Unnecessarily Complex: A View on Poetry

Okay so my blog post this week concerns Margaret Avison, and her collection of poems. I want to make one thing clear right from the start. I hate poetry, I always have. I never understood why it exists, and why people seem so interested in deciphering the words and magically have a life changing experience as a result. I could never understand it, or read through the language to some “deeper meaning”. I have never felt anything from reading poetry, except maybe a bit of dizziness from being so confused and bored. After a student’s rebuttal of points discussed in lecture, Professor Ogden said on the class blog,

“I think that hating something literary is clean & good: lukewarm indifference is the only response that I regret being the cause of.”

I believe I fall into the category of “clean & good”.

Don’t get me wrong, I have complete respect for Margaret Avison and her approach with poetry. For some people, poetry is their emotional release. Avison was simply trying to relate her emotions. The problem I have concerns her method for relaying these emotions to other people. For an average person such as myself, and a lot of other students I’m sure, it is very difficult to read through all the thick, confusing language to make some sort of sense out of the whole thing. I mean, why not just state your ideas and feelings in plain, simple language that other people can relate to? Seriously, I would really like to know how many people who have tried to read Avison’s work immediately understood the deeper meanings similar to those that Professor Ogden raised in lecture. I was genuinely surprised to see the things that he wringed out of Avison’s complex language. The ideas themselves were quite insightful. I believe that a beautiful place like the country we live in deserves to be celebrated and reflected upon. But when it requires a professor who has had years of experience and has the knowledge to tell you thhis, it becomes a hassle. I would much rather read something that I can interpret for myself. After all, isn’t that what post-secondary education encourages, original thought?

Was Joe Fortes Really A Great Person and So Worthy of Respect?

In “The Innocent Traveler”, there is real person existing in the book and the author Ethel Wilson uses her own views and words to portray that person which can be seen as documentary-style writing. Form “The Innocent Traveler” we know that Joe Fortes was a black man who lived near English Bay, taught many children to swim, and saved lots of people form drowning. When she describes, Ethel Wilson uses some old-fashioned, discriminating, and racist terms such as “negro” to present her feelings about the black people. Although she didn’t seem to use that word to be cruel and she did show her respect to Joe Fortes, it is considered an offensive word form our view point today. However, I wondered was Joe Fortes really a great person and so worthy of respect? By Googling Joe Fortes, I found that he was listed under the history of English Bay. He was a very famous person at the time that Ethel Wilson wrote her book and he was appointed Vancouver’s first official lifeguard and swimming instructor. He was not born to be a swimming teacher, however, and he did many jobs before he moved to English Bay. Because he taught swimming lessons and did life guarding voluntarily, he had to do a labour job to support himself. In the official report, it is recorded that Joe Fortes saved 29 lives, but people believe that the number must exceed 100. After he died, a drinking fountain was erected in 1927 by the citizens of Vancouver in Alexandra Park to remember him by his great contributions to the community. Ethel Wilson did present her personal impression of Joe Fortes in her own way, but we might feel that something is missing because it is difficult to find other people’s ideas about Joe Fortes and very difficult to find writing done by him in his own words.

"Chick-Lit" Positive or Negative Genre?

When Professor Ogden initially introduced the concept of “chick-lit” it made me immaturely laugh at the proposition of the idea, but also brought up dwelling skepticism that a genre such as this existed. Upon closer inspection I learned this was a recognized and emerging new genre of fiction depicting modern female protagonists accentuating and celebrating their flaws as opposed to viewing them as negatives. However this genre was introduced to us as a positive influence where imperfect females were depicted as the heroines of stories, finding who they really are through there own means. One thing that made me think was the term “chick” it contrasted in my mind all that was said previously. The word “chick”, to a certain extent is a degrading word used by men to draw attention to physically attractive women, or otherwise those that are disagreeable in their eyes (i.e. hey man! Check that chick out!). So why would it be used as a title describing many strong novels displaying the glory of feminism? Many other groups have attached the title “chick-lit” to a very different classification of other books labeling the genre as having negative effects on young women, portraying many of its heroines only obsessed with boys, shopping and cooking. With these two differing versions of chick-lit describing two totally different collections of novels which is the correct definition of chick-lit and how can you tell the difference between the two?

In The Innocent Traveller, the genre of “chick-lit” displays hip and refreshingly different female protagonists who are not anywhere near perfect. These flaws that exist within the characters are what help their readers relate with them and the book more closely. The protagonists do not have a perfect job or have the perfect man; they become a more real portrayal of today’s woman striving to find that balance between work and a social life. The second connotation of “chick-lit” has a different meaning entirely; groups refer to works as “graphic and sexually explicit”, containing negative messages about how girls only think about romance, shopping, social status and appearance. These “anti chick-lit” groups say it’s dangerous for young girls in many ways making them act a certain way to fit in, while giving them the feeling that they are choosing this lifestyle themselves. With this modern genre of “chick-lit” invading our shelves we now have to ask ourselves is it the brilliant works of positive feminism by authors such as Ethel Wilson, Helen Fielding (Bridget Jone’s Diary) or Candace Bushnell (Sex and the City)? Or do the other negative books flood our minds? On that note, which group of novels should be labeled “chick-lit”? Both obviously cannot claim the genre for themselves.