Writing Personal Essays Phillip Lopate Review

This article was originally written by Fresh Essays – professional custom essay writing service.

The Art of the Personal Essay by Phillip Lopate is a very informative guide for the essayist seeking to improve his/her writing.

The comprehensive compilation of essays includes selected works of the most brilliant authors. An example is “The Death of the Moth” by Virginia Woolf, who is known for her masterful way of conveying her thoughts through refined language. Such an essay encourages deep thinking in readers; it uses literary techniques like figures of speech and imagery to drive home the main point.

Various insights can be gleaned from the introduction alone of The Art of the Personal Essay by Phillip Lopate. It succinctly cites the main purpose of the book, which is to help the personal essayist find the right techniques that will capture the attention of readers and to retain it.

The many important qualities and skills that the essayist must possess are also cited. These include being a good storyteller, and writing in a simple yet engaging manner. The personal essayist is distinguished from other academic writers in that the former writes in a more personal or intimate sense. As Lopate cited, the personal essayist must be able to speak directly to the reader’s ear, and let thoughts, sentiments, memories, whimsies, or gripes flow. The importance of creating a relationship with the reader is emphasized.

The Art of the Personal Essay by Phillip Lopate contains a wide selection of essays written from different cultural backdrops. In all the selections, there is a solid subject, which may be something mundane like hateful things or tendencies of humans, to very relevant issues or observations.

All the essayists in the compilation do not just describe but explore or explain in great detail. Some of them reveal their own personal experiences while others incorporated research material. The book is therefore a very useful tool for students and professionals alike who want to hone their writing skills. Some of the essays in the book were written with oratorical flourish, but most of the selections used casual, everyday language.

The importance of being a reliable narrator, passion and knowledge for the subject matter, and the ability to seek out classic building materials for the personal essay are all cited as important.

It will be noted that the essay anthology featuring works carefully selected by Phillip Lopate, himself an authority on essays, mirrors a rich and vibrant literary form. In effect, The Art of the Personal Essay is a celebration of the genre.

Readers can glean many different insights about the human condition and socio-political and cultural issues. There are masterpieces from ancient Greece, Rome, the Far East, and Asia. The anthology is testament to the fact that first-rate personal essayists can mirror a country’s culture and/or tackle a variety of other topics with flair and depth. Overall, the book is a very inspiring and worthwhile reading matter that students, instructors, and other professions can benefit from.

Did you like this article? Share it with your friends!

Written by Miriam

Miriam Packard works at University of Washington as an instructor at the Early Childhood and Family Studies Courses. Couple of months ago I've tried to buy research paper from one of her students but failed, because of the fact that he didn't wanted to get involved in cooperation with academic writing services. You can reach Miriam via her Facebook page.

A mark of a good writer, whether fiction, essay, or poetry, is the ability to unflinchingly illuminate the emotional issues that people often try to suppress.

An exemplar is Phillip Lopate, long acclaimed as a fine writer of the widest range: from film reviews to poetry, novels to, most of all, personal essays.

Lopate is a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, been a judge for the Pulitzer Prize, and is Professor and Director of the nonfiction writing program at Columbia University. He is my The Eminents interview today.

On the personal essay

Marty Nemko: How would you define your métier, the personal essay?

Phillip Lopate: A personal essay often includes some or a lot of personal confession. That makes the reader feel less lonely in their confusion and darkness. And confession makes you a more trustworthy narrator. But that’s not enough. The essay must also be artistically rendered: You must keep the reader engaged, whether with wit, conflict, mischief, and/or yes, with honesty.

MN: I’d like to write more personal essays. What would you say to me?

PL: In addition to the above, you must read a lot of personal essays—you needn’t reinvent the wheel. In new work, we need to see the shadow, however faint, of previous effort.

Also, most good essays are conversations with yourself, not just your decided thoughts but your dilemmas. Contradictory strands create an essay that’s richly ambivalent.

Oh and have fun writing because it enhances both the writer’s and reader’s experience.

MN: I believe the personal essay is underrated for both writer and reader. It affords the writer great freedom: not only  to be confident or admit doubt but to speak personally yet invoke others’ ideas, to be rational and/or emotional. And essayists write at a length that enables them, within a year, to explore a number of topics, whereas in a book, they’ll likely only tackle one. And as a reader, per-minute of my time, I’m getting a helluva lot: practical takeaways, a literary experience, and an intimate experience with the writer.

PL: Yes, the essay is a wonderful medium. I might mention that some writers who longed to be novelists were better as essayists: Sontag, Baldwin, Vidal, Mary McCarthy, Mailer.

On personality and relationships

MN: In your essay, Against Joie de Vivre, you wrote, “There is no harder work I can think of than taking myself off to somewhere pleasant, where I am forced to stay for hours and have fun…I don’t even like water beds.” But why not fan the flames of, as you term it, “hedonistic delusion” rather than, as psychiatrist Irv Yalom writes, “stare into the sun?”

PL: Hedonism can be a rational response to a difficult life. I’m fortunate in being able to find great satisfaction in my work. Give me something interesting to work on, not two margaritas.

MN: If you have an ability, you want to exercise it, not anesthetize it.

PL: Exactly.

MN: I’d guess that, for you, work is especially appealing because, as a writer, you have control: You can play around with your own thoughts and when you find those insufficient, draw upon others’: their wisdom, their humor, their failings.

PL: My other work, teaching, also is satisfying because I can be with people but in controlled circumstances, which aren’t as likely to yield the pain of dealing with family.

MN: But in Against Joie de Vivre, you lament that you can’t consistently focus on the quotidian. Isn’t an admirable definition of the life well-led to maximize your time doing what you’re best at, especially if it’s pro-social?

PL: Honestly, that “lament” was a form of discreet bragging. I really do like to write and when I’m not, I think, “Okay, I’ll be a good citizen now” but fact is, that’s secondary.

MN: The essays you suggested I read in preparation for this interview focused heavily on family, and earlier in this interview you spoke of pain of dealing with family. What do you want to say about family?

PL: Domesticity has been a challenge for me but painful as it’s been, engaging with family has been a school for reducing solipsism and increasing my understanding of people’s different reactions to stress. If someone in my family is getting emotionally bent out of shape, I’ve had to learn to adapt.

MN: Why, instead of their adapting to your self-described hyper-rationality, is it important for you to adapt to their emotionality?

PL: James Baldwin wrote that he wants to be a nice person and a good writer, in that order.

MN: I'd argue they should be in reverse order because being a good writer may result in your being nicer to more people, having a bigger positive impact. Agree?

PL:  For most of my life, I wanted broad impact but now, at 72, I’m not so sure that’s always my first priority.

MN: In your essay, The Story of My Father, you describe taciturnity as a privilege. Explain that.

PL: It enabled my father to go into internal exile while remaining in the family’s bosom. Indeed, at times it’s best to shut up. My wife and daughter have accused me of being too silent at breakfast but I don’t want to talk when I don’t have much to say.

MN: In that essay, you focused a lot on your dad's late-in-life dementia. You’re now almost 73 and live a life of the mind. Do you worry at all about dementia?

PL:  I do and it bothers me when I can’t, for example, remember a name. I don’t know if it’s pre-senility or whether there are too many names packed in our brains.

MN: Alas, senescence is an inevitability. All we can do is try to strike the balance between graceful acceptance and raging against the dying light. But from having engaged with you in this interview, at the risk of presumptuousness and being patronizing, it’s clear to me that whatever decrement you’ve suffered, your brain remains enviable.

PL: Thank you. I’d like to end by saying that I’ve had an enduring appreciation of psychology and so I’m pleased that this will appear in Psychology Today.

Marty Nemko's bio is in Wikipedia. His newest book, his 8th, is The Best of Marty Nemko.

Source: University of Houston Digital Library, Public Domain

Comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *