CCBC-Net Archives
Biography / current events
- Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by subject ] [ by author ]
From: Maia <maia>
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2000 20:57:05 -0800
Tomorrow America goes to the polls... that is, except for those with absentee ballots and us Oregonians, for whom our entire process is a mail-in one. Everywhere the political discussion runs wild (except here on CCBC-net!) -- environmentalists are for the first time in recent history set at "loggerheads" (irony intended) with one another, and the debate over personality is intense. Who is Gore the man? Nader? (I hear few debates about Bush, but I'm sure they circulate in different arenas.) Few people I know can agree on the most basic elements of character, history, and record, and the rumor mill is a furious one right now.
Twenty years from now, biographers will try to nail down that which we who are involved today cannot even determine -- who are these men who fought to stand as the figurative head of America?
Fifty years from now, we will have multiple "definitive" biographies of the millennial president, whichever he will be. And yes, hindsight will offer some understanding, but it will also be tainted by the then more recent history, by the currencies of the winner, by the fictions that will have been added over time.
To write a story "seamlessly" and "skillfully," to make the narrative voice nearly disappear, these may at times be the marks of a good writer. Yet to me, to write the story of another person's life without explicitly stating the humble capacities of the writer seems a deceit. If no one, even the friends of the candidates, can tell their true story now, why on earth would we think that someone else will be able to do so fifty years removed?
What will our grandchildren read about the men selected and rejected on November 7, 2000? If we could somehow read those future biographies today, would we find them stuff and nonsense?
Maia
-maia at littlefolktales.org www.littlefolktales.org the Spirited Review: www.littlefolktales.org/reviews
Received on Mon 06 Nov 2000 10:57:05 PM CST
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2000 20:57:05 -0800
Tomorrow America goes to the polls... that is, except for those with absentee ballots and us Oregonians, for whom our entire process is a mail-in one. Everywhere the political discussion runs wild (except here on CCBC-net!) -- environmentalists are for the first time in recent history set at "loggerheads" (irony intended) with one another, and the debate over personality is intense. Who is Gore the man? Nader? (I hear few debates about Bush, but I'm sure they circulate in different arenas.) Few people I know can agree on the most basic elements of character, history, and record, and the rumor mill is a furious one right now.
Twenty years from now, biographers will try to nail down that which we who are involved today cannot even determine -- who are these men who fought to stand as the figurative head of America?
Fifty years from now, we will have multiple "definitive" biographies of the millennial president, whichever he will be. And yes, hindsight will offer some understanding, but it will also be tainted by the then more recent history, by the currencies of the winner, by the fictions that will have been added over time.
To write a story "seamlessly" and "skillfully," to make the narrative voice nearly disappear, these may at times be the marks of a good writer. Yet to me, to write the story of another person's life without explicitly stating the humble capacities of the writer seems a deceit. If no one, even the friends of the candidates, can tell their true story now, why on earth would we think that someone else will be able to do so fifty years removed?
What will our grandchildren read about the men selected and rejected on November 7, 2000? If we could somehow read those future biographies today, would we find them stuff and nonsense?
Maia
-maia at littlefolktales.org www.littlefolktales.org the Spirited Review: www.littlefolktales.org/reviews
Received on Mon 06 Nov 2000 10:57:05 PM CST
