Journal #4: Autobiographies

Reading Journal

How do the two authors portray themselves differently in their autobiographical works? Benvenuto tries to portray himself as an accomplished man. He is trying to just hit the high points in his life, and even says that there were many more adventures he could have related, but left them out. He also places great stock in his lineage, recounting the story of his grandfathers and how his parents me. He does not brag flat out, but he is always mentioning how good people thought he was at music and gold smithing. Aciman, on the other hand, isn’t very clear about how he defines himself. He seems to view himself as a vessel for the city of Rome. Rome changes him when he’s here and when he leaves, he goes back to what he was, but he never tells us what he was or how he changed. He seems less intent on portraying himself than on showing how he feels about the city.

Which one is more conscious of the reader’s presence (wants to make a particular impression on audience)? Why do you say this? I felt like Benvenuto had a stronger desire to make an impression on the audience. There is a very deliberate feel to the events he relates. He is specifically selecting the parts of his life he feels are important, and is trying to explain why he is a good man. Aciman seems like he is just writing down his thoughts, which feels more personal and less directed toward an audience.

Which author is more convincing or believable? Why? Aciman is more believable, simply because it seems less deliberate, but I did not like his account as much as I liked Benvenuto’s. I would be much more likely to read the rest of Benvenuto’s account than I would be to read Aciman’s other works. I don’t feel that believability is that important to most autobiographies.