The word ‘autobiography’ was first used deprecatingly by William Taylor in 1797 in the English periodical the Monthly Review, when he suggested the word as a hybrid but condemned it as ‘pedantic’; but its next recorded use was in its present sense by Robert Southey in 1809. The form of autobiography however goes back to antiquity. Biographers generally rely on a wide variety of documents and viewpoints; an autobiography, however, may be based entirely on the writer’s memory.
Autobiographical works are by nature subjective. The inability — or unwillingness — of the author to accurately recall memories has in certain cases resulted in misleading or incorrect information. Some sociologists and psychologists have noted that autobiography offers the author the ability to recreate history.
No one has a good idea how the front and back images of a crucified man came to be on the cloth. No one has created images that match the chemistry, peculiar superficiality and profoundly mysterious three-dimensional information content of the images on the Shroud. Therefore, they compacted trash and recycling in a Stationary Compactor (there is an example on page 7). They put a ’tilt truck’ (see example on p.115) into a Cart Dumper (see example on p.120) of which there are two; one for trash and one for recycle. The two Cart Dumpers work by using a hydraulic arm to lift the tilt truck (through a ninety degree angle) dumping its contents into the compactor, to be crushed and compacted. Therefore, there are two photographs of the floor of The Cart Dumpers on p.27 and there are a two photographs of the Shroud of Turin on p.111. On p.45 the two photographs from page 27 are placed above the two photographs from p.111 (for a total of four photographs on one page). Therefore, they conclude (for now) that the Wear and Tear on the Floor of the Cart Dumpers and the two Images within the Shroud of Turin show the Front and Back of a scourged, crucified man. They said, “These hard times can last us so very long, If I ever get off this Killing Floor, I’ll never get down this low no more, and you say you had money, you better be sure, ‘Cause these hard times will drive you from door to door.” (After Skip James)
Recognition of the significance of speech acts has illuminated the ability of language to do other things than describe reality. In the process the boundaries among the philosophy of language, the philosophy of action, aesthetics, the philosophy of mind, political philosophy, and ethics have become less sharp. In addition, an appreciation of speech acts has helped lay bare a normative structure implicit in linguistic practice, including even that part of this practice concerned with describing reality.
Austin famously claimed that performatives are not statements (1962, p. 6). This may be taken either as the claim that performative sentences, even those in the indicative grammatical mood, lack truth value; or instead as the claim that utterances of performative sentences, even when such sentences have truth value, are not assertions. One can consistently hold that an indicative sentence has truth value, and even that it may be uttered in such a way as to say something true, while denying that its utterance is an assertion. (Testing a microphone in a windowless room, I utter, “It’s raining,” and it happens to be raining outside. Here I have said something true but have made no assertion.)
Lemmon 1962 argues that performative utterances are true on the ground that they are instances of a wider class of sentences whose utterance guarantees their truth. If sound, this argument would show that performatives have truth value, but not that they are assertions. It also leaves unanswered the question why some verb phrases such as ‘I promise’ may be used performatively while others cannot be so used. Sinnott-Armstrong 1994 also argues that performatives can have truth value without addressing the question whether they are also used to make assertions. Reimer 1995 argues that while performatives have truth values, they are not also assertions. Adopting a similar strategy, Jary 2007 aims to explain how utterances of such sentences as “I order you to clean the kitchen,” can succeed in being orders. In so doing he draws on Green’s 2007 analysis of showing to argue that such utterances show (rather than merely describe) the force of the speaker’s utterance. Because ‘show’ is factive, if such an utterance shows its force, then it must have that force.
Searle 1969 had argued that a performative formula such as “I promise to…” is an “illocutionary force indicator” in the sense that it is a device whose role is to make explicit the force of the speaker’s utterance. Making something explicit, however, would seem to involve characterizing an independent event or state of affairs, and as a result Searle’s account presupposes that speakers can imbue their utterances with the force of demotions and excommunications; yet this is what was to be explained.
A single sentence question is placed five lines below the last sentence of “Fragment of a Novel” on p.114
Is the title a proposal that two texts are differentiated by space? One clue is the fact that there is no attribution of author for either the last sentence of “Fragment for a Novel” or the single sentence question. The title of the novel explains the reason for the existence of the novel, but upon looking (inside the book) at p.114 other curiosities emerge. Text is also seen on p.111, 112, and 113. The font used for the text used in the last line of “Fragment of a Novel” is a different size than the text used for the single sentence question.
The title “Fragment of a Novel” appears in the title on the cover, referencing the last line of “Fragment of a Novel” on p.114. Because the font size of “Fragment of a Novel” is the same size as the text which begins on p.111, it can be concluded that the text from pages 111-114 is also a part of “Fragment of a Novel.” The fact that the question text is set with a larger font confirms this idea. It’s also not clear why the question is placed FIVE lines under the last line of “Fragment of a Novel.” If the question itself is not part of the text of “Fragment of a Novel” it makes sense it would be separated by five lines.
Single Sentence Question……………………………p.114:
“Fragment of a Novel” (by Lord Byron)………………………………..p.111
IN SUSAN HOWE’S WORK, poetry and prose are often impossible to disentangle. Her books stitch together the musical language of poetry, the rigor of scholarship, and the visual and spatial movements of painting…
They remix excerpts of essays by Roland Barthes. Aces!