Goopher Those Grapevines!

How do I say that a black author in the late 19th century wrote in a way that would make most whites of that time think the author was a white person, thus surprising those whites who would stereotype most blacks as being uneducated and unintelligent? Furthermore, how do I say that without offending anyone or sounding racist, an attitude that many of the people in the late 19th century held, though they may not have been aware of it. Perhaps I simply put it that way and hope that it makes sense to those who read it.

As I read Goophered Grapevines, this is the thought I had: here is a black author whose piece was picked up and published by a popular literary magazine, in a time when many whites considered blacks to be somehow second class citizens. Segregation was in full force and the idea of ‘Civil Rights’ was so far in the future that it probably hadn’t even been thought of yet. Charles Chesnutt wrote eloquently, and in GG, his characters show that education and social standing does not necessarily indicate intelligence. In this way, he also showed the reader of that time that color plays no part in ability, intelligence, or class.

The person narrating the story is a Northerner. While it never actually says that the Northerner is white, it was an assumption that I made. Considering the era that the story takes place and the area the Northerner is hoping to settle in, it seems a logical conclusion. This made me wonder if those reading the story also thought that way, furthering my thoughts on Chesnutt and his reasons for writing the story and the positive influence he may have had on the attitudes of non-blacks.

Told largely in dialect, GG features Julius, who is a former slave, as the story-teller. This dialog was sometimes difficult to read and I found myself speaking many of the sentences aloud in order to make sense of them. However, this dialog served to make Julius clear in my mind’s eye. I saw an aging former slave sitting on an old pine log and telling a story about bewitched grapevines, life in a world of slavery, and the culture of the slave who was forced to live in submission to the often less intelligent master.

The master, Dugal McAdoo, hires a ‘witch’ to bewitch the grapevines in order to keep the slaves from stealing the grapes which is, he thinks, cutting into his wine profit. Julius is careful to mention that even though McAdoo is sure the blacks are stealing his grapes, “somehow, er nudder dey couldn’ nebber ketch none er de niggers. I dunner how it happen, but it happen des like I tell yer, en de grapes kep’ on a’goin des de same.” Julius also mentions that the master set traps and succeeded only in shooting himself in the leg. While he couldn’t catch the slaves, he managed to catch himself!

Later, McAdoo hires a ‘Yankee’ to help him cultivate his vines. McAdoo does everything he is told and most of the vines die because of it. He also loses large sums of money to the Yankee in nightly card games. Later, vowing to kill as many northerners as possible, McAdoo joins the Civil War and is killed himself, leaving Julius to profit from the vines the master has left behind.

It seemed to me that it was the profit that Julius was trying to protect with his tale of the bewitched grapevines. He hoped to discourage the Northerner from purchasing the vineyard because it means the loss of Julius’ livelihood. However, the Northerner does buy the vineyard and has no problem with bewitched vines. He also keeps Julius on and pays him a wage to make up for his loss in income.

This brings about the question of intelligence. Who was the smarter? McAdoo, who worked to keep the grapes to himself, shoots himself in the leg, loses money to a stranger and ends up losing his life in the war, or Julius, who sits back and makes a decent living from what is left of the grapevines? Julius gets my vote.

Overall, I enjoyed the story and the vivid pictures Chesnutt’s dialog painted in my mind, but it left me wondering about Chesnutt's reasons for writing his tale of the Goophered vines? What was the effect upon the literary world of 1887 when the story was originally published? Also, is there more to the story? Is there more Chesnutt was trying to say that I may have missed? The story speaks of the brutality of slavery, but it is not an anti-slavery story in itself. The story spoke to me of the unfairness of racist attitudes and of the need for equality, while thumbing its nose at the attitudes of the day and giving us a character who, though uneducated, is not in the least bit unintelligent.