Michel de Montaigne, to say the least, was not my cup of tea. However, I enjoyed the exposure to sixteenth century writing and the challenge presented to me. Emulating his work, I knew would be difficult for me because it is so vastly different from the way I write. A few things I noticed about Montaigne's work include:
When we meet a spider resting upon a wall, in a house that we call our own, not belonging to the spider that has taken the space as its dwelling, instinct acts over reason; why has a minuscule arachnid taken rest where it should not? In a fit of fury we crush the spider; our blood pressure rises as we crumble the paper enclosing the corpse, and perhaps we throw the paper in with other waste. But is the spider, for we treat it as such, truly worthless? For a moment we may reflect on what we have taken from the world, the more vicious of humans simply evading such thoughts because idyllic creatures should not be bothered with such minor losses; the spider, who may not have known the error in his intrusion, did not hurt; but the threat imposed by its unwelcome existence, outweighs the mosquito it once at for our skins' sakes, for we took no time to understand the spider before making our final judgment.
- Use of ostentatious language, to a great extent
- Long, in-depth sentences (which I am not sure can actually be called sentences anymore–merely separate clauses strung together by semi-colons)
- Quotes inserted into his writing as neatly as if he had coined the phrases himself
The following short essay is my attempt at emulating Montaigne.
"About a spider resting upon a wall"
When we meet a spider resting upon a wall, in a house that we call our own, not belonging to the spider that has taken the space as its dwelling, instinct acts over reason; why has a minuscule arachnid taken rest where it should not? In a fit of fury we crush the spider; our blood pressure rises as we crumble the paper enclosing the corpse, and perhaps we throw the paper in with other waste. But is the spider, for we treat it as such, truly worthless? For a moment we may reflect on what we have taken from the world, the more vicious of humans simply evading such thoughts because idyllic creatures should not be bothered with such minor losses; the spider, who may not have known the error in his intrusion, did not hurt; but the threat imposed by its unwelcome existence, outweighs the mosquito it once at for our skins' sakes, for we took no time to understand the spider before making our final judgment.
We must consider the quick
nature to dismiss a person based on a moment of unintentional
blunder, as mistakes are often the beginning of ends; too often we are biased to faults over triumphs, for the lapses in our actions more often
than not create the ultimate self; and more often than not we are presented
with false facts about others that bring us to such conclusions:
“If you judge, investigate.”—Seneca
For without investigation, we cannot comprehend.
You don't have to tell me twice that I'm no Montaigne. In fact, I know that already... but I can try. And in the meantime, I'll continue to write on as myself.
I believe separate clauses strung together by semicolons still, sadly, allows it to be classified as a sentence, but I feel your pain. Reading Montaigne made me wonder if periods were a modern invention in writing.
ReplyDeleteAs for you thinking you'd have trouble emulating, I think you proved yourself wrong. This really did remind me of Montaigne as I read it, no need to defend your essayistic honor! (I'm truly surprised essayistic is a word. At least, Google isn't red-squiggling me.) I have the tendency too, to try and assure whoever's reading my piece that I'm aware it probably is awful, that I'm no Montainge, etc., but I don't think it's necessary. I think it takes away from the fact you actually did accomplish a decent emulation.
I think you succeeded in capturing the language, the sentence style and the use of quotes very well here. Additionally, I think your subject itself is very Montaigne-esque, particularly the way you start with a casual observation and then escalate it quickly to a much grander conclusion. I think you really pulled that off, and I thought this essay was very reminiscent of Montaigne, not to mention a pretty entertaining read on its own.
ReplyDeleteI thought this was a pretty great emulation. Your syntax definitively has that 16th century feel. Your sentences are border-line long winded and riddled with punctuation. Even your subject seems very Montaigne.
ReplyDeleteIt's the quick apples-oranges comparison that does it for me. It's as if there's a semi-colon in the white space between your first two paragraphs that indicates, "These ideas will be linked in a kind of diptych. You have to consider them together, and I'm not going to make all of the connections for you."
ReplyDeleteIn that way, you totally nailed the emulation, Angela.
Perhaps surprisingly, we will encounter a couple of essays on bugs later in the semester. I'm sure that will be thrilling for you! :-)
DW