BLOG 1--The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth!

There are times when I read creative non-fiction and think I probably shouldn't be reading this stuff—it’s way too personal!  Why is it that some writers will share all of the intimate details of their life for the entire world to see?  Do they have a strong desire to air their "dirty laundry" and get sympathy?  Do they just like to talk about themselves and don't care what it is that they write?  I'm sure there is a point they are trying to make, but, really, do they have to do it with so many intimate details?  How do we know if these details are really the truth?  Is it easy to believe that it is, or do we take it with a grain of salt and make ourselves believe it to be true?

For example, the piece written by Phillip Lopate reveals a bit too much about his private parts than I would have cared to read.  OK, I'm a prude, but we all know that men fixate on their 5th appendage, right?  So, why is it that he felt the need to go into such detail and description of it when he had already offered descriptions of the rest of his body?  I really didn't need to know.  Is he telling the truth about his 5th appendage, or is he just trying to get a rise out of the reader?

What I found with these assigned readings is that they all gave a great deal of intimate details, some without giving all of the details and leaving just a bit to the imagination of the reader, like the Marquart piece.  She offered a glimpse of her day in what appeared to be during an abortion at a clinic which had protesters out front.  The writing didn't specifically say that it was an abortion, but there was enough detail to derive that information from this story.

Essential features:  personal narrative; descriptions seem accurate; details, details, details; they seem to make a point about some aspect of their lives; real people/real places

Differences between short and long, other than the obvious:  as I mentioned above, Marquart’s piece was probably the shortest, but it gave enough description to get her point across.  What she left out was left to the imagination.  The long ones, like Lopate’s, gave lots more details, with nothing left to the imagination, at least not from my perspective.  Roger Ebert’s piece was rather poignant for me, since I followed him on Siskel and Ebert until the show no longer aired.   His story was one of the longer pieces, which also gave great detail, especially when he mentions the things his wife read to him or when she asked him if he wanted to take meditation classes.  I can relate to his piece best, since I felt that I knew him best, I guess. 

Being able to relate to a writer’s story makes those essential features stand out to me.  I didn't relate so much to Marquart, since I've never been in her position.  I didn't relate so much to Lopate, since I’m not a man with a fixation on my body and how it always needs to look just so.  Ebert’s story resonated with something most people can relate to—cancer—and losing some part of your anatomy to it.  In his case, it was his thyroid cancer treatment and the removal of his lower jaw and other parts, which led to his inability to speak or eat, but he could still write, and in his words his "writing has improved" even though he could no longer speak.  I believe that his story was nothing but the truth—a relatable truth.