![]() ![]() ![]() A major-perhaps the major-difference is that I, a black woman, without intended disrespect, took center stage in "speaking my mind." Having read numerous references to what is most frequently described as an angry, inappropriate skirmish, I continue to ponder why the dialogue in New Literary History is perceived as different from the historical responses to William Stanley Braithwaite's views of African-American literature, from Du Bois's negative critique of Zora Neale Hurston's and Richard Wright's work, from Wright's responses to Hurston's work, and more recently from the negative responses to the nationalistic perspective of writers of the Black Arts Movement. The following thoughts are an extended version of the essay Rowell invited me to present at Callaloo's celebration of its thirtieth anniversary in Baltimore, Maryland, in October 2007. When Charles Rowell, founder and editor of Callaloo, telephoned me in September 2007, asking that I write an essay that provides some insight into my thoughts on Henry Louis Gates's The Signifying Monkey: A Theory of Afro-American Literary Criticism (1988), twenty years after its publication, I imagined the voices of my friends and foes asking, "Why would she continue that old, painful, and shameless subject?" I believe that Rowell, like Ralph Cohen, editor of New Literary History, respects the academy's need to pursue unsettled, unsettling, historical literary discussions. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |