Autobiography of Red | Anne Carson

Autobiography of Red by Anne Carson is comprised of five introductory pieces, the autobiography itself, and a concluding interview. Each of these framing pieces contributes to the style and shape of the narrative in their own way, providing a solid structure and foundation around which the world of Carson’s re-imagining of Stesichoros’s story fragments take place. They introduce the reader to the setting of Carson’s story (or lack thereof), as well as introduces the motifs and recurring elements of the story, set the tone, and provide a sense of closure to the narrative as a whole.

The first introductory piece, titled “Red Meat: What difference did Stesichoros make?” (pages 3-7) serves to introduce to the mythology upon which Autobiography of Red is based, namely the Greek epic poems written by Stesichoros on Herakles and the fragments of his poem found regarding the character of Geryon. More importantly than that it introduces us to Carson’s style of writing, placing ancient text in a modern-day setting and mixing the two time periods freely and liberally, with a touch of her own humour and wit as well. This is evidenced in the first line of the section and the novel: “He [Stesichoros] came after Homer and before Gertrude Stein, a difficult interval for a poet” (3). This sections continues to mix the very dry description of Stesichoros’s career as a writer and his peer reviews with dashes of humour and reference, culminating with the closing statement of “The fragment numbers tell you roughly how the pieces fell out of the box” (7). The strategically prepares the reader for the type of narrative that will take up the majority of the Autobiography, mixing Homeric-age epic with modern-day setting and Americana, preparing the reader for the surreal nature of the text with regard to its placement, setting, and use of metaphor.

The second section, “Red Meat: Fragments of Stesichoros” (9-14) contain the supposedly-true excerpts found of Stesichoros’s writing on the subject of Geryon. Here for the first time we see for certain the mixing of the ancient and the new, providing the reader with the entire story of Geryon (and his death at the hands of Herakles) as told by Carson’s fictional version of Stesichoros upon which the Autobiography is then based. The Autobiography itself then becomes a fictional narrative based on a fictional narrative derived from a fictional narrative, and Carson employs many meta-textual references to provide humour and character. It creates a separation between the mythical Geryon and the modern Geryon upon which the Autobiography is based while at the same time mixing and intermingling them into one character. Alongside sections that might well have been taken straight from Stesichoros, are sections that made reference to twentieth-century home life, such as “Section III: Geryon’s Parents,” a scene that could have been taken from the dinner table of any typical middle-class home and mentions modern-items such as a taxi (10). “Section V: Geryon’s Reversible Destiny” contains a similar reference, in which after a scene describing a scene between Geryon and his mother there is a line that states: “Coil of the hot plate starting to glow” (10).  Narratively, these side-by-side narratives and settings serve to prepare the reader for the Autobiography, which will be told in a similar style.

“Red Meat: Fragments of Stesichoros” also begins the returning motif of the colour red in the overall narrative. There is mention made of “hemorrhaging stairs,” the “red length of [Geryon’s] mind,” and his mother’s “red right cheek” (all 10). Red will become a recurring element in the story very quickly, and is used alternatively to describe moments of passion and emotion, but also to demonstrate Geryon’s view of himself as a monster.

“Appendixes A, B, and C” (15-20) serve as a tongue-in-cheek mock analysis of one of the statements taken from  “Red Meat: What difference did Stesichoros make?” in which it is stated that Stesichoros was struck blind by Helen after writing something unsavoury about her. It is one last melding of the serious and the ridiculous by Carson before the story begins in earnest, culminating in an overtly-silly logical equation fallacy that takes up the entirety of Appendix C. Like the other sections it brings the reader into the narrative voice of the novel, both grounded and self-referent in its portrayal of itself as being something serious and scholarly while being ridiculous at the same time. It prepares the reader for the narrative ahead and plants the seed that while the Autobiography deals with serious issues and themes, its details are not to be taken too seriously or scrutinized (such as the actual setting and locale of the novel, which is hinted to be in grossly contradictory areas of North America at different points in the Autobiography. Without the benefit of the preceding sections and the Appendixes, there is a possibility that a reader would have gotten lost in these details. The logical equation in Appendix C, more than anything else, reminds us not to allow this to happen.

The novel closes with a fictitious interview between an unnamed interviewer and Stesichoros himself, titled simply “Interview” (147-149). Stesichoros is portrayed as absent minded and is unable to explain his intentions regarding the text or even his own history, such as the matter of his blindness at the hands of Helen (who he claims did not exist, leading back to a the question in Appendix C that states the, if we meet Stesichoros on our way back and ask him about Helen, he will either lie or he will not). Stesichoros also claims he was “responsible for everyone’s visibility,” in that vision poured out of his eyes rather than entered it and that he made the world what it was for others to see and that if he blinked the world would have been momentarily blind, and that this continued until 1907 (148). The overt silliness and often confusing nature of the Interview relates back to the silly and often confusing nature of Appendix C, providing a loose close-by-return to the entire novel. While the sections at the beginning of the text served as a way to bring the reader into the novel, the Interview releases us from it: after the death of Geryon and the end of a short, tragic life the reader is granted a bit of freedom and humour. It returns to the meta-textual type of narrative that it started out as, now a fictional interview with a fictional version of a real Greek historical figure regarding the fictional story based on the fictional story based on the legend that he wrote. It ends on an incomplete note as Stesichoros says: “That’s three,” stopping short of explaining what he means or in what context one is meant to take the statement. The concluding section of the novel does not provide easy answers. It does not summerize the narrative or wrap it up in a clean package for easy digestion. It ends just as it began: confusing and self-defeating in the information it provides while providing insight into the mind of the “author” (Stesichoros, not Carson) and the context that the preceding story should be viewed in.

In the end the four sections preceding the main narrative of Autobiography of Red and the one after it provide the context of the novel itself. They shape the nature of the narrative as being fictional even within itself and make it hard to distinguish the facts of the story from the fiction of it, such as the true nature of Geryon’s wings or his status as both the Greco-era monster and the twentieth-century boy coming-of-age. Though humourous and revealing they can also be maddening and confusing, and there is much that can be said of any one line of them. They are contradictory and complimentary, much like the epic poems and analysis of epic poems that they are based on, and help usher the reader not only into the world of Geryon, but also into his frame of mind.