I don't necessarily agree with this but....insaneamoebaJanuary 12 2008, 18:42:21 UTC
I think that the biggest reason difference between the 'classics' and something like the Diary of Anne Frank is that the classics are unabashed works of fiction based loosely on historical events. While the play may fictionalize aspects of the book, the Diary of Anne Frank is not a work of fiction.
Some other reasons plays like the Diary may be considered sacrosanct might be:
1) If she hadn't been killed, Anne Frank had a pretty good chance of still being alive today. Beyond that, Anne Frank is herself the author, and there is a sense of having to 'honor' her writing. Generally when someone feels beholden to the text, they reflect that attitude through 'accurate' reproduction of the text. So even though Anne Frank didn't write the play, there is still the sense of these being her words, and more importantly, her world.
2) Most contemporary real life settings which would reflect the same atmosphere and principles of the world at work in the play (Sarajevo, etc.) have their own culturally specific and internally produced narratives.
3) Isn't it a lot safer for people to think that the story of Anne Frank is so culturally and historically specific that you couldn't remove it and update it? I mean surely nothing like the Nazi's is going on now! As opposed to something like Henry V, which is basically just about war in general. Anne Frank is really considered to be a culturally specific narrative- mostly because of its non-fiction status. Most of the 'classics' weren't even written in the historical time period of the story they are presenting, which tends to make them culturally unspecific.
4) The professor probably specifically tried to pick a play that they viewed as very narrow in terms of its flexibility, specifically in order to see what kinds of differences arise within those narrow confines. (A 'real' play based in a 'real' place that you can literally go and visit with its own tourist brochures and everything.) Thus, any attempts to move fully outside the narrow confines, rather than within them, would seem to challenge his reasons behind the lesson itself. To use your Coca-Cola example: to the professor moving the play to a new time/place/whatever would BE trying to reformulate the very essence of Coke itself, rather than just tweaking the formula.
That's my opinion on why your suggestion received the reaction it did.
On Historical and Cultural SpecificityinsaneamoebaJanuary 15 2008, 01:11:27 UTC
I could have sworn you replied to my comment... oh well, here are a few final thoughts I had.
I think that in general my approach to a text is much more in line with yours then with traditional approaches. However, I understand that this approach can come into direct conflict with the issue of voice, which can be a really touchy cultural subject.
Imagine you were interviewed for an article and when the interview came into print your quotes had been rearranged and taken out of context so that it was made to sound that you supported something which had never even come up in discussion during the interview and which you may or may not actually support. That's voice, and that's the issue that comes into play when you have a piece like The Diary of Anne Frank, which purports to accurately reflect the voice of Anne Frank. (whether or not it does is a different argument). Now, this isn't to say you can't take the piece and use it in a different way, but that is co-opting Anne Frank's voice and in the end it is not Anne Frank's story anymore. I think that taking excerpts from Anne Frank and crossing it with news articles from Sarajevo, Darfur, etc. might be interesting but even if it's in the same theme of the original diary, it's no longer the same voice, and thus not the same play.
Taking it from a different angle. If you want to tell the story of Sarajevo and you decide to do so using Anne Frank's voice you are in essence co-opting the story of the Muslim people who were persecuted there. Your intentions might be good- but the story is then being told in a Western Jewish voice. That's why a story written by someone from Sarajevo would be more appropriate- even if you changed it.
Now, this isn't to say that plays are somehow sacrosanct directives passed from a people through the playwright... however, you should recognize that stories have a cultural heritage and belonging tied into them. You can often find new undertones and meanings when you transfer them across history and culture, but it's not the same story and it's not the same voice. As artists we have the ability to take voices and use them in new ways, but in my opinion we should recognize that doing so is a form of co-optation through which we use the voices of others to tell our own stories. The stories are not the same, we change the story, we just use someone else's voice.
A final note. The classics are different in the way we approach them because the cultural specificity they held when they were first written no longer has any meaning to us. That is the original stories are lost to us, and in a way the classics are rootless voices. A great deal of work is done to try to discover the connections between these works and the culture in which they were written- but much of that is simply educated guess work. If the language of Shakespeare borders on meaningless for an audience there can be no way to connect the piece to a broader cultural story. This is why these voices are so ripe for reconsideration. Our distance from them in history has already disconnected the voice from the story, so we can easily use the voice to tell our own stories.
Some other reasons plays like the Diary may be considered sacrosanct might be:
1) If she hadn't been killed, Anne Frank had a pretty good chance of still being alive today. Beyond that, Anne Frank is herself the author, and there is a sense of having to 'honor' her writing. Generally when someone feels beholden to the text, they reflect that attitude through 'accurate' reproduction of the text. So even though Anne Frank didn't write the play, there is still the sense of these being her words, and more importantly, her world.
2) Most contemporary real life settings which would reflect the same atmosphere and principles of the world at work in the play (Sarajevo, etc.) have their own culturally specific and internally produced narratives.
3) Isn't it a lot safer for people to think that the story of Anne Frank is so culturally and historically specific that you couldn't remove it and update it? I mean surely nothing like the Nazi's is going on now! As opposed to something like Henry V, which is basically just about war in general. Anne Frank is really considered to be a culturally specific narrative- mostly because of its non-fiction status. Most of the 'classics' weren't even written in the historical time period of the story they are presenting, which tends to make them culturally unspecific.
4) The professor probably specifically tried to pick a play that they viewed as very narrow in terms of its flexibility, specifically in order to see what kinds of differences arise within those narrow confines. (A 'real' play based in a 'real' place that you can literally go and visit with its own tourist brochures and everything.) Thus, any attempts to move fully outside the narrow confines, rather than within them, would seem to challenge his reasons behind the lesson itself. To use your Coca-Cola example: to the professor moving the play to a new time/place/whatever would BE trying to reformulate the very essence of Coke itself, rather than just tweaking the formula.
That's my opinion on why your suggestion received the reaction it did.
Reply
I think that in general my approach to a text is much more in line with yours then with traditional approaches. However, I understand that this approach can come into direct conflict with the issue of voice, which can be a really touchy cultural subject.
Imagine you were interviewed for an article and when the interview came into print your quotes had been rearranged and taken out of context so that it was made to sound that you supported something which had never even come up in discussion during the interview and which you may or may not actually support. That's voice, and that's the issue that comes into play when you have a piece like The Diary of Anne Frank, which purports to accurately reflect the voice of Anne Frank. (whether or not it does is a different argument). Now, this isn't to say you can't take the piece and use it in a different way, but that is co-opting Anne Frank's voice and in the end it is not Anne Frank's story anymore. I think that taking excerpts from Anne Frank and crossing it with news articles from Sarajevo, Darfur, etc. might be interesting but even if it's in the same theme of the original diary, it's no longer the same voice, and thus not the same play.
Taking it from a different angle. If you want to tell the story of Sarajevo and you decide to do so using Anne Frank's voice you are in essence co-opting the story of the Muslim people who were persecuted there. Your intentions might be good- but the story is then being told in a Western Jewish voice. That's why a story written by someone from Sarajevo would be more appropriate- even if you changed it.
Now, this isn't to say that plays are somehow sacrosanct directives passed from a people through the playwright... however, you should recognize that stories have a cultural heritage and belonging tied into them. You can often find new undertones and meanings when you transfer them across history and culture, but it's not the same story and it's not the same voice. As artists we have the ability to take voices and use them in new ways, but in my opinion we should recognize that doing so is a form of co-optation through which we use the voices of others to tell our own stories. The stories are not the same, we change the story, we just use someone else's voice.
A final note. The classics are different in the way we approach them because the cultural specificity they held when they were first written no longer has any meaning to us. That is the original stories are lost to us, and in a way the classics are rootless voices. A great deal of work is done to try to discover the connections between these works and the culture in which they were written- but much of that is simply educated guess work. If the language of Shakespeare borders on meaningless for an audience there can be no way to connect the piece to a broader cultural story. This is why these voices are so ripe for reconsideration. Our distance from them in history has already disconnected the voice from the story, so we can easily use the voice to tell our own stories.
Reply
Leave a comment