For each day of blogging I will set up a post, and you will write your commentary (1-2 developed paragraphs, ideally tied closely to the text--try to discuss specific language and specific scenes) in the comments section. Click on the link below.
You are free to write on whatever strikes you as interesting, intriguing, or inexplicable in the section we will be discussing. For Tuesday, you might want to think about how knowing that this text is a novel and not an autobiography reshapes our conception of its purpose. You might also think about how Johnson's text nods to slave narratives. What kind of social and cultural critiques does the novel offer? And why does it do so through irony?
Let me know if you have any questions!
In this latest section of reading, I started paying closer attention to Auto X's language and use of pronouns. At the end of Chapter IX we see Auto X actually identify with the African American race, "... a desire to help those I considered my people." What is humorous and slightly ironic is that he still refers to African Americans as "they." This obviously implys that he considers himself apart from African Americans. He rides the fence. Embracing the African American culture when convenient.
ReplyDeleteThis is apparent when he attends Big Meeting. He is so uplifted and moved by the singing of Johnson and the preaching of Brown that he seemingly starts to feel like a part of a community. Of course, his sense of community and pride is forgotten when he stands witness to the murder of the African American man. Instead of being angry, he feels shame. Shame of being half-African American. A race that at the time was so easily dealt with.
I find Auto X hypocritical. He chooses to be neither race--Black nor White. But this really isn't much of a revelation as up until this point he hasn't chosen an identity regardless. He has merely chosen to continue living on the line instead of taking a side. As seen in Roth's Human Stain, I think Auto X's lack of embracing his true self will result in his demise.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteOf this selection, I find the smoking compartment scene particularly invocative (pages 157-164 in my edition). More specifically, the Texan's speech catches my attention.
ReplyDeleteThe Jew straddles the fence of neutrality: to "sanction Negro oppression (p. 158)" would be hypocrisy on his part. The apologetic professor is soon put in his place, and ultimately, "the controversy narrowed itself down to an argument between the old soldier and the Texan" (p. 159). The Negro debate becomes an issue flanked by two steadfast sides, each "correct" in his own way.
The Texan and soldier go back and forth, the soldier arguing the inefficiencies of racism while the Texan refutes with racism itself. The debate ends in relative armistice when the Texan says, "Colonel, you might argue from now until hell freezes over, and you might convince me that you're right, but you'll never convince me that I'm wrong" (p. 164). Therein lies the catch 22 of the race debate: can anyone be wrong or right, and to what extent can one admit that he's wrong? To this day, many southerners will not admit to being "wrong" about race relations. And for all their ignorance and stereotypes, in their world, they AREN'T wrong!
And after the Texan's spiel, "everybody except the professor partook of the generous Texan's flask, and the argument closed in a general laugh and good feeling" (p. 164). That's right, even the Texan's polar foil, the soldier, is satisfied. I think this is because little more can be done or said on the issue: we can hardly expect the southern white male of the era to so readily admit to his folly; to do such would be a compromise to his esteem, values, and his identity as a southerner.
I don't apologize for the Texan's racism, but I DON'T think he should be burned at the stake. For all his ignorance, I think his concluding lines on page 164 are the strongest words of the entire smoking compartment debate.
Auto X's comparison of French and English morals is rather interesting.
ReplyDelete"I saw many things in Paris which were immoral accroding to English standards, but the absence of hypocrisy, the absence of the spirit to do the thing if it might only be done in secret, robbed these very immoralities of the damning influence of the same evils in London."
Is it the hypocrisy that makes something immoral? Auto X says that things done in the dark become immoral. So if we are open and public about our evils, do they become less evil?
Auto X suggests that if one is frank about the evils in the world, it "robs them of much of the seductivesness of things forbidden..." It's like telling a child not to do something. It only makes them want to do that something more.
Another question Auto X brings up: is it an overbearing religious presence that brings out immoralities? "Paris practises its sins as lightly as it does its religion, while London practises both very seriously."
Does man have morals without religion?
While reading the latest selection of AutoX, the flow of the narrative has struck me the most because of the extreme contrast it shows in comparison to the beginning of the novel. As readers, when we begin with the life of our narrator we automatically read the book as an autobiography, beginning with birth and moving forward in time with facts and anecdotes. The author makes no real comments on his life outside of what he remembered feeling at that moment, using the time he discovered he was not white and his mother's death as examples. The narrator seems to accept these moments as they happened and leaves them be, much as autobiographies tend to do. However, I believe this changes as the narrator matures along with himself, and the story progresses from an autobiography into a sort of social commentary with (factual or fictional) memories used as evidence.
ReplyDeleteI think this is seen the most when the narrator returns to the South after his travels in Europe. He has been exposed to the culture of others, educated in the ways of high society, and, for the most part, accepted by people of other races as a black man. He ignorantly believes that despite this (or because of this) he will be able to settle down in the rural South, which to him still holds a sort of wonder that will lead him to his eventual success. Instead he meets with a society that forces him to comment, really for the first time, on the race question, even though, "among Negroes themselves there is the peculiar inconsistency of a colour question. Its existence is rarely admitted and hardly ever mentioned" (154). Our narrator follows this belief for most of the autobiographical portion of the novel, but when he watches a black man burned alive by the whites of the South he has so desperately believed in, he must finally answer the question society has been asking him: what is so wrong with being black? I believe at this point the novel turns from an autobiography into the social question that has been asked in many works from this time, including slave narratives and the previous works we have read in the class.
I particularly enjoyed the use of music in chapter ten. Music goes across the color line throughout the whole book, as ragtime is a black invention enjoyed thoroughly by whites; additionally, Auto X plays music in white churces to great effect. Like himself, music seems to be indistinguishable by all those who hear it. His entire reason for being in Europe is to play music for his "millionaire." However, ragtime also crosses cultural and continental lines. In Europe, his "millionaire" uses music as a means of impressing his richer friends. One of his friends immediately takes ragtime and plays it in the high form of classical music. Like the narrator himself, the mustached man is taking one thing that is crass, common-place, and ethnic and making it into a work of high society. So too our narrator wishes to make himself into something he feels is more acceptable--be it to whatever audience he wants to pass as at the time. His music gives him his first notion of "passing." If others can do it, why can't he?
ReplyDelete"I had been turning classic music into ragtime, a comparatively easy task; and this man had taken ragtime and made it classic. The thought came across me like a flash.--It can be done, why can't I do it?"
I've noticed that Auto X is a jack of all trades when it comes to music. He can play classical music, ragtime, church music, and even old black spirituals. All of them are acceptable musical forms to him, and he is not judged by which one he plays. Music, like him, seems to be able to pass for any audience. It's no wonder, then, that he is dismayed when he sees that people aren't always equally judged.
This reading had very vivid description. Auto X really paints a picture for us in sentences like "men and women crowded in stuffy little compartments, drinking seemingly on for the pleasure of swallowing as much as they could hold... in the whole scene, no one ray of brightness, not one flash of gaiety, only maudlin joviality or grim despair (page 138)." His language lengthens and becomes exhaustibly descriptive, as he grows as a person. I really enjoyed the fact that it almost seemed like Auto X's growth matches his writing.
ReplyDeleteAuto X finally started growing on me when he made the decision to leave Europe, he makes the decision with a full heart that he is ready to sacrifice an easy life, for one that may be harder, but a life that suits him. Rather than just having money handed to him, he wants to work for it. He wants to go find himself, and in that find the music to match himself, color or no color.
Another bit of this reading that I really liked was the old soldier's opinion:
"logics, physics, chemistry... were all invented or discovered by darker and what we now call inferior races and nations (page 162.)" What a wonderful way to make that Texan shut up and make the reader really listen! I really loved how the old soldier really gets to the roots (and provides thorough examples) to prove his point.
This book really shows the power of "knowing someone who knows someone." Many people helped Auto X in his life. For example, the doctor he meets on the boat, gives him two more names of people he should stop by to see on the way to the south. Both of which take care of Auto X while he stays there. This book shows the power of connections and how they can be important in life. Regardless of race, connections not only help, but they can truly make a difference in one's life.
Elizabeth S-
While the novel has politics throughout, I felt that chapter IX during Auto X’s conversation with his millionaire about traveling back to the U.S. ran rampant with James Weldon Johnson’s views on being black in the American South. After some brief research on Johnson I learned that he spent time both in the south and north. He was born in FL and later lived in NY. Although I didn’t find out if Johnson had specifically dealt with the same hardships and almost culture shock that Auto X did, it is easy to see where the millionaire had received his beliefs.
ReplyDeleteOn pages 144 and 145 in my edition the millionaire asks Auto X “why do you want to throw your life away amidst the poverty and ignorance, in the hopeless struggle, of the black people of the United States? …look at the terrible handicap you are placing on yourself by going home…” It is interesting to me that Johnson could use the millionaire both to express the vast differences between the north and south and also use him effectively as a white man who breaks down the colored people of the U.S. and attempts to give Auto X reason to disassociate himself from the American colored people.
At times, I feel frustrated with Auto X's lack of racial identity at this point in the "autobiography." Though at the same time, how can you expect him to pick one race when he is of two? would we ask the same thing of person who was half Chinese and half American, foe example? I think this has been one of Auto's greatest stuggles from the beginning of the novel. He has esentially been researching how he can better his black race for much of the second part of this segment. But I think his millionare friend really put in into perspective for Auto and the reader. "...you are by blood, by appearance, by education, and by tastes a white man. ...What kind of a Negro would you make now, especially in the South," (144-145).
ReplyDeleteThe scene of the man burning alive was hard to even read about. I thought his feeling of shame in relation to being a part of the race that was lynched was interesting. This isn't the first time we've seen this feeling of shame with Auto. But I was slightyl surprised that he was feeling it now, especially after his time spent at the meeting. Auto also felt shame in his country as whole for the incident. This I almost wanted to relate to. I felt shame when simply reading the passage.
As we read the novel and an actual novel rather than an autobiography, you have to wonder is this really all fiction? I cannot helop but read some of these sncenes as part of Johnson's life. Yet at the same time, many of his passages (such as the argument betweeen the Texan and the Northerner) are so specific and detailed that If I had still been reading it as an autobiograpgy I would have questioned the truth.
I found as I read this section that, almost as a background side note, we are given a quick explanation of the ideals of the post-modern era of thought. Though there is no reference to pre-humanist thoughts, the reflections of the millionaire (p.146) on the subject of society's evils seems a direct attack on the precepts held by modernists. A modern humanist believes that man's flaws can be overcome by deliberate action backed by sound reason. The millionaire points out that many of these "solutions" only explode large problems into many, smaller problems; the Civil War, philanthropy, and even education are targeted as having been problem-causing areas instead of presenting any real lasting solutions.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, I believe earlier in the chapter that the presentation of the iceberg is a direct allegory for post-modernist thought(p.127). The beauty of the iceberg, I believe, is meant to symbolize truth; its constantly changing shape mimics the post-modernist ideals of shifting, relative perception of the truth. The most telling, though, is that our narrator is not discouraged by the changing view. In fact, he believes that every change of shape brings about "new and astonishing forms of beauty." The fluidity of truth and beauty, then, is presented as a good thing.
Like Schafer above, I also found the section discussing the moral relativism of Paris and London particularly interesting. I think it's startlingly relevant with respect to today's society as I believe the description of those European cities is analogous to the contrast between the North and the South. I should say that in keeping with the narrator, I'm speaking in broad generalities here. And but so, today the South is viewed as full of religious conservatives and the North, liberal atheists. Regardless of stereotypes, however, the same "immoral" acts are happening all over the country - in the South, we try (for the most part) to cover these acts up with a thick dose of religion (the South being London in this analogy), while the North (Bienvenue à Paris!) seems more accepting of the current moral progress (trends?) of the country and acts accordingly. I think it would be unwise to not apply this analogy to the North and South of Johnson's time as well - not, however, to serve as a means of judgment, rather to act as the extreme poles in an Aristotelian doctrine of the "moral" means. How does one judge morality? And does the mere conspicuousness of an "immoral" act really make it "better" in some sense of the word?
ReplyDeleteI liked the narrator's grudging respect for London in comparison with Paris. His description of it made it sound like a city full of the depressed, the weak, and the needy. I believe he saw something of his plight in the behavior of the Londonders; perhaps he respects London because he identifies more with its seriousness, with its fear of God and of consequences, than with the Parisian come-what-may attitude.
ReplyDeleteThere is a lot of irony here because he seems to be always surrounded by this attitude. He plays for the millionaire's friends. He spends time in nightclubs, at gambling tables, in all manner of situations we would normally deem frivolous. In spite of all the "fun" in the narrator's life, the novel never takes on a frivolous tone. We never get even the slightest sense that he truly enjoys himself or even considers himself a part of the fun. Instead we, as readers, are always on the edge of the crowd, observing with a critical eye. This may be why the narrator has such a great affection for Paris; its easy feeling is one he himself has never enjoyed.
-Megan Blankenship (Sorry, guys. I will try to figure out how to change my posting name so you'll know which Megan I am.)
I feel that despite the fact that it is a work of fiction doesn't change its autobiographical intentions. That being a work of fiction actually allows the work a greater depth of honesty in looking at the "black problem". Instead of simply focusing on the events that shaped Johnson's own life that he could call upon the full spectrum of the black experience, rather than being limited to his own personal experience. Freeing himself from many of the constraints that would other wise be put upon him, even the constraints within a slave narrative. Take for example Harriet Jacobs' need to verify the testimony of her autobiography , while at the same time protecting her identity. Johnson understood this and would then explain why he published the novel anonymously. So that questions of its authenticity might be raised but that with no way of verifying it the question becomes irrelevant. That the text isn't meant to be taken as this is "my story" but that of the story the black race. In writing it Johnson was playing a role, the novel is about playing a role, multiple roles at that. These roles being the roles that black people had to play everyday, the sort of dual consciousness that Du Bois talked about. With in the text it self Johnson makes it clear that the Ex-Coloured Man is playing roles, page 65 points out a time when he even admits to this fact. So in writing a work of fiction Johnson isn't being untruthful, he's simply creating a work that is itself playing a role in the debate on race relations. Creating an identity that we can all understand since we all play roles. The role I play with my friends is different than the role I'm playing right, the role of student.
ReplyDeleteA lot of questions have been brought up about the narrator's racial identity. As it was pointed out in class, he tends to identify with the race he corresponds with and is better at playing the role such as becoming the reader for the cigar rollers. I feel as though our narrator hasn't fully discovered his racial identity. When he first learned of his heritage, he seemed to have a sense of pride for who he is yet he didn't fully embrace it.
ReplyDeleteHis narration of his ride in the cigar cabin in chapter X gives us his objective perception for both sides. This is a good example of the irony in the novel. Maybe the question of his racial identity is a question because he is unwilling to take on the responsibility of being himself.
What struck me about the reading this time was how successful the "millionaire" truly was at enslaving Auto X. Truth be told, if Auto X never went to Europe, I think he may have had some chance of succuss with his Negro music project. We focused in class on the more obvious signs of the master-slave relationship between Auto X and the millionaire, but what really bothered me was the less obvious. Whether conciously or unconciously, the millionaire in turning Auto X into a cultured and refined individual, destroys his future chances of every truly understanding the majority of his black American "brothers." It is clear that the millionaire is, in his somewhat corrupted way, trying to help Auto X as an individual by assimilating him. And although at first Auto X nobly resists the assimilation and insists on going back to the United States to take up his great work, it is futile. He cannot simply forget the wonderful life he enjoyed in Europe, and for that reason he can't ever truly be comfortable with life as a Negro in America. So although Auto X breaks away from the more immediate aspects of the millionaire's control, his mind has been irrevocably corrupted and in some way "enslaved" by his experience in Europe.
ReplyDeleteEllie W.
I find the most interesting part of this story to be the way Auto X perceives himself, both consciously and subconsciously. Auto X makes sense of his world via generalization and othering. At times, it is unclear whether he sees himself as "white" or "black," as he uses othering (in the form of "they" or "them") for both races. Most would say that Auto X identifies more with whites. Indeed, the millionaire says to Auto X, "'My boy, you are by blood, by appearance, by education, and by tastes a white man.'" I would have to disagree. While consciously Auto X is aware of what he feels he must do for his own self-preservation (as in when he gives up his plan to stay in the South and heads back to New York), and while he seems to choose his own path, I feel that subconsciously his mind mimics his own physical appearance--it's a mixture of many different shades, and is not fully colored one way or the other. I do not believe that he can truly choose one path or the next even if he wants to. Life is not black or white--it is a million different shades of gray, and Auto X is a direct representation of this idea.
ReplyDeleteIn chapter XI, I find it hard to believe that our Auto X would hardly speak of his wife. I somehwat expected him to possibly elaborate more on his love/friendship/relationship with his spouse, but he chooses to remain vague. He even goes so far as to avoid the subject of her death (i.e. how she died, how he truly felt, and how it affected him emotionally). For someone who speaks so highly of this woman, he does a great job at leaving his readers to wonder about the wife's influence on Auto X as a character. At the beginning of chapter XI, he says, "I have now reached that part of my narrative where I must be brief and touch only on important facts..." This seems ironic to me in that an average person would usually want to go more in depth about the "important" facts, yet he remains vague-- almost in an irritating manner.
ReplyDeleteIt's not just in chapter XI that he intentionally remains impersonal with the characters in his life, but he does so throughout the novel. It leaves his readers to question his purpose throughout the book. Why is he so distant? Why does he not name his friends, family, or aqcuaintances? Why does he not reveal himself? I personally believe that this was a part of his intentional strife to remain anoymous. By exposing the names of others, he could ultimately jeopardize his identity, which he works so hard to disguise.
-Lauren C.