By: Wakhidatul
Sisca Putri Anggraini - State University of Surabaya
Review : Hoagland, Edward (1976). On Essays. The Tugman’s Passage (1982)
The author of “On Essays” is Edward
Hoagland whose background is in academic writing. He is both essayist and short
story writer but he is known as an essayist mostly. This essay was first
published in 1976 and is included in Hoagland’s book, The Tugman’s Passage
(1982) whose appropriate audiences are from essayist, fiction and non-fiction
writers especially short story writers. The main claim of “On Essay” is essay
is easier and more effective than literary works in which essay concerns about
personal mind. So, the aim is automatically for driving and persuading the
reader to tend writing essay than literary work.
Edward Hoaglan argues that essay is
more marketable and effective than any kinds of either literary works or
articles. The human voice talking is the delineation which he uses to describe
what an essay actually is. He emphasizes that an essay is about a couple of
important elements; they are a systematized outline of ideas and a point as the
centre. In addition, Hoagland argues what make essay more effective than
literary works are because essay focuses only in its point which he calls as
the truthful point.
Hoagland’s perspective is quiet successful guiding the
reader to have the same perspective as him by establishing reasons of whatever he
wants to state in his arguments. In addition, he is known-well as an essayist
who definitely knows all about what the strength and the weakness of an essay.
He also understands well why he persuades the reader to tend to write essay
than such kinds of literary works. His background as essayist might be able to
be his extraordinary power to drive everyone in his own perspective. His
delineation toward an essay is outstanding successful building the reader’s
imagination up to the how effective an essay is. For everyone who earns money
by writing, essay is the best choice to write because essay is more marketable
than any literary works: “essays of nearly any kind are so much easier than
short stories for a writer to sell, so many more see print, it is strange that though
two fine anthologies remain that publish the year’s best stories, no comparable
collection exists for essays”, he explains.
However, there are several problems which can be found
in “On Essay” if close reading method used by the reader. The diction he
chooses in that essay is so unsuitable for the context. The reader will get
confused when they are reading this Hoagland essay, so that they have to read
so many times to reach the goal which Hoagland constructs. It may be he is the
only one who knows well about this essay, not for others; especially for
students, middle class society, low-educated people and teachers. It means that
his essay is not extendable. There are several sentences whose meanings are
incomprehensible, for instance: “Essays, if a comparison is to be made,
although they go back four hundred years to Montaigne, seem a mercurial,
newfangled, sometimes hockey affair that has lent itself to many
of the excesses of the age, from spurious autobiography to spurious
hallucination, as well as to the shabby careerism of traditional
journalism.” According to Merriam Webster Dictionary, “mercurial” is pharmaceutical
or chemical containing mercury; newfangled is recently invented or developed
and hard to understand. Both of those words is placed close together which is
separated by comma. It means that they must have a close meaning. However,
their meanings are so contrast because one is about pharmaceutical and another
is about invention. The use of “hockey affair” is extremely confusing. Even if
it is delineation, but it certainly distracts the reader to determine what the
most appropriate meaning to be put in the sentence is. In Merriam Webster
Dictionary, “shabby” is in poor condition especially because of age or use. “Careerism”
is an attitude or way of behaving that involves trying to do whatever you can
to make more money or get promoted at your job. It is so difficult to be
connected in the context by the reader. Hoagland may establish her perspective
nicely, but the point still cannot be received by the reader well, unless the
reader rereads the essay more than once. Those connotations are difficult to be
understood by the reader as general.
The evidences he states are too
weak. He dominantly uses his personal experience and his own perspective.
“Essays, however, hang somewhere on a line between two sturdy poles: this is
what I think, and this is what I am,” he said, is like a pressure which forces
the reader to follow his own argument. The use of “this is what I think, and
this is what I am” is unreasonable and too individual. Evidence is nowhere. This
sentence: “Essays do not usually boil down to a summary, as articles do, and
the style of the writer has a “nap” to it, a combination of personality and
originality and energetic loose ends that stand up like the nap on a piece of
wool and cannot be brushed flat”, immensely needs a proof. Because this
statement is a personal opinion. There is no strong evidence, such as an
expert’s notion, in which strengthen the statement to become an accurate, valid
and reliable one. Mark Twain’s idea is the only one evidence which he uses to
support his essay in the sixth and seventh paragraph. For a well persuading
essay, it will be failed to convey the reader if the writer only puts one
supporting evidence.
The conclusion is unclear whether it exists or not.
Every single paragraph has the same function that is to put argument or opinion
that the writer states. In addition, concluding signal sentences are found
nowhere; for instance “in conclusion”, “we can conclude that”, “in summary”,
“in brief” and so on. Those are so needed to facilitate the reader knowing the
main point in the essay. The last paragraph is “A personal essay frequently is
not autobiographical at all, but what it does keep in common with autobiography
is that, through its tone and tumbling progression, it conveys the quality of
the author’s mind. Nothing gets in the way. Because essays are directly
concerned with the mind and the mind’s idiosyncrasy, the very freedom the mind
possesses is bestowed on this branch of literature that does honour to it, and
the fascination of the mind is the fascination of the essay”, which focuses
only in a personal essay, autobiography, author’s mind and the fascination
essay. The last paragraph should be the conclusion of the writer, but if we analyze
thoroughly, it does not contain of the whole main point from Hoagland’s “On
Essay”. What has to be justified by the readers about what they have read is
still confusing.
In summary, the weaknesses “On
Essay” by Edward Hoagland are in his failed connotations, weak evidences and unclear
conclusion. An essay writer should concern about the diction and delineation
that he uses to avoid misunderstanding cases of the reader. It is also
important to put expert’s idea which supports our own perspective, because that
is the most powerful way to persuade and convey the reader having the same idea
as we have. Nevertheless, this Edward Hoagland’s essay is inspirational for
audiences which may be mostly from essayists, short story writers, fiction and
non-fiction writes as I recommend.
