Now that Typepad is working, I can finally post the second part of admission requests.
Questions to explore (pulled from your emails):
How can this help my writing process? What if no one agrees on any facts?
As I mentioned in part one, an admission request allows the defense and prosecution to focus on the contested details and aspects of the case (since they know which facts they already agree on). Contested memories, emotions, events, or details are where the conflict lies. In other words, figuring out which things lack conflict will help you discover which things are teeming with it.
Even this can be tricky, however. Every member of your family may remember a particular holiday differently, but these inconcistencies often mean absolutely nothing. The more creative nonfiction you write, the more you will understand how fluid and mercurial human memory can be. On the other hand, these inconsistencies may reflect the inner turmoil of an unhappy family. Or the quirkiness of a strange one. In such cases, the holiday memories might be useful.
This is where judgment comes in. Pay attention to your physical and emotional responses. Does it hurt your stomach, just thinking about that holiday? Does your jaw tense tight, when your sister shares her version of events? Or do you just enjoy the story? If you feel a visceral response, there might be something there (or you might just have a competitive relationship with your sister - which, hey, could make a great essay).
What if nobody agrees? What if there are no established facts? How do I find them objectively?
The first thing you need to realize is that there is no such thing as pure objectivity. Even the most scientific processes are laden with assumptions and bias. If an educator wants to study the effectiveness of a particular teaching style, and she does so by measuring standardized test scores, she has already revealed at least two biases: that standardized scores reflect learning, and that higher test scores are a worthwhile goal. Even the methodologies of so-called objective measurement can be biased:
Similarity of responses is taken to be the same as accuracy of responses.
The problem with equating them is that one might obtain consistent
temperature findings consistently in error due to a faulty thermometer, obtain consistent
responses to survey questions that make no sense to respondents, or obtain consistent
ratings among raters trained to look for the same things in the same way, in each instance
achieving a high degree of reliability on unreliable data … Reliability is, therefore, an artifact.
(Wolcott, 1995, p. 168-169)
This brings us back to the admission requests. Do similar memories imply accurate memories? Not necessarily. You may be asking the wrong questions.
But none of this means you have to doubt every fact or stop trusting your judgement. In response to strong criticism of bias in scientific research, Karl Popper “proposed a standard for testing knowledge claims” (Gall, et al., 2003, p. 29). According to this standard, a hypothesis can never be proven; it can only be refuted or supported by the evidence (Gall, et al., 2003). Which is precisely what creative nonfiction strives to do - provide evidence (concrete memories, actions, and details) in support of certain ideas (cultural, familial, personal, or political).
Popper maps out a much-needed middle ground between subjectivity and science. No one can claim to know the absolute truth, but at the same time, science is not forced to dissolve into meaningless relativism. This is why an adversarial, dialogic process is so important. It helps writers reflect on the slippery nature of truth and memory, finding their own middle ground. Their own truth. Admissions requests are a good first step in the process.
References:
Gall, M. D., Gall, J. P., & Borg, W.R. (2003). Educational Research: An
Introduction (7th ed.). Boston: A and B.
Wolcott, Harry. (1995). The Art of Fieldwork. London: Altamira Press.