5 ms·

>For one thing, it praises the enslaved for turning their cheeks, as it were, to be slapped again—or killed—rather than fighting back, a notion of Christian vir

>For one thing, it praises the enslaved for turning their cheeks, as it were, to be slapped again—or killed—rather than fighting back, a notion of Christian virtue and acceptance that results in brutal suffering and death on an unjust earth that will finally send Uncle Tom out of America to a less violent place known as Heaven. In Baldwin’s words, Stowe “was not so much a novelist as an impassioned pamphleteer; her book was not intended to do anything more than prove that slavery was wrong… This makes material for a pamphlet but it is hardly enough for a novel, and the only question left to ask is why we are bound still with the same constriction.” So, is the problem that the slaves don't fight back? Or that the author is injecting their pesky morality into "apolitical" literature? The latter is usually a veiled condemnation of something the reader doesn't like. The former is just arguing for a different moral framing[0]. I don't see morals in literature being a bad thing. The example used here, Uncle Tom's Cabin, did what a lot of books only dream they could do - grabbing their readers by the throat and dragging them to the conclusion. I've never worked with a sensitivity reader and I have no intention of working in traditional publishing[1]. I'm sure there are plenty of situations there where books have been neutered by people who misread them. However, that problem is not that readers want morally sanitized books or even that the acceptable morals have shifted. The problem is that the idiots running the business believe that to be the case. [0] Specifically, one of oppressed peoples fighting back and liberating themselves [1] Amazon sucked the life out of that business. In fact, I'm appalled that the Esquire writer wastes so many words on how technology is killing novels and doesn't even mention the kinds of shit Kindle and Audible do.

AlbertCory 3y ago
> is the problem that the slaves don't fight back? no, the problem is, as Baldwin said, that it's a very bad novel. And he was black, if you weren't aware. You're completely wrong about what serious writers (like Baldwin) want: it isn't to "grab their readers by the throat and drag them to the conclusion." That's what a pamphlet or editorial does. If you can state it in one sentence, you don't need a whole novel.
- s1artibartfast 3y ago
  The medium of a novel is different than the medium of a pamphlet or editorial. It will impact different people in different ways.
- TheCoelacanth 3y ago
  Ah, yes, why did no one ever think to just say the sentence "slavery is wrong"? That would have convinced tons of people.
  - AlbertCory 3y ago
    There's a difference between being effective and being *good". Screeds can be effective, but that doesn't make them literature.
- coldtea 3y ago
  >If you can state it in one sentence, you don't need a whole novel. Anybody can write it in one sentence, and it would have little to no weight, except to those already convinced for the cause. It's the taking the audiences to the point ("by the throat") that the novel can do best - and which Stowe's did. Baldwin's critique is presented as a literally one, but he actually disagrees with the politics of the book, which is something different. It's this that drives his dismissal, as opposed to the effectiveness of the book as a novel (to which making a point is not incompatible, as if literature is above it. Some of the best novels still attempt to make a very specific point). The "uncle Tom"-ing "pamphlet" story probably made more headway for the cause than many violent protests did.
  - AlbertCory 3y ago
    I assume by "literally" you mean "literary" ? Anyway, novels are not "effective." A pamphlet is effective. Propaganda is effective. Editorials are effective.
    - coldtea 3y ago
      >I assume by "literally" you mean "literary"? Yes, I do. Thanks! >Anyway, novels are not "effective." A pamphlet is effective. Propaganda is effective. Editorials are effective. That's not a set in stone aesthetic rule, just the preference of some writers, from whom art has be "untainted" by any desire to be didactic or influencial. Other artists explicitly set out to make politically and socially effective art, and struggled with the potency and effectiveness of their output. Some examples, out of the top of my head, Swift, Shaw, Steinbeck, Sinclair, London, Brecht, C.S Lewis, Orwell, and so on. Some of those were of course, more and others less blatant about it.

AlbertCory 3y ago

> is the problem that the slaves don't fight back? no, the problem is, as Baldwin said, that it's a very bad novel. And he was black, if you weren't aware. You're completely wrong about what serious writers (like Baldwin) want: it isn't to "grab their readers by the throat and drag them to the conclusion." That's what a pamphlet or editorial does. If you can state it in one sentence, you don't need a whole novel.

s1artibartfast 3y ago
The medium of a novel is different than the medium of a pamphlet or editorial. It will impact different people in different ways.
TheCoelacanth 3y ago
Ah, yes, why did no one ever think to just say the sentence "slavery is wrong"? That would have convinced tons of people.
- AlbertCory 3y ago
  There's a difference between being effective and being *good". Screeds can be effective, but that doesn't make them literature.
coldtea 3y ago
>If you can state it in one sentence, you don't need a whole novel. Anybody can write it in one sentence, and it would have little to no weight, except to those already convinced for the cause. It's the taking the audiences to the point ("by the throat") that the novel can do best - and which Stowe's did. Baldwin's critique is presented as a literally one, but he actually disagrees with the politics of the book, which is something different. It's this that drives his dismissal, as opposed to the effectiveness of the book as a novel (to which making a point is not incompatible, as if literature is above it. Some of the best novels still attempt to make a very specific point). The "uncle Tom"-ing "pamphlet" story probably made more headway for the cause than many violent protests did.
- AlbertCory 3y ago
  I assume by "literally" you mean "literary" ? Anyway, novels are not "effective." A pamphlet is effective. Propaganda is effective. Editorials are effective.
  - coldtea 3y ago
    >I assume by "literally" you mean "literary"? Yes, I do. Thanks! >Anyway, novels are not "effective." A pamphlet is effective. Propaganda is effective. Editorials are effective. That's not a set in stone aesthetic rule, just the preference of some writers, from whom art has be "untainted" by any desire to be didactic or influencial. Other artists explicitly set out to make politically and socially effective art, and struggled with the potency and effectiveness of their output. Some examples, out of the top of my head, Swift, Shaw, Steinbeck, Sinclair, London, Brecht, C.S Lewis, Orwell, and so on. Some of those were of course, more and others less blatant about it.