I've discovered a new way to have me get rather annoyed in a classroom environment. Which is slandering the novelists in which I adore. It never ceases to bewilder me at the lack of intelligence fellow college students sometime portray in way of amazing novelists. What I mean by this is they throw out, "Well, they were just drunk (or on drugs) all the time, you can't anything they say seriously". Which is only half true...ish.
I most assuredly understand that not everyone adores the same writers that I do. Therefore they probably have not spent countless hours google-stalking their past existences as I have. They also don't put tributes to them on blogs, more than likely. So, I can understand why they would have a lack of background knowledge on the writers. I also understand that it's been years (in some cases, hundreds of years) since they have been living and we rely on hearsay and facts which may or may not be true. So, I don't even know for sure their real historical background.
That being said, I have researched the writers and I do know the many theories on how some of them have died, what their drugs of choice were, the theories of their written works, and the extent to which you can believe the rumors about them. As in, I did research and I don't state anything I say about them as clear cut-and-dry fact.
So, to say in front of an entire class that Poe absolutely died of doing stupid things when drunk... That's a blatant lie because no one knows how he died. Everyone makes their own decision on how/why he died. He was a very emotionally distraught individual, he was physically ill because of the amount of alcohol he consumed - and yes his use of opium as well - but the actual cause of death was not alcoholism or drug use. Though, it more then likely contributed in large part, that being said physicians of the time quarrelled over the cause of death and never came to a general consensus of the cause.
Then to move on to talk about Tim Burton and thus the new Alice in Wonderland movie and then slander Lewis Carroll (or rather Charles Lutwidge Dodgson) as being a drug user. Yeah, not the wisest choice ever when I'm in the room. That would be as brilliant as telling me there's undeniable evidence to him being a pedophile (which in case you did not know, is not true). There is evidence he loved Alice Liddell strongly, that he was in love with her, not so much. The diary pages are missing during the period in which there was a fallout with the Liddell family, which it could have been for a number of reasons. Including that of the actual possible involvement between himself and Ina, Alice's older (of age) sister, and not about little Alice at all.
Charles Lutwidge Dodgson also didn't just photograph children. Among many other portraits he took in his lifetime, was that of Alfred Tennyson. By being a photographer he was able to climb the social ladder and be a more prominent member of society which in England during that time period was a goal many had. The photographing of children was big because it was a badge of wealth. Portraits were still a bit on the pricey side and usually only important people have portraits, children typically did not unless they were from wealthy backgrounds. Also nude children photography was common because it was a representation of purity, think cherubs here, folks. So, it's a common misconception that Dodgson (The Lewis Carroll you all know) was a pedophile.
A bit off course, but I like to correct misconceptions when I can. To loop back to another misconception, that Alice in Wonderland is about drugs. I find it most interesting that druggies are the one to mention this correlation. While it does have some inherit implications to paralleling certain drugs (if you dig and make some jumps and stretches), he refused to admit any such correlation in the sense it was about imagination, childhood, and nonsense. The point being he dreamed of creating a fantastic children's story, had he meant for it to be about drugs, he more than likely would have boldly and bravely yelled it from the rooftops. Poe did.
Which brings us back to Poe again. He was an open opiate user. He had an addictive personality - hence he was addicted to opium, an alcoholic, and found it nearly impossible to escape the fascination with death and decay. And yes, he mentions opium in a lot of his works. However, never does he out right tell us the narrator or character is high on opium. That is part of the charm of his works.
A fellow student - I don't even pay attention to who says things anymore - mentioned that you can't really take his narrator or characters seriously because they're high on opium. I, personally, would disagree. Never does it say the narrator or characters are on opium. Take "The Fall of the House of Usher" for example, as that was the one we were using in class...
"I looked upon the scene before me - upon the mere house, and the simple landscape features of the domain - upon the bleak walls - upon the vacant eye-like windows - upon a few rank sedges - and upon a few white trunks of decayed trees - with an utter depression of soul which I can compare to no earthly sensation more properly than to the after-dream of the reveller upon opium - the bitter lapse into common life - the hideous dropping off of the veil."
Does it say anywhere in there that our fair narrator is on opium? No. It says the feeling that is flowing through him is that of waking up from an opium dream. It's also comparable to the fact that following tale is so ludicrious that one would sooner believe him on opium than to believe the truth in the tale. That's the point, Poe is apt at telling unbelievable tales and this gives you an out to mark it off as some tale of a madman... or you can believe the tale and look into the darkness of the world around you. He gives you an option of embracing the horror and macabre, or retreating to the warmth of disbelief by chalking it up to "Oh, the narrator's high on opium and is on a bad trip... None of this story happened."
He leaves it open for you to choose what to believe. That's the point. So to demerit the narrator or characters is merely foolish. You're giving in and denying the spiritual and supernatural world that is laid before your feet to get lost in.
Just another interpretation of Poe. You may choose to believe it's all about being high on drugs. Or you can take a deeper look and find the fantastic terror in his tales and reach the psychological aspects he lies before you. I also found it amusing no one mentioned the fact the "Fall of the House of Usher" is also a look into the subconscious psyche. Lady Madeline is the part of Id. Usher is the part of the Ego. And the Narrator plays the part of the Superego. The house is the splitting of the mind when the Id, Ego, and Superego all clash and do not work together, with the Id escaping and lashing out. Speaking of the importance of the Superego to keep the id and ego in check.
And apparently it's also about such hardxcore incest that Lady Madeline and Usher are deformed due to maladies of too much inbreeding. Which I hadn't gotten from the story, but hey, my mind is not often on incest.
No comments:
Post a Comment