Reaction to: Reading Autobiography by Smith and Watson

Significant question to ask when reviewing an autobiogrphical work----Is the author of this piece trying to COAX me one way or the other----What was there intention during the creation? Are they encouraging me to be swayed? A critical reader needs to take into account the editor of the work, the preface, the field notes, footnotes, bibliography etc. These are extremely important variables that should be considered with text I usually am not so observant or take the time to surface such details, I think after reading this article I will be more sensitive.

Smith and Watson continue to go on extensively about the different meanings of the use 'I' and in what sorts of context 'Real, Historical, Narrating, Ideaological'. Touches on the importance of the 'addressee' how to go about gathering context clues from the layers presented by the author.
The most interesting point made to me specifically was the segment discussing Medium. This was unlike the article edited by James Olney who gives the overall impression that any other medium besides written word should be taken lightheartedly when it come to the autobiography. This section by Watson and Smith has just the opposite theme----'short feature, documentry films, theater pieces, installations, performance art in music, dance, and monologue, the painted or sculpted self-portrait, quilts, collages, mosaics, body art, murals, comics and cyber art.' These are all methods of construing a narrative. In the 21st century there needs to be a broader appreciation for the arts and as a viewer or observee an openmind and a longing to expose oneself to these practices. I would have to be more reciprocating to this text than the Olney, I think that if one has an intention to express ones own existence and story it can be done just as successfully in other mediums as in literature.