“It's now 1990. I'm forty-three years old, which would've seemedimpossible to a fourth grader, and yet when I look at photographs ofmyself as I was in 1956, I realize that in the important ways I haven'tchanged at all. I was Timmy then; now I'm Tim. But the essence remains thesame. I'm not fooled by the baggy pants or the crew cut or the happysmile—I know my own eyes—and there is no doubt that the Timmy smiling atthe camera is the Tim I am now. Inside the body, or beyond the body, thereis something absolute and unchanging. The human life is all one thing,like a blade tracing loops on ice: a little kid, a twenty-three-year-oldinfantry sergeant, a middle-aged writer knowing guilt and sorrow,” (236).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In one of his novels, and in the above excerpt from that book, Tim O’Brien constantly discusses the idea of time elapsing and the effects thereof. In the above quote I feel that his allegation pertaining to life’s changes is, on many levels, true. Everyone goes through phases and is constantly turning into something more defined (or vague even). As time passes, decisions are presented and choices are made. People learn and grow from life experiences. While some refuse to do such things, there is still an effect- even though there is no action.
In this passage, the example he makes to prove his point is by simply looking back to the past. Just by seeing where one has been can show a variation to who they are now. Many things may be the same, yes, but also many more things- hidden even- may be altered. But not the core. Tim O’Brien(the character)’s transformation was rather drastic throughout the novel. He progressed from an embarrassed, naive young man to a hardened solider. He witnessed many things that many people never even hear of in a lifetime. Yet, despite all of this turmoil and ‘growing up’, he is still able to recognize who he is.
While I do believe that some people can leave behind the essence ofthemselves and forget who they are momentarily, I also believe that there are others who do not and never will.
Take, for example yourself:
Have you ever wished the ‘you’ now could meet the old you? Everyone has. And the way you know that you are the same person through all this time is to look back and ask yourself if that ‘you’ way back when would admire who they are today or be ashamed. It doesn’t even matter what the answer is: If you can remember, the essence of yourself is still there after all this time. Memories and emotional responses to these recollections are the best devices for comparison, because you have to use a part of yourself to clarify the preferences you make.
Another example in the novel is the progression of Mary Jean’s character. She starts off as an innocent, yet eager, young girl and converts into something comparable to a nightmare. She seems to have lost all that she was as the result of this transformation, and even during it; however, she still knows who she is. This is who she longed to be all along- whether or not she was aware of it. She still wears her pink sweater and still knows her past, but now her present is garnished with nighttime prowls and her neck is draped with a ring of tongues.
People change, sometimes even beyond the recognition of others, this is an undeniable fact. But another reality is that people also have memories and never cease to see themselves. Whether or not it is in a ‘new light’; it does not matter. Knowing where one has been only helps to forge a clearer path to where one is headed. It is impossible to forget who you are. Maybe loose sight, but never forget. You can’t forget about what you feel when you look into your eyes in an old photo. You can’t forget about a piece of yourself. You can’t forget about the feelings you’ve had that have determined where you are now. You can’t forget about your own life.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
I enjoyed your post and thought you brought up an interesting perspective. But I'd have to disagree that memories indicate that one's essence remains. I don't think that remembering implies remaining. I think one can remember the past without connecting their current nature to these memories.
Thank you Zeus. (As we discussed in Gym) I had trouble expressing exactly how I wanted to say what I had to say, making my point hard to solidify. I agree with you: memories do not directly indicate one's essence remaining. I think it is an important factor to aiding one measure their 'growth' or 'change' or even lack there of- but memories are typically bias, wavering, and (by nature) one-sided. But reguardless of our change; we are still one person. Nothing is stable and staunch, I understand that. I'm just merely saying that no matter what change a person progresses through, ultimately, they are one individual. In the end, we only have ourselves to rely on, because we are the only ones who will always be there for us. That obvious truth being said, who better to confer for evidence of self than our own personal recollections? How can one change so much that they arern't even familiar with their own eyes in a photo, as Tim O'Brien mentions? I think I agree with the author because I've experianced the type of situations he disscussed in terms of reflection and the weight of time and memories. The soul, I guess is maybe what I'm talking about. A terrible word to attempt to clarify what I'm saying, but I'm throwing it out there. I think that we are talking about two different aspects of this issue, and the portions we are on the same topic about, we disagree.
You write, "Many things may be the same, yes, but also many more things- hidden even- may be altered. But not the core."
How much is "many"? You use this word twice in the same sentence and then throughout your blog response. Do you really need the word "many"?
How do you define "essence"?
You write, "Have you ever wished the ‘you’ now could meet the old you? Everyone has." No everyone has not. :) I for one have not.
I have just become old. Not possible to visit the "old" me.
Do you mean by "old" the younger self?
And no, I never have asked if the younger teach might admire the older teach.
I disagree. One can forget a piece of self. In fact one may not remember several pieces. What is your earliest memory of self? Do you remember what you did at age 2? If you say, yes, is it an actual memory or one given to you by a parent or relative?
And certainly one can forget feelings.
I recommend you research memory and story telling. You should find this research interesting.
I used the word 'many' for lack of synonyms to express my point. I had trouble getting my concept across in the first place (because it is less of something that you tell and more of what you feel), so my piece has mostly simple language. The word is there as a substitute for others like stupendous or astounding or countless or numerous, but some also representing amounts that are few and insignificant and sparse. Looking back, I don't think including the word was neither effective nor tremendously detrimental to my piece. But juvenile and overused without any real substance (also in part due to its cliched nature), yes.
An overwhelming portion of my piece lacks a clear sense of what I define as 'essence', because I had trouble grasping it myself- let alone writing about it. For me, essence is something like a soul- but not as stark. The essence of a person is a compilation of unmeasurable amounts of things including thoughts and morals- but still exists with any one of these features absent. It is the 'main streak' of a person's personality and life. The summary, sort of. It is what makes the person an individual.
Yes, I was saying 'old' as in a previous you (or younger, as you inquired). I assumed everyone has thought of that concept under false pretenses then; however, until now I was unaware of anyone who had not had that notion. In addition, the further elaboration on that idea (about whether or not your younger self would be satisfied with your present state): I would not expect you to think of this if you had not even considered the preceding introduction to this concept. And I know it's not possible- it's merely a figurative concept (or at least now it is, who knows what advances the future may yield).
Is reciting recollections and noting every instance in one's life what defines one's'self'? I don't believe they do. Memories may certainly add a complexity to the compilation of things gathered over a lifetime (that collection which I consider to be one's 'self'- comprised of vast components) but they are not the only manifestation of it. Furthermore, the memories conjured up by relatives, etc. may also add to one's understanding of self but do not entirely inhibit or solely explain a person. Continuing on, I hope to clarify another section of my response, in which I implemented the use of mixed messages stating: "While I do believe that some people can leave behind the essence of themselves and forget who they are momentarily, I also believe that there are others who do not and never will," and then later in my discussion I remark: "But another reality is that people also have memories and never cease to see themselves,". These seemingly conflicting sentences in my piece were utilized to show that I recognize the reality of people forgetting who they are. In the first instance I was talking in specific terms (such as certain attitudes and stances toward various happenings) and in the second I was more vague and general.
I agree: one can forget feelings (a bitter sweet topic). On the broadest terms applicable, I think that feelings are important. Some are fleeting while others staunchly grip to our minds; however, I feel the crux of feelings lies in what we do seem to hold onto. These random sparks of feeling or even well-practiced and constant ones can show so much depth into one's life. I guess what I'm getting at with this point is that it is the idea of emotional truth rather than story truth. This acts as a focal point through which one may identify their 'essence' and 'self'. Moreover, an outsider's perception of you might be a useful addition to what the progressing definition of self is.
I will definitely look into such matters, because I do find them intriguing. I've looked into the various aspects of dreams and often times this fringed on what you are suggesting. I think it is more important what we remember rather than how close it was to the actual events and surroundings. It shows a lot about who we are and, in recalling previous experiences and already noted reactions to them, this comparison can show the evolution of one's self and essence otherwise. That is what I meant when I said "You can’t forget about the feelings you’ve had that have determined where you are now.". I was referring to the things that stick out in your mind and remain present whether or not the exact reason why is available for you to consider.
You write, "I think it is more important what we remember rather than how close it was to the actual events and surrondings."
However, if the memory is inaccurate, problems can arise, even dangerous. Unfortunately people may be convinced that their memories are exact when in fact they were not.
As I read your response, I thought of the Russian Gurdjieff, not because of anything related to memory theory but for his practices of awareness and observation. He was quite popular in the 1940s. Several writers tried to follow his philosophy. You may find him interesting.
I like what zeus said about remembering does not necessarily mean that the essence of someone is the same. I think that when you look at pictures or remeber something and you still feel like you act the same way it shows that the essence of you is still there.
The Teach:
It's not necessarily if a person's memories are exactly accurate that I was referring to- more emotionally accurate- but I understand your point.
And thank you for your suggestions to research.
StriveforYourDreams:
Is acting the "same way" the only implication of yourself still being present?
juno, I think I understand what you say. I have been corresponding with a young friend writing college applications. She is trying to discuss her perception of truth and uses a personal experience for her example. It is clear that the events have an emotional impact as she recalls the events. She had difficulty crafting her thesis and essay as a result.
To use your phrase, I think her memories are "emotionally accurate," perhaps so much so that she cannot write for another reader, at least not the first draft.
Post a Comment