First off, I have a lot of trouble accepting that there can't be a union (read: a better union that Douglass has rendered) between a propagandaist document and fiction. There are so many books that stand alone as both effective propaganda and GOOD FICTION. Invisible Man is a prime example, but also look at other books-- in Slaughterhouse Five, Vonnegut isn't necessarily pushing an agenda as important as Douglass's (I read a lot of Vonnegut as promoting pacifism, but that's an interpretation) but he manages to write a coherent and cohesive novel without sacrificing his message. Basically, I'm asking why Douglass made the choice to have so many coincidences and improbable events in the plot when the story of Madison Washington, which I find interesting in itself, could have been interesting without them.
Could he have made an enthralling story that was also more believable? My biggest problem with this book is that these improbable occurrences seem so unnecessary. Why not have Madison Washington drawn out of the woods by slave catchers (which could have happened) instead of a forest fire that resembles something Dante would've written (could have happened, likely wouldn't have). Anyway, maybe this argument is irrelevant to literature, because the author made the choice and instead of analyzing what it could be, perhaps I should be looking at what it actually IS.
Let me know what you think. Is it fair to even ask these questions when there's always potential for a book to get better? Could Douglass have made his book more believable, probably and thusly more relatable?
I understand where you're coming from, Linnie, and I kinda agree. The thing is, when I take it for what it is, I see an epic novel. Sure he could've made the story more believable, but I think he sacrificed believability/relatability for a more epic view. I don't think he was trying to convince us by relating to our actual lives, but maybe appealing to the ways we glorified our own ancestors. We have equally unbelievable stories about G. Washington, so maybe Douglass was giving this movement some connection to the one with which we are all so familiar? Just a thought.
ReplyDeleteI just don't think I can write this book off as much as I can write off Poe's, even though they were probably both as unbelievable. My problem with Pym was that it didn't connect and didn't have a purpose.
(emma r.)