In class last week we spent some time discussing whether or not we found Tom Hayden’s version of the events that took place in Chicago believable. I tried to keep that conversation in mind as I read Fr. Berrigan’s writing. I was struck by the conclusion I reached after reading The Trial of the Catonsville Nine: I think I found Voices of the Chicago Eight more believable. Believable might not be the best word, as I don’t feel that Dan Berrigan was lying. It is more accurate, perhaps, to say that I found Voices of the Chicago Eight to be more honest and therefore more persuasive.
I think that there are two primary factors that brought me to this conclusion. First, the way the text itself was written, formatted, etc. Second, the content, i.e. the actual story. I talked in class last week about how struck I was by the level of detail Haydon included in the memoir part of the text. The specificity made the events very personal for me. On the other hand, this attention to detail makes me hesitant to completely trust this story, as memory is so fallible. As far as the play portion of the text, it was meaningful to me that the playwrights detailed the relationship between the court manuscripts and the dialogue. While editing is, of course, important, there is something profound in absorbing the dialogue and knowing that those words were really said in court. The Trial of the Catonsville Nine felt much more put-on to me. The infusion of the quotes and the way the defendants’ testimony was formatted more like poetry than a traditional piece of dramatic literature was almost off-putting.
Our discussion about the nature of the trial itself in Baltimore was further thought-provoking for me. The fact that the defendants declined to participate in jury selection at first felt like some kind of respectful protest by non-participation. Processing the idea that the defendants still elected for a jury trial changed my perspective though. American citizens have a right to trial by jury, but they also have the prerogative to opt out and pursue trial by judge. The Catonsville Nine didn’t go that far, though. It was still about putting on a show, as demonstrated by the appeal to the jury in the closing statement to emphasis character over the law. The Chicago Eight were so openly theatrical; they made no attempt to appear anything but. The theatricality of the Catonsville Nine felt more calculated to me, especially considering that the Chicago Eight were forced together into their trial while the Catonsville Nine planned for it all along. This is why I think I actually find Voices of the Chicago Eight more “believable”.
I agree with Madison that “believability” might not be the appropriate word here, and “relatability” might be a better word. I think both plays are believable in the sense that they mostly used lines from the original trial transcript, so I am not particularly concerned about the authors using content that contradicted the truth. However, relatability does drastically differ between the two plays. In addition to all the reasons you gave, one idea struck me as I read through the other posts—martyrdom. In a way, both the Eight and the Nine were martyrs, sacrificing personal freedom in exchange for exposure to the corrupt system. However, the Eight seemed to be “forced” into martyrdom, while the Nine planned to be martyrs. The Nine had higher moral standards, were more polite, and showed more character through their service to the poor. So it would be logical to think that the Nine were “better” martyrs and deserved more respect. But being “better” has the negative effect of off-putting the ordinary person. The Nine did perform a heroic act, with careful planning, but it was almost too heroic that the ordinary person would just think that they could never do anything close to that. On the other hand, the Eight being “forced” together automatically drew the public closer, since anyone could be forced into a similar situation. Furthermore, the Eight’s natural emotional response to the injustice also reflected human nature, despite indicating non-perfection. So, the Eight ended up being more relatable than the Nine. This also made me think that perhaps complicated religious or ideological justification of a movement’s cause was unnecessary; the public would only be put off by it. Instead, they just needed an example that they could relate to and follow.
This is a very interesting argument to make, and I agree that “believability” may not be the correct word to describe the content of these plays. I agree that the format of the Catonsville Nine trial was “off-putting” in the sense that it was generally monologues. One would wonder how the work could be performed on stage. Reading it in a theatrical format takes away from the power of the stories that are being told by the Catonsville Nine. Since the stories are generally monologues, it seems that it would be more powerful as short, separate biographies or autobiographies of each member of the nine. The trial that the Chicago Eight go through, however, is theatrical by nature, and is made more powerful on the stage because the events actually happened, and the lives of the “characters” go on after the play.
I somewhat agree with the point you made. The Chicago Eight didn’t plan to be put on trial they were just lumped into it together. So they decided to make a mockery of it and put on a show to draw attention to they injustice they faced. For the Catonsville Nine, all along from when they waited to be arrested to the trial they were planning to protest together. However once we actually get to the courthouse – where our readings were set – don’t the authors both have pretty much the same amount of credibility because their goal was to protest and put on a show? Does how the defendants met each other change the fact that they both used the trial as a platform to protest and then later write the books about their experiences on trial?
I understand why you might find the Voices of the Chicago Eight to be more believable with the attention to detail and seemingly spontaneous theatrics and protest in their trial. However, one could also argue that the theatrics in the Voices of the Chicago Eight were so pronounced that they also could have been played up or enhanced by the author’s memory to make the court and the entire government institution look ridiculous, because that was definitely Hayden’s opinion. I also would say that I do not think Hayden was lying, but maybe the Trial of the Catonsville Nine has equal credibility since both plays were written by one of the parties on trial, so both works most definitely have an agenda.