It seems counterintuitive that one of the most celebrated diaries in history could be a work of fiction. The term “diary” implies that the contents include the real life experiences and feelings of its author. The text is expected to be factual. However, it appears that Anne Frank had revised and embellished her diary with the intention of it being published for the public eye.
While it would be extreme to claim that Anne Frank’s beloved diary is a complete work of fiction, it certainly should not be referred to as a historical document. In her memoir, Miep Gies, a Dutch citizen who put her life in danger to hide Anne and her family in their annex, explained an unusual encounter with Anne, as she interrupted the young girl in a writing frenzy. It was one of many instances where Anne was caught in a trance-like state while crafting her diary, rather than spontaneously recording anecdotes of her day.
Anne had noted many times that she dreamed of being a writer and longed for the public to read her work. Soon after beginning her diary she had decided to write it as a book, in diary form, to hopefully publish after the war concluded. “Just imagine how interesting it would be if I were to publish a romance of the ‘Secret Annex.’ The title alone would be enough to make people think it was a detective story. But, seriously, it would be quite funny ten years after the war if we Jews were to tell how we lived and what we ate and talked about here.” The original diary was gifted to Anne in June 1942, and shortly after, her entries began. In the spring of 1944, after making the executive decision that it was no longer to be for her eyes only, she revised the entire book, while continuing to add new entries.
It may be upsetting to many to claim that not all of Anne’s writing is truthful, as she suffered through the unimaginable horrors of the Holocaust. Nevertheless, the remarkable writing itself should be respected as a fine piece of literature. Anne wrote with an overwhelmingly mature voice that thoroughly convinces the reader that it is simply an innocent and spontaneous diary of a teenage girl. Anne certainly should be recognized as the gifted writer that she was.
It seems counterintuitive that something as superficial as the way one parts one’s hair could be a highly defining factor in determining one’s identity. The Hair Part Theory is the concept that an individual dominant in the analytical and logical skills of the left-hemisphere brain function will wear a left side hair part, while a right side hair part would be visible on an individual who excels in right-hemisphere brain function, predominantly imagination and emotional abilities. It is absurd that such a theory exists, as it is impossible to conclude this vast amount of information about a person by analyzing the part in their hair that may very likely change depending on their hairstyle for the day. Furthermore, some supporters of the theory claim that the left side part has developed a reputation to be a masculine feature and the right side part has become more associated with femininity. Making such a claim implies that the average observer may consciously take note that an individual with a left side part, despite their gender, exhibits a masculine presence, which is highly unlikely.
Those in favor of the theory believe that many prominent public figures have supported this thesis. The strong-willed Margaret Thatcher and Hillary Clinton, women certainly not known for their glamour or femininity, both validate the Hair Part Theory with their left side parts. Men such as Lou Gehrig and Laurence Olivier, individuals who were known publicly for their sensitive natures, have also served as evidence to the theory with their right side parts. While these examples may align with the theory, it is likely that they are simply coincidental and great conclusions should not be drawn from them. Another popular example, those who advocate for the Hair Part Theory suggest, is that of Superman and Clark Kent, claiming that even Superman, the epitome of masculinity, has a left side part, while his mild-mannered alter ego, Clark Kent has a right side part. However, it is much more logical that the creator of Superman merely intended to have stark differences between the characters’ two personas and any alignment to the theory is once again by chance.
The Hair Part theory reinforces stereotypes that have been embedded in society for centuries—that a trivial aspect of one’s appearance can account for a great deal of their personality. While evidence of this theory may prove the contrary in some cases, it is presumptuous to claim that it can be universally applied to all. Overall, it is counterintuitive to perpetuate this absurd theory that ultimately contradicts everything for which society is striving, regarding acceptance and inclusivity.
It seems counterintuitive that a multivitamin labelled to improve your health could actually inflict an illness. However, studies have shown that the majority of individuals who consume vitamins on a daily basis already receive adequate nutrients from their food intake, resulting in a surplus of the vitamin from the supplement. Certain vitamins when taken in excess, can actually increase one’s risk of developing a disease. For instance, studies have linked an excessive amount of folic acid to heart disease and the retinol form of vitamin A to birth defects, among many other afflictions. One may question why these possible risks are not clearly labelled for the consumer to consider before purchasing.
While daily vitamins are not necessary for the popular majority, there are particular people that do benefit from specific vitamins. Alcoholics may benefit from a folic acid supplement due to the fact that alcohol blocks folic acid from absorption. It is suggested that people following a plant-based diet should take a B12 supplement, as animals are the main source of the nutrient. Apart from distinct scenarios that vary from person to person, the average individual does not need exorbitant amounts of daily vitamins compacted into a small supplement.
The true beneficiaries of the daily vitamin are not those who take it, but those who work in the $28 billion dollar industry. It is no coincidence that the Food and Drug Administration, pressured by political figures, does not require vitamins to have labels explaining the possible risks that come from exceeding the recommended daily intake of certain nutrients, as that would not aid in their marketing of keeping the consumer “healthy.” Parents may be hesitant to feed their child vitamins each morning, if they were aware that each gummy surpasses the upper daily intake limits of vitamin A and zinc. If authentic information was presented to users, many would abandon their daily multivitamin, as these vitamins clearly do not aid in making people healthier, but rather line the pockets of politicians and executives.