A review by gslife
Frederick Douglass: Prophet of Freedom, by David W. Blight
2.0
Fredrick Douglass is a fascinating figure, but a heavier editorial hand and a culling of at least 150 pages would improve the quality of this work substantially. I have some guess that this biography is well-regarded not for its content but for its subject and the résumé of its author.
David Blight, Yale-educated and Yale-employed, often uses phrases such as “may have” or “perhaps thought” regarding his subject. Douglass’s initial meeting with his later wife Anna Murray is so littered with these suppositions it beggars belief that an experienced biographer would write such.
Another egregious passage concerns a woman with romantic interest in Douglass staying near their house. Blight admits we have no idea what Douglass’s wife Anna’s response to this was, and so turns to a modern poet. The next seven sentences concern this poet and conclude with “art provides the means to elusive truths, but not the truth itself”. This is true, but as much justification is provided for why this poetry is in a book of facts as there is for the basis of the poetry: none at all.
At this point my respect for Blight is so low I check how many pages remain in this ebook. I have only 150 left.
Another convention of Blight’s is a broad statement of fact as if it is generally accepted, but as the statement is often about the 19th century, I’m not aware of the context or historical circumstances. Presumably I’m reading this book to learn those. An example of this is his statement that Douglass devoted himself to the Republican Party postbellum, though it was in decline in the 1870s. What events mark its decline? Loss of the presidency? (In fact, the Republican Party held the presidency until the election of Cleveland in 1893.) Congressional infighting? Corruption and misguided policy? These last two seem to be the case, as Blight mentions them in passing, but not in direct relation to “decline”. Eventually these questions are answered, but this is biography, not a thriller.
Perhaps most troubling are the points at which Blight essentially dismisses Douglass’s writings about his own feelings. In his 1892 autobiography, Douglass states, essentially, that his life has ultimately been good and his friends have contributed more to his life than enemies took from him. Blight dismisses this out of hand, saying Douglass would rather publish positive sentiments than “bitter truths”. Is it inconceivable that Douglass actually believed this? We have no private writing to contradict his published word. For Blight to write to his readers that Douglass was wrong about his personal reflections is a disgusting act for a biographer. A few pages later, Douglass’s descriptions of visiting an old slave plantation leads him to muse that “war and slavery” were things of the past. Blight describes this as “odd”. Why Blight finds this odd is never greatly expounded on, beyond drawing a parallel between the civil war and the “memory war” of the historical events and the Lost Cause revision of the south. At this point I wonder if Blight understands metaphor and nuance.
Blight’s editorial voice carries an axe to grind in one hand. Why that is the case isn’t so obvious in the text, initially. At later points, however, Blight seeks to wield Douglass against the modern Republican Party. He also seems disappointed that Douglass never disavowed his Republican Party even as they withdrew from racial treatment as an issue. I find this disturbing. In many ways, modern politics are too separate from the past to draw clear parallels, and in other ways, to wield a historical figure as a weapon is to assume their beliefs wouldn’t change without the additional context of one hundred years. I say the same to modern Republicans seeking to use Douglass or Lincoln as a stamp of approval.
As a result, this biography often holds Douglass at arm’s length. It’s telling that the longest quotations in the book are remembrances of Douglass by other writers. Quotes from Douglass are often scattershot quotations of 3-5 words littered through a paragraph in an effort to convey the former slave’s ideas. Do I feel like I know the man Douglass now? Yes, but I wish I could shake the feeling that he has been filtered.
David Blight, Yale-educated and Yale-employed, often uses phrases such as “may have” or “perhaps thought” regarding his subject. Douglass’s initial meeting with his later wife Anna Murray is so littered with these suppositions it beggars belief that an experienced biographer would write such.
Another egregious passage concerns a woman with romantic interest in Douglass staying near their house. Blight admits we have no idea what Douglass’s wife Anna’s response to this was, and so turns to a modern poet. The next seven sentences concern this poet and conclude with “art provides the means to elusive truths, but not the truth itself”. This is true, but as much justification is provided for why this poetry is in a book of facts as there is for the basis of the poetry: none at all.
At this point my respect for Blight is so low I check how many pages remain in this ebook. I have only 150 left.
Another convention of Blight’s is a broad statement of fact as if it is generally accepted, but as the statement is often about the 19th century, I’m not aware of the context or historical circumstances. Presumably I’m reading this book to learn those. An example of this is his statement that Douglass devoted himself to the Republican Party postbellum, though it was in decline in the 1870s. What events mark its decline? Loss of the presidency? (In fact, the Republican Party held the presidency until the election of Cleveland in 1893.) Congressional infighting? Corruption and misguided policy? These last two seem to be the case, as Blight mentions them in passing, but not in direct relation to “decline”. Eventually these questions are answered, but this is biography, not a thriller.
Perhaps most troubling are the points at which Blight essentially dismisses Douglass’s writings about his own feelings. In his 1892 autobiography, Douglass states, essentially, that his life has ultimately been good and his friends have contributed more to his life than enemies took from him. Blight dismisses this out of hand, saying Douglass would rather publish positive sentiments than “bitter truths”. Is it inconceivable that Douglass actually believed this? We have no private writing to contradict his published word. For Blight to write to his readers that Douglass was wrong about his personal reflections is a disgusting act for a biographer. A few pages later, Douglass’s descriptions of visiting an old slave plantation leads him to muse that “war and slavery” were things of the past. Blight describes this as “odd”. Why Blight finds this odd is never greatly expounded on, beyond drawing a parallel between the civil war and the “memory war” of the historical events and the Lost Cause revision of the south. At this point I wonder if Blight understands metaphor and nuance.
Blight’s editorial voice carries an axe to grind in one hand. Why that is the case isn’t so obvious in the text, initially. At later points, however, Blight seeks to wield Douglass against the modern Republican Party. He also seems disappointed that Douglass never disavowed his Republican Party even as they withdrew from racial treatment as an issue. I find this disturbing. In many ways, modern politics are too separate from the past to draw clear parallels, and in other ways, to wield a historical figure as a weapon is to assume their beliefs wouldn’t change without the additional context of one hundred years. I say the same to modern Republicans seeking to use Douglass or Lincoln as a stamp of approval.
As a result, this biography often holds Douglass at arm’s length. It’s telling that the longest quotations in the book are remembrances of Douglass by other writers. Quotes from Douglass are often scattershot quotations of 3-5 words littered through a paragraph in an effort to convey the former slave’s ideas. Do I feel like I know the man Douglass now? Yes, but I wish I could shake the feeling that he has been filtered.