’ was presented in a way that is determined to be viewed as a possibility in all men. It existed then, it exists now, and it will exist in the future should all the right factors fall into place. We lose this perspective in looking at the novel, even just the title, as just one, singular event—especially when all singular events have an expiration date.
One final point I want to make was how astounded—and pleased—I was to find that so many of you expected this to be a summary of the novel and were proven wrong. This epitomizes the “student-esq” thinking that we experience in high school. Opinion, criticisms, philosophies do not include summaries. This is how you write! You speak of approach to an idea, the construct of your opinion, and how you got there. As a reader I don’t want to hear a summary of the text, there is no meaning in that—I can read and judge for myself. I read your opinion, criticism, approach, philosophy, etc, to learn something new. I read to learn another way of thinking, approaching, deviating, discussing. Reading and writing are so intertwined, and should be approached in the same manner. Read to discover another person’s view of an idea/concept, and write to express your own. Hence we find the cycle of the English language continues.
“…our inner student and inner reader both [need] to combine for an overall understanding on a studied material.”
In closing, it wasn’t what you said that determined your scoring, but how you presented it. Of course, here we find a range of skill. We have some who never deviated away from “engfish.” These responses were deluded with language more directed towards a teacher-generated response than an original thought, or there was a failure to adequately express your opinion in a way that either referenced the lecture itself or was understandable to the reader. We had minor grammatical/structure issues, or in general there was a misdirected approach. Opinion can be positive or negative, an respected equally either way, but as we’ve said so many times in class, you have to back that up with fact. Some of you projected opinions that became more of a soapbox rant than a well-executed argument. Next, we have those in the middle who projected a mixture of both “engfish” and true opinion-- this hesitation to trade in your student-mode thinking will hopefully diminish with time. Finally, we have those who have not just embraced the idea behind the assignment, but were also entirely successful at using the lecture as a springboard to generating an individual opinion.
Of course, there were no failures to this assignment, only those who experienced it differently than others. Learn from your classmates. Comb through some of the following successful responses, and, whether or not you agree or disagree with what they have to say, form an opinion for yourself on how you can use these stylistic elements to better execute your own arguments.
Some posts worth reading (submitted by students):
(1)
In the Heart of Darkness Conrad not only calls into to play the various injustices accociated with "Age of Exploration" era Imperialism and Merchantilism but also challenges the ideal of "The White Man's Burden" which states it is our moral responsiblity to not only educate but civilize the peoples of lands we deem less developed. As stated in the lecture notes Conrad obviously is pointing out the evil in the exploitation of cultures (which contain a plethora of environmental, cultural, social, and astronomical knowledge, which is lost as their associated cultures are lost) and wildlife (as demonstated in the case of the elphants). However, Conrad also brings into question whether God appointed us as the dominant species to protect or use nature. "The conquest of the earth, which mostly means taking it away from those who have a slightly different complexion or slightly flatter noses than ourselves, is not a pretty thing when you look at it too much. What redeems it is the idea only. An idea in the back of it; not a sentimental pretense but an idea; and an unselfish belief in an idea-something you can set up, bow down, before and make a sacrifice to...."(Page 69: Heart of Darkness). This passage seems to connotate that no matter how one may believe (perhaps even in the most positive manner) that one is doing good by colonizing, converting, and conquering; those intentions may be ill-wrought, by those in power, thirsty for more. Heart of Darkness is more than just a challenge to Imperialism, it is a challenge to Western and Christian beliefs at their core. Can one not also argue that the our involvement in foreign country's affairs (for example: Vietnam, Iraq) is just an extension of this early Imperialism? After all, we are in another country attempting to spread democracy (note: early explorers were also attempting to spread western ideals, the difference is miniscule) and as some spectate, using their resource, oil (note the similarity between that and the exploitation of ivory).
(2)
I think that the author of the lecture did a really nice job presenting the material in a manner that is easily understandable by most people. He first presented the idea in the way of a teacher, explaining that when he reads the novel Heart of Darkness as an English professor he believes that it is dark, confusing and lacking any real clarity. But, when he "switches his cap" to one of an author, he can only give the highest praises to Joseph Conrad. Dintenfass goes on to say that when reading something as an author, or perhaps in any other context than professorial, that value lies not in the clarity or an easy ability to grasp the meaning, but in the actual conveyance of experiences themselves. Not all experiences, as shown by this essay and undoubtedly this novel, can be summed up in 100 light and fluffy pages, but are in need of another way to be expressed. The expression of these experiences is, what I think, takes a novel to a different level, a more abstract version of actual events. I would venture to say that many of the occurrences in the novel were in fact an event, emotion or experience that Joseph Conrad had the pleasure of, or pain, having during his own trips to the "heart" of Africa. Sometimes these personal experiences can be too brutal, as I believe the case with Conrad was, to keep inside of you, and there needs to be an outlet to alleviate the horrors of certain experiences. I believe that Conrad combined these experiences and fragments of his imagination in order to release the pain inside of him, from what he had seen, heard and felt.
(3)
Professor Dintenfass raised a few interesting and quizzical points in this lecture to the freshman class. First and foremost, that all the great writers of human history tended to pick out a struggle or complication in their society and write about it in a literal sense. Most writers in this day and age, tend to write a story about anything that pops into their head, and throws their characters into a world were no real and tangible topics are addressed. Instead, the great writers try to give you an interesting yet insightful and learned story that addresses the problems of their time. Another point that was intriguing was the notion that Conrad hadn’t totally captured the horror of human condition that he had seen in Africa. Maybe he wasn’t trying to write an auto biography, but instead link true events to a very deep and alluring story. The most interesting point made, was that if you try to address the story less like a puzzle, then you may find that parts of the story can actually relate to your life and expiriances.
(4)
This lecture was extremely though provoking in the terms of the compasion between how novelists or readers and writers or students,in Dintenfass'own words, "delineate" the multi-sensational experiences in daily life. Immediatly after reading the description of how the two different groups of thinkers respond to an experience, I desired to know which type of thinking do I predominantly use? At first I was ambiguous to the answer of this question because after recalling many experiences, I saw that I thought both ways much of the time. But towards the end of the article, this quote cleared things up for me; "...It is precisely because the world appears to us to be multiple, ambiguous, and paradoxical, that we must strive to speak and write clearly" This quote illustrates the crucial dependence between the two respective styles of thinking. Without one or the other we would never be able to make sense of any experience. I learned from this lecture that sometimes stories and depictions of experiences are vaugue purposely, in order to provoke a certain re-creation of the multiplicity of sensations portrayed in the story, in your own mind. The best thing about vaugueness is that there is no one specific correct answer. This includes this very response I am typing at this moment, you left it open-ended and vaugue to get us to think about what the lecture notes meant to us individually as compared to reading them to search for the one definite answer that explains the meaning of this lecture. This lecture gave me a much needed background to Heart of Darkness concerning the style in which it is written. I think reading this lecture will help me, while reading the novella, understand why Conrad left the story so vaugue.
(5)
When I first started to read Professor Dintenfass's lecture on "Heart of Darkness" by Joseph Conrad I was hoping for nothing more than a simple, surface level explanation of the book. However, I soon realized that the lecture was not primarily concerned with the basic storyline of the novel, but rather was focused on the different approaches people have used to make sense of it. While most of the suggested approaches to the novel were interesting, such as the Freudian psychological approach, the part of the lecture that really resonated with me was the Professor’s problematic “two hat” approach. The Professor talked of how he struggled with trying to look at the novel from two contradicting viewpoints; teacher and novelist. He said that as a teacher he wanted an “orderly” understanding of the novel, while as a novelist he didn’t want to understand and preferred “messiness and confusion.” I liked this approach best because it describes how I approach a novel with my own two hats; student and reader. As a student, I want, like a teacher, to have one clear answer for what the novel is about. However, as a reader, I want, like a novelist, to just appreciate the book for all its quirks and idiosyncrasies. Therefore, I enjoyed this lecture because it really helped me to get a better understanding of how I’ll approach “Heart of Darkness.”