While reading American Indian Stories, I found it difficult accept this text as an autobiography. For one, this book is really a collection of stories from a variety of people's lives, not just one, all of which are told through the voice of the author. Thus, the book's classification as an autobiography is not only complicated by the fact that the stories do not portray the life of the author, but also by the fact that the "biographies" are mostly just pieces of a variety of lives. Additionally, there are parts of the book where the autobiographical "I" is completely missing and instead the story is told in the third person. For instance, consider the stories of "A Warrior's Daughter," "A Dream of Her Grandfather," or of the "Blue-Star Warrior." Within these, the lives of the protagonists are told as if from an outsider looking in.
After struggling with the classification of this book for a while, I came to the conclusion that this text could fit into the category of an autobiography if we view the autobiographical "I" into a collective "I". By telling the legends and stories of other people with similar struggles and backgrounds, Zitkala-Sa is able to portray her life as an Indian in the time of assimulation. While she may be an individual, she is also a person among people. The stories of others is her story because she identifies with the other Indians at the time. She sees bits of her life in others and in that way, the collection of stories can be thought of as her own.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
The introduction by Susan Rose Dominguez talks about the representative indian. She says the book contains "autobiographical sketches, romantic fiction, leg3ends, a dream-story, an allegory, and an essay" (v). Before we begin reading the actual text, we know that the intention is not to portray autobiographical information only. In a way, this is an autobiography of the Indian people at that time period. Although every person's story is not included in the text, the themes of the book can be applied almost universally- the "complexities of their owndualities and the scientific racism of society during the era" (v). How can one indian be a representative for them all? Would someone classify this as Zitkala-Sa's autobiography? If the reader positions itself as reading an autobiography, the stories later in the book become quite confusing. The chapter entitled "The Soft-Hearted Sioux" continues using "I"; however, the speaker is a boy and I am assuming this isn't Zitkala-Sa unless I'm just totally lost. This chapter can be very confusing if the reader is thinking they are reading Zitkala-Sa's autobiography.
With Zitkala-Sa's use of the autobiography, I think that the purpose of the autobiography comes into question. Does the autobiography always simply seek to describe the self in the most accurate way possible? In the case of Zitkala-Sa, she uses her own story to create a novel that applies to the entire Indian institution. However, when Zitkala-Sa compromises the supposed individual nature of the autobiography; does she in turn compromise or enhance her story as a whole? For me, this is still a question that I struggle with.
Post a Comment