On the Subject of "Good" and "Bad"

A simple medicine wheel, capable of multifaceted symbolic projection while maintaining a unified structure.

It's obvious our class is perceiving much of the content in our course in vastly different ways. Some have developed a sort of micro-to-macro lens where the singular instances that Alexie (or other authors) narrate into story become symbolic of a larger struggle. I've heard opinions that are critical of both Alexie's appropriation of western literary forms and his poor use thereof.

All these responses make sense to their respective believers, but I would be ashamed if someone assumed that because of cultural similarities I had the same beliefs as those of my peers. It cannot be denied that there is "good" art and "bad" art, and I'm sure many people go to school for years so they can effectively nip artists existing outside the framework of "good" in the bud. But might I remind you that even our mechanisms for determining "good" and "bad" are a product of our culture--a culture not necessarily shared with all of human-kind, though based in a similar desire for effective expression.

How does a story impart its message? Is it through well-developed characters, structured plot events, historical accuracy, subversive disregard for reality, time, or meaning itself?

There's no simple answer, and I would have to say it's probably a combination of all of the above for Mr. Alexie. It's funny that it's such a "modern" form to strip linearity away from a story, but one cannot deny that in the process of telling a story, new details are remembered and added as needed and stories themselves are fluid, even after they've been printed. The act of interpretation is an important aspect of reading and with work ladened with symbolic content (such as that of Alexie's), it is the reader's decision to bring meaning into the equation.

Disheartened by the polarizing and marginalizing abilities of "good" and "bad", I'd like to beg those still struggling with the ease of immediate dismissal to reflect upon their value structures and all the thoughts that go into creating a framework for "good". I believe this is a battle we are all struggling with, and there's no definite winning strategy, but by analyzing one's own act of interpretation a greater work of art will appear in front of you. Or maybe not. Take a look at the wiki article on Bertolt Brecht's theories on drama as an explicitly defined representation of reality.

Normally I wouldn't be so direct, but "The Business of Fancydancing" did something to me emotionally, but it didn't quite finish.  The tears started slowly during Mouse's funeral then stopped again.  One or two drops, maybe.  I don't know what to be sad about yet, and I'm sick of crying about infinity--though I fear that that's the underlying cause.

 All this being said, do not be afraid to have an opinion; simply believe in it and back it up and understand your place in relation to the object studied.  Denial of any reference when interpreting art is a means of dismissing its value.  Sure, it saves you time, but time is not money, thank god.

To quote Seymour Polatkin's lover:

"I hate the poems that keep me awake, and I hate you because you wrote the poems that keep me awake."

Let's embrace insomnia.