How and why did modernist artists use literature to try and achieve freedom from existing political, social, or aesthetic restraints?
Please answer the question in relation to Zora Neale Hurston’s Dust Tracks on a Road and Henry Miller’s Tropic of Cancer. Since these texts deal with different experiences and forms of using self-censorship, it would give me the opportunity to discuss restraints around race and sexuality, or sexual desire, as well as explore the expectations that these writers had placed upon them.
Hurston and Miller are quite different in terms of their style, politics, etc. it will be important to explain carefully why you have chosen to read their work comparatively – what is gained by this comparison? – they both use dehumanisation and objectifcation of characters to satirise gender norms, this resistance creates social movement
I will be using research questions to help drive the essay such as “What restrictions were placed on Hurston and Miller?”, and “What social and political context informs these restrictions, and how does this encourage resistance through literature and film?”. I will also be researching and engaging with the question “What examples of resistance directly subvert the established expectations for them as writers?”.
The main argument will be that modernist artists used literature to achieve freedom through subversion and the purposeful dehumanising and objectifying to satirise gender norms. Henry Miller’s engagement with sexual desire and encounters directly subverts social and literary expectations. Zora Neale Hurston also subverts expectations but in a different way. By not engaging with the topic of race in the way the reader may expect, she, just like Miller, is solidifying her right to openly express herself through literature, in a way that does not conform to society’s constructed expectations of, in her case, a black writer.
In my introduction, I will present the two texts the essay will cover. I will then state my thesis (modernist artists used subversion and satire to achieve freedom from social, political, and aesthetic restraints / explore topics in a very different way than is expected of them as writers). I will argue that this is a purposeful, constructed decision to break with the literary conventions which stifled not just creativity, but social and political change.
Firstly, I will discuss the restraints which impacted Miller, such as the changing idea of the “pornographic” and its rise during 19th century. Use some of the following info and source:
Artistic, literary, or scientific merit was discounted if the text was considered to be obscene
1857 Obscene Publications Act
Many historians believe that “pornography” came into being at a very specific time
1755: “pornography” not used as a term
1840: “pornography” starts to be used to describe explicit or obscene representations of sex work and, later on, sexual acts more broadly
1909: Oxford English Dictionary defines “pornography” as 1) “A description of prostitutes or of prostitution [sex workers or sex work], as a matter of public hygiene.”
2) “Description of the life, manners, etc., of prostitutes [sex workers] and their patrons: hence, the expression or suggestion of obscene or unchaste subjects in literature or art.” (cited in Kendrick, The Secret Museum, 1-2; 17)
The Invention of pornography in 19th centurty:
1. explosion of sexual discourse
2. newly enlarged readership – rising literacy rates and increased mass production of printed materials
3. writing about sex becomes more explicit and realistic – depicting sex for the sake of sex, not serving any purpose such as mocking political authorities
pornography was almost always an adjunct to something else until the middle or end of the eighteenth century. In early modern Europe, that is, between 1500 and 1800, pornography was most often a vehicle for using the shock of sex to criticise religious and political authorities.” (Lynn Hunt, The Invention of Pornography, p. 10)
I will discuss the impact of Miller’s book as a piece of resistance, exploding with conventions and urging the reader to view literature and “valuable” literature as more than the often-elitist canon. Include quotes from Tropic of Cancer about objectifying women – such as “all swinging their asses in front of me” – satirising misogynistic men
I will offer an alternative argument – exploring how Miller’s depiction of women and sex can be harmful and seems to adhere to a violent and hyper-sexualised perception of women and others as objects of desire and sexual gratification. One could argue that this solidifies existing gender norms rather than challenging them. Whilst the dehumanising aspect of his writing cannot be denied, it remains an example of style resistance against the newly-developing ideas of “the pornographic” and challenged traditional customs and societal expectations which often dismissed sexual expression. Link to Miller’s quote “I start tomorrow on the Paris book: First person, uncensored, formless – fuck everything!”(Miller cited in Turner, Renegade, p. 3)
Please compare and contrast this with Hurston’s social and political context. I will discuss her education, how her works were often funded by white people (such as “Godmother” Osgood Mason), and the impact this would’ve had on her ability to engage with her experiences in the book. Discuss Hurston within wider cultural contexts specifically the Harlem Renaissance. Despite these restrictions, Zora’s work engages with feelings of alienation for black students in predominantly white educational settings. I also want to explore the expectations placed upon her as a black writer and discuss how she directly resists these. For example, the scene in the barbershop in which Zora sees a black man being refused service and kicked out. I will engage in close reading, for example with the quote: “He tried to lie there and be a martyr, but the roar of oncoming cars made him jump up and scurry off.”.
– Close analysis on “martyr” – mocking his efforts, suggests that those who oppose the system see themselves as greater than they are
– Close analysis on “scurry” – diminishing, comparing him to a small animal, contrasted and supported by “roar”
This is an example of dehumanising to mock/satire gender expectations.
Please offer an alternative argument – offer the argument that Hurston is actually appeasing white publishers and audiences, and hence adhering to stereotypes. I will discuss the editorial censorship on the text (Lippincott Press removed chapters which were critical of the US, and the chapter – “My people, my people” was altered). This leads to a series of concerns about how black people are portrayed by Hurston and questions if she is really “achieving freedom”.
However, one cannot diminish the importance of her resistance:
– Before death, prepared scripts and manuscripts, including all manuscripts, writes that it was publishers who removed parts of the book
– Ultimately, Hurston’s work is not dominated by a lack of agency, rather it uses encoding to articulate critique despite the efforts to censor her – directly using literature to escape restraints, linking back to the question
In the conclusion, I will restate the thesis in order to directly answer the question and will restate the main arguments. To finish the essay, I will attempt to move the reader on by looking at the bigger picture, suggesting how this could be taken further, and/or its impact on literature in a wider sense.
Approaching the essay question in this way is interesting as it offers alternative arguments and shows how the freedom these writers are achieving remains restrictive or can even be damaging. By then arguing against this and proving that it does not overpower the impact of Miller and Hurston’s resistance, the main argument is solidified.
Please use any of the following sources to find relevant quotes to support the argument.
Thank you very much
Works to be consulted:
“Hurston describes the value she finds in continually making herself public, of putting her body out in the world and on the line.” – Brown, Adrienne. “Hard romping: Zora Neale Hurston, white women, and the right to play.” Twentieth-Century Literature, vol. 64, no. 3, 2018, pp. 295–316, https://doi.org/10.1215/0041462x-7142061.
Duleba, Maxim. “On the dehumanizing universe of Henry Miller’s Tropic of cancer: The code of obscenity and its interaction with other elements.” Ars Aeterna, vol. 8, no. 2, 2016, pp. 41–54, https://doi.org/10.1515/aa-2016-0009.
Kam, Tanya Y. 2009.“Velvet Coats and Manicured Nails: The Body Speaks Resistance in Dust Tracks on a Road.”Southern Literary Journal 42
Katz, Al. “Free Discussion v. Final Decision: Moral and Artistic Controversy and the Tropic of Cancer Trials.” The Yale Law Journal, vol. 79, no. 2, 1969, pp. 209–52. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/795103. Accessed 6 Dec. 2023.
Plant, Deborah G. 1995. Every Tub Must Sit on Its Own Bottom: The Philosophy and Politics of Zora Neale Hurston. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Sole, Kelwyn. “Culture, Politics and the Black Writer: A Critical Look at Prevailing Assumptions.” English in Africa, vol. 10, no. 1, 1983, pp. 37–84. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/40238758. Accessed 6 Dec. 2023.
Walker, Pierre. 1998.“Zora Neale Hurston and the Post-Modern Self in Dust Tracks on a Road.” African American Review 32