Self-definition

I have mixed feelings about telling the world who I am. That is not, mind you, because I don't like having the world know who I am, but rather because whatever I tell people, there will be something left out or muddled, and it will likely make a difference in their conception of me. I don't necessarily mind being ambiguous, but I dislike muddles.

Nevertheless, since I have found that talking (not necessarily about myself, but about something I am interested in) is not only the best way for other people to find out about me, but one of the best ways for me to find out about myself, I'll try to talk about myself here. That is to say, since I've read too much Montaigne (though "too much Montaigne" is a contradiction in terms), I imitate his style, my thoughts wander, and I end up saying as much about the rest of the world as I do about myself.

I refuse to start my account, like Tristram Shandy, with my conception, because not only would it take me years to get to the "good stuff", i.e. what I am like now, but I don't really think many people would care to know how my parents met, and what my mother called me when I was two years old. My style is not entrancing enough for people to put up with the sheer volume of words.

Physical definitions

There are so many ways to describe "me", and many of them are hard to put into words. The one that is, at least, unlikely to change from day to day is my physical appearance, but of course that can also be misleading.

People judge other people based upon appearance, or at least people judge me that way. While I thought of myself as a mousy bookworm, people didn't come up to me and talk with me and flirt with me the way they started to when I realized I was more than that. What I believed I was became what others believed me to be. That's a neat trick if you can manage it.

On the other hand, I've heard often enough that "people see what they want to see". That is a paradox, isn't it? How can one's public persona (whether or not it is different from the one's self- image) be simultaneously self-defining and subject to someone else's ideas of what one is?

We are constantly defining ourselves for other people, and they are constantly trying to define us as best suits their needs. I like that. It reaffirms my belief that there are at least two sides to everything.

Definitions and assumptions

however, are double-edged. What if the word one uses doesn't mean the same thing to one's audience? I've had too many vicious fights because someone insisted I didn't mean either what I said, or my explanation of what I had said. I don't think that those fights are normal in human interactions, but I don't like them at all.

I think what I'm getting at here is that I detest assumptions made without enough experience to back them up, and I reserve my harshest condemnation for those who will not reconsider their facts. I don't think that assumptions or generalizations are a reasonable way of dealing with people. However, I haven't yet thought of a way to describe who I am that will be free of the possibility of misunderstanding. If anyone has any ideas, please let me know. I have a notion, which has been reinforced by a dear friend of mine, that what one writes about oneself is in some ways a mask. People will rarely look behind it to see what is there, unreflected by the light of publicity, and in failing to do so, they miss what may be the most important thing about a person.


This is not a very good way to start defining myself, but it is, at least, an explanation and and excuse for the lacunae in my self-portrait.

If you look at the things I'm interested in, you will probably get more good ideas of what I'm like. That will have to do for now, because I've worn myself out backing myself into this corner.


Emily's bio page Emily Gladstone's home page