From: zatavu-AT-excite.com
Date: Sun, 6 Aug 2000 22:26:44 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: PLC: Fairness to Faulner


Is it not possible that Fauklner only noticed the odor because he himself
was white and did not associate his odor with being odor, having had that
odor from birth? It is like people who have foul body odor but do not notice
it themselves while everyone else is running from the room. Have there been
any black writers who have noticed the odor of white people? I confess to
not having read enough black writers' books to know. But if one did, would
be be so quick to accuse him of racism because of it?

Just some thoughts.

Troy Camplin

>  
>  > I know this sounds petty going back to this odor business but I think
it can
>  > be illuminating. Faulkner often describes an odor peculiar to the poor
>  > working blacks. This is frequently not just a character's observation
or
>  > stream-of-consciousness but narrative. I would hate to have to uncover
every
>  > occasion of this observation for proof, but in general Faulkner does
not
>  > describe the odor as offensive, just different. 
>  
>  Of course.  Not bad, just different. And just the odor of black people,
>  not white.
>  
>    In fact, I remember several
>  > episodes where the odor is reassuring and comforting to a white
character
>  > (which, of course proves nothing).
>  
>  Oh no, it proves something.
>  
>  > Now, from abundant, subjective, real life experience I can tell you
that
>  > black and white people have different odors. Such odors are not
necessarily
>  > 'bad' as someone pointed out. (On a personal note, a sweaty unwashed
white
>  > man has the edge on olfactory offensiveness in my book.)  This is
simply to
>  > say that Faulkner is dead-on accurate in his description. He doesn't
say for
>  > instance 'stinky' or 'noxious', he describes an odor with precision
enough
>  > to almost physically reproduce it in a reader who has experienced the
odor,
>  > which, (again) from personal experience is not offensive. Faulkner has
>  > described it with craft and often with tenderness.
>  
>  I think I understand your argument here. Both black people and white
>  people have an odor.  So if Faulkner describes the odor of black people
>  while creating both black and white characters, he is just doing his job
>  well.  Dead-on accurate.
>  
>  So I am unfair when raise the issue of
>  
>  > >A description of a black person's odor in a racist society which often
>  > > degraded black people by such assertions
>  
>  because when Faulkner elects to describe black people, never white, by
>  this "well documented" odor he does so with craft and tenderness. And the
>  white characters find it comforting. 
>  
>  > and I think, based on the body of Faulkner's work this is an unfair and
>  > unsupportable assertion and judges Faulkner by the society and time he
lived
>  > in and not by his writing. Was he racist,? Maybe (probably). Can we
find
>  > racism in his work? Probably, and I'm sure you can site it. But this
odor
>  > business, which can produce a rapid, moral and indignant response if
taken
>  > out of context does not support Faulkner's racism.
>  
>  But the remarks are understood in context once we realize that both white
>  people and black people have distinct odors? And that is why the odor of
>  blacks, not whites,  is effective "dead-on accurate description." Not
>  because whites commonly refered to the odor of blacks as part of a
general
>  denigration. It would be unfair to see Faulkner's choice to describe the
>  odor of blacks and never of whites as connected somehow to this more
>  general racial stereotype.  Do I understand you correctly here?
>   
>  > So, big deal. If the smell thing doesn't prove it, surely other things
will.
>  > That is what gets my dander up though. This is where good scholarship
_can_
>  > look like a witch hunt. It seems so obvious, a Southern, white
(would-be)
>  > aristocrat points out that a black person has a funny odor in a society
that
>  > used such observations to suppress blacks. It seems like clear cut
racism
>  > but it isn't. It is an unfair judgement 
>  
>  Right. So it just "seems" like clear cut racism. But it is not because it
>  would be unfair to Faulkner to think so because you can't build
>  such a case on one typical passage. Though Faulkner probably was a
>  racist and one can find traces of this in his work.  
>  
>    and when it comes to making
>  > judgements like 'racist', anti-semite, misogynist, homophobe etc, I
think
>  > the accused is entitled to the benefit of the doubt. To stigmatize a
>  > writer's works with such a moniker requires exacting scholarship, in my
>  > opinion.
>  
>  Doesn't that depend on the author and the degree of "racism" or whatever
>  one is distinguishing in or asserting about the work?
>  
>  > I think this is perfectly valid and I'm not really accusing you of
arriving
>  > at such a conclusion based on a single passage. I simply used your
>  > observation to point out what I think are pitfalls of this type of
criticism
>  > especially when impressionable students might be exposd to it (at what
ever
>  > level).
>  
>  Seems to me my comments already show adequate care with regard to such
>  pitfalls.  And you have no scholarly grounds for assuming that a remark
>  made in passing and supported by an example (because I like to support
>  such assertions with an example) is the extent of my case--as if
>  the goal of my orignal post were to indict Faulkner rather than nodding
in
>  his direction on the way to making a point about Truth and National
>  Socialism. 
>  
>   I also feel that if we are ingenious enough we can dig up almost any
>  > "-ism" in a writer's work if we look hard and passionately enough. 
>  
>  Igenuity works both ways.  We can excuse and ignore and otherwise oppose
>  recognition of how racism may be built into the institution of
>  literature (i.e., the writing, study, and teaching of it), especially
>  where it seems evidence a writer is just describing the way things are. 
>  
>  Ideology always appears outside ideology, as nature--the way things
>  really are--, or it is ineffective as ideology.
>  
>  I have a strong suspicion that one ground of the disagreement between us
>  is that we conceive racists and racism differently.  Faulkner is not what
>  ML King would have called a "rabid segregationist" like Bull Connor.  He
>  is, rather, that species of white liberal who found social order more
>  important than social justice.  And he follows in a tradition of
Americans
>  who were "sympathetic" to black people's suffering while still thinking
of
>  them as substantially "other" than white people.  Lincoln would be
another
>  example.  Some think it unfair to characterize Jefferson as racist, since
>  he suffered mental anguish over the fact he owned slaves. 
>  
>    It is
>  > only through the test of wide and vigorous peer review that such
scholarship
>  > stands as valid (some value implied here) criticism or falls as mere
>  > ideological windmill tilting.
>  
>  "Peer review" certainly plays a role in what "stands", as in what gets
>  published and taught and considered professional.  It by no means
>  guarantees that "valid criticism" is separated from "ideological windmill
>  tilting."   
>  
>  hh
>  .....................................................................
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>       --- from list phillitcrit-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---





_______________________________________________________
Say Bye to Slow Internet!
http://www.home.com/xinbox/signup.html



     --- from list phillitcrit-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---