The works of Franzen, Specter, and Sacks respectively focus on the failure of memory while simultaneously highlighting its strength. In the Long Slow Slide into the Abyss, the declaration of Franzen’s father that it is, “better not to leave than to have to come back,” is much like the Sigmund Schiller’s belief that, “without suppression [he] wouldn’t …show more content…
For instance, Franzen’s explanation of Alzheimer’s disease as, “...countless sticky-looking globs of plaque and countless neurons engulfed by neuronal fibrils,” has more density than Specter’s explanation of memory as, “... a chain of chemical interactions that connect millions of neurons to one another.” However, Franzen’s scientific explanations are not overwhelming, as they are intertwined with an otherwise simple vocabulary, and Specter’s basic definition corresponds with the diction throughout the article. Hence, the differences in vocabulary share the common purpose of defining memory in scientific terms. Much like Specter’s simpler approach in defining memory, Sacks uses anecdotes to discuss the topic of false memories. For instance, Sacks makes the statement that, “Helen Keller was accused of plagiarism when she was only twelve,” to introduce one of many stories that verify the existence of false memories. Sacks frequent usage of anecdotes parallels to Specter’s inclusion of the conducting of experiments like “Kandel’s [decision] to conduct classic Pavlovian conditioning studies on aplysia,” and Elizabeth Loftus’ planting of false memories on test subjects. Sacks focuses less on experimental findings and more on incidents in which historical figures have been noted to have false memories because the scientific approach that Specter takes would not correlate with the Sack’s narrative style. While Sack’s relies on these anecdotes to set the mood of his piece and Specter focuses on experimental findings, the mere inclusion of outside information about the topic of memory gives validity to the