When I saw David Sedaris’s name on the roster, I jumped
on the opportunity to analyze one of the icons of humorous non-fiction. As a writer, Sedaris is famously funny, and
“Repeat After Me” stands as a clear example of his talent. However, this essay sits apart in that it not
only cleverly shapes the details so as to be entertaining, but also reveals
deeper insight on the tension of portraying one’s life, an issue currently
relevant to this class.
A few blog posts ago, Pilar delved into the issue of how
to portray the real people of our lives as quasi-characters in writing in Mary
Doty’s “Return to Sender”. How honest
should we be, or conversely, how much should we elaborate, zooming in on
details we want to exaggerate until the person on the page is no longer recognizable?
All writers sit on this teetering balance, and Sedaris gives his take on this
subject through the objects (the same subject-object connection brought up in
class) of the upcoming movie and the parrot, Henry. As we discussed, he transplants the
associations of those themes in his life with the greater, general meaning that
the reader access.
In the essay, an upcoming movie being made about Sedaris’
recent book provides an underlying tension between him and his family, a
tension that also defines that line an author straddles between blunt fact and
flattering fiction. Like all film adaptations, the movie represents a sudden
awareness of an audience that most of us feel at some point in the writing
process. Sedaris and his sister wonder,
“Who will play me? How will they represent my life, how will I come out as the
hero?” We can choose to glamorize and
show only the “best of” highlights of a true life experience in our work, just
like a movie. But dramatization (either
negative or positive) is dishonest. It no longer shows reality, it’s no longer
nonfiction. Biopics are “based on true stories”, but they don’t take true
stories and speak through them. That is the job of non-fiction. Sedaris notes
this when he considers, “[…T]he director might get me and my family wrong, but
[… W]hat if he gets us right?” The honest truth is more emotional and difficult
to depict, but in the end, its reality will resonate more.
Henry the parrot, on the other hand, offers the
less-serious, but still reflective, side to portraying our lives. Nobody takes
what Henry says particularly seriously on its own. As a writer, Sedaris implies
that he too is granted innocence (so to speak) for what he says about his
family. The writer, like Henry, only mimics what they hear and see, reforming
it into their own personal combination of “You can do it!” and “Where are the
keys?”, which shows what they find important as much as it accurately reflects
the situation. Yet, Sedaris ends the essay stating that he “has something
important to say”, but “[f]rom his own mouth the words are meaningless”. So he
repeats his plea for forgiveness to the parrot, trying to say something deeper
and heartfelt through the repeated words of a mimicker. In this metaphor, the humble writer of
non-fiction does not claim the glamorized, poignant director’s chair. Only through the mouth of the unassuming,
observing parrot can he touch upon something meaningful -- the truth.
Believe it or not I have never read a David Sedaris book, although I have heard his name a lot recently. So reading this piece was exciting, finally getting to hear the voice I hear so much about. It was a nice introduction.
ReplyDeleteI read this piece twice I didn't get the parrot metaphor until after I read Victoria's blog, which makes me feel kind of dumb, considering the title. I should have guessed by the title that that alone meant something important.
It was interesting how Sedaris deals with the fact that he is putting his family's personal life on display: by writing about it. I had a hard time with my manuscript because I felt guilty writing about my father and letting the whole class read about it. It was interesting to see another writers spin on this subject. I loved the quote that Victoria included:“[…T]he director might get me and my family wrong, but [… W]hat if he gets us right?”... Question: What do the brackets at the beginning mean?
Really great reflection, the last line really ties the entire piece together.
xx
Dominique
Thanks Dominique!
ReplyDeleteThe brackets are just for the sake of the quotes. Originally in the text, the quote was in the middle of a sentence "the director might get me and my family wrong, but now a worse thought occurred to me: What if he gets us right?" (p.451). I wanted to just cite the important parts of that line, so I had to make it capitalized and add ellipses that were not in the original. The brackets just indicate those parts that I added. That's I learned to quote in my English class, but it might not necessarily be right!
It's great, Victoria, that you picked up on the subject-object connection, which does a great deal of metaphorical and narrative work in this piece.
ReplyDeleteI'm also intrigued by your idea of "dramatization...is dishonest," and I wonder how we avoid this dramatization as artists and writers? And how do we "know" when something is being dramatized for us on the page? Think about stories you've been told by relatives, even stories you've told yourself: Aren't we naturally inclined to dramatize our experiences in order to, in a sense, "pack-a-punch" when it comes to our experiences? I'll play the devil's advocate here and say that, although dramatization for the sake of honesty is definitely, sometimes dramatizing an experience--via showing our emotions,our thoughts, the possible things we COULD have done instead--can have a lot of value to a nonfiction piece. But is there a "right" way to do this? Where is that line?
Is there a line? Does there need to be a "right" way to do it, or is every way right? The beauty of creative nonfiction as a genre is that it allows for some manipulation of content, as long as the actual events are still firmly rooted in fact. I think that authors can dramatize whatever they want, however they want; if there isn't as much physical truth, there will be more emotional truth, or vice versa.
DeleteMr.K –
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree, dramatization is essential to helping the reader empathize and also join in our your experience on the page. When I wrote “dramatization is dishonest”, I think I was reflecting more on what Sedaris hinted at in the face of the upcoming film, when he was afraid of being made into an unrealistic, exaggerated hero that doesn’t reflect his real self at all. Yet, I personally agree with you entirely. We need to dramatize our experiences if we want to compel the reader to be interested in them, let alone experience them. When writing personal essays, we’ve obviously experienced it all before , so it feels real to us in our memory. But when diluted down to text on a page, the reader sitting in their chair is not there with us at all, and might never have experienced what we have so closely. That’s where the drama comes in. By framing our experience to emphasize and exaggerate what was important, we help the reader better focus their vision and can make our emotions stronger across the page. While lying and exaggerating the experience in itself isn’t a good idea, we can use figurative language to do that for us. Since the similes/metaphors/personifications are not literally there, there’s a lot more lee-way that paints a picture, while still sticking to the truth.
I think that dramatization, while sometimes certainly dishonest, is necessary in order to build an experience into a narrative. Even something as common as ascribing meaning to the mundane is a form of this dramatic dishonesty. After reading D'Agata I think this line between artistic dramatization and complete dishonesty is even more blurred and open to interpretation.
ReplyDeleteRegardless of how you feel about dramatization or exaggeration for dramatic effect, I think it is Sedaris' wit that carries the day in this piece. He uses the parrot as a comedic foil, not just as a piece of narrative and that cleverness is what helps drive the story. I think it is not necessary for him to create outlandish untruths, it is his ability to use the truth in creative ways that is the key to his comedic genius.
ReplyDeleteI am a huge fan of David Sedaris, this particular essay, and your commentary on it. Jeez. Anyway, I think the comparison you have drawn between Sedaris's depiction of himself and his depiction of Henry the parrot is especially interesting. Sedaris, instead of feeling proud of his accomplishments in writing about his life and family, feels annoying and undesirable. His family doesn't trust him with personal information, but doesn't necessarily resent him when he reveals it, much like they would feel towards the family pet. Henry will repeat anything he overhears, be it flattering or not, but it's not his fault. It's what he does. It's his nature. And that's how Sedaris portrays his need to chronicle the dirty details of his life; it is something he was born to do, it is his cross to bear. Instead of being glamorous, writing creative nonfiction is a trait as effortless as nail biting or impatience.
ReplyDeleteI really like how you describe Sedaris's need to write about his life as a habit that he can't stop and how he himself is similar to the parrot. When reading this piece I felt angry with Sedaris and how he would reveal private information about his family to basically anyone who wanted to read his work especially when his family expressed their feelings about his writing. If I was in his family, I am not sure how I would feel about my private life being publicly available for all to see. However when I read the ending, I could tell that the author didn't write about his family to be hurtful, he just did it because that's what he was born to do. I thought you did a nice job of describing this in your comment.
DeleteAfter reading this piece by the very funny David Sedaris, I found it particularly interesting that he was connecting his ways of expressing and sharing information to a bird- a family pet who just repeats all that he hears. It is definitely an interesting connection that really shows the feelings of other people through it.
ReplyDeleteAs for the dramatization of our own writing, I think it is definitely something that every writer struggles with, because they want to make it sound good to others reading their piece, but at the same time it still has to be real and true to the criteria of non- fiction.