Differences: The most significant difference was the purpose of their teachings. Before Lorde had cancer, she advocated and spoke out to educate those around her, and so did Edson, but they did it for very different reasons and with very different approaches. While Lorde used her words in the form of poetry, Edson used her words as power, giving little grace to her students as she spoke to the class rather than with them. One specific quote emphasizes this idea: "The young doctor, like the senior scholar, prefers research to humanity,” (Edson). Now that she is no longer the one in power, she is seeing how dangerous power can be. Often in power, you fail to see the humanistic aspects of life, you only see the facts, and while Edson's career started like that, Lorde’s started with providing humanities before facts.  

 
Although both authors battled cancer, a major difference in their pieces was that Lorde's was a nonfiction memoir, whereas Edson's work was a fictional narrative inspired by her experience. While Edson's theatrical play emphasizes the performative nature of medicine and calls for empathy, Lorde's essayistic style delves into the depths of identity and societal critique. Both narrative forms contribute uniquely to our understanding of cancer's physical, emotional, and sociopolitical dimensions. 

 

While their works differ in narrative form and perspective, they converge in their ability to humanize the cancer journey and shed light on the complexities of global health.  In doing so, they remind us that the battle against cancer is not just a medical one; it is a deeply human one that transcends borders and cultures. 

A difference I noticed between the two works was the narrative; Edsons work read as an almost fantasy piece where so much of it was lived out in her memory and imagination rather than how Lorde wrote hers in nonfiction voice. Lorde and Eddson convey these different narratives through the use of analepsis. Lorde takes you back to the past as it happened, while Edson mixes the past with her present self, switching between a carefree younger version of herself and her current self. 

Both voices were powerful in telling the message of healthcare having become almost robotic caring more about the numbers and treatment then the patient. Both women wrote strong stories that tell the story of health care and use them to advocate for a more “humane” way of patient care, most notably for me the presence of the nurse, in Edson's story, set an example for how healthcare workers could treat patient care and how much of a positive effect it had on the patient. Proving how its not hard to learn to care about the people being treated, it does not take much for them to not feel like just another patient.

From diagnosis to treatment, the women’s experience throughout their illness varied. After being diagnosed with cancer, Lorde read countless sources on various treatment options and personally decided how to pursue her course of treatment. Bearing took more of a “backseat approach”; she accepted the first course of treatment recommended by her doctor without quarrel. Lorde had a very supportive group of people to help her through surgery and post-op care. Being unmarried, childless, and having mainly professional relationships, Bearing went through the experience of cancer basically alone. Although the treatment of their disease differed, the humanistic care that they received from professionals aligned. Being seen as a patient, not a person, was a common theme uniting the two experiences. Both women experienced cancer physically, psychologically, and personally, yet were only seen for their physical conditions. The women wished that their providers would “take more interest in personal contact” given the deeply personal experience that cancer pushed onto them. (Edson 58)

Not only were the experiences of Lorde and Bearing different, but so were their means of storytelling. Perhaps due to the limitations of playwriting, Bearing was less evocative about her inner feelings associated with cancer. Bearing’s story, by nature of a play, followed a stricter timeline and focused less on the thoughts behind events, but on the events themselves. Bearing’s internal thoughts spanned from her academic thoughts, to her profession and childhood whereas Lorde wrote strictly about her illness. Naturally given the characteristics of a journal, Lorde’s account was highly internally personal and vulnerable. Lorde visually explained the pain she felt by cancer, its treatment, and the medical system in which she was treated within. Despite such differences, both spoke profoundy about illness and its implications.

An aspect of Lorde’s writing which I loved as both a reader and student of the Health Humanities, was her component of “why.” Lorded explained why she was writing what she was writing - to break silence and offer insight into the intersectionality which has a hand in medicine. For instance, although both authors looked at the disconnection between medicine and patient care, Lorde did so with greater directness. Lorde called out the experience by name and reflected on it personally whereas Bearing only “explained” the phenomenon by explaining the experience itself. However, both stories are true works of art in their own right. Depicting the complexities of the patient perspective, they are honest literary references to real experiences of lived illness.

A notable difference between these two works lies in the different perspectives these stories are told from. Bearing presents the first-person account from the perspective of a highly educated and well-known professor who is also a cancer patient. Bearing, who always had a very harsh teaching style, looks back at the end of the story and sees in her suffering the difference a more humane perspective makes. Audre Lorde, on the other hand, is a Black feminist, poet and activist so she is able to provide a unique perspective that goes not only into the physical parts of her cancer but the social and cultural aspects. 

A difference I noticed was in their goals of education with their stories. Although they both proudly claim their identities as educators, Lourde left me with the impression of keeping her journal for the sake of others while Edson was more focused on her own self soothing. I think Lorde being a Black, lesbian poet was familiar with the feeling of being ostracized and stigmatized. Because of this familiarity, she possibly felt it was her duty to journal her experience to be used as a point of reference for women who share a similar identity. As for Edson, I think her recounting of cancer was more of an outlet for her peace of mind and not for the use of others experiencing a similar battle. 

 

For me, both stories carry the same themes of two brave and passionate women who never give up on empowering themselves and others. The only difference was how the storytelling was different for both and how the two women approached their experience with cancer. Both women were well educated and knew how to express their feelings. Bearing’s did not show a lot of her inner feelings, while Lorde gave a unique perspective on her emotions and difficulties in the book.

 

No man is an island,
 Entire of itself.
 Each is a piece of the continent,
 A part of the main.
 If a clod be washed away by the sea,
 Europe is the less.
 As well as if a promontory were.
 As well as if a manor of thine own
 Or of thine friend's were.
 Each man's death diminishes me,
 For I am involved in mankind.
 Therefore, send not to know
 For whom the bell tolls,
 It tolls for thee.