Because of the fantastic talent of its protagonist, Harlan Crane, and the mysteriousness of his character, Millhauser’s “Precursor of the Cinema” seems like fiction. On the contrary, there are various instances throughout the tale that demand it be taken as truth. The beginning of the short story reads like a research paper or a historical document, both of which require evidence. The evidence begins with “Plateau’s Phenakistoscope, Horner’s Zoetrope, Reynaud’s Praxinoscope…Daguerre’s Diorama.” (179) These references are of actual inventors-Joseph Plateau, William George Horner, Charles Emile Reynaud, and Louis Daguerre all lived in the 1800’s, the same time frame as Harlan Crane. The evidence continues to build on page 180 when the narrator says, “We do know, from records discovered in 1954, that Crane studied drawing in his early twenties at Cooper Union and the National Academy of Design. His first illustrations for Harper’s Weekly…” First, the narrator mentions “records discovered in 1954” which means they found proof that Harlan Crane attended those institutions; they didn’t assume or suggest, they referenced evidence. Secondly, Cooper Union and the National Academy of Design are real places located in New York City, where Harlan Crane lived. Not only that, but Harper’s Weekly was a real magazine until it was discontinued in 1912.
The narrator continues to tell us that “there is evidence, in the correspondence of friends, to suggest that Crane became interested in photography at this time.” (180). The narrator presents another source besides records-letters. Presuming that this story is a historical document or research paper, then citing two different sources is what you what would do when trying to convince someone of your position — in this case, the mysterious Harlan Crane. And the proof doesn’t stop there; the narrator then supports the authenticity of Crane’s paintings. As the narrator reports on page 183, “From half a dozen newspaper reports, from a letter by Linton Burgis to his sister, and from a handful of scattered entries in journals and diaries, we can reconstruct the paintings sufficiently to understand the perplexing impressions they caused, though many details remain unrecoverable.” Here the narrator lists three separate sources for Crane’s fantastic paintings. Not only that, but the narrator then proceeds to list the paintings and describe them. This is just another point in the favor of the reality of Harlan Crane.
Furthermore, to really cement their “paper” on Harlan Crane, the narrator references quotes from people who experienced Crane’s fantastic paintings or who were a close friend. On page 199, we read that “One woman, a Mrs. Amelia Hartman, said that it reminded her of immersing herself in the ocean, but an ocean whose water was dry.” Here we have a direct quote from a woman who experienced Crane’s Picnic on the Hudson. Two pages earlier, we read about a conversation between Harlan Crane and his closest friend, W.C. Curtis, taken directly from Curtis’s dairy. Additionally, on page 198, the narrator mentions the following songs: “Aura Lee”, “Sweet Genevieve,” “Carry Me Back to Old Virginny,” and “I’ll Take You Home Again, Kathleen.” These real songs were written in the late 1870’s to the 1880’s. The narrator mentions them because they appear in the accounts of Picnic on the Hudson.
With the use of so many sources, the various mentions of real places, songs, people and inventions, and the direct quotes from people of the era, Millhauser forces us to recognize one thing: Harlan Crane was real. Yes, he was mysterious; yes, there were parts of his life unaccounted for; yes, he was a mysterious figure, but haven’t there been numerous people like him throughout history? And yes, his paintings essentially “came to life,” but who are we to say that it wasn’t real? That he didn’t have a fantastic talent? Who are we to say it didn’t actually happen? I’m sure when Joseph Plateau and William George Horner invented their creations, the public believed them to be fantastic. That’s what Millhauser shows us in “Precursor of the Cinema”: the fantastic is part of reality.
I’m not sure I understand your argument here. Do you believe that Harlan Crane was literally a real man who lived, or are you pointing out how authors can integrate historical facts into their work to give them more weight as historical documents?
Rachel,
If we focus only on the story itself and its format, that is being a historical document or a research paper, then Harlan Crane was real because of all the evidence referenced in the story. Forget that “Precursor of the Cinema” is part of a short story collection and focus on the work itself. I believe Millhauser wrote it this way to show that the fantastic is part of reality. Do you understand what I’m saying?
I understand what you are saying. It did feel like a research paper though, but I was able to follow you in what you wanted to convey. The Fantastic has lots of layers and different realms in which we understand. Describing what the Fantastic is, is ultimately fantastic.