One of these passages is from an essay on the 20

th
century British poet, W.H. Auden. The essay is taken
from the great but now-defunct literary blog/journal Intersecting Lines (http://ilines.blogspot.com/).
The other passage is a destruction thereof. (Which is which? Im hoping its obvious.)

[N.B. T.S. Eliot was the author of The Waste Land, a famously opaque long-form poem that is
nonetheless a classic of modernism.]

Carefully read both passages. Decide which is best, then provide a detailed defense of your choice. Your
defense should rest on specific word choices, on clarity and detail, on conciseness, and (though you
should still try to explain it) on that amorphous quality known as style.
_____________________________________________________________________________________

W.H. Auden was an unquestionably eminent poet, but among his fellow modernist poets, he
was somewhat lacking in a quality they prizedprized, perhaps, too highly; this quality was that of
obscurity. This lack may not even have its roots in a deliberately or consciously made stylistic choice, as
his early poems, for instance, evidence an effort toward deliberate opacity. In these poems, Audens
style leans toward an overtly difficult style; imitative, perhaps of that of T.S. Eliot. It is as though,
throughout his career, Auden waged a battle against his natural tendency toward claritya battle he
would eventually lose. In this, he definitely did not exemplify the qualities of modernism, at least not
nearly to the degree that most of his contemporaries did; but he was, nonetheless, one of the greatest
modernists.
His themes are always of interest: he chooses as his subjects the epic nature of teacups and the
heroic aspects of accountants. Perhaps it was in this that the true difference between Auden and his
contemporaries lies: in his humanization of heroic motifs, while other modernists focused upon the
deconstruction of such motifs. He wrote on the subjects of unremarkable individuals, and on the
potential in such individuals for a certain greatness. Witness this quality in his minor satirical
masterpiece, The Unknown Citizen:

He had everything necessary to the Modern Man,
A phonograph, a radio, a car and a frigidaire.
Our researchers into Public Opinion are content
That he held the proper opinions for the time of year;
When there was peace, he was for peace: when there was war, he went.
He was married and added five children to the population,
Which our Eugenist says was the right number for a parent of his generation.
And our teachers report that he never interfered with their education.
Was he free? Was he happy? The question is absurd:
Had anything been wrong, we should certainly have heard.



W.H. Auden was a great poet but a bad modernist. He kept attempting obscurity and slipping
into lucidity. He made rhymes accidentally, and poetry incidentally. He really couldn't help himself. His
earlier poems seem to be deliberately difficult: it's as if he has to force himself to write like Eliot.
Incessantly, his words threaten to make sense. Auden was definitely not the most modern of the
modernists (which to some of them may have been the most important thing), but he was certainly the
most talented.
His themes are always interesting: he writes about the epic nature of teacups, about the heroic
qualities of accountants. Maybe that was the difference between Auden and his contemporaries. Other
modernists took the hero out of the man; Auden put the man back in the hero. He wrote about minor
characters and their potential for greatness. Think about his miniature satirical masterpiece, The
Unknown Citizen:

He had everything necessary to the Modern Man,
A phonograph, a radio, a car and a frigidaire.
Our researchers into Public Opinion are content
That he held the proper opinions for the time of year;
When there was peace, he was for peace: when there was war, he went.
He was married and added five children to the population,
Which our Eugenist says was the right number for a parent of his generation.
And our teachers report that he never interfered with their education.
Was he free? Was he happy? The question is absurd:
Had anything been wrong, we should certainly have heard.




















I wrote two intros for the Should safety always come first? thesis brainstorming topic. They both have
the same thesis. Which is the better-written one? Repeat the above exercise here.

If safety is always first, it becomes a goal in itself. The problem with the point of view that states that
safety should always take precedence is that this view misunderstands the point of safetyin fact, it
misunderstands the point of life. Safety protects us so that we can have more experiences. If that
purpose disappears, if we say instead that safetys protection is itself the most valuable thing we can
seek, then we place every other activity at a lower priority. If protecting ourselves becomes our highest
goal, well forever weigh everything against its potential to do us harm, and the scale will never tip in
favor of kindness, excitement, selflessness, courage, mercy, curiosity, or forgiveness. Everything of value
is devalued. Nothing can ever be more precious, according to this viewpoint, than the continued division
of cells; nothing is higher or worthier than air inhaled, then exhaled. By placing safety first at all times,
by making it an end of life rather than a means of life, we would place upon safety a burden of
significance that it cannot bear. All would, literally, be lost.


The problem with the point of view that states that safety should always take precedence is that this
view misunderstands the purpose of safety. The purpose of safety is to keep one safe so that one can
continue having meaningful experiences; it does not have a purpose outside of this one. Because many
of the most valuable elements of life can contain danger, the point of view that places safety first
negates the value in those elements. This point of view makes safety more important than even the
most cherished parts of human life, and if one allows that to happen, all the importance goes out of
everything else. Safety cannot be more important that the things it is supposed to protect, because that
is not what it is meant to do.


















Gaudy style accessories you may or may not wish to wear
I like these style tactics, but you should only add them to prose thats already workmanlike and effective.
If you add them to poor or unclear prose, they only cloud meaning further.
Also, these are just some style gimmicks that characterize my particular style. You may not like them. I
provide them mostly as an example, to encourage you to start building a similar wardrobe of devices.

Parallelism (often repeated parallelisms):

He kept attempting obscurity and slipping into lucidity. He made rhymes accidentally, and poetry
incidentally.

Everything of value is devalued.

The people are already at peace. We do not start wars, and we do not support them. Wars are started
and supported by one specific group: government leaders.

Audaciously long lists of powerfully meaningful, slightly contrasting things (generally examples of
some point):

The scale will never tip in favor of kindness, excitement, selflessness, courage, mercy, curiosity, or
forgiveness.

Prior to Structuralism, Derrida argues, structure was not thought of for its own sake, although there has
been awareness of structure as long as there has been Western thought. Instead, centers were used to
correlate elements of structure (symbols, words, language, ideas, consciousness) with one another in
broad enough groups such that they appeared to be symbolizing genuine gestalts and irreducible truths.

Describing the world that created the epic, Lukcs declares, It is a homogeneous world, and even the
separation between man and world, between I and you, cannot disturb its homogeneity. This is the
essence of totality: man, world, thought, body, spirit, past, present, ideal, and reality were
indistinguishable from one another in Lukcss happy age of epic.

Amusingly overliteral repurposings of clichs:

All would, literally, be lost.

Having concluded that language itself is paradoxical, there is literally nothing more to say on the subject.

Subtle puns (and only subtle ones):

By placing safety first at all times, by making it an end of life rather than a means of life, we would place
upon safety a burden of significance that it cannot bear.
Please rewrite this horrid paragraph.

It may seem like ignorance is bliss, because of all the unhappy and disturbing things a person can know
in this world. But saying ignorance is bliss is a statement that all ignorance is bliss and all knowledge is
unhappiness of some sort, while in fact there is a great deal of knowledge that can make a person
happy. In fact, ignorance can cause unhappiness with just as much ease and just as frequently as
knowledge can, so neither one can simply be called bliss unless one can point out what the knowledge
or ignorance is of.

__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________