April 2, 2012
Not All Authors In Group II Are Bad, Right?
I wonder what people make of Cooper's "rough classification" of authors. The first group is inspired to write under the terms of art for art's sake "as a bird sings -- with no thought of an audience -- singing because it loves to sing" (Cooper 380). The second group consists of "preachers" (Cooper 381). "They mean to feter you with their one idea, whatever it is, and make you, if possible, ride their hobby" (Cooper 381). Cooper does not seem to have an especially high opinion of those in group two. "Most of the writers who have hitherto attempted to a portrayal of life and customs among the darker race have belonged to our class II: they have all, more or less, had a point to prove or a mission to accomplish, and thus their art has been almost uniformly perverted to serve their ends" (Cooper 381). It is morally wrong for someone to pervert their case in order to serve their own purpose, but do all authors from the second group do that? It is not always wrongful to write to sway an audience. As I have discussed in a prior post and comment, it is important for people to inform others about stereotyping in the media, for example. This would be a form of persuasion in which the author has a "purpose or lesson" (Cooper 381). But I would argue that this is a positive example of an author in group two. I doubt Cooper would disagree. As she calls for black authors to share their voices, some of them would want to come with a purpose and teach lessons. I certainly understand where Cooper is coming from, though. It is annoying to read propaganda hidden in novels. I suppose it's okay if there is a noble cause for the persuasion (but important to mention, who is to say what lessons are noble?), as Booth said, "...an author has an obligation to be as clear about his moral position as he possibly can be" (Booth 389).
1 comment:
I believe Cooper is interested in a more individualized Black voice and that's where her distaste for group two stems.
Group two includes writers with "a purpose or a lesson" (381). A common way to tell a story with a lesson is to make the characters universal/archetypal. This way the characters will appeal to more people and the message is therefore more effective. It's also a great way to re/produce stereotypes.
Group one includes writers who "have nothing to prove" (380). She describes them as writing what they see in nature. Instead of a widely appealing archetype, this would involve more individualized characters.
I don't think Cooper is saying that writers in group two are bad. I took it as her saying that we need way more writers from group one to explore the Black Woman because "most of the writers who have hitherto attempted a portrayal of life and customs among the darker race have belonged to our class II" (381).
She says that "without this power"--the power to inhabit the perspective of someone else--"our portraits are but death's heads or caricatures and no amount of cudgeling can put into them the movement and reality of life" (382). My interpretation is that she wants more individualized accounts of Black people/women, because the negative stereotypes are taking over and suppressing their true culture and identities.
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.