Reading Review: Edward Hoagland's "On Essay"

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.

Reading Review - The Namesake: Comparison of The Cinematographic Text with Its Original Written Text by Vikas Raval

By: Wakhidatul Sisca Putri Anggraini - State University of Surabaya

Review: Raval, Vikas (2012). The Namesake: Comparison of The Cinematographic Text with Its Original Written Text. International Journal of English: Literature, Language & Skills.

            Dr. Vikas Raval is the author of “The Namesake: Comparison of The Cinematographic Text with Its Original Written Text” whose background is in academic writing specially in literature scope. He is an assistant professor whose professional backgrounds are on Indian English Literature and Contemporary British Fiction (Mackiwg). International Journal of English: Literature, Language & Skills (IJELLS) published this article firstly on April in 2012 in which it is considered as a kind of journal article. The most appropriate audiences are both film producer and script writer or both fiction and non-fiction writer including novelist, short story writer and so on. The main claim for this article is that a novel transformed movie is not as good as the novel itself. Therefore, the aim of the writer is to persuade the reader in analyzing about how effective written text (novel) transformed into a cinematographic text (movie) is.

            Raval argues that novel and movie are two different literary mediums which can be connected to facilitate the audiences in depicting every single detail in the movie, that may be difficult to be understood in its written text. He assumes that not entire details in a novel will be completely well changed into a movie by proving evidence from Jhumpa Lahiri’s statement as the writer of the novel, The Namesake, which Raval chooses to be analyzed. He states that there are two main difficulties in creating movie based on novel; they are how to understand the script perfectly the same as the novel and how to choose the most appropriate characters, actor and actress, according to the novel. In fact, Raval has found several details eliminated in The Namesake movie by Mira Nair which are considered as essential parts in the novel.

            Raval’s arguments have strong evidence because he has put quotation in every single point he states. His decision to use quotation as evidence is quiet right in which using quotation means that there are the same perspectives from other researches. Raval also uses sub-chapters, Impact of Bollywood, The Film ‘Namesake’, The Comparison with Book, that may be to line the limitation of his critiques. He also points out the conclusion well which mentioning the positive side of The Namesake specially for anyone who feels the tag of two cultures, Mira Nair’s own reaction to the film, the conclusion about visual text and textual text which are the points of the topic explained, and Indian Diaspora in the west. Raval’s arguments are constructed clearly which is so far from long-winded statements. He directly inserts his critiques in every point that he needs to be criticized, such as in sub-chapter “The film ‘Namesake’”, he has balanced the summary of the film with his own critique. First, when Raval describes the opening scene of the film in the last paragraph in page thirty-four, he slips his critique about Gogol the Russian author; “That has perhaps two meanings, one less literal than the other.” Second, after he tells about foreign landscapes in the same sub-chapter, he starts to criticize Nair’s film: “Unfortunately, Nair builds up the emotional intensity and symbolic moments early and too often in the film, making it difficult to journey or experience a revelation alongside her characters”. Third, Raval explains about traveling between two major metropolises in page thirty-six in the first paragraph, however he also says : “But in the film, there is no connection between the Russian writer’s original work Overcoat and characters developed by Nair in The Namesake film.” Of course, he argues with evidence inside.

            However, there are several words which can not be found in any dictionary even in Cambridge dictionary, such as diasporic, deterritorialized and flockled. Those words have no meanings because they can not be identified by any dictionary. Even if those are typos or small mistakes in the text made when it was typed or printed, it should not happen in professional essay like Raval’s review. Diction is the most important thing that must be considered well by the writer in order to drive the reader in the right position, knowing that the aim of the writer is to persuade the reader in analyzing about how effective written text (novel) transformed into a cinematographic text (movie) is. When the readers get confused because they find any fault or unidentified words in dictionary from the text, it may influence the readers to stop reading the essay.

            Several statements that he uses need further explanation and evidence. This statement : “South Asian diasporic cinema negotiates among the two largest global cinemas-those of Hollywood and Bollywood-as well as individual national cinemas including British, Canadian, alternative U.S and India”, needs evidence to proof that Hollywood and Bollywood are actually the two largest global cinemas. It is to avoid subjective argument knowing that Raval is Indian. He also states: “Film is the most popular and significant cultural form and commodity in the transnational South Asian Cultural and Political economy” that can be an exaggeration because Raval does not tell why and which one cultural and political economy that are influenced by the film in which it will be a weak evidence.

            Raval’s inconsistency in mentioning “the novel” drives the readers to get more confused. As we know that it directs only one meaning that is The Namesake novel. However, he has mentioned it as “the novel” in the very beginning of his essay after he appears The Namesake novel: “The film is based on the novel of the same name by Pulitzer Prize Winner Jhumpa Lahiri, herself the child of immigrants, who grew up in London and Kingstown, Rhode Island”. Then, he begins to transform his term “the novel” into “the book”: “But there are scenes, where Nair disagrees from the book”. In the page thirty eight, he continuously calls the novel as “the book”. “The movie is simply unable to bring out the complexity of the novel, for example; in the book it is clear why Gogol leaves Maxine” and “The novel is dense in details and many incidents that occur in the book do not find a place in the film” are his most confusing sentences. He has put two terms whose meanings are the same, The Namesake novel, in a single sentence. Those terms are so ambiguous whether both “the novel” and “the book” are The Namesake novel, or “the book” mentioned is another book which is not really The Namesake novel. Generally, it certainly navigates the reader into misdirecting perspective and supposition.

            Raval’s writing style is always putting the full quotation he needs, but he neglects to put the background of the speakers in his several quotations. He puts their names only, such as “Stuart Hall remarks” and “according to Jigna Desai”. Actually, it is important to inform the reader what the last education of the quotation speakers, what their job and how well they know about the topic described. Those elements are needed to strengthen the evidence because the readers will be easier to be convinced when the quotation speakers are researcher, experts and such kind of things. The source of the quotation must be also put in order to make it clearer and can be accepted by the reader. In the references (work cited), Raval writes the title of the book, web site, and others, but those are not mentioned in his essay.

            Raval is not quiet good in English specially in grammar. It can be proven by several mistakes in that review essay, for example, “Literature and film are... because of cinematic considerations certain changes are incorporated” – page 31 paragraph 1. The reader will be difficult to reach the point because he does not put the adjective and the noun well. “Cinematic” is adjective, “considerations” is plural noun of “consideration”, “certain” can be adjective, determiner or pronoun, and “changes” in that context is plural noun of “change”. There should be A+A+A+N+Be rather than A+N+A+N+Be (A is adjective; N is noun; and Be is tobe). That sentence is extremely unclear whether he states about considerations or changes because of his bad grammar structure. Raval uses present verb form after putting “has” in which does not deal with the right pattern of the grammar. After “has”, he should put past participle form of the verb. “First Commercial International film Awards, held in London in 2003, has provide that Indian ... the nation-state” – page 31 paragraph 2 – must be “has provided”. However, it should use “has” or “have” is confusing because Raval writes “Awards” as the plural noun not “Award” as the single noun. Actually, the noun form determines the use of “has”, dealing with singular noun, or “have”, dealing with plural noun. Raval even has written a sentence without using any verb inside; “How the fragrance of Jasmine can take them to the family garden, how a strand of old filmy music can transport them back home” – (page 32 paragraph 1). The use of “how” indicates that the sentence is a dependent clause which needs any verb there. It can be put with other sentences to change it into the right sentence or Raval must eliminate it because it will be difficult to be understood by the reader.“This might happens to most immigrants away from home – (page 33 paragraph 1)” is false if we pull it into the right grammar patterns. “Happens” there must be “happen” because there is past modal verb of “may”, that is “might”. When “might” meets a verb, the verb must be present form without using –s suffix in the end.

            In conclusion, Raval’s faults in his essay about The Namesake are not too fatal. He just makes mistakes in unidentified dictionary words, weak evidence, inconsistency, quotation speaker’s background (the source), and the grammar. Those should be obeyed by Raval to perfect his critical review. So far, he follows the strucure of writing review well because his essay is clear enough to be understood by the reader about what his purpose actually is, how he transfers the arguments, and how he delivers every single point to convince the reader. “The Namesake: Comparison of The Cinematographic Text with Its Original Written Text” by Dr. Vikas Raval can be recommended for producers, film makers, script writer, directers, immigrants and also everyone who feels the tag of two cultures.

            Reference:

Mackiwg. "User:Vmraval".  2010.  (August 6, 2010):  WikiEducator. December 21 2015.

SALAM LFC ( LUCKY FISHING CLUB )

Artikel selanjutnya ini semoga bisa membantu anggota  LFC dalam mencari umpan. Masih dalam  ruang lingkup yang sama, lumut ditemukan di PERBATASAN ANTARA DESA WARU DAN DESA WRINGINPITU, DEKAT DENGAN PABRIK BENANG. Orang biasa menyebutnya dengan LANDASAN DESA WRINGINPITU. 

 EDISI 26 JANUARI 2016

Contoh Lumut 1

Contoh Lumut 2

Lokasi Lumut Ditemukan Via Google Map

SALAM LFC ( LUCKY FISHING CLUB )

Saya sebagai anggota lfc akan membantu memperoleh umpan dan tempat mancing bagi anggota dan para pemancing mania , tidak perlu khawatir jika kehabisan umpan karena saya akan tayang tiga kali dalam seminggu , okay sudah cukup perkenalannya langsung kita lihat lokasi lumut di bawah ini.

 

LUMUT SUPER KALI INI TERDAPAT DI SAWAH DESA WARU, TEPATNYA DI RT.07

 RILIS TANGGAL, 25 JANUARI 2016

CONTOH LUMUT ;

LOKASI :