Not to get way off track, but I think it's kind of interesting how like with the last novel this is boiling down to how much you should factor authorial intent and social/historical context into your reading. You can forgive O'Toole for the necessary shortcomings that come with broad strokes of a farce (like racist or classist undertones) and Trumbo for the necessary shortcomings that come with writing this kind of polemic for the masses (like simplistic arguments and inconsistent realism) only if you are willing to bring more to a novel than what the author gives you on the page.
I guess I'd argue that both have to be read in context to get their full impact, and considering how little social context any of us have for 1960s New Orleans or, jeez, 1938 anywhere, I think we've given ourselves a doozy of a one-two punch to open up this here book club. But I'm definitely enjoying the debate it's bringing.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
I'm sorry, but I'm just not on board with the "racism" of Dunces. I think that Trumbo's book has to be evaluated on both historical context for 1938, but also for present day, and how it was dealt with during the Vietnam war, but mostly because Trumbo actively promoted his book to take on cultural significance at a time some 30 years after it was written. O'Toole was definitely not around to promote his book, so for me it is easier to read that book in context. Trumbo's book is especially difficult to read only in the context of 1938 because our copy has a forward by everyone's favorite peace nut Cindy Sheehan.
ReplyDeleteI know that I couldn't really get into the book until I could suspend my disbelief. Once I gave Trumbo the poetic license to keep Joe alive for 3 (or more) years without a turning schedule or a single person attempting to communicate with him, I found I was able to focus on the argument and the story itself. It makes me wonder, though, how many other books I've read where inconsistency goes right over my head. This is only an issue for us with JGHG because Dan and I happen to know something about standards of care in hospitals.
ReplyDeleteCoincidentally, my Honors Lit students have been prepping for a debate on the artistic and educational merits of Uncle Tom's Cabin vs. The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, and they began debating today. In his attack on Huck Finn, one of my brightest bulbs said something along these lines (and I'm paraphrasing, however not much): "The truth is, Presentism is sort of unavoidable when discussing literature, since we all come to books like Huck Finn with our own sets of prior knowledge and personal biases. We can't help but view it through our own individual sets of eyes, which means some of us can't help but be hurt or offended by things that others don't even consider."
ReplyDeleteAnyway, he reminded me of what appears to be a reoccurring theme in this club: whether or not we can truly speak to the author's intent and whether or not we should be viewing these pieces in the context of the time they were published or in the time in which we are reading them. The more I think of it, I can't help but agree with my student. No one can truly put her own set of knowledge and biases aside while reading. If you work in the medial profession, I'm sure the inaccurate details would drive you nuts. Similarly, if you know someone who died or was injured in war, I imagine the author's emotion-based message would hit home a bit harder. We each can't help but take something different away from what we read. Discussing these differences is what makes this interesting.
Kind of relating to what Steve brought up about "modern warfare" initially and what Dan said in the comments in "sophomoric" and what Maggie and her student says here, I think it's really interesting to think about this book in the context of American war history. This is obviously what Trumbo wanted. In the edition I have, there are two introductions by Dalton Trumbo, one written for a reprinting in 1959 and another in 1970. The first is a very composed screed about publication history and censorship during WWII and the second more of an emotional outcry about the horrors of Vietnam. Perhaps because I kind of knew (and dreaded) what was coming in the novel, I read both those introductions very slowly and carefully before the actual novel and I guess in the light of this discussion I can't help but to admit that they had to have colored my reading of the novel quite a bit. In a lot of ways I think I read it the way you would look at an exhibit in a history museum than as a creative work. However, I don't know if that sounds hokey or overtly congratulatory, because I don't think that's what I mean. Anyway, anyone read the same introductions? Thoughts? What's with the business with Cindy Sheehan? My version didn't have that in there...
ReplyDelete