Black Writers Picture Themselves – Part 2

Ralph Ellison

Ralph Ellison

Burt Britton’s 1976 book Self-Portrait: Book People Picture Themselves contains nearly 750 self-portraits of writers and actors, from Edward Abbey (A) to Paul Zweig (Z).  It all started when Britton, then tending bar in New York, tried to get a customer to leave, a customer who wanted drink after drink and kept asking, “What do you want from me, kid?”  In a flash of inspiration, the young Britton pushed him a napkin and said, “Draw me a picture of yourself.”  The man did.  He was a writer.  His name was Norman Mailer.  So began a life-long habit I tell more about in “Self-Portraits of the Artists.”

I was delighted to find ten self-portraits of black writers that I write about on this site—go Here for the complete list—five of which I presented in “Black Writers Picture Themselves – Part 1.”  They were Gwendolyn Brooks, Charles Johnson, James Baldwin, Clarence Major, and Ronald L. Fair.  I commented there on the range of styles, “…from the scattering lines of Gwendolyn Brooks’ and Ronald L. Fair’s self-portraits, to

Leon Forrest

Leon Forrest

the bold starkness of Charles Johnson’s, and Clarence Major’s combination of these two styles.” I also said they all seemed to capture their peculiar styles and concerns—and their looks, too.

This is Part Two of “Black Writers Picture Themselves,” and in some cases the writers haven’t captured their looks at all.  Ralph Ellison did, though. And with a careful realism I find quite moving when you consider the protagonist of his great novel Invisible Man was, well, invisible.   What did he look like?  What could he look like?  It’s as if Ellison’s self-portrait is saying, Look at me.  This is what I look like, what the Invisible Man could look like.  Not so scary, so monstrous after all.

Leon Forrest‘s self-portrait is as far away from scary as you can get.  Still touching the realm of realism, his self-portrait, though, seems shot through with a childishness belying the multi-layered complexity of his fiction.  His scattering hair perhaps

James Alan McPherson

James Alan McPherson

captures his fiction’s messy-nest thickness, though in real life he was almost always seen with hair slightly slicked back and perfectly coiffed.  Which coif James Alan McPherson didn’t have in the slightest!  His self-portrait presents a bald primitiveness, almost an anti-drawing, which he explains in his note: “I’d rather write than draw”!

It’s the two women in this second set of five that are the real outliers—at least as far as self-portraits go—and I find it moving that Maya Angelou has chosen to present herself as just a set of lips with her name printed therein.  If you ever met her, as I had the great fortune to do, you understand that one of the most memorable things about her was her voice.  I suppose, then, that reducing herself to just a pair of lips makes sense.  But she was totally memorable—all of her—so it’s a kind of shocking reduction of one of the most memorable people of all time.  In “Meeting B-Angelou2Oprah,” a piece which is really about meeting Maya Angelou—whom Oprah calls “Mother”—I speculate on the traumas of her life that made her see herself in a diminished way.  Maybe that’s it: the reason her self-portrait is so diminished?

Which brings us finally to Toni Morrison, where no human form is present at all, not even lips!  Morrison pictures herself as a plant, a flower in her flower garden.  At first this seems just charmingly self-effacing, until one begins to think about Morrison’s fiction, and her extraordinary literary criticism in “Playing in the Dark: Whiteness and the Literary Imagination.”  I mentioned a kind of primitiveness in James Alan McPherson’s self-portrait, and I suppose there’s some of that here as well.  But a flower garden is a different kind of primitiveness than the bald skull McPherson presents.  If it’s sweeter, it’s also even more elemental in a way that suggests a kind of pre-human spirit that animates us, certainly, but all life as well.  Furthermore, it would be hard B-Morrison2to miss, in Morrison’s fiction, her obsession with shape shifting: of the human form vanishing or flying away (as in Song of Solomon) both as a form of escape and a manifestation of the human having touched some more vital, pre-human spirit.  The human doesn’t just escape this way, it also shows up this way (as in Beloved), born in from another world, almost sent back from there to take care of unfinished business.  We’re rooted in the here and now, but haunted by unfinished business in other realms of the mind, the spirit, the history and culture of our soil.

I believe there may be other black writers in the 750 or so self portraits in Burt Britton’s book, but I’m glad for these ten that add, to my mind, so much dimension to what I have written, or will write, about these writers on this site.  All writing is an exercise in portraying yourself, but pictures seem more elemental than words.  There’s that old cliche, of course, a cliche that seems more starkly true when writers themselves, so captured by, so entangled in, their nets of words, break free of them for a moment and say in pictures, Here—This, too, is me.

 

Posted in Black Writers, Writing | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

James Alan McPherson: Junior and John Doe

McPhersonJames Alan McPherson wrote “Junior and John Doe” for Gerald Early’s 1993 essay collection Lure and Loathing: Essays on Race, Identity, and the Ambivalence of Assimilation.  It’s a great essay in a great and important collection.  Twenty writers—on a spectrum from conservative (Glen Loury, for example) to liberal (Kristin Hunter Lattany)—all reflect on W.E.B. Dubois’ famous statement that the American Negro has been “gifted with a second sight,” “a double-consciousness,” “a sense of always looking at one’s self through the eyes of others.”  “An American, a Negro,” Dubois wrote, “two souls, two thoughts, two unreconciled strivings.”

CertaintyMcPherson’s essay contends that in the battle for assimilation American blacks have begun to lose that crucial two-ness of sight, a two-ness that allowed them to maintain an ironic stance towards American culture, a stance protecting their own sense of humanity and moral certainty won in their struggles to survive racism.  This waning irony has led them, says McPherson, to give up their ability to level a strong critique at American culture, a critique the culture desperately needs to curb its aberrant desires to maintain racist structures and chase material wealth instead of spiritual depth.  “As a substitute,” he writes, “we now compete with white Americans for more creature comforts,” choosing “product, which goes against the fundamental ends of life” over “process, which is on the side of life.”  Blacks have chosen to participate in “an increasingly sophisticated bureaucratic culture” full of shallow lies and “poor quality…manipulations.”  They have become not even your average, white “John Doe” but a smaller version of that, a “Junior” following around a retrograde “father”—hence the essay’s title: “Junior and John Doe.”

Next to the writings of James Baldwin, I believe this McPherson essay is one of the deepest looks at black culture in America and how White and Black could relate to each other in profound, transformative ways. If only they would.

“Traditionally, it has always been black Americans who call attention to the distance between asserted ideals and daily practices, because it is the black American population which best symbolizes the consequences of the nation’s contradictions,” he writes near the beginning of the piece.  “This unenviable position, or fate, has always provided black Americans with a minefield of ironies, a ‘knowingness,’ based on a painful intimacy with the cruel joke at the center of the problematic American identity.  At the core of this irony there used to reside the basic, if unspoken, understanding that identity in America is almost always a matter of improvisation, a matter of process; that most Americans are, because of this, confidence people; and that, given the provisional nature of American reality at almost any time, ‘black’ could be in reality ‘white,’ and ‘white’ could be in reality ‘black.’”

LureLoatheThat’s how close the relationship could be.  A two-ness that’s close to being a one-ness.  But black culture’s ability to influence American culture towards greater humanity requires that it keep its own culture—its own inner “feeling tones”—nourished and intact.  For at the core of this culture is a moral certainty America as a whole needs, especially now in this time of an ethics based on fashion, self-interest, and greed.  “This [certainty] was our true wealth, our capital,” he writes.  “The portion of this legacy that fueled the civil rights movement was a belief that any dehumanization of another human being was wrong…Beneath it was the assumption that the experience of oppression had made us more human, and that this higher human awareness was about to project a vision of what a fully human life, one not restricted by color, should be.”

This didn’t happen, obviously—though perhaps it still could?—because blacks lost touch with that protective irony that kept white American culture at bay.  “It seems to me,” says McPherson, “that by the end of the 80’s black Americans had become a thoroughly ‘integrated’ group…at last no better than and no worse than anyone else.”  “Something humanly vital in them had been defeated, and they were involved in a constant process of self-improvisation,” BUT “an improvisation relying on the ‘tape’ provided by some external script” [my emphasis].  It was a white script, one that’s come to fruition today, enabled by the Trump Presidency, as a script desperately wanting to define a static, white identity for America, not one moving towards a fuller, more inclusive humanity, propelled by a creative, improvisational exchange between black and white.  That’s become less possible because the core vitality of that blackness has been given away by blacks themselves.  If McPherson were alive today, I can just see him saying, “See what you get when you, black people, give up aspiring for the deep humanity you fought for all through the Civil Rights Era, and now just aspire to be a plain John Doe?”

♦  My favorite short story collection is McPherson’s Elbow Room, winner of the 1978 Pulitzer Prize for Fiction. Here he illustrates—in wonderful, moving fiction—some of the ideas in “Junior and John Doe.”  I am fortunate to have counted James Alan McPherson as one of my acquaintances—even a friend, perhaps.  That relationship is briefly sketched in Part One of my 2004 piece “Miscegenation and Me.”

  Go to a list of Black Writers on this site.

Posted in Black Writers, Social Change, Writing | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Toni Morrison: Playing in the Dark

Morrison-PlayingThis title does say it all.  Toni Morrison’s Playing in the Dark: Whiteness and the Literary Imagination focuses on the construction of whiteness in American literature, one of the central places America tries to establish itself as new, white, and male. What’s the basis of this construction?  White writers playing in the dark—that is, using, or reacting to, or trying to erase a black presence. “Black slavery,” she contends, “enriched the country’s creative possibilities,” creating “a playground for the imagination,” a place “to ally internal fears and to rationalize external exploitation” through an American Africanism, “a fabricated brew of darkness, otherness, alarm, and desire….”

In 1983, at a friend’s suggestion, Toni Morrison began reading Marie Cardinal’s memoir The Words to Say It, a description of her descent into “madness,” her therapy, and the process of her healing.  Morrison had been fascinated for a while in, as she says, “the way black people ignite critical moments of discovery or change or emphasis in literature not written by them.”  Sure enough, Marie Cardinal first realizes she’s losing her grip when she’s at a Louis Armstrong concert, and pinpoints the moment her sickness—which she calls the Thing—took full root in her when she, a white Frenchwoman raised in Algeria, “understood that we were to assassinate Algeria,” which she considered her black mother. Morrison’s reaction to Cardinal impelled her to put together her thoughts, which first took their form as the William E. Massey, Sr., Lectures in the History of American Civilization she delivered at Harvard.

Morrison-Race2As she thought about iconic American writers, “What became transparent,” she writes, “were the self-evident ways that Americans choose to talk about themselves through and within a sometimes allegorical, sometimes metaphorical, but always choked representation of an Africanist presence.”  This choking, this attempt to evade race within the literature itself and in the literary criticism purporting to illuminate it is itself an act of racism. The African presence informs American literature, often as a shadow even when the piece in question is not even about race issues.  Hemingway, for example, is often thought to be a fairly race-free writer, but as she pointedly proves in her reading of Hemingway’s To Have and Have Not he most certainly is not free of race, but depends on it to construct his famous versions of manhood, the rules of male/female relationships, virtually his entire aesthetics. Before him, she considers the likes of Cather, Poe, Twain, and Hawthorne.  She proposes, as a list of topics needing critical investigation, first how the Africanist character is a surrogate and enabler allowing white writers to think about themselves.  “Note, for instance,” she writes, “the way Africanism is used to conduct a dialogue concerning American space in Poe’s The Narrative of Arthur Gordon Pym, where Poe “meditates on place as a means of containing the fear of borderlessness and trespass, but also as a means of releasing and exploring the desire for a limitless frontier.”  In general, for white American writers their version of an Africanism, a black presence, “serves as a vehicle for regulating love and the imagination as defenses against the psychic costs of guilt and despair.  Africanism is the vehicle by which the American self knows itself as not enslaved, but free; not repulsive, but desirable; not helpless, but licensed and powerful; not history-less, but historical; not damned, but innocent; not a blind accident of evolution, but a progressive fulfillment of destiny.”

Morrison-TimeI have often said that Americans would rather talk about anything—literally anything—but race, but that’s not exactly true.  For in shunning an open discussion in all the deep, clever ways they do, Americans really condemn themselves to thinking, or feeling, even speaking race all the time, inside. It’s some nagging thing you wish would go away, but you realize is also something absolutely central to your identity.  As James Baldwin once wrote—and, once again, I find many of his thoughts central to Morrison’s argument, as they are to most black writing after the 1950’s—“As is the inevitable result of things unsaid, we find ourselves until today oppressed with a dangerous and reverberating silence; and the story is told compulsively, in symbols and signs, in hieroglyphs.” Playing in the Dark is a brilliant decoding of those symbols, signs, hieroglyphs in the work of white writers.  It’s a major statement from one of our greatest writers, laying out a major challenge to re-think American literature.  Morrison’s language is creative and lyrically gorgeous, fully like you’d imagine a Nobel Prize winner would write—she won the Prize in 1993—but also so critically precise and penetrating you think you’ll never go back to reading normal literary criticism again, a criticism that—as it ignores or slights blackness—too closely reflects the actions of American culture in general.

Go to a list of Black Writers on this site.  Most of them, though not Morrison, are from my book Black Writing from Chicago: In the World, Not of It?

  Go to a list of Reviews on this site.

Posted in Black Writers, Writing | Tagged , , | Leave a comment