The Politics of Art & Authenticity

http://cdn.controlinveste.pt/storage/DN/2010/big/ng1359351.JPG?type=big&pos=0

I didn’t attend the reading so I can’t compare both experiences. Based on prior experience, I can say that reading a passage is completely different from actually reading the passage on your own. When we read anything on our own time, we give our imaginations room to give the characters personality, voice, we’re allowed to make the words on the page come to life. The author in a way loses control over the words they show us because we are the one deciding how to interpret the words. I like that about reading. I like knowing that there isn’t anyone dictating how I should feel about the content presented to me and that there isn’t a right or wrong way to react to that content.

Being read to however, changes that dynamic completely. Personally I find it very easy to zone out when someone reads to me. It is easier to pick up on the emotion that authors try to convey in their novels but at the same time I feel like that’s all it does. I’m so focused on the way that the author reads, that I lose track of the content itself, which is what matters in the end. It could give me a new perspective on the passage being read, and perhaps some things might make more sense, but in the end I think it would have a negative effect on my perception of the passage.

My experience reading Katherine Vaz’s writing was a positive one. I didn’t have any trouble reading through her material and she successfully kept my interest throughout all 48 pages of her short story. I appreciated the simplicity in her writing. I didn’t feel like I needed a dictionary by my side, or that I had to keep an eye out for unexpected metaphors or details that might be crucial in my understanding of her story.

Sometimes the ethnic references and phrases threw me off a little bit, especially in the beginning. Most of the time she explained their meaning following their appearance in the passage. At first I didn’t know how to feel about it. A part of me thought, “Well, she has to think of her audience. Not all of us are fluent Portuguese speakers with knowledge of their culture.” After reading the whole story however, I was able to appreciate all the ethnic anecdotes. Her story would not have been the same without them and in a sense they were necessary for the development and flow of the plot.

The plot of the story itself was interesting. From the very beginning I was interested to find out who the sickly man she encountered was. Why was she in Lisbon? Who was Tónio and what kind of relationship did Catarina have with him? The simplicity in her writing allowed me to find the answers to these questions fairly quickly. I thought the theme of illness and sexuality were interesting topics to bring up because it gave the passage a more modern spin. The way that they were integrated into the plot made me want to keep reading and know more about the characters.  The ending was predictable, but the buildup of conflict between Mateus, Catarina, and her dying father again kept me interested. The moment in which Mateus was choking on the fish bone and Catarina was desperately trying to save him…I felt like I was there feeling the anxiety and pain that they were all experiencing. The passage came to life there in a way that it hadn’t done so beforehand. Her use of imagery made me feel like I was there with them as this event unfolded. The effect that Katherine Vaz created for me in that instance and many others were ones that I wouldn’t have experienced if she read the story to me.

I heard from my classmates that the reading wasn’t the greatest. That her voice was raspy, that it didn’t seem to fit the things she was reading about. That she wasn’t the best reader and sometimes the things she was reading about just weren’t interesting. Since I can’t judge or compare, I guess I can walk away from Katherine Vaz’s writing with a positive impression. She might not have the writing style that I look for, but I can say I enjoyed her Lisbon Story.