In class today, we discussed whether Frederick Douglass presents himself as a romantic hero. Following the thread on Natty Bumppo on this blog, we drew a comparison with James Fenimore Cooper's fictional Natty Bumppo in the Leatherstocking Tales. However, we could have examined other heroes and anti-heroes from the course, including Gabriel Lajeunesse, John Alden, Arthur Gordon Pym, Israel Potter (and Melville's construction of Revolutionary War figures like Benjamin Franklin, John Paul Jones, and Ethan Allan), and Holgrave.
Does Frederick Douglass as an autobiographer present himself as a hero in this same tradition of male American heroism? Does he share characteristics with this type?
Postscript: In class, I drew a very tenuous connection between Cooper and Douglass by way of each man's recognition of Sir Walter Scott. Cooper models his own historical romances on Sir Walter Scott's works. Frederick Augustus Washington Bailey adopts the last name Douglass out of his appreciation for Sir Walter Scott's poem "Lady of the Lake" (1809) and his identification with the character James of Douglass.
One significant difference between Natty Bumppo and Frederick Douglass--among many, many differences, I should add--is that Natty Bumppo believes in racial and ethnic separation, a view hinted at in the Pioneers and expressed directly in the other Leatherstocking novels, particularly Last of the Mohicans (1826) and The Prairie (1827). In contrast, Douglass believed in an integrated, multi-racial democracy and full gender equality. He fought literally until the day he died for a society in which men and women, regardless of color, would enjoy all the civil rights and protections of full citizenship. On Feb. 20, 1895, Douglass was present at a meeting for the National Council of Women in Washington; later, that same day, he died in his Cedar Hill home in Anacostia, Washinton, DC.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I wasn't in class today, I am going to attempt to respond to this..
ReplyDeleteI continue to get confused on the two subjects: British Romanticism and American Romanticism. I feel this class, with diverse writers, is much different from that of British Romanticism. However, one thing I find in common among the writers is the ability to have passion for something. In this case, Douglass is very passionate in trying to obtain his freedom. He does not, however, fit the "hero" type. From what we have read so far, the typical hero is a white male. Further, these heroes, excluding Douglass, all have had some kind of "weirdness" about them. Let's examine... shall we?
John Alden: The hero of “The Courtship of Miles Standish,” and, as much as I enjoyed this story, I do not really see Alden as a hero. He does not have the guts to stand up for himself when it comes to his friend, Miles, and he is only able to propose to Priscilla after he finds that Standish is “dead.”
As we are taught, a hero is someone that conquers all, someone that fights for what they believe in -- their rights. Alden doesn’t do any of this. In fact, he displays cowardice up until the Standish’s death.
Israel Potter (the real one): may have altered his experience because he wanted a pension from the government. He may not have endured the severe wounds he expresses in his autobiography
Israel Potter (Melville's remake): Went on all of these adventures and became a different person every day simply because he was not allowed to marry the girl of his dreams (okay, so I may be a little harsh, but really Potter?)
Benjamin Franklin: Although he is an American hero, at least, I believe so, he was kind of vulgar. What kind of "hero" has relations with different women while they are studying abroad? Not only is this against God, but this is a problem that politicians get in trouble for. They are supposed to be role models..
Emerson: He had one way of thinking, and only his views were right. He was a hypocrite. - not hero material.
Arthur Gordon Pym: He's able to sneak away on a ship, survive a few ship wrecks, eat a person, and then, we lose his story
Holgrave: A descendent of a family practicing witch craft, yet, he gets the perfect girl, even though he's a little creepy
Okay. Now, Douglass: a black man that suffers terrible hardships. He becomes close with the people around him, only to be taken away from them in the end. Because of his race, he is seen as illiterate; however, he overcomes this harsh judgment by learning to read and write. Not only doing that but writing quite a few novels on his life.
Douglass, in my opinion, is the ONLY hero. He overcomes the stereotypes, overcomes the hardships, and doesn't have to lie about his experiences (Potter reference). He tells it how it is because he wants to express how harsh the life as a slave really was. Further, because he was part of the minority class, he also stood up for another minority class, which I believe is rather significant. Although he is black, he was a man, and men at this time did not believe in women's rights; however, he did, and I believe that makes for an extraordinary hero, not to mention, a hero that is not a hypocrite.
I got a little carried away in this post, as you can see.
Well, the question in itself sounds slightly flawed. By saying that Douglass "presents himself" as a romantic hero, it implies that it was an intentional. Essentially, a speculation that he embellished his story to make himself more heroic, which I think, because of the inherent dishonesty of embellishment, would have undercut his argument against slavery. Also, this would not fit Frederick Douglass' character. He is not a vain or egotistical man. He is more concerned about the abolition of slavery than stroking his own ego.
ReplyDeleteIf anything, he is a real-life example of the romantic hero, the characteristics of which grew out of him by necessity. He was thrown into real circumstances that demanded the will and desire for education and freedom, rather than contrived, less believable circumstances seen in other heroes who can, as mentioned in class, choose to take on those characteristics. After all, the other heroes we have read would never find themselves in a situation so severe as the slave system of the south.
On that note, after reading Kaitlin's comment, I feel as though romantic heroes, by nature, are flawed characters in some way. Even Douglass is, though not to the severity of the fictional characters we have read. Remember, he has a strong proclivity (a word which I'm not entirely sure I'm using correctly) toward violence. Often, as he feels more empowered to act on his feelings, he tests the boundaries of authority in the system and desires to push the boundaries even farther, such as the fight with Covey. It is definitely an interesting way to view romantic heroes.
Those are two great posts, and I agree with both Osei and Kaitlin that the question is flawed and problematic. I do think, though, that Douglass crafts his three narratives for specific purposes but that this does not mean that he embellishes the account.
ReplyDeleteFor instance, in his first two narratives, he chooses not to tell his readers how he escaped from Baltimore. He will not divulge this information until his third account, which is published two decades after the end of the Civil War. This omission is done purposely. Another example is how he handles religion, which differs in all three accounts. He controls how he tells his story, what he says, how he says it, etc. Reading all three narratives is very interesting because we see differences in emphasis that are purposeful.
We can think about the introduction that comes before Smith's introduction. To me, Douglass has adopted the role of editor here in a very strategic way that overturns the editorial apparatus in his first narrative. Including the picture on the frontispiece is deliberate, too, and is a presentation of the self.
Your posts are excellent, and I think this is a fine discussion.
Just as a final note, Douglass's _The Heroic Slave_, a short novel based on a real-life event, portrays Madison Washington, the leader of _The Creole_ mutiny as a romantic hero, in terms of what Joseph Soldati (he is the critic quoted on the syllabus) sees as a Prometheus character.
I think that Douglass presents himself as the ideal character in his novel. It's not that he likes being alone, but he is stuck in enslavement and really has no choice. He doesn't know who his own father is, his mom died when he was really young, and he was pulled away from his grandparents and taken to a new home-in other words: his real salve home. Slavery tore apart the idea of family. Not only has Douglass lost these members of his family, but his siblings (whom he later meets) are nothing more but strangers to him. While he wants to be happy and be with someone who cares about him, slavery keeps that idea away and Douglass is forced to look out for soley himself, until slavery let him go-if it ever did.
ReplyDeleteEven though slavery did restrain Douglass from really having someone good in his life, he manages to hang on and continue. As he gets older he came in contact with a few helpful people and was good with them for the time he was with them. However, at the same time it was as if he knew better than to focus too much on not being alone, as he kept getting moved. Regardless of where he was, he kept fighting. It could have been for numerous things, but in the case of his novel, Douglass is more or less going after his freedom and helping others in the same position have the same
I think Douglass does, completely by default, represent himself as a hero in his autobiography. Mostly, I think it comes across through the language he uses itself, as it's very intelligent and precise. He has a way of sounding important in his writing, which is not to say he's self- important, because that does not fit his character either. I think what it is, for me, is that I'm just not used to such overly intelligent language (without it going over anyone's head), and people actually being able to express themselves in such a way that their experiences become almost universal, no matter what the actual experience is.
ReplyDeleteFurther, the situation Douglass is writing about in the first place, his ordeals in and then his escape from slavery, lends itself well to a heroic figure head which Douglass must fill, whether it has been his intention or not. As I mentioned earlier, Douglass is about as far from self- important as one could get- his narrative does bear some modesty, so his personality really isn't one of a heroic figure, although arguably he is more heroic than any other character we've come into contact with since the beginning of this course.
Basically, it's not his personality itself which has turned Douglass into a romantic figure head, but it's his experiences, and his style of portraying those experiences, which have transformed him. He is the ideal "slave", which I feel awkward for even saying, but I think you know what I mean by it. He overcame adversity, in the process of which he even managed to educate himself, and he escaped from slavery, never truly giving up hope, even after his run in with Covey. I think it was mainly this hope which caused him to succeed, as others, who had long ago lost whatever hope they had, had given up and were basically stuck in slavery.
However, while Douglass is a hero, he's something of an unrealistic one, even bearing in mind the model he served for others after him. His situation is unrealistic because he did have an education, and his hope in tact. Also, although no master is a good master (as he himself said), he didn't have the worst, barring Covey, and it seemed like he had some supportive moments from masters and mistresses. no matter how brief they may have been. Still, Douglass remains the ideal romantic hero.
(sorry for the overly long post).
I think in many ways Fredrick Douglass can be considered the greatest Romantic Hero out of all the “hero’s” we have read about so far. In the discussion in class we talked about how Natty Bumppo and Fredrick Douglass are similar. They both are law breakers, independent thinkers, American, self educated and they both value liberty and freedom. While I see Natty Bumppo has the hero of the “woods” I see Douglass as the hero of the “slaves.” Natty Bumppo fought for his rights to live in the wilderness, and be detached from the regular world to live where he is comfortable. Douglass as well is detached from family and friends as he fights for his rights to live as any other American and escape slavery.
ReplyDeleteDouglass’s character is the true romantic hero because he suffered greatly, and fought against the odds to escape slavery. When I read his narrative, I can almost share his pain. Though his approach is slightly modest, I can still see that he had to fight hard to find his way to freedom. Though it may not be exactly like it, I think Douglass was in pursuit of the American dream – the right for happiness and freedom. People say the American dream is to go from “rags to riches.” It seems his “rags” was his enslavement and his “riches” were his ultimate freedom.
I agree with Osei's comment on Douglass not intentionally depicting himself as the ideal hero. Douglass' modesty within his work testifies to the idea that it was Douglass' circumstances, his personal character, and the decisions that he made that contributed to him emerging as the ideal hero. He is even more "ideal" in that he is a real person and not a creation of an author's pen. I do not doubt that Douglass may have excluded some events and details in his memoir that may have been detracting from the account (afterall the reader did not get day by day account) but I definitely believe he didn't put any in details that would somehow enhance his image. As Osei said,"He is more concerned with the abolition of slavery than stroking his own ego." I hope this is true as this is the genuine feeling that emerged after reading the work.
ReplyDeleteWhile I don't necessarily feel that Douglass wrote this book to "stroke his ego" as Osei said, I do get the feeling that Douglass was very aware of what was popular during his time. He either depicted himself as a Romantic hero because he was just used to that style so it naturally came to him, or he consciously chose to depict himself that way. I think we can all agree that Douglass' goal was the abolition of slavery, but he needed his book to grab the attention of potential readers. If he follows the style of other writers then that might make readers more excited to check out his book, which would allow him to spread his message.
ReplyDeleteHow much does an iPhone make? | Mapyro
ReplyDeleteFor 울산광역 출장안마 many players, the best iPhone app offers a wide 정읍 출장샵 range of gaming options, and while 보령 출장안마 there's some that 충주 출장마사지 are still quite unique, 강릉 출장마사지 there are