This is often compounded, as in the case of Confessions, by the fact that many books that are more than a few centuries old weren't weren't originally written in English. I feel like no matter how good a translator is some of the author's intention, and quite a bit of the writing style, is always lost if one can't read a book in its original form. So honestly I don't think it would make that much of a difference if Confessions was written in more of a novel form, at least not to college freshmen who don't know that much of the background behind it. As for Invisible Man, it would be an entirely different book, albeit with some similar themes, if Ralph Ellison had set out to write his autobiography.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
A more important factor than genre?
While I think that Confessions being a personal history and Invisible Man being a novel makes some difference in how they present themselves and my reaction to/enjoyment of each, I believe the wildly different time periods they were written in makes a much bigger difference. I find that, as a general rule, the older a book is the harder it is to read. There's definitely exceptions to this, and I'm not saying that older books are not often very informative and full of wisdom, but in terms of ease of reading (and often although not always enjoyment of the book) the age definitely makes a difference.
Jack-the-Bear and St. Augustine
On the surface, Invisible Man and Confessions are two extremely different books. The first is a novel about a black man in the 1950s and the second is the complied confessions of a Catholic saint. But yet upon closer examination, both books are autobiographical and a series of strategic memories. The two books are also similar in haw they are narrated in the first person. But the key difference between the two works is that Invisible Man is a novel and work of fiction and Confessions is a historical non-fiction autobiography. This aspect in comparing the two works is very important.
The difference in genres first changes the expectations of the reader. Readers expect certain things when they pick up a work of fiction or non-fiction. A reader who is reading a novel expects there to some fantastical, unbelievable, or extreme aspect contained within the plot. A reader who picks up a work of non-fiction expects the work to be filled with facts, and to a certain extent some advice, guidance, or wisdom. When one picks up Invisible Man, he/she may not expect some of the horrid descriptions of Trueblood or the battle royale, but he/she is more willing to go along with them because he/she is reading a novel. On the contrary, when someone reads Confessions he/she expects a autobiography about and worthy of a saint. The readers expectations greatly the reception of a literary work of any kind.
The difference that I think makes the most difference between fiction and non-fiction is how the author can present a point or argument. In a work of non-fiction, the author can only present reality and as such the argument or point of the work is restricted to the evidence to support it that exists in reality. This can really be a disadvantage to the author; for Augustine it meant that he could not simply state his argument and it sometimes made it confusing as to how his life was the great example of sin (Really, stealing pears??!!). But when it come to a work of fiction, the author is not limited by reality. This means that the author has his/her entire imagination to come with evidence to make his/her argument. There have been authors who have taken this to the extreme and created an entirely new reality with a complete history and multiple languages (Tolkien). This is to the great advantage to the author of a work of fiction. In Invisible Man, Ellison is able to clearly state his points through characters in ways that would never happen in reality. So many of the things that Ellison's characters say are so clear in precise in their meaning, but this never happens in reality. When Bledsoe said "You're black and living in the South-- did you forget how to lie?" (p. 139), it is a perfect example. People may think like this, but it is not something that is ever said aloud. Ellison has a great advantage over Augustine because he wrote a novel, not an autobiography.
The difference in genres first changes the expectations of the reader. Readers expect certain things when they pick up a work of fiction or non-fiction. A reader who is reading a novel expects there to some fantastical, unbelievable, or extreme aspect contained within the plot. A reader who picks up a work of non-fiction expects the work to be filled with facts, and to a certain extent some advice, guidance, or wisdom. When one picks up Invisible Man, he/she may not expect some of the horrid descriptions of Trueblood or the battle royale, but he/she is more willing to go along with them because he/she is reading a novel. On the contrary, when someone reads Confessions he/she expects a autobiography about and worthy of a saint. The readers expectations greatly the reception of a literary work of any kind.
The difference that I think makes the most difference between fiction and non-fiction is how the author can present a point or argument. In a work of non-fiction, the author can only present reality and as such the argument or point of the work is restricted to the evidence to support it that exists in reality. This can really be a disadvantage to the author; for Augustine it meant that he could not simply state his argument and it sometimes made it confusing as to how his life was the great example of sin (Really, stealing pears??!!). But when it come to a work of fiction, the author is not limited by reality. This means that the author has his/her entire imagination to come with evidence to make his/her argument. There have been authors who have taken this to the extreme and created an entirely new reality with a complete history and multiple languages (Tolkien). This is to the great advantage to the author of a work of fiction. In Invisible Man, Ellison is able to clearly state his points through characters in ways that would never happen in reality. So many of the things that Ellison's characters say are so clear in precise in their meaning, but this never happens in reality. When Bledsoe said "You're black and living in the South-- did you forget how to lie?" (p. 139), it is a perfect example. People may think like this, but it is not something that is ever said aloud. Ellison has a great advantage over Augustine because he wrote a novel, not an autobiography.
Memoirs - Fictional vs. Non-Fictional
When comparing Augustine’s Confessions and Ralph Ellison’s The Invisible Man, I hands down enjoy Ellison’s book more. This is not to suggest that I am not a fan of nonfictional memoirs, but I did not enjoy the way in which Augustine presented his life story in this manner. For me personally, I was not able to retain many of the details discussed in Confessions and only took away broad themes from the memoir. Already, I have had the opposite experience with Ellison. The way in which this fictional story is told leaves a lasting impact on me. Therefore, I argue that the genre distinction of a book can have a significant impact on the reader and what he or she gets out of the reading. If the reader is not able to remember important passages or ideas mentioned in the book, then what is the point?
A reader should be able to take away an important overlying theme after reading a book, fiction or nonfiction, but I was not able to do that with Augustine as much as I feel I should have. I also believe that Augustine’s memoirs would have been much different if he had written it in a fictional way. There would have been less questioning of his ideas because they would be not taken as literally. However, that is definitely not what Augustine was going for which is why, for his purpose, I think it was wise to write it in the form of a memoir.
On the other hand, for Ellison I think that his fictional depiction works well for his story, at least for me so far. I am able to follow the story with him in addition to understanding the broader message he tries to portray with each situation The Invisible Man encounters. If Ellison had written this novel as a memoir, it would run the risk of not being as easily understood or as easily relatable to the general public.
A reader should be able to take away an important overlying theme after reading a book, fiction or nonfiction, but I was not able to do that with Augustine as much as I feel I should have. I also believe that Augustine’s memoirs would have been much different if he had written it in a fictional way. There would have been less questioning of his ideas because they would be not taken as literally. However, that is definitely not what Augustine was going for which is why, for his purpose, I think it was wise to write it in the form of a memoir.
On the other hand, for Ellison I think that his fictional depiction works well for his story, at least for me so far. I am able to follow the story with him in addition to understanding the broader message he tries to portray with each situation The Invisible Man encounters. If Ellison had written this novel as a memoir, it would run the risk of not being as easily understood or as easily relatable to the general public.
Augustine v. Ellison
In the case of Augustine v. Ellison, I must stat that I feel Ellison gets his point across much better than Augustine. It might just be the way I read or just that it got my interest, but the fiction aspect of the book gives the book a more interesting plot in my opinion. I did not enjoy reading about Augustine’s sins and his confessions of them, and their truth may be what made them so dry. However, this is not the case with Ellison and The Invisible Man, because the story adds to the plot, and his life becomes that more interesting.
I find that when reading both books, I can retain my attention while reading The Invisible Man, while with Confessions I could not do so, and instead would find myself asleep an hour later with the book still in my hand. Getting through Confessions was much harder that The Invisible Man, and I am happy to be reading this new book.
Augustine’s Confessions as a novel would have been, in my opinion, much better than the book itself. It would capture my interest much more than the true book does. At the same time, Augustine cannot be blamed for writing the book the way he did. The point he was trying to make would not have been easy to make if he was adding fiction into his account. Though I like Ellison’s style of writing more, I cannot hold a grudge against Augustine for writing the way he did.
Ellison could have written his book as Augustine did, which is as a straightforward autobiography. Yet, that would have been boring for me, and I would probably have not picked up the book, and I am sure many other people would not have read that book either. Ellison can write fiction, but when you enter non-fiction territory, I feel that the reading grows dry very quickly.
In the end, I love the fiction front that Ellison presents in The Invisible Man. It adds plot and makes the story much more worthwhile to read. That’s not to say Augustine’s Confessions isn’t a good book. It is when you get past the dry writing, but the problem is a lot of people refuse to get past the dry reading.
I find that when reading both books, I can retain my attention while reading The Invisible Man, while with Confessions I could not do so, and instead would find myself asleep an hour later with the book still in my hand. Getting through Confessions was much harder that The Invisible Man, and I am happy to be reading this new book.
Augustine’s Confessions as a novel would have been, in my opinion, much better than the book itself. It would capture my interest much more than the true book does. At the same time, Augustine cannot be blamed for writing the book the way he did. The point he was trying to make would not have been easy to make if he was adding fiction into his account. Though I like Ellison’s style of writing more, I cannot hold a grudge against Augustine for writing the way he did.
Ellison could have written his book as Augustine did, which is as a straightforward autobiography. Yet, that would have been boring for me, and I would probably have not picked up the book, and I am sure many other people would not have read that book either. Ellison can write fiction, but when you enter non-fiction territory, I feel that the reading grows dry very quickly.
In the end, I love the fiction front that Ellison presents in The Invisible Man. It adds plot and makes the story much more worthwhile to read. That’s not to say Augustine’s Confessions isn’t a good book. It is when you get past the dry writing, but the problem is a lot of people refuse to get past the dry reading.
Augustine VS Ellison (Not the Brithish Ellison)
It does matter that Augustine and Ellison are two differet genres and two very distinct writing styles.
Augustine tells his story as a true personal history. He wants people to reflect on specifics of his story. He wants us to think about write and wrong, and he wants us to follow his example. I beleive he would have had a harder time doing this, if he wrote a standard story and just expected people to understand it is about life and purpose.
At the same time, Ellison wrote in a completly different style. His story, which at this point, I believe is fiction, is very intersting. However to me, it is just a story. I feel bad for the main charachter, and think "wow racism was terrible, and oh he had a hard life" however I do not think it has the same mental impact as Augustines book. To me, Ellison seems to be a story and Augustine is real.
At the same time, I do find Ellisons story more interesting then Augustines and am enjoying this one way more.
Augustine tells his story as a true personal history. He wants people to reflect on specifics of his story. He wants us to think about write and wrong, and he wants us to follow his example. I beleive he would have had a harder time doing this, if he wrote a standard story and just expected people to understand it is about life and purpose.
At the same time, Ellison wrote in a completly different style. His story, which at this point, I believe is fiction, is very intersting. However to me, it is just a story. I feel bad for the main charachter, and think "wow racism was terrible, and oh he had a hard life" however I do not think it has the same mental impact as Augustines book. To me, Ellison seems to be a story and Augustine is real.
At the same time, I do find Ellisons story more interesting then Augustines and am enjoying this one way more.
Monday, September 28, 2009
I reallly liked talking about ABE
I loved going on our field trip to do a site base ethnography. At first I thought the event would be a waste of my time. I went to the closest monument there was, which was Abe Lincoln. I marched my self up the stairs along with my partner. There we sat and watched people for about 10 minutes taking notes like "he looks serious" and "people do not get to close to him".
At this point we both realized this was not working and I asked my partner (AL) if she thought it was a good idea to talk to people. We walked around for the rest of the time meeting people, talking about their views on Lincoln and enjoyed ourselves in the process.
Some of the topics we discussed included:
Peoples opinions on Abe Lincoln
Peoples opinions on the monument (looks/ artistic design)
Peoples opinions if the monument was a good representation
Peoples opinions on what other people thought Lincoln stood for
ETC, Etc
Everyone we spoke to was from a slightly different background and helped to give a better and broader view. We managed to speak to 30 year olds, 18 year old students, a park ranger, members of the armed services, a foreigner, two older couples, a mother with a young son, and a few 50 (or so) year old men.
Talking with these people was fun and defiantly helped make our site ethnography come to life.
At this point we both realized this was not working and I asked my partner (AL) if she thought it was a good idea to talk to people. We walked around for the rest of the time meeting people, talking about their views on Lincoln and enjoyed ourselves in the process.
Some of the topics we discussed included:
Peoples opinions on Abe Lincoln
Peoples opinions on the monument (looks/ artistic design)
Peoples opinions if the monument was a good representation
Peoples opinions on what other people thought Lincoln stood for
ETC, Etc
Everyone we spoke to was from a slightly different background and helped to give a better and broader view. We managed to speak to 30 year olds, 18 year old students, a park ranger, members of the armed services, a foreigner, two older couples, a mother with a young son, and a few 50 (or so) year old men.
Talking with these people was fun and defiantly helped make our site ethnography come to life.
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Monuments and Personal Connections
Based on our discussions this week, I think I've reached the conclusion that having a personal connection to a monument is a large part of what makes it meaningful- and that there's varying degrees of personal connection. I spoke briefly in class about going to Israel and seeing a memorial for a battle of the Israeli War of Independence that my grandfather actually participated in (he was an engineer and determined the correct angle to fire the cannons at.) That was a more moving experience for me then going to the Korean or World War I memorials, because I don't have any relatives or friends who fought in those wars. Interestingly, it isn't even as if I've grown up with grandpa telling me stories about the war- he died when I was one...and yet somehow knowing of his participation still made a big difference.
I do still have some level of connection to the memorials on the Mall- I am an American and these memorials are commemorating American participation in these wars. I don't think that going to Canada and checking out their memorials would feel quite the same. I'm thinking a lot about what kind of personal connections people could have- would the Lincoln memorial be more meaningful for an African-American? The Roosevelt memorial for someone who had a grandfather working in New Deal created programs? Clearly the biggest personal connection is having actually fought in the war a memorial is commemorating, which is why it isn't a surprise that some of the most memorable moments people had while studying the monuments this week involved veterans. Having a family member that died might be the second biggest connection...I suppose an equivalent for me would be the Holocaust Museum, although I never knew my great-grandparents or other relatives who were among those murdered.
This raises the question of if one can still appreciate a monument if they have absolutely no personal connection. I'm not sure, but I think the answer is that everyone kind of has at least a slight personal connection since we are all fellow members of the human race.
I do still have some level of connection to the memorials on the Mall- I am an American and these memorials are commemorating American participation in these wars. I don't think that going to Canada and checking out their memorials would feel quite the same. I'm thinking a lot about what kind of personal connections people could have- would the Lincoln memorial be more meaningful for an African-American? The Roosevelt memorial for someone who had a grandfather working in New Deal created programs? Clearly the biggest personal connection is having actually fought in the war a memorial is commemorating, which is why it isn't a surprise that some of the most memorable moments people had while studying the monuments this week involved veterans. Having a family member that died might be the second biggest connection...I suppose an equivalent for me would be the Holocaust Museum, although I never knew my great-grandparents or other relatives who were among those murdered.
This raises the question of if one can still appreciate a monument if they have absolutely no personal connection. I'm not sure, but I think the answer is that everyone kind of has at least a slight personal connection since we are all fellow members of the human race.
Memorials - Unique Interpretations
After visiting the National Mall for the purpose of observing identity and people’s reactions, I came to the conclusion that monuments and memorials are largely what the viewer makes of them. Growing up about an hour away from Washington, D.C. this was not my first time seeing the National Mall. However, it was the first time I began to appreciate it. Perhaps because I am older or perhaps because Washington, D.C. is where I live now, but I was able to view the monuments for what they stood for more so than how magnificent and pretty they looked. However, I did bring along my personal experiences as I looked at the memorials. Since my grandfather fought in World War II and has gotten so old that it is one of the only experiences he remembers, the WWII memorial had a greater impact on me since I had that personal connection. I felt almost guilty not having such a connection with the other memorials.
I realized how important having an association with the memorials was because I felt almost no emotional impact looking at the Lincoln or Korean War memorials. On the other hand, I felt a surge of emotions with the World War II and it reminded me of how emotional I felt when I visited the gravestone, or “memorial,” of my grandmother. Since I obviously had a close connection with my own grandmother, I was able to think of memories and stories that she had told me growing up. I was reminded of this experience when I felt something at the WWII memorial. I realized that everyone, because of their unique incidents and memories, approaches the monuments in a different way with varying significance towards each.
I realized how important having an association with the memorials was because I felt almost no emotional impact looking at the Lincoln or Korean War memorials. On the other hand, I felt a surge of emotions with the World War II and it reminded me of how emotional I felt when I visited the gravestone, or “memorial,” of my grandmother. Since I obviously had a close connection with my own grandmother, I was able to think of memories and stories that she had told me growing up. I was reminded of this experience when I felt something at the WWII memorial. I realized that everyone, because of their unique incidents and memories, approaches the monuments in a different way with varying significance towards each.
How a Memorial Moved Me.
A monument is, in my opinion, and important thing. Being a history buff, I always feel we must remember the past. That is the only way to learn, and to bring about a better future. A monument is the best way to visually remind the world of an event. Whether it was a good or bad time, these monuments help us to understand what happened through their architecture and front. We all talked about the monuments here in D.C., so I am going to take us on a 12 hour long plane ride to Hawaii, where one of the saddest monuments I have ever been too exists, the USS Arizona Memorial.
Welcome to Pearl Harbor. The weather is beautiful, and the water is blue. Yet, the loud chatter that generally is heard from tourists is dwindled to whispers as their white boat approaches the oddly shaped white monument. The boat docks and you enter the monument. Everybody gets silent as you enter the monument. Looking down, oil is seen slowly spilling out of the ship below. The ship entombs so many people, and faced with this, the entire crowd silences. The steady sound of the water, the slow flapping of the American flag above, and the boats added to the sadness. However, what really set me off was the wall on the back with all the names of the soldiers and sailors who died.
That monument made me remember how the people died due to an attack. It made me sad and I felt pain for those who died. That is what a monument is supposed to do. I felt like I was mourning for these people with the rest of a nation. A monument is supposed to inspire these feelings. This has happened in a lesser degree in Washington. The only monument that has moved me as much was the WW II monument. That is because of a family connection. Though I am moved by the other memorials, nothing has moved me as much. I guess because in Pearl Harbor, the event actually took place. It was real, and it was there. That was the most moving thing of all.
Welcome to Pearl Harbor. The weather is beautiful, and the water is blue. Yet, the loud chatter that generally is heard from tourists is dwindled to whispers as their white boat approaches the oddly shaped white monument. The boat docks and you enter the monument. Everybody gets silent as you enter the monument. Looking down, oil is seen slowly spilling out of the ship below. The ship entombs so many people, and faced with this, the entire crowd silences. The steady sound of the water, the slow flapping of the American flag above, and the boats added to the sadness. However, what really set me off was the wall on the back with all the names of the soldiers and sailors who died.
That monument made me remember how the people died due to an attack. It made me sad and I felt pain for those who died. That is what a monument is supposed to do. I felt like I was mourning for these people with the rest of a nation. A monument is supposed to inspire these feelings. This has happened in a lesser degree in Washington. The only monument that has moved me as much was the WW II monument. That is because of a family connection. Though I am moved by the other memorials, nothing has moved me as much. I guess because in Pearl Harbor, the event actually took place. It was real, and it was there. That was the most moving thing of all.
Friday, September 25, 2009
The Point of Memorials
Today during class, there were so many questions that were asking what is the point of a memorial or monument. The questions were: What is the function of this or that memorial?, What is the purpose of this/that memorial?, or What does this/that memorial represent?. To me what everyone was asking over and over again was what is the point of this or that memorial. It is generally thought that memorials are supposed to honor those they represent. The other common thought about memorials is that memorials are supposed to be remind us of past events. Both of these ideas apply to the design of memorials, but they do not cover what else memorials do.
I can sum up the point of memorials in three general ideas: remembrance, honor, and identity. The first and most obvious point of memorials is to remember past events. Memorials are strategic memories and they present the past in the way that the memorial's creator envisions the past. So many memorials on the national mall present only part of history or part of the person. The memorials are supposed to help those who visit them remember the past in a very specific way, and the memorials are presented in such a way that that is how the event is remembered.
The second point of a memorial is to honor those who are part of the past event. This is probably most easily recognized function of a memorial. The WWII memorial honors those who served ad died during WWII. The Vietnam War memorial and the Korean War memorial do the same. Even the Lincoln memorial honors President Lincoln as a great president. Memorials honor those from the past.
Finally, and the most complicated aspect of memorials is the identity that they create. So much of the American identity is wrapped up in our memorials. What we choose to memorialize tells a lot about America as a nation. As you walk down the national mall, you can observe the
American ideals of freedom, liberty, and honor displayed at every memorial. The memorials are designed to display American ideals. Each memorial is part of a national American identity, but they are also part of and individual or personal identity. The reason that many of the memorials evoke so much emotion for so many Americans is because they are personally connected to the event. The individual identity extends to the subject of the memorial. The Korean War memorial has multiple individual identities embodied in it with the individual faces of the soldiers and the individual names of the countries. In contrast, the Vietnam War memorial is a group identity as the name focus on a specific group. The individual names are individuals, but they make a part of the larger group of men who died. Many times the memorials seem to be in contradiction and even fighting each other as the group and individual identities are at odds.
I can sum up the point of memorials in three general ideas: remembrance, honor, and identity. The first and most obvious point of memorials is to remember past events. Memorials are strategic memories and they present the past in the way that the memorial's creator envisions the past. So many memorials on the national mall present only part of history or part of the person. The memorials are supposed to help those who visit them remember the past in a very specific way, and the memorials are presented in such a way that that is how the event is remembered.
The second point of a memorial is to honor those who are part of the past event. This is probably most easily recognized function of a memorial. The WWII memorial honors those who served ad died during WWII. The Vietnam War memorial and the Korean War memorial do the same. Even the Lincoln memorial honors President Lincoln as a great president. Memorials honor those from the past.
Finally, and the most complicated aspect of memorials is the identity that they create. So much of the American identity is wrapped up in our memorials. What we choose to memorialize tells a lot about America as a nation. As you walk down the national mall, you can observe the
American ideals of freedom, liberty, and honor displayed at every memorial. The memorials are designed to display American ideals. Each memorial is part of a national American identity, but they are also part of and individual or personal identity. The reason that many of the memorials evoke so much emotion for so many Americans is because they are personally connected to the event. The individual identity extends to the subject of the memorial. The Korean War memorial has multiple individual identities embodied in it with the individual faces of the soldiers and the individual names of the countries. In contrast, the Vietnam War memorial is a group identity as the name focus on a specific group. The individual names are individuals, but they make a part of the larger group of men who died. Many times the memorials seem to be in contradiction and even fighting each other as the group and individual identities are at odds.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Do autobiographies have to be dramatic?
Anyone can write (or dictate, or authorize a ghostwriter to write) an autobiography...the real question here seems to be if anyone will read someone's autobiography if they live a nondramatic life. I'd like to think that if someone lived a successful and fulfilling but not particularly dramatic life, people (aside from friends and family) would still want to read their autobiography but I'm doubtful. Most people seem to be naturally drawn to drama; it's not really about how worthy one is, just about the entertainment value (or possibly academic value, although that would result in a much smaller readership) of their autobiography. If Britney Spears wrote an autobiography it would probably be an instant bestseller. If my next door neighbor (either the ones at home or here...hi, Sean!) wrote one I don't think it would exactly fly off the shelves.
Come to think of it, one's existing fame probably matters more than anything else. If someone is already famous for something else there's likely to be a preexisting group of people who want to read their autobiographies. Maybe if someone lived a very dramatic life (e.g. Annie Frank) they'd be able to rise from anonymity into autobiographical success, but I doubt that's the norm. As for if I'd like to live a life worthy of an autobiography, I think it's very similar to the portrait question. The most important thing to me is to live a life that's meaningful to me and involves doing some good for humanity. I don't know yet if that will lead to a life "worthy" of an autobiography.
Come to think of it, one's existing fame probably matters more than anything else. If someone is already famous for something else there's likely to be a preexisting group of people who want to read their autobiographies. Maybe if someone lived a very dramatic life (e.g. Annie Frank) they'd be able to rise from anonymity into autobiographical success, but I doubt that's the norm. As for if I'd like to live a life worthy of an autobiography, I think it's very similar to the portrait question. The most important thing to me is to live a life that's meaningful to me and involves doing some good for humanity. I don't know yet if that will lead to a life "worthy" of an autobiography.
Autobiography? No thanks!
“Who ever heard, indeed, of an autobiography that was not (interesting)? I can recall none in all the literature of the world.” – Henry Louis Mencken (American writer)
I couldn’t agree more Mr. Mencken. Autobiographies are typically written by people whose lives have had some large impact on the world or are in some other way appealing to a mass audience. When looking up lists of most popular or top selling autobiographies, some consistent results included Anne Frank, Malcolm X, Barack Obama, Bob Dylan, and Adolf Hitler (www.goodreads.com). It is evident that the top autobiographies are of lives that are interesting to many readers. Similar to our discussions about a portrait, I feel that most who get a portrait commissioned of themselves have some national importance at the least. Likewise, those who make their life stories permanent by writing it down feel they have something worthwhile to get across to a large population.
I don’t necessarily feel that this should be the case. I believe that everyone’s life has its important aspects that make it worthy enough for an autobiography. However, there would be a smaller group of readers interested say in my story versus a young Jewish girl who describes her experiences during the Nazi regime. Anyone can write an autobiography, but the success of each person’s depends largely on how exciting the general public feels one’s life is. And the stakes are getting higher since more and more "ordinary" people seem to be living more outrageous lives.
While it seems appealing, at first glance, to live a life worth writing about, I am content with fitting into the norm and being ordinary at the moment. The alternative would be a life of dramatic experiences, both good and bad. I am certain that I will go through situations that are deemed worthy enough of an autobiography, but for the time being I’m satisfied with my not so autobiographical life.
I couldn’t agree more Mr. Mencken. Autobiographies are typically written by people whose lives have had some large impact on the world or are in some other way appealing to a mass audience. When looking up lists of most popular or top selling autobiographies, some consistent results included Anne Frank, Malcolm X, Barack Obama, Bob Dylan, and Adolf Hitler (www.goodreads.com). It is evident that the top autobiographies are of lives that are interesting to many readers. Similar to our discussions about a portrait, I feel that most who get a portrait commissioned of themselves have some national importance at the least. Likewise, those who make their life stories permanent by writing it down feel they have something worthwhile to get across to a large population.
I don’t necessarily feel that this should be the case. I believe that everyone’s life has its important aspects that make it worthy enough for an autobiography. However, there would be a smaller group of readers interested say in my story versus a young Jewish girl who describes her experiences during the Nazi regime. Anyone can write an autobiography, but the success of each person’s depends largely on how exciting the general public feels one’s life is. And the stakes are getting higher since more and more "ordinary" people seem to be living more outrageous lives.
While it seems appealing, at first glance, to live a life worth writing about, I am content with fitting into the norm and being ordinary at the moment. The alternative would be a life of dramatic experiences, both good and bad. I am certain that I will go through situations that are deemed worthy enough of an autobiography, but for the time being I’m satisfied with my not so autobiographical life.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Is It Really Worth Writing that Autibiography?
Today there are so many prominent and important figures in the world who either have written their own autobiography or have one ghost written. Today, almost anyone can have an autobiography written. The shelves of book stores are jam packed with autobiographies of the rich and famous, world leaders, and even Paris Hilton. Literally just about anyone could have their own autobiography. That said, it doesn't mean that every autobiography ever published has been read.
Most people would say that you have to be somehow important or noteworthy to warrant an autobiography. This is obviously not how the publishing world and the PR reps for the rich and famous think when they release that hot new tell-all, but the average person considers an autobiography to be about someone who did something with his/her life. The question of whether or not the average person should warrant an autobiography is interesting. There are two was of looking at an autobiography: the first is simply as the story of one's life; the second is as a way of strategic remembrance. I think that according to either of these views of an autobiography that the average person could warrant an autobiography. The average person should be able to tell the story of his/her life if he/she wants to. Also the average person might find the exercise of writing an autobiography very useful as an exercise in strategic memory. An exercise in strategic memory could be a great way to examine and evaluate one's life just as St. Augustine does in Confessions.
Finally, as for the question of whether a person's life must be dramatic to warrant and autobiography, the answer is not. The focus of an autobiography can be any ordinary person. Every one's life contains excitement and drama, just on different scales. The human experience in and of itself is dramatic. Every life is worth living; therefore, every life is worth remembering no matter how ordinary.
Most people would say that you have to be somehow important or noteworthy to warrant an autobiography. This is obviously not how the publishing world and the PR reps for the rich and famous think when they release that hot new tell-all, but the average person considers an autobiography to be about someone who did something with his/her life. The question of whether or not the average person should warrant an autobiography is interesting. There are two was of looking at an autobiography: the first is simply as the story of one's life; the second is as a way of strategic remembrance. I think that according to either of these views of an autobiography that the average person could warrant an autobiography. The average person should be able to tell the story of his/her life if he/she wants to. Also the average person might find the exercise of writing an autobiography very useful as an exercise in strategic memory. An exercise in strategic memory could be a great way to examine and evaluate one's life just as St. Augustine does in Confessions.
Finally, as for the question of whether a person's life must be dramatic to warrant and autobiography, the answer is not. The focus of an autobiography can be any ordinary person. Every one's life contains excitement and drama, just on different scales. The human experience in and of itself is dramatic. Every life is worth living; therefore, every life is worth remembering no matter how ordinary.
Monday, September 21, 2009
My visit home/Debra Humphrey
Debra Humphrey's speech helped relieve some of my anxieties. I've been really worried about being a political science major (with a minor in women's studies and considering either a major or minor in history) since many people say it isn't "practical" like a degree in Accounting or Engineering would be. Although Humphrey did talk about the importance of students going into math and science, I didn't get the impression from her (like I've had from others) that even students without much aptitude for these subjects had to major in them or else college was a waste of time. The fact that she had a degree in art history and is now in current job makes me realize that it probably is smart to do what interests you in undergrad and then see where it leads you. I'm fairly sure that, like Ms. Humphrey, I will be going on to further education after undergrad. I still don't know what exactly that will be, but I am considering academia more strongly than I have in the past.
That said, I've heard that it is a very hard field to break into, so I'm still very apprehensive about the idea. When I visited home this weekend, I spoke to my parents quite a bit about what I wanted to do for the rest of undergrad and afterwords. They were both very supportive and happy that I was thinking in the long term even though it's all kind of vague at this point. I suppose between my parents and Ms. Humphrey, I feel more optimistic about my future after this week than I did before it. Of course, just one look at the latest economic news can always change that very quickly...I just hope my optimism isn't misplaced.
That said, I've heard that it is a very hard field to break into, so I'm still very apprehensive about the idea. When I visited home this weekend, I spoke to my parents quite a bit about what I wanted to do for the rest of undergrad and afterwords. They were both very supportive and happy that I was thinking in the long term even though it's all kind of vague at this point. I suppose between my parents and Ms. Humphrey, I feel more optimistic about my future after this week than I did before it. Of course, just one look at the latest economic news can always change that very quickly...I just hope my optimism isn't misplaced.
Debra Humphrey. oh and college too
Our guest speaker on Friday seemed very nice. But I do not think she did a good job of teaching us or really preparing us for anything.
The following points summerize her lecture.
1. Try your best.
2. Your going to a good school.
3. Libral Arts are good too.
4. Employers want smart people, from good schools, with experience.
5. When she was in college she wanted to be an Art Historain.
I think the remainder of this discusion was interesting but in no ways reviting. I got the feeling that Ms Humphrey's organization was a collection of people, each with an opinion on how college could be. But they have no control of what colleges really do, and for that matter no collective and unified stance.
I am getting extremely tired of reading Augustine, and find him to be a whinner and a negative-nancy. He seems to want to make everyone realize that they are not perfect and that he is the most imperfect of them all.
The following points summerize her lecture.
1. Try your best.
2. Your going to a good school.
3. Libral Arts are good too.
4. Employers want smart people, from good schools, with experience.
5. When she was in college she wanted to be an Art Historain.
I think the remainder of this discusion was interesting but in no ways reviting. I got the feeling that Ms Humphrey's organization was a collection of people, each with an opinion on how college could be. But they have no control of what colleges really do, and for that matter no collective and unified stance.
I am getting extremely tired of reading Augustine, and find him to be a whinner and a negative-nancy. He seems to want to make everyone realize that they are not perfect and that he is the most imperfect of them all.
Sunday, September 20, 2009
Learning Beyond the Classroom!
Debra Humphrey’s presentation last class was very interesting seeing as that I was not aware of any organization that tried to help students be exposed to parts of college education that would later help students when getting a job. I was fascinated by the fact that job sources were as, if not more, interested in other aspects of college education rather than strictly the technical components needed for the job. For example, Ms. Humphreys discussed the engineering company that was stressing the job applicant’s ability to write well and interact with others since they felt confident in being able to teach the technical skills that were necessary for the job. I was also interested, and somewhat comforted, when she discussed how the most beneficial skills she learned during college were during her job and internship. While grades clearly have great significance, the experiences one goes through beyond the classroom in college are what ultimately shape one’s college years. These are the occurrences that make someone with a strong GPA unique from others with strong grades and more apt to have a successful job after college.
I feel very grateful to have had this presentation this early on in my college career. I know that in the past and even now at other colleges, these insights are not presented to college students, especially freshman. Being an undecided student, hearing these words of wisdom from others experiences, really helps me think about how to go about my college years to get the most of them and learn what I want to do. I now know to get the best education I possibly can by not only trying my best in classes, but also by pushing myself to aim for job experiences and internships as well as other useful extracurricular activities.
I feel very grateful to have had this presentation this early on in my college career. I know that in the past and even now at other colleges, these insights are not presented to college students, especially freshman. Being an undecided student, hearing these words of wisdom from others experiences, really helps me think about how to go about my college years to get the most of them and learn what I want to do. I now know to get the best education I possibly can by not only trying my best in classes, but also by pushing myself to aim for job experiences and internships as well as other useful extracurricular activities.
Saturday, September 19, 2009
Extracurricular Activities: Teaching What Can't Be Taught.
Hard work has once again come up during our guest speaker’s presentation. That’s 2 for 2. She also brought up how extracurricular activities can help students to learn and I couldn’t agree more. Extracurricular activities teach us what academics cannot. They teach us about life, leadership, and yourself. In order to give an example, I will give a blog looking into my past. So anyway, this reflection is reflecting on a club I ran called Tech Crew. (I have a uniform from it; I will wear it one day to class)
Tech Crew started with three of us. I and another became the Co-Directors. Here is what had to be done. We had to recreate the entire thing. The technology was bad, there was no crew, and the Tech Booth was dirty. First, we had to recruit people. That wasn’t too bad. After that I had to call meeting every week for the next three years, so that we could clean and try to make the technology we have better. It took me three years to get a budget, but finally we did. We actually did more than just got better lights. We bought LED lights that made the school green. And we change the entire theater program by making it better.
I learned so much from this. Of course I learned how to use all this technology, and through it I may get a job here at American. However, it taught my many values I never really understood before. Firstly, I learned about leadership. I learned what made a good and a bad leader, by trying to be one. I was a bad leader at times, and I was a good leader at times. I learned that loyalty can beat anything, and with a few loyal friends at your side, anything or any problem will seem smaller and less significant. Even when you get the blame for somebody else’s mistake (that’s the fun part). Yet, through this I learned even the virtues of friendship and trust. So yeah, I agree that extracurricular activities can help you more than school in some cases. Oh and one thing I forgot to mention. Tech Crew gave me the self-confidence that I need because I know that I helped fix and run things once. Why can’t I do it again?
Tech Crew started with three of us. I and another became the Co-Directors. Here is what had to be done. We had to recreate the entire thing. The technology was bad, there was no crew, and the Tech Booth was dirty. First, we had to recruit people. That wasn’t too bad. After that I had to call meeting every week for the next three years, so that we could clean and try to make the technology we have better. It took me three years to get a budget, but finally we did. We actually did more than just got better lights. We bought LED lights that made the school green. And we change the entire theater program by making it better.
I learned so much from this. Of course I learned how to use all this technology, and through it I may get a job here at American. However, it taught my many values I never really understood before. Firstly, I learned about leadership. I learned what made a good and a bad leader, by trying to be one. I was a bad leader at times, and I was a good leader at times. I learned that loyalty can beat anything, and with a few loyal friends at your side, anything or any problem will seem smaller and less significant. Even when you get the blame for somebody else’s mistake (that’s the fun part). Yet, through this I learned even the virtues of friendship and trust. So yeah, I agree that extracurricular activities can help you more than school in some cases. Oh and one thing I forgot to mention. Tech Crew gave me the self-confidence that I need because I know that I helped fix and run things once. Why can’t I do it again?
Friday, September 18, 2009
A Non-Stressful Presentation About the Future
Debra Humphreys' presentation in class today was the first presentation about the future and life after college that did not make me freak out about what I need to do. Every time that anyone begins to talk to me about life after college, not matter friend, professor, or stranger, it makes me really nervous and I begin to freak out a bit. Dr. Humphreys' presentation was relaxed and not full of the typical "list of achievements" that are required to be successful. Her list was very different, and I feel that it was not daunting at all because it was a list of things that I will enjoy learning and developing. My brain did not start making lists of things that I need to do; it was nice to actually be able to be interested in the presentation without worrying about doing what she was saying. In so many ways, I have done what is expected of me my entire life. I have gone to college and I am expected to graduate. I wanted to come to college and I would be in such shock if I didn't graduate. I will graduate, but now is the first time in my life when the expectations have ended and I don't have a solid plan for life after college. I know that I want to work in international relations, but beyond that I really don't know. This is really confusing for me because I always have had things planned out and in order. Now I'm unsure and it is daunting. You could say that I'm a control freak and need to chill, but it is just how I am. But the major thing that Debra Humphreys' presentation made me realize is that I can live without the plan and those expectations (and I'm doing fine with it). I actually kind of like the openended-ness of this part of my life. There are things that are stable and constant, but the things that are random and ever-changing are great. I can let go and not control everything, and I'm ok. I know none of this was in Debra Humphreys' presentation, but I think that the fact that she didn't cause me to freak out has led me to the realization that I'm ok with not knowing what's going to happen next.
Thursday, September 17, 2009
You aren't you
I am going to start this off with a very straight forward answer. You are not you if you cannot remember anything. Now for the example. Imagine Darth Vader. Imagine his evil and his views on the universe. Now imagine if we took away his memory. The Darth Vader that we have all come to know, love, and put on cathedrals would be gone forever. He would have no recollection of his past deeds. Instead, he would just look in the mirror and see a dark shiny helmet and a black suit. Then he would uncover his power of choking and throwing people without touching them. But he wouldn’t know how to use them. He would be able to become good or evil, or not care. Either way, the dark side lost Vader. And he will never be the same. Now, despite the fact I was trying to make a very corny joke, I had a point. Memory is what makes you who you are. You remember your experiences, which technically are what shape you to become who you are. If you lose your memory, you lose your experiences. This takes away everything that mentally influenced you. Your ideas of right and wrong would be gone. So would your thoughts on religion and on life. Your ability to understand the force would be tampered with!
The loss of your memory is the loose of yourself. You lose your life. This is not to say your name and your body won’t be the same. Outside of plastic surgery, your body will remain the same. But all your thoughts will be different, because there will be nothing to dictate them. You may remember certain action you did your entire life, but with no reason for doing something, this is pure habit, and is not your personality. Your personality is still gone. I feel once you lose your memory due to Alzheimer’s, your spiritually dead, and though religions say that you may live your life over again, I believe that happens to everybody, not just if you have Alzheimer’s.
The loss of your memory is the loose of yourself. You lose your life. This is not to say your name and your body won’t be the same. Outside of plastic surgery, your body will remain the same. But all your thoughts will be different, because there will be nothing to dictate them. You may remember certain action you did your entire life, but with no reason for doing something, this is pure habit, and is not your personality. Your personality is still gone. I feel once you lose your memory due to Alzheimer’s, your spiritually dead, and though religions say that you may live your life over again, I believe that happens to everybody, not just if you have Alzheimer’s.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Alzheimer's and Memory
For some reason, wondering how much people are their pasts made me think of a study I once read about involving identical twins. Apparently scientists interviewed several pairs of identical twins who had been separated at birth, raised in very different circumstances, and found each other later in life. The twins were also shocked both by how bonded they felt to each other and how much they had in common. Apparently they shared a lot of interests and likes/dislikes despite never having met before. That makes me think that some part of a person is just innate and therefore entirely separate from memories. On the other hand, I feel that people are products of their circumstances to a large degree, such as most criminals being born in poverty and most fortune 500 CEOs being born to wealthy or at least middle class families. If those people lost their memories they'd probably be entirely different.
I'm not exactly sure how the article about Alzheimer's fits into this. I thought looking at the disease from a religious perspective was definitely an angle I hadn't thought about before. I like the idea that even if people with Alzheimer's can't remember things they are still touched on some level when one manages to connect with them and/or make them happy. Two summers ago, I volunteered at a nursing home. One women had very little short term memory, but she had enough long term memory to tell me she'd lived in several countries and could speak (or used to be able to speak?) quite a few languages. These languages included Hebrew and she'd spent quite a long time in Israel. When I sang Hebrew songs with her she would remember the words and her face would light up. I'd really like to think that even if she couldn't remember that ten minutes later I still brightened her day on some level. I think she was still the same person every day even though she couldn't remember things...but of course she did still have some long term memory. I'm really unsure about this.
I'm not exactly sure how the article about Alzheimer's fits into this. I thought looking at the disease from a religious perspective was definitely an angle I hadn't thought about before. I like the idea that even if people with Alzheimer's can't remember things they are still touched on some level when one manages to connect with them and/or make them happy. Two summers ago, I volunteered at a nursing home. One women had very little short term memory, but she had enough long term memory to tell me she'd lived in several countries and could speak (or used to be able to speak?) quite a few languages. These languages included Hebrew and she'd spent quite a long time in Israel. When I sang Hebrew songs with her she would remember the words and her face would light up. I'd really like to think that even if she couldn't remember that ten minutes later I still brightened her day on some level. I think she was still the same person every day even though she couldn't remember things...but of course she did still have some long term memory. I'm really unsure about this.
Who Am I?
I can’t imagine that one would be the same person if they couldn’t remember their past. Past experiences shape who a person becomes, how they react to different situations, and the choices they make in their life. These unique occurrences shape individual’s lives and make them different from others around them. Augustine focuses so much on memory and the how it is viewed as “unconscious knowledge.” I feel that Augustine would also agree that if someone could not remember their past, they would not be the same person. He discusses how vast the concept of memory is and how his lack of ability to understand the immense notion directly results in his incapability to understand himself. Augustine feels that memory and knowing oneself go hand in hand and I, for the most part, agree in this case.
While I feel that if someone can no longer remember their past, they are not the same person, I also wonder if perhaps this loss of memory simply makes the person a different version of themself. They are still the same person physically, still have had the same experiences even though they can no longer recall them. They have been shaped by their past along with the mere fact that they can no longer remember that past, they just may not be able to acknowledge this fact.
Throughout Alzheimer’s, the patient goes through a slow decline of memory. I found it very intriguing that Webb referred to this decline as one of unlearning and not simply forgetting. “I call Alzheimer's the great unlearning, because it is clearly an unraveling of mind, language, and former knowledge. But in my experience, there is a center, or centers, of apprehension and experience (such as humor, intuition, and emotion) clearly intact much longer than mind and language” (Webb). Does this mean that the person becomes less and less of themself as the illness progresses? Is this unlearning of oneself or unlearning of the things one has experienced? I feel these questions depend on the circumstance and to what degree the person accepts their experiences of “unlearning.”
While I feel that if someone can no longer remember their past, they are not the same person, I also wonder if perhaps this loss of memory simply makes the person a different version of themself. They are still the same person physically, still have had the same experiences even though they can no longer recall them. They have been shaped by their past along with the mere fact that they can no longer remember that past, they just may not be able to acknowledge this fact.
Throughout Alzheimer’s, the patient goes through a slow decline of memory. I found it very intriguing that Webb referred to this decline as one of unlearning and not simply forgetting. “I call Alzheimer's the great unlearning, because it is clearly an unraveling of mind, language, and former knowledge. But in my experience, there is a center, or centers, of apprehension and experience (such as humor, intuition, and emotion) clearly intact much longer than mind and language” (Webb). Does this mean that the person becomes less and less of themself as the illness progresses? Is this unlearning of oneself or unlearning of the things one has experienced? I feel these questions depend on the circumstance and to what degree the person accepts their experiences of “unlearning.”
Not Remembering Who I Am
The question of whether or not you are yourself if you can't remember your past terrifies me. I'll start with the idea that I can't remember my past and my first reaction is terror. This would be horrible. Then I begin to think who would I be without my past. I feel that a persons past is crucial to who they are. My entire past has shaped the person I am today and I cannot imagine living without it. I would be a totally different person. I don't think it is really possible to preserve who you are without the memories of your past. I can point to exact moments in my past that change who I am. These moments are who I am; they have become ways to identify myself in all aspects. Some of these moments include when I was not allowed to play football during recess because I was a girl; when I and my boyfriend were subject to racial slurs and discrimination; or when I realized at the age of 6 that people are hated simply because they are different, even in elementary school. These are some of the defining moments in my life and if I ever were to forget them, I would not be who I am today.
The question of whether or not you are yourself if you can't remember your past really terrifies me because there was a time when I could not remember anything and I still can't remember anything about that time. Four years ago, I was snowboarding and I had an accident. I was breaking in my brand new snowboard and pathetically I was on the bunny hill since I hadn't snowboarded in about five years. I was doing the last run before I was going to go in to eat and the slopes were really icy. About halfway down, I caught my edge and I guess I must have flipped over a few times in the air. I remember waking up with my head facing down the hill, sprawled out on my back with a serious headache (yes, I did have a helmet on). I managed to snowboard down, check my board, go in the lodge, and ask my teachers (it was a school trip) for some ibuprofen. I ended up in the ski patrol clinic with an EMT freaking out as I got dizzy, tired, and nauseous. They called my mom and she rushed to the resort and told them to call the ambulance if I got any worse. Once she got there, we headed to the ER as I got progressively worse. She kept debating whether or not to got to the hospital where my dad worked or the one that she had never heard of. By the time we go to the ER, I was really worse for wear and they rushed me into the CAT scan to make sure my brain wasn't bleeding. The diagnoses was a major concussion (my fourth) and I was sent home. This is where my memory ends. I don't remember the next two and a half weeks at all. My parents told me that I went to school five days after the accident; I don't remember it at all. They also told me that my personality was gone; I don't remember. I don't remember anything about those two and a half weeks; all I know was told to me by my parents and friends. I will never remember those two and a half weeks. My memories begin when my mom said I started to get my personality back. I ended up missing a month of school and making up everything over the next two months. I saw a neuro-trauma specialist and learned that that helmet that I had resented because it made me look silly had saved my life. But the thing that ended up scaring me the most (once I realized that I was not going to die) was that I can't remember what happened the days after I crashed. Not being able to remember is scary and I only can't remember two and a half weeks. If I could not remember anything in my past, that would be truly horrifying. My memories and experiences are who I am.
The question of whether or not you are yourself if you can't remember your past really terrifies me because there was a time when I could not remember anything and I still can't remember anything about that time. Four years ago, I was snowboarding and I had an accident. I was breaking in my brand new snowboard and pathetically I was on the bunny hill since I hadn't snowboarded in about five years. I was doing the last run before I was going to go in to eat and the slopes were really icy. About halfway down, I caught my edge and I guess I must have flipped over a few times in the air. I remember waking up with my head facing down the hill, sprawled out on my back with a serious headache (yes, I did have a helmet on). I managed to snowboard down, check my board, go in the lodge, and ask my teachers (it was a school trip) for some ibuprofen. I ended up in the ski patrol clinic with an EMT freaking out as I got dizzy, tired, and nauseous. They called my mom and she rushed to the resort and told them to call the ambulance if I got any worse. Once she got there, we headed to the ER as I got progressively worse. She kept debating whether or not to got to the hospital where my dad worked or the one that she had never heard of. By the time we go to the ER, I was really worse for wear and they rushed me into the CAT scan to make sure my brain wasn't bleeding. The diagnoses was a major concussion (my fourth) and I was sent home. This is where my memory ends. I don't remember the next two and a half weeks at all. My parents told me that I went to school five days after the accident; I don't remember it at all. They also told me that my personality was gone; I don't remember. I don't remember anything about those two and a half weeks; all I know was told to me by my parents and friends. I will never remember those two and a half weeks. My memories begin when my mom said I started to get my personality back. I ended up missing a month of school and making up everything over the next two months. I saw a neuro-trauma specialist and learned that that helmet that I had resented because it made me look silly had saved my life. But the thing that ended up scaring me the most (once I realized that I was not going to die) was that I can't remember what happened the days after I crashed. Not being able to remember is scary and I only can't remember two and a half weeks. If I could not remember anything in my past, that would be truly horrifying. My memories and experiences are who I am.
Monday, September 14, 2009
A portrait of me?
We spent quite a while in class on Friday discussing if we'd ever want portraits done of ourselves. I've been thinking about this a bit, and one comment (unfortunately I can't recall who made it) that's really stayed with me is "I'd want a portrait because it would mean I was someone important enough to get a portrait done." I think that's pretty much the heart of the issue. If Abraham Lincoln had lived out his life as a farmer living in a log cabin, no one would ever have drawn a portrait of him. Since he worked hard to become a lawyer, politician, and eventually president, he became worthy of portraits. If Gloria Steinem had remained a discontented housewife instead of writing The Feminine Mystique, no one would have painted her. (These days, anyone with sufficient funding can get one, but unless they are actually notable it's not likely that anyone outside of friends and family is going to see it.)
Taking that into consideration I'd say the question isn't so much "would I ever want a portrait of myself?" as "will I ever be worthy of one?" I really don't know the answer to this. I'm not sure I'd like to be famous exactly...in the sense of being a celebrity. Like many people, I would like to do something good for the world and be remembered for that...but what exactly I'm not sure. I do know that if one wants to be remember one has to be active...join groups/organizations and take a leading role in them. I haven't done very much of that thus far, but I want to change that in college which is why I'm trying out several different clubs. I'm hoping that in one of them I figure out what it is I want to do and eventually do it so well I get a portrait...maybe. I'm still not sure I want one.
Taking that into consideration I'd say the question isn't so much "would I ever want a portrait of myself?" as "will I ever be worthy of one?" I really don't know the answer to this. I'm not sure I'd like to be famous exactly...in the sense of being a celebrity. Like many people, I would like to do something good for the world and be remembered for that...but what exactly I'm not sure. I do know that if one wants to be remember one has to be active...join groups/organizations and take a leading role in them. I haven't done very much of that thus far, but I want to change that in college which is why I'm trying out several different clubs. I'm hoping that in one of them I figure out what it is I want to do and eventually do it so well I get a portrait...maybe. I'm still not sure I want one.
He is important.. cause he looks important
I had a few things that I did not get the chance to discuss during the class on Friday.
One thing that I really wanted to argue with was the opinion that people needed to know art to know that he was important. We later decided that the painting of George Washington could be analyzed with our extensive art knowledge and we would be able to tell he was vastily important.
I think you could know nothing about George Washington, and nothing about art and still tell that he was a rather important guy. You probably cannot tell he was president, but you could atleast tell he was important.
The painting showed a nice room. With a clean cut man wearing fancy clothing. He seems like a nobleperson of Europe. Sean discussed how we could look at the color scheme and realize that it was the color of royality. I think even if you were not an art expert, even on the subconcious level people get that feeling. There was a lot of gold in the painting and the frame was made from a gold-ish looking material.
Another topic I wanted to discuss but did not get the chance was Abe Lincoln painting with the crack in it. I think people made it into a very big deal that he was smiling. First of all, in a painting a subject can be set to look how ever the artist wants. Abe Lincoln dealt with a lot of serious things during his presidency. I think it would have been absurd to see a painting where Abe Lincoln is giving a thumbs up and smiling with everything that he had to go through.
The last thing I wanted to discuss was the museum its self. I have decided that Smithsonians are a different type of museum. They do not have a board of trustees who expect any sort of pay off if the mesuem is filled with visitors which means a bigger profit. Therefore I feel that the museums have a lot more leeway in what they feel like putting into an exhibit and the amount of dead space they have.
One thing that I really wanted to argue with was the opinion that people needed to know art to know that he was important. We later decided that the painting of George Washington could be analyzed with our extensive art knowledge and we would be able to tell he was vastily important.
I think you could know nothing about George Washington, and nothing about art and still tell that he was a rather important guy. You probably cannot tell he was president, but you could atleast tell he was important.
The painting showed a nice room. With a clean cut man wearing fancy clothing. He seems like a nobleperson of Europe. Sean discussed how we could look at the color scheme and realize that it was the color of royality. I think even if you were not an art expert, even on the subconcious level people get that feeling. There was a lot of gold in the painting and the frame was made from a gold-ish looking material.
Another topic I wanted to discuss but did not get the chance was Abe Lincoln painting with the crack in it. I think people made it into a very big deal that he was smiling. First of all, in a painting a subject can be set to look how ever the artist wants. Abe Lincoln dealt with a lot of serious things during his presidency. I think it would have been absurd to see a painting where Abe Lincoln is giving a thumbs up and smiling with everything that he had to go through.
The last thing I wanted to discuss was the museum its self. I have decided that Smithsonians are a different type of museum. They do not have a board of trustees who expect any sort of pay off if the mesuem is filled with visitors which means a bigger profit. Therefore I feel that the museums have a lot more leeway in what they feel like putting into an exhibit and the amount of dead space they have.
Reflection 3
I am going to write this reflection about going home and my identity there. I was told be people that upon going home I will be treated differently, and as though I am much older, because I went to college. I thought that this would be a big change, and in a way, it bothered me. I did not want my home life to change. However, when I met my mom, it she didn’t seem to treat me any different, other than being very happy that I was home. But that is the beginning I guess. I stayed home that day, and my dad was the same way, and that made me happy. On Saturday my friends were all going through the same thing, so they treated me the same as usual. The only difference I noticed was with my neighbors, who treated me much less like a teenager and more like an adult. It was very nice, but I kind of miss the old way. It just didn’t remind me of home as much. I did not get to see my relatives, or my sister, so I will keep you guys posted on how that goes.
Anyway, I want to also bring up the National Portrait Gallery. It was an experience I thought would be boring, but I ate my words; because that was one of the most interesting places I ever attended. I liked comparing pictures, and though it I could see the identities of the people. The best example is the George Washington portrait. In there you could see how the artist showed George Washington’s position in American Society in comparison to how he felt about himself. It was amazing to see in person. I liked the portraits of the Champions exhibit. It was awesome seeing the stars I did and did not know. It gave me something to relate to outside of history, even though it technically was. Anyway, I think I got the point across that I liked the museum.
Anyway, I want to also bring up the National Portrait Gallery. It was an experience I thought would be boring, but I ate my words; because that was one of the most interesting places I ever attended. I liked comparing pictures, and though it I could see the identities of the people. The best example is the George Washington portrait. In there you could see how the artist showed George Washington’s position in American Society in comparison to how he felt about himself. It was amazing to see in person. I liked the portraits of the Champions exhibit. It was awesome seeing the stars I did and did not know. It gave me something to relate to outside of history, even though it technically was. Anyway, I think I got the point across that I liked the museum.
Sunday, September 13, 2009
Being God Must Be Really Boring
I know that this is going to sound odd to just about everyone on the planet, but I have come to the conclusion that being God must be really boring. I have reached this conclusion after reading the majority of St. Augustine's Confessions. I know that I sound crazy, but being God must be really boring. Most people when they think of God or some other form of the great creator, first mover, goddess, or any other name that humanity has come up with in the past two thousand years, think of an all-powerful force that can do whatever [insert whatever gender pronoun you prefer, or even the neuter pronoun here] wants to without the restrictions that we mere humans are forced to conform to. There have been so many movies made on the subject of humans wanting to be God (Bruce Almighty just one recently). You can even go back as far as possible in recorded history to Greek myths about humans wanting to be gods (Hercules comes to mind). But I have determined that being God would be really, really, really boring. By the way, all of my points are straight out of Augustine's Confessions.
The first reason that it would be boring to be God is that you never change. Let's be honest, how many people would want to be the person that they were five years ago. Yes, you can argue that jr. high was great. But would you really want to be the same person you were then as a freshman in college? Augustine that God is unchangeable and eternal. The eternal part would be pretty cool, but the idea that I could never change is horrifying. I can't imagine being stuck as my thirteen-year-old self for all eternity. The extreme example of this would be if you were stuck as a baby for eternity. Change is what makes life interesting and being able to change is a key part to being who we are.
The second reason that it would be really boring to be God is that you are an all-powerful being that is stuck without companions and stuck with humans. I don't know if many people would agree, but how stimulating or interesting could humans be to an all-powerful, all-knowing God. It would be like siting down to with an amoeba and trying to play chess. It could be entertaining for a while, but not for all eternity. I'm not bashing all of humanity here, but according to Augustine's description of God, He is so far above and beyond us that it is not hard to think that humans could be really boring.
The final reason that it would be really boring to be God is that you don't experience time. This sounds great on the surface, but it really is not. Most of us take the passing of time for granted, but it is a central part of every one's lives. We live in time. God sees everything at once and that's it; nothing else. Augustine has showed me that time is key to human lives and that I really don't want to be without it.
I know this all seems pretty crazy, but I would never want to be God. I am content with being human. I love being human, no questions asked. I couldn't stand to be bored for all eternity.
Portrait Identity - Reflection
After visiting the National Portrait Gallery and discussing the importance of portraits, I thought about how, at this stage in my life, I would not want a portrait commissioned of myself. Portraits have always been recognized for capturing one’s image. They generally are made to remember someone who made a contribution or sacrifice to the world in some way. If a portrait was made of me at this point in my life, I would feel pressure to live up to it. It would be a negative experience for me rather than a positive way to preserve my identity. For instance, I would not want a portrait of myself made, then not fulfill my goals and just be an average person who made no recognized impacts throughout my life. Those who saw my portrait would then possibly have a negative image of who I was seeing as though the portrait was not intended to remember what I did rather than merely what I looked like.
Portraits are planned and usually extensively thought out to determine every detail about the illustration. Because so much goes into each piece of artwork, the subject is usually just as big of a deal as the work itself. In my case, this would not be true. I feel that even if I did grow up to be someone who made a large difference in the world, I would not want to make my image eternal through a painting because to me that feels conceded. Just because someone did something great in their life does not necessarily mean they need to be forever remembered through a portrait. This discussion and visit to the National Portrait Gallery really opened my eyes to art interpretation because I never viewed artwork, even portraits, as representations of one’s identity.
Portraits are planned and usually extensively thought out to determine every detail about the illustration. Because so much goes into each piece of artwork, the subject is usually just as big of a deal as the work itself. In my case, this would not be true. I feel that even if I did grow up to be someone who made a large difference in the world, I would not want to make my image eternal through a painting because to me that feels conceded. Just because someone did something great in their life does not necessarily mean they need to be forever remembered through a portrait. This discussion and visit to the National Portrait Gallery really opened my eyes to art interpretation because I never viewed artwork, even portraits, as representations of one’s identity.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Engaging in Old-lady-Mugging is the Ultimate Sin
Engaging in Old-lady-Mugging is the Ultimate Sin. I have told you this and you are probably thinking "yeah thats a really terrible thing to do.. wow." You might even be thinking of course I know not to do that and people that do engage in old-lady-muggings are defiantly sinners.
Augustine decided to tell name the ultimate sin as something that everyone might consider doing at one point or another in their life (again I hope very very few people would consider mugging). Stealing a pear is not all that bad to most people, especially if it is during their childhood years. By telling people it is the ultimate crime, Augustine is expanding his audience to virtually the entire society. People are at least interested in hearing him out and seeing why he believes this to be the case (and if they accept what he has to say are going to realize that they are sinners and probably need to be saved.
If Augustine had decided murder is the ultimate sin, few people would question this. They would probably have gone on with their everyday life, and think "pheeew I am not a murderer... I guess I'm not a sinner either.. partayyy." His audience of people interested would be much smaller if he had listed murders as the ultimate sinner because only they would be worried about what would happen to them as a result. The rest of society would have just gone about their business (possibly even the old lady muggers).
Augustine decided to tell name the ultimate sin as something that everyone might consider doing at one point or another in their life (again I hope very very few people would consider mugging). Stealing a pear is not all that bad to most people, especially if it is during their childhood years. By telling people it is the ultimate crime, Augustine is expanding his audience to virtually the entire society. People are at least interested in hearing him out and seeing why he believes this to be the case (and if they accept what he has to say are going to realize that they are sinners and probably need to be saved.
If Augustine had decided murder is the ultimate sin, few people would question this. They would probably have gone on with their everyday life, and think "pheeew I am not a murderer... I guess I'm not a sinner either.. partayyy." His audience of people interested would be much smaller if he had listed murders as the ultimate sinner because only they would be worried about what would happen to them as a result. The rest of society would have just gone about their business (possibly even the old lady muggers).
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Christianity & Sin- from an outsider's perspective
In the unlikely event anyone hasn't already figured it out, I'm Jewish. I grew up in a town with a very high Jewish population and most of my friends have been either Jewish, agnostic/atheist, or apathetic. The Christian friends who I have had for the most part haven't been that interested in discussing their religion (with one exception that I don't feel this is the right time to discuss.) What I do know about Christianity has been mainly from my own research. Two of the main things I know:
1. Christians believe in the concept of "original sin" by which all humans are tainted with evil from birth because of the sin of Adam and Eve
2. Christians believe that "Jesus died for our sins" and that by accepting Jesus people are absolved of their sins.
(These are probably somewhat simplistic statements...I would encourage anyone who is more familiar with the Christian religion to comment and correct me if necessary.)
The impression that I get from Augustine's Confessions is that the idea of "original sin" is just beginning to be developed, and his whole emphasis on sin seems to relate to the concept. It seems to me this would help his case if his goal was to convince people to convert- you're tainted by sin no matter how good a life you've led, but just accept Jesus and all your sins (no matter how heinous) are forgiven and you can go to heaven! I'm sure this would be a very attractive idea, particularly as many of the people of the time were illiterate and couldn't do their own theology research to dispute this idea.
I'm not really a big fan of this idea. In Judaism, things work a bit differently. During the High Holidays (coming up very soon) we pray to God and ask forgiveness for our sins. Jews are encouraged to actually go to people that they've sinned against during the year and ask forgiveness from them as well as from God. At the end of the High Holiday period, God pronounces judgment on everyone for the year. What exactly this judgment leads to is a bit unclear- Judaism is rather ambiguous on the subject of heaven and hell. The system is a bit confusing, but I do like it better than the idea of being absolved of all sins just because you say you believe in God.
1. Christians believe in the concept of "original sin" by which all humans are tainted with evil from birth because of the sin of Adam and Eve
2. Christians believe that "Jesus died for our sins" and that by accepting Jesus people are absolved of their sins.
(These are probably somewhat simplistic statements...I would encourage anyone who is more familiar with the Christian religion to comment and correct me if necessary.)
The impression that I get from Augustine's Confessions is that the idea of "original sin" is just beginning to be developed, and his whole emphasis on sin seems to relate to the concept. It seems to me this would help his case if his goal was to convince people to convert- you're tainted by sin no matter how good a life you've led, but just accept Jesus and all your sins (no matter how heinous) are forgiven and you can go to heaven! I'm sure this would be a very attractive idea, particularly as many of the people of the time were illiterate and couldn't do their own theology research to dispute this idea.
I'm not really a big fan of this idea. In Judaism, things work a bit differently. During the High Holidays (coming up very soon) we pray to God and ask forgiveness for our sins. Jews are encouraged to actually go to people that they've sinned against during the year and ask forgiveness from them as well as from God. At the end of the High Holiday period, God pronounces judgment on everyone for the year. What exactly this judgment leads to is a bit unclear- Judaism is rather ambiguous on the subject of heaven and hell. The system is a bit confusing, but I do like it better than the idea of being absolved of all sins just because you say you believe in God.
Calling All Sinners!
It seems to me that Augustine’s main argument throughout his confessions so far has been that even though one will sin at some point throughout life, one can still be saved by God. This argument is also a way for Augustine to essentially comfort himself and the fact that he has sinned throughout his life as well. This fact also makes his confessions a form of unburdening as well as an advertisement to his audience. Throughout his memoirs so far, Augustine recalls past sins and glorifies God to try to have him be forgiven. “I will love you, Lord, and I will give thanks and confession to your name because you have forgiven me such great evils and nefarious deeds. I attribute to your grace and mercy that you have melted my sins away like ice (Ecclus. 3: 17)” (Augustine 32). He makes it clear that while sinning is most obviously a negative action, one does not have to worry about his fate with God because one will be able to be forgiven for such acts.
Augustine seems to almost take pity on himself and use this technique as way to foremost forgive himself for his past actions. Throughout the book so far he acts as though he is begging in desperation to be forgiven and move past those times in his life. This desperation comes across as a weakness to me however and too forced. Augustine puts the blame on the fact that God was too far away from him during his times of sin. “For I sought for you, my God (I confess to you who took pity on me even when I did not yet confess). In seeking for you I followed not the intelligence of the mind, by which you willed that I should surpass the beasts, but the mind of the flesh,” (43). Therefore, another secondary and supporting argument is that to be forgiven for past sins one needs to search for God in his or her life and make that eternal bond. Essentially that person needs to be saved by God.
Augustine seems to almost take pity on himself and use this technique as way to foremost forgive himself for his past actions. Throughout the book so far he acts as though he is begging in desperation to be forgiven and move past those times in his life. This desperation comes across as a weakness to me however and too forced. Augustine puts the blame on the fact that God was too far away from him during his times of sin. “For I sought for you, my God (I confess to you who took pity on me even when I did not yet confess). In seeking for you I followed not the intelligence of the mind, by which you willed that I should surpass the beasts, but the mind of the flesh,” (43). Therefore, another secondary and supporting argument is that to be forgiven for past sins one needs to search for God in his or her life and make that eternal bond. Essentially that person needs to be saved by God.
Augustine's Advertisement
Saint Augustine may have written this autobiography for many reasons. However if we go with the idea that he wrote this as a form of advertisement, than there is one reason that jumps out at me for why he is presenting himself in this way. Saint Augustine is trying to prove through his own actions why the Catholic faith makes sense. I feel he does this in a distinct way.
The first way that Saint Augustine uses his autobiography to sell the idea of Catholicism is through the idea that any sinner can turn to the faith. He does this by showing how he was a “terrible” sinner in his past. This is why he stresses over the incident of stealing pears. He is trying to get across the message that even sinners who sin for no reason but the fact that they want to can still convert to the faith and be forgiven by God.
I feel this reason is contributing to the main focus of the autobiography, which was to get more converts to the Catholic religion. The idea of a sinner being able to convert and still be saved was very appealing to the readers. I feel this book is intended to bring people who are scared about their afterlife to the Catholic Church by preaching that forgiveness is granted by God to people in the Catholic Church.
The first way that Saint Augustine uses his autobiography to sell the idea of Catholicism is through the idea that any sinner can turn to the faith. He does this by showing how he was a “terrible” sinner in his past. This is why he stresses over the incident of stealing pears. He is trying to get across the message that even sinners who sin for no reason but the fact that they want to can still convert to the faith and be forgiven by God.
I feel this reason is contributing to the main focus of the autobiography, which was to get more converts to the Catholic religion. The idea of a sinner being able to convert and still be saved was very appealing to the readers. I feel this book is intended to bring people who are scared about their afterlife to the Catholic Church by preaching that forgiveness is granted by God to people in the Catholic Church.
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
The Ghost of Cathloic High School Has Come Back to Haunt Me
After four years at a Catholic high school and four or five years of CCD in my childhood, one would think that the last thing I would want to hear about, let alone write about, would be sin. But ironically out of those eight or so plus years, the one question that was never asked (not like most teachers would have liked my answer anyways) was whether or not sin limits the appeal of Catholicism. In this case, the question is whether or not sin in St. Augustine's Confessions limits the appeal of the work. There are two answers to this question, and the answer depends on whether one believes in Catholicism or not.
As a non-believer (to take it further, I'm an agnostic), the idea of sin really limits the appeal of Confessions. To anyone who is not Catholic or who at least has been exposed to quite a bit of Catholicism, the way St. Augustine presents sin is very odd. According to the Catholic Church, sin is "an offense against reason, truth, and right conscience" and "an offense against God" (for more). This simple enough to understand, but the implications of not committing sins are vast. I have talked to many who have said that the Catholic Church is all about sin and guilt. This is extremely simplified, but it is exactly why the presentation of sin in Confessions limits its appeal. If St. Augustine wrote Confessions to convert people to Catholicism, including the sin and guilt aspect of the religion actually is a deterrent. Why would anyone want to be a Catholic when you can't indulge in every whim. Not indulging in every whim from any perspective is not a good idea, but it is knowing that you have the freedom to do so that people like. Basically, no one like having a giant list of rules that he/she has to follow and that is why including sin in Confessions deters converts rather than inspires them.
In short, by including sin in Confessions, St. Augustine has limited the appeal of his work. ( The ghost of my Catholic high school has turned out to be nice just like Casper.)
As a non-believer (to take it further, I'm an agnostic), the idea of sin really limits the appeal of Confessions. To anyone who is not Catholic or who at least has been exposed to quite a bit of Catholicism, the way St. Augustine presents sin is very odd. According to the Catholic Church, sin is "an offense against reason, truth, and right conscience" and "an offense against God" (for more). This simple enough to understand, but the implications of not committing sins are vast. I have talked to many who have said that the Catholic Church is all about sin and guilt. This is extremely simplified, but it is exactly why the presentation of sin in Confessions limits its appeal. If St. Augustine wrote Confessions to convert people to Catholicism, including the sin and guilt aspect of the religion actually is a deterrent. Why would anyone want to be a Catholic when you can't indulge in every whim. Not indulging in every whim from any perspective is not a good idea, but it is knowing that you have the freedom to do so that people like. Basically, no one like having a giant list of rules that he/she has to follow and that is why including sin in Confessions deters converts rather than inspires them.
In short, by including sin in Confessions, St. Augustine has limited the appeal of his work. ( The ghost of my Catholic high school has turned out to be nice just like Casper.)
I have a computer... I'm Sure I'll look at something today
Cathartic searched for on google.
Monastic Orders search for on google.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_monasticism
Google search for Saint Augustine
http://www.google.com/search?q=saint+augustine&hl=en&rlz=1T4ACGW_enUS332US332&sa=X&tbo=p&tbs=tl:1,tll:354AD,tlh:354AD&ei=o2umSvyJCdGK8QaPs8naDw&oi=toolbelt_timeline_result&resnum=1&ct=timeline-date
Monastic Orders search for on google.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_monasticism
Google search for Saint Augustine
http://www.google.com/search?q=saint+augustine&hl=en&rlz=1T4ACGW_enUS332US332&sa=X&tbo=p&tbs=tl:1,tll:354AD,tlh:354AD&ei=o2umSvyJCdGK8QaPs8naDw&oi=toolbelt_timeline_result&resnum=1&ct=timeline-date
Sunday, September 6, 2009
The Same Message Once Again
On Friday, Danna Walker came to class to present her critical autobiography. On Wednesday as the class brainstormed questions, I was not uninterested in her upcoming presentation; I was only what can be described as neutral. As I listened to her presentation on Friday, I had this feeling that I had heard this same kind of life story multiple times. This is not to say that Danna Walker is boring, but I didn't feel moved or inspired as others in the class (all women) told me once she had left. I understand that she struggled and worked hard to get where she is today, but I feel as if she was just saying things that I have heard a million times before. I have listen to many different speakers tell similar stories and I guess the novelty and inspiration that they are supposed to bring has really worn off. I did not connect with anything she was saying and in many ways I totally disagree with her motivations. She talked about "signing up and showing up" as how she has accomplished things in her life, but I feel that if you really want to do something that you will find motivation other than the obligation that you have signed up. I admire those who do things that they are not obligated to do.
I also disagree with how she presented the idea that because she was a woman that her accomplishments were somehow grander. I feel that you should never use your gender to justify anything or as the reason that your accomplishments are greater. I understand that in all of history it has been harder for women to do some things, but I do not feel that it is your gender that sets you apart. The idea that you should be better at something or push yourself to be better because you are a woman is appalling. You should be better because you want to be better and not compare yourself to men or anyone else. I have never thought "I am going to do this because I am a woman." Whenever I sett out to do something new I think, "I am doing this because I want to and it's me, not because I am a woman." I am all for equality, but not feminism. This is not to say that I'm not happy when there is a possiblity of a woman president, but I celebrate that humanity is moving foward and ignoring gender lines, not because I feel a kinship with all women and that I should support any woman who runs for president. (The president part is just an example, this applies to everything.) Many may say that I am a triator to all women, but I am not. I am concerned about the inequalities that face women, but I am also concerned about the inequalities that others face based on religion, race, ethnicity, and ideology. To me equality is important to all, while feminism is exclusive to women and limits itself.
I also disagree with how she presented the idea that because she was a woman that her accomplishments were somehow grander. I feel that you should never use your gender to justify anything or as the reason that your accomplishments are greater. I understand that in all of history it has been harder for women to do some things, but I do not feel that it is your gender that sets you apart. The idea that you should be better at something or push yourself to be better because you are a woman is appalling. You should be better because you want to be better and not compare yourself to men or anyone else. I have never thought "I am going to do this because I am a woman." Whenever I sett out to do something new I think, "I am doing this because I want to and it's me, not because I am a woman." I am all for equality, but not feminism. This is not to say that I'm not happy when there is a possiblity of a woman president, but I celebrate that humanity is moving foward and ignoring gender lines, not because I feel a kinship with all women and that I should support any woman who runs for president. (The president part is just an example, this applies to everything.) Many may say that I am a triator to all women, but I am not. I am concerned about the inequalities that face women, but I am also concerned about the inequalities that others face based on religion, race, ethnicity, and ideology. To me equality is important to all, while feminism is exclusive to women and limits itself.
parents...
So I promise that (unless there's a very good reason for it) my next blog post will actually be about something other than feminism, but since Diana Walker's answer to my question about it is the main thing that stuck with me from her presentation this post will continue the theme from my last one. Mrs. Walker spoke about the unequal relationship of her parents as one of the motivations for the development of her feminism. Her answer caused me to reflect on how my own parents have influenced my interest in feminism and the fact that I identify as a feminist.
Neither of my parents really identify as feminists, particularly not my fairly apolitical mother (my father might if pressed, but like many people of both genders is unfortunately rather uncomfortable with the term "feminist") and yet when I reflect on my own feminism my experiences observing them as I grew up is a major factor. My mother is not a traditionally feminine woman; her favorite hobby is mountain hiking and other outdoor activities, she doesn't care very much about personal appearance and what people think of her, and she tends to be uncomfortable showing emotion. My father, meanwhile, is the guy in his office who always remembers to send birthday cards and get well cards to coworkers, attends funerals for people he doesn't know that well, and in general is in many ways a stereotypically "nurturing" person.
Despite these personality differences, my mother was still the one who stayed home when I was born (Slight digression: I realize that the fact that even one parent could stay home reflects the fact that I do have some degree of what feminist and other progressive blogs refer to as "class privilege" although that fact my family also doesn't have a strong network of relatives who could help with childcare living nearby made any other option rather difficult) mainly for economic reasons but probably also for social ones. My father's job paid significantly more so him being the one to stay home was never really an option (He has a MA while my mother only has a BA, which I think may be partly due to my mother's parents having attitudes similar to Mrs. Walker's father towards her education) although the fact that aren't very many stay at home fathers (and there were less in the early 90s) also made a difference. My mother was never particularly happy at home, and during the period that I was young my father wasn't very happy with his worklife. I think in an ideal world they would have each been able to take six months paid leave and then both work part time for a while (many European countries actually have systems similar to this.) Working to make it easier for parents to balance career and family and fighting the notion that it is the mother who should always do the majority of childcare and housework are important feminist goals. I know the details of how to do this are complex, and one reason why I'm minoring in women's and gender studies is to get a more thorough understanding.
I thought about how all of this is linked to what Mrs. Walker said, and how the goals of feminism today compare to those of her generation. We have obviously made huge strides since the time when her mother was put on an allowance. Still, it seems like society still has a long way to go in being accepting of non-traditional male and female roles, as I have seen watching the experiences of my parents while I was growing up. Now that I think about it, my parent's personalities and relationship with each other influenced all of my identity, not just my feminism. Everyone's parents do, of course, but it's not always something that I think much about...
Neither of my parents really identify as feminists, particularly not my fairly apolitical mother (my father might if pressed, but like many people of both genders is unfortunately rather uncomfortable with the term "feminist") and yet when I reflect on my own feminism my experiences observing them as I grew up is a major factor. My mother is not a traditionally feminine woman; her favorite hobby is mountain hiking and other outdoor activities, she doesn't care very much about personal appearance and what people think of her, and she tends to be uncomfortable showing emotion. My father, meanwhile, is the guy in his office who always remembers to send birthday cards and get well cards to coworkers, attends funerals for people he doesn't know that well, and in general is in many ways a stereotypically "nurturing" person.
Despite these personality differences, my mother was still the one who stayed home when I was born (Slight digression: I realize that the fact that even one parent could stay home reflects the fact that I do have some degree of what feminist and other progressive blogs refer to as "class privilege" although that fact my family also doesn't have a strong network of relatives who could help with childcare living nearby made any other option rather difficult) mainly for economic reasons but probably also for social ones. My father's job paid significantly more so him being the one to stay home was never really an option (He has a MA while my mother only has a BA, which I think may be partly due to my mother's parents having attitudes similar to Mrs. Walker's father towards her education) although the fact that aren't very many stay at home fathers (and there were less in the early 90s) also made a difference. My mother was never particularly happy at home, and during the period that I was young my father wasn't very happy with his worklife. I think in an ideal world they would have each been able to take six months paid leave and then both work part time for a while (many European countries actually have systems similar to this.) Working to make it easier for parents to balance career and family and fighting the notion that it is the mother who should always do the majority of childcare and housework are important feminist goals. I know the details of how to do this are complex, and one reason why I'm minoring in women's and gender studies is to get a more thorough understanding.
I thought about how all of this is linked to what Mrs. Walker said, and how the goals of feminism today compare to those of her generation. We have obviously made huge strides since the time when her mother was put on an allowance. Still, it seems like society still has a long way to go in being accepting of non-traditional male and female roles, as I have seen watching the experiences of my parents while I was growing up. Now that I think about it, my parent's personalities and relationship with each other influenced all of my identity, not just my feminism. Everyone's parents do, of course, but it's not always something that I think much about...
People were critical of her... I am critical of them
Danna Walker's autographical blog was all about her! She gave her opinion of her self! When I first read this blog I had no problem with these facts... but it seemed that a lot of people did.
I heard a large amount of people say that she seemed full of her self and they wondered why she would write a blog completly about her self for no reason.
I believe her blog was very well written an described her life, her reasons for going into academia and even indirectly described why she was writting her blog.
During our meeting with Dr Walker, I found it funny that she had troubles talking about herself as much as she did. Unlike peoples expectations, she was not cocky and only wanted to describe her life but was much more interested in things going on in her life and questions she could answer about life in general.
I enjoyed hearing her stories and her ideas with the exception of having to write my own obituary. Something about it "erks" me out. I know what I want to do with my life, but i also have a large amount of other ideas that could go on as well. Besides that, to be honest writing how you die and that you are dead almost seems wrong to me, but maybe I have an odd view on morality.
All in all though I beleive Dr Walker was a very nice lady, and it was a pretty fun talking with her.
I heard a large amount of people say that she seemed full of her self and they wondered why she would write a blog completly about her self for no reason.
I believe her blog was very well written an described her life, her reasons for going into academia and even indirectly described why she was writting her blog.
During our meeting with Dr Walker, I found it funny that she had troubles talking about herself as much as she did. Unlike peoples expectations, she was not cocky and only wanted to describe her life but was much more interested in things going on in her life and questions she could answer about life in general.
I enjoyed hearing her stories and her ideas with the exception of having to write my own obituary. Something about it "erks" me out. I know what I want to do with my life, but i also have a large amount of other ideas that could go on as well. Besides that, to be honest writing how you die and that you are dead almost seems wrong to me, but maybe I have an odd view on morality.
All in all though I beleive Dr Walker was a very nice lady, and it was a pretty fun talking with her.
My Grand Plan!
FRIEDMAN, Sofie. On April 25, 2081, Sofie E. Friedman of Columbia. Sofie was a Cystic Fibrosis researcher and made great strides in developments that helped patients. She was inspired by her sister who battled Cystic Fibrosis and her father who opened his own lab to give her contributions to the field. She was recognized for her efforts when she received the Distinguished Service to Research Award as well as the APA Early Graduate Student Researcher Award. After graduating from American University in 2013 with her undergraduate in Biology, she went on to intern with the head of the Cystic Fibrosis Research Center who, after two years, offered her a full time position. Sofie leaves behind her husband, her son and daughter, and three grandchildren.
I just may be the most undecided student there ever was. I know some of my interests, but still have a hard time picturing myself in four years knowing exactly how I want to spend even just the next four years of my life. So, I took Dana Walker’s advice and wrote an obituary of myself. “Write an obituary; see how you want to live your life.” Frankly, it worked. I now have my fantasy plan that my subconscious can help me work towards. Who knows if this will actually pan out in the way that I want it to, but as Walker stated, it is more important to have that grand plan rather than planning out every small detail about your future.
Her sign up and show up model also had a great impact on me. It shows that taking such a small step and pushing yourself to do something out of your comfort zone can have huge, positive impacts. After all, the only way to move forward and figure out your life is to try new experiences and see what you like and don’t like. After Dana Walker’s speech I feel even more confident that not knowing what I want to study or become later in life can be advantageous now. I no longer feel self conscious to admit to those who ask that I am currently an undecided student. Essentially, all freshmen are right now because even those who feel they know exactly what field they want to go into, most likely will change their minds at some point along the journey. I don’t have to be hindered by my dreams; I can study anything right now to figure out who I am and even who I will be. And that’s pretty darn exciting.
I just may be the most undecided student there ever was. I know some of my interests, but still have a hard time picturing myself in four years knowing exactly how I want to spend even just the next four years of my life. So, I took Dana Walker’s advice and wrote an obituary of myself. “Write an obituary; see how you want to live your life.” Frankly, it worked. I now have my fantasy plan that my subconscious can help me work towards. Who knows if this will actually pan out in the way that I want it to, but as Walker stated, it is more important to have that grand plan rather than planning out every small detail about your future.
Her sign up and show up model also had a great impact on me. It shows that taking such a small step and pushing yourself to do something out of your comfort zone can have huge, positive impacts. After all, the only way to move forward and figure out your life is to try new experiences and see what you like and don’t like. After Dana Walker’s speech I feel even more confident that not knowing what I want to study or become later in life can be advantageous now. I no longer feel self conscious to admit to those who ask that I am currently an undecided student. Essentially, all freshmen are right now because even those who feel they know exactly what field they want to go into, most likely will change their minds at some point along the journey. I don’t have to be hindered by my dreams; I can study anything right now to figure out who I am and even who I will be. And that’s pretty darn exciting.
Saturday, September 5, 2009
Working Hard (Reflection 2)
I know that many times we are told that if you work hard you will succeed. Yet, more times than not we are overwhelmed by the idea that only the rich get richer, and that people who don’t work as hard can get better grades than those who can. However, Dr. Danna Walker shows us how her hard work helped her overcome even her father’s expectations. I would really like to reflect on hard work in this reflection, because it was something she seemed to stress, and I feel the need to stress it too. Hard work is in my opinion, is a controversial subject in everybody’s head. There is always an inner battle going on whether to do your homework or go out with friends. Or on how many hours you should spend studying. And there is a very simple answer to this. Because hard work is hard.
Hard work however, is the difference between passing and failing, doing better or worse, or just getting something done at all. I can use so many examples to explain this. My first will be my own example. Last night, I could have went outside or read a book for my college writing class. My teacher had threatened once to quiz us on the reading, but he hadn’t yet, and I began to believe that it was just an empty threat. However, I knew I had to do my work, so I did the reading and cut into time with my friends. Was it worth it? Oh yeah. Today the teacher walked into the room and said, “Pull out a piece of paper, I want to quiz you on the reading.” Hard work has already helped me out there, because in all modesty I did well on that quiz.
Everybody has their hard work stories. Dr. Walker didn’t stop there. She told how through her hard work, she became educated and experienced, and has even served in jobs that women have never served in before. It was nice to see hard work paying off for somebody, and looking back it makes me feel quite good for her and more hopeful for me. Maybe if there were more success stories, and more people who are inclined to do less will look up and start to do more for themselves. And that is something we can work for. Who knows, maybe by working hard like Dr. Walker did, we can inspire somebody else the way she inspired me. And that is worth the hard work within itself. This isn’t to say that Dr. Walker did not have other important things to say. She did. But, this is what hit me the hardest.
Hard work however, is the difference between passing and failing, doing better or worse, or just getting something done at all. I can use so many examples to explain this. My first will be my own example. Last night, I could have went outside or read a book for my college writing class. My teacher had threatened once to quiz us on the reading, but he hadn’t yet, and I began to believe that it was just an empty threat. However, I knew I had to do my work, so I did the reading and cut into time with my friends. Was it worth it? Oh yeah. Today the teacher walked into the room and said, “Pull out a piece of paper, I want to quiz you on the reading.” Hard work has already helped me out there, because in all modesty I did well on that quiz.
Everybody has their hard work stories. Dr. Walker didn’t stop there. She told how through her hard work, she became educated and experienced, and has even served in jobs that women have never served in before. It was nice to see hard work paying off for somebody, and looking back it makes me feel quite good for her and more hopeful for me. Maybe if there were more success stories, and more people who are inclined to do less will look up and start to do more for themselves. And that is something we can work for. Who knows, maybe by working hard like Dr. Walker did, we can inspire somebody else the way she inspired me. And that is worth the hard work within itself. This isn’t to say that Dr. Walker did not have other important things to say. She did. But, this is what hit me the hardest.
Thursday, September 3, 2009
Here's Bruce
When I grow up, I want a few things..... a house, a front yard, to work for the secret service and to have a golden retriever- germen sheapard mix. I currently have one of them- the mix. His name is Bruce. The thing is.... he is a stuffed animal, though a very fluffy cool looking one at that.
My girl friend got him for me for one of the aniversaries that do not count unless your in high school (in which case, every anniversary counts) (I beleive it was month 5).
To me Bruce reminds me of home, it reminds me of her, and he keeps me happy. I looked around my room and reall thought about it, there are two things prominantly displayed. A photo of my bestfriend, m girlfriend and me at graduation; and Bruce is proudly sitting on my bed.
I beleive if I was about 2 years younger, I would have been embarassed out of my mind to have a stuffed animal sitting on my bed. Espically because I was in a room with two other guys. Now I see him as a conversation piece and something to make me unique.
My roommate sees him often and has even handed to me more then once when he falls off my bed (often when accidently knock him off... the beds are a little small). He thinks it shows my sensitive side and says its cool that I already have my dog.
In short, Im glad Bruce is here.
My girl friend got him for me for one of the aniversaries that do not count unless your in high school (in which case, every anniversary counts) (I beleive it was month 5).
To me Bruce reminds me of home, it reminds me of her, and he keeps me happy. I looked around my room and reall thought about it, there are two things prominantly displayed. A photo of my bestfriend, m girlfriend and me at graduation; and Bruce is proudly sitting on my bed.
I beleive if I was about 2 years younger, I would have been embarassed out of my mind to have a stuffed animal sitting on my bed. Espically because I was in a room with two other guys. Now I see him as a conversation piece and something to make me unique.
My roommate sees him often and has even handed to me more then once when he falls off my bed (often when accidently knock him off... the beds are a little small). He thinks it shows my sensitive side and says its cool that I already have my dog.
In short, Im glad Bruce is here.
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
You can't take the sky from me...
This is a bit of a difficult task for me, since I didn't really bring any pictures (or other meaningful items) to hang on my wall and/or put on my desk (I can always see them on the computer.) Perhaps I'm not the most sentimental of people, or maybe I'm just more interested in the fresh start of college than relieving old memories. I neglected to even bring any of my posters from home, although I had intended to. Since this left my walls bare, I patronized the poster sale to find some appropriate decoration. As I casually leafed through the posters, I came across one of Joss Whedon's "Serenity" and immediately realized I needed this poster.
The poster mainly depicts the character River Tam in a fighting stace with a battleax in one hand and a sword in the other. The background displays other characters and an explosion, but River is clearly the focus. This poster is linked to my identity in two main ways. Firstly, I had a poster of Firefly (the show that was the basis for "Serenity" and featured the same characters) in my room at home. I'm passionate about the show and most of Whedon's body of work. This is in large pa
rt due to Whedon's strong female characters, which is linked to the second reason I identify with the poster- River is clearly a powerful young woman. While I am certainty not secretly an assassin like River is (or even physically formidable at all), I am a very strong believed in feminism and female empowerment and I try to believe that even though I'm not physically powerful I can be strong in other ways. Trying to assert myself more and become a powerful young woman is one of my goals for college, and every time I look at the poster of River (and my other poster of Rosie the Riveter) I am reminded of this.
I asked my friend and roommate Anne her impressions of the poster and what it showed about her identity. Her main conclusion was that I am a fan of Joss Whedon (as is she) which was indeed the first of the reasons it was linked to my identity. The second reason is a bit more subtle and important mainly to me, so it is no surprise that it wasn't picked up on. I'm not really bothered by this, since the poster is meant more for my own inspiration than to convey a message to others.
The poster mainly depicts the character River Tam in a fighting stace with a battleax in one hand and a sword in the other. The background displays other characters and an explosion, but River is clearly the focus. This poster is linked to my identity in two main ways. Firstly, I had a poster of Firefly (the show that was the basis for "Serenity" and featured the same characters) in my room at home. I'm passionate about the show and most of Whedon's body of work. This is in large pa
rt due to Whedon's strong female characters, which is linked to the second reason I identify with the poster- River is clearly a powerful young woman. While I am certainty not secretly an assassin like River is (or even physically formidable at all), I am a very strong believed in feminism and female empowerment and I try to believe that even though I'm not physically powerful I can be strong in other ways. Trying to assert myself more and become a powerful young woman is one of my goals for college, and every time I look at the poster of River (and my other poster of Rosie the Riveter) I am reminded of this.I asked my friend and roommate Anne her impressions of the poster and what it showed about her identity. Her main conclusion was that I am a fan of Joss Whedon (as is she) which was indeed the first of the reasons it was linked to my identity. The second reason is a bit more subtle and important mainly to me, so it is no surprise that it wasn't picked up on. I'm not really bothered by this, since the poster is meant more for my own inspiration than to convey a message to others.
"Bear" Necessities
So most of my other friends took the college transition as the perfect opportunity to not bring their beloved stuffed animals with them or at least think over the idea. However, for me there was no choice. Bear, so cleverly named, has been a huge part of my life since the day I was born when he was given to me by my grandmother. To me, his raggedy beaten up self represents home wherever I am since from a young age he has been a symbol of comfort and security through good and bad childhood times. Bear comfortably sits on my bed every morning after I get up and is therefore always visible to any guests of my room.
On one hand, having Bear here and so visible could portray an identity of vulnerability and childishness to someone who may not know me well. Contrastingly, aside from a multitude of pictures, I do not have many other objects that remind me of home and the security that comes along with the thought of home for me. Also, when people see my stuffed animal, it is clear to them that I made a conscious decision to bring him to school with me. This indicates what a big part of my life he has been and continues to be during this difficult transition in my life.
My classmate’s response to Bear was similar to how I viewed his presence in my room. They said that it showed that I missed home and wanted something in my room that was special to remind me of home. They said that it showed that I was a sensitive person, but not that I was immature, just in touch with my sensitivity and my periods of homesickness. I was interested in the fact that their initial reaction was not one of surprise or negativity, but of positive acceptance.
On one hand, having Bear here and so visible could portray an identity of vulnerability and childishness to someone who may not know me well. Contrastingly, aside from a multitude of pictures, I do not have many other objects that remind me of home and the security that comes along with the thought of home for me. Also, when people see my stuffed animal, it is clear to them that I made a conscious decision to bring him to school with me. This indicates what a big part of my life he has been and continues to be during this difficult transition in my life.
My classmate’s response to Bear was similar to how I viewed his presence in my room. They said that it showed that I missed home and wanted something in my room that was special to remind me of home. They said that it showed that I was a sensitive person, but not that I was immature, just in touch with my sensitivity and my periods of homesickness. I was interested in the fact that their initial reaction was not one of surprise or negativity, but of positive acceptance.
My Harry Potter Book From Home!
Ok, well I brought many things from home with me to school. However, the thing made sure I brought was the book Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone by J.K. Rowling. I brought this book because I read somewhere that I should bring something that comforts you to college. This book was the first major book I loved and continue to love. Whenever I was angry or upset, I would sit down with this book and read. It felt good to escape into a world different than my own. It still does. As for my identity, well I guess it can say that I love to read. It also says that I enjoy the unknown and fantasy. I also like to have a sense of adventure and meaning.
My friends have said that it means I like reading, fantasy, and adventure. I agree with them. It also says that I have a strong bond to my childhood and I don’t take myself seriously because I read a fun book. I missed these elements, but I actually like that the book makes them think that, so I endorse their comments! Besides, it makes me sound cool!
They did miss some elements that I added, but I am probably biased and dramatizing myself. But, a boy can dream can’t he? Well, according to Goffman, it is the front that I put on that interprets how people view the book in relationship to me. I think this book is symbolizing a backstage to my front at college, because it is showing a link to the real me, not the performance me. I also felt the need for it to show I have a meaning. But, do I really need that? I have a meaning. I am working hard now, doing the best I can, and trying to have fun along the way, for a better future for myself, and if I am lucky, at least one other person.
My friends have said that it means I like reading, fantasy, and adventure. I agree with them. It also says that I have a strong bond to my childhood and I don’t take myself seriously because I read a fun book. I missed these elements, but I actually like that the book makes them think that, so I endorse their comments! Besides, it makes me sound cool!
They did miss some elements that I added, but I am probably biased and dramatizing myself. But, a boy can dream can’t he? Well, according to Goffman, it is the front that I put on that interprets how people view the book in relationship to me. I think this book is symbolizing a backstage to my front at college, because it is showing a link to the real me, not the performance me. I also felt the need for it to show I have a meaning. But, do I really need that? I have a meaning. I am working hard now, doing the best I can, and trying to have fun along the way, for a better future for myself, and if I am lucky, at least one other person.
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
The Russian Thing from Home
There were so many things that I brought with me from home to make my dorm room feel a bit less foreign. There were so many thing that my mom said I should leave at home and did. And yet, even after I left most of my stuff at home, my third of the room is defiantly me. At home I have so many little figurines and momentos, but here I have limited myself to only three: my stone bear from Banff, Canada, my snow globe that Alejandro made me, and my Cheburashka matryoshka doll from Russia. (Here's what a matryoshka doll is)I get the most comments on Cheburashka. I think he says a lot about me. Cheburashka is a Soviet cartoon character as well as the mascot for the Russian Olympics in 1980 and for the upcoming Olympics to be held there in 2014. My Cheburashka is about 3 1/2" tall, made of Birch (just like traditional matryoshkas), and stares up at you with adorable bright blue eyes.
For me, Cheurashka represents three things: my last family vacation, Russia, and wonderment. First, I acquired Cheburashka during my trip to Russia this summer. This vacation was the last before I left home and it was a time for me to just spend with my parents. Spending time with my parents was (and still is) very important first because I am very close to my parents, and second because it was the first time in about a year and a half when we were able to spend time together just the three of us. Cheburashka also represents Russia for me. First, Cheburashka is a product of the Soviet Union. Second, he is made up of multiple layers, just like Russia. Russia is not simply understood; it is complicated and made up of multiple layers. Finally, Cheburashka represents wonderment to me. I remember that while I was in Russia, all I did was wonder and ponder the vast country that I was in. I also distinctly remember that my reaction to Cheburashka the first time I saw him was pure wonderment. I thought what is this thing and why is it absolutely everywhere? As to what identity Cheburashka preforms, I think that he is a mixture of old Soviet ideas, modern tourist keepsake, and a little part of my life. His identity as Soviet cartoon character is defined by the Soviet ideals such as equality and friendship. As a Modern tourist keepsake, he is defined by all the dolls, toys, and everything else he has been made into and sold to tourists. Finally, Cheburashka is a little part of my life as he is a reminder of my trip and of my parents.
When I asks someone else about what she thought Cheburashka said about me, she came up with things that I had never intended Cheburashka to represent. She said that Cheburashka showed that I like thing that fit together and make sense and that I have different personalities. Both of these things have nothing to do with the way I see Cheburashka. I do like things that fit together and make sense, but not to the extent that I do not like complicated situations, especially in politics and history. I enjoy the chance to problem solve and debate; they are two of my favorite things about school. Also, I do not have different personalities. I many act differently in distinct situations or with different people, but my personality is always the same. To put it simply, I react appropriately according to the situation. (The only time my personality has ever changed was after a snowboarding accident during sophomore year and a major concussion; so for two weeks I truly was not myself.) Cheburashka is the aforementioned things and I actually really never intended him to mean anything to anyone but me.
Finally, enjoy some Cheburashka for yourself!!
For me, Cheurashka represents three things: my last family vacation, Russia, and wonderment. First, I acquired Cheburashka during my trip to Russia this summer. This vacation was the last before I left home and it was a time for me to just spend with my parents. Spending time with my parents was (and still is) very important first because I am very close to my parents, and second because it was the first time in about a year and a half when we were able to spend time together just the three of us. Cheburashka also represents Russia for me. First, Cheburashka is a product of the Soviet Union. Second, he is made up of multiple layers, just like Russia. Russia is not simply understood; it is complicated and made up of multiple layers. Finally, Cheburashka represents wonderment to me. I remember that while I was in Russia, all I did was wonder and ponder the vast country that I was in. I also distinctly remember that my reaction to Cheburashka the first time I saw him was pure wonderment. I thought what is this thing and why is it absolutely everywhere? As to what identity Cheburashka preforms, I think that he is a mixture of old Soviet ideas, modern tourist keepsake, and a little part of my life. His identity as Soviet cartoon character is defined by the Soviet ideals such as equality and friendship. As a Modern tourist keepsake, he is defined by all the dolls, toys, and everything else he has been made into and sold to tourists. Finally, Cheburashka is a little part of my life as he is a reminder of my trip and of my parents.
When I asks someone else about what she thought Cheburashka said about me, she came up with things that I had never intended Cheburashka to represent. She said that Cheburashka showed that I like thing that fit together and make sense and that I have different personalities. Both of these things have nothing to do with the way I see Cheburashka. I do like things that fit together and make sense, but not to the extent that I do not like complicated situations, especially in politics and history. I enjoy the chance to problem solve and debate; they are two of my favorite things about school. Also, I do not have different personalities. I many act differently in distinct situations or with different people, but my personality is always the same. To put it simply, I react appropriately according to the situation. (The only time my personality has ever changed was after a snowboarding accident during sophomore year and a major concussion; so for two weeks I truly was not myself.) Cheburashka is the aforementioned things and I actually really never intended him to mean anything to anyone but me.
Finally, enjoy some Cheburashka for yourself!!
9/1/09
Things I did today..
Tried to find all blog groups
Searched for double talk on google - http://www.answers.com/topic/double-talk
found facebook privacy cause
(skimmed the entire thing)
10:34amAndrew
helloooo
10:34amJustin
great now i have to post this1
10:35amAndrew
hahaha
Tried to find all blog groups
Searched for double talk on google - http://www.answers.com/topic/double-talk
found facebook privacy cause
(skimmed the entire thing)
10:34amAndrew
helloooo
10:34amJustin
great now i have to post this1
10:35amAndrew
hahaha
Internet Log 2- September 2
Blogspot.com used to create a log and to try to link blogs together.
Google - Goffman Presentation of the Self in Everyday Life.
Looked up facebook privacy setting and went on facebook.(part of the lecture!)
Google - Goffman Presentation of the Self in Everyday Life.
Looked up facebook privacy setting and went on facebook.(part of the lecture!)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)