The excerpts for this week come from a larger work, entitled ‘Dictee,” a novel/history/fiction/nonfiction. The novel is performative and contains photographs, letters, images, prose, poetry, a combination of many genres and representations. Many classify “Dictee” as an autobiography, much like Kingston’s Woman Warrior. How do these two texts compare with one another? What does Cha employ that Kingston does not?
This novel seeks to show how identity is created through language, and how history is often a compilation of subjective images, words, characters and themes. Cha seeks to complicate the notion of a coherent self and a coherent history, blurring the boundaries of personal and national identity.
YU Guan Soon was a 16 year old female warrior who led a resistence movement in Korea. How does the section about her help empower the female inside the historically masculine warrior-category? How does this compare with Kingston’s use of the swordswoman? How is Cha reshaping history here? How does language become a tool for creating and understanding history? Cha seems to be very aware of the absence of woman in both historical and familial histories, how does her novel (or what we have read of it) seek to forcefully inscribe women and attribute them with voice?
How do we read photographic images? How are images read differently than words on a page? Do images carry greater weight than words? Why? (Try to think back to the Inada image in Camp)
Cha uses a mixture of colonizing languages (English, French, Japanese) in order to create her narrative. What impact do these language have on the overall narration? How is she critiquing the colonizer (the power-holder) through this inventive use of multiple languages? There are multiple identifications of ethnicity here, as well as multiple gender and national identifications, how does she move between these many categories? Why does she include so many different categories of identity? What is identity for Cha?
How did you read the ‘Petition from the Koreans of Hawaii to President Roosevelt”? Is it history? Is it a historical document similar to the one Inada used in Legends?
How does this work resist the linear reading process (i.e. how does it force us to turn back, to read backwards)? Why is this important? What does Cha want us, as readers, to WITNESS in her work? Why does she include her manuscript page inside the already printed novel? How do you read her manuscript page (with her actual handwriting upon it) differently from the printed (and thus standardized) page?
What are some of the major themes we are exposed to in this work? How do these themes travel to include other words we have read in this class?
Theresa Cha’s Dictee is a message written from the perspective of the dictated, less powerful position. To be more specific, Cha is writing on behalf of South Korea, a country with a long history of undesired colonizations and exploitations by foreign countries, most notably by Japan. In her dictee, she pleads with the American people and other non-witnesses to stop treating these historical oppressions as abstract acts and to start understanding “the flesh… the core… the mark…” behind Korea’s suffering. As Professor Huang stated in his lecture on Thursday, the problem of reading is that often we consume the facts without acting, and that by reading in this manner, we are guilty of being conspirators. Inaction despite the knowledge of injustice is unjustifiable. I would go as far as to say that it is unacceptable, considering how we Americans have the freedom to make a difference.
Both Theresa Cha and Lawson Inada force readers to remember parts of their respected countries histories that are often bypassed. Cha’s inclusion of the image showing the execution of three Koreans exposes the horrors of the conflict between Japanese and Koreans during the interwar years. The image of the executive order that forcibly moved Japanese Americans to interment camps during WWII in Inada’s “Legends” represents the mistreatment of the United States government to its own citizens. The absence of a caption beneath either photo does not inhibit their messages. Both are images of death. The photo of the three Koreans being killed represents not only the soldiers death, but symbolizes the death of freedom and justice in Korea. The issuing of the executive order basically ended or halted the lives of thousands of Japanese-Americans. It stripped then of their rights as American citizens; they were removed from their surroundings and had their possessions wrongfully taken from them. By making readers look at the injustices of the past, Cha and Inada are trying to prevent such atrocities from ever being repeated.
Reading Cha’s “Dictee” and Huang’s “Mapping Histories”, I felt like it was the most difficult reading to carry on with and as I read I almost felt like I had become the “conspirator of the oppressor” by reading the history so blandly. I thought that if I had this skill that Huang describes as decolonized reading, I could feel more devoted to the words on the page. Although, reading further I understood that the reading was supposed to be that way.
In response to how Cha helps empower the female inside the historically masculine warrior-category, I believe that she does this by framing her story in a politically powerful and historical context that is usually a glorification of the male-warrior. Also, it is often a feat that would be recognized as one that has been historically male driven and often framed as what men should do. Leading a revolt is something that a hegemonic society would think a man would do.
She points this out in the reading: “There is already a nationally organized movement, who do not accept her seriousness, her place as a young woman, and they attempt to dissuade her”. Although, this force does not believe in her she is not discouraged and more aggressively forms her revolution against Japan’s attempts to control and occupy Korea.
She seeks to forcefully inscribe women and attribute them with voice by telling Guan Soon’s story and reinventing her importance as a warrior like woman revolting against the Japanese government. Through her actions she is heard and she is able to have others listen and follow her.
In the end of this short reading of the novel I do still get confused as to which parts are considered fact and which are fiction as it is not all that clear.
I find photographic images to be much more interpretive than words on a page. Words on a page are more definitive and factual. An image alone can be interpreted many different ways by many different people. The significance and meaning varies a lot more in viewing an image rather than reading words. To prove my point think about how someone, if he/she has a specific point to get across to the viewer, gets that point across. That someone will use a caption written in words. I believe using words leaves a lot less to be questioned. However, writing forms such as poetry give my position a weakness. Poetry is words on a page and is definitely very interpretive.
“Petition from the Koreans of Hawaii to President Roosevelt” is a historical document that is very similar to Inada’s Legends. While reading this piece by Cha I thought about how it is the REAL “behind the scenes” history that needs to be known and is probably widely forgotten like what has been done with the Japanese internment camps. Cha, like Inada, expresses the true history of the situation with the Koreans of Hawaii. The intent to share knowledge is the similarity between the documents of Cha and Inada.
I may be saying this because I’m a history person, but I don’t like how she attacks historical writing. The point of that style of writing is to be observant and objective. There is a place to express emotions in writing, but a historical document is not that place! Its fine if she places those feeling within her writings and the pictures presented in her book, but she should not have degraded the value and important insight historical writing has.
This work resists the linear process of reading, by being written in a way that is very difficult to read, in comparison to normal literary works. The beginnings and endings are not clear, images are printed without captions, and readers flip forwards and backwards (as when the manuscript followed the images). The purpose of this “diseased” writing, is to accuse the reader of simply consuming historical facts. Rather than actively deciphering for themselves the truth, they lazily accept what is given to them.
I fully agree with Kenneth Chang’s interpretation of Cha’s work. I was really moved by her work in the reader. The way she challenges the norms; the ‘accepted’ form of writing. She questions history itself and its documentation as a ‘body of archived and retrievable knowledge” (Huang). Cha charges readers of history with not being able to know, essentially there were not there; they were not able to see, hear, the flesh and bones and cries. She does not accept the neutralized form that history represents and this is a new concept which I was introduced to. In just reading history page to page, we are in a sense aiding and becoming conspirators of the oppressor. She forces her readers outside this context by challenging the history and the writing. She does not ever write in Korean, even more keeping their voices silent and oppressed. She instead writes in English, French and Japanese which we all colonialist countries to provide further power to those nations in contrast to Korea. To quote Huang he said to achieve such a goal of intervention on part by the readers, ” the books needs to be written and read in a radically unconsumable way.” Which brings up ideas about subversion within writing. The way she writes and organizes her books is subversive and powerful. Very similarly to Inada’s camp poems, he includes historical documents and photographs which further ingrain the injustice that occurred. Cha includes uncaptioned photographs to challenge the documentation usually accompanying historical works. My favorite part of her work Dictee, is that its anagram is Deceit, which is very powerful.
Just like several other readings we have had in this class, Theresa Cha’s work goes along with the theme of history-writing and the dry interpretation readers receive through history books. Although her argument is very successful in proving that these documents from history have no impact or true interpretation of what actually went on during these tragic times, she also fails to recognize that people can only do so much. Kevin Brown’s argument about the way history is supposed to be written seems a lot more accurate. There is a difference between literature and textbooks that tell of historical events. If all of history was written with emotion then we would not be able to form a clear outlook on what went on during a specific time because writing filled with emotion always has a bias. I think that Cha’s accusation of calling us “conspirators” is not accurate because, in reality, there is only so much a person can do to fight things like this. Making an effort to even read these historical documents is sometimes the only way to contribute in that we keep ourselves from becoming ignorant. Being an artist, Cha’s use of the photograph and having to look back at it over and over again almost seems contradictory to her goal because when we look at something over and over it can counteract having to experience that event in the picture. Instead, a person can become numb and unresponsive when having to look at a tragic event over again just like soldiers in a war must have to become numb to certain things at some point in order to survive. Overall, I think that Cha’s work has an important message just like Inada’s work but it also takes an extreme point of view.
Though stylistically different than the Legends readings, I found a lot of parallels between the two texts, most notably in Yu Guan Soon and the petition written to the president. In Yu Guan Soon Cha writes that “The nation the enemy the name becomes larger than its own identity. Larger than its own measure.” I thought that this was extremely similar to how Inada wrote about the histories of the Japanese internment camps turning into legends, or larger-than-life stories. The similarities continue, as the petition greatly resembles the Instructions to All Persons and how the poetry/writing is juxtaposed with the strict, informative words used in official documents. For me these aspects of the writing make it much more interesting, as there is a humanity and point of view presented that neutralized historical writing cannot convey.
When reading the manuscript page with Cha’s actual handwriting I find myself reading it much closer then the typed, standardized page. I think that she does this in order to get us to truly see what she is saying. The writing contains variations and crossed out words that we cannot help but try to take time and read. Her writing becomes almost an image in which we look deeper into. It keeps us from just being consumers of her writing. She also does this by making us read in a non linear way but having us flip back and forth. By doing this we keep coming back to images. Cha makes sure that her readers do not simply consume her writing but truly read and see it. When we were reading Zora Neale Hurston, Professor mentioned how we did not have to read the complete story from start to finish but should flip back and forth, make markings, and reread what interests us most. As an author, Cha leads us in this exact direction.
As difficult this literary piece was to read, the handwritten style which makes eyes squint and wonder, is itself very revealing about the information the author wants to put out there. The author, in a sense, is trying to send us this message that true history is not so clear and upfront but instead has to be dug out in order to find the true history behind a subject matter. Even the pictures she incorporates allow readers to interpret and try to figure out the message incorporated in the picture. I would compare this to Hurston’s piece because Hurston always wrote in the native language of the town she was writing about. She didn’t use standard English because it wouldn’t capture the true essence of that community. The reader has to adjust to both styles from both writers in order to truly understand what the author is trying to reveal.
Despite the arguments and history’s dry interpretation of events, history is rarely unaffected by emotions. It is subjective and censored depending on the country, or even state, or origin. Look at Japanese history during the dynasties and the travelogs to counter it. Or the presentation of the Holocaust in German history. Or the recent scandal over Texas’ history curriculum modifications. The history books never tell the full story. That is why they are supplemented by literature. In elementary school, children read books relating to the same subjects in history they are studying. This continues on a less exact level through middle school and high school. In some college courses, even, the historical content is paired with a piece of literature. And in nearly every literature class, and any level, lectures include a historical background to the information. History and literature are a complimentary subjects. Neither can be properly understood without the other.
The images present bring an interesting dimension to this work. As part of her manuscript is published in the work, it is important to note the effect it has on the form. We have studied many different forms present in literature such as the Angel Island Poetry on the walls and the oral stories that were written down on paper by Zora Neale Hurston. In this, the hand-written manuscript really changes how one reads her story as it gives the reader a unique opportunity to see the writer’s thoughts. So often one can take a story like this for granted as we only see the finished product, but here Cha allows us a glimpse at the work in progress so we get a truer understanding of her feelings. The picture on the previous page also aids in this, as a lot more can be interpreted. A picture can serve a similar purpose as poetry, as it can give the reader more to think about as opposed to just the words on the page.
I read the petition to be of historical significance. I cannot say either way whether it is true history, because I don’t have a background on what is being claimed, but it seems to have significance in the way this country was regarded as well as problems in treaties between other countries. I saw this petition and the “Instructions to all persons” as being both similar and extremely different. Cha’s inclusion of the petition showed the perspective of the people of Korea. It seemed to be written from Koreans that live in the United States, but talked about the oppression of their fellows in Korea not in the United States. They were pleading to the President to help ensure that they (Korea) remained a sovereign state. Inada used the historical document instructing Japanese-Americans to internment camps to emphasize the horror and injustice of what was being “asked” of them. That document was written by the United States government, not the immigrant people. It is interesting that after being appealed to in an attempt to help the Korean people keep their freedom and way of life, the United States government turned around and took another group of people’s freedom and life away from them.
I very much enjoyed the experience of reading Cha’s historiography of sorts. I think it represents a very crucial period and is very interesting as a statement on imperialistic countries. The combination of writing and images is effective as a device to show readers a specific window in Korean history while also conveying the picture of the struggle as a whole, by virtue of the inclusion of different languages and non-captioned photos. I liked how this reading was set up and I definitely see how it fits in with the course themes of history as told from an inverse perspective, of history as intertwined with individual experience, and of language as a crucial element to the recording or evaluating of any piece of history.
I thoroughly enjoyed reading Theresa Hak Kyung Cha’s article. i especially found the use of pictures and writing important to the overall message. By contrasting such things Cha was able to render a realistic interpretation of her writing. Personally I saw the pictures as an extension of the words and provided a factual basis to the historical aspect of the article. Without pictures this work becomes more of a personal representation of history more so than factual.
What I take as the most important aspect of Cha’s Dictee is her stance on understanding and interpreting history. This reading made me think a lot about the idea of experiencing history through the eyes of another individual. Is it possible to truly understand where someone is coming from if you have not lived through the same experience as them? Initially, I thought memoirs did a good job of allowing the reader a first hand look at an experience. Upon further analysis however I realized that unless one experiences an event for themselves, it is truly impossible to understand. This in many ways is similar to Professor Huang’s opinion that there is no such thing as a good translation. In the same respect, many there is no such thing as a perfect memoir because it may just be impossible to ever fully understand the past without experiencing it. I still believe it is important to discuss and explain past tragedies because though we may not fully comprehend we can still learn a lot from others past experiences.
Photographic images are read by their content, presentation (background), and size. As a result, they are read differently than words because they present ideas through visual means. In a way, photographic images conceal their meaning, and one must dig deeper to extract that meaning. Words, however, present the message through literal etchings, which direct the meaning, in a non-ambiguous way. Images can carry greater weight than words because they can encompass millions of words in a single frame. The Inada image captures the emotion, mood, and conditions in one image, whereas these “facets” would have to be expressed in countless words.
Throughout this class, we have been presented with a great number of forms – whether it be graffiti, violent prose, vernacular, hearsay, etc. Theresa Hak Kyung Cha gives the readers a different kind of form, one that explores the humanity and poetry of history. I was caught off guard, while reading this exerpt, by the abrupt switch from historical narrative to abstract poetic verse. Within her work, I find the use of images (photographs and scratch paper) to be quite powerful. In an attempt to blur the line between an abstract, personal history and a national history, images can serve as a meaningful tool. Take for instance the photograph of the Korean nationalists being executed on page 34 of the reader (a more clear image was presented in lecture). It gives the poetry on the left side of the page meaning and brings those words to life. In contrast, the words tend to narrate the image given. Thus the use of images in her work plays a reciprocal role, balancing both written language with the universally understood image.
I think the Petition from the Koreans of Hawaii is definitely considered history, however whether it is similar to the historical document used by Inada is up to question. The petition is a plea for assistance whereas the document used by Inada is more of an order/instructions for a particular race of people to follow. While both have a sense of bias, the petition is one of optimistic undertones whereas the historical document in Legends is open discrimination against those of Japanese ancestry. They both do, however, mark an event in history that is significant for both the Japanese and Koreans, and thus can be examined in that sense.
The title Dictee gives the implication that she is writing from the perspective of one under dictatorship. She is one of the dictated, a “dictee.” She writes about historical events in an interesting way and uses un-captioned images to challenge the observer’s ability to interpret without subjectivity. I strongly believe that historical works, like history books, should be challenged. History is not objective. It is written and interpreted by people, typically the “colonizers.” Granted, there are facts in historical narratives-numbers, dates, events, etc. However, much of history is open to interpretation. The manner in which an event or sequence of events is told changes the manner in which it is absorbed by the listener/reader, especially if only one account is shared. A reader is always at the mercy of the author if he/she does not challenge the bias and subjectivity of the literature.
Dictee resists the linear reading process by forcing us to read in a “diseased” zone. Specifically, common things included in literature, like captions on images, are not included. Instead of having text before the image, the author places the manuscript after the image, so you have to flip back and forth to see the image again. In seeing this ambiguity of source, we don’t know which one is the original, and we have to revisit the scene several times. The larger coontext is that Cha is criticizng the consumer way of consumption, just ingesting historical fact and history, without using their efforts to “know”.
The first thing that got my attention was the picture of the execution. I think this picture is more than just “more than a thousand words” it shows so much more than that. that specific moment and Both sides. even if the picture is dark and not that good to see, the picture speak for itself, it doent need word at all. The picture showed more than any heart filling poem because it shows I think that Cha and Kingston have a lot of similarities. they both have this genre where their writings are considered to be nonfiction yet fiction which goes back to the politic of genre. I really like how they are able to write two contradictory genres in one piece of work. It makes their point of view more complex and one can make even bigger connections to other works. One thing that I feel they can both relate is the warrior they have within themselves. Kingston made this story of her being Mulan, a great strong warrior as well as Yu Guan.
Photographs will always be more potent than words. The reason for this is that words have limited meaning, whereas images can be interpreted in a variety of ways. What one person perceives or learns from one image may be completely lost on another. Writing is direct and generally has little room for interpretation. An image is a tad risky as a photographer/journalists interpretation may be lost on the reader, but then again being able to interpret a photo on it’s own can often times be more compelling than simply reading a few words. Giving ideas substance through imagery is always a step in the right direction.
Dictee is a very complicated book. Cha has created a unique experience for her readers. This is a stressful reading experience, where the common linear for of reading is completely torn up. She includes many different mediums by which she tells us a story. It is important that we do not try to know what she is writing about or even truly understand it, but it is important that we are witnesses to her story and as such we must in some way experience her story. I think ‘experience’ is the perfect term for this book. You don’t really read it you experience it as you try to unwrap the unlabeled pictures or read her annotated manuscript.