I’ve taken two courses at Rutgers University analyzing the themes, history, and major works of Black Literature. Throughout both of these classes, I had a burning question: Can Black literature be by and/or about a white person? Is the “essence” of Black literature beyond the experience and knowledge of a white author?
This summer, I had my question answer, and it is a resounding “yes.” I have recently finished Russel Banks’s Cloudsplitter, a 1998 novel about radical abolitionist John Brown, written from the point of view of his son, Owen. I finished the novel several weeks ago, and I haven’t stopped thinking about it since. For one, it is incredibly well written. It also, however, deals with very potent and complex questions facing society.
One the topic of race, the novel uses the story of John Brown to explore many of the themes found in Black literature: race as a social construction, the ability to choose race and the repercussions of that choice, numerous allusions to Black novels and authors (Invisible Man being the most potent, but also numerous references to slave narratives), and the untold story of people society chooses to ignore. John Brown, as a radical abolitionist, goes against the “expectations” or the “normal attitude” of his race. While many of the whites living around Brown are against slavery, few, if any, are willing to risk their lives for the cause. They insist on what Brown refers to as “passive resistance.” For Brown, this is not enough. He takes on “God’s work” to take down the “devil” slave owners and liberate the United States from the hands of Satan.
This, obviously, has social and economic repercussions. The Browns become increasingly exiled from white society, and more and more clients refuse to purchase their wool, their major source of income. The family, because of their skin color, is also not accepted by the Black community, leaving them basically ostracized from society at large and the butt of countless rumors surrounding John Brown’s morality and sanity. Like many of the characters in Black novels who choose to “pass,” the Browns “betray” their race by acting outside of the norm and, thus, are ostracized by it. The Browns, like “passing” characters, deny one race socially and are denied by the other race biologically. The difference with the Browns, however, is that they cannot “pass;” their skin is white and cannot be accepted by either community. Despite Brown’s efforts for the abolitionist cause, he will never be accepted as a member of Black society, much like the characters of Black novels who are wrongly ostracized from white society.
Aside from dealing with matters of race, Cloudsplitter also deals deeply with the effects and the morality of terrorism. Banks does not hide the fact that Brown is a terrorist. He pledges to be violently opposing slavery, which includes the deaths of hundred at Harper’s Ferry, in the name of God. Everything he does, all the men he kills, are because God has sanctioned it. Abolition is not only a moral question, but a spiritual question.
From the novel’s opening, Brown is described as a religious fanatic. He knows the Bible better than anyone else and believes the role of every single person to carry out the words of the Bible without question. He is not open to alternative ways of thinking and although he can be kind, he rules with an iron fist, and his greatest weapon is fear. Owen Brown fears his father, his intimidating stature and his spiritual confidence. There is a moment early in the novel when Owen breaks his arm attempting to escape during the Sabbath. Owen’s brother’s, who were associates to the escape, debate whether or not to tell father what happened because of their fear of the consequences. John Brown beats his children time and time again, and this fear is what he uses to keep them in line.
There is also the question of the glory and the morality of Brown’s religious crusade. John Brown opening admits that his worst sin is the sin of pride, and Owen wonders more than once about how this desire for recognition affects his actions. John Brown, for example, must be the one to lead them into battle and to make all military decisions. Nothing happens without him being in the lead. Other perspectives on John Brown’s actions also provide insight into his fanaticism. Other whites believe he has gone too far when he begins attacking and killing slave owners and slave catchers. Even Owen sees his father as crazy, even though he believes full heartedly in the cause. These perspectives make the reader step back and wonder about Brown’s fanaticism. Although, obviously, abolition was a cause worth fighting for and dying for, is guerilla warfare and terrorism the way to do that?
Also, the parallels to the terrorists of today become undeniable. John Brown, like the Taliban or any other religious extremists, believes whole heartedly in his cause and that he has been chosen by God to kill for that cause. Every death is in the name of God. Brown is also completely closed off other perspectives. If you will not fight and you will not die, then you’re a coward and a sinner. There is a major difference that should not be overlooked, however: Brown does not kill innocent people (although the slave owners he kills are civilians).
What makes the novel so involving, I think, is the attitude of the narrator towards his father. The novel, in many ways, is the story of John Brown, but it is also the story of his son. Owen never recovers from the death of his father. Because his father has been so overbearing throughout his life, Owen never forms his own identity but, rather, lives as a weapon to perform his father’s bidding. After Harper’s Ferry, Owen disappears. He leaves his family and society and resides in the mountains of upstate NY. In some ways, there is profound respect for John Brown and his actions. There is also, however, a deep fear for the danger he poses. Brown takes the law into his own hands and kills others in the name of “God’s work.” He targets civilians, albeit slave owners. Does Brown’s just cause liberate him from the label of “terrorist”? Does the morality of his mission erase the danger his perspective and actions pose to society? These are the questions the novel leaves us with.
0 Responses to “”