Dave Eggers plays with, and exploits the desire for truth in his memoir A Heart Breaking Work of Staggering Genius. Being postmodern to its core, the work has characters rejecting their position as metaphors within the novel, announcing the falsity of the text, and generally disturbing the reader’s assumptions of ‘truth’s’ place within memoir writing. The illusion of truth it seems then is a very useful important literary technique; some texts such as Frank’s The Diary of a Young Girl rely almost exclusively on our belief that they report perceived events as honestly and integrally as possible. The respect given to ‘authentic writing’ can in turn be used to sell an idea that’s purely fictional and outlandish, gaining a certain suspension of disbelief when presented as true, such as the Coen brothers did with their crime film Fargo.
If the author is dead anyway, then what can their ‘truth’ possibly offer? The intentions of the writer, now having been thrown aside by Barthes, are in many respects irrelevant. Any other truth that can be found within a text is purely a product of the reader’s ideologies, their political bent etc, and is therefore only relevant as a truth, not the truth. So despite ‘the truth’ not actually existing, the suggestion of it certainly has a place within writing; whether you subvert it or use it to give credence to a situation. In the case of using writing to explore a truth about its author, such as John Cheever and his sexuality, then the search is valid, but it’s still a reading that’s being imposed upon the writing, and must never take precedence over any another interpretation.
I will have to say you have done more to quote than me :). Also here's a debate, I don't think their is a 'truth' anymore since the cynicism and education of any reader can re-interpret a novel's vision. Example is Robert Heilein's book 'Stranger in a Strange Land'.
ReplyDeleteI think talking about the 'novel's vision' isn't particularly helpful, there is only the author's vision and the reader's, but yes there isn't one universal reading of a text.
DeleteThanks for commenting!
Another fantastic peice of work - I like how you tied Cheever into the final paragraph, and also your use of external authors the course such as Dave Eggers. The work is very factual however, and I find myself unsure as to how you approach the theories you are discussing. I would like to know how you interpret Barthes theory.
ReplyDeleteThanks Madeleine! I'll try to make my next piece slightly less factual, mix it up a little. :)
Delete