As we characterized the lived-experiences that made us cry we noted clusters of features that were similar to a number of different reasons for crying. Lack of control was a frequent component in "negative" instances when we cried = for anger, loss, or frustration; and the surprise of a heartfelt wish unexpectedly (impossibly) fulfilled was a frequent component of instances where we wept from happiness, satisfaction, or relief.
When we compared the kinds of things that we cried for in literary experiences - we seemed to engage more deeply when we wept for positive reasons. In some sense - if the literary experience was TOO bad - instead of weeping with empathy (connecting to the fictional events/ideas) we withdrew or became angry or annoyed with the material. This is interesting. For lived-experience - there is not a choice to disengage and crying seems in some ways to be a response to the frustration at that fact that we can NOT disengage. With literary experiences that take us into very frustrating negative places - we break away, because we can, and while we may cry, the connection to the experince can be lost.
So what does this suggest about the experience of emotions in life versus writing. Well, lots of things - and we only began to scratch the surface of how we might use this information as we think about writing.
In the middle of this discussion we talked about emotions being "learned" = that in some sense we are socialized in how to be sad, or happy, or angry. So that we "perform" emotions in terms of the expectations of our family, social groups, or the culture at large. With respect to this observation, it seems that our written representations of emotion will draw heavily from those representations - and we might need to do some careful reflecting and checking to make sure we are accurately (honestly) representing what we experienced => rather than the story for what we were supposed to have experienced.
Another observatino might be that what Lott said about CNF's important function for "making sense out of chaos" is not just a feature of CNF, but a necessary characteristic of any writing that hopes to have an audience. If we present experience "raw" (without reflecting on or presenting its relationship to the emotions we are "supposed" to feel in terms of cultural stories)=> without making sense of it - and/or moving traumatic experiences toward the "surprise of a heartfelt wish unexpectedly (impossibly) fullfilled' - we run the risk of our audience withdrawing. Audience withdrawal may be especially risky for "true stories" (like the Hotel Rwanda, or American History X) or CNF - were we are going to cut off our feelings if there is no hope of making reality more understandable or tolerable.
And from this point on = "representations" of experience and "experience itself" and "Truth" get all mixed up. We didn't really have enough time to talk all of this through - but to boil it down to one usable reflection:ALL experience (even experience as we live it) is a perception/representation, but literary experiences seem to have certain restrictions on how our culture will tolerate their representation.
Truth and MD (code for you know who, I don't want another email so I am not posting his name) in China
We spent the second half of class characterizing the kinds of misrepresentations MD set forward about his trip to China, and discussing whether and how they mattered in terms of a discussion of truth in journalism, fiction, theater, and CNF.
In general, we observed that MD lied not about the working conditions and the kinds of things that had happened at some time and in some place in China suppliers for Apple, rather he had misrepresented his own experiences. In particular, he claimed to have been places he hadn't been and to have talked to people he had not talked to. He also misrepresented what the people he talked to said and did, and he was inaccurate (or lied) about what he actually saw and did.
The general consensus of the class was that this was unethical for a journalist, that it undermines the authority of the theatrical piece because it places the audience in a position where it does not have accurate information to distinguish between truth and fiction. Also, it misrepresents the truth about China in important ways. Because the particulars are untrue - the generalizations made from those particulars - even if they coincide with generalities that are true - remain untrue in important ways. First, it "lies" about the pervasiveness of the use of hexane, the prevalence of unions and the relationship of the government to unions, the prevalence of underage workers, and the extent and kind of "victimization" of workers from the workers' perspectives (which, ironically, is what he claims to represent).
His justified his lies in terms of telling a compelling story. Audiences identify more strongly with individual cases (particular people who say specific things in particular situations), and as Heather put it - he was an opportunist in terms of creating stories that matched cultural stories that an American audience will respond (be vulnerable?) to.
So there you have it - are writers/performers justified in messing with facts to tell a "larger" truth? Can it still be the truth if facts are tampered with? If it is not the truth, what does it become? What is the role of fictional works in critiquing "real world" situations? And are there features of CNF that put it in a better position to offer strong, compelling, and useful critiques? Or can each genre - fiction/nonfiction - bring different strengths?
For next class:
Read: Smoking gun expose of A Million Little Pieces
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/celebrity/million-little-lies
Blog 7: Due Draft long essay 2
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/celebrity/million-little-lies
Blog 7: Due Draft long essay 2
No comments:
Post a Comment