A Post by David Saetang

For the sake of discussion, I wanted to speak again the idea about the language and word choice used in DICTEE because Vivian’s earlier post basically touched upon the most points I wanted to bring up in my presentation, which I would like to elaborate on now. Sorry if it seems redundant but I believe I can add at least a little but more to that topic.

As we all have experienced thus far, DICTEE uses a most untraditional, unorthodox written style which, to most readers (if not, all), makes for a very uncomfortable, uneasy read. This written style shows all of the hard work and dedication that Cha had put into the creation of the text simply because she did not have to make it that difficult in the first place. However, the resulting work is one that deserves much attention and appreciation – that is, if we can understand why it was made that way.

While reiterating what Vivian had been saying about the incorporation of non-English language use in the text as a way for the author to invoke a sense of “alienation and confusion” to the reader, I would like to point at the difference(s) between “wanting to know” and “needing to know”. As Megan had mentioned in her post, foreign language students are forced to interpret the essence of the sentences when they are met with limitations to their ability. It is this essence of interpretation that is the key in understanding the reasoning behind the structure of the text of DICTEE. By making readers go back and forth (literally in Chapter 5) through the text while dodging foreign languages and diagram after diagram, they [us readers] are left with two things: 1) wondering why in the world Cha would go through the trouble of doing such a thing to us (and herself), and 2) a desire to see what we were ‘missing’. It is this desire to know that eats us alive inside and inevitably takes us away from the text. By this, I mean to say that we end up questioning what we are given rather than attempting understand it; and this is the reason why the text becomes (is) more difficult than it already is.

[Okay, I need to separate this paragraph somehow, so… here we go.]

Anyway, as I recall saying in my presentation on Monday, it seemed that the more you knew about the “extras” (French, Japanese/Chinese characters, etc.) that Cha through into the text, the more it turned out to “harm” you instead of helping you. Once again I will bring up my argument that Cha put the importance of her message(s) in the words she knew we as readers would be able to understand because it would be both ridiculous and unreasonable (to me) for Cha to assume that readers go into it already knowing every language that she uses (this is also the case for My Year of Meats and DOGEATERS). What I’m trying to say is, the authors clearly did this for a reason: not only to make us feel uncomfortable just as a “foreigner” to the language would, but also to make us decide on our own what is important to pull out from the text (that being the information they want us to know).

So I suppose what I am trying to say is that it is important for us to take the text as it is and to understand/take what we are given, because everything we need to know is already there; it is not necessary for us to try to understand or have everything we want. That’s exactly how the characters were treated in their lives – so there’s a lesson already learned right there. Going back to what I said earlier about the “essence of interpretation”, what we are able to do at best is to assume what Cha is trying to saying in the complex chapters (some more than others) that we read. There are direct hints, such as those referring to the occupation by the Japanese and the division of Korea into the North and the South, but besides that we are left with a visually-awkward structured book. As much as we want to understand why some chapters are made the way they are, in the end we are actually just better off trying to understand text away from the “distractions”. It’s a difficult task, but that’s why we have each as a class, right? =)

I apologize in advance for the poor structure of this post – I usually have a direction that I want to go in, but I sometimes go off tangents so badly that I can’t remember my original course of thought. I hope I didn’t give anyone a headache. Take care! -David