In class, we began discussing Richard Wright’s critique of Their Eyes Were Watching God. Part of his critique is that Hurston does not make enough of a statement about racism, carrying no message or thought. I’d agree that Hurston’s novel is not a protest novel in the same way that Native Son and Invisible Man are, but just because Hurston is black does not mean she should be expected to make a statement about race relations in her book.
Even so, I believe that Hurston was making a statement in a different way, concerning discriminatory relations within a single race. By setting the majority of the book in Eatonville, an all black town, she can make comments on how members of the same race can be discriminatory of one another. When Joe Starks and Janie arrive to town Amos Hicks has doubts about Joe’s goals, saying “us colored folks is too envious of one ‘nother,” so it would be unlikely for them to make any progress (48). Joe and Janie are completely separate in class from other people living in Eatonville, despite being the same race. They even have a fancy spittoon cup that most people would use as a vase. Also, throughout the book even after Joe’s death Janie is set apart from others by her wealth and appearance.
I feel that Hurston’s biggest statement on this topic is when Janie befriends Ms. Turner in the Everglades. Because Ms. Turner is of mixed heritage and looks different, she believes she is set apart from the other black people. The main reason she becomes friends with Janie seems to be because Janie is also fair-skinned. Ms. Turner is strangely racist, and makes many comments about her dissatisfaction at living with black people and being lumped into the same group with them.
Although this is just a small part of Hurston’s comments on race, I would argue that she is still making a point. It doesn’t seem like Wright saw this criticism very clearly, but focused more on his own definition of a protest novel written by an African American author.
This is a very interesting approach I hadn't really thought about. On the one hand, Hurston did make a large portion of her novel around the town of Eatonville, the race relations among its inhabitants, and the general dynamic. I took Wright's critique and Hurston's writing a different way in that I thought Hurston may have had a different point altogether than protest (in any manner) and could have focused primarily on the character of Janie, but your observation seems like it could very well be what Hurston was aiming for.
ReplyDeleteYou make a good point that perhaps Hurston's way of presenting racism is through discriminatory relations within the African American community. That's certainly a very interesting idea and it makes a lot of sense to me, but I feel like when the book as a whole, Hurston's intentions for writing this book is to talk about the African American culture, and racism is a central part in that culture. As a book, I think a protest novel isn't what Hurston had in mind when she writes the book.
ReplyDeleteHurston not only explores divisions within a racially homogeneous community in terms of race and color-prejudice; she also explores divisions within the community in terms of gender. A big part of Janie's departure from convention in this novel--figuratively, her leaving the safety of the shop and entering the more chaotic and less hierarchical realm of "the muck"--entails assuming an unconventional gender role (figured most visibly in her muddy overalls when she returns). Generally speaking, Hurston depicts the muck as a context in which men's and women's spheres overlap much more than they do in Eatonville--Janie is "invited to the party," so to speak, while she was confined to the store back in town. It's no post-gender utopia, of course (and Mrs. Turner is trying to foment divisive suspicion between Janie and Tea Cake), but it does represent a strong departure from traditional gender roles, which Hurston portrays as being decisive in Janie's self-realization.
ReplyDelete