<p>OffThePrairie, I went to “edit options” and changed my setting to 40 posts per page, so I only had to read three pages of arguments ;)</p>
<p>A bit more about Ulysses and Gravity’s Rainbow: I wrote my senior thesis comparing these two, back in the 70s (GR had JUST been published). Despite the apparent humor in GR, I found Ulysses to be a far more optimistic book and the language is more, well, literary and long-lasting. I can’t slog my way through GR ever again as I find it incredibly thick and bleak, whereas I can pick up U and read bits and enjoy the poetic language and, yes, the story. Faulkner (did NOT follow Orwell’s rules!) is highly readable and I just don’t like Hemingway, his spare language be d-mned. Today, old fart mom that I am,when I want to read really good essays, I read E.B. White’s One Man’s Meat or Alex Ross’s The Rest is Noise. (Sorry, have never learned how to italicize on CC!)</p>
<p>I have gone back and reread the original post twice. Two questions were asked. Well, actually three, but the third one is not that important for this discussion.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No where does the OP ask if this style of writing is appropriate for an admissions essay; no where does the OP ask if he/she made a mistake in sending the essay. Have we gotten off-track by quibbling over a question that the OP never asked? </p>
<p>It seems the two questions can be combined into “Can I be reasonably sure that AdCom officers are well-read enough to correctly interpret my essay.”</p>
<p>I’m sorry, but it doesn’t seem like too much of a leap to rephrase this into the question the OP REALLY wants to ask - “Are AdCom officers smart enough to correctly interpret (and understand) my essay.”</p>
<p>“I think someone earlier offered you a diagnosis of insecurity, and I’ll second that.”</p>
<p>Perhaps. </p>
<p>I was thinking more of the, “well, there are a bunch of exceptions I would love to detail, but would lead us off track” aspect, but you might have a point. Perhaps.</p>
<p>To one of the original questions: In my experience, most admissions offices have three basic types of readers: part-time, hired guns who work only during reading season; young, recent college grads, among whom there is usually high turnover; and a few senior people, mainly in leadership positions, who morph into readers during the reading season. Few people in admissions are academics. You’re basically writing for an audience of well-educated, nonacademic readers. It’s a very different audience than writing for grad school admissions where the “admissions committee” is often the graduate faculty.</p>
<p>I agree with you completely. If the OP had asked “I would like to major in some aspect of aeroscience engineering, and am going to apply to Princeton and Embry-Riddle. Can I write an essay to E-R and use a more technical language and style, and assume they will understand the terms?” that would have been an important and interesting question. However, I think (for whatever that’s worth) that what the OP really wants to hear is that the style they have used in their essay will so impress an AdCom that it will outweigh the rest of their (as they admit) somewhat less outstanding academic record. Will the WAY they have written be more impressive than WHAT they have written. Unfortunately, what the OP is hearing is that, in fact, the essay sounds contrived, pedantic, and obscure, and will probably sound the same way to an AdCom. Dreams meet reality. Maybe we need to move on and solve other CCer’s problems.</p>
<p>Every writer, English language teacher, “how to write well” book will tell you that simplicity is key. The best writers know how to make the most impact with the least amount of words. </p>
<p>To be frank, it doesn’t matter if literature is part of who you are. That doesn’t change the fact that your excerpt is too lengthy and descriptive. (If you really think literature is that important to you, why not write your essay on how it has become part of who you are?) </p>
<p>I have no idea who you are and how you act, and I’m not calling you out or anything, but when people read your excerpt, most will automatically think “overdone, pretentious, etc.” If you want to change that perception, I suggest you make revisions to your essay.</p>
<p>Wait a second, doesn’t anyone think that the page-217 essay is a different kettle of fish than a standard college essay? It can be as literature-like as he wants–it’s his autobiography, not a typical college application essay about an event or person who had an impact on his life, for heaven’s sake.</p>
<p>And if applicants are all told over and over again to "be yourself’ and the OP’s natural writing is that way and NOT like keep-it-simple-stupid Hemingway’s, what is the beef?</p>
<p>I’m seeing a surprising amount of vitriol (yes, I’ve used that fancy word in speech, and I’ve said esoteric many times). Perhaps we are reacting to the implication–and he didn’t say this exactly, people are just inferring it–that the OP is concerned that adcoms don’t have the literary background to catch his references (although I’ll bet anyone in the Music Theater forum knows who Javert is!). I say he can make all the obscure references he wants in a page-217 essay. For all we know, they showed up on page 216. It’s a completely different animal. Or maybe I’m just missing something. I’m not sure why this gets my back up, especially since I love Strunk and White.</p>
<p>The writing is what is most important to me, and I feel like the excerpt the OP provided was not good writing. It’s my personal opinion, and the opinion of the most of the people who have responded.</p>
<p>I’m not preaching bare-as-bones Hemingway style, but there has to be some level of clean and effective writing. Why does he need two analogies when one will suffice? Yeah, he likes both analogies and sees the merits of both, but as a writer you have to make those kinds of decisions and cut where possible. Hemingway wouldn’t even have that kind of allusion in his writing, but that doesn’t make allusions bad.</p>
<p>“Why does he need two analogies when one will suffice?”</p>
<p>Because I was interviewed by two officers, who both had different characters?</p>
<p>I wasn’t interviewed by one person, you know.</p>
<hr>
<p>“I had half-expected to see the cold, alert face of Mr. Charrington and or the resolute conviction of Javert.”</p>
<hr>
<p>That little piece of information just made a world of difference. Why didn’t you just say that in your first post? Your initial post said “bunch of officers”, so I thought using exactly two analogies to describe “a bunch” of people seemed sort of pointless and too descriptive. I’m sure in context, if you specifically mention (best in a passing sort of way) that there were just 2 officers, that sentence is fine. I’m still iffy on allusions, but that is personal opinion… I generally never like allusions. </p>
<p>(Secondly, you should choose between “and” or “or”, because using both is weird.)</p>
<p>But another question: are these two allusions the only two in your essay?</p>
<p>In my essay, most of the dialogue was between me and two officers. I had some further interactions with various other individuals (but I didn’t “debate” with them).</p>
<p>Indeed, I only used two allusions.</p>
<p>I do not know why suddenly people think I littered allusions throughout my essay: I did not. A good chunk of the essay was a heated discussion between me and the officers arguing over a legal requirement to censor one’s own speech if it bordered on an “out-of-bounds” area. </p>
<p>"Why didn’t you just say that in your first post? "</p>
<p>There were some other characters I spoke to that I remember, but they are not in the essay – they were originally, but I cut them out. I did mention this, but perhaps not too obviously. I remember the two officers the best, but when I remember the meeting, I always remember the incident as a meeting with “a bunch” of people. (The readers will never know this, however.)</p>
<p>i dont think you have to worry as long as the adcom gets what you are trying to imply…btw I know loads of people who filled their essays with literary references and referred to philosophers i have never even heard of…they all got in</p>