Playing Conjure Tales “through” Chesnutt meant that my particular window seemed pretty narrow at times: I was nervous about the idea of speaking “for” him (or even “as” him), and so felt bound to my source materials – his own journals, letters, etc. – to an extent that might not have been the case had I played a character within the novel itself. As someone who is uncomfortable writing fiction in general, though – and play-acting, which is what it sometimes feels like – being able to rely on those texts also mitigated some of the anxiety I felt “performing” my role.

In another sense, playing Chesnutt meant that I could choose to open a number of windows: the historical Chesnutt was not only a writer, but an attorney, a teacher, a businessman, an activist – and all of these “roles” (as evidenced by the Sussman reading, in particular) influenced and were influenced by his writing. This meant that I could come at the game from a number of angles; even working as “the author” strictly within the text itself presented a lot of possibilities and raised a lot of questions: should I – could I? – stay faithful to Chesnutt as a historical figure, or as a narrator? Should I – could I? – speak to, or as, my characters? Should I create new ones? Could I involve new influences, new ideas?

Being anchored in Chesnutt’s own works/words was a good way in for me, but were I to play the game again I’d be interested in exploring more of these questions – I feel like it would have been a more generative creatively not only for me but could have added to/aided the game. (As the “author,” I felt weirdly responsible for the “plot” of the game and for the intratextual characters. There’s something there, though, about the lack of control a writer/artist has over his own creations – interesting especially in our discussions of minstrelsy in The Conjure Tales, and thinking about how the illustrations in Puck magazine – see Wonham’s “Playing Races” – changed the reading of some of Chesnutt’s other, earlier published work.)

I had some difficulty keeping up with the pace of the game (she says, posting two days late); I wished I had more time to research prior to the start of the game, or else could play for longer with more flexibility in terms on when the moves were due – which is basically how I dealt with that particular challenge, honestly: by excusing myself from the due dates. (I didn’t say it was a GOOD coping strategy!) I missed out on a lot of the interactive elements of the game due to this, which I really regret; I can see, now that we’ve got going, that that’s a lot of the fun of it.

Most of my criticisms/suggestions in terms of the interface we covered in our in-class wrap-up last week – though I’d mention, again, that I would have liked a more direct or more intuitive way to interact with my fellow players. The experience felt a bit isolating, especially at first; it was hard to know where to begin, and the initial moves felt a little like a shot in the dark. I think part of it is that in Ivanhoe you just have to “find your own way” – not only in terms of the role but also in that it’s hard to anticipate how other players are going to approach the game; this sense was exacerbated, I think, because it seemed like there was a lot of jumping between pages without a way to refer back to the game. When responding to a move, for example, you’d have to open your response in a new window if you wanted to look back at what you were replying to. I’m not sure, moreover, now that I’m thinking about it, that I would have chosen a chronological display of the moves – I don’t know if that’s a limitation on wordpress? – but I might have preferred them organized differently, more visually threaded in some way.

At first, I was apprehensive about playing Julius in the game. I wasn’t sure I’d know exactly what to do with the character. But, once I made my first move, I realized that it wasn’t as bad as I thought it would be. It wasn’t until playing the game as Julius that I realized the micro aggressions that John would perpetrate against him. I also realized that John’s behavior was not uncommon for the time. His way of thinking was meant to mirror the general mindset of white Northerners of the time. This mindset obviously affected the way in which John perceived and portrayed Julius. What mattered to me the most was that I was able to play Julius as himself and not Julius as John sees him, which is how he is received in the “Conjure Tales”. Being able to dictate what was going on in Julius’ mind was my definitely changed how I viewed the text. Instead of reading Julius’ stories and dialogue as just a part of the text, I read it as though I were personally telling the stories and was able to share his point of view. Adopting the mindset aided in my being able to understand Julius as a character more and to get inside his head. It really gave me a more in depth view of Julius and the story as a whole.

The biggest obstacles while playing Julius were deciding exactly what moves to make as well as figuring out in what ways Julius could respond to another character’s move without stepping out of the parameters of his character as dictated by Chesnutt. Instead of replying directly to any moves, I made each move in a way that it addressed the situation, but it was outside of the knowledge of the other characters. I had to maintain their relationship so that Annie or John would technically remain unaware of Julius’ real thoughts and feelings. Deciding the content of the moves and exactly how to make them also proved to be challenging at first. I didn’t want Julius to tell too many myths because he does so much of that in the “Conjure Tales” already. Instead, I wanted to focus on Julius as a character. This is why the story I did have him tell was based on his actual life instead of anything he had picked up during slavery. More than the stories, I wanted my moves to focus on Julius’ interactions with John and Annie in order to give some insight on how he truly felt about his relationships with them. I also didn’t want to completely take away his accent/dialect when writing the moves because I wanted him to retain his authenticity. I felt that making him too articulate would take away from the character too much. However, I made sure that within my moves, it could be easily understood that Julius was no fool.

If I were to play again, I would still choose to play Julius. However, I would supplement my moves with more research. I had some trouble figuring out things I could research for Julius’ character. Since the text already gave me so much material to work with, at first I wasn’t sure how to merge that with additional research. However, I eventually realized that the research was meant to supplement the move, not dictate it. I would also make at least one move that includes Julius’ wife and maybe even create a family for him. This would play into the flexibility of being able to create the character. Since we are given so much freedom within the game, I wish I had used it a little more. Perhaps I could have Julius’ family meet John and Annie and build a move off of the encounter.

As far as the interface, I would suggest a few changes. The first change I would make would be for players to be able to edit posts. There was a few times where I wished I could go back and make changes, only to be reminded that I could not. I would also make it easier to insert pictures as I had a really hard time trying to figure out how to add on to my post. Lastly, I would suggest some sort of discussion board or chat option where the players could interact outside of their moves. This would include the option to speak to the entire group, or to speak to a player individually. Since the game is meant to be an interactive one (between characters), it would make sense for it to be interactive between players as well.

Initially, In the Conjure Tales by Charles W. Chesnutt, I was interested in the tales that Uncle Julius told, and how those tales reflected slavery in the South. My focus and interest drifted when I had to play the character John, who is also the narrator. I noticed that even though John is the narrator, he has little dialogue that actually belongs to him, since he is basically quoting Uncle Julius throughout the novel; and the same applies to Annie, who has less dialogue than John. I also notices that John, as the narrator, is narrating Uncle’s Julius speech in the AAVE language. By playing John, I learned more about the Northerner’s fantasies to start businesses in the South, since the Northerners were taking advantage of the South’s post-bellum conditions by purchasing inexpensive land.

One major obstacle when playing John was that John is the antagonist in the novel, and the least likeable character. For me, it was difficult playing a character who embodies a form of superiority over other characters. At first, I wasn’t sympathetic of John, but by playing John, I was able to pleasurably create a background story for John. One of the pleasures of playing the novel was that I was able to depict, or portray John the way I wanted, or at least tried to make John to be more sympathetic and possibly likeable. The frustrating part of playing the novel was researching characteristics of Northerners in the late 1800s that might be likeable; In my search, most characteristics of Northerners were of the stereotypical “Yankee”, who is rational and liberal who move to the South to fulfill their fantasies.

I decided to find information about John in the text, and when I was re-reading the “Goophered Grapevine” tale, I noted the reasons why John decided to go move to the South and then tried to connect his reason to why someone would move or travelled to a different location; One reason was to start his business in a vineyard in an inexpensive location, and the other reason was because the South was the perfect environment for his wife’s medical condition. I then started to focus on John’s business, and based some of my moves by talking about his business, and also in the relationship he had with his wife. There was pleasure in trying to provide and create possible background information of John’s business experience, since not much is said in the novel. Also, it was interesting to explore John’s relationship with his wife and how it was possibly affected by John’s vineyard business. Overall it was fun creating John’s background information, although I tried to make John a bit more sympathetic, I had to maintain John’s antagonistic characteristics, and so I had to talk about John believing that Southerners are ignorant because they believe in superstitions.

If I were to play the game again, I would pick the same character, John. I would like to expanded on my moves, specially on my “Philosophy and Tales” move since I still find it interesting that Annie and John don’t have the same interest; Maybe I can add a move about the differences of a female Northerner and a male Northerner where John talks about those differences. Maybe I would have Annie talk about those differences and have John narrate it to us, and explore the way he decides to narrate Annie’s dialogue to us. Also, It would be interesting to make a move where John critiques Uncle Julius’ AAVE, and maybe have John talk about whether AAVE is a dialect or a language or and base it on racialinguistics research. Also, maybe instead of basing my moves on the text, I would like add moves that are base from external research.

My initial choice of Annie was solely based on the fact that I [think I] am well versed in the 19th Century woman. As I got deeper in the text, I realized that there was an absence in Annie’s voice, especially given the fact that the stories are told through John’s voice. I think the lack of Annie allows for such creative energy, which for me is actually a struggle. So while I inserted much of my own creative instincts into my moves, I fear that they weren’t grounded enough in the text. I think that also comes from the lack of conversation and research on Annie.

The root of any research I did really came from my prior knowledge of 19th Century white women. In my first move I wanted to explore more of why Annie was depressed, and made the somewhat easy decision to tap into the world of The Yellow Wallpaper by Charlotte Perkins Gilman. I think this move was a decent place to start as it gave Annie a reality and story of her own, a story that Chesnutt has chosen not to explore. I’ll admit that the creative writing aspect of the project was difficult, but I found that once I got some momentum I was able to harness Annie’s story.

I did use research for one of my moves, “The Kitchen.” The moment in the novel when John describes Annie’s request for a new kitchen is one of the many times he criticizes Annie and what she does (or asks) without any further explanation. I knew this would be a great plot point to expand, as once again Annie is not given an opportunity to explain or defend herself. I wasn’t necessarily seeking out any research on this moment, but did find an awesome article expanding multiple themes in the novel: “On Flags and Fraternities: Lessons in History in Charles Chesnutt’s “Po’ Sandy”” by Margaret Bauer. The article in full is reflective of its title, and provides a great analysis of the kitchen moment: “Po’ Sandy” begins with John telling the reader that “for some occult reason,” his wife wants a kitchen build off of the plantation house “after the usual Southern fashion.” John’s characterization of Annie’s motivation reflects his failure to understand why she would want a kitchen off the main house… he does reveal Annie’s motivation [the Southern fashion]. … I would suggest that Annie is setting up her new home in such a way as to play out some Old South fantasy derived from the romantic plantation fiction mentioned previously, a popular genre in her day” (27).

I think if I had dug a little deeper and had more time, I would have been able to make an analysis on the lack of Annie’s character in tales. 19th Century women were just starting to gain some social visibility, and if Chesnutt wanted to capture the attention of white folks, I think it would have been okay [and maybe even beneficial] to give Annie more page time.

Not many people can claim to be Ivanhoe alumna, but in this case, like Arianna, it’s my unique privilege. Playing the text is often a good opportunity to try and glean the central diorama of its plot out of some hidden and unique vantage point. Even if that window is far from the center of things, its constraint tends to play a generative role as you branch out further and further from the events into story and wade into the vaster universe that is the narrative’s historical backdrop.

This time around, I elected to play as Walter Hines Page, who was Charles Chestnutt’s old editor at the Atlantic Monthly and, later on, at publishing firm Doubleday, Page, and Co (of which he was a partner). When I played the first time, I wrote as the paratextually-relevant opera composer Benjamin Britten, whose complicated relation to the narrative of the source text and role in its various stagings allowed him not only to serve as a conduit for a discussion of reception history but also made it sensible for him to respond directly to the actions of characters in the story.

In this case, writing as Page didn’t allow me quite the same leeway. Though I would have liked to interact and respond to the characters from The Conjure Tales, it would not have made much sense for me to do so. This initially frustrated me, because it felt like the most I would be able to do is hunt down moments from the life and times of Chestnutt and Page, and bring them to the fore as little anecdotes. However, looking a little bit into the backdrop of Chestnutt’s work and using Page as an entry point to thinking about reception history offered a fruitful vantage for thinking about the way Chestnutt navigated the racialized arena of the publishing world. For one, Page’s position of power create many spaces where his intentions might be doubted, despite his posture as an enlightened Southerner who deplored slavery and wished for some kind of unification. As I continued looking into things, it became hard to tell whether he ever truly acted with Chestnutt’s best intentions in mind — and that their kinship was legitimate — or if he was merely another paternalistic white actor co-opting the cultural value Chestnutt was creating by acting as a self-righteous go-between.I found myself constantly wondering whether his sympathies were earnest or rooted in self-interest. There are many accounts that point towards the former, but reading about Braithwaite’s reference to Chestnutt as “Page’s darkie” (at the point that his writing career has slumped) calls all of that into question and arouses strong suspicion of false allyship.

Despite my initial fears about being unable to provide a compelling narrative, what I found most fruitful about playing Page was the opportunity to research and acquaint more fully with his and Chestnutt’s embeddedness within the literary social circles of the time. Finding out that the two of them went together to Mark Twain’s 70th birthday party is a particularly colorful example of that. All party description aside, what it offers is the peculiar and perhaps poignant knowledge that Page secured Chestnutt’s invitation to this exclusive event long after his moment of commercial success. The episode seems understandably bittersweet for Chestnutt, and further complicates our understanding of him relative to the overwhelmingly white literary apparatus. Though it says nothing about the content of his work, and of the hypocritical way white audiences wanted his local color stories but not his color line longform works, his attendance is significant and indexical of his own prestige as a writer. . Much in the way that institutional case studies show us the interaction between discrete actors and the larger structures surrounding them, playing Ivanhoe was helpful in thinking about Chestnutt’s role in a discrete passage of time in American social and cultural history.

Only suggestion, like others have pointed out, is a less constricted publishing interface. Some of the functionality, like the Insert Media function in the standard WordPress format, appeared to be missing. The ability to edit after the fact was also sorely missed, but perhaps serves as a useful reminder to edit carefully and slow down. Perhaps there is something about the way the post displays that make it slightly clunky for characters within the text to interact — perhaps a map displaying posts as interrelated nodes — but both my position as a firmly paratextual character and personal preference to digging up historical details meant that I just opted to stay in my lane.

My reading of the Chesnutt’s “Conjure Tales” changed for the better when I looked at the text through the point of view of Annie. In my first reading of the text I had a hard time understanding Uncle Julius’s stories. Not because of the style in which Chesnutt choose to write Uncle Julius’s speech in, but I could not grasp why the stories were important. Annie has a fascination, a deeper understanding and appreciation of Uncle Julius’s stories. When I wrote from her perspective about the stories I began to love and admire them too. In particular, the story of Becky and then the rabbit’s foot. I learned that Uncle Julius is the heart of the novel. Without him, Annie would not have a reason to speak. Everything that Annie says is a reaction to what happens around her.

I picked Annie originally because at first read I thought she was a simple character. I was wrong. Because of her ignorance, her devotion to her husband and Uncle Julius and her depression, she is in fact very complex. She is always in scene, and is given dialogue, but she does very little action. We don’t have insight into how she feels, we are only told that she is depressed. On Friday, during class, I told my partner in the discussion that if given another opportunity I would choose a different role to play. However, after completing all the moves, I realized that I would still choose Annie, if given another opportunity. Annie allowed me to be creative with my posts. Since there was not much research available on Annie, I could try to understand her character. That is perhaps more powerful than historical context. I started to like Annie. I understood her faults but I could look past them and create a move where she is in her faults but allowed to have compassion.

I would suggest that the next game be one large one for the whole class to play. I found myself looking at the other group’s game to see what they were doing. It would be nice to have more posts to interact with, and more characters to invest moves in. It would also be interesting to have, say two Annie’s, and they can interact with one another, similarly like a person does in an internal monologue. Overall I has a lot of fun and I really enjoyed the creativity of this assignment.

In “playing” the novel, I think it allowed me to engage Barthes’ idea of the “readerly” versus “writerly” text and, as we discussed in class, his comparison of reading to the performance of music. Through engaging with characters and scholarship intertextually, I felt each game created a sort of microcosm of exploration within the novel. Finding creative uses for related scholarship to re-inform the stories or a character’s perspective was especially useful in raising questions and topics that, if approached in the other group with a different body of scholarly research or different stories focused on from within the text, would have potentially been overshadowed by other textual elements. For example, in Game #2, Leah incorporated research on minstrelsy into her posts as Julius, whereas as in Game #1 I researched viticulture in the South for my first post. While these research topics were clearly very different, they were similar in the sense that they were guided by loosely established themes in the novel which were able to be examined more closely/considered at all by way of playing them, and having other participants play off of them. Related, I think the other benefit to playing the novel was that it made room for simultaneous close readings of numerous figures related to the book. I find oftentimes when looking at novels like The Conjure Tales, it is easy to get wrapped up in one character so that the examination of other characters is refracted off of that one character. I felt like to an extent this happened a lot to Annie, who within the text is only given a voice through John’s narration and her interactions with him and Julius. The opportunity to see Annie played as a living, independent character within the game, forced me to re-examine what John’s feelings towards her would have been outside of what he may have narrated in the text. I found one of the most fun moves I made was that in which I responded to Chesnutt as John; similarly to the phenomenon of Annie being narrated by others in the text, Chesnutt as the author is hidden within the text, so to have Gabi play Chesnutt and assert an elucidation of his motives as writer, and to have John—his own character—respond was a playful way to continue an examination of how and why he wrote the characters the way he did. I think ‘playing” the novel, rather that firmly researching it, or simply reading it, opened up a method for understanding the novel that was simultaneously serious and pressure-free; accuracy and research were certainly the base for the moves, but it was fun to explore paths of the text without the weight of scholarly accuracy, and instead with the goal to engage in an examination rooted in curiosity.

I would say that at times my point of view felt much more limited by playing as John because his point of view is very solid in the text, so I couldn’t go too far out of those bounds in examining his character within Chesnutt’s writing. While other characters including Julius, Chesnutt, and even Annie could examine the text and their roles in a more progressive or modern way, I felt that I was confined to a more problematic and often racist view of things. That being said, I still felt it was valuable to try to figure out what a man like John would have thought about the The Conjure Tales in light of Chesnutt’s mission to write it within the plantation fiction genre in order to subvert that genre unwittingly to a reader like John. Playing from his role did however force me to examine John as a more nuanced character than one might want to give him credit for if reading casually. For example, John is thrifty and economical in moving to the South just after the civil war, his hope to start a vineyard in an area that isn’t known for wine represents his quintessentially American, entrepreneurial spirit and symbolizes him as a sort of trail blazer, or the new generation of white southern man. John is also originally from the North and thinks himself progressive, so I was able to examine, compare, and contrast John’s view of himself to his behavior toward Annie, Julius, and others. I think this could have led to an interesting historical/political discussion amongst the characters which would have added context to our reading of the novel as sort of a political artifact. For example, as I mentioned in class, I wished I’d had the time to write a post researching the forced end and failure of reconstruction in the South, which goes unmentioned in the text but coincided with its publication. All this being said, I think my exploration of John’s limited perspective on the novel was useful in digging deeper into a character who, while not the most likable, is very important in framing Chesnutt’s commentary on the racial atmosphere at the time.

Were I to play this again, I don’t think I would change my character, but would instead like to play for longer and change how I approached playing the game. I felt like the more posts that got published, the more interesting the game play was because there was more to read and respond to. As I said, I felt one of the benefits of playing the novel was that there could be a more equitable standing for characters and para-textual figures to contribute, but earlier in the game when people were still researching their moves, there weren’t always posts to respond to. I think by lengthening the time spent playing the game people would have more time to get comfortable with their roles, and more time could be spent having meaningful interactions in the game. Additionally, if I were to play again, I would want to have more interaction outside of the posts in-character, so that we could be clearer on each other’s intentions for our posts. In my post where John has a dream, for example, I wanted to write a post that Annie, Julius, or even Chesnutt could respond to. I think it would have been a more useful post had I discussed with my peers playing those roles and seen what their perspectives were first, so that their interpretations of their characters and the events could have been more present in my depiction of John, and so that it could have been a more collaborative space for them to get involved and respond to my post.

On a final, technical note, I felt like the Ivanhoe interface works for the game, but I wished it was a little more forgiving in terms of posting. I think a tool to edit posts and rationales would have been especially useful and would have perhaps assuaged some nervousness in posting by eliminating the finality of it. In addition, I think it might be good to have responses to posts show up both independently (as they do now) on the game page, but also show up as a thread under the posts which they are responding to. I think this would visually and organizationally create a more collaborative feeling around the game, by more explicitly showing the discourse between characters and posts, and by allowing for people to continue these conversations more as comments that as fully-fledged posts. I thought of this, for example, when Kaela responded to one of my posts by having Annie leave a quick, short comment on my post. Having the option to leave comments of this nature on people’s posts and have them appear as a thread instead of formal, individual posts, would allow for more conversational, authentic interactions between players and would probably improve overall communication and collaboration during game play.

The return to Ivanhoe and the playing of Charles Chesnutt’s “Conjure Tales” was not only an incredibly interesting take on the theme of “blackness and inscription” but also a fascinating lens through which to view Chesnutt’s short stories. Much like our previous game of Ivanhoe in Digital Humanities with Melville’s Billy Budd, the window, or lens, through which we view a text can very well rewrite the entire work in our minds. The perspective and trope of the conjurer in Chesnutt’s “Conjure Tales” are paradoxically apparent yet hidden from plain sight.

Named after the conjurer and the conjure woman, one would expect that Chesnutt’s “Conjure Tales” surrounded the mystical character, and dived into his/her perspective with greater frequency. That misconception, however, could not be further from the truth. The title character of the conjurer, is not in fact, a single character at all, but more of a cultural presence, a singular identity that binds those who practice “roots.” In Chesnutt’s tales, the conjurer often acts as the hand of justice, but can just as easily become a trickster, a simple human who uses all in their power to exact their own brand of vengeance. Where, then, does the line between the fallible human conjurer and the mystical conjurer of justice and paid debts fall?

These questions arose in my mind as I began to “play” the role of the conjurer in our game. The conjurer occupies a strange space in Chesnutt’s work, and I must admit that while her character intrigued me prior to the game, she very often took the backseat in each of Julius’s stories, hidden behind the magic or the tragedy. It was only when I began to play her, to formulate my own ideas and concepts of the conjurer based on research and close reading that I began to see her as one of the principle characters of “Conjure Tales.”

Rather than simply reading the text, the game allowed me to dive into it through a more focused entry point, to tear apart words, quotations, and metaphors, and utilize different sources in order to aid in my formulation of the conjurer. It felt like I was taking over the reigns from Chesnutt, picking up from where he left off and informing his work with sources and insights that he might not have had. The best part of playing a novel rather than reading it, is undoubtedly the shift from “absorption” to “interaction.” As a reader, we are focused on tearing apart and deriving everything that we can from a given text. As a player, on the other hand, we are allowed to make jumps that a simple reader cannot, jumps that may be informed by historical documents, scholarship, or sheer creative choice. The reader often does not have this power.

The frustrations in playing a novel follows in the same vein. As a player of a text, one is thus responsible not only for the official narrative but also the arc one wishes to craft throughout the moves. Where will the character end up by the end of the set of moves? Will it mirror where they are in the text? Have I strayed too far or stayed too close to the source material? All these uncertainties arrive when playing a text, and continue to be endlessly frustrating. It is difficult not to second guess one’s design choices, or creative spins on a character, but by virtue of the interface, once a move is sent out into the void, it is completely and terrifyingly permanent.

This is oddly liberating (but no less anxiety inducing, mind). Free writing was the best way that I found to deal with this issue. I would scour for scholarship and sources, and once I found a kernel of something interesting, I allowed myself the space to dive further. Be it comparing a term in a historical document to one in the original text, or using an essay as a departure point and lens through which to view a character’s motivations and actions, I tried to give myself both the freedom and necessary boundaries within which to work.

If I were to play again, I do not believe I would choose a different character. As fascinating as the character of Uncle Julius or Chesnutt would be, I personally believe that the conjurer – by virtue of being paradoxically as amorphous and oddly specific as it is – allows for the greater intersection of historical research and creative close reading. I would however, aim to interact more with other characters, and perhaps even seek to antagonize John and Chesnutt (only a little bit), to goad them in such a way that echoes how the conjurer is both an outside critical force of the peculiar institution and yet still subjected to the wills of the hegemony.

Overall, playing Chesnutt’s “Conjure Tales” provided me with a deeper insight to not only the conjurer herself, but also to the time period, and the oft forgotten “folk” aspect of popular slave narratives. While I wished there was an OOC (out-of-character) function for the game, and an easier way to see linked posts and responses, I do think the stringent and bare-bones aspect of the interface allowed for a more focused headspace.

Interacting with characters and “playing” as them make you think more about the psychology and the motives in the text, rather than just reading a story for the sake of a good read. I found myself questioning the relationships between Julius, Annie, and John and questioning how Julius would speak to people around him. It’s extremely difficult to empathize and make myself think for him – but that was the fun part of the game. For example, my Julius never spoke the same way to Annie as he did the Conjurer – there is a different power structure there. Empathy and “walking a mile in someone’s shoes” are always aspirational – but you don’t truly feel or understand that until you are making decisions for the person and understanding how they take up space. The singular window of one character was extremely helpful because I learned in the space of that character and learned how to zero in and focus on the story from one perspective. My reading, through Julius, became highly influenced by performance and anthropology since that’s what the character called for – I don’t exactly think Chesnutt wrote this character intending for him to have all his cards on the table, Julius is human and not at the same time. He’s motives are only apparent when he needs them to be.

I learned about how deeply internal and psychological this text is. I believe when a text like this is read, as rife as it is with dialect and history and characters, we miss a lot of information trying to figure out what the entire thing means. But with playing the role, rules were created and game play dictated what I was thinking -but piece by piece. In my role as Julius, I started to question black authorship and representation. Julius’ presence unraveled some important and uncomfortable questions for me about Chesnutt as I heard learned that he wrote this novel solely for consumerism – but also using a character like Julius to do so. In playing the character, and writing in the shadow of Chesnutt I had to question what it means for a black character to be a tool for inscription – especially by a black author. Playing gave me the incentive to look past the text as a bunch of stories and juxtapose two black storytellers (Julius and Chesnutt) against each other and understand what storytelling means to them and their agency.

My biggest challenge came from not knowing what kind of Julius I was presenting. His external ranges so differently than his internal, I had to get a feel for what the other characters are thinking and doing before I spoke. This made it very difficult when other characters were thinking about their moves and the game would go dark. I didn’t think my character was a starter who could kick off conversation.

However thinking about it, if I put a little more creativity in to it I could have.

Sources were also, at first, difficult to come by. I relied on Chesnutt’s journals and rationales before writing -but even learning about why Chesnutt would write about Julius didn’t provide me with much information on that character himself. Anthropological, contextual, and literary sources were more informational. My obstacle was getting over the question “How does this character exist?” and thinking about more of “Why does this character exist?” An entire world of interest and understanding opened for me when I started to think about Geechee culture in the Carolinas and Reconstruction for ex-slaves looking for jobs and where Julius may fit into that. After learning about songs and stories that my character would be enjoying at the time, the text took on so much more color and I read with the lens of knowing a little more about the culture and art of storytelling.

Even Chesnutt’s articles made more sense to me in those terms, as I began to think about how inscription for black authors can unravel into interesting ideas about consumerism and self- agency. Hearing the criticism and frustration Chesnutt received made me color him in terms with Julius – both using inscription and storytelling (two forms central to their culture but they are dismissed from in the white Western Canon) in order to establish their authorship and finances.

Moreover, for my technical playing, it was obvious that the character of Julius would pose a dialect barrier. However I used the text as a dictionary, looking for the ways that Julius would address Annie and John or how he would say the word “they”. I didn’t really do this in order to mimic because I don’t really know if Julius speaks that way or if the dialect is being superimposed and exaggerated. I did it in order to get a little closer to Julius’ thoughts and what kind of story teller he was. That made writing not only easier, but enjoyable.

I would keep my role as Julius – if I absolutely had to change, I would play Annie. I believe playing a character under a societal constraint is more fulfilling – they have to perform one way externally and another way internally in order to survive. If I played Julius differently, I would speak to John more. Mainly because that’s a really important power dynamic, but I didn’t feel confident enough in my reading in the text to approach it, unless he spoke to me first.

As for moves –  I really should have told more stories. I think if there was more time in my game I would have. I was just afraid to stop the flow of the game to create another story that may change the trajectory. Also, I would really need to polish up a story with more contextual and anthropological evidence and I don’t think I was ready for that quite yet.