Monday, April 29, 2013

On Feeling ‘Unsettled’ After Viewing Original Manuscripts


         Was thinking the other day about the collective ‘unsettledness’  that emerged from our past discussions concerning the manuscripts we have looked over in class. I’m specifically thinking of the idea stated in our last meeting which goes-  “this class has taught me one thing- and that is never trust anything you read.” I found this such an interesting element that emerged from our class discussion, and I’ve found myself considering why we are so unsettled by the discoveries these works have revealed to us in their original form. I think that as English majors (and also for the non-majors in the class who simply love literature), we always find ourselves being taught to question text and the things we read. We dissect the characters, mull over the plot, recreate setting, and apply theoretical ideas to the motives and themes that drive the novels we read. We do so much of this, that typically by the end of a class lecture, paper, or discussion, we feel we have a good grasp and a very ‘deep’ understanding of the text and its ‘true’ themes.

Then you take Eng-l 460-

        And find that masterpieces, classics, and authors and artists whose works we hold on such stable pedestals of ‘greatness’ were in fact in constant flux in their creation, had hidden contributors and agendas, and in general may not have been the work of genius in its original form that we recognize today.  I’m specifically thinking of our discussions we had after viewing the Wizard of Oz script drafts, and Carver’s edited stories by Lithe.

     In the case of the Wizard of Oz we found that something we consider such a stable classic in American pop culture was in fact extremely unstable in its creation. Despite its humble themes, lovable characters, and lifelong lessons- everything that made the Wizard of Oz a classic was created, in large part, entirely by chance. And in the case of Carver, we found that his brilliant minimalist and menacing-like writing style that is so often praised in the study of short fiction may not even have been his original style after all.  

     As unsettling as these realizations are, I think that’s one of the most valuable lessons from the class. Not necessarily the message that you can’t trust anything you read, but the message that with every story comes a back story in its creation, and I think that’s an element that gets left out in the majority of English classes. Knowing this hidden element I feel will help to understand and consider future texts in a more holistic perspective, then maybe our “unsettledness” won’t be such a shock to us in the future.

 

No comments:

Post a Comment