I was thrilled when I read in The Creation of the Media Starr's use of Rip Van Winkle (84) as a symbol of the changes within America, particularly within the realm of the public sphere. It is snippets like these that I've thus far missed from the "textbook" nature of our foundational readings, particularly these last two (Burke & Briggs of course mention numerous primary documents in passing). To see that, on some level, there was recognition of the speed at which things were changing for American society is really a great thing and I think we (I'm not sure who exactly this "we" is) can get lost in thinking that our current-day culture is moving too quickly. I guess it's been that way for some time now and I'll be interested to see if this is discussed in Starr's text the way that some histories of technology (particularly media technology) at least cursorily discuss.I don't want to ignore the fact that Starr has previously used primary documents, such as the Freeman's Oath and Publick Occurrences, but Rip Van Winkle seems different to me. Because the document is a story, I see it as an adding another layer to the American media narrative. Fiction seems usually to be less about sending an overt public message (even if some could be argued as overt). What are the potential differences between putting forth a political document or a public newsheet and a piece of fiction? On the one hand, they are both texts and sometimes even both narratives. On the other, one is "fact" and the other"fiction," one "information" and the other "entertainment." Does one "type" of document inherently offer a better perspective of its time period? What does that "better" mean?
1 comment:
Thomas: This is a terrific post---you raise one of the central questions for cultural studies, which is what is the place of "fiction" in the annals of evidence. For many of us with lit backgrounds fiction has a hallowed place indeed. Not always, however, with traditionally trained historians like Starr.
The "textbooks" we are reading in this course serve two purposes. One, of course, is to inform, and to take us through time quickly, efficiently. But the other is to think about how to make historical arguments using secondary (as opposed to primary) materials. I appreciate how vigilant all of you are when it comes to thinking about how to challenge what we read!
Post a Comment