I just finished reading Toni Morrison's novel, The Bluest Eye, for my summer school class.  It is the first time I've returned to this book in a long time, and it is one of the most meaningful stories in my life because it is possibly THE reason why I've been engaged with storytelling and literature as a future career path throughout my adolescent and adult life.  It was the first story of any kind that forced me, a self-absorbed 15 year-old, to experience a tragedy in the story and linger in the gray area between wrong and right.  Up until then, I saw very few gray areas...and the ones I did see, I quickly contained and boxed it into a category of right or wrong.  This book really impacted me deeply.  It changed the way I had been taught to think by making me pause before assigning values and judgements.
I was taken aback when I returned to the novel this week and read the afterword only to find out that Morrison didn't think that this story worked.  She indicates that "many readers remain touched but not moved."  I've been reflecting on this distinction between being touched as something that makes you feel something versus being moved, which indicates motion or action in response to what it is that moved you.  In thinking in general about what touches me versus what actually provokes me to action, I've been thinking a lot about the stories that are being told about the Morganza spillway, which is only a few hours from my hometown.  
I totally understand the decision to do this, and it definitely seems like the best scenario among a host of bad scenarios.  One thing I keep coming back to, however, is how much of this story is being told through the rationale of this decision rather than telling the story of the people in Butte La Rose and why these communities matter.  It seems that when natural disasters like this happen, we immediately jump to the decision making process and questioning the process.  This is an important part of the story, but it isn't the whole story.  In this story, "success" will be determined by the governer, the army corps of engineers, mayors and other leaders making decisions that best serve their communities and fellow statesmen and women.  
And now, what about the other part of the story, the real reason WHY it matters that opening this spillway could be devastating?  It isn't the flooding itself, it isn't the sheer devastation and the loss of property.  The real story here that doesn't seem to be told widely is the story of those communities.  We keep hearing about the material loss that these people will suffer.  But what about the immaterial losses that will happen?  What about the communities that may be permanently dispersed and spread out like what happened after Katrina to never be fully put back together again?  A lot of Louisiana's culture revolves around storytelling rather than documented fact or preserved artifacts in archives. It's not enough to just tell the facts about a place, you have to know the story, like the lived story, not a documented unchanging one. 
It's part of how we know each other's Louisiana heritage -- by the myths that we know about our area that you only know through living there.  Things that aren't necessarily true, but it isn't not true either and it is a part of the place as much as the bayou and sugar cane fields.  Everybody in my hometown knows that you honk three times when you cross over the Ron Pon Pon bridge to alert the teens having sex underneath the bridge.  We also know that some lady who left her house in South Louisiana for the weekend came home to a whole house infested with snakes.  We don't know exactly where, but we know it is likely enough to be true that we continue to tell the story and are sure to take proper precautions when evacuating for hurricanes and whatnot so that the same thing doesn't happen to us.
So,  I'm back to my question of what touches me about what is happening in Louisiana right now...as I am in a conference in Arizona and will return to my adult home of Washington, DC soon...I couldn't feel further away from what is happening down there.  The news isn't helping me feel connected and talking to people while I'm not there just isn't the same since I'm not experiencing the same things they are.  I know that the media has lots of problems, biases, and profit-related interests that govern their decisions for how the news is presented. So, I'm not even going to go down that road right now.  I'm interested in the idea that as informed citizens, we feel informed through the facts even though the facts don't really tell us anything...especially about this particular situation down there.  And if we want to know more, how do we know what to ask?  What would we have to do differently and how would we have to think differently to enter into that space of a different kind of knowing?  What does it take for each of us to be moved by what is happening down there?  
It isn't simply a matter of co-opting the feelings of the people down there by expressing how you would feel if the same thing were happening in your hometown.  It removes the agency from a people who are already being stripped of a lot.  It doesn't honor the uniqueness of those communities and the list goes on about why that doesn't work out.  So, I'm wondering what it feels like to consider a much deeper transformation in my thinking and my interaction with news, facts, and what we consider knowledge at all.  In this instance, for example, how do I engage with my home state in a meaningful way that doesn't over intellectualize or over personalize a situation that I'm not currently a part of? 
It also reminds me of one of my favorite songs by Peter Bjorn & John (and by the way, if anyone knows how to post an actual video to this and not just a link...pray do tell...I've been trying and can't make it happen): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5uOfj7ukjU.  This song seems to get to the heart of the matter...literally...how material things like letters and photos are no replacement for the immaterial emotion of stories and living truths.