When discussing the issue of fact versus truth in The Things They Carried (i.e. does it matter if O'brien "makes stuff up" if what he makes up conveys general truths about the war? Is doing so disrespectful, & c.?), a secondary question that presents itself to us is: how does the author's (artist's) background affect our perception of his or her work?
This question seems to be particularly important when considering pieces of art that feature intense struggle, whether that's a work that involves serious depression (e.g. Plath's The Bell Jar or Waters' The Wall), addiction (Mathers' Relapse or Wallace's Infinite Jest), war (O'brien's The Things They Carried), or any other mental or physical state that is held as very painful and difficult to overcome. For most people, I think there is a much greater culture-wide sense of wrongness when, say, someone who has never stepped foot in a combat zone writes war stories or a middle-class suburban white person writes songs about racial injustice. Even if you do not view this as particularly wrong, it's hard to deny that, in general, non-vet war stories or suburban race songs are going to have a lot more people questioning their... right to make such pieces of art. Is that the right word, "right"?
Do we read The Bell Jar or Infinite Jest differently when we know the two authors' backgrounds? (Sylvia Plath and David Foster Wallace both committed suicide.)
Are the demonic voices and intense lyrics on Relapse scarier when know that Mathers is drawing from his own personal, up-front battle with pain-killer addiction?
Do the battles and deaths in The Things They Carried hit us harder than, say, a battle scene from a historical fiction novel written by a well-researched college grad who has never been outside the country, let alone in a war zone?
I would venture that the nearly unanimous answer to the above questions would be "yes". But why?
Is this because (1) having the experience is necessary to obtain a certain degree of truth? or because (2) only by undergoing "the experience" does one obtain the "right" to create art that depicts their experience? Both? Are there other possibilities?
The first choice is interesting because it is empirically testable (we can easily imagine a scenario in which test participants are asked to evaluate different pieces of literature written by artists from polar backgrounds), whereas the second is more of a matter of opinion (and is quite nuanced).
Right now, my opinion is that, while undergoing "the experience" can certainly help make writing about it easier and more familiar, I don't think it's impossible for someone who has never been to war to write a great and accurate portrayal of war. I also don't think that only those who have experienced "the experience" have the "right" to write (produce art) about it. That seems like a weird form of censorship. Statistically I would expect war stories written by veterans to be more accurate and "truthful" than war stories written by non-veterans, but I would never eliminate a non-veteran from contention simply based on his lack of war experience.
You bring up an interesting point. When reading a story, even if it is labelled as a work of fiction, I am more likely to believe the feelings it conveys if the author went through similar experiences. I think the saying "write what you know" is fitting here, since it suggests that it is not only easier but also more accurate to write about experiences you have some background in. Because of this, I considered The Things They Carried to be relatively close to the truth. Even though the events depicted may stray from reality, I have no doubt that the emotions expressed by the characters are accurate.
ReplyDeleteYour comment about a "weird kind of censorship" in only affirming fiction that is based on an author's first-hand experience (in certain areas of extraordinary experience, like war) is provocative. Indeed, why can't an imaginative creative writer produce a compelling, imagined narrative that reveals valuable "truths" in the way O'Brien's fiction does?
ReplyDeleteI recently read a short interview with Marlon James, the Jamaican-American writer whose recent novel _A Brief History of Seven Killings_ I'm just starting to get into (it's awesome so far). He depicts some pretty horrific gang violence in 1970s Jamaica, and he was commenting on why interviewers inevitably ask him about his own presumed first-hand experience with violence growing up in Jamaica. And he bristles, pointing out that he had a stable, middle-class upbringing with a good education and no direct experience with extreme violence. He even implies that the question is racist, as white writers who depict violence aren't typically asked the same thing. He says something along the lines of, "It's called using my imagination."
And I can say, although only about 50 pages deep at this point, his imagination is pretty damn vivid.
"Your comment about a "weird kind of censorship" in only affirming fiction that is based on an author's first-hand experience (in certain areas of extraordinary experience, like war) is provocative."
DeleteAnd I understand why it's provocative. I totally get why someone would view a work as (as Zina said) "phony" or "appropriated". I have even had these reactions at times.
But in the end, a book is just an ordered arrangement of words. I think we should ideally try to get rid of as much cultural baggage as possible and solely focus on the quality of the book--of the literal arrangement of words, the images that word construction evokes, etc. To do otherwise--the dismiss a book as phony or whatever because the author didn't go to war, or is depicting things they didn't live through like the gang violence, seems like an impediment to the clean, platonic sort of quality of the book (or artwork in general).
I agree with Pauline. I think your point about "(1) having the experience is necessary to obtain a certain degree of truth? or because (2) only by undergoing "the experience" does one obtain the "right" to create art that depicts their experience" really hits the issue head-on. In my opinion, I think it's both. If someone didn't truly go through an experience, I feel like they would be a poser. Or, taking it further, in a way, they could be appropriating someone else's story: reaping the benefits of "living" the experience without paying respect and understanding.
ReplyDeleteUgh I'm still so split on this idea. On one hand, I think I'd get more emotional over a work that was written by someone who underwent the experience that is being depicted... but on the other hand, I don't think that the cultural baggage that we bring with us is necessarily a good thing when assessing art.
DeleteBecause ultimately I think art should (1) entertain, and (2) deliver some sort of truth or philosophy to be entertained, and neither of those requires you to have underwent the experience you're depicting... so I'm conflicted.
I think ideally it doesn't matter whether or not you underwent an experience when writing about it... I'm just not sure it's every possible to entirely separate cultural baggage from the equation.
I completely agree with your points about how real life experience can increase an author's credibility and power when writing about any subject, in particular more dark and serious subjects. However, I must say that while "The Things They Carried" absolutely never refers to itself as non-fiction, the reader almost considers it as such when they notice that the author and the protagonist share the same name. This effect goes even further if the reader looks at the short biography of the author on the inside cover and sees that O'Brien was in fact a Vietnam war veteran. While O'Brien admits to factual inaccuracies fairly early in the book, I can definitely see how the beginning could almost be taken as narrative non-fiction.
ReplyDelete