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