Mysteriously transported back in time, Dana
becomes immersed in orality, now divorced from the pervasive barrage of information
characteristic of modernity. Despite
Walter Benjamin’s disparaging remarks about novels, Octavia Butler's Kindred sheds light
on the importance not only of remembering the past, but living it, of
chronicling a first-person narrative involving a descendant of slavery plunged
back into the oppressive world of her ancestors.
Walter Benjamin’s “The
Storyteller” discusses the inexpressible nature of experience in the modern
world. According to Benjamin, the rise
of telecommunications during and after WWI, which dispensed massive amounts of
information, the relevance of which only lasts for a short time (at least in
peoples’ memory), robs us of communicable experience. The massive (and gradual) shift from the
world of shared experience to a world increasingly fast-paced and fragmented shook
the foundations of useful information, which stories are intended to
supply: “The usefulness [of a story] may, in one case, consist in a moral; in
another, in some practical advice; in a third, in a proverb or maxim” (86). Regarding the rapid production of information
in the modern world, Maria Poplova explains, “We live in a world awash with
information, but we seem to face a growing scarcity of wisdom. And what’s
worse, we confuse the two. We believe that having access to more information produces
more knowledge, which results in more wisdom. But, if anything, the opposite is
true — more and more information without the proper context and interpretation
only muddles our understanding of the world rather than enriching it.”
Benjamin claims, “the
birthplace of the novel is the solitary individual, who is no longer able to
express himself by giving examples of his most important concerns, is himself
uncounseled, and cannot counsel others” (87).
For Benjamin, a storyteller is one who provides “counsel for his readers…[which]
is less an answer to a question than a proposal concerning the continuation of
a story which is just unfolding” (86).
In other words, wisdom—“the epic side of truth”—is increasingly being supplanted
by the age of information. As a
storyteller, Butler does provide us with useful information, perhaps not a
concrete moral that we place upon a banner, but certainly the advice of never forgetting
where we come from, how the past never truly dies, and how the oral traditions
of her ancestors thrive today because of her gift of writing.
Has Butler no counsel
as a novelist? Was her grandmother not a slave who orally related her
experiences of slavery to her granddaughter?
Butler does not seek to answer any concrete questions; rather, Kindred
prompts readers to consider how relevant slavery continues to be in our everyday
lives, and to question the agency of individuals caught in an evil cultural
charade of exploitative dominance, both victim and perpetrator alike: “I never
realized how easily people could be trained to accept slavery” (101). Rather than attempting to inform her audience
about the theoretical mechanics of time travel, Butler instead counsels her
readers by focusing on the psychological implications of a widely accepted
form of cultural evil (just as many people today accept the massive
incarceration rate of African American males).
She forces the reader to step back in time and witness both the cruelty
and humanity of those entangled in the snares of chattel slavery.
Regarding the necessity of
looking to the past, Seneca once
said, “By the toil of others we are led into the presence of things which have
been brought from darkness into light. We are excluded from no age, but we have
access to them all; and if we are prepared in loftiness of mind to pass beyond
the narrow confines of human weakness, there is a long period of time through
which we can roam.”
The conundrums of
the past can and should be confronted using the art of objective remembrance.
In preparation for living in the antebellum
South, Dana reports reading “everything…in [her] house that was even distantly
related [to slavery]—even Gone with the Wind, or part of it. But its
version of happy darkies in tender loving bondage was more than I could stand”
(116). Dana’s frustration with Gone
with the Wind illustrate humankind’s tendency to justify the horrors of the
past. The magnolia myth continues to darken the past by presenting the
antebellum south as a golden age, wherein white “gentleman” reigned supreme and
ladies and slaves (and anyone who wasn’t white) happily knew and stayed in their place.
Because “the toil of others”
(in America, slave labor) leads humankind into the present, which is an amalgamation
of prior social, cultural, and economic realities, we must never allow
ourselves to justify the horrors of the past.
Storytelling provides us with the means to explore and relate to the raw
experiences of the past without attempting to solve the riddles of history. A novelist can indeed council the reader via “a proposal concerning the
continuation of a story which is just unfolding” (Benjamin 86). As several forms of slavery continue to
thrive in modern society, continuing the story of humanity with wisdom learned
from the past can be done with any form of writing which relies upon critical
thinking and objective analysis.
I like how you seem to bridge the gap between novelist and storyteller, somewhat going against what Benjamin argues is true today. Someone can be both. I used Kindred and Benjamin's article in my own post, but I focused on Dana instead of Butler as a storyteller. Your analysis of how racism fits into this conversation on storytelling is also really interesting. Why do you think Benjamin makes a divide between storyteller and novelist?
ReplyDeleteI have to laugh at myself. You cited Benjamin's idea that "the rise of telecommunications during and after WWI [. . .] robs us of communicable experience." When I was reading the novel, I became very frustrated at Dana and Kevin's inability to find a copy of pass or free papers. I couldn't imagine why Kevin had gone to the library to check out books; why didn't they just look at the Library of Congress website (by the way, I looked and couldn't find one there either)? Then I remembered that the story was set in 1976, so I was frustrated that Butler chose to set her book in 1976. Why set a book thirty years in the past? At some point, I decided to check the copyright date; while the date for the reader's guide is 2003, the novel was originally published in 1979! I felt silly. But reading the novel was, in fact, a type of time travel even for us. I was having difficulty relating to Butler's storytelling because I was limiting myself to 21st century telecommunication. And I think that novel would not have worked today with our vast telecommunication possibilities; a couple Google searches, a payment of $9.99 to Ancestry.com and Dana would have been armed with so much more information that the story would not have needed to continue past the conception of her ancestor.
ReplyDelete