Fact v. Fiction in Autobiographies: The Million Little Pieces Effect

It is easy to draw comparisons between Augustine's Confessions and Ellison's Invisible Man. As Professor Jackson said, they both were "written in a retrospective way, they are recalling past events and imbuing them with a significance that they might not have had at the time. In addition, both write autobiographically, in the first person; the main actor is "I" in each work." However, the significant difference, that one is fact and the other fiction, creates a rift between these two works in the parameters in which they can be effective. The limitation on Augustine's work is that his teaching stories and remembrances must be confined to the truth. On the other hand, Ellison is not confined to the truth and may twist his story here and there to convey his intended meaning. However, if Ellison crosses the line of believability, he loses his audience who would perceive it as ridiculous. Augustine can cross this line (though he does not really do so) because it simply makes his story more magnificent. Though if either stray too far from fact in their autobiographical works, they risk what I like to call the Million Little Pieces Effect.

The Millions Little Pieces Effect occurs when one's fact-based book or story strays so from fact so as to be unbelievable, yet, based on its genre, people believe it for a while. Eventually the story comes out, however, and the potential that the book would have had is a true piece of fiction is destroyed by the public outrage at it being published as fact or near-fact.

Based on these past couple of paragraphs, one can see where this blog is leading. Of course it makes a difference if something is fact or fiction. Fiction has potential that fact does not and vis versa. However, fact has the potential to make the unbelievable amazing, while fiction only makes it annoying. Had Augustine's work been a novel, it would have lacked any of the conversion power that it held as a true and amazing account of his life. Likewise, if Ellison's work was pure fact, it would be controversial to a fault, embarrassing and incriminating for those involved, and very likely repulsive to much of the general public. The fictional mask that it puts on allows Invisible Man to teach a lesson to all those who read it without bringing in the obvious extra issues that a true personal history would entail.

Analysis Question #6

I think that Augustine's confessions/autobiography would have done much better if it were more like Ellison's book. I don't believe it really matters if a memoir is fictional or nonfictional as long is it is believable easy to read. Most of the reason I didn't like Augustine is because he spoke in a language that was hard to understand, and for me, the religious aspect was hard to relate to and I couldn't follow it as easily. The Invisible Man, on the other hand, is still not relatable but much easier to read because Ellison makes it sound more like a story. Even though the story is fictional, it is believable because at the time, this way of life was common. I also like how it is a memoir all the way through, whereas Augustine was much more philosophical. I Augustine, he complains about how he feels guilty for stealing pears and such, but in The Invisible Man, the main character is dealing with much more serious issues. This makes me like Ellison's memoir much more. How could I be interested in a man who feels guilty about stolen pears when the man in The Invisible Man is dealing with racism at its worst?

Analysis Question #5 (forgot to do this earlier...woops!)

I have read other autobiographies before, and I have to say, not every single one was full of dramatic experiences or life-changing moments. Yes, there are the autobiographies about celebrities or other famous people that do contain these dramatic experiences, but what about all the autobiographies about friends or family? I have had to write autobiographies almost every year and had to peer review for them, so I have read a lot that were not by someone famous. One thing I found was that even if this person did not have the most exciting life experiences, it was still interesting as a reader to see their "back region" Writing can make anyone's guard come down, especially in autobiographies since it is about that specific individual's own life and experiences. They can be as honest as they want without worrying about seeing the reader's reaction. This is what grabs me as a reader. The more truthful the writer is and the more I can relate to the writer, the more I am interested in reading about their life.

I guess what I am trying to say is that you don't have to be the president of the United States or Oprah Winfrey to have an interesting autobiography that is worth reading. I think any kind of life would be exciting to read about because it lets you see how others perceive themselves and the world.

National Mall

Wednesday's trip to the monuments was a lot of fun because I really love the National Mall. The only problem for me was that the sun was way too hot! I was partnered with Anna which went well. Anna and I sort of joined with Molly and Linda for most of the ethnography.

Something that we spent some time discussing was the question of why they picked Lincoln and Washington for the memorials. We discussed this for a while and came to the conclusion that Washington, you could say, started the country whereas Lincoln stabilised it.

To me, the entire National Mall is magnificent. I am not American, yet the Mall still causes me to become emotional sometimes. I love the quotes of the famous people along the walls and the ground. They all sound so intelligent. It's like how Katie told my group that her favourite part is the Martin Luther King quote in the ground near to the Lincoln Memorial. She said she would stand up and just stare at it for some time before moving on. The quotes definitely create a sense of identity I suppose, as they single out specific people who were instrumental in the history of USA.

Monumental Ethnography

I thoroughly enjoyed our ethnography of the monuments with the assistance of members of the Board of Trustees. Our comparisons of the different memorials' subliminal messages made the advertising we see everyday seem honest.

The comparison of the Vietnam and World War II memorials was especially eye-opening. The grandeur and celebration present in the WWII memorial would at first strike one as odd for a war that led to the death of millions and millions of people. However, remembering back on the war, it actually represented a time of ultimate glory, moral authority, and unity. It was the real highlight of American history. By contrast, the Vietnam memorial showed the polar opposite for the time it represents. As one member of our group pointed out, it resembles a scar on our nation's capital when seen from above. Likewise, rather than representing unity, the Vietnam memorial recognizes each soul taken by the war individually, recognizing the complete absence of nationalism at the time.

All of the memorials, but especially these two, were products of their time and place: the US during a major war. But in talking about how these two factors can shape the identity of a memorial, I noticed on Tuesday how they can also shape the identity of a person. One of the Trustees, who shall remain nameless, asked me where I was from; I responded that I was from Kentucky; she likewise responded, "You're not in Kansas anymore, are you." Out of regard for Prof. Jackson's job security and in a testament to my own self-control, I did not respond to this comment in a way that I normally would have. However, I must argue that this woman is very likely a product of her time and location of development. In this case, probably a New England private school education, an east coast higher education, and a lifetime living in large-ish cities with movement limited to no more than three homogeneous New England states. These stereotypes (and that is what they are) base from my experiences that people from this situation (or from the main cities of the left coast) rarely acknowledge the presence of cities within the American mainland and appear to think that America is still an agrarian society since 90% of the US's inhabitable land must still be overrun with farm boys.

Ah what a digression: the beauty of blogging.

The extent to which this careless comment moved me to irritation and to expound equally careless statements the other way is a testament to the power of language (and irritation).

Reflection: Splurging on big stone monuments

Why do we spend so much money on memorials when sometimes they don't evoke emotion? Well, doesn't it say something in itself that we spent so much money and time commemorating an event in history? Whether or not when someone looks at it and has a reaction, they are, in fact, looking at it. People know about the monuments and, generally, what they stand for. Even tourists who are so caught up with being in a new place, and just stand like dopes for a picture and then leave--they have to look back on those pictures, they have to explain what they stood in front of for someone else, they have to understand, somewhat, the significance. If there was no memorial at all, the opporunity to spread, even a hint of its importance, would not exist.

Memorial Identities

I thought our ethnography of the memorials was a lot of fun because we had freedom to take note of what we wanted. I thought it was really interesting when we all came together that we all had different perceptions and experiences of the same memorials. This is what I narrowed our discussion down to:

My group decided to compare the 2 memorials: the Vietnam memorial and the WWII memorial. We noticed a few differences. 1) The Vietnam memorial had a somber feeling about it, and even looked like a scar upon the land (if you looked at it through satellite imaging). This scar-like image showed how the memorial was of a war that most people would like to forget and it literally is a "scar" on the nations identity 2) The WWII memorial was more of a celebratory memorial to remember a war that brought the nation together. Unlike the Vietnam memorial, it was built up and drew people from all over Washington to hang out around it.

The contrast of the 2 memorials could also apply to the behavior of the people around them. Some people, such as veterans of the Vietnam war, would take the Vietnam memorial more seriously. Some groups saw the majority of people gazing at the wall in awe, as if they were searching for names and some were merely taking in the impact of the memorial itself. With the WWII memorial, however, most people just went about their everyday lives and didn't really pay much attention to the memorial. It makes me wonder, was this the way the makers of these memorials wanted people to act? What exactly did they want people to get out of these memorials?

It's a Wonderful Life Story

In a shocking aberration from normality, I have to conclude that, for once, I agree with Augustine. Some kind of significant experience, be it conversion, life-threatening, or what have you, is necessary for a good autobiography. One of the few possible exceptions to this rule would be someone who lived a relatively calm life, but discovered something exceptional or created some kind of new philosophy. Even in this case, it could be argued that such an experience would conform to a conversion or dramatic event of some sort.

The Main reason for this is fairly shallow and straightforward: an autobiography needs to be interesting to hold the reader's attention. People seeking first-hand accounts of another's life generally do not want to hear ramblings on insignificant minutia. Again, there are exceptions such as Marcel Proust, but many people would disagree with me to that extent.

On a similar thread, many people go to autobiographies for the wisdom of an event they have not experienced. Conversions, life threatening experiences, interactions with odd cultures all fit this description. Without having lived a singular life, it is unlikely that one would have the kind of hindsight wisdom on subjects that the general public would often seek autobiographical accounts on.

All of this is not to say that a good, yet relatively uneventful, life is unworthy of autobiography. I would venture to say that everyone's stories are so different that everyone's lives are worth an immortalized account. However, lives that lack the qualities mentioned above would likely produce autobiographies that would gather dust on the shelves at Barnes and Noble and inevitably end up in the clearance bin.

I would personally be thrilled to live a life that merits a good autobiography, characterized more by action than drama. However, I definitely do not feel that not having such a life would mark my time on earth as wasted. Like nearly everything else, this idea of what kind of life makes a good autobiography simply relies on the public opinion at the time, not any real, tangible qualifications.

Question 5 - I'll write my autobiography right now if you want.

I think a lot of autobiographies and 'memoirs' may not necessarily be written by people who had something particularly spectacular happen in their life that merits a novel. I mean, how many books about an owner and his/her dog have there been? It's not necessarily living through something remarkable, but having something remarkable to say--and/or having a remarkable way of saying it.

It's exactly the same as fiction writing. Anyone can write the general hero plot (villain defeats hero, conflict, hero defeats villain, happy ending), or romantic plot (boy meets girl, boy and girl can't be together, conflict, boy saves girl, happy ending). It's about how you write it, and the insight you bring into it.

So, yeah I want to live the kind of life that would merit an autobiography--my life. Just the way it is is enough for an autobiography, I think. It just depends on selection of detail and creative writing and insight.

National Cathedral

The National Cathedral was awesome. When we first arrived and we were walking towards the building, I was amazed at the size of it. I had seen pictures but I hadn't imagined it being quite so large and complex inside.

I loved how the cathedral was split into many different types of chapels which were all beautiful. The design and workmanship of the altars were stunning.

One of my favourite parts was chapel near the main altar. (to the left) I thought that it was so cool that it was one piece and not all separate pieces stuck together. Overall, the craftsmanship in that cathedral was admirable.

I actually was a bit confused about how the different faiths could share the cathedral but when I saw how it was divided; it made a lot more sense to me. (One thing that I learnt from the trip was that the Episcopal Church uses the Crucifix. I had always thought that it was mainly a Catholic symbol but in the cathedral there were many crucifixes visible.)

I think that the National Cathedral signifies unity due to the fact that it is for people of all faiths. It reminds me of how back home we generally tolerate other beliefs really well, as we have a history of varied cultures. We don't have cathedrals available for the use of multiple religions, but we live our everyday lives doing what this cathedral signifies, and that is appreciating other religions instead of ignoring them.

Reflection: Decision Making, Augustine, and Gorillas

A question was presented during our discussion of Augustine on Tuesday that reminded me of something I had learned a few weeks ago.

The question asked was was it worth giving up happiness now because of a greater happiness that you believed (though could not prove) would be found after this life?

There was a study done on gorillas and decision making, where, if a gorilla were presented with his favorite food, and allowed to choose between one piece or two, he would undoubtedly choose two. Similarly, if the food was covered, but he saw which cup contained the food beneath it, he picked that one. The interesting part came when he was presented three choices: The middle was one piece of his favorite food, in plain view. And on either side were two cups: beneath one was nothing, and beneath the other were two pieces of food. But the gorilla didn't know which cup contained the extra food.

Now, this could serve as an analogy for the simple pleasures of life (the middle piece) and heaven and hell (the two outer unknowns). We don't know what we're going to get in the after life.

Now if this option were presented to Augustine, he would obviously deny the readily presented piece of food, in favor of his confidence that he would receive double in the afterlife for his effort. This, to him, is the moral, and correct way to go. What did the gorilla do?

He chose the middle. He was willing to settle for fear of not receiving anything at all.

I think this says a lot about humanity and animal instinct in general. It's not sin to enjoy out life now, it's simply primal instinct. We know that because what comes next is unknown, we should take advantage of what we have presented for us now. What if what comes later is worse? We will have suffered for nothing.

It's also interesting then that such a--literally--unnatural way of life and thinking can be so popular. People are so sure of something so unknown and so willing to give up opportunities or pleasures presented before them. I feel like we're almost thinking too hard. The gorilla didn't think twice.

Liberal Education: Indoctrinating Your Kids with the Socialist Agenda

Though people who witnessed my questions at the time may not have seen it, I was really impressed by what Debra Humphreys had to say on liberal education. As college students sick of grades, we often complain that the institution does not really appreciate education for its own sake. I feel that the turn towards liberal education is a step towards that appreciation. However, the relatively static definition of "education" and "civic engagement" has caused led to the under-appreciation of our generation.

Ms. Humphreys showed liberal education as a progressive step away from the valuing of grades, test scores, and very specific (yet limited) knowledge. Instead she reiterated that businesses look less towards the C you got sophomore year and more at what you learned at your job or internship. This concentration on skills and concrete experiences, instead of academic hypotheticals meant to predict one's potential for success, is a smarter move for colleges. The other major concept behind liberal education that really impressed me was the concentration on civic responsibility and ethics. Stanley Katz's quote in Humphreys' article sums it up: "What counts, I think, is that their liberal education causes them to reflect on what it is they are doing for a living, how they are doing it, and what more they can do to live a fully examined life.” It's the fabrication of the long promoted idea that it is not about the money, but doing what is good and makes you happy.

As much as I appreciated the concepts presented by Ms. Humphreys, I did have some issues within her article and her presentation in that she seemed to sell short the quality of our generation. In her article, she referred to us as "larger, more diverse, and probably less well prepared for college-level learning than were cohorts in earlier eras." This seemed odd considering most of our generation learned more in high school than our parents did in college (if they went). During her presentation, Ms. Humphreys also referred to our generation's "decline in civic engagement." This definitely has some truth to it (especially if you consider protesting in the sixties as civic engagement), however, our generation has had more internships than any previous, the most community service, and the Obama campaign led to unseen numbers in young voters. The danger seemed to be in her generalizations.

Ms. Humphrey's explanation was clear, well-crafted, and satisfactory. The percentages of kids in our generation that go to college is extremely high. We send kids to college whether they're ready or not. In previous generations, only those best-prepared to go, were able to. Therefore, our top 10% are extremely qualified as I explained earlier, but our average student did not necessarily get the preparation that they needed. Additionally, the expectations to compete in the modern world are much higher and more complicated than those for the world of previous generations. In these regards, our generation is nearly impossible to compare to previous ones.

LEAP for joy

As much as I think the talk about the importance of liberal arts and the idea for LEAP were helpful and informative, I think the speaker herself, Deborah Humphreys, was a little too into herself. She would say things like "I knew I was smart" or "I went to a rich school" or "I only made it to where I am today...". I thought the organization she worked for had a good motive and she made a lot of great points about college students today. I agree that it is vital to take different types of courses because the job market changes quickly and we should develop many different skills in order to prepare for it. As someone who has no idea what I will be doing in the next 4 years, I thought what she was saying was encouraging. I think she could have presented it a little differently to make it more interactive and less "all about her" but overall it was a good presentation.

Memory and the Soul

The article on Alzheimer's really touched me. I have heard stories like this one many times but I never cease to be shocked every time I think about how someone could lose their memory. Remembering the past is something which I value a lot! This is why I love photos and why I tend to save things like ticket stubs, programs from events and other random stuff.

My grandfather suffered a couple strokes and as he aged, he began to lose his memory. I actually grew up never really knowing him that well because of this. Even though he was stuck in the past, I still got a good sense of his character; he was still Benedict Winchester.

I believe that even when memory is lost, the soul is still there and this is what makes a person. In the article, the woman remembers to go to midday mass although she has lost most of her memory. This example is not the only one that has ever been written about. I have read the book, "The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat" by Oliver Sacks and there is a story in it of a man who suffered from a disease which allowed him to remember the past vividly but to have no recollection of the present or near past. Sacks asked the caregivers at the Home whether they thought that the patient still had a soul and they told him to observe the guy in the chapel. Sacks did so, and was amazed at how focused the man was at mass.

These 2 people probably represent many others who demonstrate the way in which people may lose memory but not lose certain personal traits which people recognise them by. I believe that memory does matter a lot to identity because your history has a lot to do with who you are as a person; however I do not think that memory is solely responsible for one's identity. Even when people can't remember their past, their past is why they are who they are at present.

Sacks, Oliver. The Man Who Mistook His Wife For A Hat: And Other Clinical Tales. New York: Touchstone, 1998.

Have We Met?

It seems insensitive. The Alzheimer's article refers to memory loss as death before death. Augustine equates memory with remembrances, ideas, skills, emotions, and every sentient thing that makes us human, yet that cannot be all there is, can it? Unfortunately, I think it can. Can you still be you without memories, ideas, skills, emotions, and all of those other things provided to you by this abstract concept known as memory? Now, the questions seems straightforward, and almost simple.

Our identity centers almost entirely on our perceptions of what is going on around us and our reactions to these things based on past experiences and reactions. Hence, without our memories, we have no identity; there is nothing left that defines us as a person (with the possible exception of the disease/memory loss). To make a rather unorthodox comparison. It is like a house versus a home. If a family lives in a house, gives it character, and makes memories there, then it has become a home. However, on the opposite end, if a family leaves a house, the lights are on (or off) but no one is home, that house has no character - no identity.

Augustine might disagree with me on this one. He argues that, as we live and experience, we begin to tap into this innate or universal memory. If this is true, it is something that Alzheimer's patients would still maintain, as they are living in their memories much of the time. However, for someone who has lost his or her memory entirely, Augustine would be at a loss to protect them. First and foremost, without any recollection of their most basic experiences, they would be unable to know/come into contact with the Lord. Augustine considers the memory, with its ability to hold skills and memories, as the aspect of humanity that most separates it from "beasts." Considering this notion, he would consider anyone without their memory to be incapable of making any more of a connection with God than (as he says) horses.

Personally, I could no longer consider myself me any longer if I were to lose my memory. Everything that defines our non-visible selves is based on the memory. If we do not remember how to act when faced with a certain situation, we have lost part of our identity. If that same situation is played over a hundred-fold, then we have lost ourselves. It is an extremely sad prospect, but, for once, I think Augustine would agree with me.

Question 4 - No Memory = Who Am I Again?

This is my favorite. If I had any talent in biology I would be studying the brain like crazy, because the concept of memory blows my mind.

Here's a question I throw back at you, before I answer this one:

(It's great when I need something paradoxical to think about!)

Who would you be if you traded your mind with someone else's? Would you be yourself with someone else's memories? Or would the other person be living through your body?

Anyway...

No, you would not be you without your past. Memories are what make up the human mind. They're what make up everything. Because if you can't remember it, did it ever really happen?

A part of the Alzheimer's passasge that really wrenched my heart was when the author was talking about her aunt asking her mother if she remembered her, and her mother sadly shaking her head. Think about all the times shared between siblings, inside jokes, stories, adventures--and here is that sibling telling you she doesn't remember you. She doens't remember anything. It just does something to the credibility, I think. It makes you realize how intangible the past is.

Because your past, who you are, is all because of what you remember. It's not the facts that matter--anyone can tell me my name is Allison Taylor. But how many people can tell me that when I go skiing I do it becuase of the thrill, and when I think about skiing I feel that exciting twist in my stomach? Or when I play piano my hands just lazily fall on the keys like no big deal and when I mimic it on the table, my fingers fall in the same exact places as on a keyboard?

Mannerisms, facial expressions, reactions, they're all due to previous memories. You can tell me my name but that means nothing without the memory behind it.

Memory Loss

The article about Alzheimer's disease hit close to home for me because last year my grandfather, Abe Shmerling, passed away from this particular disease. The disease, like the article said, takes away the victim's long term memory first and eventually their short term memory. The disease is not only hard for the patient to accept, but for the patient's loved ones, it is hard to cope with as well. 

"Would you still be you if you couldn't remember your past?"

At first, I quickly said no. How could you be the same person if all the experiences you had in the past were lost forever. My grandfather was a phenomenal photographer as a young man, but as the disease progressed, he forgot how to use a camera. His identity as a photographer was lost forever. But then I thought about the other aspects of identity. Identity isn't just your experiences, but it is also what defines you (i.e. characteristics, interests, likes/dislikes, etc.). 

My grandfather had always been a soft-spoken, yet goofy man. He loved to make people laugh and could lighten the mood with his silly behavior. For instance, he used to take my thumb into his fist, and while pretending to smack my thumb, he would slide his fist up and "miss" my thumb. It is hard to visualize, but this was something he did with all his grandchildren to make them smile. I remember in the last stages of the disease, I visited him in the nursing home. He was sitting there quietly staring into space and when he saw us, his eyes lightened up. I went over to sit with him and before I knew it, he had my thumb in his hand and he pulled the same little trick he did when I was younger. He was still the same Abe Shmerling he was years before. 

In a way, losing one's memory really does take a large part of one's identity away. But not all of it. You can still retain all of one's characteristics that make up one's personality or one can even perform certain behaviors that had been ritualistic in the past (i.e. the thumb trick or in the case of the author's mother, washing the dishes). 

Portrait of a Thriller

Our visit to the National Portrait Gallery and subsequent discussion in class made me realize just how much portraits allow people to present their desired front. Then when I was sitting through a particularly boring economics lecture, I realized that being a lecture hall professor allowed something similar. With such a large class, the professor is essentially a fixture posed at the front of the class, permitted to portray himself in whatever way he sees fit.

My economics professor, who will go unnamed, paints a particularly interesting portrait of himself when presenting to our early-morning drone. Giving little personal information and having minimal back-and-forth with the students, he can be whoever he wants to. He (or maybe she) begins every class with "good morning" in some new and exotic language. Subsequently, he proceeds with the day's humdrum lecture with such fantastic inflection that it appears as if he is not the economics teacher that would be his job description, but a world traveller (as his affinity for language would imply) who has come to our class to recount the epic adventures of economists long passed and from faraway lands.

Is this a front? Who knows. Is it simply corkiness and a well-meant attempt to liven up a dry introductory class? Probably. But my inability to discern what exactly this professor is trying to pull makes the front (or lack of one) all the more perplexing and effective. This is real world Goffman.

Portrait Gallery

It's no secret that I love photos, which is why I was so excited about our trip to the Portrait Gallery. The trip was everything I had hoped for and more. What I didn't expect was the amount of history that the gallery held. I loved the was in which each portrait told someone's story and even though I may not have known all the subjects and their importance in American history, I left the museum with new information.

I really loved it when the tour guide quizzed us on the Washington portrait =) She was intelligent and I think she did a great job. The way she made us analyse certain pieces by asking us questions about what we saw in the portraits was really interesting. (For example, with the Rosa Parks piece)

One of my favourite portraits was the one of George Washington Carver. As we entered the room and I turned to see that portrait, it really caught my attention. It evoked a sense of peace and simplicity. I have to say that I don't know much about him but from what I read on the caption, I had already understood just by watching the painting. It was beautiful.

I was a bit disappointed that we only had enough time to see a minor portion of the gallery. I did, however, end up going back to the museum on Friday with my cousin. On my return trip, I saw areas with viewing benches. I just thought I'd mention that since we spoke about the absence of these in the areas we looked at.

I hope to make it back there soon because I still haven't seen the entire gallery.

Reflection: History is not art, but art has history.

Our tour guide insisted that the National Portrait Gallery wasn't an art museum and that it should be taken more as a history museum. Well, I hate history.

But I really loved the National Portrait Gallery. There's always going to be history represented in art, especially when depicting people and true events. But there's so much more to be appreciated and gathered from the art. To so strongly say that it's not an art museum is almost offensive. Especially when she took us around and had us using many of the same techniques for viewing art that you would use in a *real* art museum. What kinds of symbols are represented? How does the color scheme affect the mood? Do the brush strokes seem contemplated or quick? Was is it a large or small brush? Why? What does the angle of the portrait tell about the person? Their expression?

These aren't aspects of history, but art. In fact, most of the history is not learned from these portraits if you didn't already have a background in the issue. While Kennedy's portrait was drastically different from the rest, no one would ever go up to it and say "Oh, this must have been this way because JFK didn't like sitting for portraits. " You would say "The hurried, large brush strokes, cool colors and relaxed pose maybe indicate he was not as uptight and stuck on tradition." I was really taken aback by how many times she wanted to wipe the belief that this was an art museum. It was one of the coolest art museums I've been to yet in DC.

'Advertisement' for Catholicism

I believe that this book can be a sort of "advertisement" for Catholicism. Augustine uses examples from his life to show the reader how one doesn't have to be perfect to become a Catholic. I think that if we look at it as an "advertisement" then this is a great punchline since this idea of the necessity to be perfect, is what pushes many people away from Catholicism.

Augustine confesses his sins, such as his lust towards women in the book. If we look at the audience as being people who want to find their faith but are afraid that because of their sins, they will not be accepted by God - then Augustine saying that he committed these common sins is aimed to encourage the audience. I say this because Augustine is now Saint Augustine even though he himself is guilty of sin, which just shows the reader that he can still be accepted into the faith ... once he confesses.

Overall, I think that Augustine's is advertising redemption in God. His life story proves that a sinful person can be forgiven; no matter how deep into sin he/she may feel they are.

3B: Sin and Salvation

Augustine's prolific, nay, continuous and mind-numbing use of the idea of "sin" does little more than limit his range of appeal to his audience. By referring to all in which he has partaken outside of the church as sin, and by presenting the church as the way to escape sin, Augustine has cheapened, in a sense, what should be a much larger discussion.

Sin has the potential to scare a wider audience into pursuing the catholic faith for the sole purpose of salvation. However, in class there was a lot of doubt as to whether Augustine was addressing a larger common audience where this would be effective. Should he be, as we suspect, writing to his fellow officials in the church for the purpose of writing off his past as "sin," then its excessive use seems more of a cop out. Instead of delving into the complexities of theology that could bring his earlier life to the realm of the morally inconclusive. Instead, Augustine chose the simpler argument: I was wrong, I sinned, and I'm sorry.

People searching for a new kind of ideology or timid about the benefit of being catholic receive no incentive to pursue their interest further from Augustines first few chapters. Instead, they are offered salvation and forgiveness of sin purely by the renewal of baptism. This load-lightening prospect seems at once gentle and also irresponsible as it seems to promote the kind of deathbed conversions that were common at the time. If you are renewed from any and all sin that was simply that in your early life, there is no incentive to become the good Christian model advocated by the church but left aside in Augustine's narrative.

So it is debatable whether Augustine's concentration on sin limits the numerical appeal of his argument, but, ideologically, it certainly does. However, there is still much of the book left for him to address all that encompasses his faith, aside from sin and salvaton.

Question 3 - Catiline and Pears

Augustine goes throughout the beginning of his text accounting for his sins, taking blame, and explaining that all of his positive attributes are because of God. This is all well and good, with a nice message to people that if they don't sin, and confess their past sins, and just follow God, everything will work out, but he seems to be glorifying himself. You know, like when parents say "Don't worry, son, when I was your age I didn't always get things on the first try, either!" Like, Augustine is seen as someone so infallible in the eyes of the public that saying these things will come as a huge shock. Which maybe for their time, it did.

But I still can't get over this pear-stealing example. And why in the world he compared it to murder. He seems to be implying that his crime of stealing apples was a worse offense than murdering someone because "No one would commit murder without a motive" and that was just what he did with the pear. It's so grossly melodramatic. Especially with such a false statement.

He backs up this odd assertion with a reference to "Catiline." And I may have looked up this text, called The Conspiracy of Catiline, by Sallust, during class... Sallust describes a great criminal of his time, known as Catiline, and his life and trials. One trial in particular is what the section referenced in Confessions. Augustine says that even Catiline had a motive, yet, "If a motive for crime did not readily occur, he incited them, nevertheless, to circumvent and murder inoffensive persons." [XVI]

This would imply to me, that Catiline had no motive, and he then pretended to have one in order to kill. Augustine says that Catiline killed for the grandeur and wealth, and that "not even Catiline himself loved his crimes." This is a stretch though, if you ask me. To equate the desire for wealth with loving another's wife as a motive for murder, I think is not possible. While both are lousy reasons to kill, to determine that killing a lot of people will result in wealth and grandeur is a much more complex way of thinking.

Meanwhile, if you wanted to go with Augustine and say that Catiline had a legitimate motive, then Augustine stealing pears was motivated by his desire for his friends' acceptance and his own personal thrill.

Link to Sallust-The Conspiracy of Catiline (the section referenced is [XVI]): http://ancienthistory.about.com/library/bl/bl_text_sallust_catiline_1.htm

Augustine on "Sin"

To be honest, I think Augustine sounds a bit melodramatic. I mean, he is freaking out about stealing a pear? Going to a public show? I don't really understand what he is really trying to get at with this idea of "sin". 

Someone brought up the point that he might just be confessing these "sins" to make what he's going through more relatable, and maybe it will cause others to stop sinning as well. It's hard to say exactly what he's trying to get at. Is he truly just trying to relieve himself of guilt? Does he really feel guilt for what he did? Why is he confessing all this to the reader, does he want the reader to respond in a certain way?

I think for me, Augustine's ideas about sin don't really appeal to me. I have never stolen pears, but I highly doubt I would think twice about it, or freak out as much as Augustine. I also think that it is hard for me to understand what Augustine is getting at because of my religious background. I'm actually very unobservant of Judaism and don't really believe in God, so it is hard for me to understand a lot of what Augustine refers to. I'm not even sure if it matters or if I'm just struggling on my own. 

I don't think Augustine's ideas of "sin" helped his product at all and if anything made me like the book less. It made him sound overly dramatic. 

I <3 The Portrait Gallery (Reflection)

I'm not gonna lie, I was definitely not looking forward to going to the portrait gallery at first. In my head, it was going to be full of portraits of people from 100's of years ago who no one remembers and no one really knew about. The tour was going to be led by a 100-year old lady who devotes her life to portraits and takes an hour explaining each portrait.

This was not the case. 

For one, our guide was extremely nice and she seemed really enthusiastic about her job. I liked that she made the tour interactive and kept it short enough to hold our attention. 

We were asked to pick our favorite portrait and explain why and how it had to do with identity. I honestly thought each painting was unique in its own way and each had a different identity. The pictures I put up are a few pictures I took today of a few of my favorite ones. 

The portrait of Abe Lincoln stood out to me because it had such an interesting story behind it. In terms of identity, Lincoln was always thought to be serious, and rarely did he ever smile. No other picture in the world can you find him smiling, but here in this portrait, he has what seems like the beginning of a smile. This made me think back to Goffman and the idea of the "fronts" people put up. Lincoln's front was a serious president who never showed emotion. In this picture, it is as though his "back region" has been captured and he no longer is a serious president, but an average man. Lastly, I thought the story behind the crack in the picture was cool because different people 

Then there is the portrait of JFK. I thought the story behind this portrait was interesting as well, which along with its unusual style, is what attracted me to it. JFK wanted to have the quickest portrait done of him and he hired a woman. I think it is interesting to think about how in paintings, you can never really tell the identity of the painter him or herself. I found myself surprised that it was a woman, not because I didn't think painters could be women back then, but that I would never have known unless I knew the story behind. It was inspiring that this woman became so famous just by drawing a series of portraits. The painting itself was amazing. 

Overall I had a good time today learning about not only the stories behind each of the portraits, but learning about how to interpret them. Each one had its own story and the symbolism was insane. 

Dreams and Aspirations

Dana Walker's talk on Friday was motivational. It was informal and she shared with us her life story and some pointers as to how to focus on your goals.

As she spoke to us, I was amazed at how much she had achieved in life. She had overcome so many trials to reach where she is now. This really inspires me to really aim towards my goals so that I may be able to achieve as much or even more than Dana Walker has so far.

One point I remember her making, was in response to a question regarding how to choose our majors/careers. She said that she made her decision based on what people around her told her she was good at.

I have always been a dreamer. I love to think about the future. My decision on a major took a long time and it still might change. My major right now is Psychology but I am interested in so many different areas as well. I trust that somehow my life plan will unfold, probably with the aid of observations made by those people that get to know me. They may notice that I am particularly good in a certain field or have to right personality for a job.

I hope that one day I will be able to share my life story so as to inspire others.

Reflection: Feminism bothers me.

Of course I want men and women to be treated equally. When they make the same achievements, they should be rewarded the same. When they perform at the same level, they should be promoted to the same level. I'm not saying that when everything is equal, that men should be favored over women.

BUT.

Things aren't always equal. Sorry. Men and women are scientifically different. Men are more authoritative, women are more sensitive. Men are impulsive and act with force, women are intuitive and act with caution. There are always exceptions. And those exceptions are accounted for. But it can't be a general rule for everyone because it's not.

And, if you really want to revert this back to Goffman, because of these differences, it already puts preconceived notions in people's heads. Be honest, if you were walking home alone at night in an empty area, and a very big and buff man was walking your way, you'd be freaked, right? Is that sexism, because if your saw a big and buff woman you wouldn't be nearly as scared?

No. It's science. We're naturally programmed to be on the lookout for certain things. And while there's always exceptions, they're not always the case.

So while in Dana Walker's talk, I felt outraged when her pay was less than that of a man equal to her, I don't think it was grounds to start a movement.

And people always make the women the victim, saying that women police officers don't get the respect they deserve (which is, again, because of the science that women are more sensitive and less strong). While they should be respected, and while many policewomen are in fact very strong, most criminals will still be glad it wasn't a man who beat them down.

And then on the same note, dying patients in hospital beds are way less likely to reveal their emotions to a male nurse. Also common sense, because women are the sensitive and thoughtful ones, and men are more forceful. Most patients will be glad it wasn't a man handing their wounds and sticking them with needles.

So yeah, there's exceptions, women who scare the living crap out of you, and men who could make a butterfly giggle, and yes, those people will excel in their fields, and therefore must be rewarded without discrimination. Absolutely. And to reverse that, the man who could make a butterfly giggle would be not be a respected police officer. The same is with the scary woman wanting to be a nurse. So then is that discrimination, too? Because now I'm getting confused.

But if you are in a field where you're working with people, even if you're putting out the same effort, and those criminals just don't respect you (if you're a man or woman) and those patients feel uncomfortable with you (if you're a man or woman), then why should the administration feel that you are an asset?

And falling back to Goffman one last time, if you want to excel in a field where the sex odds are against you, perhaps putting up a front that makes you more authoritative or sensitive might be in your best interests. Because it's not relly the gender that's the issue, it's the presence you give off.

YAY Danna Walker!

So I had a really weird reaction to today's discussion with our guest speaker, Danna Walker. I walked away feeling sad, but not in a bad way. Danna kind of reminded me of my own mom and I think it just made me realize how much I miss her. 

My mom has always been huge on women being strong and independent because she had to be that way when she was younger. She was an army brat and moved around a lot and because she was living with a single mother at the time (her mom and dad divorced when she was very young), she kind of had to grow up on her own.

What Danna and my mother have in common is definitely their drive to not only be the best they can be, but also to make sure their children are doing their best as well. Because my mom did not have a lot when she was growing up, she pushes independence on me and always looks out for my best interests. She pushes me to do better, even when I don't feel confident in what I'm doing. I'm sure Danna, with two kids in high school, must do the same. She started out from very little and had to work her way up. She was dropped into college and had no idea where to begin but managed to survive and become successful anyway. 

When I first read Danna's blog, I thought she would be self-absorbed and that she would spend the whole time bragging about her achievements. Although she did talk about herself the whole time, I think she did a really good job on focusing on the class as well and linking it to our study of "identity" and who we are. She answered all of our questions thoroughly and she made me feel better about the fact that I have no idea what I'm doing career wise in the future. I think she did an awesome job. 

Reflection: Danna Walker - Striding Woman Society

We all read Danna Walker's blog post. Some of us found her story strong, some found it self-righteous, others found other things. We all prepared questions to ask her, but when she walked into the classroom, one had to wonder if she should have done some of the equivalents.

Prof. Walker appeared to me to be a walking paradox. She publishes a blog of personal essays, accessible by anyone with an internet connection, yet she was visibly hesitant when being questioned on what she had written. She exemplified this in saying consistently throughout the session, "I'm a little uncomfortable just standing up here and talking about myself." Understandable, who wouldn't be? Answer: someone who volunteered to do it, someone who has written about and speaks ad nauseam about their life and accomplishments.

Aside from the perplexities on this issue, I found Prof. Walker very interesting. She, like my mom, was old enough to be a militant feminist and, from hearing her speak, lived up to her abilities. Her experiences in the area, especially in work, brought her reasons for interest into perspective in a way that her blog failed to do.

Another thing that I found confusing was her take on modern journalism. Unlike almost any other journalist that I have met, she likes the turn towards internet based wikinews that so many others fear. Citing that newspapers had created their own downfall by becoming to corporate and superficial, Walker said that current news readers simply needed to be able to sift through all of the ideological BS that is found on blogs. This seems like a valid point paired with a useful skill, however, current bloggers find much of their world news through traditional news outlets and use their personal blogs to reiterate and comment on them. Without these traditional, corporate news outlets spending money to place skilled journalists in foreign countries, it will be tough for our current transitional stage of news consumption to continue.

All considered, the most interesting and helpful thing that I found to come out of Prof. Walker's visit was not part of her feminism or life story, but her list of favorite writing exercises. These included:

• Writing your own obituary to see how you want your life to turn out
• Writing your thoughts to hash them out and to discover if they are as good as you initially thought

Mildly cliché, yes, but helpful. It was the life wisdom of Prof. Walker that I found most inspiring, not her awards, achievements, etc. Walker's wisdom included:

• Think about your time spent drinking. When I stopped drinking, I started traveling and getting degrees. I'm not saying don't do it, but think about how much.
• Everyone in college is insecure, no matter how confident they seem. Everyone is looking for who they really are.

In the end, I must say that I come down in the middle. What I expected from Prof. Walker is not exactly what I got, but I got what I did not expect.

Afghan

My great grandmother (GG)  is 97 years old. 

She is SUPER old, but still managed to knit an afghan for each of her grandchildren and I happen to be the last one. It's tradition that she make an afghan using the colors of each of the schools her grandchildren attend. For example, she knit my sister a purple and white afghan before she went to college at Northwestern University (their colors happen to be purple and white...what a coincidence!). Mine is multi-colored, obviously not American's colors, but because GG is so old, she had to make it before I had made my final decision on what college to go to. 

When I look at this afghan, a few aspects of my identity come to me. 

1) Its multi-colored-ness expresses my silly/crazy/goofy side. Anyone close to me (sometimes not so close to me) can tell you that I am not usually a serious person. I enjoy being loud and obnoxious sometimes. It's who and how I am. 

2) When I look at it, I see GG but I also see my whole family. Family is a huge part of my life and is something I could never live without. By bringing this afghan to college, I bring my family. The afghan brings me warmth and comfort just like my family. 

Joe saw my afghan and said "it brings you warmth and security". This was right on point. It does both those things and this is something important about my identity. I find comfort when I feel loved and secure. 

I am writing this post at 12:55am...I'm going to bed. WITH my afghan. 

Response #2: My Identity

If I had to decide on one thing that I brought with me to feel at home, it would have to be my crucifix along with a religious poster. As a matter of fact, the first thing I put up in my room was my crucifix on the wall above my bed. I have always identified myself as a religious person and I find pride in that aspect of my life. It's who I am.

I have been attending Mass at Kay Center since I arrived at AU and it really makes me feel at home. Religion is so universal. I love how you can be so far away from home and yet when you go into a place of worship, you feel welcomed and connected to those who share your beliefs.

When I asked my roommate about it, she said that it shows that I'm a religious person which goes along with what I said. Being identified as a religious person is not something I'm ashamed of although many people do try to hide their faith.

I love who I am and I'm proud to let others know.

Response #2: I Love You and Buddha Too

Seven inches tall while sitting in the lotus position, this bronze-brushed Buddha can keep me calm. His hands clasp together and that knowing smile lingers on his face and he sits pensively around the tea light in front of him.

As odd as it may seem, my little piece of home that I brought to American with me is represented by a 7-inch statue of the Siddhartha himself. This Target special piece of my life is actually representative of my eclectic room at home, which contains other statues of Buddha, prayer flags, a painting of Gandhi and other various emblems of mildly conflicting philosophies. To me, this faux relic represents my immense interest in various (peaceful) philosophies that originate around the world, as well as my personal belief in universal truth and religious coexistence. I am uncomfortably aware, however, that the presence of various religious and philosophical symbols can also be read as the mark of a poser fronting as a religious eclectic while actually sporting symbols of opposing philosophies.

Upon consultation with my roommate, he says that my little Buddha says that I am in touch with my inner self, that I like peace and harmony with the world and others, and that I think a lot about life. Others say that I am zen-like, like to be calm, and like to be surrounded by things that are as calm as me.

I tend to hope that my roommate is right and that I come off as a calm person rather than a conflicted one. I am glad to be reassured that the Buddha is performing its intended identity, though I feel guilty in referring to it for a tool of identity.

Question 2: Topper's Horseshoe

This summer I basically moved out of my house and into the dusty stable of a twenty year old chestnut thoroughbred horse.

I used to ride when I was younger, and then picked it up again two and a half years ago, regretting ever having stopped. It wasn't long before I started working at the stables as a tack girl (aka slave girl) cleaning the horses, preparing them for lessons, cleaning saddles, and all other odd and dirty jobs. Pulling out ice from the water buckets with my bare hands in the middle of winter was one of my favorites.

But it was worth it, because I loved those horses so damn much.

I was determined to save the money to lease my own horse before college, if only for a month. It ended up being a little bit more because the staff snuck me some extra days, but however long it was, it was possibly the best time of my life.

His name was Topper, and I fell in love with him before I even opened the stall door. He was sweet and goofy and seeing him made me forget everything else in the world.


I cried harder on my last day with Topper than I did for college. There really can't even be a comparison between the two.

And for that reason, one of Topper's horseshoes, which came directly from his foot, is now hanging above my bed. It's meant show everyone that I not only love horses but one horse in particular, and that I have more than an interest in the animals but a real passion for them.

According to my roommate, the fact that the horseshoe is so worn means that it wasn't just bought at a store, but was actually from a horse at the stables. It means that I love horses and riding is something that I miss doing. I think that that was basically my intention, becuase I suppose it's really not obvious to people that there is one horse in particular that I miss the most! I mean, there's only so much information you can gather from a horseshoe.