My ASTU class recently had the privilege of visiting our library archives to see the early work Joy Kogawa did on her novel Obasan. Our class was able to look into her early drafts which showed the development of the storyline and characters that occurred before the final product. What interested me most about exploring the development of the novel was that it contradicted the thought process I usually approach books with. I tend to see any book I read as the only version of the story since it’s the only version I have access to but by exploring the early drafts of Kogawa’s book I was confronted with the reality that even my most beloved characters once had different names. Absolutism is an easy trap to fall into and visiting the archives served as a reminder to me to avoid that type of thinking. In our ASTU class we’ve been introduced to the field of memory studies which also combats that black and white thought process by exploring the formation of memories on both the individual and collective level. Even a national or collective memory involves the negotiation of many perspectives into one grand narrative and just like in the process of writing a novel it ends up leaving things out.

The process of creating a novel involves the negotiation of many ideas, plot lines, character ideas, etc into one cohesive story just as the process of forming a collective memory involves the negotiation of many perspectives into one overarching narrative. In the world of literature there is nothing inherently harmful about leaving out characters or sub plots that realistically readers will never know about but in the world of collective memory leaving out divergent stories and perspectives is harmful. Especially in times of conflict or trauma minority perspectives are often left out in collective memories because they don’t have a voice. An example that Dr. Luger brought up in class is that there are almost no memorials for victims of sexual abuse but there are hundreds of war memorials. The connection between the formation of collective memory and the creation of a novel is in the thought process, having an absolutist mindset leaves perspectives and people out. By reading a novel as a finished product, as the only true and final version a lot of context is lost and the fluidity inherent to literature is lost. By regarding a collective memory or mainstream narrative as true and final perspectives of those who are underrepresented are lost. Absolutism in scholarship is thus inherently harmful and its negative impacts are tangible in the field of literature and memory study.

The reason I’m critiquing this absolutist way of thought is that I’ve noticed it a lot in my research on collective memory for the upcoming essay. Engaging in productive discourse in the arena of scholarship requires open mindedness and a questioning attitude to even the most basic “truths”. The archives we visited in class are a great reminder to us university students of how even sources we assign supreme authority like novels are not ultimate and final sources of truth. Just as we’ve come to learn in class that even the most mainstream recollections of history are tainted by the agendas of their creators. Kogawa’s early drafts, storylines, and scribbles on napkins are just as much a part of Obasan as minority opinions are in the recollections of history. Our class was lucky enough to experience first hand the dynamic and fluid nature of literature that can be extended to all field of scholarship. The archives we visited reminded me that sources of literature, history, or news often only tell one side of the story and we as readers should keep that in mind when assigning authority to any source.