my definition: autobiography
The Autobiographical Pact and other works we have studied this year are attempts to define what an autobiography really is, and how text and visual works fit into this definition of autobiography.
Well, my definition of an autobiography isn't as standard, scientific, or provable. It is something within my head which will recognize pieces of text and art it encounters as autobiographical or not automatically without neccessarily having a set of standards or rules to check it by.
Basically I believe an autobiography is a piece created by an individual which expresses that individual's essence.
As far as I'm concerned the details of the history in one's life, or what actually happened in the past is irrelevant. What truly matters is the person perceived it as such or decided for some conscious reason that the change in details to represent some aspect of themselves. Whether it was a madeline or a piece of toast is irrelevant. What truly matters is that the author felt the madeline captured the essence of what had occurred more accurately than a piece of toast would have, and decided to represent the birth of his recollection with madeline rather than toast.
Is it really important as to what truly happened in someone's life? Autobiography isn't an historical document. It is an art form for self expression. As Chad expressed during class, what he disliked about autobiography was the Armstrong form of autobiography-- the telling of what happened in one's life like a nonfiction piece, with a few inner reflections revealed. It was Nothomb's creative piece which made autobiography a form of art rather than an document recording events in one's life which interested him.
There is more to literature than a record of accurate events. Therefore, there is a difference between literature and less creative forms like journalism. I took a class in the later, and I admit, I have developed a strong distaste for it.
The self we consciously decide to show others may seem like a construction, but that to reveals the character of the person writing about themselves. They are a person who feels they must construct themselves for some reason. After all, writers tend to be creative people. If they are less creative than naturally inclined, does that show who they are? As far as I'm concerned, non-writers should not be writing, period. They can have biographies and journalistic articles written about them, but I don't want to see a tainting and degrading of the quality of an artistic genre.
Well, my definition of an autobiography isn't as standard, scientific, or provable. It is something within my head which will recognize pieces of text and art it encounters as autobiographical or not automatically without neccessarily having a set of standards or rules to check it by.
Basically I believe an autobiography is a piece created by an individual which expresses that individual's essence.
As far as I'm concerned the details of the history in one's life, or what actually happened in the past is irrelevant. What truly matters is the person perceived it as such or decided for some conscious reason that the change in details to represent some aspect of themselves. Whether it was a madeline or a piece of toast is irrelevant. What truly matters is that the author felt the madeline captured the essence of what had occurred more accurately than a piece of toast would have, and decided to represent the birth of his recollection with madeline rather than toast.
Is it really important as to what truly happened in someone's life? Autobiography isn't an historical document. It is an art form for self expression. As Chad expressed during class, what he disliked about autobiography was the Armstrong form of autobiography-- the telling of what happened in one's life like a nonfiction piece, with a few inner reflections revealed. It was Nothomb's creative piece which made autobiography a form of art rather than an document recording events in one's life which interested him.
There is more to literature than a record of accurate events. Therefore, there is a difference between literature and less creative forms like journalism. I took a class in the later, and I admit, I have developed a strong distaste for it.
The self we consciously decide to show others may seem like a construction, but that to reveals the character of the person writing about themselves. They are a person who feels they must construct themselves for some reason. After all, writers tend to be creative people. If they are less creative than naturally inclined, does that show who they are? As far as I'm concerned, non-writers should not be writing, period. They can have biographies and journalistic articles written about them, but I don't want to see a tainting and degrading of the quality of an artistic genre.
