found a home in the … ambiguous truth of fiction. “All the stories about my father, they’re very mythic, but flimsy,” Watkins says. “I just wanted to know who he was. And sometimes, the story is that you’re not going to know.” (O’Grady)
For Best’s conceptions of historiography are, at heart, affective: they focus a critical lens on the “ethics” of a relationship of present to past (455). Best draws on Benjamin’s Angel of History and the theories of affect and loss formulated by queer theorists like Heather Love to emphasize the role of the historiographer, since particular histories allow particular historiographers to engineer their own relation—ethical or unethical—to the past that they present. As he argues,
[t]o be historical in our work, we might thus have to resist the impulse to redeem the past and instead rest content with the fact that our orientation toward it remains forever perverse, queer, askew. (456)
Claire—the narrator of “Ghosts, Cowboys”—also turns and returns to multiple pasts, but these are always conditional pasts, and the weight of affect on her tendency to return is difficult to overlook in a reading of the text. The tendency to return evidences melancholic historiography, according to Best. But Claire does not position herself as someone seeking to redeem; in fact, she explicitly acknowledges the alterity of the past—her pasts, her father’s pasts, the pasts she can only fabricate from incomplete records:
He asked about my father. I wanted to tell him what I told you, but that’s nothing that can’t be found in a book, a diary, a newspaper, a coroner’s report. And there is still so much I’ll never know, no matter how much history I weight upon myself. … Everything I can say about what it means to lose, what it means to do without, the inadequate weight of the past, you already know. (20)
Works Cited
Best, Stephen. “On Failing to Make the Past Present.” MLQ 73.3 (2012): 453–474. PDF file.
O’Grady, Megan. “The Way Out West: Claire Vaye Watkins’s Stunning Debut, Battleborn.” Vogue. Condé Nast Digital. 24 July 2012. Web. 5 Oct. 2013.
Watkins, Claire Vaye. “Ghosts, Cowboys.” Battleborn. New York: Riverhead-Penguin, 2012. 1–23. Print.
4 comments:
(So I know our comments shouldn't focus on the prose style of a post per se, but I have to compliment your writing here. I feel like this post juggles a number of complex ideas without losing clarity or focus. Something that probably cannot be said of the following comment, but here it is:)
You’ve located a great parallel between Watkin’s acceptance of the past as something that “sometimes…you’re not going to know” and Best’s proposal to “rest content with the fact that our orientation toward [the past] remains forever perverse, queer, askew.” Affective relation to the past is, of course, an interesting topic in queer scholarship, and Best’s reference to “queer” orientations toward the past, combined with the article you linked to yesterday about love and graduate study, has me thinking about Carolyn Dinshaw’s conception of amateurism as a loving and particularly queer approach to history (in How Soon is Now? Medieval Texts, Amateur Readers, and the Queerness of Time). And what connects Dinshaw’s amateurism to Watkin’s story is that both seem to suggest a place for creativity in our relationship with the past.
Oen could argue that Best’s objections to recovery and melancholy as critical approaches to history are not only ethical but practical – Best suggests that anchoring one’s conception of racial identity and history to the slave past is intellectually limiting in that it prevents consideration of the ways in which “history might have been otherwise” (473). Obviously, Morrison’s consideration of alternate pasts is structured by the creative act of writing fiction. Based on your references of Claire’s “pasts, her father’s pasts, the pasts she can only fabricate from incomplete records,” it sounds like the consideration of other possible pasts and the construction of a personally useful narrative about the past are also presented as a creative task in “Ghosts, Cowboys.” Could part of a non-melancholic, still-affective relation to history consist of accepting the imperfection of our connection to the past - that we may never know the whole story, that our relation to the past is forever queer and askew – but then using that imperfect connection as the starting point for creative work, such as a political project, community-building, even the narrating of an alternate conception of history?
I’m wondering if this also somehow connects to your closing question (can we return to the past without attempting to redeem it?). Is working creatively with materials from history necessarily an attempt to redeem the past? Is there a way in which constructing alternate narratives is a work of mourning rather than melancholy (or a different affect altogether)?
Hi Aaron,
I like how you undertake to question Best’s notion that to return melancholically to the past is always in a sense an attempt to redeem it. Best seems to suggest that it is ok to return to the past, but in order to resist attempts to appropriate the past for our own uses (redeeming it), we must return to the moment before what we interrogate “acquired its ‘legacy’ that is, its power to claim us” (473). Watkin’s return to the past is, as you state, an attempt to “negotiate her father’s legacy.” Since her intent is to discover or uncover that legacy, even whether or not is she is fully successful, can she ever go far enough back in time to be free of a desire to redeem it? Best seems to want to use the words redemption and recovery interchangeably and I'm not certain they're the same thing. Having those two words be interchangeable makes it more difficult to answer your question. I think one can return melancholically to the past without redeeming it, but never without recovering (or I would say, uncovering) it at least in part.
And though this has nothing to really do with your final question, your mentioning of Best’s descriptions of “two forms of literary historiography, motivated by two corresponding and divergent forms of affect: one melancholic, another mournful” reminded of something I had been thinking of when reading Best. What is melancholy but a phase of mourning? How does one turn away from something which encompasses it – of which it is a part? Rather, do we not move from melancholy musings or interrogations of the past to an acceptance that it is past — over and done with and beyond redemption or recovery? I'm not certain I like Best's uses of those two words either. But, I digress. :)
Hiya--
Lee: I don't think I can provide a succinct answer to that question of melancholy v. mourning, but I keep returning to the notion of desire as it might (not) motivate historiography or the performance of historiography. Perhaps melancholy and mourning evidence desire for different things?
Megan: I'm curious whether Dinshaw has anything to say about desire?
Lee: "What is melancholy but a phase of mourning?" Melancholy in the sense Best is using (from Freud) is more or less getting stuck at this early phase of mourning, failing to move on from it. But as you point out, just because a subject or group of subjects haven't yet "moved on" from a melancholic relation to the past doesn't mean it won't happen at some point (arguably something Best is attempting to bring about). Your point about recovery and redemption is an excellent one, too. I feel like "recovering" and "recovering from" are very different things, and Best uses the former where one might expect the latter.
Aaron, desire does come up in Dinshaw; she uses the words "desire" and "love" to refer to interactions between the same objects, but not (always) as though the words were interchangeable, if that makes sense. "Desire" always seems to be linked to the erotic, while "love" is more diffuse. I could be totally misremembering, though, since I don't have my copy of the book in front of me right now!
Post a Comment