i've just read Jo Ann Beard's
'The Fourth State of Matter' for the first time. Or rather, i've just got to the end of it for the first time. i've seen it before, anthologised in creative nonfiction collections, and i've tried reading it, but could never get through the first few pages. The writing seemed so bland, so ordinary.
Nothing here to see, folks. i couldn't understand what made it worthy of anthologisation.
.
Now that i've finally finished reading it, i can understand the fuss. It's a devastating essay. Not because of the writing. But because of what it's about.
.
i never know quite what to make of trauma writing. It seems to me to be a peculiarly
American genre -- [warning: anti-American-culture rant coming up] -- not just because of its willingness to bare all to an audience eager to lap up every last detail of the writer's personal pain and suffering, but because it seems to me that it's only in America that such trauma would be so commonly available in the first place, as grist for their writers' mills. Firstly, there's their gun culture, which to this day i find incomprehensible and irrational; then there's the whole attitude towards sex and sexuality which, to me, seems to lead so logically and inevitably to a culture where the miracle would be if you
didn't get raped on a date ... But more on that some other time.
.
Back to trauma writing being a peculiarly American genre. And my feelings after reading 'The Fourth State of Matter'. See, i don't quite know what to think. On one hand, i'm cut to the heart by the story. A story like that doesn't need verbal pyrotechnics -- in fact, to dress up such a story in anything more than the plainest of words seems almost like sacrilege.
.
And yet. And yet.
.
i can understand why it's necessary to make art out of stories like that. It's partly much-needed catharsis, the urge to articulate experience and by doing so, to impose some sense of order and meaning on the chaos, the incomprehensibility, of experience. i get that.
.
Yet there is a part of me that also feels that there's something vulgar, profane, about that kind of art. Or rather, that there is something almost opportunistic about
publishing such art. The
making of it, i can understand, might be viscerally necessary. But publication? On one hand, i can see how such work honours the loss; it's a way of giving those who have suffered a place in artistic eternity. Yet. These were real lives that were lost. What can one essay, however well-written, do to compensate for that loss? And if the writer were to profit from such work, either financially or simply in terms of an enhanced writerly reputation .......
.
i don't know. Life is complicated. All i know is that after reading the essay, i'm left thinking that the US sounds like a seriously screwed-up place (not that i didn't already know that ... it's just that the essay just brings it home in a very visceral way), and i'm not sure anymore if it's the kind of place i want to go to, even for the sake of my writing.
.
.