Reply to comment

We touched briefly in class on the topic of whether or not Uncle Tom's Cabin should still be read in schools nowadays, or whether the topics addressed in it are too dated to be of use in modern times. I will admit that, although no one said anything to me when I was sitting in the dining hall or the library reading this book, I felt a little self-conscious doing so at first. But the further I read into it, the more I feel that this is definitely a novel whose commentary is still relevant today, and which should be widely read.

Slavery is no longer a mainstream issue in our country, thank goodness, but there are still areas where it is (sex slaves are still being sold in black markets around the globe). And slavery isn't the only issue addressed in this book. The prejudice in the novel is still a problem today. Not as much of one, no, we've made a lot of progress, but there are plenty of lingering issues which, as students of Bryn Mawr, I think we've all seen evidence of.

Parts of this book make me uncomfortable, yes. I have never had to think about slavery except as an abstract evil of the past, which was obviously horrible, but I never thought about why. I felt uncomfortable and upset at parts in this novel (since I did empathize with the characters, even though yes, Stowe clearly intended me to sympathize with those ones), but that's the point, and that's why this novel still has value today. There are characters who appear stereotypical, yes, but that's their function in the story - and I agree, as we talked about in class, that they shouldn't be seen as stereotypes, so much as archetypes.

Considering the time period in which it was written, it's clear Stowe was very much a forward-thinker, and I don't see very much prejudice in her writing (though perhaps I missed the worst of it in my reading). Maybe she is heavy-handed with the authorial interruptions, but I think this novel, when she wrote it, was meant to be very pointed. She had very distinct comments to make about specific areas of society, and she used literature as a medium to express those. If she beats the reader over the head with it a little, I think it's because, at the time this was written, that kind of force was necessary to ensure her meaning was clear.

In a slightly different vein, some comments on ownership were made, for example the one about Vampire Weekend, and, I think it was an article someone had read?, asking whether or not it was right that they should use Carribean-inspired beats in their music, if they aren't of Carribean heritage. In my opinion, art belongs to everyone.

In several of the creative writing courses I've taken, I've been given essentially the same message by authors - what you write is yours to edit, rewrite, and do with as you wish, until you publish it. Once you publish something, it belongs to everyone. You still have partial ownership of it, as the creator, and your publisher still has partial ownership, as its producer, but the audience has ownership too. If someone reads your work and sees a completely different message in it than the one you had intended, you have no right to complain. The piece no longer solely belongs to you. You can explain your original intent, and try to convince the reader to see things your way, but if the reader has obtained a different message, they won't forget it. Even if you explain your intent fully, and they can see your perspective as well, they will still remember their original interpretation, too. That's the kind of thinking that keeps new literature evolving from old, new ideas emerging from older ones, and it's a process that can't be inhibited (and here I mean a literal can't - unless we all stopped thinking and feeling whenever art presents itself to us, we will continue to have new ideas about it).

So no, I don't see a problem with a group of non-Carribeans adopting rhythms from that culture into their creation. And I don't see a problem with Stowe writing about an issue which obviously affected her passionately, and one which was important in her time period, even if she was not herself a slave or subjugated to those kinds of horrors. It's a difficult subject for anyone to approach, and I'm sure she did not do it perfectly (humanity, imperfection, you know), but I think she gave it a fairly good shot (and judging by the book's popularity at the time it was published, I doubt I'm the only one who thought so).