The Relationship between the Act of Remembering and the Study of Narrative

The immediate critique of the premise of this blog will undoubtedly be that not everyone remembers in story form or some other abstract exception-to-the-rule kind of objection. The point is that once a memory is shared with someone else it becomes final. It is in this final form that memory is synonymous with story. This means that explaining what happened in a race you saw on TV does not really differ from telling the story of a race in which you participated, a race that was not televised to anyone. In both cases the past experience becomes a narrative in its final and communicable form. To an important extent this also happens when a memory becomes thetic in the middle of a race. Even when a cyclist is not telling a/the story to a spectator, teammate or coach, she is telling it to herself. Coming into the last ten kilometers, it becomes necessary to evaluate what remains in the tank. You have to review what has happened in the race. Choices are made in regards to the narrative that do not make any material difference in the race, but it’s no secret that what happens in your head on your bicycle manifests itself in your performance. What events are worth remembering in the heat of the moment when a split second decision could decide the race? Which parts of the race were left out of the story? From what perspective is the story told? While these aspects of the remembered story do not directly affect the outcome of the race, they do have an immediate effect on the decisions making process of the rider.

Consistency in the Story of Cycling

It is evident to any cycling barb that the story of what happened can vary a great deal from person to person. It can also vary from ride to ride or more pertinently from ride to race. It seems a reasonable conclusion that like any mental habits employed in training, those used to tell yourself or others the story of what happened are the ones you’ll likely employ in a race. This does not mean that you need to conceptualize every ride like a race or embellish its importance or difficulty. The idea behind consistency is rather to highlight what aspects are similar between the story of a ride and the story of a race. There is no problem with forming stories that differ. In fact, I would argue that it is better to understand the multitude of narratives that could be told of the same events. This allows you to create a common thread between a training ride and a race, allowing you to analyze details regarding the decision making process as well as better recreate, and in effect, understand the situation you faced on your bicycle. This common story should not serve as the objective account of what happened. It does not hold any status superior to that of your epic narrative of adventurous exploits on a bicycle or your journal entry of suffering in your diary of pain and “just not feeling it today”. What is suggested here is a compare/contrast of various instances of telling stories in cycling, from recounting what has happened so far in order to calculate how many people are still up the road to deciding how hard to go on an effort the goes out tail wind. In all accounts of what happened, there are noteworthy consistencies and/or inconsistencies that could be modified or emphasized in a beneficial way.