Before this reading assignment, I had never heard of Studs Terkel. (well, I take that back. The very first time was hearing about his death on Halloween. But, knowing I was about to read his memoir, I didn't do any research at the time, assuming I would find out more about him later) Even into Chapter 5, I was still wondering why we were reading his story and what relevance it would have to our class. Then I read Chapter 22, “Didn't Your Name Used to Be Dave Garroway?” For me, the most important words in the entire book were written in that chapter. “Oh, to be remembered – isn't that what this is all about?” (Page 216). His understanding of this simple thought is the reason why I believe Studs Terkel was such a good oral historian and just overall a unique human being. He understood that Oral History hinged on the idea that the person telling the story and explaining their actions needed to be remembered just as much as the person reading or listening to their stories needed the information that could be obtained. Terkel understood both of these needs, having experienced it himself in the back of a taxi cab, and knew that the “this” he references in his quote provides the basis for oral history as a whole: for people people to be remembered long after they are forgotten or gone.
I have to say, it really was unfair to assign Frisch's A Shared Authority the same weekend as Terkel's book. I'm afraid I had a hard time giving it a fair chance when comparing it's academic set up to Terkel's informal, often zany travels into his memories. In A Shared Authority, the relationship between pure history and public history, specifically oral history, is explored using many essays and articles that he had written that were published in other places. As mentioned earlier in the semester, this authority is shared between historians who write and examine history and everyday people who live and tell history. When does oral history become a subject of historical fact and when does it become a collection of “what might have happened?” Using Terkel's book Hard Times, he makes the distinction by adopting Terkel's believe that oral history is a collection of truths as the people telling the stories knew it, not as historians know it. They truly believe what they are saying and therefore their stories are valid within the historical framework regardless of whether it checks out to be accurate or not. Often oral historians, such as Terkel, place their importance on what the interviewees had to say rather than whether or not they are telling the unblemished truth. Overall I think Frisch's work informs us on the development of public history between the authority of that which makes up the “history” aspect of oral history and those that provide the “oral” part.
That said, I leave you with this interesting thought. In his book, Frisch asks the question “Who, really, is the author if an oral history?” (Page xx). Should it be the historian or the subject? In his memoir, Terkel mentions “I take my questions out as often as I can in order to create something of a soliloquy.” (page 177) Only when his question adds to the information given by the subject does he leave it in. Terkel allows the person himself to tell his own story, whatever it may be that he needs to get out. Thus the reason for Terkel's brilliant success as an oral historian. That and the fact that he is such a “hapless retardee in matters mechanical,” that the ordinary person feels superior to him. I will definitely be looking up Terkel's work in the future and I mostly certainly am now mourning the loss of a brilliance I have just discovered.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I now too feel the loss of a great oral historian. His writing was entertaining, even if scattered at times.
I also agree that it almost seemed unfair to pair these two together. But noting how often Frisch refers to Terkel, it almost makes Terkel seem that much more influential in the field.
I pretty much have to agree with everything in your blog! I really liked your last few statements on Terkel in particular. I have read the Good War (highly suggest you take a look...feel free to borrow my copy), and it is a compilation of all these different oral histories from various different people - different ages, different locations, different ethnicities, different genders, and so on. Anywho, my point is, that Studs had this amazing talent to not only get people to open up and tell their stories, but to do so in a manner that it gives the reader this unobstructed view into their lives, and that period in history. He really was a very interesting man, and I too feel the loss.
I too must agree with you (and amanda and kristen) about mourning the loss of this great man. I really do think it is a shame that I have discovered this great oral historian after he has passed. I loved how at first reading, Terkel's book seemed to be these incoherent ramblings about his life, filled with old references that were way over my head; but then his writing did come together and we were able to learn a lot not just about his life but about the people in it and his ability to relate to them and get their stories.Poor Frisch, it really was unfair to have to try and read his academic writing after such a fun easy read as Terkel's.
It amazed me the appreciation and true emotion Terkel evoked when talking about oral history. He made oral history seem like a natural thing all humans should posess. Why can't we all listen to conversation? Why can't we all contribute and respect one another in conversation? To Terkel, oral history was more than just a sheet of questions that needed to be asked. It was more than getting those 30 minutes of recorded voices onto a tape.
After reading his book, I felt kind of ashamed at how I went about my oral history project. While my interviewee did most of the talking, as is shown by the transcript, it is obvious that I did not truly listen to his story. I honestly was paranoid about my grade. While I transcribed the interview, there were so many instances where I could have pounded my head against my spiral. Why didn't I ask about his Master's thesis? Why didn't I ask about how Tallahassee had changed over the years? After all, he grew up in Tallahassee! While I felt honored being in the presence of a World War II veteran, my true heart and appreciation wasn't there. Oh how I wish I could converse like Studs!
I have to agree with Katie, after reading Terkel’s book, I also feel ashamed about how I went about my oral history project with interviewee. He did a wonderful job and had lots of great stories about his life at FSU. He too did most of the talking which is why I was real careful during my interview because I love to talk and had to be careful not talk more than my interviewee. I did not realize at the time the lack of talking I had done. As is seen in the transcript I did it is obvious that I had not paid as close attention as I had thought when he was telling his story. Just like Katie I believe the reason I did not talk is because Dr. Sellers had warned me during grad hour and I was also paranoid about messing up and it hurting my grade. While I was transcribing the interview I heard one more than one occasion where I could have asked some really key question but remained silent. There were instances where I wish could have gone back in time and corrected these instances. I liked Katie’s quote about how she wanted to “pounded her head against her spiral” because I felt the same way. I loved the way Studs did his transcriptions. I have done medical transcriptions in the past but this was my first time doing historical transcription. I would agree with everyone so far having these two books together is almost unfair to Frisch because his book so academic and Terkel’s is just enjoyable. However, having read one of them and having an interview and transcription under my belt there is not doubt I could do better on the next one
Post a Comment