In class today, Onno briefly mentioned the contrast between Douglass’ writing and Chesnutt’s. Both attempt to– and, I would argue, succeed– in creating a vivid portrait of slavery in the South. However, Douglass centers his narrative around literacy, and as a result, clear and eloquent writing is a hallmark of his tale. It is the manner in which his form reinforces his content. Chesnutt, in contrast, makes a concentrated effort to reproduce the words of an illiterate man in his stories.
The differences between the two texts highlight the difficulties of documenting a culture and an experience on paper. Was one writer more accurate than the other? Or did they simply employ different means to achieve the same ends? Their styles also raise the interesting question of whether good writing must always be carefully revised and polished, or if it can be impressive while deliberately imitating something unrefined.
I think that Douglass holds an edge in terms of readership because his writing is inherently easier to read and therefore to understand, even as it contains some significant complexities. However, I think Chesnutt may still have achieved something more impressive: he took something that much of the country saw as simple or uncomplicated (the life of a slave) and revealed it to contain many layers of complex meaning, even while it still appeared on the surface to be simple (thanks to the presence of dialect). Readers can immediately point to Douglass as a man of talent, but that is what Douglass intended; he needed display himself as intelligent in order for people to be willing to read a text written by a former slave. The reading of Chesnutt’s stories, however, literally mimics a discovery that many people made and make in real life: that what at first appears to be unintelligent may just be hiding something more shrewd and empathic if the reader takes a closer look. Chesnutt’s extra layer of simplicity contributes to an overall greater complexity.
No comments:
Post a Comment