Peter Ho Davies 4.4

Peter Ho Davies is a man of great intellect and strategy. He uses many techniques that help catch the reader. He uses different styles of techniques from words, repetition, title, and other small tenacious details. They are not meant to annoy or disturb the reader, but to make them think about the suggestions and possibilities that are or might be mentioned in the text.
Ho Davies uses his creativeness to make the reader think, and to make them think critically but also vaguely. The reason I mention vaguely is because it is sometimes hard to find the answers within a reading. We are brought up to think critically, but in this case I feel that it is the best idea to be vague. However, there is a point of defining or interpreting vaguely. When you are vague you are easily open to so many options, but when reading Ho Davies, it might be the best to think of all the options there are.
It was the first time going through the story “What You Know?” that there might have been a connection between what Ho Davies was saying about writing and the possibility of the broad range of topics that one can write about. I initially interpreted it as a question, “Why do students choose to write about topics they haven’t quite experienced?” I figured that it was also about suicide mainly because of the student who killed himself. Then as it went along, it became harder to see the topic about suicide. It seemed to be more about homicide. If you think about it, at what point did the teacher try to commit or follow through steps of going through suicide? He got to the point of shooting at a shooting range, but that just shows us him shooting at targets and possibly finding out what it might be like to shoot at people. In the end he just shows us the difficulties of trying to write about a subject that is really close, almost a personal matter.
He writes as a person that is concerned possibly with the fact that no one is a perfect writer. Writers are not perfect. They may have everything correct through grammar and punctuation, but it might be that the ideas and ideals are not perfect. There is not a book where all I can agree with the general idea or view of the text. You have critics on both sides. Even students who read books cannot always agree with the same ideas. If you pick apart the book by looking at the individual thoughts, then you might be able to get an agreement, but not everyone is alike, thus you will get different views and thoughts about how the text should or should have been approached.
As I reread the piece, there were things that caught my eye, techniques. Some of these were his uses of words, the title, repetition and also his voice. Many of these helped me reevaluate the story and try to understand what could have been attempted or to be stated. Throughout the story he uses all of these techniques to help us, the audience, try to understand what he is trying to state and explain. The issues he is exploiting and critiquing to make use think about the issues as a whole and as an individual.
His usage or words is quite interesting. He keeps them basic, but yet seems to add a twist to it. He puts a twist on his words and phrases, which makes them interesting to look at. An example is, “Writers aren’t godlike, I tell them, readers are. Writers only create, readers judge.” He puts us in the position to think differently. It might be that perhaps as non-professional writers we think they are amazing and have quite the ability to write, but he says no, we are the godlike people. We have the power to judge and so call “condemn” what we think is great. In the end though, it is true, we are the ones with the power to kill or promote this “life” or work or art.
His use of voice is also enthusiastic. At moments he can be very, very serious, such as the parts of talking about the deaths and suicide the teacher’s student Clark. But at the same time when the teacher is arguing with a student about the Grassy Knell, when in reality it is Knoll. He puts humor into apiece where it is already difficult to figure out the message. When something is sad or happy we can follow what the point might be, but this message to an extant is sad. We know this through the struggles this teacher is going through. The tone is shown through the words, at times vulgar, but also the way in which he puts them together and how he likes them as a sentence. The words create an atmosphere of intense action, and at points a comic relief to which we can laugh or be ‘disturbed’ at.
Repetition is key in his works. He uses repetition to make us think constantly at what his message is. It doesn’t state this in his work, but I think that his main priority is to have that message which he is trying to point out, come up every time through words and actions which are shown. He at one point may write out an action, but then the next time, describe it through words, and not show or illustrate what he mentioned before. Off topic, but as we watched that movie Elephant, the use of repetition was incredible. However it gave us the different perspectives of each person. We saw scenes over and over again. But, it helped us figure out what the life was like of the characters. Davies uses this technique to help us illustrate what is trying to be stated.
Finally, the title was amazing. It can be interpreted in two ways. The first as an interrogative statement; the second being a declarative statement. If you add a question mark to it, it questions us to what we know. As I stared at it, I did not know what to say. I thought of it as a rhetorical question. We do not have to answer, but reflect. What I mean is that in the course of writing, it is something we have to ask ourselves, “Do I know what I am writing or attempting to answer?” I find it hardest to describe his technique here, but I think that he meant it in both a question and as a statement. The statement saying, what is that you know about something where you can reflect and write about? This to me gives the reader the option to pick what they want to ask or declare.
In conclusion, Peter Ho Davie is a rather difficult person to figure out. His style and techniques make it even more difficult to figure out what he wants us to know. I see it as an open-ended sentence. He provides us with the beginning, but in the end, we are the ones who have to put the final words in and that punctuation mark in, whether it is a period or a question mark. His piece makes or possibly forces us to think openly and solve the problem, as we feel necessary. This story has made the reader more open-minded about writing, but at the same time, attentive to what has to be looked and critically analyzed.