POV: How many exist, anyway?

[cymbidia]

I'm not a total and complete idiot. I know all about first person POV (it's the POV from which i write my stories and that which generates much of my criticism). I know about third person POV, both genders. I know about third person omni...omnipre...what's that word? Not omnipotent.

Anyway, someone we all know (KM) just sent me an email in which she mentioned completing a new story in the second person. I sent her back a politely-worded request for some clarifiction on 2nd person POV.

My questions are these:
How many damn POV's are there?
How many different "person's" can one write from?
What are they?
Examples, please.

Thank you.

 

[Weird Harold]

My questions are these:
How many damn POV's are there?3
How many different "person's" can one write from?3
What are they? First, Second, and Third

First Person: "I am telling my own story, and can only tell you about what I can see, hear, smell, feel, or taste."

Second Person: "You are are being manipulated like a puppet by the author."

Third Person: (Omniscient) "He is all-knowing, and all-seeing. She is a fly on the wall with telepathy. They are GOD!"

There are plural and singular modes, and Third Person can be less than omniscient, lacking telepathy or being pinned to the wall in only one room.

Then to confuse matters, there is "Character POV" or "Story Focus" to worry about -- what has been described as "looking over a character's shoulder." It's actually more along the lines of "who the narrator is looking at (or talking about)." It's primarily a concern of third person narrators, but can apply to any POV.

 

[KillerMuffin]

Did you get the email? I sent you a reply answering your question pretty much as soon as I got your question.

It went like this, sorta:

First Person: I walked into the room, suddenly nervous when I noticed him standing by the door. His hands were casually thrust in his pockets, a sure sign he was angry.

Second Person: You looked like were about to cry when I turned around. I pulled my hands from my pockets and crossed my arms, staring at you. "Come here."

Third Person: He pointed to the chair beside him, indicating she should sit there. She dutifully sat. "I'm not angry with you," he said.

In first person the point of view is from the narrator and can't move. It makes no sense.

In second person it's still from the point of view of the narrator, but the narrator is "talking" to the "you" of the story, to a single person who is undefined and presumably the reader.

In third person (omniscient) the narrator is none of the characters, but can get into their heads and know what they're thinking. Like the third person omniscient that you have in Mr. Neb's homework thread. The point of view is from a particular character in the third person.

 

[Cockatoo]

Pronoun Trouble

There are as many "person" POVs as there are personal pronouns in the language you're using.

"I" is first person, which I tend to favor. I think that pretty much everything I've posted here uses this.

"You" is second person, which you usually use during phone or internet sex- "You're doing this," or "you feel this." It's very disorienting unless the reader is DEEPLY immersed in the stories, and many people find the use of second person in erotic stories to be offensive or irritating, because it presumes an awful lot about the reader's state of mind and gender. It's very hard to do well, and I sure don't have the guts to try it- Kudos to you KM- and about the only place I've seen it really work beautifully is in Italio Calvino's novel "If on a Winter's Night a Traveller."

"He" or "She" is third person, and this one has different subcategories according to how many people the narrator's attention shifts around. Simple "third person" is going to focus on just one character, and this is the most commonly used POV. The Harry Potter books, anything by John Grisham or Tom Clancy, and most stories that require the suspense of the protagonist NOT knowing something will use this one.

Third person "omniscient" (all-knowing) POV is "God Mode." The narrator does everything in simple third person, but it can jump around from person to person, describing the story from a bunch of different character's POVs. This one's the hardest to use without making the narrator's own voice conspicuous, which you don't want to do unless that voice is personal and the narrator is effectively a character in the story. The trouble is, it's a character who knows everything that's going on, including everything seen, heard, felt, or thought by everyone else. Sometimes a writer using this voice will break "the third wall" and address the reader directly as the author, but I think that's kind of gimmicky. Anyhow, this one is also pretty common, as it follows the same style of narration we use in movies and TV where the action jumps between different scenes.

Any POV beyond that is a technical curiosity. There are probably terms for the ones that shift and do weird things, but that's an unconventional family of techniques that take attention away from the story and puts it on the narration and the diagesis. Anyone without a master's degree in English would probably find that stuff mystifying and pretentious.

Dig ya, Cym. Ciao, Bella.

Anybody know any more?

 

[Closet Desire]

Semantics...

...omnipotent narrator was the term used when I did my first two English degrees for the all knowing, all powerful narrator. Omniscient...sure, works for me...doesn't really matter as long as you know what it is.

There are lots of POV's even though you can break it down into just a few for convenience, but it all blends into other styles of narrative as well. And you wonder what English majors do with all their time! What exactly would you call a story that is a collection of letters between two people where one of the letter writers is telling the story but isn't really because there is an omniscient/omnipotent narrator pulling the strings (a popular form in the late 1700's)? Or, in Wuthering Heights is it really Lockwood telling the story or has he been supernaturally influenced by Nelly to tell the story she wants (he's bedridden and writing his account of her account of what has transpired in the story). Or is it really Emily Bronte writing about herself (topical, political, social, religious, and historical parallels abound)? Or is it still omniscient/omnipotent narrator who developed all the characters and dialgoue. No simple answer which is why even now, 150 years later, we still debate it and publish on it.

Over the past two centuries, which is about how long fictional writing/novels/novellas/picaresque have been with us, lots of different techniques have been used when don't really fall into the categories being discussed. Sometimes a writer is clever and falls back on one of these earlier, now disused, techniques to do it in a new way. Often interesting, sometimes entertaining, but just as often terrible!

Sigh...gotta get back to writing a thesis.

 

[Guest]

3rd person "limited"

The term I have always been taught to use to describe the 3rd person narrative which sees/describes only one person's POV is "3rd person limited omniscience." That particular phrase is an oxymoron, but one probably only English majors would find terribly amusing.

I was surprised to see C_D talk about two different curriculums using the phrase "omnipotent narrator." Apparently another misguided attempt by academics who are supposed to be experts in the English language to coin a phrase which accurately describes a simple concept. The phrase "omnipotent narrator" makes no more sense than my phrase, "limited omniscience." Omnipotence implies that the narrator is all-powerful and can influence the events of the story. (kind of like a lucid dreamer who changes events in a dream) An ability which is not present in most stories.

Someday, we have to get together and come up with universal and succinct terms for these things. I say we put Cym in charge of that since she has been very interested in POV lately.

 

[cymbidia]

Re: 3rd person

I say we put Cym in charge of that since she has been very interested in POV lately.

ACK! No! Idiot-savant here, just trying to edge a bit out of the "idiot" barrel via a little harmless info polling. What's the use, after all, of having so many writing-wizards running loose round the place if one can't pick their brains on occasion?

 

[Cockatoo]

Well Put.

Huzzah, Cym. Hey, if Darkness Descending and Closet Desire feel the need to codify the technical jargon and publish articles about that kind of thing, I say we let them. I got done with being an English major ten years ago, and I count myself lucky that I got away in one peice.

While they're busy with that little project, let me show you this new system of restraint I've worked out: it involves an eighteen inch broomstick with five loops screwed into it, a dog collar, and a set of elbow and knee pads like you'd use for rollerblading.

 

[Guest]

Cockatoo's Device

Cockatoo,
Your device is not exactly a "literary device," but it does sound AT LEAST as interesting as the discussion we're having!

 

[cymbidia]

Re: Well Put.

While they're busy with that little project, let me show you this new system of restraint I've worked out: it involves an eighteen inch broomstick with five loops screwed into it, a dog collar, and a set of elbow and knee pads like you'd use for rollerblading.

Ohhhh...POV? Isn't that when i'm on my hands and knees, knees that are locked way open by a spreader bar (kinda like that homemade thing you have there... uh huh... that one... yeh...), a collar tight but not too tight around my neck, and looking up to see what that long thin leathery thing is, the one you're holding with one hand and tapping into the palm of the other.

THAT is first person sub POV, boys and girls.

Cockatoo, thanks for totally screwing my attempt at blending in, at passing, at being normal (whatever the hell that is around these parts). And i was pulling it off, too.
~smirk~

 

[KillerMuffin]

Trust my cym, you blend.

 

[Cockatoo]

Don't you dare go changin' to try to please ME, dearie. Besides, I'm much more interested in having you BEND than in having you BLEND. Now that you're all secured nice and firmly, I'll have you on your knees, you bend over a bit more and stick it up in the air, just like that, that's right...

And that, everyone, is a second person Dominant POV. Hee hee, this is fun, cym. Now present that tush of yours a little more prominently, I want this first stroke to be a good one...

 

[Closet Desire]

Up to all sorts...

...of mischief I see.

As the one who pointed out that the discussion about narrators was focused on semantics I can only be amused that I'm suddenly lumped into that homogenous heap of "academics" who are apparently trying to find something important to do with their lives. I find it's typically the less experienced who are trying to learn something new who get involved in the nuances of terms and what they mean, while those who are more accomplished aren't really bothered one way or the other.

I'm not really sure how one would leave an education behind as though it was too heavy to carry along. Then I guess you should only take on baggage that is useful to you...no dead weight if you know what I mean. Me? Yeah, I've published quite a few academic pieces as well as a number of books (fiction and erotica) worldwide that use different POV. Some might think I have something useful to contribute.

I guess what I'm saying is I don't really need a discussion about how to write a particular way and if my participation means I have to field pot shots at my background or education then I've got better things to do.

I'll let you get on with it.

 

[cymbidia]

Oh dear.



As one who enthusiastically supports a more=very good concept of higher education, i offer my apologies to you, Closet Desire, and to darkness_descending too, for any slights i may have offered while playing this small BDSM POV game with Cockatoo.

It was not my intent to offend and is not my way to do so. It not done maliciously but from carelessness.

I'm sorry i offended you.
cym

 

[Closet Desire]

actually...

...you didn't say anything that "offended" me and having fun with BDSM (a personal favourite in my books) is what this site is all about.

The jabs against people who have studied English or are otherwise involved in academia is something I run into on an almost daily basis and it gets old after a while. I've learned to just move along. My own sister told me that English majors didn't know how to write books. She's still attending writing seminars and trying to write her first novel. I ignored her and got on with it. I'm on number seven.

I love writing. I love writing books. I love seeing my books get published and listed on Amazon. When I have a chance to encourage someone else to do the same thing (I don't see writing as a competitive sport) I love to contribute. Some of my books and papers are academic and will only by loved or reviled by other academics. The debates between scholars at conferences are actually quite exciting and they aren't the boring fuddy duddies one might expect (the women who specialise in Gothics are enough to make most dungeon masters shudder in their boots...they know things that will curl your hair). But my greatest love is writing fiction.

I know you're trying to hone your skills and I also recognise that you're at that precipice in life where you are likely to be your most productive (re your email).

I'll be cheering you on.

 

[Guest]

Easy, C_D

Cym,

C_D was not feeling like you had taken shots at her, she was feeling like I had.

Sorry, C_D there was no insult intended. I am also a person of multiple degrees, and my comments were intended to be a gentle laugh at all us who study things deeply and thereby sometimes make life more difficult for ourselves. I am a teacher; I deal daily with educational jargon, and very much include myself in the group "academics." You don't know me very well and assumed I was taking "pot shots" at you. Unfortunate.

I certainly don't assume that you invented the phrase "omnipotent narrator," and that you should be held accountable for it. The "academics" to who whom I referred were the ones who designed the curricula. I said I was surprised to see that the two different curricula you followed both used it. I was an English major at two different colleges (ultimately choosing to finish up with a degree in theatre instead) and my wife graduated from the Honors English program from our admittedly less than prestigious university. Neither of us had ever heard the 3rd person narrator called "omnipotent." We had always heard the phrase "omniscient" or "limited omniscient."

Given that, I mused about how we had learned it differently and that when examined closely, neither one makes complete sense. A narrator is not typically "omnipotent," they have no power to make events in the story happen; they merely report it. My curricula used the phrase "limited omniscience" at times, and that phrase is an oxymoron. Either you know everything or you don't. There's is no limit on something which begins with "omni."

I will take 90% responsibility for the misunderstanding. I was almost certainly not completely clear in what I meant by what I said, and I kicked up the hornet's nest. However, as for the other 10%, I'm not the one who brought the hornet's nest with me.

Now, just to avoid another misunderstanding I will clarify my last comment. I was careless with my words. I apologize for that. I do feel that you may be oversensitive about "academic bashing" and that may have contirbuted to the misunderstanding.

Oh, and I've never had any books listed on Amazon, but I bought one there once.

 

[Cockatoo]

Hooh Geez.

If anyone is going to take responsibility for the "potshots," it's probably me. I was the first to use the "P-word" (pretetious), after all. I didn't mean for it to turn into a pissing match. In my experience, lawyers tell lawyer jokes, blondes tell blonde jokes, and generally speaking, people tend to take their best digs at themselves. Hell, look at Rodney Dangerfield- he doesn't make fun of anybody BUT himself.

Okay, you don't have to look at Rodney if you don't want to. Sorry.

I'm not going to bother anyone with the bittersweet story of my complex history with institutions of higher learning, though I guess it's pretty evident that most of what bled through in my tone here was the "bitter" part. Instead, I'll just say that I assumed I was speaking "in the family" here, and made an Ass out of U and Me in the process. I had no idea I was going to open such a can of worms. CD, if you took offense, I'm sorry- congratulations for making it in a difficult and unforgiving profession.

Now, cymbida, my pet, I think SOMEBODY around here needs to be punished. What sort of licks would you prefer to take- the lash, the paddle, or the tongue?

 

[Closet Desire]

oh yeah...

...it really punches my buttons. Maybe I should explain why.

Mind you I'm not talking about you guys now, just people in general. I'm also bearing in mind you have backgrounds in the arts so I think some of what I say will strike a note of familiarity with you.

Sure, there are jokes about doctors and lawyers, but the motivation behind them is different. Doctors and lawyers are seen as successful even by those who despise them for that success. I've never heard a doctor or lawyer say his or her schooling was a waste of time. I'm sure there are some, but I've not met them yet.

People who choose the arts are not seen as successful in general or of much use to anyone. How many times have you heard that a Phd in Fine Art won't even get you a job at McDonalds. That's a hell of a thing to say to someone who may have studed for over ten years. How many artists and performers had to fight tooth and nail just to get the education they wanted? I put up with ridicule and derision from family, school counsellors, and others who viewed the arts as a waste of time and effort.

You ask a lawyer how to settle a complaint with someone who owes you money and you believe the lawyer and take his/her advice. You injure your ankle and the doctor tells you it's broken. You believe him or her and have it mended.

But, if you ask a photographer how to take a certain type of photo you are likely to question him and argue about something you read in a magazine. Ask an English major where a comma should go and you can expect a debate (I've watched it here on Lit). "Well, my first grade teacher said!" No wonder we fling our hands up in exasperation. It flies in the face of logic that someone who has earned a doctorate in language has studied as much about that language as an MD has about medicine, yet most people will not accept them as experts on their own subjects. I seldom discuss literature with anybody except other scholars because it's pointless. Folks sort of figure that if you can read then you know as much as an English scholar about a particular piece of literature. If you can see then you know as much about van Gogh as you need. They'll argue with you about meanings, interpretations, and so forth and you can't really argue back because what they say is so much rubbish that there's no material to work with. They wouldn't do this with an engineer who has designed a bridge because they recognise that even though they know what a bridge is and what it's for they don't know anything about girders or spans or concrete and steel. I imagine it's the same for music or art or theatre.

I talk about writing because that's what I know about, but it's the same for artists, performers, photographers, musicians, etc. A friend of mine published his first book a couple of years ago and over dinner he admitted that he was really disheartened. To him, indeed to any hopeful writer, publishing a book was the pinnacle of success. People he met, when learning he had published a book, didn't admire it. Rather, they took the opportunity to tell him that they were writing a book too. Mind you, they hadn't even started anything, but they had the makings of a best seller in their head. A performer I know who has spent decades honing her craft and enduring the grueling work that it involves tells tale after tale of people informing her that they played so and so in their elementary/middle/high school play as though it's on the same plane as performing in New York.

I have watched over the past three years as my neice has been totally destroyed, seen her dreams devestated because her chosen pursuit in theatre was trampled by all those around her. This was where her talent lie. This was what she was best at. Her family wanted her to be a doctor (because she could earn a living) and would only help pay for university if she chose to become a doctor. Her grades were good enough to get into pre-med, but she never showed up. She tried her hand at nursing, but dropped out of that too. What is she doing now? Serving burgers in a restaurant in a tiny mid-western town. Now she's not a doctor OR an actress...and never will be.

It isn't so bad that the public puts it down. What's bad is how often I've seen and heard those in the arts put themselves and each other down. They hang their head to one side and "admit" they have a degree in literature. They try to qualify it by quickly adding that they manage a division for a local business or that they are now studying something more useful. It's the self-depreciation that really rings my bells, the apology for having wasted our time by studying art or literature or music or whatever.

My best friend is a corporate attorney. We met while we were both doing our undergrad degrees. She fought tooth and nail to get into law school and graduated second in her class. She's damn proud of that and although she earns big bucks now she does it because she loves it. I have not met anyone in the arts yet who is as openly proud of their accomplishments.

Once you are willing to put yourself down then it validates what the others have told you all along. You wasted your time. What you know is of no value to anyone.

Yet, the work of these people is all around us and in the most unexpected places. My good friend Ray Leaning www.leaning.co.uk is a fine artist who specialises in erotic sketches and paintings of women. Absolutely gorgeous, passionate stuff. The folks who read the BBC magazine or Carribean World don't know this or that he designed the entire magazine they are holding in their hands...cover-to-cover.

Sure, every specialty has its academic elements. We have no choice. To understand what we do we have to codify, define, and categorise as best we can so there is a common language between us. It may seem foreign or bizarre to those outside the professions, but it is still important.

Which brings me to the semantics at hand. I'm fortunate enough to have picked up a new literary theory book at a conference. It is American. Curiously it breaks narration down into two types: omniscient AND limited. "In omniscient the author knows everything, including the hidden thoughts of the characters; in the limited the whole tale is filtered though the mind of the narrator (a person in a position to know) and each piece of information is accompanied by an explanation of how and when he learned about it" (26 Tomashevsky). It's a subtle difference but significant I think. Maybe it makes more sense than anything we've presented yet?

I am inclined to agree that omnipotent was a term used by my department or literary criticism lecturer, possibly because the head of the department had once published on that. I do hava some books which refer to it this way, but literary criticism isn't exactly rocket science so lots of permutations abound. Who knows? I had plenty of lecturers, particularly in undergrad, who taught what they had researched and published on so it would include their own personal biases.

Anyway, going the long way 'round I hope I've not offended but explained myself a bit better.

By the way, I know nothing of theatre except that I love to go the the West End in London and watch the shows. It is mangnificent and I can't even imagine all the skills and talent that go into making these performances the spectacles that they are. I always give a standing ovation...

 

[Weird Harold]

Re: oh yeah...

Which brings me to the semantics at hand. I'm fortunate enough to have picked up a new literary theory book at a conference. It is American. Curiously it breaks narration down into two types: omniscient AND limited. "In omniscient the author knows everything, including the hidden thoughts of the characters; in the limited the whole tale is filtered though the mind of the narrator (a person in a position to know) and each piece of information is accompanied by an explanation of how and when he learned about it" (26 Tomashevsky). It's a subtle difference but significant I think. Maybe it makes more sense than anything we've presented yet?

This explanaation deserves to be picked out n highlighted so no one misses it.

I do have a question bout it: "Is this in reference to Third Person narrrration, or does it apply to first and second person narratives as well?

 

[Guest]

Cited definition

That is a pretty good definition.

---Hey, I was brief! Well, at least I was until I commented on my brevity. Now, I'm running the risk of becoming verbose. Not in the manner of circumlocution, but more in the manner of being intitially concise and then failing to restrain myself from launching into tangents.---

What does the "check message length" button do? Could it hold my length in check? Or do I have to give someone a check to hold my length? Too much Mountain Dew! Someone needs to put a tranquilizer dart in me now!

 

[Cockatoo]

Ok, my turn to spew. Therapy time!

Closet Desire said:

Sure, every specialty has its academic elements. We have no choice. To understand what we do we have to codify, define, and categorise as best we can so there is a common language between us. It may seem foreign or bizarre to those outside the professions, but it is still important.

Again, nothing personal. And this is not a potshot. Seriously. You guys may recognize some of the frustration I'm about to ventillate here, and I swear I'll keep it to the point.

My own undergrad was a double major in English and Philosophy, at an institution where the English department was caught up in a civil war with itself about cirriculum. I did well and loved it all, and found myself unemployed in the middle of the (pervious) Bush administration's recession. Grad school was for Philosophy, and what's where I really got pissed off and even more unemployable. Just so you know.

The use of jargon is a necessary evil. In the sciences (I'm in aviation now, CHOCK FULL of standardized jargon), such terms naturally come into play as useful shorthand. You can, and should, learn such stuff if you're going to do it seriously. This kind of jargon facilitates communication at every level, from teaching proper terminology to neophytes, to establishing conventional and correct practices, to making sure that two professionals conversing with each other are on the same page. So, CD, your point is well taken.

But in the humanities, jargon usually isn't about useful shorthand or standarization. It's about power. The type of jargon Dr. Jones uses identifies the school of thought he's aligned himself with as readily as any battle flag. His use of language which is as complex and obfuscatory as possible is a display of power among his peers (sorta like I'm doing now, eh?), and his ability to CREATE and IMPLEMENT jargon of his own establishes him as a leader in his field. But finally, it's his basic ability to play in this arena of discourse that sets him apart from and above "the common man" who might very well have original and interesting observations about the subject.

When that subject is the arts, literature, or theatre, the very idea that nonprofessionals have nothing of value to add with their perspective is, frankly, silly. Such things are, literally, broad-spectrum communication. If an artist (no matter how snooty, say, Thomas Pynchon even) created a book, play, image, sculpture, film, or musical or dance performance that utterly failed to reach people of average or better intelligence, and was only capable of being understood by an elite cadre of professionals, then we have to wonder if they're really doing their jobs (note- my sensibilities on THAT subject would be a whole different ten-page post). I'm not saying everyone should shoot for the lowest common denominator, but it's probably a good idea for artists to avoid the "Dennis Miller Syndrome" and end up entertaining only themselves.

Of course, professional opinions should be respected. Professionals have hard-earned backgrounds and insights into this stuff that interested amateurs should find WONDEROUS and FASCINATING. So why does the general public, even the well-informed, and EVEN the professionals themselves, distain the very highbrow opinions they should be so hungry for?

Jargon. The balls-out, in-your-face use of specialized "My Brain's Bigger Than You-ours!" terminology serves to isolate and disenfranchise a class of intellectual "haves" from a larger class of "have-nots." Good old-fashioned alienation is the result. Instead of facilitating communication, the jargon is an obstacle. It sets up the Ph.Ds who've been taught to use it as defensive and snooty, through no fault of their own.

What to do about it? CD, you've spoken in plain language. Plainer than mine, in this message. That counts as reaching out and putting on a friendly face. That's ten miles from Dr. Jones, whose ambition was to drive away as many people as possible from his "Textual Studies" seminar, and who wouldn't even speak to me as a lowly undergraduate until I'd passed his midterm essay exam on Derrida. Unfortunately, Dr. Jones presently outnumbers you ten to one, but at least you're doing your part.

Thanks for sharing. And I'm right with you in encouraging those who face discouragement in their creative endeavors, especially when extensive training, expensive equipment, and huge committments of time and resources are required. We should, as a culture and individually, admire and respect their efforts and acheivements.

Think this was long? You should see how much I deleted from it!

 

[Closet Desire]

Good Therapy...

Go ahead and spew, I enjoyed your post immensely and agree with you. Let me crack my knuckles and get down to tapping...

I don't know what your personal situation was, but I've heard the worries about employment for those holding degrees at all levels in the arts, philosophy, et al. The MLA is chock full of PhDs full of woe because there aren't enough tenure positions for graduates. I won't even get into it. The flip side is that more than 90% of them are working in a field related to their studies. Now, this is where it gets tricky I've discovered. It doesn't mean they are teaching Dickens or how to write poetry. It means that they may be writing for a marketing department, editing for a magazine, or doing research for a corporation.

I frequently come across career articles written by businesses and head hunting agencies who actually espouse the values of hiring someone with degrees in the arts. Not because the degree has anything to do with the job, but because of what it says about the person. Let's face it, truthfully, many of the higher paying jobs out there don't require specialised education to perform. Aviation, engineering, law, medicine and other "vocational" careers do for obvious reasons, but if you start talking to some very successful people in business you may be very surprised to find what their academic background actually is.

Why would they be interested? How much discipline does it take to complete a masters degree or write a 100,000 word dissertation? What sort of committment does it take to be ripped apart at your viva, revise, and go back for more (gluttons for punishment...masochists maybe). How easily can such a disciplined mind learn new skills in accounting or marketing or any of the hundreds of other skills required in business? Trainable, reliable, intelligent, and responsible. By the time you complete a PhD you may not know a widget from a doodad, but you have potential and a good track record.

The weakness often isn't in the job market but in the job seeker who doesn't even consider a position that seems so remote from what they studied. If they do consider it they often neglect to learn about the company, the position, and how their own skills might relate.

I turned down opportunities to work in academia and satisfy that particular craving by lecturing at conferences at universities and private groups who invite me. Frankly, I'm a bit hungrier for money than what those posts can provide. By day I'm the director and business manager of a very successful private medical practice. I handle the clients, the therapists, the insurance companies, the marketing and advertising, the accounts, the legal stuff. If I don't know it I can learn it in no time. What can you do with a PhD in English? Anything your personal skills will allow...in your case aviation (well done by the way...I started out as nuclear engineer under Rickover...I was a mediocre engineer. I'm a much better writer.).

Success has been kind and my partner and I have found living well to be life's best revenge. We've served a lot of revenge lately! The success gives me the security to pursue my writing and publishing without worrying about the mortgage, the kid's tuition at university, retirement, or food in fridge.

My point is that even though an education may not prepare you for a career it does prepare you for life. It makes you a different person. It enhances your ability to learn, to comprehend, and communicate. I think a lot of disappointment comes from not feeling that the degree is worth some money when in fact, perhaps it should be measured by how did you feel doing it and completing it. Did you enjoy it, did it fulfill you? If it didn't then you might have been in the wrong field. But if it was positive then you gained from it. Obviously Cockatoo gained even though you went on to something else...as many of us did.

What can I say about academics who hide behind jargon? They irritate the hell out of me too. I used to think that one day I too would be as intelligent as them. Then I found myself being published when they weren't and being invited to lecture when they were ignored. Every paper I've submitted for conference or publication has been accepted. I realised you don't have to speak gibberish to be taken seriously. My essays have always avoided gibberish. You want to know the real reason? I don't even understand it when I try to use it. When I pull references off the shelf and notice that they are chock-a-block with jargon, I put them back. They waste my time and my intelligence. I've sat through lectures at conferences where the speaker read solidly through a paper that could have been about quantum mechanics for all I knew. The speaker may have had something valuable to deliver, something I could have gained from, but it was a strike out.

At the same time there are some absolutely brilliant scholars who can communicate and it's for these special people that I suffer through all the crap. They can amuse and entertain as well as inform. My own personal favourite is the late Lord David Cecil, a professor at Cambridge who wrote and lectured on a broad range of literature including Hardy and Bronte. He was so good that I'll read his stuff even on topics I'm not interested in. He was from an era not too far removed when English scholars spoke English and the language was alive and not comatose.

There is a move afoot to return to this clearer form of expression. Articles have begun to appear in the CEA journals where instructors have noted that students appear disinterested in writing that obfuscates the issue. What a surprise. It's a positive sign to me.

I have no use for lecturers who think they are above their students. I've seen too many brilliant insights from students to think I am above them. They bring innocence and an unblemished way of looking at things while those of us who have been around awhile are guilty of seeing what we want to see rather than what is actually there. Nor would I dismiss the thoughts of those who have not been educated in the arts. A friend of mine, who is a pharmacist, made some observations about Wuthering Heights that sent me down a road I had not seen before and it ended up in a book due out next year about the novel. I was referring more to some of the fundamental mechanics of the craft than to what sort of artistic impact a work might have on the layperson.

At the same time I would suggest that art encompasses a broad range of possibilities including those intended for the general public, but many artists would argue that they don't write or paint or compose for those who might view their work. They do it for themselves. This is the fascination for me in studying the arts...what is "behind" what has been written. In other words do we understand what we are reading in terms the words as used in our present day context or are we trying to understand them in the context of the writer's perceptions. I've made something of a career out of Wuthering Heights (no personal love of the story by the way) by suggesting that Heathcliff isn't the protagonist, but that the women are in control. It's been a detective story of over six years to support this view with evidence and I take great delight in shocking the blue-haired ladies who are members of the Bronte Society. They gasp in disbelief when I leave them with the notion that Catherine was a vampire. Suspension of disbelief...that was one of the aims in Bronte's time.

You're right about the "my brain's bigger than your's" alienating the have nots, but more frightening is my suspicion that it alienates their intellectual betters as well.

I've thoroughly enjoyed your post and hope I didn't wax too
lyrical.

Want to talk bizarre academic backgrounds? My first degree was a BS with dual majors in, get this, engineering and English (SUNY). My second was a Master in Liberal Arts with specialisation in literature. My PhD was in English lit. I had to do the PhD in England because an American university requires all your undergrad and post grad work to be in English. The degree in liberal arts has been my most powerful tool in the world of academia because it is based on the recognition that art doesn't happen in a vacumn, but that it goes hand-in-hand with culture, history, science, and the world in general. I loved it. Still do.

 

[Cockatoo]

I was looking forward to this

I think we may be more of a mind that it at first seemed. I was very much looking forward to that, so thank you very much.

You're preaching to the choir about the value of a liberal arts education. That's exactly the attitude I had, and that's how I decided I could go ahead and do anything I wanted with my life. I admit I was frustrated with the idea that I didn't REALLY know how to do anything, but I draw value from my background.

Just so you don't think I'm misleading you, I finished my B.A. at the top (Syracuse, '91), but I tanked at Grad school. I spent five years in the program at Cincinnati and walked away with nothing but a burned bridge an a bunch of teaching experience behind me. I discovered that you need four things for a doctorate- 1) be smart enough, 2) be obsessive enough, 3) have friends and champions on the faculty who want you to get the degree, and 4) have NOBODY on the faculty who wants to impede you or that thinks nobody should get their degree. I had 1, and I had 2 for a while, too, but it turned out I lacked 3 and 4. In fact, the friends I had on the faculty made it a point to take me aside and say "This place is a snake pit. Get the hell out of here and do something else with your life. I know I would. There's no future in it for anybody anyway." See, and I thought that was the kind of adversity that I had to persevere through. I should have listened.

So, I decided to learn how to do something that was neat, where I could make a living, and which would allow me to return to writing and shed the awful habits I'd practiced in my formal papers. I try hard to write in my own voice now, and it's made all the difference. I'd write another ten pages at you about my theory of literary sincerity, but that should be another thread- we can re-visit your questions about what artists think they're doing there.

And, I won't be posting for the rest of the week. I'm out of town and away from my 'puter as of an hour and a half from now, so Ciao for Niao. See you guys on Monday.