Lyric Intertextual Essay

    Things are not always black and white. A true writer writes in ways that create different subjective experiences for each reader. Characters can do the right action for the wrong reasons or the improper action for the right reason. Of these two characters, who is justifiable? Is it neither? Is it both? Or does it depend?

    In the case of Oedipus Rex, a case can be made for both arguments. Oedipus can either be seen as either a victim of fate or as one in control of his fate. From the perspective of a reader who believes that fate is strict and unchangeable, Oedipus may be alleviated from the blame of his actions. Yet, from another perspective, Oedipus can be seen as not doing enough to avoid his tragic fate and derailing the prophecy. No matter what anyone says, the facts are there: Oedipus killed his father and married his mother. The only question is whether he is to blame. There is no right answer, and there is no wrong answer. 

    Subjectiveness is not specific only to works of writing. Music is one of the most subjective experiences for both the players and the listeners. For example, Adam Rapa’s performance of Georges Bizet’s Carmen Suite is unlike any other. 

    Adam takes liberties to “spice up” the traditionally strict classical piece. Most other recordings of Carmen Suite, while being distinct, remain strictly under classical influence and have no improvisation sections. The listener’s experience will also be different for each recording. The nature of improvisation denotes that the music will change from performance to performance, and therefore, the “vibe” and “feel” of the piece will change alongside it. Additionally, it can be said that music, in general, is a very subjective art, as there is no right or wrong way to listen to music. While one listener’s ears might drift towards the soaring trumpets, another might focus on the rich chordal harmonies that accompany it.

    Nevertheless, the listener dictates their own experience through what they actively choose to listen to. The composer may desire the listener to think one way or another, but it is not their right, nor are they capable of enforcing their interpretation on listeners. Instead, they can “guide” listeners into hearing their intent.

    May-Lee Chai, the author of Saving Sourdi, applies this concept in an attempt to create expectations from the reader to subvert them eventually. Nea, the main character, starts by introducing her mother as someone who thinks the customer is always right, even when said customer is sexually harassing Sourdie, Nea’s sister, in front of her. The mother, Ma, only takes action once Nea has attacked the customer for being out of line. She does this only for the sake of the restaurant’s reputation out of fear of being sued. At this point, Chai has characterized Ma as demon-like from Nea’s perspective and devoid of love for her children. Later, after Sourdi is married off to their uncle’s friend, Mr. Chhay, Ma appears not to care that Sourdi isn’t interested in a relationship like this and is still in love with someone else. Mr. Chhay is also portrayed negatively, describing him as having yellow teeth and a bald spot. It also appears that Mr. Chhay is abusing Sourdi in their assumedly arranged marriage. However, towards the end of the text, we begin to see the truth as it is. Sourdi is content with her life and has never been abused by Mr. Chhay, and Ma honestly seems to care about Sourdi in her own way. May-Lee guides the reader along a path of envisioning a creepy, disgusting old man collaborating with a ruthless mother to marry off one of her daughters, but that is not the truth. Chai’s subjective storytelling through Nea’s lens helps showcase how experiences can be subjective yet be pushed in one direction over others by the author. Chai wants us to initially believe that Ma and Mr. Chhay are the true villains of the story, but in the end, Nea could be the true villain for needlessly interfering in Mr. Chhay and Sourdi’s lives. 

    When thinking of subjectiveness, the first thing that comes to mind is art. As the age-old saying goes, “What am I supposed to get from this?” What many are never able to realize is that there isn’t ever anything to “get.” Going back to earlier, the artist can try to guide you in a particular direction with art, but they can never force you to see art the way they do. While the painter may have a specific thing they were intending for you to “get” when viewing their artwork, it’s just not possible for everyone to feel the same emotions or understand exactly what the painter is trying to describe.

    While the artist (Pieter Bruegel) is trying to show the viewer that Icarus, with all his glory of flight, is worth nothing once he comes crashing back to the ground. The harbor, drawing eyes away from Icarus himself, shows that he is unimportant and that glory is irrelevant when you have fallen. The rest of the world appears unaffected by his demise. However, viewers could also interpret the painting the “wrong” way and say that due to Icarus’s father’s inventions, the harbor is thriving. Therefore, the port won’t be indifferent when they realize Daedalus has snuck away while Icarus has died. (A bit of a stretch, I know.)

    In general, musicians, writers, and artists alike all work with art forms that give every person a unique experience. While one person might experience something positively, another might experience it negatively. To counter that and lead the audience onto the “right path,” artists guide their audience towards specific ideas that they deem favorable over others. Yet it is essential to note that while artists have the right to direct their viewers toward experiences, they cannot enforce their perspectives of their works on the viewer. Similar to reader-response theory, the reader dictates their own experience while the author merely guides the experience.