Cesars Blog

What does this choice say about his “methods”–about what it can and can’t do? As you reread the essay, look for sections you could use to talk about the power and limits of Percy’s method.

I think he chose this method in order to keep that beauty in the mystery of his writing, just like the beauty of the mystery of the “things” he was talking about. If he told everyone what he was trying to say straight and to-the-point, it would contradict everything he has been writing about and the very essence of that obscurity. This method also tends to make you think more and challenge your mind more than any other explanation would, which would definitely empower his writing but then again, it could also be a turn-off to certain readers which gives this method certain limits. For example, when he writes “He knows very well that he is in a very special sort of zone in which his only rights are the rights of a consumer.” This abstract writing can turn-off many readers but then again you also get sentences like these, “He moves like a ghost through schoolroom, city streets, trains, parks, movies. He carves his initials as a last desparate measure to capture his ghostly role of consumer.” You can actually visualize the kid and recognize the analogy very well.

I received quotes from the book, Ways of Reading by David Batholomae and Anthony Petrosky

To whom, or in the name of what, is this loss that Percy chronicles such a matter of concern? If this is not just Percy’s peculiar prejudice, if we are asked to share his concerns, whose interests or what interests are represented here?

Well, he says two things are lost when talking in the second reading. He says, “A loss of title occurs.” He compares this to the archaeologists perspective, when he says that putting something on display has the reverse effect in that, people won’t see what was originally meant to be seen. It is somewhat devalued when put on display. He also says, “The second loss is the spoliation of the thing, the tree, the rock, the swallow, by the layman’s misunderstanding of scientific theory.” Since the layman misinterprets scientific theory by labeling these “things” as specimen. He somewhat takes away the beauty and mystery away from the “thing”. And since it is less marvelous to the world, the public will never be able to capture it’s beauty ever again.

I received quotes from the book, Ways of Reading by David Bartholomae and Anthony Petrosky

What progress of thought is represented by the movement from one example to another, or from tourists to students?

When Walker Percy is talking about the tourists at the Grand Canyon and comparing them to the tourists in Mexico, he is referring to tourism as an exeperience in life but in his second reading, he refers to Biology students, which might be a little easier to relate to depending upon the reader. He also talks about how students may refer to Dogfish as specimen because they are not as advanced creatures as human beings are, so they are not seen as individual creatures. This means that when compared to the tourist explanation, that there is a certain division in society and he refers that to Layman and Expert,Planner and Consumer. He says, “…the expert and the planner know and plan, but the consumer needs and experiences.” This divisional society creates an aristocracy where certain things are exclusive.

I received quotes from the book, Ways of Reading by David Bartholomae and Anthony Petrosky