The essay titled "Essay, an Exercise in Doubt" by Phillip Lopate, was published in NY Times online opinion pages during February 2013. Here, the author explains how an essay and doubts are essentially related.
He begins by talking about his personal viewpoint as an essayist - about his child ambitions to become one, and how essays are less glamorous than fiction or poetry, and about the freedom that comes with lower expectations. Although there have been warnings about the demise of essays, he speculates that it has in fact been resurgent in the recent years, maybe as we are all ultimately unsure and divided, which is what feeds an essay.
The author then goes into more detail about what an essay could mean - something that invites contradictions, self-doubt and one to keep track of consciousness, after which you'd find yourself doubling back. He mentions Theodor Adorno who said that basic law of an essay is heresy, but its also something that makes people uncomfortable, and hence is usually opposed.
Lopate also talks about how essays have found their way into school or college applications, and hold a certain importance. There are tutors willing to work on specifically this, but according to him all of this leads to a problem - the student is expected to "advertise" himself, thereby going around the self doubt and uncertainty that drives an essay. He mentions about the troubles his own daughter faced in school - an essay about ideas of melancholy, and another that argued the validity of both sides of an argument, were reproved by the higher authorities.
He goes on to encourage doubt, first by making a sensible point that arguments must be with oneself, especially for young writers so that they get past their self righteousness and defensiveness that are common during such an age. Then he talks about how doubt plays a role in his life, like a companion, and fills his mind with "if's" and "but's", constantly leading to second guessing himself; he believes that there's a part of him that always assumes he's wrong. So one should embrace doubts, he says, it makes one takes risks and its an integral part of life.
The author concludes by pointing out the only danger in living this way, that is to become smug about one's capacity to doubt, and ends in a seemingly negative manner, because when he says that it allows him to 'forgive himself in advance for falling short of the mark', he vouches for mediocrity.
Lopate's style of writing is simple and easy to understand and follow. The arguments, although very few, sufficiently support his case. He appears to be against the rules and conventions of the society, that are basically against anything different, but then he looks at them objectively as well. I'd guess its one of, if not the only, the right ways to put forth an argument. His notions about doubts being a big part of life, and not just essays, is something I agree with - for how does one come to a conclusion if certain arguments are ignored?
No comments:
Post a Comment