Throughout these past weeks, we've seen numerous takes on what exactly Their Eyes Were Watching God, is in terms of a work of writing. Aside from the praises, criticisms, and other things people have said about it, it's baffling to me that there are so many ways that you can interpret the novel or approach its content.
Probably the most prevalent approach people have taken is the racial aspect of the book. We've read critiques of how Hurston turns it into a minstrel show that is only meant to entertain a white audience. And we've seen counterexamples saying that Hurston is trying to tell readers about empowered black life in the South. And it's really interesting to think about what Hurston is trying to depict, with situations like the all-black Eatonville or the social engagements in the Muck. There's so much content to look at critically and try to parse. I mean, you can't read the book without acknowledging that race plays a role somehow.
But on another note, we've talked multiple times about how the book could be an example of "proto-feminism" in literature. In a world where mainly male authors and characters reign over literature, here comes a woman who makes a life for herself and develops as a person. We have a strong female character who goes through three different husbands and grows off of her experiences with them and the rest of the world. In that way, it really could a feminist novel. And sure, you can argue that the novel is anti-feminist in how Janie only grows because her husbands enable her to, but that still contributes to this idea of how many ways you can analyze it.
Along with that, you can't ignore Hurston's anthropological background. You can pretty clearly see traces of her work in studying rural Florida in the novel. After all, the depictions of work life and social customs were pretty much exactly what she experienced and studied professionally. So then is the book an anthropological work? Is it's true purpose to elucidate the customs and habits of this group of people and show who they really are to the world?
Heck, what if it's just a book? Like, I know it's extremely unlikely, but what if Hurston just wrote Their Eyes Were Watching God as a book for people to read, with no hidden meanings or subliminal messages involved? We saw in the documentary that Hurston was very confident, so what if she just wrote a book to write a book?
It's so odd, because Hurston seems like a person who would write Their Eyes Were Watching God with any of these viewpoints in mind, and probably much more as well. Still, it serves as a landmark work in all of these categories. Why? Is it because people can identify easily with the characters? Is it because the book is entertaining? Is it for all of the possible implications it can have in realms like feminism and racism? Either way it goes, Their Eyes Were Watching God is still an amazing book, and I think that greatness can partially be attributed to its universality. The way I see it, any way you look at it, you can make something out of what you want the book to be.
Probably the most prevalent approach people have taken is the racial aspect of the book. We've read critiques of how Hurston turns it into a minstrel show that is only meant to entertain a white audience. And we've seen counterexamples saying that Hurston is trying to tell readers about empowered black life in the South. And it's really interesting to think about what Hurston is trying to depict, with situations like the all-black Eatonville or the social engagements in the Muck. There's so much content to look at critically and try to parse. I mean, you can't read the book without acknowledging that race plays a role somehow.
But on another note, we've talked multiple times about how the book could be an example of "proto-feminism" in literature. In a world where mainly male authors and characters reign over literature, here comes a woman who makes a life for herself and develops as a person. We have a strong female character who goes through three different husbands and grows off of her experiences with them and the rest of the world. In that way, it really could a feminist novel. And sure, you can argue that the novel is anti-feminist in how Janie only grows because her husbands enable her to, but that still contributes to this idea of how many ways you can analyze it.
Along with that, you can't ignore Hurston's anthropological background. You can pretty clearly see traces of her work in studying rural Florida in the novel. After all, the depictions of work life and social customs were pretty much exactly what she experienced and studied professionally. So then is the book an anthropological work? Is it's true purpose to elucidate the customs and habits of this group of people and show who they really are to the world?
Heck, what if it's just a book? Like, I know it's extremely unlikely, but what if Hurston just wrote Their Eyes Were Watching God as a book for people to read, with no hidden meanings or subliminal messages involved? We saw in the documentary that Hurston was very confident, so what if she just wrote a book to write a book?
It's so odd, because Hurston seems like a person who would write Their Eyes Were Watching God with any of these viewpoints in mind, and probably much more as well. Still, it serves as a landmark work in all of these categories. Why? Is it because people can identify easily with the characters? Is it because the book is entertaining? Is it for all of the possible implications it can have in realms like feminism and racism? Either way it goes, Their Eyes Were Watching God is still an amazing book, and I think that greatness can partially be attributed to its universality. The way I see it, any way you look at it, you can make something out of what you want the book to be.
Nice post Ethan! I definitely agree that this could be a confusing book, especially when trying to figure out what message it was sending. I feel like in the end though, the book is mostly just a work of art and doesn't really have an underlying message. The point is just to write a normal story about a group of people that hadn't really been represented before. However there are definitely ways of interpreting the book that could lead to multiple contradictory messages like you said.
ReplyDeleteI mean that's what makes individual's interpretations so different. Each person can choose by which scope they want to view the book. But, the ambiguity of the main purpose of the novel is what mainly upsets people (like wright, for example). I think instead of trying to categorize it, you have to widen your focus to multiple parts, because again everything applies, from Zora's anthropological perspective to the proto-femininity that one can find.
ReplyDeleteI think it's cool that you said that you could read "Their Eyes" in any way that you want. I think I disagree with Wright in the fact that it isn't a protest novel though. I think if you read it carefully you can ascertain her protests within the frame of the novel. I wrote an essay about that anyways. I like that you highlight the wide range of culture that Hurston encompasses within the novel, mingling black and feminist issues.
ReplyDelete