I love being black. Its one of my favorite things about myself.
I've been in Critical Approaches all semester learning about different theories and methods for critiquing and analyzing literature. So noooow… we're talking about American Multiculturalism and African American Literature. This section is starting to bother me. First… This quote: "Eventually [Phyllis Wheatley] became the best-known American poet in England. Writing in the neoclassical style of Alexander Pope, she composed verses that reflected her privileged status, not a slave mentality" (Dobie 218). What exactly is a "slave mentality?" Ok… she wasn't illiterate like she was supposed to be. She wasn't a mammy. She probably wasn’t working in the fields. So perhaps in writing her poetry she wrote what she was feeling, what she saw. She was a slave so whatever mentality she had was a slave mentality. There's no universal mindset for any group of people and the suggestion that Wheatley was great because she didn't reflect a "slave mentality" makes me want to gag.
Next… this idea of a black aesthetic. I'm a little on the fence about it. I'm not sure I can accept it. Because I know that everybody's black experience isn't the same, I know that writing to this so called black aesthetic is problematic. It produces Tyler Perry bullshit and John Singleton "gangsta" flicks. Not everyone can identify with those images. Some of us live the life depicted in Love Jones. Or Inkwell. (Yes… I love Larenz Tate, but that's not the point…) Hell… some of us are Huxtables. Some of us are even Bradys and we just want to see black people in those roles. There is no universal "black aesthetic."
The textbook says that it was necessary to come up with this system of understanding so that critics would be able to critique black literature. Seems to me the only thing one would need to critique black literature is the capacity and desire to read black literature. Black concerns are the concerns of many. To say that we only write to black audiences invalidates us. That's not our doing. To give us separate rules of understanding, a "black aesthetic," further says that we don't matter in the grand scheme of things.
Moving on in the chapter, I find a list of narrative forms African American literature takes. Look at this list: Folktales, Tall tales, Fables, Trickster stories, Why Stories, Preacher Tales, Blues, Satire, The dirty dozens, Jokes. Um… You can find most of that list in all cultures. Why is this notable in African American literature? Moreover… We've seen parts of this list in examining other critical theories. Why create a theory that does the same thing that other theories do? And THEN. The descriptions of some of these things… Jokes are "satirical anecdotes told at the expense of others, frequently white people, or to ridicule unfair social practices and stereotypes" (Dobie 221). All I can do is shake my head. I don't frequently tell jokes about white people. And not all jokes are satirical. This is starting to sound like crap to me.
There's a small discussion about double consciousness and double-voicedness. I get it. Both of those come from being told that your culture is low culture and in order to be anything you have to engage in high culture. Authenticity is a big deal in our culture so one has to be able to do both, go both ways: be an intellectual outside, and one of the "niggas" at home. It's also something we've done to ourselves. None of us want to be seen as the "house nigga" so we tear down the ones who "talk white." But this is a small part of African American literature. There are other things to write about.
As with the other theories, I have to read a story and apply the theory. I can do it. But I don't want to. Black literature is diverse within itself. To focus only on Zora's style is to ignore Nella's. Sigh… Whatever.
I've been in Critical Approaches all semester learning about different theories and methods for critiquing and analyzing literature. So noooow… we're talking about American Multiculturalism and African American Literature. This section is starting to bother me. First… This quote: "Eventually [Phyllis Wheatley] became the best-known American poet in England. Writing in the neoclassical style of Alexander Pope, she composed verses that reflected her privileged status, not a slave mentality" (Dobie 218). What exactly is a "slave mentality?" Ok… she wasn't illiterate like she was supposed to be. She wasn't a mammy. She probably wasn’t working in the fields. So perhaps in writing her poetry she wrote what she was feeling, what she saw. She was a slave so whatever mentality she had was a slave mentality. There's no universal mindset for any group of people and the suggestion that Wheatley was great because she didn't reflect a "slave mentality" makes me want to gag.
Next… this idea of a black aesthetic. I'm a little on the fence about it. I'm not sure I can accept it. Because I know that everybody's black experience isn't the same, I know that writing to this so called black aesthetic is problematic. It produces Tyler Perry bullshit and John Singleton "gangsta" flicks. Not everyone can identify with those images. Some of us live the life depicted in Love Jones. Or Inkwell. (Yes… I love Larenz Tate, but that's not the point…) Hell… some of us are Huxtables. Some of us are even Bradys and we just want to see black people in those roles. There is no universal "black aesthetic."
The textbook says that it was necessary to come up with this system of understanding so that critics would be able to critique black literature. Seems to me the only thing one would need to critique black literature is the capacity and desire to read black literature. Black concerns are the concerns of many. To say that we only write to black audiences invalidates us. That's not our doing. To give us separate rules of understanding, a "black aesthetic," further says that we don't matter in the grand scheme of things.
Moving on in the chapter, I find a list of narrative forms African American literature takes. Look at this list: Folktales, Tall tales, Fables, Trickster stories, Why Stories, Preacher Tales, Blues, Satire, The dirty dozens, Jokes. Um… You can find most of that list in all cultures. Why is this notable in African American literature? Moreover… We've seen parts of this list in examining other critical theories. Why create a theory that does the same thing that other theories do? And THEN. The descriptions of some of these things… Jokes are "satirical anecdotes told at the expense of others, frequently white people, or to ridicule unfair social practices and stereotypes" (Dobie 221). All I can do is shake my head. I don't frequently tell jokes about white people. And not all jokes are satirical. This is starting to sound like crap to me.
There's a small discussion about double consciousness and double-voicedness. I get it. Both of those come from being told that your culture is low culture and in order to be anything you have to engage in high culture. Authenticity is a big deal in our culture so one has to be able to do both, go both ways: be an intellectual outside, and one of the "niggas" at home. It's also something we've done to ourselves. None of us want to be seen as the "house nigga" so we tear down the ones who "talk white." But this is a small part of African American literature. There are other things to write about.
As with the other theories, I have to read a story and apply the theory. I can do it. But I don't want to. Black literature is diverse within itself. To focus only on Zora's style is to ignore Nella's. Sigh… Whatever.
well written. i agree completely. im a lower middle class raised nerd that went to private schools my whole life and now im at belmont lol. needless to say i went thru quite the confused "finding my blackness" phase just cuz of the so called "common black experience"
ReplyDelete