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.
I find this point you’re making interesting because when I was reading, I had a difficult time seeing the use of linguistics as anything but racist. At least, with a modern perspective it’s seen as condescending, patronizing, and ignorant. The accents doesn’t serve to add nuance to the character of Uncle Julius, but serves to belittle him and shows Chesnutt’s belief of his stupidity. In fact, the only way intelligence is demonstrated in the character of Uncle Julius is when he was telling stories that were then shown to directly benefit him. He was stereotyped as manipulative and the accent only further emphasized this. However, I have seen scholarly argument that the text works as an argument against slavery and racism, but upon my own reading the actual text seems beyond outdated to the point that if it were published today, the author would likely immediately be canceled.
I agree with Aubrey- I do find your point interesting as well, but when reading I did interpret his choices with Uncle Julius as racist.
The way his voice was accented I read more as trying to make him seem illiterate and taking part in a “social hierarchy” in which he was trying to represent Black people as illiterate, and not as good as other people. Reading this from a modern standpoint, it is clear that there is a lot wrong with the way that the character Uncle Julius is being portrayed, and how it contributes to racist stereotypes. The way that Uncle Julius spoke didn’t necessarily add anything to the plot of the story, but rather was flattening him by making him stick out from other people in a way that belittles him as a person. It seems to represent Chesnutt as a racist character who is looking down at Uncle Julius and wants to be viewed as better than him. Language can definitely play a role in symbolism but in this case I think it’s more symbolizing the racist ideals at the time regarding the intelligence levels of Black people.
As I was working on my final paper, I found a quote from Fredrick Douglass’s slave narrative that I think is a good support beam for the point I was trying to make in my earlier comment. On page 1185 it says, “‘If you teach that n[redacted] to (speaking of myself) how to read, there would be no keeping him. It would forever be unfit for him to be a slave’”. I think this quote shows the power that the put on literacy. The way that Uncle Julius is made to speak in the novel is a way of showing Chesnutt as literate and intelligent, and trying to belittle Uncle Julius and say that he is not.