Blog #7- O'Brien

I think that the truth in this story is that it could have been anything or anyone. It's not necessarily the who or how or what's in a war story, it's the experiences and the wholeness of the group that hold the truth. The truth of war is that it is unpredictable, and beautiful, and horrible, and a million other contradictions. As O'Brien says, "To generalize about war is like generalizing about peace. Almost everything is true. Almost nothing is true. At its core, perhaps, war is just another name for death, and yet any soldier will tell you, if he tells the truth, that proximity to death brings with it a corresponding proximity to life." The truth of war is that it isn't a nice, clean, cut and dry story. The lines are all blurred.

Even though coming up with a definition of "truth" this story (and in war) is impossible, and even though one can't really make a distinction of whether or not the story is entirely or at all true (most likely, even the people who lived through the experience can't tell what parts of their story are true or not, if in fact the story was meant to be true), the "truth" this story is valuable because it delves into the psyche of human beings under these types of situations. It is human nature to repress traumatic experiences. Therefore, is it truly possible for a soldier to tell his or her story in it's entirety with 100% truth? I would find it hard to believe if someone claimed that they could/had/are. Either way, the truths that do come out of it, and the realizations brought on by war are important and are telling.

It is hard to decipher a true war story from one that is fiction. The more I think about it, the more skeptical I become that this story is true. I also don't think that it matters for this story. And although I'm not sure if the story within the essay is fact or fiction, I would still classify this essay as a whole as creative nonfiction because of the circling and the searching for the true meaning. As with "Alive" and "Westbury Court", it's almost like this war story is just the vehicle driving the true point of the essay. Whether this story is true or not isn't the point. The point is (I think...) that that truth in a war story is not about names and places, it is about feelings and experiences, it is about everything and nothing all at once, depending on the connections the reader(listener) has with the subject matter and the ways in which each individual reacts to what is being told.

I'm not sure. There's too much going on here for me to feel certain about my interpretations, but this is my story and I'm sticking with it.

#5 "Alive" and "Westbury Court"

"Alive"
I think the main point of this essay is that no matter what kind of training or sharp wit one possesses, even having been a former police officer, she, and everyone else in the world, is still susceptible to others, “simply because I am alive”. This goes through the whole frightening story of this woman’s experience with a suspected stalker to convey this idea. Despite the fact that she was a cop, despite the fact that she took precautions, despite the fact that she waited to lose the stalker, despite the fact that she left the state; still, she is vulnerable. There is nothing that can completely prepare anyone for all of life’s challenges and interactions with others. When at first it seemed like this story was going to be about the author’s interaction with the bald man, as it turns out, that main point has no real emphasis on this particular incident. Really, the main focus of the essay is this woman’s realization that no matter who prepared you may think you are, no matter how “alert, tolerant, compassionate, or suspicious”, life will always surprise you. There is no way around it; simply being alive is enough to make all of these characteristics meaningless when you get caught up in life.

"Westbury Court"
I found it to be a little more difficult to find the real focus of this essay, but I think what the author is trying to say is that the world around you moves pretty fast, and that it is impossible to control everything that happens. This essay seems, to me, to say that in an instant, things can change drastically - for the better, or for the worse ("I am vulnerable simply because I'm alive"). Also, I think this essay focuses on the fact that if you don't take the time to look around and keep your eyes and ears open, you lose the opportunity to get to know those around you. That perhaps, by being so focused on oneself and what is going on in that individual's life (General Hospital), we miss the bigger picture and the things that are going on around us. Similarly to "Alive", this story also takes us through the incident with the fire in the building, only as a vehicle to get to the main point of the essay. Although the fire takes up a large portion of the text, the true meaning behind it doesn't really have all that much to do with this incident. It could have come from talking about the murders, the burglary, or any other tragedy mentioned in the essay. The author simply chose one episode as a means of conveying a message and getting to the main idea she intended to write about, just like Laurie Lynn Drummond did in "Alive".

Both pieces used very descriptive language in their essays, and wrote in a matter-of-fact, stream-of-conscious type manner. I think writing in this way allowed both authors to tell their stories in an interesting and intimate way. The reader can visualize what is happening, as it is happening in the story. Also, both pieces go through the whole story and then reflect on the events, thus producing the main focus of the essay.

blog #4

This essay seems to address 3 things. A father's relationship to his past, a daughter's relationship with her father, and a daughter's newfound understanding of her father and his past. As this segmented essay goes on, the white space seems to represent shifts in what that section of the text is about. The first segment focuses on giving some background information about this family, and has a father who is still holding onto his past in Rindheim, and a daughter who doesn't understand her father and why he is so stuck on his "favorite lines". The second segment is mostly about the father and gives insight into his childhood in Rindheim, thus beginning to explain why he says/does/things the things he does in America that the author comments on in the first segment. In the third segment,it seems that the narrator is beginning to understand her father better and is feeling some sympathy for him. She is learning things that she did not know previously and Nazi Germany and the types of things her father and his kin endured during that time. The fourth segment is relatively short, and mainly serves to shed some like on Jewish life and customs before the war, as well as giving a look into the relationship the narrator's mother and father had in Germany. The fifth segment shifts back to the narrator and what she is learning at that moment in the graveyard. It seems that by this point, the father and daughter and comeing to a degree of closeness and understanding not previously seem in the piece, and it also seems that the narrator is learning a great deal, and that her father is healing through his mourning. Finally, in the sixth segment, we are back to learning about the narrator and we see that she now has a much better understanding of the Holocaust and what it entailed for not only her family, but for Jews as a whole. At this point, it seems as though both she and her father have learned and grown from their experience in Germany, and it seems that both have gained from the trip.
Each segment in this piece seems to bring a new level of understanding for the narrator. She goes from knowing very little about the Holocaust and Nazi Germany in the first segment, to having a far greater understanding of both the World War II era and her father by the sixth segment. Each section focuses on a different aspect of the lives of the characters, and they also serve to designate a new realm of understanding for the narrator.

Blog 3

I think that both the Montaigne and the Orwell essays are very similar to the contemporary examples of creative nonfiction we have read. Specifically, in the Montaigne essay, the central idea is conveyed through examples and illustrations, his personal calues weigh heavily into the piece, and his personal thoughts, feelings, and ideas drive the work. Orwell's essay is written in a matter-of-fact tone, recounting sequential events that took place on this particular day of the author's life. This essay is very descriptive and discusses inner thoughts, feelings, conflicts, and perceptions of the narrator which no one would know if they were not deemed important enough to include in this piece of writing. What I found particularly interesting about this piece was how much of an influence others had on Orwell's decision to kill the elephant, even though he was against it until the moment came.

All of the elements presented in these two essays seem to have a place in the contemporary creative nonfiction we have read so far in this course. I think as creative nonfiction grew as a genre, I think the styles it is written in and the variety of ways of conveying the messages may have expanded from the time of these two historical examples. Overall, however, I think pieces like these really set up a strong foundation for modern day creative nonfiction. I think a majority of the elements are within these pieces and contemporary works have just expanded upon these formats and this genre of writing.

blog #2

In addition to the elements of creative nonfiction found in the first 3 essays we read previously, Jamaica Kincaid's essay adds introspection and reflection to the definition of CNF. "Biography of a Dress" is far more reflective than the other works we have read so far, and works toward drawing parallels between the past experience and present knowledge.

From the Bret Lott piece, I see that creative nonfiction is a test. It is something that a writer just has to do (if this is the genre he or she wishes to explore), whether the author feels anyone would be interested in it or not. One must simply put their thoughts, ideas, feelings, etc. out there and allow people to take it for what it is. The truth in creative nonfiction comes from the honesty the author has, for better or for worse, with his or herself. Likewise, the goal of creative nonfiction seems to be to represent oneself truthfully and as you are; not how you think others do, or should perceive you.
I really liked the concept of "the self as a continent, and you its first explorer" (p.272). I think this holds a lot of merit in what I've gathered about creative nonfiction thus far, and I also like this idea as a perspective on life in general.

definition of creative non fiction

From what I've gathered, it seems that creative non fiction is:

• writing based upon personal experience, but perhaps enhanced in some ways
• covers a multitude of topics
• has some emotional connection to the author
• can be similar to fiction writing
• is descriptive

eng 3017