Wright Way to Write?

I'm fascinated by the conflict between Hurston and Wright. From the documentary and Henry Louis Gates Jr.'s afterword, it is clear that the two authors have diametrically opposed stances on black literature. While Wright believes that black authors should write with a clear message critiquing racism in American society, Hurston prefers a snapshot of black community, culture, and life. 

In a way, these opposing visions reflect the opposition between the Brotherhood and the narrator. The Brotherhood is intent on defining every aspect of life in terms of a social problem, to be solved using scientific methodology. Similarly, Wright only wants black authors to write about social problems. He thinks black literature is the only way to address these problems and sees all other genres of black literature as irrelevant and unproductive. 

On the other hand, the invisible man emphasizes the complexity of humanity. He refuses to be defined as a symptom of the Brotherhood's vague social problems. The narrator is more intent on finding his own personal truth, which is why he resorts to hibernation (interestingly, Hurston also resorts to a form of hibernation towards the end of her life). Hurston is also an advocate of individualism. There were times when she didn't want to identify as black because she didn't want to be stuck in a category of people. All of her anthropological and literary work focused on black towns, where there were no black-white tensions. She was inspired by folklore and dialect, which are cultural aspects of the black community, as opposed to political. 

Wright harshly criticizes Hurston for writing with "no theme, no message, no thought." This is similar to how the Brotherhood condemned the narrator for his eulogy. His speech didn't politically organize the people, and therefore was a waste of time and words. It didn't matter that the narrator had a more powerful, personal, raw message to share. 

Hurston criticizes Wright for writing a "treatise on sociology" instead of a black novel. Similarly, the narrator stands up for his eulogy after the Brotherhood insults it. The narrator points out that the Brotherhood fails to include people like the zoot suiters in their methodology, just like Hurston implies that Wright fails to include black culture in his novels. 

I realize that this is a biased analogy. If you agree with Wright that Hurston's novel should have a more direct political message, I'd love to hear your thoughts. Whatever your opinion is, I think the Wright/Hurston and Brotherhood/narrator conflicts have some compelling similarities. In both cases, there is a social science side and a humanity side. A systematic side and an individual side. 

I do see one similarity between Wright and Hurston, however. Both believe they have a personal responsibility to write in the way they do. This at least distances Wright from the soulless nature of the Brotherhood. 

A Different Kind of Read-Aloud

I've only read the first three chapters of their eyes were watching god, but I'm already amazed by Hurston's use of language. I've never read a novel that's forced me to slow down and consider the meaning behind the words as much as this one.

When I started reading the dialogue, I found myself saying the words out loud to understand what the characters were saying. At first, I was frustrated because I couldn't read as quickly as I wanted to. However, our discussion on Tuesday changed my mind. Hurston is a genius! If you have trouble reading the dialect, that probably means you haven't had extended exposure to people who speak with the dialect. By writing in the dialect, Hurston facilitates the reader's understanding of the characters by making them slow down and speak the words aloud. The reader becomes the characters as they read because they are paying such close attention to each word.  Hurston no doubt wrote the dialogue phonetically on purpose, perhaps to address the possibility of backlash to her novel. If you become the characters you read, it would be significantly more difficult to invalidate their experiences and perspective.

I also appreciate how Hurston celebrates the dialect she writes in. We discussed in class how many novels in the 20th century used African-American vernacular to portray characters in a demeaning and racist way. This is not at all how Hurston portrays her characters speaking the dialect. She uses epic metaphorical language within the dialect, as if all the people in her novel have special access to "poetry on tap," as articulated by Mr. Mitchell. The language is truly beautiful and further encourages the reader to reflect on the conversations between characters.

As I continue reading, I predict there will be a positive correlation (haha thank you Psych 100) between my reading pace and my understanding of the characters. Weirdly, this relationship between time and understanding reminds me of my time at Spring Initiative over the summer. When I first started working with the kids, I had a lot of trouble understanding them because they spoke in a dialect I wasn't used to. As I spent more time with them, I not only literally understood them better, but I learned more about them as people. They told me about their families, their favorite foods, and whether or not they liked to play dodgeball. Every detail helped me understand their perspective better. I look forward to learning more about the characters in their eyes were watching god. I can tell they've got some fascinating stories to share.