Our readings for the last two weeks, Studs Terkel’s Touch and Go: A Memoir and Michael Frisch’s A Shared Authority: Essays on the Craft and Meaning of Oral and Public History, deal with a similar subject, oral history, and to a lesser extent, public history. However, they are worlds apart in terms of style and readability.
Terkel’s book at first had the feel of an old man’s ramblings, incoherent babble full of obscure references. As I read on though, I developed a deeper respect for Terkel’s writings, in particular the last few chapters. The book began rather confusingly, the repeated references to silent film era stars and early 20th century plays were a little beyond me. As I said I was not overly impressed by the memoir until I had reached the twenty-fourth chapter, a cutting review of the “United States of Amnesia.” Studs pointed out the dangers of forgetting the past; the invention of the past. The American story is so uplifting and progressive because it is so inaccurate. Americans do not want to face a disturbing past, it “…might disturb our sense of complacency, our sense of satisfaction. (p 234)” I think this speaks to many problems in the field of public history, such as, heaven forbid, revisionist exhibitions and displays or the recent “History Wars” o f the 90s. The nation has forgotten its past thereby forgetting who we are as a nation, leading to the series of global travesties we currently find ourselves embroiled in.
I was surprised by the lack of mention about oral history. Not having read any other of Stud’s books and being primarily familiar with him through his oral history work, he discussed his work foremost as a radioman and actor. Overall much of the book seemed disjointed but the ending was powerful and forced me ponder some deep issues.
Meanwhile A Shared Authority was much more professionally written than Touch and Go but equally unapproachable. While not as engaging, the book covered a wide variety of topics over Frisch’s career. Most of the pieces seem to focus on issues of authorship, for instance who receives the credit of an oral history- the interviewer or the interviewee? I was shocked by the difficulties involved with assigning the author of a documentary that the New York Times Magazine helped edit. The Times refused to name all involved as author and then demanded that solely Frisch be given credit. Similarly to Terkel’s closing chapters, issues of individuality, the American ideal, and the community, a gathering of minds, are found in contention. Both authors favor a community approach, sharing ownership with the broader audience for a more complete and authentic experience.
As public history itself, both of these books are concerned with the audience. Both can be seen as attempts to actively engage the public in order involve them in the making of and remembering of our past. Despite their vastly different approaches both realize the importance of making public history active and alive rather than an object for passive consumption
The Final Frontier?
15 years ago
3 comments:
The beginning really did seem like random ramblings or awhile. I even found myself wondering why we were reading this. Then I came to the conclusion eventually, and as the book went on, that this was almost his way of portraying the people. Showing how even within his own family significant events occurred, the value of the people and their stories.
Those were my thoughts exactly! When I first started reading Terkel's book I was thinking to myself...I enjoy Turner Classic Movies just as much as the next person (if not more) but I have no idea who these people are! But I still found his text to be engaging and enjoyable. I thought it was really neat how we were able to finally get the story of a man who spent his life recording the stories of others. Plus I thought he did a good job of weaving national stories into his own personal story.
I have to agree that at the beginning of this book I did have trouble seeing the reason for reading it, but I found that after the fifth or sixth chapter that his stories were quite engaging and when he described his interview techiniques and the way he focuses on the interviewee and captures everything in transcription, I saw that he really was a great oral historian and his methods are inspiring. I did like this idea of who owns the interview that came up in Frisch's book, and thought it was crap that only his name got put on the story. It is an interesting point to consider though about who owns it.
Post a Comment