variation
For my Seminar Creative Writing: Visiting Writers class, we had to a project following the Pekar reading. I chose to do the autobiographical comic option.
image copyright Karen Kim
However, rather than drawing me as I would normally interpret myself, I drew myself with simple round features, and cat ears. This was mainly because the piece was a happy piece, and I needed my look to match the mood. The mood of the piece was due to the subject matter-- a taste of what it is like for me undergoing my everyday interactions with my roommates.
My roommates were happy, fun-loving people. My experiences with them was so, as well. How could I interpret myself as being any different?
I suppose part of it is we alter ourselves depending on company, and circumstance. In a big group of friends, I am more likely to be fun-loving, loud, and off the wall. Then when I am with the same person on a one on one basis I might be more quiet, supporting, conservative. When I am completely alone, I tend to wallow around in the more depressing of my emotions, listening to depressing music, and create my art and writing.
The taste of my life I exhibit in this comic is the light side of me. Thus I interpreted myself as how I saw myself when surrounded by these people, and when I was in these situations. I tended to act more immature, claiming the maturity level of a 7 year old (holding up 4 fingers) or parading around the house with the cat ears I got from Michael’s. (I have this odd tendency to meow in my sleep, so I matched it up with other catty behavior. I like how addictive catty behavior is to even those who claim to be most disgusted or annoyed by my actions.)
Yes, this me looks nothing like the me I would have drawn had it been a more depressing piece. But can anyone say it is not me? Are we not all a little different depending on our company?
I remember in high school, the honors classes tended to be filled with the same people, so there was an extreme segregation between honors and non-honors. There were exceptions, such as Aja King. When she hung around her honors friends, she would act more intelligent, with a preacher-like tone in her voice. Then, when she hung around her non-honors friends, her mannerisms would become more “ghetto.” This separation in mannerism is what she felt allowed her to be successful in her interactions with both groups. Had she acted “ghetto” during a school presentation, she wouldn’t have seemed nearly as sophisticated and qualified to be a lawyer during mock trials, or a speaker during certain presentations. Had she used her intellectual voice with her non-honors friends, wouldn’t they have seen her as talking down to them, and refused her company? Also, if she used her “ghetto” talk with her honors friends, wouldn’t they find the shift in her tone to be odd, and hard to get used to, compared to the Aja they saw everyday in 4 of their 6 classes?
When people say you can tell a lot about a person based on their company, it is more than just who they associate themselves with-- it is also what they reveal to each group or individual. As my God-brother, Drew told me, if anyone wanted to see the full picture of who he was, they would have to talk to a lot of people, because no two people know him in exactly the same way.
Now in the case of autobiography, in Grealy and Pachett’s text, yes, the interpretation of Grealy was different. But was this due to one being less accurate than another, or merely because they were revealing different sides of Grealy? Grealy revealed her self-pitying, meditative side. Pachett revealed her fun-loving irresistible, self-centered side. But can’t they both be accurate accounts of the same person?
image copyright Karen KimHowever, rather than drawing me as I would normally interpret myself, I drew myself with simple round features, and cat ears. This was mainly because the piece was a happy piece, and I needed my look to match the mood. The mood of the piece was due to the subject matter-- a taste of what it is like for me undergoing my everyday interactions with my roommates.
My roommates were happy, fun-loving people. My experiences with them was so, as well. How could I interpret myself as being any different?
I suppose part of it is we alter ourselves depending on company, and circumstance. In a big group of friends, I am more likely to be fun-loving, loud, and off the wall. Then when I am with the same person on a one on one basis I might be more quiet, supporting, conservative. When I am completely alone, I tend to wallow around in the more depressing of my emotions, listening to depressing music, and create my art and writing.
The taste of my life I exhibit in this comic is the light side of me. Thus I interpreted myself as how I saw myself when surrounded by these people, and when I was in these situations. I tended to act more immature, claiming the maturity level of a 7 year old (holding up 4 fingers) or parading around the house with the cat ears I got from Michael’s. (I have this odd tendency to meow in my sleep, so I matched it up with other catty behavior. I like how addictive catty behavior is to even those who claim to be most disgusted or annoyed by my actions.)
Yes, this me looks nothing like the me I would have drawn had it been a more depressing piece. But can anyone say it is not me? Are we not all a little different depending on our company?
I remember in high school, the honors classes tended to be filled with the same people, so there was an extreme segregation between honors and non-honors. There were exceptions, such as Aja King. When she hung around her honors friends, she would act more intelligent, with a preacher-like tone in her voice. Then, when she hung around her non-honors friends, her mannerisms would become more “ghetto.” This separation in mannerism is what she felt allowed her to be successful in her interactions with both groups. Had she acted “ghetto” during a school presentation, she wouldn’t have seemed nearly as sophisticated and qualified to be a lawyer during mock trials, or a speaker during certain presentations. Had she used her intellectual voice with her non-honors friends, wouldn’t they have seen her as talking down to them, and refused her company? Also, if she used her “ghetto” talk with her honors friends, wouldn’t they find the shift in her tone to be odd, and hard to get used to, compared to the Aja they saw everyday in 4 of their 6 classes?
When people say you can tell a lot about a person based on their company, it is more than just who they associate themselves with-- it is also what they reveal to each group or individual. As my God-brother, Drew told me, if anyone wanted to see the full picture of who he was, they would have to talk to a lot of people, because no two people know him in exactly the same way.
Now in the case of autobiography, in Grealy and Pachett’s text, yes, the interpretation of Grealy was different. But was this due to one being less accurate than another, or merely because they were revealing different sides of Grealy? Grealy revealed her self-pitying, meditative side. Pachett revealed her fun-loving irresistible, self-centered side. But can’t they both be accurate accounts of the same person?
