In class these past two weeks we’ve discussed “Voices of the Chicago Eight” and “The Trial of the Catonsville Nine”, two works with many similarities. While most of our discussions have revolved around the relatability we might feel as college students with the Chicago Eight or the differences in how the judges held the trials, we only briefly touched on the reliablity of the narratives. Importantly, neither of them is a complete transcript of the court proceedings. “Voices of the Chicago Eight” is a sampling of the most exciting moments in the courtroom (but maintaining the exact words used in the court transcript), while it appears that “The Trial of the Catonsville Nine” takes more liberties to paraphrase the court transcript and inject additional content.
I think it’s worth stressing that neither of these being unedited court transcripts should change the way we are interpreting and discussing them. In class when we have discussed Vinen, it made sense to regard everything in the book as true, and we even were willing to meet it with some degree of skepticism, acknowledging that his personal biases might have detracted from its reliability. As we have read numerous fiction works, we’ve always been heavily aware of the fact that the books are only based on historical fact, being careful to never accept them as the truth. I feel that in our reading of these two plays, we have not met them with the appropriate hesitation. The moments Tom Hayden decided to include in “Voices of the Chicago Eight” (and perhaps even more importantly, those he chose to omit) surely provide us with a different picture of history than reading the entire unedited court transcript would. The same principle can be applied to the Cantonsville Nine, except it should be met with an even greater caution due to the greater liberties taken in adjusting the court transcript
I think we have a tendency to put excessive trust in literature the closer it gets to being an exact recounting of primary source history. However, there is incredible danger in this. Even little editorial changes in the literature of this variety have the potential to sway the opinion of the reader who has let down their guard and meets the text without any skepticism. It’s very possible that Tom Hayden and Philip Berrigan have portrayed history in a very accurate way, but as we discuss this literature it is crucial to discuss it as what it is, literature and not precise history.