Plagiarama!, by Geoffrey Sanborn

Copyrighted Material

Introduction

About forty miles east of Louisville, Kentucky, is a small town with the improbable name of Pleasureville. Plenty of villages, towns, and cities in the United States associate themselves with pleasantness—there are sixty-four Pleasant Valleys, thirty-three Pleasant Views, eighteen Pleasantvilles, eight Pleasantons, four Pleasant Points, a Pleasant Run, a Pleasant Branch, a Pleasant Ridge, a Pleasant Mountain, a Pleasant Lake, a Pleasant City, and a plain old Pleasant—but only two, as far as I have been able to tell, identify themselves with pleasure. It is not hard to see why. Most American municipalities define themselves in relation to stable values and easeful, long-lasting forms of happiness—in relation to plaisir, as Roland Barthes would have put it, rather than jouissance. A town with the word “pleasure” in its name is defined, by contrast, in relation to an experience that comes and goes, that “exceeds any (social) function and any (structural) functioning,” that scandalizes consistency and order.1 The Kentucky Pleasureville—the other is in Pennsylvania—has a strange story attached to it. In the “Memoir of the Author” that introduces William Wells Brown’s The Rising Son (1874), we are told that in 1871, during a trip to Pleasureville to promote an organization that he had founded, the National Association for the Spread of Temperance and Nightschools, Brown was kidnapped by the Ku Klux Klan.2 Shortly after dark, while walking on a country road, he was waylaid by “some eight or ten men,” bound, tied to a horse, and dragged down “what appeared to be a cow-path.” “While on this road,” he writes, “my hat fell off, and I called out to the man behind 1

Copyrighted Material

2 In tr o d u c t i o n

and said, ‘I’ve lost my hat.’ ‘You’ll need no hat in half an hour’s time,’ he replied.”

As they neared a log house, a man came out and said, tremulously, “Jim’s dying!” Upon hearing “the cries, groans, and ravings of the sick man,” Brown instantly recognized it as “an extreme case of delirium tremens,” a condition that he had previously treated, while practicing medicine in Boston, with an injection of morphine. Serendipitously, he had a syringe and a supply of morphine with him. “I know what’s the matter with that man,” he told his captors, “and I can relieve him in ten minutes.”

The men untied him and brought him into the sick man’s chamber. Having determined that he would “try to impress them with the idea that I had derived my power to relieve pain from some supernatural source,” Brown said, “Now, gentlemen, I’ll give this man complete relief in less than ten minutes from the time I lay my hands on him; but I must be permitted to retire to a room alone, for I confess that I have dealings with the devil, and I must consult with him.” They complied. After loading the syringe and putting it in his vest pocket, Brown returned to the bedroom, waved his hands in the air, and said, “Gentlemen, I want your aid; give it to me, and I’ll perform a cure that you’ll never forget. All of you look upon that man till I say, ‘Hold!’ Look him right in the eye.” They complied again.

Brown took out the syringe, injected the man, put the syringe back in his pocket, and cried, “Hold!” Ten minutes later, Jim was at ease. The leader of the lynching party, a man called Cap, “gazed steadily at me, then at the sick man, and exclaimed,—‘Big thing! big thing, boys, d—d if it ain’t!’ ” Brown then talked Cap into having some devil-aided work done on his sciatica—“I’ll do anything you tell me,” Cap promised him—and surreptitiously sedated him, singing, as he did so, “a noted Methodist hymn.” After some consultation, all but one of the remaining men rode away, with the intention of returning before dawn to finish the lynching. The man left to guard Brown drank too much and fell asleep at the table. The last obstacle to Brown’s departure, an angry dog, was brought to heel by Jim’s wife, and, with a “grateful look” at her, Brown left the house. “Taking the road that I had come, and following it down,” he writes, “I found my hat, and after walking some distance out of the way by mistake, I reached the station, and took the morning train for Cincinnati.”3 Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that none of this ever happened.4 Why, at a time when white vigilante activities were a real and constant threat,

Copyrighted Material

3 In tr o d u c t i o n

would Brown make up a comic story about escaping from half-witted Klansmen? Why is the story flanked by, and implicitly paralleled with, an anecdote about refusing to put up with wet bedsheets in an English hotel and an anecdote about arranging to have a bag of flour dumped on the heads of hostile audience members in upstate New York? Why does he choose not to offer any concluding reflections on the event? And why—if it never happened and he could have situated it pretty much anywhere along the path of his travels in the rural South—did he set the story in the bizarrely named town of Pleasureville?

These are the kinds of questions that have spurred and respurred my interest in William Wells Brown over the last few years. Answers come to mind—the comedy is an affirmation of elasticity in the face of a stultifyingly oppressive racial violence; the bedsheet and flour-bag stories communicate to the Klan story a similarly affirmative lightness; the absence of a moral underscores the gratuitousness, the fundamentally aesthetic quality, of the story’s extremely prolonged telling; Pleasureville is the interpersonal space of literary experience—but I am not inclined to pursue them very far.

Under the inspiration, or spell, of Brown, I am inclined, instead, to remain in the space between the emergence of questions and the expression of answers, a space in which various types of uncertainty (did this happen? did he make it up? what are its politics? what are its aesthetics?) simply swirl. As a result of that swirling, a kind of apparitional shimmer is generated. Brown glistens. I experience a Barthes-like bliss.5 Here is another example of the quality that I am attempting to capture here, taken from a speech that Brown delivered at a meeting of the New York Anti-Slavery Society in May 1856: Some year and a half ago, I landed in this city from a British steamer, having just left England, after having been abroad in different countries in Europe for a number of years, where I was never once reminded that I was a coloured person, so that I had quite forgotten the distinction of caste that existed in democratic America. I walked into an eating-house.

I had scarcely got my hat off when the proprietor told me I could not eat there. Said I, “I have got a good appetite, and if you will give me a trial, I rather think I will convince you that I can.” “But,” said he, “it is not allowable.” I did not know what to make of it; I had been away five years, and had forgotten the great power of slavery over the North. I felt insulted.

Copyrighted Material

4 In tr o d u c t i o n

I walked into another eating-house. The proprietor asked me what I wanted. I said I wanted my dinner. “You can’t get it here; we don’t accommodate niggers.” That was twice I was insulted. I went into a third, with a like result. I then went and stood by a lamp post for some five minutes.

I thought of the nineteen years I had worked as a slave; I thought of the glorious Declaration of Independence; I looked around me and saw no less than seven steeples of churches; and I resolved I would have my dinner in the city of New York (applause). I went to another restaurant. I made up my mind what I would do. I saw a vacant plate at a table; I took aim at it. I pulled back the chair, and sat down, turned over the plate, and stuck my knife in something. I was agitated, and did not know what it was, until I got it on my plate, when I found it was a big pickle (laughter). At any rate I went to work at it. The waiter stared at me. Said I, “Boy, get me something to eat.” He stared again, walked to the proprietor, and said something to him, came back, and helped me. When I got through my dinner, I went up to the bar, and handed the proprietor a dollar. He took it, and then said, “You have got the greatest impudence of any nigger I have seen for a great while” (laughter).6

What is the pickle doing in this story? Again, a series of answers could take the place of that question: it is a phallic symbol; by stabbing it, Brown symbolically assaults white male potency; by eating it, he symbolically lays claim to that potency himself. But all such answers, however credible they might be from a certain perspective, miss the point. The point of the pickle is, quite simply, to energize the audience by creating a pleasurable uncertainty about where this narrative of resistance to Northern prejudice is going. By dropping into the lecture, at a carefully prepared-for moment, an object that is simultaneously too banal and too symbolically overdetermined to be taken seriously, Brown causes his narrative to lift off, in part, from the solid ground of moral earnestness. He causes, as well, an at least temporary rerouting of attention from the story to the teller; he gives the audience a satisfyingly structured anecdote, and they give him, in his capacity as a performer, a burst of laughter. The pickle is fictionality; the pickle is theatricality; the pickle is purely gratuitous pleasure.

Until very recently, these were not the kinds of qualities that critics of early African American literature tended to emphasize. “Almost from the very beginning,” J. Saunders Redding wrote in 1939, “the literature of the

Copyrighted Material

5 In tr o d u c t i o n

Negro has been literature either of purpose or of necessity.” 7 The power of that equation—African American literature = literature of purpose or necessity—has made it difficult to draw other dimensions of literature and literary experience into the discussion. It has made it difficult, moreover, to bring in more than a handful of texts. For most scholars and teachers, nineteenth-century African American writing boils down to Frederick Douglass and Harriet Jacobs, and, if time is short, it boils straight down to Douglass— which is to say, straight down to Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass (1845), not the expansive, dilatory, aesthetically ambitious My Bondage and My Freedom (1855). In the last decade or so, critics such as Daphne Brooks, Lara Langer Cohen, Theo Davis, Gustavus Stadler, and Elisa Tamarkin have offered important challenges to the long-standing tendency in literary studies to prioritize the biographical, political, and cultural-historical dimensions of early African American writing.8 Over the same period, several critics have tried to extend the canon of nineteenth-century black writing “beyond Douglass,” as Michael J. Drexler and Ed White put it in the title to a 2008 collection of essays (or “Beyond Douglass and Jacobs,” as John Ernest puts it in the title of a 2007 essay).9 But the status quo persists. The image of the early black author repeatedly reverts to the image of a man or woman forced by Necessity to write with a Purpose; the criticism of early black writing repeatedly reverts to a historicization of the Necessity and a highlighting of the Purpose in a handful of canonical texts.

The aim of this book is to contribute to the developing discussion of the more-than-necessary and other-than-purposive aspects of early African American writing and to argue for the centrality, in any such discussion, of Brown. In spite of having been, in his day, generally reckoned the secondmost important black abolitionist—after Douglass, of course—and in spite of having authored the first published African American novel, the first published African American play, and more total volumes than any other nineteenth-century African American writer, Brown is virtually unknown to nonspecialists and barely represented in the standard anthologies of American literature. His best-known work, Clotel (1853), is frequently derided as an aesthetic failure. His next-best-known work, Narrative of the Life of William W. Brown (1847), is deep in Douglass’s shadow. The rest of his major publications—Three Years in Europe (1852) (later expanded into The American Fugitive in Europe [1855]), The Escape (1858), The Black

Copyrighted Material

6 In tr o d u c t i o n

Man (1863), The Negro in the American Rebellion (1867), The Rising Son, and My Southern Home (1880)—are mostly unread.10 This is a horrible shame. Our overlooking of Brown is an overlooking of what so many literary critics and readers in general are in search of these days: a writer with an idiosyncratic aesthetic sensibility who ranges up and down the cultural register in pursuit of political change. If we want to move not only beyond Douglass and Jacobs but beyond purpose and necessity, there is no better place to start than Brown.

Consider, in this light, the following two passages. The first is Douglass’s famous description of learning to write, from his 1845 Narrative: The idea as to how I might learn to write was suggested to me by being in Durgin and Bailey’s ship-yard, and frequently seeing the ship carpenters, after hewing, and getting a piece of timber ready for use, write on the timber the name of that part of the ship for which it was intended.

When a piece of timber was intended for the larboard side, it would be marked thus—“L.” When a piece was for the starboard side, it would be marked thus—“S.” A piece for the larboard side forward, would be marked thus—“L. F.” When a piece was for starboard side forward, it would be marked thus—“S. F.” For larboard aft, it would be marked thus—“L. A.” For starboard aft, it would be marked thus—“S. A.” I soon learned the names of these letters, and for what they were intended when placed upon a piece of timber in the ship-yard. I immediately commenced copying them, and in a short time was able to make the four letters named.

After that, when I met with any boy who I knew could write, I would tell him I could write as well as he. The next word would be, “I don’t believe you. Let me see you try it.” I would then make the letters which I had been so fortunate as to learn, and ask him to beat that. In this way I got a good many lessons in writing, which it is quite possible I should never have gotten in any other way. During this time, my copy-book was the board fence, brick wall, and pavement; my pen and ink was a lump of chalk. With these, I learned mainly how to write.11

And here is Brown’s much less famous description of learning to write, from the “Narrative of the Life and Escape of William Wells Brown” that appears in the opening pages of Clotel:

Copyrighted Material

7 In tr o d u c t i o n

How do you suppose I first commenced writing? for you will understand that up to the present time I never spent a day in school in my life, for I had no money to pay for schooling, so that I had to get my learning first from one and then from another. I carried a piece of chalk in my pocket, and whenever I met a boy I would stop him and take out my chalk and get at a board fence and then commence. First I made some flourishes with no meaning, and called a boy up, and said, “Do you see that? Can you beat that writing?” Said he, “That’s not writing.” Well, I wanted to get so as to write my own name. I had got out of slavery with only one name. While escaping, I received the hospitality of a very good man, who had spared part of his name to me, and finally my name got pretty long, and I wanted to be able to write it. “Now, what do you call that?” said the boy, looking at my flourishes. I said, “Is not that William Wells Brown?”

“Give me the chalk,” says he, and he wrote out in large letters “William Wells Brown,” and I marked up the fence for nearly a quarter of a mile, trying to copy, till I got so that I could write my name. Then I went on with my chalking, and, in fact, all board fences within half a mile of where I lived were marked over with some kind of figures I had made, in trying to learn how to write.12

Unless, by some extraordinary coincidence, both Douglass and Brown really did learn how to write by luring white boys into alphabetic chalking competitions—and if so, it is equally extraordinary that Brown didn’t bring it up in his 1847 Narrative or any other edition of his autobiography—what we have here is an exuberantly fictive instance of stylistic one-upsmanship.13 Perhaps because Brown’s paragraph is, to all appearances, transcribed from a lecture, it is full of the energies of verbal performance: the readers or listeners are close enough to be directly addressed; the sentences unfold in expansive, loose-jointed ways; the central encounter is dramatized through quick-moving dialogue; and the final sentences trampoline us into the regions of the tall tale. Douglass’s paragraph is, comparatively speaking, stiff.

There is something mechanical about his listing of all of the permutations of starboard, larboard, forward, and aft; most of his ensuing sentences are not only terse but roughly identical in length; and he never moves, as Brown does, from a past-tense account of what generally happened to a presenttense account of one incident in particular. He concludes the anecdote,

Copyrighted Material

8 In tr o d u c t i o n

moreover, not with a burst of extravagance but with a shapely rhetorical antithesis and an in-case-you-missed-it summary. Douglass seems to want, above all else, to be authoritative; Brown seems to want, above all else, to be interesting.

It is telling, in this context, that the payoff for tricking the white boys is so different in Brown’s anecdote. Unlike Douglass, who parlays an ability to write four letters into an ability to write all twenty-six, Brown begins with no knowledge at all and parlays it into nothing more than an ability to write his own name. Theoretically, Brown could then take that knowledge of the eleven letters in his name and convert it into a mastery of the entire alphabet, but he clearly has no desire to take the anecdote in that direction. His story is about “getting up,” as graffiti taggers say, about exhibiting a signifier of selfhood that is just one trick removed from a series of “flourishes with no meaning.”14 Writing and rewriting that cryptic signifier of identity is not an avenue to phallic mastery, as Douglass’s comprehensive knowledge is. It is, instead, a campy travesty of mastery, an unserious hyperbolization of selfhood. Brown is telling a story about how one can, almost miraculously, by means of a redundant, extravagant, going-nowhere mode of signification, make the space between dispossession and possession unfold and expand.

By ironically, fictively, pleasurably reiterating the barely more than material signifier of his identity, he exposes what Derrida would have called its itérabilité, its capacity to disappear and reappear, to be sensationally present without symbolically progressing.15 He is, in this story, neither dominated nor dominating, neither on the bottom nor on top; he is, instead, an apparitional emergence, a lateral gliding, a sign of things to come. “Is not that,” he asks the white boy, pointing toward the chalked flourishes on the fence, “William Wells Brown?”

The chapters that follow will trace out the implications of Brown’s highly performative understanding of the self and its signifiers. I will begin with what is, undoubtedly, the most startling expression of that understanding in Brown’s work: his lush, louche plagiarism. Over the course of his career—as I have discovered over the last few years, by means of various online databases—he plagiarized at least 87,000 words from at least 282 texts. He did not merely borrow ideas or creatively metabolize a major source text or two; he copied, for the most part, word for word. Neither did he replicate an accepted practice or unwittingly violate unwritten rules; in mid-nineteenth-century America and England, plagiarism came with a

Copyrighted Material

9 In tr o d u c t i o n

scarlet P, as Brown was forcefully reminded by Douglass in an 1852 article exposing one of his unlicensed transcriptions. Brown knew what he was doing and what he was risking by doing it and did it anyway.

At times, his motives for doing it seem to have been fairly banal. In The Rising Son, for instance, he saves himself a lot of time and pads his book with quite a few pages by importing massive chunks of text from Jonathan Brown’s The History and Present Condition of St. Domingo. More often, however, he seems to have been animated by an edgy spirit of play. If the stigmatization of plagiarism is, as the critic Jonathan Elmer argues, a repression of the “disconcerting separability” of “selves and signs,” then Brown’s often outrageous textual appropriations—he plagiarizes at one point from the famous chapter on plagiarism in Washington Irving’s The SketchBook of Geoffrey Crayon—might be seen as, in part, an expression of the pleasure he takes in that separability.16 Because language belongs to no one, because its materials, protocols, and structures so dramatically exceed the proprietorship of its users, one is, in language, both oneself and anyone.

To certain sensibilities, like Brown’s, that is intoxicating.

But while plagiarism will be a crucial element of this book, it will function primarily as a starting point, a way into a range of different approaches to Brown’s work. In chapter 2, I will turn to a different kind of textual borrowing: the appropriation of anecdotes from white popular culture. Like P. T. Barnum, whose 1855 autobiography is, to an extraordinary degree, a compendium of practical jokes, Brown has a fondness for comedies of advantage seizing and a preference for ones that have already been test marketed.

Because there is often cruelty and sometimes a cringeworthy minstrel-show humor to what Brown calls “fun,” critics have tended to keep their distance from it. But it is absolutely central to Brown’s fictional enterprise, and without diminishing its disturbing qualities, we should recognize its analytical acuity and utopian thrust. What it suggests is that Brown concluded early in his career that white Americans strongly prefer narratives of self-making that are a little “off,” in which something other than merit is at work. Officially, socioeconomic advancement depends on industriousness and honesty; unofficially, it depends on a spirit of capitalization, on shrewdness, on being able to take advantage of opportunities as they arise. Officially, too, one person’s advancement sets no one else back; unofficially, it always comes at someone else’s expense. In the spaces between those official and unofficial discourses, Brown senses a potential for interracial sociability, for the

Copyrighted Material

10 In tr o d u c t i o n

black-white enjoyment of an insider knowledge so fundamentally ironic in its structure that it is capable of being—he hopes—receptive to the ironies of race as well.

This will lead, in chapter 3, to one of the book’s central arguments: that Brown’s literary and extraliterary performances are animated by what the film historian Tom Gunning has described, with respect to early cinema, as an “aesthetic of attractions.” Throughout his career as a lecturer, panorama showman, and playwright-actor, Brown seems to have detected in his mostly white audiences a desire for a certain variety-show aesthetic, in which factual assertions, moral appeals, sentimental flourishes, and low-cultural moments of humor take turns displacing one another. This now-yousee-it-now-you-don’t aesthetic does not exist to the exclusion of narrative in Brown’s works any more than it did in early cinema. It is, however, the dominant mode, the style of literary, visual, and dramatic entertainment toward which he leans. Without an appreciation of that mode, which has percolated, over the last century-plus, into slapstick, musicals, action movies, and other pop-cultural genres, it is hard to appreciate the form of most of Brown’s works. Focusing primarily on Clotel, I will highlight the presence of that mode and suggest some of the possibilities that Brown seems to have glimpsed in it. It seems to have held out, for him, the prospect of a democratically non-narrative space, a stage on which various discourses and subjectivities might intermittently, clashingly appear. By providing his readers and audiences with a relief from the self-sameness of conventional narrative—a relief from characters who are in keeping with themselves, plots that obey Aristotelian unities, and events with easily formulated morals—Brown provides them, as well, with a sense of what a culture based on the pleasurableness of difference might feel like.

But not all kinds of pleasure open up this prospect. The racist’s pleasure does not; the rapist’s pleasure does not. With that in mind, I focus, in chapter 4, on the character type that has drawn the most attention in the scholarship on Brown: the young, beautiful, light-skinned slave woman. For most critics, Brown’s foregrounding of this figure is either a damaging reinforcement of white standards of beauty or an implicit critique of the slave power/rape power that narcissistically produces and consumes such figures.

There is, however, a third option. What I will argue in this chapter is that Brown’s deployment of the figure of the beautiful slave girl is neither as static as the fi rst of those readings suggests nor as lurid as the second

Copyrighted Material

11 In tr o d u c t i o n

suggests—that it is, instead, lightly, even self-parodically, fetishistic. By conjuring up scenarios starring this instantly recognizable figure, setting those scenarios in transitional spaces and times, and using the fascination of her beauty to prolong that in-betweenness, he keeps his distance, and encourages us to keep our distance, from the traumatic reality that she evokes.

The intensity of his desire to draw our attention to that reality repeatedly returns him to these scenarios, but the equal intensity of his desire to preserve the dignity of this figure leads him to fetishize a strange, preliminary time: the time before slavery—an abusive, nonreciprocal pleasure taking that will repeat itself, if left to itself, endlessly—begins. Slavery presented itself as a done deal. Brown presents slavery as a deal that is not yet done.

That delaying tactic can be pursued, in a striking number of cases, all the way down to the level of syntax. Again and again, in sentences Brown imported from elsewhere and in sentences he wrote himself, beauty is registered by means of repletion, by means of sentences that expand inwardly through recursive repetitions of formal elements. In chapter 5, I consider the music of such sentences in relation to The Escape, a play with thirty-seven speaking parts that Brown performed in staged readings. There is a relationship, I argue, between the position that Brown occupies in such readings—between the speech-identities of others, speaking in his own voice only when announcing scene changes, tableaux, and movements—and the pauses within and between sentences that give passages of prose their peculiar rhythm. Just as Brown may be said to identify himself not with any one subject position but with the capacity to move between them, so may he be said to have an aesthetic preference for impersonal rhythms and flows, a preference that manifests itself both in his attraction to syntactic repletion and in his understanding of characters as vehicles, things to be provisionally occupied and moved from place to place. The pleasure that he takes in plagiarism is, I argue, best understood in relation to this preference. He likes speaking both as and not as himself, blending his voice with the voices of others, becoming no one thing in particular. In place of what Gillian Beer has described as “the desolate privacy of the Romantic ego,” Brown offers sociable, mobile, jostling, boundary-disrespecting assemblages of quasi egos, in which he is amid others and others are amid him.17 If he identifies, finally, with anything, it is with the endlessly reopening space from which all such identities emerge and to which they inevitably return.

Copyrighted Material

12 In tr o d u c t i o n

In a 1974 introduction to his short story “Paraguay”—a traveler’s tale of a journey to an imaginary, hyper-rationalized country, composed in part out of bits and pieces of other people’s writing—Donald Barthelme writes that what he likes about the story “is the misuse of language and the tone.” By “misuse,” Barthelme seems to mean experimental cobbling, a practice that lies somewhere between the earnest use and the satirical abuse of language. The point of the misuse, Barthelme does not hesitate to say, is his own pleasure. “Mixing bits of this and that from various areas of life to make something that did not exist before is an oddly hopeful endeavor,” he writes. “The sentence ‘Electrolytic jelly exhibiting a capture ratio far in excess of standard is used to fix the animals in place’ made me very happy— perhaps in excess of its merit. But there is in the world such a thing as electrolytic jelly; the ‘capture ratio’ comes from the jargon of sound technology; and the animals themselves are a salad of the real and the invented.” This is “a highly specialized enterprise,” he acknowledges, “akin to the manufacture of merkins, say—but it’s what I do. Probably I have missed the point of the literature business entirely.”18 Brown was not, of course, quite as free to miss the point of the literature business entirely. To make an impact, through his writing, on the abolitionist movement, Brown had to know how to turn out basic literary products, recognizable, market-tested genre pieces. And he did. But he also—intermittently, covertly, performatively—missed their point, in what was, I think, an “oddly hopeful” way. Knowing that we are not ourselves alone in language, believing that language is as much about display as it is about communication, Brown put on a wildly expropriative show, a plagiarama, that we are only now able to witness. What was the point of that strange, secret, scandalous show for Brown? What might it be for us? Something, perhaps, like the point that the vet tries to communicate to the narrator of Invisible Man. “Play the game, but don’t believe in it,” he says. “That much you owe yourself.”19