In Chesnutt’s plantation tales, Julius tells the stories while John and Annie listen. What do you find significant about their reactions to the stories about Sandy and/or Dave?
12 thoughts on “Charles Chesnutt Stories”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
After hearing these stories, John and Annie reveal that their way of thinking is rooted in a rationalistic, scientific view of the world. In “Po’ Sandy,” when Annie exclaims, “What a system it was … under which such things were possible,” John responds, “What things? Are you seriously considering the possibility of a man’s being turned into a tree?” John makes it clear that he believes it absurd to find any truth in this story. The story loses credibility for him entirely, while Annie listens with a more sympathetic ear. I found this exchange also interesting because Annie could have been talking both about the traumas Sandy and Tenie suffered, as well Sandy’s transformation into a tree. Because John listens with no sympathy, he fails to consider that his wife is talking about the horrors of slavery and the effects it had on people’s mental health. He instead treats it as a sort of ghost story (which it is somewhat framed as), and a waste of his time.
In both of the stories, Julius leaves with more than he had at the beginning. In “Dave’s Neckliss,” he gets a ham, and in “Po’ Sandy” he gets the schoolhouse. Because the story is read from John’s point of view, I read this pattern as John’s critical view of Julius. In his mind, these stories are not to be taken seriously, but were relayed by Julius to take advantage of the empathetic nature of his wife. John would not be convinced.
I definitely agree with Jack’s insights that for John and Annie these stories hold very different meanings. In light of the gendered relationship as well as the responses to race that have been covered, I also think that the differences between John and Annie and the following ‘tensions’ in their marriage are important to note. While they have such different responses to the stories, neither of them is willing to discuss with the other their thoughts and reactions. While Annie tells John she gave up the schoolhouse and gave Julius the ham, as far as the reader sees, there is no followup or exchange between the husband and wife on the topic (though we know they disagree). While this could just be a reflection of ‘contemporary’ relationships, one would think that after a story of this type a husband and wife would want to talk about it and come to some kinds of conclusion or hear what their partner has to say. I think this points to something in Dave’s Neckliss and Po’ Sandy that show it is not just a ghost story but that this reflects the deeper nature of the human psyche after enduring impact slavery – something that John and Annie are not willing to confront.
Something that struck me about John and Annie’s responses to Julius’s stories is how they try to distance themselves from institution of slavery. John mentions “the acts of kindness” that slaveholders had shown Julius “and his people” (133) and constantly asserts the sympathetic nature of his wife, Annie. They seem to view Julius’ entire experience of slavery as a spectacle for their consumption: “It was only now and then that we were able to study… the simple but intensely human inner life of slavery.” (133) Annie takes “deep interest in the stories of plantation life… poured freely into the sympathetic ear of a Northern-bred woman [which] disclose many a tragic accident of the darker side of slavery.” (46) Who knew slavery had a “lighter” side? They clearly don’t see themselves as complicit in the institution of slavery, despite living on a vineyard/plantation in North Carolina with servants. Julius seems to remind them that they are indeed living on a plantation by telling them stories that happened there. John and Annie are portrayed as simply unable to grasp the magnitude of slavery, even as they seem to be participating in it. After Julius tells the story of Dave, Annie begins to talk about the weather.
I also think it’s important to note the way John portrays Julius: “The pathetic intonation with which he lengthened out the ‘po’ Sandy’ touched a responsive chord in our own hearts.” (46) John tries to portray Julius as pathetic or desperate in other ways, as demonstrated in the way John watches Julius eat the ham. Although John and Annie seem to posit themselves on “the right side of history”, they, like Colonel Forsyth are most comfortable when a black man is deprived of power and put into “his place”.
Not related to any of the topics previously address:
I think madness in the context of Chesnutt’s stories is deeply rooted in, or rather a result of, the physical and psychological pressures Black people faced in their everyday lives during enslavement and post-Antebellum/Reconstruction. In “Dave’s Neckliss,” Dave is forced by his master to wear ham around his neck after being falsely accused for stealing it. Although his punishment is eventually lifted, Dave never recovers from the humiliation he endured and “goes mad,” creating his own ‘ham necklace’ and later committing suicide the manner in which he is the ‘ham necklace.’ The ham becomes a symbol of racial trauma not just for Dave, but for Julius as well.
In “The Doll,” the barber finds himself in a long-winded rumination as to whether or not he should seek revenge by killing the colonel for murdering his father years ago, as the colonel’s presence in his barbershop is a reminder of his racial trauma. In “Po’ Sandy,” Tenie turns her husband Sandy into a tree in order to secure their plan of escaping. The plan, however, fails as Sandy (the tree) is chopped down and grinded in order to build the schoolhouse. Tenie finds herself going “mad,” grieving the loss of her husband and blaming herself for her loss. Tenie dies in the schoolhouse and Sandy haunts it — the schoolhouse then becomes another site of racial trauma.
I would like to piggy-back of Katy and talk a little about the gender stereotyping going on these stories. I like how she brought up the gendered-ness of Dave and Sandy’s death. It’s not a conclusion I would have been able to come to on my own, but I can definitely see where she’s come from. Although Dave is labeled as the crazy one, it’s strange for me to think that in the end he was the one with the most control over his life, he was the one who was able to control how he died simply perhaps because he was a man. That sounds funny when you say it out loud doesn’t it? ‘He took his own life because he was a man.” Interesting. Anyways, you know what I mean…
Since the conversation has turned to gender, I would like to discuss the different reactions both Dilsey and Tenie have to the men they are either married to or engaged to be married. Dilsey and Dave’s relationship seemed strong from the beginning. They were considered a fine looking couple and even had the blessing of their master. On the contrary, Tenie is Sandy’s second wife only after his first one was sold without his knowledge. Despite seeming like the perfect couple, Dilsey and Dave’s relationship can not compare to the commitment Tenie and Sandy have for each other. Dilsey listens to the other slaves, shuns Dave, and quickly starts a relationship with another man. Dilsey’s actions are the opposite of Tenie who does everything in her power to keep Sandy close to her, ultimately resulting in her death from grief. When comparing the two stories, readers are supposed to judge Dilsey for her lack of trust. “Dave’s Neckliss” suggests that losing Dilsey began the process of Dave losing his mind.I personally did not like her for listening to others. On the other hand, I think “Po’ Sandy” depicts Tenie in a good light, as a woman who will not give up on her husband easily. The portrayal of just these two women are very gendered as they seem to be praised or judged based on their willingness and or ability to stand by the men in their life.
I’ll slightly deviate from the posted question because I think it has been pretty well covered by the other responses, but I am really interested in the gendered-ness of the stories that has been mentioned by multiple posts. I think that Dave and Sandy represent specifically gendered characters just as much as Annie and John do – but manifested differently. Both Dave and Sandy die, however, the means by which they reach death arguably fits right in line with the specified gender roles of the time. Sandy is turned into a tree by Tenie for the sake of “protection.” Thus, all of her agency is removed. She has no control over what happens to her in this state – from a woodpecker pecking to a fellow enslaved person chopping to her eventual demise in the sawmill. Dave, on the other hand, is in more control of his own death, as he is the one who hangs/cooks himself like the ham he was forced to wear around his neck. Although Dave is portrayed as completely insane, I think he is still granted more agency over death than Sandy’s character is since he is active in his fate. Further supporting my point are the titles of the two stories – “Dave’s Neckliss” vs. “Po’ Sandy.” Before we even read the stories, Dave is prefaced as someone who possess a necklace (or, in other words, is able/has the power to possess something in general) whereas Sandy is set up as purely a victim (no power implied).
I think Janka’s point about how ‘insensitive’ John and Annie are after hearing both “Dave’s Neckliss” and
“Po’ Sandy” is interesting. Both of the stories Julius tells are fairly graphic, horrifying, and uncomfortable for the reader, and then Annie and John seemingly continue to go about their days, especially after “Dave’s Neckliss” where Annie asks about the weather moments after learning Dave hanged himself. I think Morgan is on the right track when talking about pervasive racism within the American South post-Civil War. Even though Julius is free, he is still on the same plantation where he was enslaved and the Chesnutt sets up the levels of power within the story with Annie and John being above Julius. The main reason I think that Annie and John “write off” the stories of Dave and Sandy are because they see Julius as amusing. Annie and John clearly know, and Chesnutt sets up, the social hierarchy of the period. To them (Annie and John) Julius is a practical source of labor and also will occasionally entertain with stories from his past. The quote that Morgan brings in about Julius’ mind being “enslaved” suggests what Julius is slightly ‘mad’ and possibly another reason that Annie and John have such unusual reactions to these two stories. I believe Annie and John rely on Julius to make their lives easier and allow him to tell his stories. Even while the outcomes of these stories does have ramifications on their daily lives, John and Annie continue on with their lives almost as if nothing happened. I found these stories interesting when compared to “The Turn of the Screw” because these tales begin fairly low-key and escalate quickly, whereas The Turn of the Screw is set up to be frightening and many of us in class did not find it to be too ghost-story like.
One aspect of their responses that struck me was the particularly gendered nature of each. Annie’s reaction is stereotypically feminine; she can’t bring herself to eat ham after hearing of Dave’s story and she can’t tolerate her new kitchen being built from the lumbar that was Sandy. John, by contrast, is exceedingly rational and removed of emotion. After hearing Dave’s story, he has no issue asking for a slice of ham to eat, and he rebukes his wife for possibly believing or even being affected by Sandy’s story. Their very different reactions are simply to discern, and fall along predictable gender-based patterns.
Both responses seem to perfectly reinforce gender stereotypes, in a way that is not only problematic for its implications for gender, but also (I would assert) for distracting from the stories themselves. At first, I thought the structure of having two wealthy white people listen in on the stories would work as a framing much like the one we discussed for Turn of the Screw. I thought maybe the framing might function to lend credibility to a black man’s stories, or that perhaps it would structure the reader’s experience by pointing out different ways of relating to a story. Although I do think that happens to a certain extent, one of the primary effects of the stories seems to me to be to highlight the stupidity and highly emotional nature of women. The tone set up by John uses these stories primarily as a means to convey his disdain for his wife.
Along with the gendered nature of John and Annie’s responses that Nina discusses, I also think the way they discuss race is notable. Though John makes sure to distinguish them as “good” Northern white people, separate from the racism of the South, their racism still shines through in how John speaks of Julius. In “Dave’s Necklace,” John starts the story by infantalizing Julius, referring to him as having a “curiously undeveloped nature…subject to moods which were almost childish in their variableness” (133). John suggests that Julius is not totally “sane” by stating that Julius’s “mind [has been] enslaved long after the shackles had been struck off…” (133). Though Annie seems to take Julius’s stories more seriously, pitying Julius and assuming Julius’s superstition about the old schoolhouse in “Po’ Sandy,” John’s manner of describing Julius lends the reader to believe that John sees Julius and his stories as a little ridiculous, that his mind has been too altered by slavery to be seen as reliable. This is further empasized in “‘Po Sandy” when John essentializes all black people’s stories as “…quaintly humourous; others wildly extravangant, revealing the Oriental cast of the negro’s imagination” (46). Though John and Annie may have some sympathy for Julius as a freed slave, they don’t seem critical of their own thinking about race or the fact that Julius is still working for them on the same plantation in which he was enslaved. He may be given ham from their table, but Julius is not seen as an equal.
Touching on Morgan’s point of equality, what struck me was how insensitive both John and Annie were after hearing the Julius’s story in Dave’s Neckliss. Right after he was finished speaking, instead of showing any sign of remorse or even horror at the tale, after only a short silence, Annie begins talking about the weather. The subject goes from watching a person hang and then smoke themselves, to talking about something so arbitrary as the weather. It is as if the tale that Julius told was a child’s tale and holds no weight to it, demonstrating a social divide.
The story in Po’ Sandy seems a little more far-fetched than the previous one and therefore when Annie does not want her kitchen to be made of the same lumber, I could not help but think that she was very gullible and almost child-like for thinking that Sandy was actually turned into a tree. What struck me even more is that John lets her have things her way. Instead of saying that she is ridiculous and that they are going to re-use the lumber, he goes off and buys new lumber. Even though Annie may not realize it, she still has a bit of power over John which is different to the male-female dynamic read about in the Yellow Wallpaper.
I wanted to follow up on Annie’s power over John. One of the things I was thinking about was whether Julius was just telling these stories to get resources out of them—like the ham or the schoolhouse—or just telling stories, albeit enhanced with Julius’ flair for drama or creativity, within the context of oral tradition. I don’t think Annie actually believes the story, but it moves her to let the schoolhouse remain standing and suggests that they will not tear down or particularly want to visit the building for any other reason, thus leaving it open for Julius’ use. Her influence over John is clear but likewise, Julius’ power over HER is clear too. His is purposeful in his storytelling, to perhaps take advantage of Annie’s sensitivity and power over John.