Reflection: The Difference of Playing and Reading

As a reader, my involvement (with plot, characters and authorial intent) is initially always from the position of an observer.  With this type of separation, it is almost as if the reader is observing the daily events of an ant colony while reading the text.  The reader’s perspective is so far detached that it is sometimes difficult to relate, or even empathize, with the characters.  With the knowledge I possess, as a reader, playing the role of Julius felt like I was infusing him with superhuman abilities.  A textual character, who is portrayed as illiterate, becomes privy to information not only from the paratextual space, but also from the future.  By submerging myself in the role, I became capable of directly empathizing with the character.  In the process, I was removed from the safe distance of the observer and became closer to the textual environment in both time and space.  From this new, unexplored, vantage point my knowledge as a reader becomes very useful to me while navigating through the plot.

The pleasure of playing a book, in opposed to reading it, is found in the act of willingly exploring the unknown.  Reading, superficially, imposes a sense of remoteness in the reader; far away from the realities of the characters in the text.  This makes it convenient for a reader to close the book when he/she/they feel[s] uncomfortable.  By playing the role, discomfort in the reader is raised, in turn, bringing them closer to the realistic content of the author’s intentions.  A frustration of mine, while playing the book, was identifying a familiar framework to work within while exploring the world of Chesnutt’s tales.  I annotated motifs from Chesnutt’s tales and discovered that it can be read, somewhat, as a chivalric romance.  In this hypothetical framework, Chesnutt’s use of magic, spells and enchantments afforded me the opportunity to make moves in the textual environment that would help, Julius, breach into the paratextual space.  With access to the paratextual space, a textual character can directly interact with observers, or readers; even if for a moment’s time.  In the dimensional realm of stage work, this act would be similar to beaching the fourth wall of the audience: a metanominal action that creates a direct interaction between textual character and reader.  In an abstract mode of thought, the textual character is always subject to the emotions of the reader.  Playing a book, bridges the gap between the roles of reader and character.  This helps the character break the restrictions of the author’s intentions, in turn, helping character develop a consciousness independent from the author’s.

Playing the role of a textual character in Chesnutt’s tales, for me, involved drafting actions that were limited to the characterization of the character.  For example, the character I played was the embodiment of an antiquated relic.  Julius was a living object of experience.  Recorded into his mind were the experiences of chattel slavey in the antebellum south.  As an elderly man, he is still, somewhat, cognizant of the subjugator/subjugated dynamic found in most social interactions and attempts to manuver through a new, unknown form of this relationship.  From his perspective, the effects of chattel slavery remain as a part of his being, even though its practice is no longer in use.  If playing again, I would change my role to a paratextual character, just to imagine what it was like from the position of a literary authority.  In doing so, I would possess the ability to weigh Chesnutt’s work with limitless capacity; drawing from cogent empirical evidence to support the stances in my moves.  One drawback of playing a textual character is that there are finite resources which can be employed: resources that are only found in the author’s frames (structuring).

To properly analyze my moves (in game 3), I took a snapshot of the text-fields and cropped them together and a collage of total content for each move.  This aesthetic arrangement made it easier for me to indicate plot points introduced by my fellow players. From these, hand-picked, plot points I was able to make moves that, somewhat, coalesced in historical accuracy, authorial intent and political climate.  As a suggestion, for future users of the platform, would it be possible to incorporate a snapshot feature of each move?  For instance, when all players have completed move#1, a snapshot is formed of all player moves, then merged into a single image for visual analysis.  This removes the need to click back and forth between player responses while gathering information.  This would also make the points of entry (for moves 2, 3 and 4) easier for all users.  As with the original rules, the first player to post gains the priority of the move#.  Overall, I had a great time playing the book and would like to thank admin for making this possible.  Keep up the great work!

reflective post on TALKING BOOK (due Thursday)

To focus your reflection on our gameplay of Chesnutt’s “conjure tales,” I would like you to write a post of 500-1000 words that reckons with the following four questions (you can either write four quick responses or weave the four questions into a single mini-essay):

  1. How did your reading of the text change by virtue of looking at it through a single “window”** (i.e., the point of view of your character or persona)? What did you learn about the novel by playing this role rather than simply reading the text?
  2. What are the pleasures and frustrations of “playing” a novel, rather than reading it? What obstacles did you encounter, and how did you deal with them?
  3. If you were to play again, what would you do differently? Would you pick another role? What moves would you change? What different moves might you make?
  4. Any changes you would suggest to the interface of the game? Bonus points if you post them to the developer’s site on GitHub!

**Henry James famous likened the novel genre to a “house of fiction” that “has in short not one window, but a million — a number of possible windows not to be reckoned, rather; every one of which has been pierced, or is still pierceable, in its vast front, by the need of the individual vision and by the pressure of the individual will.”

survey of opening moves

I’m really impressed by the first round of moves in our “Talking Book” play thus far. We’re going to do a brief exercise today reporting on each others’ moves, so this may duplicate some of what we talk about then, but I wanted to call attention to some exemplary moves, categorized by what one can do with a move. So here are some strategies, paired with moves that use those strategies (among others, in many cases):

Implied Inscription

It seems as though Chesnutt’s work contains a reverse transaction of inscription upon the Caucasian body by the Black subject (now power-holder) instead of the typical way of Caucasian inscription upon a Black body. He structures the latter by posing Uncle Julius, a former slave, as the principal storyteller and wordsmith in these vignettes and his new employers, Annie and John, as his willful participants in this inscription. It closely resembles the inscription of the Condemned Man by the apparatus in Kafka’s “The Penal Colony” in notable ways.

The Caucasian listeners happen to be the descendants (possibly the grandchildren) of former Southern plantation and slave owners. They barely make any interinjections while Uncle Julius is sharing his long and well-paced stories about the inner lives of Black slaves that would never have been heard otherwise. He gives insight to character structure and plot to the point of art form. Chesnutt doesn’t even mention any details about the designated listeners; not even an uncomfortable shuffle, or mention of the predominate layer of the setting (whether sitting in a grassy area, or at the woodcutter’s). They are willing participants in this inscription, not like the Condemned Man in Franz Kafka’s “The Penal Colony.”

What exactly Uncle Julius inscribes upon Annie and her husband includes the structure of power and influence within the slave community in order to affect their white owners and overseers, such as voodoo (“goopher”) and careful storytelling (Uncle Julius and the barn). A friendly exchange between two Caucasian people and an African-American would never have happened before this time period, which makes this moment of inscription remarkable and fragile. Uncle Julius also inscribes upon them to be witnesses to this pain and lack of autonomy that he has experienced first-hand and through those around him; in order to make an impression upon them.

Kafka’s “The Penal Colony” includes a society which wishes to make a similar impression upon their criminals. In the case of the Condemned Man, he was placed within a torture device whose schematics write a message into the skin of the law-breaker, in a language that the Condemned cannot read or write. It’s believed that the very act of inscription upon the body will transfer the wisdom of right-action in order to correct the character of the Condemned. The characters of Annie and John Chesnutt’s tales do not exhibit the same unwillingness that the Condemned Man has when he realizes he’s about to die, but the inscription of right-action is written implicitly upon Annie and John  rather than explicitly. These stories clearly frame out the life of a slave, to hearers who are tied to the very people who benefited monetarily and otherwise from human enslavement. It is a reparation through storytelling that Uncle Julius delivers to his listeners.

Piece on “local color” writing and the South and heads-up re: our “game”

Just wanted to share a brief overview of “local color” writing and its relationship to the South: I think it helps grasp the broader context Chesnutt was writing his “conjure tales” within.

I’d also like to direct you to the site we’ll use to host our “game” of Chesnutt’s writing. Feel free to peruse the site: you can see some old games from last year, a list of possible characters to play, and more.

reflective post on TALKING BOOK (due Monday Mar 18)

To focus your reflection on our gameplay of Chesnutt’s “conjure tales,” I would like you to write a post of 500-1000 words that reckons with the following four questions (you can either write three responses or weave the four questions into a single mini-essay):

  1. How did your reading of the text change by virtue of looking at it through a single “window”** (i.e., the point of view of your character or persona)? What did you learn about the novel by playing this role rather than simply reading the text?
  2. What are the pleasures and frustrations of “playing” a novel, rather than reading it? What obstacles did you encounter, and how did you deal with them?
  3. If you were to play again, what would you do differently? Would you pick another role? What moves would you change? What different moves might you make?
  4. Any changes you would suggest to the interface of the game? Bonus points if you post them to the developer’s site on GitHub!

**Henry James famous likened the novel genre to a “house of fiction” that “has in short not one window, but a million — a number of possible windows not to be reckoned, rather; every one of which has been pierced, or is still pierceable, in its vast front, by the need of the individual vision and by the pressure of the individual will.”

A taste of mainstream “plantation fiction”

Several times I’ve mentioned Thomas Nelson Page, the wildly popular author of “plantation fiction” who was Chesnutt’s contemporary and literary competitor. For those who are interested in getting a taste of the tradition that Chesnutt was writing with/against, check out this collection of his tales via the invaluable DocSouth collection at the U of NC.

Good research project possibilities in putting Chesntt’s work in dialogue with this mainstream tradition!

Sussman interview re: Chesnutt

You might be interested in this audio interview, in which my Hunter colleague Mark Sussman (who’s visiting us Monday and whose article we’ll discuss then) talks to Tess Chakkalakal, author of a new biography of Chesnutt.

S01E05 | Who Was Charles Chesnutt? by C19 Podcast

How do the recovered lives and work of Black writers find an audience? Over the last three decades, Charles Waddell Chesnutt (1858-1932) has become central to nineteenth-century African American literary studies. Scholars have drawn attention to the subtlety, wit, and complexity of his stories, novels, and essays, which were once regarded as pandering and old-fashioned.

I realize that we’ve got an awful lot of work due for Monday, between the “distant reading” assignment, the big chunk of Chesnutt, and the Sussman article. So here’s the deal: I’ll give you an extension of one week on the “distant reading” assignment to let us get up to speed on the Chesnutt. Once we get going with Chesnutt, we’ll do most of our research and prep in class, so the “homework” will be the (I think mostly fun) work of writing out our “moves.” So there’ll be a chance to catch up.

Bottom line: group assignment #1 due Monday, March 5th.