Reality Is…Reality Is…

By Amanda FortnerBy Amanda Fortner

Reality isn’t copyrightable.

Reality isn’t copyrightable.

Someone who is “real” is authentic in what they feel or think, or in the way they interact with others. Often times, the person who is not “real,” ends up being the person who you’ve had a disagreement with, or who holds a different view point on life. As we are hypocritical creatures, we often accuse other of being “fake” for things that we ourselves do. Therefore, if we chose to classify people in this way, none of us are “real,” and those of us that insist we are, are the fakest yet. (platano)

To me what Reality Hunger proves most poignantly is that writers in the modern world must move past their own fear, or fascination with it to the realities, the details underneath. (AyaSeaver)

I know that for me, I get enough reality with every second of the day, and I enjoy reading fiction- I get plenty of reality without opening a book. (Smacholdt)

He even goes so far as to suggest that we, his readers, remove those citations the end of the novel that his lawyers insisted he include. But isn’t this overkill? I would have preferred him to preserve his form and not hit us over the head with what he was trying to say. If his argument is valid, won’t his form speak for itself? Wouldn’t the form alone prove to us that citation is outmoded without having to explicitly and redundantly say as much? Or would his argument not have been clear enough? (ckosarek)

…so what’s “real” is emotion and reaction rather than a factual, researched piece of literature (assuming that a map is a form of nonfiction), and reality is defined by the individual and their experiences. I’m not sure if I find that notion refreshing or unsettling. (mkarol)

One point I found really interesting about the book is the idea that our memory is selective which suggests that we can never know what we say is true or “real.” This is true to some extent that your memory is selective but then does this mean that nothing you write or read can be considered true? (maht91)

…we’ve been trained to look for coherence, and that’s what we tend to do when reading a book. To top it off, what we’re supposed to understand, once we’ve battled with the incoherence, is that great art makes us redefine our perceptions and ideas of what has been established before. Therefore, as frustrating as “Reality Hunger” might be, Shields has made us experience something that we might not have before. (platano)

Someone who is “real” is authentic in what they feel or think, or in the way they interact with others. Often times, the person who is not “real,” ends up being the person who you’ve had a disagreement with, or who holds a different view point on life. As we are hypocritical creatures, we often accuse other of being “fake” for things that we ourselves do. Therefore, if we chose to classify people in this way, none of us are “real,” and those of us that insist we are, are the fakest yet. (platano)

To me what Reality Hunger proves most poignantly is that writers in the modern world must move past their own fear, or fascination with it to the realities, the details underneath. (AyaSeaver)

I know that for me, I get enough reality with every second of the day, and I enjoy reading fiction- I get plenty of reality without opening a book. (Smacholdt)

He even goes so far as to suggest that we, his readers, remove those citations the end of the novel that his lawyers insisted he include. But isn’t this overkill? I would have preferred him to preserve his form and not hit us over the head with what he was trying to say. If his argument is valid, won’t his form speak for itself? Wouldn’t the form alone prove to us that citation is outmoded without having to explicitly and redundantly say as much? Or would his argument not have been clear enough? (ckosarek)

…so what’s “real” is emotion and reaction rather than a factual, researched piece of literature (assuming that a map is a form of nonfiction), and reality is defined by the individual and their experiences. I’m not sure if I find that notion refreshing or unsettling. (mkarol)

One point I found really interesting about the book is the idea that our memory is selective which suggests that we can never know what we say is true or “real.” This is true to some extent that your memory is selective but then does this mean that nothing you write or read can be considered true? (maht91)

…we’ve been trained to look for coherence, and that’s what we tend to do when reading a book. To top it off, what we’re supposed to understand, once we’ve battled with the incoherence, is that great art makes us redefine our perceptions and ideas of what has been established before. Therefore, as frustrating as “Reality Hunger” might be, Shields has made us experience something that we might not have before. (platano)

There’s too much reality.There’s too much reality. Bechdel incorporates everything from Joyce to Salinger to Greek mythology in an effort to tell her “own” true story. And

many of her allusions are not cited, as she has determined that they are part of culture’s collective, general knowledge. I find this an ironic juxtaposition to Reality Hunger, which argues that everything is collective knowledge, yet still cites (albeit begrudgingly) all of its references (we think). In light of this, perhaps Bechdel’s work is making a larger point about collective knowledge than Shields’ work is, despite that the core intention of Shields’ work is to destroy the ownership of ideas. (ckosarek)

…there is so much to be said about the layers of truth and non-truth in this piece--not the least of which is around the parallel sexualities of Alison and her father. The death of one, coinciding with the beginning of the other’s life (as an out human being)…It’s a pretty incredible story, fully true or not, seems not to matter because the overall effect is so powerful. For me at least, this is a story in which I do not what to know if some details have been fudged or switched to align appropriately--instead, I just want to re-read this and bask in the glow of its prose, fiction or non. (FatCatRex)

Remember that none of the little details in the illustrations are filler or meaningless. Everything is there because Bechdel saw it there, in her mind or in the way she wanted to show it. The titles on the books on the shelf, the times on the clocks, the pictures and paintings hung on walls--they are all there for a reason. There is no superfluous stuff there. It alls has meaning, regardless of whether or not it was really in her childhood home--or if she put it there for the reader. (kgould)

I have to confess that I set fully prepared not to like “Fun Home.” I was so opposed to the idea of a comic book novel but I was soon dissuaded. I have never read, looked, or even thought about a comic book. It seems though I have overlooked a genre that is very appealing to me… The fact that all of what the author is writing is limited to captions and a brief description at the top of some of the boxes forces the author to deliberate about what she is trying to say. In some instances Bechdel choose to write nothing at all, leavhng a picture for the reader to contemplate…Anyone who can use Camus and Dr. Spock in the same novel while representing their idealogies correctly is clearly adroit. (veritatemdilexi)

In Fun Home the first thing that struck me was the things she was saying about her father. I have always had a deeply ingrained sense of family loyalty so seeing her be so open about her fathers faults bothered me. She mentioned many things that I could not imagine telling other individuals, such as showing her father hitting them, working them so relentlessly as well as his sexual preferences and eventual downfall. I felt that no one would say such things unless they were true because who would benefit from her father being cast in that light? Certainly not her or her family. In class though many people brought up the idea that it might not all be factual; true everything is based on her interpretation of them, but there’s not much wiggle room for the image of her father smacking one of her siblings in the face. Not much interpretation in her going to see a dead body with its genitalia exposed at a young age either. I believe that no one would say these things unless they were true when writing a memoir, granted that is based on my personal morals and ideas….It all seems very surreal to me.

Bechdel incorporates everything from Joyce to Salinger to Greek mythology in an effort to tell her “own” true story. And many of her allusions are not cited, as she has determined that they are part of culture’s collective, general knowledge. I find this an ironic juxtaposition to Reality Hunger, which argues that everything is collective knowledge, yet still cites (albeit begrudgingly) all of its references (we think). In light of this, perhaps Bechdel’s work is making a larger point about collective knowledge than Shields’ work is, despite that the core intention of Shields’ work is to destroy the ownership of ideas. (ckosarek)

…there is so much to be said about the layers of truth and non-truth in this piece--not the least of which is around the parallel sexualities of Alison and her father. The death of one, coinciding with the beginning of the other’s life (as an out human being)…It’s a pretty incredible story, fully true or not, seems not to matter because the overall effect is so powerful. For me at least, this is a story in which I do not what to know if some details have been fudged or switched to align appropriately--instead, I just want to re-read this and bask in the glow of its prose, fiction or non. (FatCatRex)

Remember that none of the little details in the illustrations are filler or meaningless. Everything is there because Bechdel saw it there, in her mind or in the way she wanted to show it. The titles on the books on the shelf, the times on the clocks, the pictures and paintings hung on walls--they are all there for a reason. There is no superfluous stuff there. It alls has meaning, regardless of whether or not it was really in her childhood home--or if she put it there for the reader. (kgould)

I have to confess that I set fully prepared not to like “Fun Home.” I was so opposed to the idea of a comic book novel but I was soon dissuaded. I have never read, looked, or even thought about a comic book. It seems though I have overlooked a genre that is very appealing to me… The fact that all of what the author is writing is limited to captions and a brief description at the top of some of the boxes forces the author to deliberate about what she is trying to say. In some instances Bechdel choose to write nothing at all, leavhng a picture for the reader to contemplate…Anyone who can use Camus and Dr. Spock in the same novel while representing their idealogies correctly is clearly adroit. (veritatemdilexi)

In Fun Home the first thing that struck me was the things she was saying about her father. I have always had a deeply ingrained sense of family loyalty so seeing her be so open about her fathers faults bothered me. She mentioned many things that I could not imagine telling other individuals, such as showing her father hitting them, working them so relentlessly as well as his sexual preferences and eventual downfall. I felt that no one would say such things unless they were true because who would benefit from her father being cast in that light? Certainly not her or her family. In class though many people brought up the idea that it might not all be factual; true everything is based on her interpretation of them, but there’s not much wiggle room for the image of her father smacking one of her siblings in the face. Not much interpretation in her going to see a dead body with its genitalia exposed at a young age either. I believe that no one would say these things unless they were true when writing a memoir, granted that is based on my personal morals and ideas….It all seems very surreal to me.

Reality can only be found OUTSIDE of normality.

Reality can only be found OUTSIDE of normality.

When I started reading “A Field Guid to Getting Lose” by Rebecca Solnit, I did have to read some pages more than once because I found myself getting lost at some parts… (maht91)

I especially enjoyed and could relate to Solnit’s musings on children and getting lost. She says that, “For me, childhood roaming was what developed self-reliance, a sense of diretion and adventure, imagination, a will to explore, to be able to get a little lost and then figure out the way back. I wonder what will come of placing this generation under house arrest.” I agreed with Solnit that, during childhood, getting lost is an important part of growing up, both because it promotes an innate sense of direction, and because of the feeling of accomplishment that comes with finding your way back home. Solnit also makes a good point that children are often better at gettling lost than adults are, because they know when they are truly lost and are not too stubborn to keep going. (Smacholdt)

I think that when she says you can’t truly live unless you are lost she is assuming that living life without getting lost is impossible because everyone is lost, at least mentally, at one time or another. In fact, I would make the argument that people are born “lost” because a person is lost (how Solnit defintes the word) until a person finds his or her place in the world…which can only come with maturity. With this assumption, I think her book is not telling us to necessarily lose ourselves but telling us HOW to be lost, when we inevitably are, and how to grow from it. (EVD)

…Sonlit is going to try to map the unknown. In a sense, this is what she does- she presents unorganized, conversational prose intended to inform the reader of what, exactly, is the most effective and fulfilling way to get lost, and what one can expect to find if he does take her advice. But I’m wondering if her literary undertaking is effective- can one really map the unknown? Or is she simply suggesting ways in which venturing into the unknown might be useful? It seems like the latter of these two is more likely, and that in respect to suggesting why getting lost is useful, Sonlit comes up short. She seems to reiterate common sense concepts- that getting lost expands what we know and forces us to move beyond ourselves. But did we really need a two-hundred page book to tell us that? (ckosarek)

Maybe it would have been more helpful if she wrote “A Field Guide to Getting Found” since it is much easier, in my opinion, to look outside yourself and get “lost”. Getting found once you are in this position seems to be the harder action to complete. After all anyone can get lost, but is everyone eventually found? (SandraGandarez)

When I started reading “A Field Guid to Getting Lose” by Rebecca Solnit, I did have to read some pages more than once because I found myself getting lost at some parts… (maht91)

I especially enjoyed and could relate to Solnit’s musings on children and getting lost. She says that, “For me, childhood roaming was what developed self-reliance, a sense of diretion and adventure, imagination, a will to explore, to be able to get a little lost and then figure out the way back. I wonder what will come of placing this generation under house arrest.” I agreed with Solnit that, during childhood, getting lost is an important part of growing up, both because it promotes an innate sense of direction, and because of the feeling of accomplishment that comes with finding your way back home. Solnit also makes a good point that children are often better at gettling lost than adults are, because they know when they are truly lost and are not too stubborn to keep going. (Smacholdt)

I think that when she says you can’t truly live unless you are lost she is assuming that living life without getting lost is impossible because everyone is lost, at least mentally, at one time or another. In fact, I would make the argument that people are born “lost” because a person is lost (how Solnit defintes the word) until a person finds his or her place in the world…which can only come with maturity. With this assumption, I think her book is not telling us to necessarily lose ourselves but telling us HOW to be lost, when we inevitably are, and how to grow from it. (EVD)

…Sonlit is going to try to map the unknown. In a sense, this is what she does- she presents unorganized, conversational prose intended to inform the reader of what, exactly, is the most effective and fulfilling way to get lost, and what one can expect to find if he does take her advice. But I’m wondering if her literary undertaking is effective- can one really map the unknown? Or is she simply suggesting ways in which venturing into the unknown might be useful? It seems like the latter of these two is more likely, and that in respect to suggesting why getting lost is useful, Sonlit comes up short. She seems to reiterate common sense concepts- that getting lost expands what we know and forces us to move beyond ourselves. But did we really need a two-hundred page book to tell us that? (ckosarek)

Maybe it would have been more helpful if she wrote “A Field Guide to Getting Found” since it is much easier, in my opinion, to look outside yourself and get “lost”. Getting found once you are in this position seems to be the harder action to complete. After all anyone can get lost, but is everyone eventually found? (SandraGandarez)

Our own reality ISN’T paramount.

Our own reality ISN’T paramount.

He asserts, for instance, “reality is all possibilities” (Naess 17). Later on the same page, he suggests, “Seek truth but do not claim it,” (17). Both of these aphorisms make interesting points around the topic of truth, reality, and who owns either of these intangibles.

Although perhaps it was not his intention, I am fascinated by Naess’s reminder that reality is uncertain, and that the real exists depending on preceding truths. If this is true, we can extrapolate that there is not one particular truth or set of truths. For there to be many realities, I imagine these must spring from many potential truths. Supporting this claim later in the text comes where Naess is describing ecosophy: “The details of ecosophy will show many variations due to significant differences concerning…the ‘facts,’” (32). To Naess, “fact” is certainly an implied construction and not a whole truth. Indeed, he seems to be saying that ecosophy is based on ‘facts’ or truths of our experiences which we deem to be real or true. Furthermore, ecosophies vary person to person, and one set of personal truths cannot be valued higher than the other, which allows everyone to feel that developing our own ecosophy is critical--no one else can do it for us, only our own truths will do. (FatCatRex)

Places that we feel most connected to, in my opinion, are not about the physical things that we own that are there, not about the intangible. Instead it is about emotion, experiences, and what brings to each of us individual inner peace. (rachelr)

So no, there’s isn’t a call to action but there’s intent and value judgment behind words like “deep” and “shallow” to movements a value judgment is being made. (Are you deep or are you shallow?) An axiological system has been constructed around which is becomes impossible to argue because if you disagree with the platform or the concept or even just how the argument is constructed, you’re shallow not deep. This is binary and exclusionary. I imagine that many practices of ecology could be made to span both movements, as could people…from the shallow perspective Naess’s often very spiritual connection with nature and his mixing of Eastern Religions into his philosophical movement seems just as anthro-centric as any movement to prevent more damage to the ozone layer because we don’t want humans to die. Naess’s motivation is spiritual in part but does that really distance itself from humanity just because it reaches for the heavens? (or the forests, or the lakes, or the mountains?) (AyaSeaver)

Naess starts with a true enough observation: that we, the human race, have overpopulated this planet to the detriment of our ecosphere. Logically he says, we must then work on reducing our population over the next few centuries, despite that current politics advocate doing otherwise…His logic is solid, but I ask how, exactly, he proposes to reduce our population. In many cultures, being fruitful and multiplying is expected and embraced. Even further, it is our biological instinct to propagate. In the face of biological and cultural instinct, how is it possible to get everyone on board to reducing the population? And how is it possible to treat every separate culture as one, united human force when our tendency is to fracture? And even if somehow, at the present time, every culture was convinced to come together for this population-reducing cause, how would we ensure this unification in future centuries (because, as Naess indicated, it would be some time before the population could be effectively reduced). (ckosarek)

He asserts, for instance, “reality is all possibilities” (Naess 17). Later on the same page, he suggests, “Seek truth but do not claim it,” (17). Both of these aphorisms make interesting points around the topic of truth, reality, and who owns either of these intangibles.

Although perhaps it was not his intention, I am fascinated by Naess’s reminder that reality is uncertain, and that the real exists depending on preceding truths. If this is true, we can extrapolate that there is not one particular truth or set of truths. For there to be many realities, I imagine these must spring from many potential truths. Supporting this claim later in the text comes where Naess is describing ecosophy: “The details of ecosophy will show many variations due to significant differences concerning…the ‘facts,’” (32). To Naess, “fact” is certainly an implied construction and not a whole truth. Indeed, he seems to be saying that ecosophy is based on ‘facts’ or truths of our experiences which we deem to be real or true. Furthermore, ecosophies vary person to person, and one set of personal truths cannot be valued higher than the other, which allows everyone to feel that developing our own ecosophy is critical--no one else can do it for us, only our own truths will do. (FatCatRex)

Places that we feel most connected to, in my opinion, are not about the physical things that we own that are there, not about the intangible. Instead it is about emotion, experiences, and what brings to each of us individual inner peace. (rachelr)

So no, there’s isn’t a call to action but there’s intent and value judgment behind words like “deep” and “shallow” to movements a value judgment is being made. (Are you deep or are you shallow?) An axiological system has been constructed around which is becomes impossible to argue because if you disagree with the platform or the concept or even just how the argument is constructed, you’re shallow not deep. This is binary and exclusionary. I imagine that many practices of ecology could be made to span both movements, as could people…from the shallow perspective Naess’s often very spiritual connection with nature and his mixing of Eastern Religions into his philosophical movement seems just as anthro-centric as any movement to prevent more damage to the ozone layer because we don’t want humans to die. Naess’s motivation is spiritual in part but does that really distance itself from humanity just because it reaches for the heavens? (or the forests, or the lakes, or the mountains?) (AyaSeaver)

Naess starts with a true enough observation: that we, the human race, have overpopulated this planet to the detriment of our ecosphere. Logically he says, we must then work on reducing our population over the next few centuries, despite that current politics advocate doing otherwise…His logic is solid, but I ask how, exactly, he proposes to reduce our population. In many cultures, being fruitful and multiplying is expected and embraced. Even further, it is our biological instinct to propagate. In the face of biological and cultural instinct, how is it possible to get everyone on board to reducing the population? And how is it possible to treat every separate culture as one, united human force when our tendency is to fracture? And even if somehow, at the present time, every culture was convinced to come together for this population-reducing cause, how would we ensure this unification in future centuries (because, as Naess indicated, it would be some time before the population could be effectively reduced). (ckosarek)

Reality is aliens!Reality is aliens! …I can’t deny that the way the story of the radio was presented had some effects that made it sound so real. Here are a

couple of examples: choosing real places and names of cities, constantly reminding the people of the places, bringing people from different parts of the country from scientists to eyewitnesses, and the background noise made the experience of listening to the radio show more real. They made the radio show so personal to the listener by bringing it close to the things that they are most familiar with. We can’t blame the people for falling in the trap that the story was real. (maht91)

I found War of the Worlds extremely interesting, and while listening to the broadcast, I found myself convinced of an alien invasion. It sounded very real, and sort of credible. If I missed the three statements that said the broadcast was fiction, I would have believed that there indeed was an alien invasion. (tgarber)

Obviously I know that we haven’t had a crazy alien invasion and war between Mars, and I know that Welles’ production was merely a production. However, when I was listening, I somehow missed any mention of it being a production. I listened in amazement at the best April Fools’ joke ever (okay I know it’s not for April Fools, but still). I imagined people listening in terror, on the edge of their seats, gnawing off their fingernails, and crying while holding those they love, just waiting to be next. I didn’t hear them say that it was a production by Orson Welles and theatre company until almost the very end. Well, according to Anne, they said it in the beginning too, but it sure was sneaky how they slipped it in there! I definitely would have been one of those terrified, gullible 25%. (SuperMarioGirl)

Listening to the Original Broadcast of War of the Worlds felt like a great Halloween booster. Although I was predisposed to the fact that it was non-fiction or not real in the sense of it actually occurring, I actually started to believe that it could happen. I once heard, that if we can imagine something, than it could possibly happen. I mean how is it that we can imagine something we’ve never seen, heard, or touched before? It seems almost impossible that we could imagine animals talking (as seen in Disney movies), mermaids living in the sea, or robots that run police departments, without there being some hidden, unknown knowledge in the back of our minds of such things being in existence. It makes me wonder whether we do exist in other worlds and not just the one we believe to be real. (Owl)

We have to be skeptical. Because, for one reason or another, error or being “wrong” is unacceptable. (kgould)

…I can’t deny that the way the story of the radio was presented had some effects that made it sound so real. Here are a couple of examples: choosing real places and names of cities, constantly reminding the people of the places, bringing people from different parts of the country from scientists to eyewitnesses, and the background noise made the experience of listening to the radio show more real. They made the radio show so personal to the listener by bringing it close to the things that they are most familiar with. We can’t blame the people for falling in the trap that the story was real. (maht91)

I found War of the Worlds extremely interesting, and while listening to the broadcast, I found myself convinced of an alien invasion. It sounded very real, and sort of credible. If I missed the three statements that said the broadcast was fiction, I would have believed that there indeed was an alien invasion. (tgarber)

Obviously I know that we haven’t had a crazy alien invasion and war between Mars, and I know that Welles’ production was merely a production. However, when I was listening, I somehow missed any mention of it being a production. I listened in amazement at the best April Fools’ joke ever (okay I know it’s not for April Fools, but still). I imagined people listening in terror, on the edge of their seats, gnawing off their fingernails, and crying while holding those they love, just waiting to be next. I didn’t hear them say that it was a production by Orson Welles and theatre company until almost the very end. Well, according to Anne, they said it in the beginning too, but it sure was sneaky how they slipped it in there! I definitely would have been one of those terrified, gullible 25%. (SuperMarioGirl)

Listening to the Original Broadcast of War of the Worlds felt like a great Halloween booster. Although I was predisposed to the fact that it was non-fiction or not real in the sense of it actually occurring, I actually started to believe that it could happen. I once heard, that if we can imagine something, than it could possibly happen. I mean how is it that we can imagine something we’ve never seen, heard, or touched before? It seems almost impossible that we could imagine animals talking (as seen in Disney movies), mermaids living in the sea, or robots that run police departments, without there being some hidden, unknown knowledge in the back of our minds of such things being in existence. It makes me wonder whether we do exist in other worlds and not just the one we believe to be real. (Owl)

We have to be skeptical. Because, for one reason or another, error or being “wrong” is unacceptable. (kgould)

Why does “reality” matter if FAKERY is

beautiful?

Why does “reality” matter if FAKERY is

beautiful? The heavy emphasis on editing coupled with the disputed ‘real-ness’ of the film made me think that I was watching the first example to reality TV, or perhaps the inspiration behind the kind of programs we see today. Reality shows are usually arranged in a game-style format or in a ‘true life’ observation style, and F is for fake would definitely fall into the ‘true life’ category. The scene where Kodar walks down the street and is observed by a number of men is filmed by a camera unseen to the male subjects, and their reactions are ‘real’ and unscripted. Much of the movie appears to be unscripted and based off of informal interviews… (pfischer)

It seems to me that Orson Welles got real enjoyment out of deceiving and confusing his audiences. The two performances that we have looked at in class (War of the Worlds and F for Fake) both work to mislead people. (War of the Worlds by accident and F for Fake entirely on purpose.) I found myself confused at numerous points in F for Fake, along with many other members of the class. However, while watching the movie, I just assumed that being slightly confused and off balance was part of the appeal of the movie. (Smacholdt)

F for Fake for me was not about trickery and truth, it was about a search for legitimacy and fulfillment for an artists work. The most powerful part of F for Fake is Orson Welles’ montage about Chartres cathedral…”one anonymous glory of all things.” Orson Welles demonstrates that in our societies hurried attempt to attach our name to our works we have forgone the opportunity to create art as an anonymous “celebration.” (veritatemdilexi)

F for Fake, for me, was disorienting--but in a fun, roller coaster kind of way. (Wait until we watch Tarnation. THAT is…yeah.) The editing style, at the time, was experimental and as Pamela noted, evocative of the MTV style editing we see today. I appreciated Welles’s playfulness with the medium and I did not expect to find a cohesive narrative-- I was, at times, invested in what was “true” and what was “false,” but I guesss I didn’t feel as betrayed or as angry as some of the other opinions we heard last week. (kgould)

When I was watching F is for Fake I found that it was confusing to pick apart the story. There were all these people that were supposed to be connected to one another in some way (including Orson Welles own story) and I didn’t see the connection. At some point in the movie, the painter “a fake faker” which was hard to process before the next scene came up. (platano)

The heavy emphasis on editing coupled with the disputed ‘real-ness’ of the film made me think that I was watching the first example to reality TV, or perhaps the inspiration behind the kind of programs we see today. Reality shows are usually arranged in a game-style format or in a ‘true life’ observation style, and F is for fake would definitely fall into the ‘true life’ category. The scene where Kodar walks down the street and is observed by a number of men is filmed by a camera unseen to the male subjects, and their reactions are ‘real’ and unscripted. Much of the movie appears to be unscripted and based off of informal interviews… (pfischer)

It seems to me that Orson Welles got real enjoyment out of deceiving and confusing his audiences. The two performances that we have looked at in class (War of the Worlds and F for Fake) both work to mislead people. (War of the Worlds by accident and F for Fake entirely on purpose.) I found myself confused at numerous points in F for Fake, along with many other members of the class. However, while watching the movie, I just assumed that being slightly confused and off balance was part of the appeal of the movie. (Smacholdt)

F for Fake for me was not about trickery and truth, it was about a search for legitimacy and fulfillment for an artists work. The most powerful part of F for Fake is Orson Welles’ montage about Chartres cathedral…”one anonymous glory of all things.” Orson Welles demonstrates that in our societies hurried attempt to attach our name to our works we have forgone the opportunity to create art as an anonymous “celebration.” (veritatemdilexi)

F for Fake, for me, was disorienting--but in a fun, roller coaster kind of way. (Wait until we watch Tarnation. THAT is…yeah.) The editing style, at the time, was experimental and as Pamela noted, evocative of the MTV style editing we see today. I appreciated Welles’s playfulness with the medium and I did not expect to find a cohesive narrative-- I was, at times, invested in what was “true” and what was “false,” but I guesss I didn’t feel as betrayed or as angry as some of the other opinions we heard last week. (kgould)

When I was watching F is for Fake I found that it was confusing to pick apart the story. There were all these people that were supposed to be connected to one another in some way (including Orson Welles own story) and I didn’t see the connection. At some point in the movie, the painter “a fake faker” which was hard to process before the next scene came up. (platano)

Reality is unreliable.Reality is unreliable. David Harris’s interview underscores the fact that everyone has his or her own reality. Even though the documentary makes the point that

Adams was not guilty of shooting the police officer, Harris seems to have convinced himself that Adams was. In his panic, Harris convinced himself of something that wasn’t true. The documentary also brings up the point that “truth” is not by any means absolute. (Smacholdt)

What is truth or reality: Adam and Harris both said different facts. They mentioned different names, places, events sequences, and specifically times “everything was two hours later.” Who’s testimony was truthful, was real! How can you decide, since again as Shields said “Anything processed by memory is fiction,” that either testimony is true? (maht91)

Thin Blue Line, as a “real” documentary, bored me. At least in the content. I know today we might talk about who “really” did it-- despite that fact that there’s no way we could know whether or not one man shot the officer-- but I think the form and the framing of the shots in the piece were more interesting than the silly dance that the convicts seemed to do. The investigating officers always had a background of a police station, an office, or a map of Dallas behind them. This, for me, is interesting. We talked about maps being “factual” or “constructed,” and the choice of the director to sit a detective in front of a map of Dallas county, presenting him as an authority who knew what happened, is curious in contrast to the two convicted men who, one in a white jumpsuit and the other in orange, were sitting against a void. (kgould)

Thin Blue Line seemed to be arguing the justice system in this country was broken, or at least fundamentally and intrinsically flawed due to the over-reliance of juries and judges on witness testimony. The entire movie explores the different motives behind flawed or untrue testimony- ‘I was just a kid’ to ‘I needed money’ to ‘It was dark.’ The fact that the movie ended with one of the lawyers stating that he was unable to work jury cases anymore after the Adams case coupled with Harris’ testimony that there were thousands of people out there who were wrongly convicted presented sort of an anarchic warning about the justice system- which does of course make sense given the movie’s title and the story behind it. (pfischer)

…the story left me wary of the judicial system and wondering how many people haver gone through that same experience, yet they were never proven innocent. Subsequently, I looked up a list of exonserated death row inmates and it saddens me that years of these people’s lives were stolen and they will more than likely never be the same. They were exposed to the horrible things in prison and that leads me to think, even if the person did not commit a crime and is in jail wrongfully, if he/she is released from jail yet was exposed to the horrors of prison and was changed by the experience and committed a crime, whose fault would it be? (tgarber)

I’ve been fascinated by the ways in which something is proven or authenticated as true… I guess what I’m getting at is the plurality of truth, and how while there might be only one REAL, FACTUAL occurrence, there can obviously be several narratives of the ‘truth.’ Someone mentioned in class that Harris seemed to have convinced himself of his own truth, which I think that we are all probably capable of. This brings me back to this idea about authenticating truths: how do we convince ourselves of the truth? This may be easier than convincing others, but I’m still curious about the intersection between authenticating a truth and an authentic truth. I don’t think I ever really believed the latter existed, but the more we discuss in this class, the more convinced I feel. At least, it seems I’ve authenticated that truth for myself. Does the rest matter?? (FatCatRex)

David Harris’s interview underscores the fact that everyone has his or her own reality. Even though the documentary makes the point that Adams was not guilty of shooting the police officer, Harris seems to have convinced himself that Adams was. In his panic, Harris convinced himself of something that wasn’t true. The documentary also brings up the point that “truth” is not by any means absolute. (Smacholdt)

What is truth or reality: Adam and Harris both said different facts. They mentioned different names, places, events sequences, and specifically times “everything was two hours later.” Who’s testimony was truthful, was real! How can you decide, since again as Shields said “Anything processed by memory is fiction,” that either testimony is true? (maht91)

Thin Blue Line, as a “real” documentary, bored me. At least in the content. I know today we might talk about who “really” did it-- despite that fact that there’s no way we could know whether or not one man shot the officer-- but I think the form and the framing of the shots in the piece were more interesting than the silly dance that the convicts seemed to do. The investigating officers always had a background of a police station, an office, or a map of Dallas behind them. This, for me, is interesting. We talked about maps being “factual” or “constructed,” and the choice of the director to sit a detective in front of a map of Dallas county, presenting him as an authority who knew what happened, is curious in contrast to the two convicted men who, one in a white jumpsuit and the other in orange, were sitting against a void. (kgould)

Thin Blue Line seemed to be arguing the justice system in this country was broken, or at least fundamentally and intrinsically flawed due to the over-reliance of juries and judges on witness testimony. The entire movie explores the different motives behind flawed or untrue testimony- ‘I was just a kid’ to ‘I needed money’ to ‘It was dark.’ The fact that the movie ended with one of the lawyers stating that he was unable to work jury cases anymore after the Adams case coupled with Harris’ testimony that there were thousands of people out there who were wrongly convicted presented sort of an anarchic warning about the justice system- which does of course make sense given the movie’s title and the story behind it. (pfischer)

…the story left me wary of the judicial system and wondering how many people haver gone through that same experience, yet they were never proven innocent. Subsequently, I looked up a list of exonserated death row inmates and it saddens me that years of these people’s lives were stolen and they will more than likely never be the same. They were exposed to the horrible things in prison and that leads me to think, even if the person did not commit a crime and is in jail wrongfully, if he/she is released from jail yet was exposed to the horrors of prison and was changed by the experience and committed a crime, whose fault would it be? (tgarber)

I’ve been fascinated by the ways in which something is proven or authenticated as true… I guess what I’m getting at is the plurality of truth, and how while there might be only one REAL, FACTUAL occurrence, there can obviously be several narratives of the ‘truth.’ Someone mentioned in class that Harris seemed to have convinced himself of his own truth, which I think that we are all probably capable of. This brings me back to this idea about authenticating truths: how do we convince ourselves of the truth? This may be easier than convincing others, but I’m still curious about the intersection between authenticating a truth and an authentic truth. I don’t think I ever really believed the latter existed, but the more we discuss in this class, the more convinced I feel. At least, it seems I’ve authenticated that truth for myself. Does the rest matter?? (FatCatRex)

Reality is an acid trip.Reality is an acid trip. I again noticed the discrepancies between different characters descriptions of the same event. As the Netflix summary says,

“There’s more than one truth on view here.” (Smacholdt)

It creates the feeling of being on an acid-trip, a whirlwind of sensation, and not a pleasant one at that… A lot of the film is like “living within a dream,” and while it did seem to have a more cohesive narrative than F for Fake, the way in which Caouette edited the clips together, altered and retouched the color, exposure, and saturation in the videos and photographs, made everything very surreal… The film is a search for understanding, to complete something cohesive and solid that will tell the story that Caouette was never privy to, that he never understood. Even if it isn’t a finished story, or even if some pieces of it are not “real,” it still provides a means for both Caouette and the viewer to look inside this family and try to understand the tarnal qualities of their lives, and their lives, and the ties that bind them together. (kgould)

The concept of memory came up many times. At one point, someone said that Renee’s memory receded in Jonathan. Jonathan is still trying to find the truth about his mother since he does not have the full memories with his mother. Memory comes up again when Jonathan is discussing with this grandfather whether him or Rossmarry abused Renee as a child. Can Renee remember whether they did that to her? TO what extent has her memroy been affected by her illness? I don’t think you can get the truth about those events because Renee strongly believed that her parents abused her as a child. This stands in the way oh Jonathan discovering the truth about his mother, her illness, her childhood which would in turn help him understand himself as well…I think the documentary “should only be told by the real people.” However, how much can you believe the real people? His mother has an illness and his grandfather was old when he was answering Johnathan’s questions. Again, the idea of memory. “I like showing real things.” The ending “has to be the truth about me,” about “bringing my mom home.” He is working with what he has, and how much he knows about himself. I really liked the ending, specifically how he ended on something positive: life can be good or something along those lines, compared to the very sad and strong emotional in the beginning of the documentary. I found it interesting when towards the end of the documentary, Johnathan says that he has to depend on the outside or non-family members to get the truth about his mother and consequently himself. He just wants to “piece things together in the seek for the truth.” (maht91)

I again noticed the discrepancies between different characters descriptions of the same event. As the Netflix summary says, “There’s more than one truth on view here.” (Smacholdt)

It creates the feeling of being on an acid-trip, a whirlwind of sensation, and not a pleasant one at that… A lot of the film is like “living within a dream,” and while it did seem to have a more cohesive narrative than F for Fake, the way in which Caouette edited the clips together, altered and retouched the color, exposure, and saturation in the videos and photographs, made everything very surreal… The film is a search for understanding, to complete something cohesive and solid that will tell the story that Caouette was never privy to, that he never understood. Even if it isn’t a finished story, or even if some pieces of it are not “real,” it still provides a means for both Caouette and the viewer to look inside this family and try to understand the tarnal qualities of their lives, and their lives, and the ties that bind them together. (kgould)

The concept of memory came up many times. At one point, someone said that Renee’s memory receded in Jonathan. Jonathan is still trying to find the truth about his mother since he does not have the full memories with his mother. Memory comes up again when Jonathan is discussing with this grandfather whether him or Rossmarry abused Renee as a child. Can Renee remember whether they did that to her? TO what extent has her memroy been affected by her illness? I don’t think you can get the truth about those events because Renee strongly believed that her parents abused her as a child. This stands in the way oh Jonathan discovering the truth about his mother, her illness, her childhood which would in turn help him understand himself as well…I think the documentary “should only be told by the real people.” However, how much can you believe the real people? His mother has an illness and his grandfather was old when he was answering Johnathan’s questions. Again, the idea of memory. “I like showing real things.” The ending “has to be the truth about me,” about “bringing my mom home.” He is working with what he has, and how much he knows about himself. I really liked the ending, specifically how he ended on something positive: life can be good or something along those lines, compared to the very sad and strong emotional in the beginning of the documentary. I found it interesting when towards the end of the documentary, Johnathan says that he has to depend on the outside or non-family members to get the truth about his mother and consequently himself. He just wants to “piece things together in the seek for the truth.” (maht91)

Reality is hard to talk about.

Reality is hard to talk about.

I can’t help but think about the way in which this narrative, despite being of a very fact-based report and tragically factual day, is *still* a constructed piece of non-fiction. Unsurprisingly there is no definition or justification given around terms like, oh, say, terrorist. Obviously the understanding and slant of those who craft the 9/11 report is clear and there is no need for the report to be an unbiased look at what terrorism is because its irrelevant to 9/11’s direct issues and impact. That being said, it was hard for me to NOT read this as an anthropology major and say--”to these men, they are fighting for freedom and liberation and justice. What is the line where terrorism ends and freedom fighting begins?” How do we know what REAL terrorism is? Who decides that and how? Is our definition more important than a ‘Muslim extremist’ point of view? Once again we learn that our version of ‘real’ and ‘fact’ is just that--one version. (FatCatRex)

What artistic liberties were taken by the authors to try to communicate the findings of the 9/11 report? Does their subjective interpretation of the report, which was itself a fact-finding exercise, make the graphic representation any less a work of non-fiction? Does the visual element add or detract from its “truth-telling” mission? In the foreward of the book, the authors of the original 9/11 report state: “we are pleased to have the opportunity to bring the work of the 9/11 Commission to the attention of a new set of readers. We commend the talented graphic artists of this edition for their close adherence to the findings, recommendations, spirit and tone of the original Commission report. Their adaptation conveys much of the information contained in the original report.” Is ‘close adherence’ close enough? This graphic adaptation is not a government document, and graphically communicating the spirit and tone of written words requires different processes of interpretation and creation that I think we really need to consider. (pfischer)

Maybe the power of these first few pages is found in the fact that they are factual rather than anecdotal or personal or emotional. By presenting “just the facts,” it seems that the authors invite readers to fill in their own emotions. The pages don’t tell you how to feel. They don’t tell you to be angry at the mismanagement of authority that day. They don’t tell you to be angry with the terrorists. They don’t tell you to be sad about the lives lost. They present what happened in the timeline format and let you make of it what you will. Their power is in the choice of readers to feel and relive- or not. (ckosarek)

I can’t help but think about the way in which this narrative, despite being of a very fact-based report and tragically factual day, is *still* a constructed piece of non-fiction. Unsurprisingly there is no definition or justification given around terms like, oh, say, terrorist. Obviously the understanding and slant of those who craft the 9/11 report is clear and there is no need for the report to be an unbiased look at what terrorism is because its irrelevant to 9/11’s direct issues and impact. That being said, it was hard for me to NOT read this as an anthropology major and say--”to these men, they are fighting for freedom and liberation and justice. What is the line where terrorism ends and freedom fighting begins?” How do we know what REAL terrorism is? Who decides that and how? Is our definition more important than a ‘Muslim extremist’ point of view? Once again we learn that our version of ‘real’ and ‘fact’ is just that--one version. (FatCatRex)

What artistic liberties were taken by the authors to try to communicate the findings of the 9/11 report? Does their subjective interpretation of the report, which was itself a fact-finding exercise, make the graphic representation any less a work of non-fiction? Does the visual element add or detract from its “truth-telling” mission? In the foreward of the book, the authors of the original 9/11 report state: “we are pleased to have the opportunity to bring the work of the 9/11 Commission to the attention of a new set of readers. We commend the talented graphic artists of this edition for their close adherence to the findings, recommendations, spirit and tone of the original Commission report. Their adaptation conveys much of the information contained in the original report.” Is ‘close adherence’ close enough? This graphic adaptation is not a government document, and graphically communicating the spirit and tone of written words requires different processes of interpretation and creation that I think we really need to consider. (pfischer)

Maybe the power of these first few pages is found in the fact that they are factual rather than anecdotal or personal or emotional. By presenting “just the facts,” it seems that the authors invite readers to fill in their own emotions. The pages don’t tell you how to feel. They don’t tell you to be angry at the mismanagement of authority that day. They don’t tell you to be angry with the terrorists. They don’t tell you to be sad about the lives lost. They present what happened in the timeline format and let you make of it what you will. Their power is in the choice of readers to feel and relive- or not. (ckosarek)

Reality is different across a national border.

Reality is different across a national border.

As I was reading Path to Paradise, I thought, “Could we all be victims? Victims of the environments that surround us and the pressures that are imposed on us to maintain certain standards?” Suicide bombers first entered military training, it seems, to earn respect and/or recognition they were not receiving in their everyday environment. We, here in America, are trained to see our nation as the center of the map, so much, that we fail to critically think about why a person might want to commit such an act of deviance. Most people saw 9/11 as an attack on the U.S., but it is difficult to understand what it is that 9/11 really was when parts of the story are consciously not shared. (Owl)

…the group-think aspect of shared truth presents a unique set of issues, not the least of which is how to authenticate or validate truths when the only checks/balances are one’s compatriots. When we all believe the same thing, we are no longer checking the truth critically but instead accept the common status-quo ideas… Obviously Israeli forces hold a different set of standards as truth--which are compatible with but different from the US Military, etc etc. I’m sure this is fairly obvious to us all at this point, but reading ‘Path to Paradise’ just reinforced how troubling and circular our struggles for liberation and truth are…I just wonder how we move past this subjective your truth vs. my truth showdown. (FatCatRex)

…the book suggested that recruitment of suicide bombers involves so much more than religious and political pressure. I think that Berko’s interviews showed that the measures required to resolve this conflict do not necessarily involve the individual but rather the system which takes advantage of the individual… (EVD)

Berko essentially spelled out who she is to us: she is a Jew from Israel who spent hundreds and hundreds of hours interviewing suicide bombers and their dispatchers. And while I know that this book and her interviews were motivated by academia and university research, anyone who begins to read this book can see that it is highly personal, and that is how I read it… From reading this book I came away with a better understanding of jihads, why some Muslims become shaheeds and shaheedas, and all of the mental, internal, and external factors that go into someone choosing the path of a shaheed… Maybe the goal isn’t to make a point, and that’s okay with me. Behind the academic inquiry there is perhaps a personal aim and Berko is saying, “hey, here is how I, a Jew from Israel, am trying to understand the motivation behind the conflict and here is some of what I’ve found. Maybe it will be helpful to you as well.” (rachelr)

As I was reading Path to Paradise, I thought, “Could we all be victims? Victims of the environments that surround us and the pressures that are imposed on us to maintain certain standards?” Suicide bombers first entered military training, it seems, to earn respect and/or recognition they were not receiving in their everyday environment. We, here in America, are trained to see our nation as the center of the map, so much, that we fail to critically think about why a person might want to commit such an act of deviance. Most people saw 9/11 as an attack on the U.S., but it is difficult to understand what it is that 9/11 really was when parts of the story are consciously not shared. (Owl)

…the group-think aspect of shared truth presents a unique set of issues, not the least of which is how to authenticate or validate truths when the only checks/balances are one’s compatriots. When we all believe the same thing, we are no longer checking the truth critically but instead accept the common status-quo ideas… Obviously Israeli forces hold a different set of standards as truth--which are compatible with but different from the US Military, etc etc. I’m sure this is fairly obvious to us all at this point, but reading ‘Path to Paradise’ just reinforced how troubling and circular our struggles for liberation and truth are…I just wonder how we move past this subjective your truth vs. my truth showdown. (FatCatRex)

…the book suggested that recruitment of suicide bombers involves so much more than religious and political pressure. I think that Berko’s interviews showed that the measures required to resolve this conflict do not necessarily involve the individual but rather the system which takes advantage of the individual… (EVD)

Berko essentially spelled out who she is to us: she is a Jew from Israel who spent hundreds and hundreds of hours interviewing suicide bombers and their dispatchers. And while I know that this book and her interviews were motivated by academia and university research, anyone who begins to read this book can see that it is highly personal, and that is how I read it… From reading this book I came away with a better understanding of jihads, why some Muslims become shaheeds and shaheedas, and all of the mental, internal, and external factors that go into someone choosing the path of a shaheed… Maybe the goal isn’t to make a point, and that’s okay with me. Behind the academic inquiry there is perhaps a personal aim and Berko is saying, “hey, here is how I, a Jew from Israel, am trying to understand the motivation behind the conflict and here is some of what I’ve found. Maybe it will be helpful to you as well.” (rachelr)

Reality is unfair.Reality is unfair. It is so easy to reduce science to the most technical of details, but Henrietta Lacks doesn’t do that. It makes the biological information

accessible to readers who are not trained scientists. The book also shows the humanity behind the science, something that is not often done in science writing. (Smacholdt)

I wondered if the book was a biography, a work of science journalism, or a historical work investigating structural and overt racism within the medical community. The relationship between Henrietta Lacks, the woman, and the HeLa cells, which were once part of Henrietta Lacks, serves as the emotional and scientific center of the book. (pfischer)

I’m amazed at how Skloot seems to come at this story from every possible angle (historical, medical, cultural) and from the perspective of her own journey, Henrietta’s and Henrietta’s family’s. I think that simply the author’s fascination with Henrietta and her cells is an interesting story on its own…as is her journey to speak with Henrietta’s family members….and even just the cells’ medical narrative would make really interesting reading as well. Skloot even portrays Henrietta as a kind of heroine, adding another dimension to the book. (EVD)

Skloot is almost as present in this narrative as Henrietta is. She was with Deborah during some of the most important parts of Deborah’s realizations and discoveries about her mother (such as when they go to the lab to look at HeLa cells under a microscope). At times it even seemed like Skloot used portions of the book to justify some of her own actions. For instance, she tried to explain why she smiled while promising Deborah that she would not use a certain word in the published work. She seems to be trying to justify her own actions. Another interesting thing that I noticed in the reading was that Skloot brings up the issue that we discussed in class of whether the cells taken from Henrietta are still “her” once they are removed from her body. Skloot’s point is that since the cells continued to grow and evolve after they left her body, changing so completely that even the DNA was different, that they are a “separate species” from Henrietta. While this logic makes sense, I still find it unsettling that doctors keep much of the human tissue that it removed during medical procedures and keep it for research. (Smacholdt)

Should the doctors and researchers have told Henrietta that they are going to take her cells? From a moral stand point, I think that they should have told her. But the article also says that people don’t want to be asked for permission to use their cells when they are about to do surgery for instance. In Henrietta’s case, the doctors could not have known that her cells would be a success in the present and future. Initially, they did not know that, but after they knew about the success of the cells, I think it was their responsibility to address that and tell Henrietta, or her family about it. (maht91)

…as I was reading the Afterword, the term “tamifoxen” jumped out at me. My mother was diagnosed with breast cancer seven years ago, and is still here thanks largely to tamifoxen--and thus, thanks to Henrietta. While it may sound cheesy, I get the chills thinking of this connection; I am of course incredibly grateful that HeLa cells led to the development of a cancer drug that saved my mother’s life, yet I feel a little squirm-y now that the direct link between my mother and the exploitation of the Lacks family has been made explicit for me in black and white. I’m sure there are ways that we have all profited from the development of HeLa cells, but none of us like to think of the connection we have to the Lacks’ family struggles.

It is so easy to reduce science to the most technical of details, but Henrietta Lacks doesn’t do that. It makes the biological information accessible to readers who are not trained scientists. The book also shows the humanity behind the science, something that is not often done in science writing. (Smacholdt)

I wondered if the book was a biography, a work of science journalism, or a historical work investigating structural and overt racism within the medical community. The relationship between Henrietta Lacks, the woman, and the HeLa cells, which were once part of Henrietta Lacks, serves as the emotional and scientific center of the book. (pfischer)

I’m amazed at how Skloot seems to come at this story from every possible angle (historical, medical, cultural) and from the perspective of her own journey, Henrietta’s and Henrietta’s family’s. I think that simply the author’s fascination with Henrietta and her cells is an interesting story on its own…as is her journey to speak with Henrietta’s family members….and even just the cells’ medical narrative would make really interesting reading as well. Skloot even portrays Henrietta as a kind of heroine, adding another dimension to the book. (EVD)

Skloot is almost as present in this narrative as Henrietta is. She was with Deborah during some of the most important parts of Deborah’s realizations and discoveries about her mother (such as when they go to the lab to look at HeLa cells under a microscope). At times it even seemed like Skloot used portions of the book to justify some of her own actions. For instance, she tried to explain why she smiled while promising Deborah that she would not use a certain word in the published work. She seems to be trying to justify her own actions. Another interesting thing that I noticed in the reading was that Skloot brings up the issue that we discussed in class of whether the cells taken from Henrietta are still “her” once they are removed from her body. Skloot’s point is that since the cells continued to grow and evolve after they left her body, changing so completely that even the DNA was different, that they are a “separate species” from Henrietta. While this logic makes sense, I still find it unsettling that doctors keep much of the human tissue that it removed during medical procedures and keep it for research. (Smacholdt)

Should the doctors and researchers have told Henrietta that they are going to take her cells? From a moral stand point, I think that they should have told her. But the article also says that people don’t want to be asked for permission to use their cells when they are about to do surgery for instance. In Henrietta’s case, the doctors could not have known that her cells would be a success in the present and future. Initially, they did not know that, but after they knew about the success of the cells, I think it was their responsibility to address that and tell Henrietta, or her family about it. (maht91)

…as I was reading the Afterword, the term “tamifoxen” jumped out at me. My mother was diagnosed with breast cancer seven years ago, and is still here thanks largely to tamifoxen--and thus, thanks to Henrietta. While it may sound cheesy, I get the chills thinking of this connection; I am of course incredibly grateful that HeLa cells led to the development of a cancer drug that saved my mother’s life, yet I feel a little squirm-y now that the direct link between my mother and the exploitation of the Lacks family has been made explicit for me in black and white. I’m sure there are ways that we have all profited from the development of HeLa cells, but none of us like to think of the connection we have to the Lacks’ family struggles.

Reality is science!Reality is science! Sagan points out again and again that science is the way forward for our society, however, he is not as fixed in his view of what

science is as other scientists. Many scientific minds dismiss religion but Sagan seems to feel that both have a place in our society. However, he point out that religion was an early way to explain scientific phenomenon and that “demons” were our earliest gods. However, he also points out that this was a way for people to explain things that they could not understand- like the unexplained weight some people felt on their chests while trying to sleep (p118). I think that in large part, in his book Sagan is trying to convey that myths and folklore were how people understood the world hundreds of years ago, but now science has taken the place of these stories to explain things that are difficult to understand. (Smacholdt)

One of the things that bothers me about Sagan’s argument, is that he makes it seem as though the individual is at fault for not wanting to immerse themselves in science, as he writes-or rather quotes- “the young are disastrously more ignorant that the generation immediately preceding.” (p6) He fails to recognize that half the population that isn’t immersed in the science, math, and tehcnology fields, is composed mainly of women, who are not trained to like the hard sciences. They are from birth excluded from the fundamentals of science, math, etc. that intrigue people into the field. They therefore, as well as those who do not find the sciences compelling, have to find something else to depend on to be their truth (as science is for those that are immersed in it). That is why “a God of the Gaps is assigned responsibility for what we do not understand.” (p8) A God is created for thos ethat do not find science compelling enough to celebrate in it. (Owl)

I found issue with how centrally he placed science. While I appreciate science, enjoy it, and look to it in order to solve many aspects of the world, I like to maintain more of a balance between the more analytical aspect of science and the mere acceptance of things that I have found from life experience to be true or that I have come to believe. Scientific practices can be immensely helpful and valuable, however I feel that living life completely or primarily through the practice of analyzing and proving everything in life as Sagan seems to suggest. (rachelr)

As Sagan points out on page 137, everyone’s senses are fallible. However, this is difficult because it begs the question, how are we supposed to prove things about the world? Sagan also mentions that the truth is really all in how you portray it. I thought his example of the witness being coached by his or her lawyer to say get the testimony “right” was another good commentary on how there isn’t a “right” truth. Sagan also includes convincing evidence for why science is a more effective way to explain things than superstition, he also admits that he too is human and therefore is prone to superstitious wishes and beliefs, like wanting to see his parents again. On page 203 he says, “Plainly there is something within me that’s ready to believe in life after death. And it’s not in the least bit interested in whether there’s any sober evidence for it.” (Smacholdt)

Last class we began to think about the relationship that science has to our personal lives. I began to think a lot about religion. Science has often been used to disprove the belief that God exists, as we have gained more knowledge about the world and our relationship to it. Howeve,r this idea of asking questions is fairly new compared to religion’s history. I find myself caught between God and the facts that science presents. I always resent the arguments used to convince me that God doesn’t exist because I feel like someone is trying to take away my belief which in the past used to be firm. Although I was never deeply religious (I.e. not an avid church-goer) I feel guilty that my belief is not as firm, and sometimes I feel like I’ve completely lost it. (platano)

Sagan points out again and again that science is the way forward for our society, however, he is not as fixed in his view of what science is as other scientists. Many scientific minds dismiss religion but Sagan seems to feel that both have a place in our society. However, he point out that religion was an early way to explain scientific phenomenon and that “demons” were our earliest gods. However, he also points out that this was a way for people to explain things that they could not understand- like the unexplained weight some people felt on their chests while trying to sleep (p118). I think that in large part, in his book Sagan is trying to convey that myths and folklore were how people understood the world hundreds of years ago, but now science has taken the place of these stories to explain things that are difficult to understand. (Smacholdt)

One of the things that bothers me about Sagan’s argument, is that he makes it seem as though the individual is at fault for not wanting to immerse themselves in science, as he writes-or rather quotes- “the young are disastrously more ignorant that the generation immediately preceding.” (p6) He fails to recognize that half the population that isn’t immersed in the science, math, and tehcnology fields, is composed mainly of women, who are not trained to like the hard sciences. They are from birth excluded from the fundamentals of science, math, etc. that intrigue people into the field. They therefore, as well as those who do not find the sciences compelling, have to find something else to depend on to be their truth (as science is for those that are immersed in it). That is why “a God of the Gaps is assigned responsibility for what we do not understand.” (p8) A God is created for thos ethat do not find science compelling enough to celebrate in it. (Owl)

I found issue with how centrally he placed science. While I appreciate science, enjoy it, and look to it in order to solve many aspects of the world, I like to maintain more of a balance between the more analytical aspect of science and the mere acceptance of things that I have found from life experience to be true or that I have come to believe. Scientific practices can be immensely helpful and valuable, however I feel that living life completely or primarily through the practice of analyzing and proving everything in life as Sagan seems to suggest. (rachelr)

As Sagan points out on page 137, everyone’s senses are fallible. However, this is difficult because it begs the question, how are we supposed to prove things about the world? Sagan also mentions that the truth is really all in how you portray it. I thought his example of the witness being coached by his or her lawyer to say get the testimony “right” was another good commentary on how there isn’t a “right” truth. Sagan also includes convincing evidence for why science is a more effective way to explain things than superstition, he also admits that he too is human and therefore is prone to superstitious wishes and beliefs, like wanting to see his parents again. On page 203 he says, “Plainly there is something within me that’s ready to believe in life after death. And it’s not in the least bit interested in whether there’s any sober evidence for it.” (Smacholdt)

Last class we began to think about the relationship that science has to our personal lives. I began to think a lot about religion. Science has often been used to disprove the belief that God exists, as we have gained more knowledge about the world and our relationship to it. Howeve,r this idea of asking questions is fairly new compared to religion’s history. I find myself caught between God and the facts that science presents. I always resent the arguments used to convince me that God doesn’t exist because I feel like someone is trying to take away my belief which in the past used to be firm. Although I was never deeply religious (I.e. not an avid church-goer) I feel guilty that my belief is not as firm, and sometimes I feel like I’ve completely lost it. (platano)

Reality is stories. Fiction is real.

Reality is stories. Fiction is real.

Coles neglects the bias that the storyteller might introduce into his or her own story and simply takes each as a “clinical history”…but he doesn’t ask the patient for his or her medical history alone but also their life story from the beginning (Call of stories p. 6) He therefore is taking whatever someone deems as their own story as the truth. To allow the reader to experience this same “truth” all he must do is organize the stories in a way that does not alter the storyteller’s voice. (EVD)

The Call of Stories does a good job of showing how victims, students, and even the narrator (who connects to William Carlos Williams) can conncet literature to their experiences. The ‘use-value’ of narrative is that it helps individuals. Books are ‘sign posts’ (68) but so then, can a painting or a song. In examining non-fiction we’ve discussed several times the issue of non-socks but maybe what also bears consideration is the narratives that surround us with no benefit of a cover page. We’ve looked at film and some articles but even that doesn’t really examine the breadth of narrative as implied by Coles. Life is narrative. We are surrounded by it, surround ourselves with it and our impulse to call it ‘non fiction’ or ‘factual’ is an interesting but perhaps as distancing as our efforts to call patients ‘hysteric’ and ‘phobic.’ (AyaSeaver)

I think that part of the reason that we enjoy stories so much is because we all have a fundamental need for understanding and human connection. We want to know that someone else has gone through what we have. A student that Coles talked to put it well: “we’re all in trouble, one way or the other.” Everyone has their own problems and it is easy to find comfort in telling your story to some one else, especially if you find that they have gone through a similar situation. People need stories to make sense of their lives and experience. I thought that it was interesting how Coles makes the point that you can really make someone else’s story your own. You imagine how each character looks and you can even visualize their idiosyncracies…Isn’t the nature of a story that it’s biased, that it’s your own experience of an event? Is it possible to have a non-fictional story, or are the two terms mutually exclusive? So are all stories fictional? And if so, why are we reading a book entirely about stories in a non-fictional prose class? (Smacholdt)

Sagan and Coles both admit that everyone is fallible. They both however seek the truth, and learn to do so despite the blurs between reality and fantasy. Although, most of Coles’ colleagues encourage him to use categories and to detach himself from his patients stories, he ends up recognizing the power of those stories. There’s something collective about the way that we share stories that allows us to move past those categories. (platano)

…stories need to be told; that’s an ancient, essential human impulse, and not necessarily a human one either: what is simpler or more urgent than the white flag of a deer’s tail as it bounds away from danger? Stories untold burn in us, making us seethe and yearn and rip at our skin to get the story out. And I think that reading stories lets us empathize with the teller, lets us vicariously tell our stories through reading the telling of others, lets us imagine how we would feel if we opened our mouths or picked up our pens… stories need to be told, and from my own experience (personal and with friends) of mental illness, behind each diagnosis is an untold story. (TyL)

Coles neglects the bias that the storyteller might introduce into his or her own story and simply takes each as a “clinical history”…but he doesn’t ask the patient for his or her medical history alone but also their life story from the beginning (Call of stories p. 6) He therefore is taking whatever someone deems as their own story as the truth. To allow the reader to experience this same “truth” all he must do is organize the stories in a way that does not alter the storyteller’s voice. (EVD)

The Call of Stories does a good job of showing how victims, students, and even the narrator (who connects to William Carlos Williams) can conncet literature to their experiences. The ‘use-value’ of narrative is that it helps individuals. Books are ‘sign posts’ (68) but so then, can a painting or a song. In examining non-fiction we’ve discussed several times the issue of non-socks but maybe what also bears consideration is the narratives that surround us with no benefit of a cover page. We’ve looked at film and some articles but even that doesn’t really examine the breadth of narrative as implied by Coles. Life is narrative. We are surrounded by it, surround ourselves with it and our impulse to call it ‘non fiction’ or ‘factual’ is an interesting but perhaps as distancing as our efforts to call patients ‘hysteric’ and ‘phobic.’ (AyaSeaver)

I think that part of the reason that we enjoy stories so much is because we all have a fundamental need for understanding and human connection. We want to know that someone else has gone through what we have. A student that Coles talked to put it well: “we’re all in trouble, one way or the other.” Everyone has their own problems and it is easy to find comfort in telling your story to some one else, especially if you find that they have gone through a similar situation. People need stories to make sense of their lives and experience. I thought that it was interesting how Coles makes the point that you can really make someone else’s story your own. You imagine how each character looks and you can even visualize their idiosyncracies…Isn’t the nature of a story that it’s biased, that it’s your own experience of an event? Is it possible to have a non-fictional story, or are the two terms mutually exclusive? So are all stories fictional? And if so, why are we reading a book entirely about stories in a non-fictional prose class? (Smacholdt)

Sagan and Coles both admit that everyone is fallible. They both however seek the truth, and learn to do so despite the blurs between reality and fantasy. Although, most of Coles’ colleagues encourage him to use categories and to detach himself from his patients stories, he ends up recognizing the power of those stories. There’s something collective about the way that we share stories that allows us to move past those categories. (platano)

…stories need to be told; that’s an ancient, essential human impulse, and not necessarily a human one either: what is simpler or more urgent than the white flag of a deer’s tail as it bounds away from danger? Stories untold burn in us, making us seethe and yearn and rip at our skin to get the story out. And I think that reading stories lets us empathize with the teller, lets us vicariously tell our stories through reading the telling of others, lets us imagine how we would feel if we opened our mouths or picked up our pens… stories need to be told, and from my own experience (personal and with friends) of mental illness, behind each diagnosis is an untold story. (TyL)