Though I’m not sure if this was a common thing in Charles
Chesnutt’s writing, I think it’s interesting that he had two separate short
stories which were connected directly with its cast of characters and a
connected (though separated by a passage of time between the two stories)
directly by a chronology of some kind. The narrator’s wife, Annie, in these
stories is a character that we don’t necessarily see very much of. Other than
the details which we learn of from the narrator himself, we, as the audience,
only see her actions and behavior a handful of times when she is with both the
narrator and Uncle Julius.
We don’t see
much of Annie in “The Goophered Grapevine” but what do see of her tells us that
she gives Julius legitimacy and authority as a story teller. We get our first
glimpse of her in the first sentence of the story when the narrator explains
that she had been in poor health, and that it was by their family doctor’s
advice that they made the decision to move from their home in the Great Lakes,
to a place with a more agreeable climate (and one that would enable him to
continue his work in grape culture). Apart from this, we only see her when they
go to the plantation which he intended to buy, and we see that she became weary
after a time of walking about the yard which led them to the acquaintance of
Uncle Julius (34). The first words we hear from Annie is the question she poses
to Uncle Julius at his conclusion of the story of Henry: “’Is that story true?’
asked Annie doubtfully, but seriously” (43). These being the only words we hear
from her, it’s hard to make much of her, but we are able to create some sort of
assumptions about her – she is curious and interested in what Julius has to say
and takes him seriously as a story-teller but is also logical in her thinking
of what is real and what is not. In this case, what is real is the exploitation
of Henry and his seasonal changes and Julius’ warning to not become like the
slave-owner and what is unlikely is the goopher on the grapes.
We see this
curiosity more fully in the second story we read, “Po’ Sandy.” In this story,
we see Annie being friendly and cordial with Julius when she asks him to
explain who Poor Sandy was (46). In this instance, we see her treating him as
an equal of sorts because she reinforces his authority as a story-teller by encouraging
him to tell them what happened while the narrator makes no such move to engage
in similar conversation with Julius.
We see her
give him even more authority when he concludes his tale and she voices her
amazement that, “what a system it was […] under which such things were possible”
(53). Her husband, the narrator, immediately misunderstands her meaning when he
asks her if she’s “seriously considering the possibility of a man’s being
turned into a tree,” but Annie is able to clarify, “not that […] poor Tenie”
(53). Unlike the narrator who debunks Uncle Julius’ stories and the details in
them because they contain elements of magic, Annie sees past the parts that
would be impossible in their reality to the details which tell a tale of
families being torn apart and watching your loved ones beaten and killed right
in front of your eyes (51).
Because of
Annie’s ability to understand and sympathize with Uncle Julius, she is able to
convince her husband that they shouldn’t use the schoolhouse’s lumber for her
new kitchen because Uncle Julius perhaps didn’t feel like he was in any kind of
position to speak directly to him about why the schoolhouse means something to
him (if it does apart from the ending). This, I feel, goes back into the
culture of former slaves becoming a part of a different form of slavery in which
there is still a hierarchical structure in place and a code of conduct which
tells us that you can’t speak directly to people who are above you about
personal matters such as Uncle Julius wanting to use the school house for group
meetings.
No comments:
Post a Comment