Further to our discussion in class today, I too disliked "How to Breathe Again." I disliked it because I'm bored by stories about drug culture, and because the dialogue technique left me confused more than once. But more than that, I disliked it because I didn't feel it said anything new or specific about Edmonton. Given that it's in an anthology about Edmonton, it should have told me something new about the city. All it told me was that there's drug addicts here. Quel surprise. Take out the place names and you could situate this story in any other city.
Another thing. I think in English we get really caught up with "the text." We reify it; we act as if it could exist without an author, without a reader, without paper or ink. Why and how the author wrote it, who reads it and how and why they read it, and what it looks/feels/smells/tastes/sounds like are usually overlooked, but I think they are just as important as asking "does it work," as if "it" exists in isolation from these other things.
If the writer really doesn't matter in discussions about "the text," why have Darrin Hagen come speak to the class? I don't think the answer is "because he's a drag queen, and we want to know more about that scene." Well, it's not the whole answer. If it were, we could have had any queen talking to us and it wouldn't have made a difference. Most people would say having had Hagen in added to the depth of their understanding of the book, I think.
I recognize that none of these are new ideas, but I think it's too bad we English-types don't consider them more often.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Hey Debrah,
ReplyDeleteAh! So thought provoking!
I have to disagree with you about the "How to Breathe Again" story, which I quite "liked," or, to be a good little 380 student, thought was "effective." This is partly because I never really cease to be shocked by drug culture due to my probably ever-present, sheltered-life mentality. I also thought it said something about Edmonton differently than most of the other stories, but still just as...importantly. The whole "TAKE GRIERSON HILL!" thing is, I think, fairly loaded. And yeah, it probably could have been placed in a different city and remained relatively the same, but maybe that's the point? That Edmonton, in its harbouring of drug users, is the same as all other big cities, making that part of its definition as a big city? That's sort of a back and forth thought, but there it is!
In my creative writing class, the professor mentioned, after my comment about being uncomfortable saying "authorial intention" even though that was essentially my point, made a distinction between fiction and creative nonfiction in how we look at and take into account authorial intent. I've always (well...as long as I've known enough to) been a fan of ignoring authorial intent, but with creative nonfiction that's hard to do, as you know that the author is talking about true things about his/her life. That's why I think having Darrin talk to us about his book was great, but I have heard various people say that they've been to talks where a question has been asked of a fiction author about a particular part of their book and they answer with their interpretation of their own writing, which does not match up with that particular reader's interpretation, thus resulting in disappointment, confusion, and other strange things.
The problem with these tiny comment windows is that I can't read over what I've written easily and see if it made any sense. I could scroll...but that's one more step...