I also like Tufts. Why? I am not really sure. He certainly is worshipping at the altar of Venus more openly than Burroughs, and I feel like I should be offended by that, but I'm not. I'm intrigued by his notions of truth and the truth he wishes to convey in his narrative. He says in the preface, "concealment has become no longer useful, and the suppression of truth unnecessary" (iv-v). His story is built on his deeds of un-truth; both in literal lies and the deception of stealing and counterfeiting. But he claims to be truthful as he relates his narrative because there is no point in not telling the truth. This point reveals something in the nature of
Tufts, and perhaps in the nature of humanity in general. He tells the truth only as it is useful. To what degree do we all do this? To what degree are all of our utterances utilitarian? Are all of our words serving our own purposes, or do they serve their own purposes? Or the purposes of "truth"? I seem to be getting back to Bakhtin. I think I want to think that words work both independently and dependently. They serve our purposes, but they also dialogically interact and support greater, larger purposes. We never have complete control of our words, and they still hold allegiance to greater truths than we intend or are aware of.
Tufts goes on to say on that same page that, "truth, not fiction, [is] the object of my views." Tufts reveals something about the audience he expects for his narrative. They will not be picking up a "fiction" (a novel?), but a truth. He enriches the definition of the title his work is given, which on the cover page is narrative, not memoir. That is interesting because I would be more likely to associate truth and accuracy with a memoir than a narrative. He also says that he has at least some intention of amusing or entertaining his audience. He wonders at why "fable and romance have long amused the world ... [and] not plain truth and real fact" (vii). Why do we enjoy fiction? Surely people's own lives have consisted of romances and adventures enough to amuse society. Certainly real people's lives may provide more insight into the human condition, since they are literally formed from the human condition. But art often strives for truth made from un-truth. I read once that Van Gogh said he did not use the colors that he actually saw, but the colors that felt real* (this is a drastic paraphrase and interpretation, forgive me). Fiction uses the colors, the words, the characters, that feel more true than the truth often does.
Like this picture. I love this painting. I connect with it. It feels so true even though no one has ever been that blue. So in addition to what is literature, I think Tufts makes us ask, what is truth? What is fiction? And, what's important?
*"Instead of trying to reproduce exactly what I see before me, I make more arbitrary use of color to express myself more forcefully."
[Letter to Theo van Gogh, 11 August 1888]- from http://painting.about.com/od/artandartistquotes/a/Quotes_Van_Gogh.htm
Hi Molly, Loved the painting. And the point you were making. There's an 18th c concept that fiction can be true in the sense that it represents the truth of concepts--a paradox of factual fictions. Hemingway also said that fiction is truer than fact. But it took us in the late 20th c to relativize everything, to cast aside the notion of Truth and to insist that what appears true is always a matter of perspective. SB stresses the relativity of truth and perception. I think HT does as well. But there are great differences between the two characters. Ht is far more consciously and intentionally humorous. The intent is not simply self-justification, but a more consciously styled literary performance, another role HT takes on. I think ultimately the two historical figures who created the text (the real HT and his ghost writer) must have had a notion of truth something like Bakhtin's, that truth is always going to be revealed through the two perspectives of self and other. Great stuff here to discuss. thanks, dw
ReplyDeleteHi Molly:
ReplyDeleteYour post raises some interesting questions, especially this idea of Tufts' narrative as a presentation (perhaps a highly stylized or completely false one though) of truth. His comment about romance and fiction seems both interesting and ambiguous. I can't wait to talk about this in class today!