John assumes that he knows Julius's intentions, Julius plays into this assumption to further his own motives

Distinguishes btwn knowing and memory, similar to Hager

Similar to what the scars on slaves from whippings signified

Julius's tale is true to the extent that black bodies were used to produce the lumber. Julius frames and skillfully uses the story for his own means

Chesnutt very humorously shows the white narrator's oblivion

Is this what Marrabo thought or what Julius is saying?

This shows Chesnutt's awareness of what it must have looked like to whites. It is in this way similar to Douglass' description of the "rude and incoherent" slave songs as were seen and heard by those outside the circle. Both of these examples show the inconsistency of the double consciousness, and a subversive withholding of information that is only available to blacks

This is one of the only times that Julius refers to himself - is there any significance to this?

Sandy is still confined by slavery in that he cannot freely see his wife. In addition, his body is still a site of inscription.

Chesnutt uses African American English, but in a consistent way, thereby showing its structural adherence to the requirements of a language. Chesnutt validates it as a language further in that it is what narrates the main plot points. In other words, Chesnutt shows that it is as fit as standard english for communication. This passage is also interesting because it mirrors african folk tales that would be told orally. By showing the orality in the intonation, Chesnutt records in writing what Julius says while remaining true to Julius's delivery

Is this subversive irony? He is acknowledging that the white publishers are using his biography for their own interests.

In contrast to the slave songs?

As Julia said, it shows inscription on the black body - Douglass also says that the marks were visible for a long time after, which shows the master's access to permanent forms of inscription. The marks are signifiers of the whippings, that are visible to others - while inscription was at the hands of the master, I am wondering of the scars themselves are spaces for negotiation, solidarity.

He uses the phrase "a word" to talk about a choice - this speaks to the connection between choice or freedom and literacy.

This is especially powerful because despite the fact that he has gained the western means to demonstrate and record consciousness, he still cannot communicate the feeling of the slaves. In other words, language still falls short to feeling, and further cannot describe all of consciousness.

Speaks to meaning that is achieved through dialectic, dissemination of demonstration of consciousness. In other words, the slave's cries are indicative of the slave's consciousness when heard by non-slaveholding neighbors. In addition, it shows that different types of demonstrations are differently disseminated, for example Douglass' description of the slave songs can be better disseminated and imprinted on historical memory than the songs themselves. Similarly, the meaning of the cries of the slave is not consistent between the rural and urban spaces

Maybe reading into it too much but could it be in reference to inscription and deconstruction

ie reveal what he understands in slave songs now that he is not "within the circle"

Does Mr. Auld admit that given the means blacks could demonstrate their consciousness, and show that they should not be enslaved

ie someone with "flesh in [her] heart"

Shows that he has created a point of reference through his writing - he is affecting the reader's memory. In other words, the signifier "the Great House Farm" shows how impressed with the New England Factory villages not because of inherent meaning in the signifier itself.

Again suggests another alternative for demonstrating thought

Like officer in "In the Penal Colony" - shows institution of slavery, not Mr. Gore's self-actualization/consciousness

Shows that the masters are contradictory to Descartes, yet suggests that the suppression of speech by the master shows the master's belief that slaves could prove their humanity through speech.

Douglass inscribes in writing what the slaves disseminated without Cartesian demonstration of consciousness, thereby adding black consciousness to historical memory. This is seen in the description of the feeling apparent only through listening to the song. in addition, he notes the difference in signifier and signified of the slave song to those within and without "the circle," which speaks to the privilege of those with disrupted dialectic. He negotiates the new literary criticism that Gates talks about, by reframing the Calvinian "flesh of heart" as evidenced by whether one is moved by save songs. This also argues for a different measure of Cartesian consciousness.

In other words, the means of personhood in Descartes' sense - yet he is writing about himself, clearly showing his consciousness. Similarly, he later says "for what this was done I do not know" and then proceeds to say why it was done. In addition, despite the fact that his master withheld his selfhood by hiding his age, Douglass subversively tells that he heard his master disclose it

Toni Morrison’s nobel lecture can be analyzed as a fairytale and as a Nobel lecture through generic criticism. In terms of Aristotelian criticism, the most prominent aspect of its invention is ethos, and the type of speech is epideictic. Through narrative criticism, Morrison’s speech shows the use of sequential events with an objective. Ideological criticism of Morrison’s speech shows that it promotes the ideology of critical race theory in its discussion of language exclusivity.

In African American Rhetoric(s): Interdisciplinary Perspectives, Joyce Irene Middleton says that Morrison does not conform to the western literary tradition of storytelling in that she does not separate the writer and the reader as the knowing and unknowing. Richardson claims that Morrison rather encourages participation and collaboration from the reader, especially through “reclaiming [literacy’s] relationship to oral tradition.” Though this “Morrison empowers the literacy of the reader by making him or her a co-creator of her text. But the reader...must be open and willing to actively participate in her text.” Morrison demonstrates this here in that essential parts of her speech is the oral delivery and participation from the audience. Specifically, the authority and respect that are given to her are in part because of her powerful and engaging way of telling the story. The audience’s participation in coming to the conclusion of the story is articulated by Morrison, who says “Look. How lovely it is, this thing we have done - together” The audience’s participation in the conclusion is seen in the fact that Morrison does not say explicitly in the beginning that language needs to be kept current and inclusive through continuous change. Rather, the audience gathers this through understanding the metaphor in Morrison’s short story. The audience is made to be willing to participate in the text because of the way that Morrison diverges from western literary tradition through oral storytelling. Thus Morrison’s speech diverges from Richardson’s definition of western fiction.

Morrison unexpectedly continues the story here, showing that the moral of the story is different from what one expects it to be. The speech functions as a fable in that it has a moral. In addition, as Stephan Kinoi argues in Tale-Moral Relationships in Henryson’s Moral Fables, the moral of a fable “need not rely on the frontal assault on the hearer’s will or passions, it can give [the reader] something that [they] can carry away which will have its effect afterwards. Morrison does not start her speech with criticism about the standardization of language. However the moral of the first part of her speech aids the collaborative understanding of the main part of her speech. Thus Morrison’s speech fills the requirements of a fable by Kinoi’s definition.

In African American Rhetoric(s): Interdisciplinary Perspectives, Joyce Irene Middleton (p242) defines Morrison’s lecture as an “epideictic address on the virtues of human speech.” Epideictic rhetoric, or ceremonial rhetoric, is defined by Aristotle as a speech that praises or blames. Middleton argues that Morrison’s lecture fits into this definition in that it praises through parable the power of speech in keeping a language inclusive. Specifically, Morrison’s lecture praises speech in that it shows that the children “keep language alive” by inventing appropriating it so that it “lines [their] actual, imagined and possible lives.” Further, this episode shows the power of speech in that through it they are able to break down the separation between them and the “privileged space” inhabited by the old woman. The speech is epideictic also in that it blames “ all users and makers of language,” including exclusive states, media, and academia for the standardization, or “death” of language. Thus through praising as well as blaming, Morrison’s speech conforms to Aristotle’s definition of epideictic speech.

Morrison’s speech fits into the genre of Nobel speeches in that it “offers personal or scholarly comment on the nature and the direction of literature,” as John Steinbeck said in his lecture is customary for Nobel Prize winners to do. Faulkner’s nobel speech supports Steinbeck’s claim in that he comments on the state of literature in his Nobel speech, saying that the biggest force working against the development of literature is fear. Philippe-Joseph Salazar defines the Nobel Lecture as an “opportunity to perform as a public intellectual, a "philosopher" of sorts.” By this definition, Morrison’s speech fits into the genre of Nobel Speeches in that she is taken as an authority on the state of literature because of the fact that she has won the Nobel prize of literature. (This also supports her ethos as discussed earlier in this paper)

Critical race theory is the theory of race as socially constructed by and maintaining the interests of white people. Specifically, it sees race as grounded in the social, economic and legal differences that white people create and maintain through schools, jobs, and government. An example that supports this theory is a study by Norma Mendoza Denton outlined in her book Homegirls, that revealed that California public schools hold students back if they are placed in an ESL class, even if they were advanced in other areas of academics. Her study found further that the placement into these classes was based on questionnaires that had more to do with family background than language. Thus non-white minorities are systematically held back in school and prevented from getting well-paid jobs, maintaining their status as lower class than whites. Ideological criticism looks at the presented elements of the article and the suggested elements to determine the ideology presented and evaluate the functions served by the ideology. Morrison’s lecture promotes this theory in that she attributes the loss of language’s inclusivity in part to the school system. This is seen in her line “Official language smitheryed to...preserve privilege is a suit of armor polished to shocking glitter, a husk from which the knight departed long ago. Yet there it is...exciting reverence in schoolchildren” Morrison states that the woman is black at the beginning of her lecture, and says that “children have bitten their tongues off and use bullets instead to iterate the voice of speechlessness,” bringing back the issue to race and immigration. Thus Morrison’s lecture supports critical race theory in its commentary on language and education in the maintenance of minorities’ lower class status.

In Fiction as Rhetoric, Wayne C Booth says that storytellers go “beneath the surface of action to obtain a reliable view of the character’s mind and heart.” He argues that writers are given authority as to what the characters are motivated by. The cruel intent of the children is taken for granted here because Morrison suggests it by saying that the woman knows the children’s motives. Morrison later deconstructs this assumed motive by saying perhaps the children were looking for some wisdom as to whether language was alive or dead. The authority that is given Morrison in this speech thus identifies the speech as an example within the fairytale genre.

The authority given to Morrison also shows Morrison’s ethos. Ethos by Aristotlean definition is the credibility of the speaker as demonstrated through their character. It is one of the three forms of persuasion in the canon of invention along with logos or logic and pathos or emotion. Among the three, Morrison’s ethos is the most critical in making this lecture effective. This is seen in the fact that it is Morrison’s character more than her appeal to logic or emotions that convinces the audience of her main points. While Morrison is clearly respected and recognized as a great writer as shown by her nobel prize, she builds ethos in this lecture by demonstrating her ability to construct fiction in order to convince the audience of something beyond the plot of the fable. This is seen specifically in the way that her story about the old woman and children not only give example to the midwifery properties that she describes but also aids in showing that she is demonstrating the properties she describes. Morrison’s ethos as a writer is seen most prominently in the way that she is able to construct a captivating story. However in the end when she reveals that she has demonstrated through her speech the main point of her speech, she shows the skill with which she is able to use this talent with fiction. By telling the story and letting the audience come to their own conclusion, Morrison demonstrates and proves the main point of her speech. Thus Morrison shows in addition her ethos outside the realm of fiction.

Generic criticism looks at the characteristics of a genre and the characteristics of the article that it is analyzing in order to see how closely the article fits into that genre. Toni Morrison’s Nobel Lecture (1993) can be considered a fairytale in that it has a moral, and that it starts with once upon a time. In addition, Morrison’s speech fits into the genre of fairytale in that it is spoken, as Joyce Irene Middleton argues in African American Rhetoric(s): Interdisciplinary Perspectives, (p242). In An Oral Tradition Perspective of Fairy Tales, Susan Marie Frontczak (238) states that orality of fairytales as a central aspect of the genre is practical in that not all adults read for pleasure. She says in addition that through spoken word is a better way for learning than reading, in that it involves more of Gardner’s styles of learning than reading. Specifically, she says that the fact that it is live gives interpersonal cues, body language gives kinetic cues, vocal variation gives melodic cues. All of these are present in Morrison’s lecture, or would have been when she gave it at the Nobel banquet, and define her lecture a fairytale. The fairytale is a appropriate genre for her to convey her message through in that it incorporates all the styles of learning that Frontczak mentions. Thus because of its spoken quality as well as the fact that it includes a moral helps this speech fit into the genre of fairy tales. In Once Upon A Time In the Classroom, Holly O'Donnell defines the fairytale as participation in the world of fantasy through hearing a story beginning with once upon a time and ending with they lived happily ever after. Morrison’s speech thus fits into the genre in that it starts with once upon a time, that it includes audience participation, and that it ends with a resolution. The resolution in the fairytale is between the children and the old woman. These aspects function outside of the fairytale genre, to allow the lecture to be analyzed in addition through narrative analysis. Narrative analysis looks at the sequence of events presented in the artifact to identify the objective of the narrative and determine its appropriateness or effectiveness of the narrative for the objective. The sequence of events in Morrison’s speech include that in the story of the children and old woman, as well as the event of the Nobel banquet that Morrison acknowledges in her speech. These two sets of events serve her objective of teaching the audience about the dangers of language standardization in that they provide example both through a fairytale and through demonstration. Morrison’s lecture is effective in teaching the audience about the dangers of language standardization through a narrative. This is seen in the fact that the lecture allows the audience to come to their own conclusion as the children do in the fairy tale.