Catholicism and Racism

I definitely think that changing the genre of Augustine's and Ellison's respective books would change not only the perception that these books received by their audiences, but also their significance. Ellison is writing at a time where I do not think a personal account of his encounters with racism and his problems with society would be appropriate. As fiction, Ellison is able to convey a theme and a story that many people will learn from whereas a true, personal history would seem very critical and be not as acceptable, though it would relay the same message, to the audience. Though Ellison integrates his personal experiences in The Invisible Man, it is not the same as a personal- history, and it also would not be as effective for the time in which he is writing. The Civil Rights Movement is just about to begin at this time, and it is important to remember that even though blacks were legally given the right to vote, they still faced grandfather clauses that limited the amount of blacks that actually voted. If Ellison were to have written a deeply personal account on racism in American society, I think that it would not have been as widely received as his novel due to the fact that many were unwilling to realize the amount of discriminatory practices and unjust acts that were still occurring against African Americans in the North and South at the time. However, since Ellison used fiction as a tool to gain the attention of many, and in doing so he was successful by winning the National Book Award, I think that he revealed many of the difficulties that the African Americans faced to a wide audience that did not only consist African Americans, but also of many whites, too.

Now on to Augustine. I think that Augustine's book would have been A LOT easier to read if it was fiction. But, that is only because I have only read philosophy once in tenth grade. Regardless, it would have also been different in other respects. For instance, a fictional account of Augustine's life would not have seemed legitimate as a way to convert more people to Catholicism and to convey to the higher level Catholic clergy that Augustine really was a devout Catholic who had a revelation from God. Augustine's main point about receiving divine intervention would have seemed fake if he had structured his book as fiction, and his struggles with temptation would have just been as a way to move the plot along. However, since Augustine used a book to convey personal confessions and his view on Catholicism it was seen as more credible and able to influence more people since it was him being brutally honest to his readers.

Therefore, as is the same case with Ellison, due to the purpose and the period that these authors are writing it was important for them to select the perfect genre in order to a) appeal to their respective audiences, b) attain some form of success from writing their books and c) convey an important message to society about their experiences and in doing so calling for some type of change. In Augustine's book he was calling for change in the sense that he wished for more people to change their religious views and take on Catholicism, and in Ellison's view he is calling for America to stop its discriminatory practices towards blacks in order for equality to ensue.


ps: check out this excerpt from the PBS version of Invisible Man, I had heard that it was really good, and I, too, think that it is. a good depiction of the first chapter.

Analyzing Autobios

How many times have people stated that they want to change the world as their life goal? Well, I want to do that too (how cliché)! But, I think that so many people desire to do so, including me, because it will allow them to be remembered after they are dead. I want my life to be in some sense eternal so that I know that my life was not meaningless and devoid of purpose, but rather I was important and continued to affect the lives of many even after my death because people would study my contributions to the world even after I was not on physically on it. Therefore, I think that in order for someone's life to be turned into an autobiography it does not necessarily have to contain drama, more so because the word drama has a bad connotation to me in that I perceive two girls trash talking each other in a hallway at school, but it has to have importance. Importance can mean that the person had a profound life- changing experience that was very important and influential to their lives, or it can mean that they actually did something important, like purposed a theory that changed the way that psychology was taught.

With this in mind, I would not want to live a life that did not merit an autobiography. Even if I did not write an autobiography because I was too busy changing lives than having the time to write about my own, I would hope that someone would consider my contributions to society as imperative toward progress in society, and that I did live a meaningful life. I strive to be able to leave a lasting mark on society; I want to do something profound with my life. I do not know what it is yet, and that is where my inner struggle arises, but I hope to live a life that is seen as an inspiration and noteworthy of a biography, whether it is written by myself or someone else.

Pondering...(I really cannot think of a grand title)

I just typed in "blog on national portrait gallery" and to my surprise they have a blog! And even more surprising it is update almost daily. In their blog, however, they are reflecting on the anniversary of Sept. 11, for obvious reasons. The museum, in my opinion, cultivates and embraces American history by displaying and exampling the lives of the most important or at least famous historical figures from the United States. I think that the museum was great because it slowed down the pace of history by imprinting in our minds the portraits of profound people, only realizing after I left that the lives of all of these individuals spanned over many years. Throughout these years our country has changed dramatically, but it is important to note that these changes were not all abrupt but rather working with one another to transform our country into its current state, whether you believe that its current state is good or bad.
The immense amount of change that occurs not only in our country, but also in everyone's life, American or not, is amazing, and that is where I come into confusion with St. Augustine's book. Augustine endorses, above all, that in order to attain stability and a life of eternity it is important to stop going through such drastic changes and accept what is and what isn't so that stability, through the word of the Lord, can enter into one's life. I mean that is what I think he is saying...? Correct me if I am wrong because I am having a difficult time with his insights. Nonetheless, I do believe it is important to not go looking for change because that is where one becomes lost and things go awry. But, on the same note how can one avoid change? Our minds are not meant to rest, but rather question and analyze things, so wherein do we find permanence and stillness? The only person, in my belief, that can stop change from occurring is God, but why would he want to stop change? Change promotes good and bad things. In order to achieve anything we need to be able to accept change and know that is is inevitable. I think life does make more sense once you find your spiritual beliefs, but I don't think I am old enough to want to stop change. I do think it is important, as Augustine notes multiple instances, to not go through life as a transient being. We need to eventually find our stable point in life, whether it is through going to church or meditating once a week, or else our lives here on earth will seem meaningless and that place to which we may go after death will be non- existent.

Advertisement

Augustine's use of sin in his book is definitely effective. By introducing the sin of stealing the pears, he brings it to a normal level, where everyone else is. As the Catholic church can definitely attest to, guilt is an extremely powerful way to get people to do what you want. By making everyone who reads his book feel guilty for some miniscule crime that they have committed, they shall believe that they are in need of serious guidance that only the church can provide. That is, of course, that we allow that the book is indeed an advertisement.

The idea of sin may limit the appeal to some, but for most god-fearing people, sin is a powerful motivator. Besides, most people who read this book, knowing full well that St. Augustine is a CATHOLIC saint, will expect some talk of sinning and redemption and guilt and God and so forth. St. Augustine's ramblings about his terrible sin are expected and tiresome for those who are unaffected by Augustine's brand of christianity, and very effective and useful for those who buy into it. However, I think his talk of sin is indeed moving, he just goes on about it too much. It loses its potency after the 1,000th time he references his awful fruit kleptomania.

Besides, pears are so tasty, it doesn't really matter.