When in December of 2018, The New Yorker published a short story, "Cat Person," by Kristen Roupenian, the Internet had something to say. For one, she was a relatively unknown writer and here she was, appearing in this venerable magazine, known for publishing only the very best writers. For another, her story went viral on social media. In fact, I first saw it, and clicked on it, when it appeared on my Twitter. Because the fictional story is written in first person, many readers who came across it on their news feeds, took it to be an essay, a literal true account.
Some men, in particular, took offense at Roupenian's characterization of the story's male protagonist. They #notallmen-ed all over the place. Men, and women, it seemed, all had an opinion on the female character's character. This article in AV Club, claimed that "'Cat Person' is not an argument. No short story is." The Guardian, however, makes the point that the story "raises questions about the nature of fiction, and how women writers are often considered as mere recorders of human experience rather than gifted the creative imaginations to invent whole literary worlds, as men so often are – many readers have responded to the story as though it were a personal essay, not a work of fiction." Whether the story was fiction or nonfiction, many readers found an argument, something that resonated with them. Now here it is, this story, in an anthology that claims that it includes the Best American Nonrequired Reading of 2018. After reading it for yourself, what are your thoughts? Is this a story that could only be written in these #MeToo times? Does Rouperian capture a universal experience of being a young woman? How does the fact that the story is fiction impact your reaction to it? Would your feelings be different if the story was true? Share your thoughts in the comments section below.
Comments
This week, my class and I went to view the "Survivance and Sovereignty on Turtle Island: Engaging with Contemporary Native American Art" at the Kupferberg Holocaust Center at Queensborough Community College. We viewed works of art created by the descendants of the first people to live in the lands we call the United States of America. We've also been reading Joy Harjo's collection of poems, Conflict Resolution for Holy Beings and sharing our interpretations and responses to her works. She writes, "You cannot legislate music to lockstep nor can you legislate the spirit of the music to stop at political boundaries— / —Or poetry, or art, or anything that is of value or matters in this world, and the next worlds." So what are the boundaries between art, politics, commerce, and spirit? Harjo, at least, seems to be saying that they are not subject to the rules of law.
This brings to mind several questions: What's more important: the artist's intention for creating a work of art, or the individual's experience of viewing it? Or what about the curator, the person who chose the works to display and arranges them in the space? Or is it the space itself? Or what about the period of time in which the work was created or the political climate at that time? Does it matter if the subject of the work of art is the same gender or identity as the person who created it? Share your thoughts about the relationship between art and audience in the comments section below. |
About this blogA blog is an online conversation. This one is for students of writing and is an extension of our face-to-face classroom. Here is where we can continue a discussion started in class, ask questions, and test new ideas. Archives
March 2020
Categories |