Jency Williams Prof. Richards Southern Lit 13 September 2010 Summary/Critique: Stepto
Download 9.67 Kb.
|
| Jency Williams
Prof. Richards Southern Lit 13 September 2010 Summary/Critique: Stepto Robert B. Stepto argues in his article, Narration, Authentication, and Authorial Control in Frederick Douglass’ Narrative of 1845, that Douglass’ slave narrative is ultimately successful because of his refined application of voice, which expresses intellectual emancipation. Stepto claims that “the strident, moral voice of the former slave…is the single most impressive feature of a slave narrative” (146) since it indicates the author’s level of literacy. According to Stepto, the narrative voice is the slave’s “only permanent achievement” (146) in society. However, he notes that slave narratives are often “full of other voices” (146) that can advance or deter the narrative. These additional voices are people mentioned within the text or supplementary writings from slaveholders and abolitionists that authenticate the narrative. Stepto then reduces the slave narrative to three different phases of ascending sophistication. He calls the first phase the “basic” (147) or “eclectic narrative” (147), which simply refers back to the practice of white abolitionists and slaveholders defending the relevancy of a slave narrative. The second phase, very similar to the first, involves an integration of voices in the narrative. Stepto believes this narrative produces a comparatively elevated text since the slave “carries much of the weight of introducing and authenticating his tale” (147), rather than relying solely on white writers’ input. For Stepto, the emphasis becomes “less a collection of texts and more a unified narrative” (147) – he aims for a work that does not just possess “historical and sociological data” (148), but also distinguishing “literary features” (148). Stepto splits the final phase into two parts. First, he defines the “generic narrative” (147), which is simply “a narrative of discernible genre” (147), and then second, the “authenticating narrative” (148), which is a narrative that “becomes an authenticating document for other, usually generic texts” (149). Structurally, Stepto considers Douglass’ narrative “primitive” (149) due to the “segregated narrative texts” (149), however because of its “dynamic energy” (149) between the narrative and the outside texts, Stepto calls Narrative an advanced text. Stepto then examines the presence and influence of William Lloyd Garrison’s and Wendell Phillip’s texts. Ultimately, he claims their enthusiasm for Douglass superseded any desire to control his narrative. Finally, Stepto analyzes Douglass’ authorial strengths and concludes that Douglass has “explicitly authenticated what is conventionally a white Northerner’s validating text” (157), and has shown that his literacy symbolizes his intellectual liberty. Stepto succeeds in determining the functions of each voice and text. For instance, with Garrison he aptly attributes Garrison’s role as a “white validation of a newfound black voice” (149) to a white audience. He evaluates Garrison as “more interested in writing history…and recording his place in it” (150) and implies Garrison’s egotism through specific textual examples. He studies the prevalence of the ‘I’ in Garrison’s speech at the Nantucket Anti-Slavery Convention: “‘ I rose…I reminded…I appealed’” (150) and his failure to reference Douglass in his speech. Therefore, Stepto makes a valid claim that Garrison was more concerned with furthering his career. Furthermore, Stepto assesses Douglass’ literary strengths well. He notes Douglass’ impressive ability to apply different writing methods “with ease and with a degree of simultaneity” (151-2). Additionally, he attributes and traces Douglass’ various rhetorical methods as a marker of Douglass’ “emerging comprehension of freedom and literacy” (152) and he calls the slave narrative an expression of intellectual freedom. Stepto selects strong textual details that best exemplify the Douglass’ reasoning and writing skills. In particular, Stepto prizes Douglass’ ability to translate personal history to autobiography, such as in the instance of Douglass’ analysis of the slave songs. Stepto sees them and Douglass’ explanation of them as “another illumination of his path from slavery to freedom” (154) and admires Douglass’ combination of the past with the present as a personal advancement in an exploration of ethnography and his individual relation to the group. Also, Stepto includes the letter to William Hamilton that “exhibits Douglass’ increasingly refined sense of how to manipulate language” (154). Overall, Stepto conducts a strong formalist critique of Douglass. Yet, conversely, Stepto’s formalist perspective hinders his argument as it presents a narrow point-of-view. Often, his language is opaque. He uses wordy phrasing and spends too much time in the introduction of his argument differentiating between the four forms of narrative, all of which overlap and at points seem indistinguishable from one another. Stepto has a clarification for each rule, and, Douglass, in fact, is one of them. In addition, he makes a vague historical reference to “the friction that developed between Garrison and Douglass in later years” (150) but fails to examine the statement in a more conclusive manner. And, after discussing the tension between Garrison and Douglass, Stepto refuses to admit that Garrison’s preface was “at war” (150) with Douglass’ story “for authorial control of the narrative as a whole” (150). Rather, he backtracks and claims that Garrison “remains a member of Douglass’ audience far more than he assumes the posture of a competing or superior voice” (151) because of his enthusiasm for Douglass. However, his shift is troublesome since he establishes Garrison as self-absorbed, and then as subservient to Douglass through textual evidence only. Historical proof would provide a more powerful insight and a reliable source into Garrison’s motivations. Stepto has an obvious literary bias. On the first page alone he creates a comparison to the voices within the narrative to those of “‘characters’ in the ‘story’” (146). Throughout the article he removes much of the historical context in favor of a formalist approach. But ignoring historical elements Stepto reduces his credibility and produces a less compelling critique. He mistakenly expects the text to speak for itself. By detaching the historical aspect of a text connected to such a pivotal moment of social upheaval for a literary and stylistic analysis, Stepto authors a reductive and confined perspective of Douglass’ Narrative. Directory: files -> 2010 2010 -> Through the Roof 2010 -> Ap u. S. History presidents list the Young Republic, 1788-1815 George Washington, 1789-1797 2010 -> Mobile Phone Coverage and Producer Markets: Evidence from West Africa 2010 -> Ration de survie : exemples traduits pour être fixé durablement, le vocabulaire doit s'étudier 2010 -> Education: 2006-2010: Townsend Harris High School 2010 -> Msc international events management assessment case study module: making the case for events 2010 -> Mercer Island Little League 2010 Coaches Handbook 2010 -> Course id: csci 1304 Name: Programming 1 Term: 1st 11/12 Instructor: Name: Tawfiq s barhoom Email 2010 -> Monthly Newsletter html format Internet World Stats News Download 9.67 Kb. Share with your friends:
|