3 Comments on “Bibliographic Essay: Naming / a poem”
Jenna-
I really like the essay style you chose for this assignment. It’s easy to read and flows very nicely. You give a really great overview of the book. I was intrigued by many of the facts about it that you gave, especially the calligraphy (what does it mean?)
Something additional that I think could’ve helped your essay is to select one topic and explore it deeper than you do the others. Maybe the author or the calligrapher? Or something else that interested you. It seemed like you gave everything equal time and thought.
I did my essay on a Sutton Hoo Press book as well and it had what seemed like a lot of blank pages surrounding the pages with printed text. This seems to be a stylistic choice of the publisher as well, not just the author. Or maybe Sutton Hoo only prints authors with aligning aesthetics. I don’t know the answer- but your essay made me think.
Overall I think you did a snorkeling of this book. I know a lot about it and can easily visualize it from the information and description you gave.
Strength: Incredibly detailed physical description, especially of the calligraphy; I really feel like I know what it looked like. I also think the way you weaved a narrative out of the description, Levine’s backstory, and then specifically the acknowledgements page was really well-executed.
Work on: 1000 words is tough to work with and I did really enjoy your physical description, but that being said, I think it might’ve been helpful to include more specifically about Sutton Hoo’s history or Jacobsen’s biography. (I also worked with a book by Sutton Hoo and Jacobsen so I didn’t feel like I missed anything, but I think others might’ve.)
Think About: I’m really interested in your final couple paragraphs about the acknowledgments page’s narrative tone and your last sentence on how Naming “welcomes the reader to continue the naming” (nice one). I really like this concept of the publishers trying in their acknowledgements page to get the information across in the most compelling, most storylike way possible. And I love the idea that the book encourages us to keep spinning its narrative, even after it’s been published. I feel like that’s basically the summation of what we as book-readers/essay-writers/English majors are trying to do: tell the story of a pre-existing story in the best way possible.
I’d give this a definite snorkel verging into scuba-diving. (Also, how weird that you, me, and Sam all had Sutton Hoo?? Let’s talk about how the random generator and fate might work together.)
While writing the essay, I felt like I was hitting my stride in the second half of it, when I started trying to draw connections between the poet and the physical book and narrative style. And while the physical description was necessary for this, I could have curtailed some of the description of the other editions of the book that I was not working with specifically. I also know that I have a tendency towards wordiness, so I have no doubt the essay could be de-cluttered further, which in turn would have saved space for other pertinent information. I wanted to talk about the publisher specifically, but simply ran out of space, and after reading Emily’s essay, I completely agree with her that including some information on Cheryl Jacobsen would have been illuminating. I regret not looking into her earlier! If I had the time to do a second essay, I think I would focus more intently and analytically on the calligraphy.
I made the effort to dive, but I think I’m still snorkeling. (To be fair, I have a phobia of deep water, so maybe the diving metaphor is just not for me.)
Jenna-
I really like the essay style you chose for this assignment. It’s easy to read and flows very nicely. You give a really great overview of the book. I was intrigued by many of the facts about it that you gave, especially the calligraphy (what does it mean?)
Something additional that I think could’ve helped your essay is to select one topic and explore it deeper than you do the others. Maybe the author or the calligrapher? Or something else that interested you. It seemed like you gave everything equal time and thought.
I did my essay on a Sutton Hoo Press book as well and it had what seemed like a lot of blank pages surrounding the pages with printed text. This seems to be a stylistic choice of the publisher as well, not just the author. Or maybe Sutton Hoo only prints authors with aligning aesthetics. I don’t know the answer- but your essay made me think.
Overall I think you did a snorkeling of this book. I know a lot about it and can easily visualize it from the information and description you gave.
Strength: Incredibly detailed physical description, especially of the calligraphy; I really feel like I know what it looked like. I also think the way you weaved a narrative out of the description, Levine’s backstory, and then specifically the acknowledgements page was really well-executed.
Work on: 1000 words is tough to work with and I did really enjoy your physical description, but that being said, I think it might’ve been helpful to include more specifically about Sutton Hoo’s history or Jacobsen’s biography. (I also worked with a book by Sutton Hoo and Jacobsen so I didn’t feel like I missed anything, but I think others might’ve.)
Think About: I’m really interested in your final couple paragraphs about the acknowledgments page’s narrative tone and your last sentence on how Naming “welcomes the reader to continue the naming” (nice one). I really like this concept of the publishers trying in their acknowledgements page to get the information across in the most compelling, most storylike way possible. And I love the idea that the book encourages us to keep spinning its narrative, even after it’s been published. I feel like that’s basically the summation of what we as book-readers/essay-writers/English majors are trying to do: tell the story of a pre-existing story in the best way possible.
I’d give this a definite snorkel verging into scuba-diving. (Also, how weird that you, me, and Sam all had Sutton Hoo?? Let’s talk about how the random generator and fate might work together.)
Selfie comment!
While writing the essay, I felt like I was hitting my stride in the second half of it, when I started trying to draw connections between the poet and the physical book and narrative style. And while the physical description was necessary for this, I could have curtailed some of the description of the other editions of the book that I was not working with specifically. I also know that I have a tendency towards wordiness, so I have no doubt the essay could be de-cluttered further, which in turn would have saved space for other pertinent information. I wanted to talk about the publisher specifically, but simply ran out of space, and after reading Emily’s essay, I completely agree with her that including some information on Cheryl Jacobsen would have been illuminating. I regret not looking into her earlier! If I had the time to do a second essay, I think I would focus more intently and analytically on the calligraphy.
I made the effort to dive, but I think I’m still snorkeling. (To be fair, I have a phobia of deep water, so maybe the diving metaphor is just not for me.)