But what lasts forever? People don’t write like Keats anymore, but does that mean Keats is less important? I mean, it would be silly and embarrassing to really earnestly try to write in Keats’s style now, but that’s certainly no evidence that his poetry and other poetry from that time is less good, right? (I sort of just said the same thing twice there. Sorry.)

But what lasts forever? People don’t write like Keats anymore, but does that mean Keats is less important? I mean, it would be silly and embarrassing to really earnestly try to write in Keats’s style now, but that’s certainly no evidence that his poetry and other poetry from that time is less good, right? (I sort of just said the same thing twice there. Sorry.)

I tried, however gropingly, to define my term of essayistic, what I think essayistic is. All those paths leads to the notion of what genre is in the first place, and in that regard, I am doomed to fail. Which is fine.

I’m not as invested in that at all anyway–not nearly as much as I am as pointing out that the term lyric essay is out-of-thin-air-bunk and gets on my nerves, both for what it has stood for and what wings of writers promote it. It does lead to a dead-endish “limiting” reading experience, too.

I tried, however gropingly, to define my term of essayistic, what I think essayistic is. All those paths leads to the notion of what genre is in the first place, and in that regard, I am doomed to fail. Which is fine.

I’m not as invested in that at all anyway–not nearly as much as I am as pointing out that the term lyric essay is out-of-thin-air-bunk and gets on my nerves, both for what it has stood for and what wings of writers promote it. It does lead to a dead-endish “limiting” reading experience, too.

But anyway, while reading this thread, I thought a lot about this old thread:

htmlgiant.com/?p=14528

I got the feeling reading that one that folks were using the same terms (particularly “narrative”) without having agreed on definitions.

So when you say –

“If said piece of writing doesn’t have an idea, doesn’t have a subject matter, doesn’t explore it, and doesn’t have an “I” that links to either, or, or preferably both, then it’s not an essay and it might not even be essayistic”

– I have a good idea what you’re describing, and I tend to agree with you.

On the other hand, I see what John’s getting at in challenging the terms. Still, I’d be surprised if he also didn’t have a good idea what you were describing it.

My problem with the kind of essay you describe, as with the definition of narrative i linked to above, is it seems to kind of only allow for free-association on the part of the reader, which may seem kind of liberating, but is ultimately limiting as I see it.

But anyway, while reading this thread, I thought a lot about this old thread:

htmlgiant.com/?p=14528

I got the feeling reading that one that folks were using the same terms (particularly “narrative”) without having agreed on definitions.

So when you say –

“If said piece of writing doesn’t have an idea, doesn’t have a subject matter, doesn’t explore it, and doesn’t have an “I” that links to either, or, or preferably both, then it’s not an essay and it might not even be essayistic”

– I have a good idea what you’re describing, and I tend to agree with you.

On the other hand, I see what John’s getting at in challenging the terms. Still, I’d be surprised if he also didn’t have a good idea what you were describing it.

My problem with the kind of essay you describe, as with the definition of narrative i linked to above, is it seems to kind of only allow for free-association on the part of the reader, which may seem kind of liberating, but is ultimately limiting as I see it.