1
Walker Percy is an author who wrote an essay titled “The Loss of the Creature” in which
he makes a claim that the only way to experience an event for what it truly is is by encountering
the situation void of any preformulations. By preformulations, Percy is referring to the
preconceived notions we enter into situations with; these preconceived notions are ideas and
visions about the situation which have been conveyed to us though culture and/or our friends and
family. Percy uses the Grand Canyon as an example; almost everyone has seen a photo or
postcard of the Grand Canyon, and almost everyone has heard stories about visiting the Grand
Canyon from friends and relatives. So, when most people go to the Grand Canyon, they do not
experience it in the same way that they would have if they had never seen pictures or heard of
it. This is true, obviously, but Percy claims that this is a problem for a reason which I will later
explain, and that there are ways in which one can experience the Grand Canyon, or anything for
that matter, as if they have no prior knowledge of it even though they do. I completely disagree
with Percy’s theory that you can eradicate your prior knowledge of an event in any way, and I
also do not feel that it is necessary to begin with.
In his essay, Walker Percy gives three ways which he believes one can recover an
experience for the full value of what it is. To begin with, though, he makes his initial claim
which is “[e]very explorer names his island Formosa, beautiful. To him it is beautiful because,
being first, he has access to it and can see it for what it is. But to no one else is it ever as
beautiful” (481). What Percy is stating here, is that the first person to see something has the
unique experience of seeing it for the first time, and that no one else will ever see it in this way
again. To an extent, this is true; it may be shocking to see something such as the Grand Canyon
when you have never heard of it, and to the next person who you told about it, it may not be so
shocking because you told them of how beautiful and vast it is.
2
Percy continues on to give the three ways in which one can eliminate preconceived
notions in order to experience a situation in a way that is closer to that of which the first person
to encounter the situations does. Percy’s first method is “[i]t may be recovered by leaving the
beaten track” (483). By this, Percy suggests that one can, say in the case of the Grand Canyon,
go to the there in a way which no one else does; possibly through some discrete road which only
locals know of.
Next, Percy suggests that “[t]he thing is recovered from familiarity by means of an
exercise in familiarity” (483). By this, Percy believes that one can experience an event through
the normal means, such as a tour guide, knowing very well that it is the usual way to experience
the event. This, in essence, will enable one to “escape their consciousness of their
consciousness” (487). Now, the person has a heightened level of awareness of the situation and
can experience the site through eyes elevated above preformulations.
The final way which Percy believes one can experience a situation void of these
preconceived notions is “[i]t may be recovered as a consequence of a breakdown of the symbolic
machinery which presents itself” (483). In this case, Percy believes that one may recover a state
of erasing your preformulations by experiencing the event in a way which is completely free
from the usual means by which someone may experience, say, the Grand Canyon. Percy
suggests that if the entire system of tourism was somehow destroyed, then one could experience
the Grand Canyon for the first time similar to the way the first person to ever see it did.
I disagree almost completely to the effectiveness of all three of these methods which
Percy suggests because once you have a preformulation, it can not be erased. I would offer a
suggestion that the only true way to experience a situation void of these preformulaions is to
undergo shock treatment, literally erasing one’s memory. These methods Percy suggest only
3
offer a way to slightly alter the experience, not a method by which to have an experience similar
to that of the first person to have done so; the reason is that one cannot erase their subconscious.
Stanley Fish wrote an essay titled “How To Recognize a Poem When You See One” in
which he discussed the concept that the ideas one has of something firsthand will alter an
experience by projecting pre-existing beliefs into the interpretation. He uses an example of when
he taught a poetry class and had written random names on the board; his class was able to
decipher meaning from the random words once he told them that they were a poem. Stanley’s
point is that when the students recognized the names to be a poem, they turned the words into a
poem through their prior knowledge of what a poem is (323-326).
This concept of interpretation though preconceived notions is very similar to Percy’s
claim about preformulations when experiencing an event. I believe that Fish would agree with
my claim that once you have preformulations, that is it; they do not leave. Stanley Fish states
that when resorting to one’s preformulations, “[n]or as you do these things, will you have any
sense of performing in a willful manner” (327). Here, Fish is pointing out that the process of
using interpretations to derive meaning happens without one even knowing that it is
occurring. This proves that the process is subconscious, and apart from one’s control. If these
preformulations are subconscious, which in turn renders them unalterable, then Percy’s claim
that you can somehow override these preformulations is completely false.
Now, a critic may attempt to claim that my interpretation of Percy’s essay is incorrect,
and that he is not stating that you can “erase” your prefromulations, but rather rise above
them. To this I say: then Percy’s essay is nothing but a contradiction, and I will explain
why. Like I have already stated, Percy says that the first person to see something sees it for what
it is, and only they do so because they do not have any prior knowledge of it; everyone after that
4
sees it along with preformulations (Percy 481). Percy then goes on to say that this first person
sees it with a full value of “P”; everyone after that sees it with a exponentially depreciating value
of “P” as more and more people give their account of the event to others (482). So in order to
get back and closer to “P”, you then must “eradicate” your preformulations; this is logical in
accordance with Percy's reasoning. Yet, Percy then goes on to say that you can be aware of the
fact that you are experiencing the situation with preformulations, and in essence, this will aid in
the recovery of “sovereignty” closer to full the value of “P” (482). So what Percy is now saying
is that a larger quantity of prior knowledge, or preformulations, held when experiencing an event
will enable one be closer to the purity of that of the first person who experienced the event void
of any preformulations; completely contradicting his own claim that preformulations pull one
away from the value of “P”.
Not only is Percy’s claim false, and/or contradicting to itself, but preformulations do not
yield to an experience which is any less riveting, the very basis of reasoning Percy uses to make
his claim that one needs to decimate prefromulations to begin with. If anything, the
preformulations which were created prior to the experience may do the experience absolutely no
justice; you may have never imagined something to be so incredible. In this case,
preformulations may have only built up an anxious excitement to see this thing for yourself, and
then you were utterly blown away by it. A preformulation does alter the experience in a way, but
not necessarily to a negative degree as Percy claims; it can even enhance the experience.
I recently wrote an anecdote about a situation which I experienced where my
preformulations played a major role in the outcome of the event…[paragraph applying claim
to anecdote has been removed]
5
In this previous example, my preformulations played a major role in my
emotions….[paragraph which reflects upon/analyzes anecdote in relation to claim has been
removed].
In conclusion, preformulations, interpretation, and reality are all relative to the eye of the
beholder, due to the deceptive nature of perception which is subject to alteration through the
interchangeable dimension of perspective. These preconceived ideas and notions are subject to
change and alteration; however, they are not avoidable or erasable. Even more so,
preformulations, interpretations and reality are truly unique to each individual; they are by no
means universal. With that being said, I will now go on to explain why the educational system
which dictates the standard of interpretation, by defining the meaning of each piece of writing as
factual in accordance with personal opinion, can be a detrimental problem in the realm of
education by using my own personal experiences as an example….
[three pages of the elevated conclusion have been removed].
Works Cited
Fish, Stanley. “How To Recognize a Poem When You See One.” Is There a Text in This
Class?. President and Fellows of Harvard College, 1980. Print.
Percy, Walker. “The Loss of the Creature.” Ways of Reading. Bedford / St. Martin’s, 2008.
Print.