Austin brings up an excellent point in his blog: What does it matter if Miranda is the fictional version of Porter?
What matters is: Does it change our realtionship with the story?
I'd like to say no, because it shouldn't change our relationship with the story, but honestly, I think it does. Obviously, this is not a new phenomenon, as Porter dealt with it in her time, but in an era of post-modernism, self-referential essayists and the proliferation of memoirs, I think the natural tendency is to make that assumption.
I've noticed that a lot in English classes. When a classmate submits a story in which the narrator's gender isn't identified, nearly everyone makes the assumption that the narrator is the same gender as the author. When I read someone's story, unless I'm told otherwise, I make the assumption that the narrator is the same gender. That's short-sighted, yes, but I think it's natural for most people.
I've also noticed, in these classes, in myself and other fiction writers I know, that when someone submits a story with a protagonist at all similar to themselves, everyone assumes the story to be somewhat revealing or confessional. Ironically, as Austin pointed out, the same writers that submit these stories tend to make fun of that assumption, but at the same time do use their fiction as a way to work through their issues. At the very least, they do reveal a lot about themselves, whether or not they intended to.
So I think it's natural to read Porter's Miranda stories and make that assumption. Is it correct? Only Porter knows. Should it matter? It shouldn't. Ultimately, as Austin point out, even if it is autobiographical, so what? Is a fictional narrator the most trustworthy of sources? I doubt it.
If Miranda is Porter, that does reveal a lot about Porter, but the fact that we have this drive to make that connection reveals even more about us.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I think that is pretty valid. Though a reader can approach these texts without any inkling of its supposed biographical elements, a reader with that bias can still treat it as a stand-alone entity. Just because we suspect (and maybe hope) that Miranda is Porter, that doesn't necessarily have to affect the way we read this story. The text does not change because of external expectations/beliefs, instead I think it is our expectations/beliefs towards Porter that this text would alter. There is a natural impetus in those who engage pieces of art to understand the artist behind it; often we think the text (painting, song, etc)must reveal some essential truth of its creator that the creator will reveal some essential truth of the text; I think this is a natural impulse, no matter how many times one has read Barthes. So, I don't think it is wrong to consider, as long as a reader can compartmentalize his expectations of artist/text.
Post a Comment