Category: Uncategorized

Loading Likes...

I noticed that both Winterbourne and Daisy are very theatrical but in separate ways. While Daisy is theatrical in that she wishes her life to be dramatic, Winterbourne is theatrical in that he tries to manufacture the way he is being perceived. A moment that I thought was silly and revealed the nature of both characters was when Daisy’s mother, Daisy, Eugenio, and Winterbourne were deliberating whether Daisy would accompany Winterbourne on the boat. Winterbourne strongly desires Daisy’s company but when asked casually states, “as mademoiselle pleases” (James, 21). Winterbourne conceals his true excitement regarding Daisy’s company to appear polite and refined to those around him. Daisy becomes upset at his passivity and frustratedly remarks, “Oh, I hoped you would make a fuss! I don’t care to go now” (James, 21). Daisy is more open about her desires, admitting that she wanted Winterbourne to fight for her company. Both reveal in this moment their wish to manufacture the moment. Winterbourne acts artificially to appear easy going while Daisy reveals that she wishes for Winterbourne to be more forthcoming about his feelings so there is more excitement. It does not seem enough to Daisy to go on the boat for the experience itself but wants Winterbourne to openly display his desire for her. Daisy refuses to be defined by the expectations placed on women in society but has her own expectations for how she lives her life. Winterbourne is much more concerned with his reputation and following into societal norms.  

Loading Likes...

Stowe’s Uncle Tom’s Cabin and James’ “Daisy Miller” both have the death of a beautiful young woman as a central plot point.  Stowe’s Eva is angelic and good, living a life near perfection and loved by all who know her. It is said of Eva that she always had to die, she was simply to perfect for this world.  James’ Daisy is the opposite. While she is also described as beautiful and innocent at first, it becomes clear that Daisy is “an American flirt” and she is scorned by much of the society around her. Daisy also dies, as as result of her impropriety (taking late walks alone with an Italian gentleman). Despite being viewed very differently, they both have a quality of otherworldliness, and thus they had to die. 

Neither girl fits into the societal norms of their time. Eva doesn’t care at all about the norms of Southern society.  She cares deeply about the enslaved people in her household, and treats them as human, ignoring the rebukes of her mother.  She is kind, loving of everyone, and simply too perfect.  Stowe describes how, by her heavenly graces, it should have been expected from birth that she would not live a full life, and many characters note that she seems to have been set aside for a purpose, sent from Heaven on a short sojourn to brighten their lives and increase their faith. 

Daisy is too forward, not concerned enough about the opinions of other ladies. She is careless, selfish, and at times cruel. She is like Eva only in her looks and divergence from normal society, otherwise she is the opposite. Where Eva is perceptive and wise beyond her years, Daisy is thoughtless and rude. But like Eva she cares nothing for the things of this world. Like Eva, she refuses to heed the advice thrown at her and continues down her own path, doing whatever she pleases. Her short time on Earth brought her notoriety, and despite this, her death was mourned by many.

Both girls represent a sort of otherworldliness in society, and the fact that they both die young promotes an interesting idea on deviating from the norm. It is almost as if certain characters, being far outside the usual, simply cannot exist in the world in which they were born. An idea such as this is logical in a text from the 19th century, as this was an era in which tolerance was not so widely practiced and people were held to strict expectations in order to fit into society, otherwise risking being an outcast, or social death.

Loading Likes...

Apparently it’s perfectly fine for Winterbourne to offer to take Daisy Miller on late evening excursions, but should any other man attempt such cruel notions, he will soon find himself the worst type of human in the eyes of Winterbourne. Winterbourne takes immense issue with the late night excursion Daisy takes with Giovanni in Rome and blames her death upon it, but this blame and judgment disregards that Winterbourne wished to do almost the same thing. Upon meeting Ms. Miller, Winterbourne desired to take her on a midnight boat ride before it had even been a full day knowing each other. The love story or tragedy of “Daisy Miller: A Study,” by Henry James, relies on the hypocrisy of social etiquette and the leniency versus judgment offered to different individuals on the basis of prejudice.

Winterbourne cultivated an affection for Ms. Miller in the story, but paralleling every feature of hers that he adored was his constant acknowledgement, judgment, and beration of her lack of mind for social customs, or her wildness as he described it. He never truly loved or cared for Daisy, but rather cared to critique her and to control her. Everything about her that he found intriguing, her carefree manner, her spontaneity, her openness, were the very assets of her personality that he constantly sought to dismantle. Arguably, it would have been more of a tragedy should Daisy have returned Winterbourne’s feelings before death because should she have entered a relationship with him, I firmly believe that he would have crushed her.

Clearly, Winterbourne and Giovanni weren’t that different in their affection for Daisy and it is doubtful that Giovanni intended to get her ill and eventually cause her death. Other suitors who did the same were simply fortunate enough to not suffer the consequences. If anything, Giovanni was shown to impose less on Daisy’s personality. She could be free with him and explore Rome without fear for judgment of walking too long or in the wrong area. He offered her freedom with his affections. In addition, the primary argument against his character seemed to criticize him for not being of a high enough social standing. Winterbourne, who spent much time criticizing him, could only critique his class, intellect, and not his cruelty because there was none. Winterbourne was the one who wished to change Daisy.

I find this connection of ideas in a text written in the 19th century fascinating. It almost seems to argue against social conventions and in the valuing of character over someone’s willingness or ability to follow arbitrary standards. Daisy may have died, but Winterbourne will always love a woman that he wanted only to change. He will suffer the torment of losing the idealized version of Daisy that he wished to crush her into. Giovanni, however, while missing the real Daisy, will at least have the memory of her as more than a flirt or an American, but as the woman he loved. I believe the memories that each suitor is left with say much more about their characters than anything else.

Loading Likes...

In James’s “Daisy Miller,” it is interesting to think about the symbol of the daisy flower. It is definitely a complex and multi-layered element that I am still trying to figure out. I do think James must have meant for this to be understood with a deeper complexity. At first, the daisy appears to most obviously represent Daisy Miller herself, paralleling a sense of innocence, a kind of simplicity, and perhaps even a bit naiveté. Like the flower, Daisy herself is beautiful and almost unassuming, and is very charming to those around her with her natural grace and liveliness. This depiction of her aligns with the initial impression of Daisy as a very carefree and unspoiled American girl, untouched by some of the constraints of European society. At the same time though, I wonder if the daisy can also be seen as a symbol of Daisy’s vulnerability and fragility. Just like a fragile daisy flower can be easily picked, wilted, or crushed, in the end Daisy’s character is unable to withstand the social expectations and norms of the European aristocracy. The fact that she refuses or in some ways is simply unable to conform to these expectations, is what ultimately leads to her tragic downfall, which seems somewhat similar to what might happen to a flower when it comes in contact with a strong force. Most of all, I do admire the way Daisy is defiant and independent, and remains true to herself despite the warnings from those around her. She has a rebellious spirit and refuses to be confined by societal standards, and constantly is shifting and evolving, which all seem like qualities that could also be understood through the symbol of a flower. Through its various interpretations (just a few of which I have made predictions about, though I’m certain there are more) the daisy serves as a powerful symbol, and its depth highlights the depth and complexities of Daisy’s character and the challenges she faces in navigating the social hierarchy of Europe in the 19th century.

Loading Likes... One of the most interesting things I found about these short stories was goophering and how it highlights the cultural differences between African Americans and white people. In most of the stories, Chesnutt uses goophering as the great equalizer between enslaved African Americans and their white owners. When a problem arises that was impossible for the enslaved African Americans to solve by mundane means, for example getting Sandy out of having to go to a far-off plantation or getting Sis Becky back, they would turn to a wise woman who can goopher. Goophering often takes the form of transforming a person into a different creature or plant, but it can also take the form of a curse or by commanding animals to perform certain tasks. On the surface, it looks like goophering is a part of Julius’s stories as a coping mechanism, merely an element of escapism made to make those who listen feel better about their situation. This is certainly what the white narrator believes, calling Julius’s stories “ingenious fairy tales” and saying that African Americans will “never rise in the world until they throw off these childish superstitions” (58). But to Julius, goophering is very real and he believes in the power that it holds. To him it’s not escapism at all, rather it’s how the world works. African American culture is so closely tied to the land, partly because of slavery, and Chesnutt uses goophering to portray that.

Loading Likes...

Chesnutt completely subverts the reader’s expectations at the end of “The Passing of Grandison” with the revelation of Grandison’s grand escape. There are some details in the story that lead me to think that Chesnutt had Uncle Tom’s Cabin in the back of his mind as he was writing it:

1. Tom: the enslaved man whom Dick originally planned to go North with.
2. Grandison the “loyal slave”: the fidelity of Grandison throughout certainly reminds me of Stowe’s Uncle Tom.
3. The title: “Passing” suggests that Grandison dies, as Uncle Tom does in Stowe’s novel. However, by the end, it is revealed that “passing” refers to Grandison’s grand successful crossing of Lake Erie to Canada, thus flipping the script.

Throughout the story, we get glimpses of racially prejudiced views from the characters, and these are guised in a manner that a person who’s racist/supported slavery couldn’t tell that Chesnutt is actually being satirical.

He did not even scold Grandison; how could he, indeed, find fault with one who so sensibly recognized his true place in the economy of civilization, and kept it with such touching fidelity?

(Chesnutt, “The Passing of Grandison” Chapter III)

The story masks itself as a pro-slavery text to anyone who isn’t familiar with Chesnutt and his other works, which makes the twist at the end even more fun. I like to imagine Chesnutt just giggling to himself as he was writing these stories at the thought of some old former slaveholder in 1899 (who was, of course, no longer able to own people, but still held on to their racist views) reading and agreeing with these thoughts and then being completely flabbergasted at the end.

Also, I thought this detail was interesting:

Mr. Johnson, the shoemaker’s brother, welcomed uncle Wellington to Groveland, and listened with eager delight to the news of the old town, from which he himself had run away many years before, and followed the North Star to Groveland.

(Chesnutt, “The Passing of Grandison”, Chapter II)

The North Star, which was the symbol of freedom among enslaved people (also Douglass’ The North Star newspaper), leads to Groveland, the land of slaveholders in the south.

Loading Likes...

I felt that Baxter’s Procrustes poses an interesting question on the value of literature. The story asks whether literature has value intrinsic to itself and its writing, or do we create value in literature based on our appreciation of certain works? I thought this question was particularly relevant to our class, since several of the books we read were not popular at the time of publication, but have since been labeled “classics” by academia. Baxter reminds me a little bit of the stereotype of the tortured poet, and it’s interesting that his work was so highly regarded before it had even been read. 

For example, one of the characters says that “The author’s view of life… as expressed in these beautiful lines, will help us fit our shoulders for the heavy burden of life” (106). Yet the committee decided that they trusted Baxter so much they wouldn’t even need to read his manuscript before publishing it, so how could they know it “will help us fit our shoulders for the heavy burden of life”? The language used here is vague, and could apply to nearly every piece of writing. I think the author is trying to call out the hypocrisy of literary criticism that uses fancy language and grand statements instead of focusing on the specifics. 

I think the author is also trying to point out that, even if literature is a form of art, the book-making business is still a business. The committee, seeing the success of sealed books, decides to make Baxter’s Procrustes a sealed edition as well. And even though they have been duped, they are still willing to make money off the book, and “a sealed copy of Baxter’s Procrustes was knocked down, after spirited bidding, for two hundred and fifty dollars” (108). While literature is often shown in an idealized light, as a pure form of art that reveals truths about the human conditions, the story of Baxter’s Procrustes shows how the literary industry is as filled with flaws and hypocrisy as any other industry. 

Loading Likes...

Out of the short stories, I personally spent the most time on “Dave’s Neckliss” – the dialect is much more pronounced than any narratives of enslaved people we’ve read so far, so it was challenging for me to follow. I had to really slow down and approached the text almost as if I was reading a new language.

The process led me to think about the conditions in which these dialects are form – from forced migration of earlier generations of Africans to America, and how they were socially and culturally isolated, being denied basic educational rights as simple as reading and writing American English, thus propelling African-Americans to over time develop a sort of creole language, the blending between American English and native African languages that fostered communication among themselves and with white people and slaveowners.

There are several implications of this dialect, one being it is a dialect formed from racial oppression, and yet there is also a sense of power and identity in its resilience. Countless orations of tales, stories, songs were created through the dialect, and now a fraction of those can be experienced through Chesnutt’s attempt at transcribing this vernacular onto the page. However, a thought lingers on regarding narratives written first-hand by enslaved people such as Frederick Douglass and how the dialect isn’t very pronounced in their writings as much, likely because they didn’t have the social standings and the privilege of someone like Chesnutt to experiment more freely with language to their audience. They had to conform to a more “perfect” American English to represent themselves in the fight against slavery. It feels… paradoxical.

Loading Likes...

In the beginning chapters of Chestnutt’s Tales of Conjure and the Color Line, the character Julius represents the intelligence of enslaved people and the  possibility of autonomy on a plantation. In contrast to novels such as Harriet Beecher Stowe’s Uncle Tom’s Cabin where even the most intelligent and caring enslaved people are spoken about as pets to their masters, Chestnutt creates a dynamic where Julius consistently outwits his white enslavers. Although, there are flaws with the representation of race in this novel, this relationship between a white enslaver and a black enslaved person emphasizes the enslaved person’s identity as an individual person instead of just as a “slave”. 

Uncle Julius’s first story is about the Vineyard that the masters of the novel are soon to buy. Julius reveals that “but dat Yankee done dug too close under de roots, en prune de branches too close ter de vime, en all dat lime en ashes done burn’ de life out’n de vines, en dey des kep’ a-with’in’ en a-swivelin'” (Chestnutt, 10). Julius tries to convince the couple that the vineyard was ruined by this past Yankee and that the spirit of the enslaved man, Henry, haunts the vineyard and makes crops unprofitable. Throughout the tale Julius tells the story with such passion and detail, that it becomes quite easy to believe his often ridiculous tails. We soon find out that “Uncle Julius had occupied a cabin on the place for many years, and derived a respectable revenue from the product of the neglected grapevines” (Chestnutt, 11). By telling a story about the grapes, Julius outwitted the potential buyers of the grapevines, and consequently, was able to live similarly to a free man for many years. Julius’s storytelling skills represents one of the only powers that enslaved people are allowed to have: verbal communication. Although most enslaved people are silenced, Julius found a way around this problem and began to use his gift for storytelling to benefit his own life. This is seen again when Julius tells the story about Sandy and the schoolhouse in order to have a place for the Sandy Run Colored Baptist Church to meet and the story about Dave and his ham in order to walk home with plenty of ham in his pocket. 

Loading Likes...

When reading “The Goophered Grapevine” I was intrigued by the narrator who I thought was extremely concerned over his reputation. As he is writing the story in past tense, he protects his reputation by suggesting that he was aware of Uncle Julius’ insincerity from the moment he began to interact with him. When thinking back to his first meeting with Uncle Julius he notes that the way that he ate his grapes made him instantly aware that the “performance was no new thing” (2). I took his wording of “performance” to suggest that he could immediately tell that Uncle Julius was disingenuous. As the narrator’s immediate characterization seems impossible and unsupported, it suggests that he wants to assure the audience that he was not, even for a moment, tricked by Uncle Julius. Additionally, the narrator emphasizes that he recognized intelligence through Uncle Julius’ eyes, supporting his own skilled judgment. He notices “there was a shrewdness in his eyes, too, which was not altogether African” (3). This detail also seems impossible/unreasonable and rooted in confirmation bias as he learns later the Uncle Julius is one trustworthy. Lastly, without any modesty, he speaks to the success of his decision to by the vineyard and the influence it has had in inspiring others from the North to seek opportunities in the South. He claims that the vineyard “has been for a long time in a thriving condition and is often referred to by the local press as a striking illustration of the opportunities open to Northern Capital in the development of Southern industries” (11). His narration suggests that the cunning of the southern man is unable to stop the superior intelligence of himself and others in the North from having success in the South. 

Loading Likes...

At the heart of “The Goophered Grapevine” is Chesnutt’s use of African American Vernacular English, which plays a critical role in authenticating the narrative’s cultural setting. Julius’s use of dialect within the story is not merely a linguistic choice but a strategic one that adds depth and authenticity to the narrative. Through his language, Julius also conveys wisdom, humor, and a subtle critique of the social order. This is juxtaposed with the standard English and language of the narrator, inviting the reader to see the racial and cultural divides from multiple angles, enriching the story’s texture and enhancing its thematic depth. The standard English used by John reflects his outsider status and his limited understanding of the local culture, which is intricately tied to the land he wishes to purchase.

The many effects surrounding the manipulation of language and dialect got me thinking about the purpose of said speech, and the deeper meanings it facilitates. It propagates a feeling of authenticity in the characters, serves as a medium for passing down stories and traditions, and more often than not acts as a form of resistance to the dominant culture at play. 

Language in the short story is also laden with symbolism and irony. Chesnutt uses the vernacular to subvert traditional narratives about the South. The grapevine can be seen as a symbol of the tangled and painful history of slavery and its lingering effects in the postbellum South. The story itself, a blend of folklore and supernatural elements, directly challenges the romanticized portrayals of the antebellum era prevalent in Chesnutt’s time, the “Gone with the Wind”-esque plantation lifestyle of glamour and elegance. This irony in Julius’s storytelling is most evident when he uses his narrative to influence the perceptions of the white couple, subtly critiquing their naivety and their economic motivations. This then becomes an almost strategic act of persuasion, highlighting the complexities of power and manipulation through language.

 

Loading Likes...

One of the most striking aspects I noticed while reading “The Goophered Grapevine” was Chesnutt’s use of alternating perspectives. Especially compared to the other short stories I have read, it is rare to find a story which changes perspectives because the effect can come off as jarring to the reader due to the length of the narrative. However, in terms of this story, I felt as if Chesnutt’s employment of dual perspectives enhances larger symbolic representation. 

eThe first perspective we’re introduced to is the Northern couple, representing a skeptical and rational worldview due to their distance from Southern traditions and superstitions. The Northern couple represents a more skeptical and rational worldview, shaped by their distance from the Southern traditions and superstitions. Their perspective offers readers a glimpse into the attitudes of outsiders encountering the complexities of Southern culture for the first time. On the other hand, the second perspective of Julius McAdoo embodies the voice of the South, deeply entrenched in its history, traditions, and folklore. Julius’s narration immerses the reader in Southern life with stories of conjure and mysticism passed down through generations. Julius’s perspective, contrary to the Northern couple, humanizes the African American experience in the South, offering a counterpoint to the outsider perspective we are introduced to

Overall, I felt as though Chesnutt used this technique exceptionally well. Not only was it a unique choice compared to the other short stories I have read—inside and outside of this class—but it also explores themes of power dynamics and agency, becoming the central focal point of the narrative. While the Northern couple initially holds the economic power as the plantation owners, Julius uses his historical knowledge and superstitions as a form of agency and resistance to provide a nuanced exploration of the cultural divide between the North and the South during the postbellum period.

– Siena Rose

Loading Likes...

Chesnutt’s “The Sheriff’s Children” develops further the moral and emotional complexities within slave families. In the Harriet Jacobs’ narrative, slavery affects Jacobs ability to create a family in the image she desires, or that her grandmother has been able to create. With this new perspective that Chesnutt presents, we are seeing a white father of an enslaved child grapple with his past decisions when face-to-face with his son. Additionally, we see the son grapple with his identity. Both of these authors seem to imply that slavery leaves a mark (physically in the image of their children or skin color and emotionally) on families who have been created by the sins, evils, wrong decisions, or harsh conditions of slavery. The son exclaims “You gave me a white man’s spirit, and you made me a slave, and crushed it out” (43). He goes further to explain that “no degree of learning or wisdom will change the color of my skin and that I shall always wear what in my own country is a badge of degradation” (43). This “badge” is immediately apparent as the sheriff’s son is the sole prisoner, suspected for the murder. There is no concrete evidence to prove his guilt, yet it is clear that there is no hope in a fair trial because his innocence is tied to the color of his skin. Therefore, Chesnutt presents an example of post-war racial discrimination, which the next generations of slave families will have to face. 

However, the effects of slavery on the family are felt too by the Sheriff. Here, Chesnutt presents a very new perspective among these family dynamics – that of the regretful slaveowner/father. While it is clear that his son does not see him as deserving of this title or relationship, the Sheriff “saw that he had owed some duty to this son of his, – that neither law nor custom could destroy a responsibility inherent in the nature of mankind” (45). There seems to be a scarlet-letter-like burden of the consequences of his sins. He creates a plan that might “atone for for his crime against this son of his – against society – against God” (45). Ultimately, the Sheriff is too late, and his son has died by the fatal wound inflicted by the Sheriff’s legitimate child, Polly. The close timing seems to imply something of the permanent and emotionally costly actions of the white slaveowners who have fathered children by slaves. The notion of a moral turnaround being too late for the immediate discrimination a child of color will face. Thus, there is no reduction in emotional damage or ethical purity if the child has been sold far way, the effects are lasting. 

Loading Likes...

I found one of the most intriguing aspects of “Dave’s Neckliss” to be Dave’s personality and character development. Despite facing numerous challenges and injustices, Dave remains a stoic and dignified figure throughout the narrative. He has this ongoing refusal to be cowed by the hostility of his neighbors, which I think really speaks to his resilience and the inner strength he has. In a way, this kind of resilience and inner strength reminded me of Tom’s character in Uncle Tom’s Cabin. However, this resilience comes at a cost for Dave, and his steadfastness ultimately leads to tragic consequences. Clearly, Chesnutt’s portrayal of Dave is very nuanced and multi-faceted. While on the one hand Dave can be seen as a symbol of defiance against this kind of post slavery racial oppression, and his refusal to bow to the expectations of the white community are a form of quiet resistance, his stubbornness and pride also end up being his tragic flaw, leading to his downfall. Does anyone else see parallels to Tom’s character or any others we’ve read about so far?

Loading Likes...

“Mars Dugal’,’ sezee, ‘I knows I’s be’n monst’us bad -, but befo’ I go I wanter git sump’n off’n my mine. Dave didn’t steal dat bacon w’at wuz tuk out’n de smoke-’ouse. I stole it all, en I hid de Ham under Dave’s cabin fer ter th’ow de blame on him-en may de good Lawd fer-gib me fer it.” (Chesnutt; Dave’s Neckliss 29).

In the section “David’s Neckliss,” of Tales of Conjure and the Color Line by Charles Waddell Chesnutt, Uncle Julius tells the story about an enslaved man, David, who was driven to kill himself by a punishment and humiliation inflicted over a theft of ham that David did not commit. David was the scapegoat, and in the passage above another enslaved person admits to stealing the ham and hiding it under David’s house. David bore the punishment for her actions, which though they weren’t actually wrong were treated as such. David suffered for actions or sins he did not commit due to false blame and died as a result. 

I thought this story line seemed familiar however. Who else suffered for sins that weren’t their own and died as a result while hanging, not by a rope as David was, but on a cross. This made me curious if Chesnutt might have intended to compare the character David to christ because he suffered so the other slaves wouldn’t face consequences from cruel masters. Supporting this observation, is David’s name. Although this could be wrong as I’m not a very religious person, I believe that David was the only character, especially out of the black characters that had a religious name. This seems to make the connections that can be drawn from David and Christ more overt as why else would David be the only slave with a name from the bible. 

The introduction to Chesnutt’s stories claims that Chesnutt wanted to generate more equality through his writing, but I found this hard to absorb while reading. He only gives accents to black speakers. His characters make comments about why slaves shouldn’t be able to read. The overall characterization of Uncle Julian makes him seem manipulative and stupid all at once somehow. And this is what makes the possible connection between David and Christ so interesting. Despite being told his writing works to argue against slavery by the book introduction, I struggled to understand how while reading. This makes the godliness and righteousness of David seem so contrary to the rest of the reading. I would be really curious to know if Chesnutt interpreted David’s righteousness as an argument against slavery, especially considering the constant white savior complex and blatant racism and stereotypes his writing implements.