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.
Hi Erin! I agree with you that Baxter’s Procrustes brings up the question of the value of literature and what we actually look for in a piece of literature. I love your thoughts about the literary/publishing industry; I didn’t think of the business side of things while I was reading as much, but you are absolutely right that its a huge part of the story.
I read the story as a criticism of the way we look at art in general. Just because Baxter was well known, his art was taken as if it was revolutionary in some way, without anyone even bothering to examine it throughly. I think Chesnutt is getting at the idea of privilege and how it’s much easier for people who are already relevant/well known to be seen in a positive light and have their work published/put out into the world. I know we’ve talked in class about how Chesnutt never really became super popular during the time he was publishing, so I wonder if this was his way of saying I never really had a chance, everyone just keeps giving attention to people who already have a platform without actually reading works of literature and forming their own opinions.
Erin and Sophia, I agree with both of your points and think you do a good job of unpacking commentary on authorship and publishing in “Baxter’s Procrustes.” To add to your point, the whole title of the poem is ironic, because Procrustes was a figure in Greek mythology who tortured people by stretching them or cutting off their legs to fit to an iron bed. Perhaps Chestnutt is saying that the publishing industry, but more likely literary critics, give no room for freedom in writing and expect all texts to meet one mold.
I think that Chesnutt is poking fun at pseudo-intellectual readers as well. This to me is highlighted on page 104, when the narrator is speaking with Davis and Thompson, both of whom we later find out have not actually read the work, but who comment on it while name-dropping philosophers (Spencer and Hegel). Thus it is not an actual work that inspires the readers that Chesnutt is critiquing, but their sense of how the text ties to the intellectual elite and provides an opportunity to flex their own intellectualism.