In light of my apparent tardiness to the seminar, I would like to admit that the query posited by Bettina

was very informative; likewise, Dr. Peckson’s own points that postulated the dichotomy between that of
written art and physical art is also something of note that I had not taken into consideration. Longinus’
works on the sublime has put forward a lot of interesting avenues on the kind of qualities of what makes
a written work so unique that it stands out by itself among other works that are just as equally unique as
it. I would also like to remain that something that stood out to me was how the rhetoric in his study on
sublimity was how it seems he valued more towards making a mark of one’s own stylistic choice to make
it distinct from the rest over rules levied by his period’s more popular constituent’s standards and
technicalities. I do also appreciate the simple direction of phrase and diction that he puts up with.
Hearing more in-line with the crossover between that of Art and Literature, I have now come to an
understanding of how sublimity is different when applied to literary works and artistic creations that,
while both achieve a sense of resplendence that inspires and elevates the medium that they exist in, in
Longinus’ case, the sublime in literature is more centered to create a sense of awe from the audience.
And in order to do that, would be to do it in at the most simple and concise way while also letting go of
one’s own perception of “what is” or “what should be”, and just allowing one’s self to channel “what
can be”. This, I feel, is strongly noted when they fully trust the process should they let themselves be
emboldened by what they can do when they set their imaginations to their own writing to achieve the
result they intend to accomplish; whether the genre of their work is romantic, suspenseful, tragic, or
dramatic, if it is befitting to that of style and setting, it is something that is potential of sublimity.