I am laughing! Setting an essay on authenticity in Cody is an act of genius. What could authenticity possibly mean in a city plunked down in the sagebrush (Cody did not evolve organically, it wasn't on the way to anywhere in 1896) by an entertainer and showman, with streets named for investors in and the manager of the first nationwide "blockbuster?" Where one of Buffalo Bill's predecessors in the area was a gunfighter who got his start in life as a French socialist, but ended up dying with his boots on in a Red Lodge saloon? Where Butch Cassidy's signature appears, like anyone else's, on a petition to build a bridge? I could continue, but will refrain.
John knows that I say all this from a stance of truly loving the Cody Country. But is it the right place in which to try to sort fact from fiction? from which to say this or that is authentic? One's first reaction is, "surely not!" And that reaction might be stronger after wandering down Sheridan. But if one sits with the thought for a while, one might ask how the casual blending of fact and fiction in the stories of the West (of course Caroline grew up on a ranch, the story isn't right without that, so it has to be so) could be anything other than authentic?
To bring in nature beyond the human, one only has to think about the saga of bringing wolves back to Greater Yellowstone and, now to Colorado. If science reigned, or if bumper stickers were required to be factual, the controversy would have passed quickly. But we humans are (many of us at least) willing to repeat outrageous lies if they make us look good to our friends and annoy our enemies. That's us, unless we make a mindful effort to be otherwise, at least. And isn't being yourself, as you "really" are, what is meant by being authentic? I think cowboys and hippies agree on that!
Canadian philosopher Charles Taylor wrote a little book on The Ethics of Authenticity that readers may find helpful. Towards the end, he says" . . . we face a continuing struggle to realize higher and full modes of authenticity against the resistance of the flatter and shallower forms." Remember that he is looking southward not just toward a distant Cody, but the entire U.S. when he writes.
So, what does authenticity mean for nature? Without us around, nature just is. No judgment about its authenticity or lack thereof is possible. Bring us into the picture and I think nature can become a selfie (with a charging bison in the near background). Taylor spends some time trying to tease out the difference between authenticity and self-indulgence (or narcissism, egoism, etc). He ends up here (and so will I, for now at least). "If authenticity is being true to ourselves, is recovering our own "sentiment de l'existence" [a phrase he takes from Rosseau), then perhaps we can only achieve it integrally if we recognize that this sentiment connects us to a wider whole."
My first reaction is that authenticity meant a great deal to historic Cody. At the time of the robbery, it still expected to be a profitable irrigation venture. And at the time of Buffalo Bill's death, it was surprised to learn it wasn't going to be his final resting place. Only when it couldn't be an authentic farm town, or an authentic memorial, did it consider flatter and shallower forms.
My second reaction is that you and I are still equating authenticity with goodness. Lewis challenges us to equate goodness with art: style, invention, "literary truth." Because authenticity is a dead end. I struggle with this, but Lockhart's career arguably provides evidence.
They were indeed serious about Cody's success, and the dam (which ended up making Powell, not Cody, Park County's farm town) was the focus. But how does that square up with them all having read too many dime novels?
I think both boosterism's embrace of the latest technology and nostalgia for a West that might never actually have been have always co-existed. I read Cody himself to have been sanguine about that and think he would have agreed with you about the constancy of change. So, judging any of us or any community (was RL more authentic when everything was covered in coal dust?) for authenticity may well be a dead end. Or at least require the reframing that Taylor tries to give it.
I do not, BTW, read your essay (as distinct from your judgment of tv shows) as saying that authenticity is good. I read you as saying that its not relevant to our experience of nature, which should be understood in and on its own terms rather than through any lens of ours.
Right, it was only in my response to you, trying to defend Cody's authenticity (of nostalgia?) that I got caught in my own authenticity trap. Authenticity in novels, or towns, or nature -- it's all a bit self-defeating!
Good read. Definitely food for thought. As an aside (sort of), the Yellowstone TV series seems to thrive, like most soap operas, by not being authentic.
Ooh, thanks for bringing up "Yellowstone"! I'll admit, I stopped watching after the first episode because it felt inauthentic. But when I switched to its doppelganger "Succession," I never asked if that was an authentic depiction of rich people. Why do I put different thresholds of authenticity on these different TV shows? Because one is a "Western"? Because it's closer to nature? (I don't know the answer to this question! :) )
I am laughing! Setting an essay on authenticity in Cody is an act of genius. What could authenticity possibly mean in a city plunked down in the sagebrush (Cody did not evolve organically, it wasn't on the way to anywhere in 1896) by an entertainer and showman, with streets named for investors in and the manager of the first nationwide "blockbuster?" Where one of Buffalo Bill's predecessors in the area was a gunfighter who got his start in life as a French socialist, but ended up dying with his boots on in a Red Lodge saloon? Where Butch Cassidy's signature appears, like anyone else's, on a petition to build a bridge? I could continue, but will refrain.
John knows that I say all this from a stance of truly loving the Cody Country. But is it the right place in which to try to sort fact from fiction? from which to say this or that is authentic? One's first reaction is, "surely not!" And that reaction might be stronger after wandering down Sheridan. But if one sits with the thought for a while, one might ask how the casual blending of fact and fiction in the stories of the West (of course Caroline grew up on a ranch, the story isn't right without that, so it has to be so) could be anything other than authentic?
To bring in nature beyond the human, one only has to think about the saga of bringing wolves back to Greater Yellowstone and, now to Colorado. If science reigned, or if bumper stickers were required to be factual, the controversy would have passed quickly. But we humans are (many of us at least) willing to repeat outrageous lies if they make us look good to our friends and annoy our enemies. That's us, unless we make a mindful effort to be otherwise, at least. And isn't being yourself, as you "really" are, what is meant by being authentic? I think cowboys and hippies agree on that!
Canadian philosopher Charles Taylor wrote a little book on The Ethics of Authenticity that readers may find helpful. Towards the end, he says" . . . we face a continuing struggle to realize higher and full modes of authenticity against the resistance of the flatter and shallower forms." Remember that he is looking southward not just toward a distant Cody, but the entire U.S. when he writes.
So, what does authenticity mean for nature? Without us around, nature just is. No judgment about its authenticity or lack thereof is possible. Bring us into the picture and I think nature can become a selfie (with a charging bison in the near background). Taylor spends some time trying to tease out the difference between authenticity and self-indulgence (or narcissism, egoism, etc). He ends up here (and so will I, for now at least). "If authenticity is being true to ourselves, is recovering our own "sentiment de l'existence" [a phrase he takes from Rosseau), then perhaps we can only achieve it integrally if we recognize that this sentiment connects us to a wider whole."
My first reaction is that authenticity meant a great deal to historic Cody. At the time of the robbery, it still expected to be a profitable irrigation venture. And at the time of Buffalo Bill's death, it was surprised to learn it wasn't going to be his final resting place. Only when it couldn't be an authentic farm town, or an authentic memorial, did it consider flatter and shallower forms.
My second reaction is that you and I are still equating authenticity with goodness. Lewis challenges us to equate goodness with art: style, invention, "literary truth." Because authenticity is a dead end. I struggle with this, but Lockhart's career arguably provides evidence.
They were indeed serious about Cody's success, and the dam (which ended up making Powell, not Cody, Park County's farm town) was the focus. But how does that square up with them all having read too many dime novels?
I think both boosterism's embrace of the latest technology and nostalgia for a West that might never actually have been have always co-existed. I read Cody himself to have been sanguine about that and think he would have agreed with you about the constancy of change. So, judging any of us or any community (was RL more authentic when everything was covered in coal dust?) for authenticity may well be a dead end. Or at least require the reframing that Taylor tries to give it.
I do not, BTW, read your essay (as distinct from your judgment of tv shows) as saying that authenticity is good. I read you as saying that its not relevant to our experience of nature, which should be understood in and on its own terms rather than through any lens of ours.
Right, it was only in my response to you, trying to defend Cody's authenticity (of nostalgia?) that I got caught in my own authenticity trap. Authenticity in novels, or towns, or nature -- it's all a bit self-defeating!
Good read. Definitely food for thought. As an aside (sort of), the Yellowstone TV series seems to thrive, like most soap operas, by not being authentic.
Ooh, thanks for bringing up "Yellowstone"! I'll admit, I stopped watching after the first episode because it felt inauthentic. But when I switched to its doppelganger "Succession," I never asked if that was an authentic depiction of rich people. Why do I put different thresholds of authenticity on these different TV shows? Because one is a "Western"? Because it's closer to nature? (I don't know the answer to this question! :) )