Because authenticity has become an ideal to pursue, it has become incredibly difficult to be truly authentic, which is an issue that has been present in many of the issues we have discussed this semester. One glaring example was the discussion of authenticity in politics, which has a very strong connection to this text. Both politicians and flight attendants have strong motivations to seem "authentic."

In this paragraph, acting is set up as a cure for burnout, but throughout the paragraph it is seen both as a necessary evil, and a completely legitimate and morally sound part of the job.

Our interactions with corporations are often via low-level workers (Stewardesses, Fast-food workers, etc), but these actions have been controlled by the businesses. This creates a different expectation, and has shifted a focus from, "oh, she was really nice," to, "The service here has really gone down hill," decreasing the personal element of customer service in many fields.

This standardization of human encounter really creates an issue of authenticity. This sentence reminds me of Chic-fil-a's required "my pleasure" every time someone says thank you. Because a vast majority of people know that it is required of employees, and it is often said without sincerity, the standardization decreases the meaning of the interaction.

I find this argument interesting- how does one conclude that because a lie is told for gain it is not a real lie? I understand the importance of the distinction between a lie that is viewed as indispensable and a lie that is told for the sake of pleasure in dishonesty, but wholeheartedly disagree with the conclusion that the former is not a "real lie."

This paragraph structure is an effective way to approach the terms used in this essay. It allows the author to simultaneously make the meanings clear and analyze their meaning in the context of his argument. It allows for a greater ease of understanding, as well as a flow that easily connects the paragraphs.

Grant seamlessly integrates Rose's opinions in order to give her own more credibility, which is a very effective way to support her claims.

Again, Grant is very straight-forward in the way she outlines her essay, which I feel she does effectively- she isn't trying to be deliberately high-brow in her outline, and that allows her subject matter to pull focus.

Grant utilizes a very straight-forward technique to lay put her essay, and I feel that it is a very efficient way to introduce her topic.

I appreciate that this line makes a distinction between raced and racist sound, utilizing the reactions of others to make that distinction.

According to Merriam-Webster 'hegemony' refers to the dominant influence in a field (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hegemony). This hegemony of vision seems to refer to the way appearance dominates our perception of race. This point is nearly buried in the vocabulary of the author.

I am somewhat confused by the addition of this sentence. it seems unnecessary and detached from the rest of the paragraph, and I don't really understand how it furthers the author's argument.

As it focuses on songs that tell a personal narrative, the article discusses authenticity as it pertains to the stories singers put into their songs. It points out that many songs simply generalize experiences, without ever truly discussing personal details or utilizing their own experience. The authors hold up Jimmie Rodgers as an example of this type of personal narrative, specifically citing his songs "TB Blues" and "Jimmie the Kid". Both of which share very specific details about his life. In the same way, the song "Fifteen" by Taylor Swift shares a very specific experience from Swift's life. She discusses her relationship with her friend Abigail, and the way Abigail's experiences affected their friendship. In addition to sharing specific personal details, the many can easily relate to the song, in the same way that the writers say is very important. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pb-K2tXWK4w

I find it interesting that it is a new concept that our identity is focused on who we are as people instead of who we know. Ultimately, it has become more important to be unique (read: authentic to oneself) than to hold a specific title.

I really like the way Taylor utilizes strong, emotionally-charged language to drive his point home. By evoking strong emotion, Taylor is able to direct it.

I feel that this is clearly demonstrated in Michael. The language used by Wordsworth is both fueled by deep emotion, and is intrinsically deeply emotional.

This is fascinating to me, when compared with the clear divide in language used by Wordsworth in Michael, separating his point of view from that of the subject. While he doesn't completely separate himself from the emotion of the subjects of the poem, there is some distance created by the presence of the narrator, which is in direct conflict with Wordsworth's claim in this line.

In the Preface, Wordsworth says that the main purpose of his poems is to, " choose incidents and situations from common life, and to relate or describe them, throughout, as far as was possible in a selection of language really used by men, and, at the same time, to throw over them a certain colouring of imagination, whereby ordinary things should be presented to the mind in an unusual aspect." What is a more common, well known subject than that of our lives and hearts?

This is the word used in my paragraph.

I find this sentence so interesting, especially when considering its authenticity. In one sense, this is a very blunt way for Hurston to say what is clearly a truth to her, and in that sense is very authentic. But, when examining the action discussed, it becomes clear that the actions of this hypothetical person are certainly inauthentic.

I think that this line so perfectly ties back to Wordsworth's desire to write in a simple way, in the words of ordinary people. Here he states explicitly that books held no emotion for him, and it was through nature that true feeling was attained. This line resonates with me simply because it is such a pure distillation of one of the central claims Wordsworth makes about his poetry in the Preface.

Wordsworth uses these examples to reference ancient Roman works, each of these men living between 200 BC and 50 BC

I think that this is such an interesting point, and one that I agree with. By claiming that the plain language he uses is more permanent and has greater meaning than the flowery language used by other poets, he clearly explains his choices regarding the language used in his poems. I believe that this point can be supported by examining our modern modes of disseminating information. Platforms like Twitter limit the number of characters one can use, forcing people to be concise in their thought, and in spite of that these types of platforms remain wildly popular.

I feel that this expresses that his intent was to preface his poetry, providing some sort of warning or explanation for the reader, allowing them to shift their expectations before reading the works this writing introduces.

Would it be possible for you to provide more detail regarding how this process will work? Will there be three conferences per paper? Thank you!

Ultimately, I would like to focus on the ideas of movement and exclusion in this quote. On the one hand, my initial reaction to this quote was to view it as a transition in thought and focus as one ages and matures, showing a shift from trying to truly know thyself to attempting to apply that knowledge by being thyself.

However, as we discussed in class, this quote also implies an entire separation of the two ideas, and was intended to convey a true shift in the thought of an entire time period. While I can understand this point, I think it is only one way of thinking about this concept. I feel that even in the "new age" it is necessary to know oneself before it is possible to BE oneself.