In the Goophered Grapevine, Julius is performing for his white audience by telling them the story of the "goophered" vineyard. He tells this story as true events even though in the end it is revealed that the narrator feels that the story was fabricated to keep potential buyers away from the plantation and Julius' easy money. I believe Chesnutt has Uncle Julius tell the story to the narrator in order to give an outside perspective on the story. I Julius had been the narrator then the reader would have no chance of seeing that the story might have been fabricated by Uncle Julius for personal gain.
Chesnutt does use the stereotypical connection of African Americans to nature rather than culture. By using this stereotype in his writing it makes the reader aware of the stereotype. It was this treatment of slaves as commodities rather than human beings that caused so many problems in the past. Chesnutt was proud of his African American heritage even though he called himself 7/8 white, and in order to show the white Americans, at the time of his writing, what was wrong with the stereotypes created he had to present the stereotypes to his readers.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Great ideas Adam. I completely agree and on top of what you said about the readers getting an outsiders perspective, I think that by not having an African American narrator allows for a broader audience of readers. Back in those days, I doubt anyone would have given this book a second glance had it been seen as a story told by an African American.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the aspect of the symbolism of slaves as commodities in the text. Even though it is mainly seen through the use of Henry for profit in Uncle Julius's story, it recurs at the end when the Northerners who buy the land have Uncle Julius work for them, thus just continuing the cylce.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the slave sybolism. I also believe they didnt use him as the narrator to appeal to the audience. Maybe to also to show a bigger sterotype against slaves.
ReplyDeleteI like how touched on the point of Julius not being the narrator. I too, agree that if Julius would have been the narrator then it would be very difficult to understand that the story was indeed a lie in order to keep people from being interested in the grapevine.
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with your point on Chesnutt’s purpose of using Uncle Julius as the second narrators. It really makes readers aware of the stereotyping. If this whole story was told only by Uncle Julius, I believe that readers would take a total different perspective towards the story.
ReplyDelete