One of the things I noticed that Harriet Jacobs does in Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl is that she consistently chooses to elaborate on the personalities of harsh, cruel white characters in the book. Mr. and Mrs. Flint, for example, are discussed in such great detail that the reader becomes as paranoid as Jacobs, which simultaneously causes the reader to feel a sense of outrage and anger towards the town. I can see where Jacobs is going with this--she wants to ensure that the reader has little chance of defending slavery after reading the book. Unfortunately, however, I feel that this method of listing grievances is often too potent for the average reader and may cause some people to put down the book before considering Jacob's argument.
What I would really like to know, however, is why Jacobs diminishes the importance of the woman who decides to hide her in her house? The woman is taking a huge risk hiding Jacobs from Mr. Flint yet Jacobs not to provide the woman a name in the book. Instead, Jacob refers to her as one of "the ladies who were acquainted with my grandmother . . . and [had] always been very friendly to her" (80) and "the mistress" (81). Yes, the woman's family participates in slavery and is therefore wrong; however, at the same time, if it were not for this un-named woman's generosity, Jacobs would not have made it out of the situation alive. The mistress is the only character in the book thus far who does not have a name. The only reason I can think of for Jacobs to diminish the mistress' importance in planning her escape is to ensure that the reader focuses solely on the perils assocaited with her struggle for freedom.
Any thoughts about why this happens? I'm curious.
I think you have a great point. I find the book to be written in the same kind of way that Uncle Tome's Cabin was written. It is sentimental for a purpose, Jacobs is trying to get her point across and this is the way she chooses to do it. Jacobs view is obviously biased, she wants everyone to know the horrors of slavery. If Jacobs book is held in high esteem, then Stowe's book should also be held in high esteem.
ReplyDeleteLike we talked about in class, I think that Jacobs does not name the woman simply to protect her. Her act was so courageous that we cannot even know a false name.
ReplyDeleteI also like Anna's idea: The woman is nameless so she can represent women everywhere.
I think also that the overall time the unnamed woman spends in the life of Linda Brent, regardless of her importance, may have a lot to do with it. You do always remember the people and experiences which formed you, or wounded you, as the case may be, first.
ReplyDeleteIn answer to Ann's point about Stowe vs. Jacobs (and they actually did a have a minor "fight"--Jacobs didn't really care for Stowe; we can talk about it in class!), what critics of Stowe would say is that Jacob's book and her use of sentimentalism is different because she is manipulating the conventions of sentimentalism in new ways--even subverting them. It's not a perfect argument (and you know I love Stowe!) but it does have lots of merit.
ReplyDelete