Still reading Disability in Science Fiction: Representations of Technology as Cure. It's edited by Kathryn Allan. EasyBib tells me the citation for the book as a whole is this:
Part 1, covering the introduction and chapters 1-2, is here.
Below are my (mostly angry live-blog style) notes on Chapter 3.
Chapter 3: The Many Voices of Charlie Gordon: On the Representation of Intellectual Disability in Daniel Keye's Flowers for Algernon. Howard Sklar. 47-59.
Allan, Kathryn. Disability in Science Fiction: Representations of Technology as Cure. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013. Print.
Part 1, covering the introduction and chapters 1-2, is here.
Below are my (mostly angry live-blog style) notes on Chapter 3.
Chapter 3: The Many Voices of Charlie Gordon: On the Representation of Intellectual Disability in Daniel Keye's Flowers for Algernon. Howard Sklar. 47-59.
I've
read Flowers for Algernon.
I had nightmares after. Insert nervousness about the chapter here.
“Ordinarily, the
compressed time span of Charlie's involvement with the experiment
would provide limited scope for an overview of his life; however, the
dramatic changes caused by the experiment produce a radically
condensed version of his life, from the metaphorical “child” that
opens the narration to the self-aware “adult” that he gradually
becomes.” (47.)
Ok, so
this quote creeps me the heck out. Seriously. We're calling Charlie,
the main character, a metaphorical child.
The guy is not a child! He's a disabled adult.
This is not the same thing as childhood, even if the cognitive tools
he's using are the
same ones a neurotypical kid would be using, which they probably
aren't, the extra years of experience living and using those tools
matters!
And!
I'm pretty sure “that” being the pronoun-like word after child,
opening the story, the version of Charlie we start with who
absolutely is
cognitively disabled, versus the “adult” that he
later becomes? Yes, it's a linguistic nitpick and the author would
probably say it's just sentence structure agreement stuff, but how
come Charlie only gets an actual pronoun after he's been
neurologically enhanced?
Also,
what's with the idea that this makes it difficult to locate Charlie's
true voice? If we're working with the assumption that a change this
big is still the same person (which, meh, I'm kind of iffy on, but
since I don't recall Charlie questioning it and this author seems to
be working with it,) then all
the voices Charlie wrote in are his. None of this wanting to find his
true voice nonsense, his voice can change over the course
of the story, and if he's changing we should expect his voice to
change too!
“In
literature and life, the actual voices of people with intellectual
disabilities are typically heard-- if at all-- through other
people's accounts. When their actual life stories are recorded or
written, they are generally reported by others, with all the editing
and redaction that entails. In fiction, the distance is even greater,
with nondisabled novelists and story writers providing the words and
tone for their intellectually disabled characters.” (50)
Yeah that's a big
problem.
I
think I'm OK with the author describing Charlie as having multiple
voices over the course of the story rather than just one, but
extremely not OK with the idea that one of the voices is his true
voice, because then the others would be fake voices or not really
his- with indication of that being his
opinion, of him
thinking only one of the versions is really him, kind of like with
autistic people who think that if we were somehow made not autistic
then we would be different people, then the idea of only the
pre-experiment version being him, having his voice, is one I could
buy, but are they really going to go with that idea?
OH FOR
PETE'S SAKE. The author actually says it straight out “Charlie
argues vehemently for the continuity between his earlier “self”
and his present “self” when he describes this dilemma later to
Professor Nemur” (54.) Why then are we trying to divide up selves
and voices and find one that's the true one, they're all
him. (Go check pg 63 or so,
“But I'm not an inanimate object...” in Flowers for
Algernon)
“Mostly then,
what Charlie wants is for people to recognize his humanity-- both
before and after the procedure. In these examples-- the progression
from his earlier, developing awareness of the way he has been
treated, to an attempt to weigh the significance of that treatment
and how to deal with it, to arguing for his dignity as a person
regardless of his intellectual capacity-- all these suggest that he
is changed yet unchanged, that there is a unified core in his voice,
however intelligent or lacking in intelligence the features in each
of those voices may make him seem.” (54.)
I want
to question a thing, now, based on the bit where as much as I have
been arguing for listening to what Charlie
says in evaluating who Charlie is, he is a character written by a
nondisabled author and he therefore isn't the greatest example of an
actual person with intellectual disabilities who fits a given
assumption.
“There is indeed an assumption that intellectually disabled
individuals are limited in their abilities to tell their own stories.
Naturally, cognitive impairment may limit the ability to understand
aspects of an individuals own experience, as it does for Charlie.”
(55.)
I'm
not actually going to deny that this can happen- it's happened to me
before, where my own cognitive disabilities have meant it took me
until years later to understand certain aspects of my experiences,
and also where people's assumptions about my cognitive abilities have
formed a barrier between myself and that understanding. But
Charlie is not the example to use here.
I know we're talking about Flowers for Algernon,
but using a fictional disabled character, especially one written by
an able person, as an example of a thing that can actually happen
with disability to show that it can happen? Bad idea. No. Go with
actual disabled people for that, not an abled authors impression of a
disabled person.
“Charlie, speaking with the voice of academic intelligence and
scientific authority, ultimately comes to know what his less capable
voices have been saying all along: that the experiences are his alone
to voice.” (55.)
AND WHY DO WE NEED
ACADEMIC VOICE CHARLIE TO SAY IT? I mean, yes, great that this is how
we end that chain of thought, ish, as opposed to wanting scientists
saying stuff, but why do we need the now-academic Charlie to realize
it before it's believed rather than listening to Charlie while he's
still disabled??? That is seriously not OK.
Good that now we've
got recognition of the bit where Keyes is a nondisabled author, and
that this is “problematic” for the whole novel, even more so with
how it ends.
That
ending. It's not until Charlie is realizing that he's going
to be intellectually disabled
again and is scared of it (despite thinking that he was better off
before in some ways) that he fragments at all. Hrm. Fear of who he
used to be? That wasn't there before, it's not consistent with the
Charlie we'd seen before, why'd it show up now?