At the beginning of Frederick Douglass's My Bondage and My Freedom (1855), the editor, Frederick Douglass himself, states in the "Editor's Preface" that "If the volume now presented to the public were a mere work of ART, the history of its misfortune might written in two very simple words--TOO LATE" (5). Douglass here refers primarily to Harriet Beecher Stowe's Uncle Tom's Cabin, Or Life Among the Lowly (1852), published three years earlier. Douglass is clearly conscious of the power of Stowe's work.
For this prompt, please contrast Stowe's representation of slavery in her novel, through the first seven chapters, to Douglass's representation of slavery in his non-fiction autobiography. What are some of the differences in these two representations? Does Stowe's novel afford her opportunities of depiction not available to Douglass? Likewise, what advantages does Douglass's own account enable? Remember that both writers have a strong anti-slavery agenda despite differences in their outlooks, which we will discuss as we move further into the novel.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Well, it appears I have no joke lead myself off with. I guess slaves evading pursuit by leaping across an ice floe doesn't lend itself to witty humor. Oh well.
ReplyDeleteThe answer to the first question is actually addressed, in part, by the frame of reference. The two books are fundamentally different because Stowe's is fiction and Douglass's is...non. Ha, there's my humor, almost thought I lost it. Anyway, Stowe's work afforded her all the conventions of fiction, primarily in the realm of perspective. The reader can see what the slave is thinking and doing and can see the same from the master. This allows for a broad view of the slave system and also allows for greater subtlety and complexity in plot and characters. The first chapter is probably the best example of this, where Mr. Shelby's and Mr. Haley's little "competition" over who is more humane serves as a window into the hypocrisy of both men. Douglass's autobiography, on the other hand, is limited to his perspective alone. We can't see what his masters are thinking or what they are doing when he is not around.
Stowe's book, however, is also limited by the fact that it is indeed fiction. No matter how close to reality the story may be, it is still merely a story. The slave system, as depicted in her book, could have been made up because the story isn't real and that is an argument a contemporary reader could make against it. Also, in fiction, whether it is set in the real world or not, always creates its own little world and the story, as a result, loses any form of immediacy (hence Douglass's "TOO LATE"). Which is why non-fiction accounts like Douglass's are just as important. The story real and therefore gives an urgency and authority which Stowe's lacks.
I have found it more difficult to read Uncle Tom's Cabin knowing that it is fiction compared to Douglass' My Bondage and My Freedom. While reading the events in My Bondage, I was struck with more feeling, immediacy, authority( as Osei comments both lacked in Stowe's work), and poignancy. Because Uncle Tom's Cabin is a work of fiction, Stowe is able to really set up and manipulate her characters, scenes, and dialog to suit her agenda. I think that she has very good intentions behind the book and definitely accomplishes many of the goals that motivated the work: showcasing the moral issues of slavery, highlighting the cruelty and despicable nature of slavery, and commenting on and critiquing the political agenda and actions taken by politicians and congress during this time. But I find, while doing this, Stowe's novel can become very melodramatic.( I am thinking about the scene where Mrs. Bird opens up the drawer of her deceased child's clothes and toys and gives them to Eliza for Harry's use). The scene is very touching but it is extremely detailed and obviously created to pull on the heartstrings of every mother( or father) in the Nation that has ever lost a child.
ReplyDeleteUncle Tom's Cabin is different from My Bondage and My Freedom in that it depicts several family units (Uncle Tom, Aunt Chloe and their children- Eliza, Harry, George...) whereas Douglas portrayed himself as a solitary isolated character and the reader does is not given any details of his wife and children. But the two books do both emphasize the role of slavery in crumbling the family structure (Tom being taken away from his wife and children, George Harris being told to go live with another women, the scene with the mother and her child on the boat with Haley).
Stowe is also able to elaborate on and provide details about people who aided runaway slaves and held abolitionist sentiments. Stowe does not have to worry about jeopardizing the safety of other runaways or protect the identity of kind whites, whereas Douglass avoided all details of his escape and the people that may have helped him out of necessity in that they were real people.
Credibility is also a big issue in Uncle Tom's Cabin. I need to learn more about how Stowe prepared for and researched this book. How much of her story is true to reality and/or probable/plausible? The scene with George pretending to be a Spanish traveler and spending a night in a local tavern seemed a little far -fetched ( but who am I to say it couldn't happen?)Also, reading The Quaker Settlement chapter made me feel like I was reading Longfellow's Evangeline (not to mention the Evangeline Chapter!) Stowe's writing can become very artistic and heavy-handed at times. When she wants to get a point a cross she does not write subtly. But I can also understand her desire to convey her ideas clearly and with emotion in order to win over the hearts and minds of the American public to support her cause. So even though I feel it is a bit much at times, I understand her motivation and intentions.
The most interesting difference between Stowe's novel and Douglass's autobiography is the fact that Stowe can, and does, go where Douglass cannot, simply because of his more limited perspective (limited, that is, in that he can only go off of his own experiences and does not have the same freedom as Stowe). In Uncle Tom's Cabin Stowe allows us to see into the separate lives of every group of people conceivable. She shows us the masters/ traders (the "good" and the bad), the politicians of the time and what sway they had over slavery (such as Senator Bird's support of the law prohibiting giving aid to fugitive slaves). She also shows us, in stark contrast, the two different groups of slaves, which she saw as existing. Here, then, there is a great flaw in her work, as opposed to Douglass's. The two categories of slave are depicted through Aunt Chloe and Uncle Tom and through Eliza and George Harris. The way she portrays them (Aunt Chloe and Uncle Tom as the religious, less educated ones who accept their fate, and Eliza and George as the non- religious, more educated ones who resist and gain their freedom) is almost a propaganda of sorts (not sure that's the right word, but it's along those lines). Even within slavery she has portrayed their being racism, and a kind of classism, that the educated ones who have no religion are the ones who will eventually be able to gain their freedom, while the other group probably never will.
ReplyDeleteIn contrast to Stowe's novel, Douglass has a much more limited perspective (although his perspective on slavery itself would naturally be much clearer), although personally, I am apt to trust his words much more than Stowe's. Stowe may have been sympathetic, but she was writing a novel, and not entirely bound to truthful representations where they didn't suit the story line. Douglass, on the other hand, was so truthful in his account that he even named specific names of slave traders, and gave such details as include their backgrounds and what city and state they actually originated from. Relating back to one of our discussions in class, Douglass's reasons for writing his autobiography (in all its various forms), differed from Stowe's reasons for writing her novel. Douglass's main reason was perhaps for recognition of slavery for what it actually was. It is by no means pleasant or sugar coated, whereas Stowe's novel does, in places, seem to take away from the real horror.
I don't mean to say that Uncle Tom's Cabin is completely invalid, but compared to Douglass's autobiography, I don't think it can really compete. Maybe it's because I haven't gotten far enough into it yet, but like I said, I just don't trust Stowe's narrator as far as I am inclined to trust Douglass.
Everyone pretty much said what was first on my mind after reading the prompt: "Stowe's novel is fiction, while Douglass's is non-fiction." I feel that there is going to be an obvious difference between these two works.
ReplyDeleteWith Douglass, he is able to engage readers with HIS emotions. We must rely on him if we want to get the story straight, and he makes it clear to us that he wants us to trust him: using formal names of people and places to clarify that he is telling the truth. His experiences with slavery are nothing but harsh, and reliving those memories to write this must have been extremely painful. However, reliving this pain has made his readers feel his pain, and I think that is part of the point. He wants readers to see, feel, and understand what HE and others went through as a slave.
In contrast, Stowe does not have any experience in being a slave, which, I would think, would cause a big problem within the African American community, but that might be another story..
Anyway, Stowe presents to readers this story. We are introduced to the nasty slaveholder: Mr. Haley and the sweet and innocent slaveholders: Mr. and Mrs. Shelby. The one (of probably many) problem with this is Stowe is a WHITE, American FEMALE. Stowe, disagreeing with slavery, depicts a more perfect view of slavery than does Douglass. Although she disagrees with slavery, it is as if she has blinders on - is this what she REALLY thinks slavery is?! Everyone just sitting around having a grand ol' time, sipping tea, and slave and slaveholders enjoying each other's company? Really?!
Similarly, Mrs. Shelby does not agree with slavery, and I believe someone in Douglass's narrative didn't either (the woman, who's name I can't remember). She was the one that originally taught him to read and write, I believe. Anyway, she didn't agree with it, and if she did, she didn't see any harm in teaching him anything... until her husband said something to her. After that, she changed her opinions, and she started treating him like every other typical slaveholder. Back to Stowe -- she illustrates Mrs. Shelby being a good Christian and talking her husband into changing his mind about turning the slaves away, which is completely unrealistic because men STILL don't listen to us (women). haha. Anywayyy, she writes this novel about something she knows nothing about. It's as if the reader is a third party that is witnessing everything going on, which I don't think is what Douglass was doing. He was informing, whereas Stowe is sugar coating what really happened, perhaps to ease her own mind. Maybe displaying this story in such a way allowed her to cope with the anxieties of slavery.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree with everyone’s post so far. I have to agree that the most distinct differences between the two books is fiction and non-fiction. No fiction story on slavery can compare to an actual account on what it was to actually be a slave. When I read Uncle Tom’s Cabin by Stowe I think to my self “I cannot imagine having to be a slave and live under those circumstances.” However, if I think back to Douglass’s novel I realize that he knows exactly what it was like to live as a slave. Because Douglass’s accounts are real, it’s easier to put myself into his shoes.
ReplyDeleteThough Stowe’s novel was fiction, the things she writes about really happened. Maybe the characters are fake, but there were woman slaves like Eliza who had to escape for their child’s safety. There were slave holders like Shelby who had to make difficult decisions to sell their good slaves. There were people like Uncle Tom, who stayed true to their masters. And unfortunately, there were people like poor Prue who were mistreated and killed by their slave holders. My point is, though Stowe’s work is based on fiction – her characters mirror people who did actually live this horrible life of slavery.
Agreeing with everyone else, the two books differ because Douglass gives his own personal account, and cannot account for the characters in his story. The story is based strictly on his own experiences, and because it is from the first person point of view, we do not know what is going on with the other characters through out the story. Stowe takes an omniscient point of view, giving the readers the opportunity to see what is going on with all the characters in the book. I feel that both books provide something important through their points of view. Douglass’s book is more personal, while Stowe’s book gives a boarder perspective.
It's interesting, but I've been viewing everyone's posts and general agreement seems to be that Stowe is "sugar-coating" slavery on some level. While I'm not apt to disagree with that, far be it from me to do so, at the same time, I've developed a bit of a theory on slavery. We (including myself) all seem to have the idea that Southern slavery was a monolithic institution, by which I mean we all seem to believe that nearly all slaveholders were cruel bastards, in which there were only a handful of kinder masters sprinkled among them.
ReplyDeleteHowever, after reading "My Bondage and My Freedom" and "Uncle Tom's Cabin," I'm not so sure anymore. In both stories we are presented both kind and cruel masters. It's the former that makes me wonder if kind slaveholders were more common than we are generally led to believe in our history courses. I mean, I know I myself, if I were to guess, would say that I believe that 80-90% of masters were cruel with the rest being kind(er). But the seemingly more commonplace existence of kind masters as presented in both Stowe and Douglass makes me think what if the ratio is 70-30 or 60-40? That would dramatically change our outlook on slavery and how we view the way people of the 19th century viewed it. I know the last sentence sounds a little baffling, just read it slowly.
What I'm trying to say, ultimately, is what if she isn't "sugar-coating?" What if she's writing based off of what she's seen and rumors and stories she's heard?
I agree/disagree with Osei. I agree that from years of schooling and history classes about slavery, we are led to believe that all slave holders are evil and mean to their slaves. I don’t necessarily think that is the case, however. After reading Douglass’s and Stowe’s books I have come to see that there are kinder masters. Since Douglass wrote about true accounts, I can fully believe the times he writes about maters that were kind. However, though I don’t think Stowe was “sugar-coating” anything, I have some doubts in my mind that some of the masters were as kind as she made them seem.
ReplyDeleteI think a person who owned slaves, regardless of how mean or kind they were, are evil people in general. From reading about the awful lives slaves suffered, I can’t imagine anything human in the people who treated them that way. Even the character of George Shelby, “the kinder slave holder”, was a greedy man at heart. To have people as slaves and keep them from their freedom, one must possess some sort of evil in their heart.
I think Stowe's depiction of slavery in her novel is drastically differnt compared to Douglass'. Her novel romaticizes slavery, and at times parts of the novel are so unbelieveable they are hard to get through. Douglass' novel describes the cruelities of slavery without omitting a single detail, whereas Stowe has minimal, if any, descriptions of beatings in her novel.
ReplyDeleteThe only similarities between both novels is the theme of religion. In both books religion is important,however it is important for different reasons.
In Stowe's book, religion is depicted mainly, and most significantly, through the characters of Eva and Tom. To an extent, they are Jesus on Earth.
In Douglass' novel, religion at times serves as a crutch, but is mostly used to keep hope alive.
Although drastically differnet, both novels compliment eachother. Stowe offers her readers a more peaceful view of slavery, but Douglass gives you the hard-to-bare details.
In response to Kaitlin's post...
ReplyDelete"Although she disagrees with slavery, it is as if she has blinders on - is this what she REALLY thinks slavery is?! Everyone just sitting around having a grand ol' time, sipping tea, and slave and slaveholders enjoying each other's company? Really?!"
I totally agree with that, and it made me a bit indignant too. It felt like Stowe was speaking with authority which, while you want an author to be able to sound like they know what they're talking about, I think in some cases it may not come across the right way. The only consolation, I suppose, is that people (in theory!) would realize that this is not only a work of fiction, but that the author is making it all up (realizing, of course, that's what fiction is... it's late, I apologize), having had no first hand experience with the subject matter. I would be interested to know what Douglass's reaction to Beecher's letter, asking for first hand accounts of slavery to make her novel more authentic, was... knowing how supportive he was of her work (which boggles my mind as well- sorry, I still don't see why Uncle Tom's Cabin sold so well and was considered the most important book of its time).
Going off of what Osei said, I do have to say that the same thoughts were running through my head when reading Stowe's novel. The novel does feel overly exaggerated at times, but Stowe had to have some basis for the characters in her novel which leads me to believe it's quite possible there were a number of kind(er) slaveholders. It is possible for that to be true, at least I believe so, because all I really know about slavery I learned from history books. So is it possible? Yes. Is it likely that Stowe's depictions are accurate and reliable? Not so much, but it does bring up the possibility of "a handful of kinder masters sprinkled among them," to quote Osei.
ReplyDeleteAlthough Stowe and Douglass have obvious differences in their stories because one is factual and the other is fictional, I think that Stowe takes on some of Douglass's ideas and either involves them directly, or takes them into a different direction. Stowe is sure to show the hardships of slavery. but doesn't take it to such an extreme level, more than likely because she lacks the knowledge of the real story-meaning that she hasn't personally experienced anything involving slavery regardless of being a slave or even witnessing the events taking place. Douglass has obviously seen what it is like, so he is able to make the reader more aware of and able to imagine what it was like. He manages to give the reader a major glimpse into the life of slavery as it was, even though most of his readers will never have personally experienced it themselves. Given the idea of fact or fiction, Douglass tells the story how it is. Stowe is able to make the characters and events involved in her novel as in depth and realistic as she wants because she has the freedom of fiction behind her. In some ways, Douglass is constricted in what he can include, because one wrong slip could make him lose his credibility. But by presenting names and places, he is witholding that, and can allow readers to understand. Stowe is able to make her story interesting, but if she goes too extreme about events, it becomes less satisfying to her readers. Both are good novels, and both authors are able to bring out an important topic in different ways. The main difference only lies with the face vs fiction.
ReplyDeleteThe main difference between Uncle Tom's Cabin and My Bondage and My Freedom is that Douglass is brutally honest when depicting the treatment of slaves, whereas Stowe doesn't even introduce a vicious slaveholder until late in the story. Douglass' honesty is what makes it so different then Stowe's representation of slavery. Knowing that the events that Douglass describes are true is what helps make his book so captivating.
ReplyDeleteWith that said, Stowe benefits from being able to shift her focus from one character or location to another. This freedom enables Stowe to give readers the perspective of many different personality types. In one chapter she can explore the relationship between slave owners, then she can focus on a rebellious character like George Harris, and then introduce the man of faith, Uncle Tom. While these characters might not have existed, Stowe does a good job of using the characters to represent multiple views of each subject matter to the readers.