Asher Sisneros

This week’s assignment was to write an essay on whether I’d include reconstructed speeches in my autobiography. I am perplexed by this assignment. At no point in the lecture did Dr. Gary North elaborate on what he meant by “reconstructed speeches.” Instead, he just left it up to interpretation. I am debating whether I am supposed to write about my speeches (assuming I make them), famous speeches made throughout my lifetime, or speeches on reconstruction. Without a definite—or even vague answer—I’ve concluded to write on all three topics.

First, let’s address speeches on reconstruction. I will not include these in my autobiography. There’s no reason to, and quite frankly, I think it’s pretty clear this isn’t what Dr. Gary North meant by “reconstructed speeches.” However, I wanted to include it for clarification. There won’t be speeches on reconstruction in my autobiography. The reasons for adding them are nonexistent. 

The second option is to reconstruct famous speeches from my lifetime. I may do this, but there must be a purpose. To needlessly include speeches that I like, would be utterly redundant. There must be a reason. I’ve been advocating for this on my blog for some time. Every word in an autobiography must have a reason. If a paragraph didn’t convey a point or add to the story, I would remove it. I’m not interested in including wasteful junk on precious paper. Granted, what I might interpret as redundant may be vital to another person. All of this is subjective. For me to include a speech in my autobiography, it has to contain uplifting material; it has to apply to my situation and make sense in the context of the autobiography. If the speech provided light on my thought process, gave the reader context into the social atmosphere of our nation at the time or explained one of my actions, then I would fully embrace such a speech in my autobiography. However, it would be absurd to incorporate something just because it was “cool.” 

I’m uncertain whether I’ll make any speeches in my lifetime. If I do, I have no idea whether I’ll include them. However, the previous rule about removing redundancies is no different regarding my speeches. While I may appear less protective over my speeches, that is just because giving a public speech will likely accompany a critical event in my life. I will not show partiality just because I wrote it. 

To conclude everything I’ve mentioned in the previous paragraphs, I won’t include anything if it doesn’t add to my autobiography. I strive to get better at efficiently and powerfully using space on paper. When I finish my autobiography, I hope to be an expert. Good writing doesn’t carelessly include words to sound sophisticated. Neither does it tell stories without a purpose. These principles apply to speeches as well. I will not add or reconstruct any speech if it doesn’t add value to my autobiography. Words are there to convey a message or tell a story, not to fill a paper.