When I began reading Harriet Jacobs’s Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl this past week, I noticed that Lydia Maria Child had edited the narrative. The comment Child makes about "pruning excrescences," or cutting off unnecessary parts, made me wonder just exactly how much of Jacobs’ text Child had changed.

If we are to believe Child, she had very little effect on the manuscript of Incidents. She says, "With trifling exceptions, both the ideas and language are [Jacobs’s] own" (337). Yet, in a letter she wrote to Jacobs dated August 13, 1860, Child states, "I am copying a great deal of it [the MS], for the purpose of transposing sentences and pages, so as to bring the story into continuous order, and the remarks into appropriate places."¹ Evidently, more was done to the manuscript than just making slight changes. It sounds to me as if it is being completely reorganized.

From a previous reading of Child’s work, in particular Prejudices against People of Color, and our Duties in Relation to This Subject,² I had noticed that Child does not like to challenge the dominant culture directly but would rather reason with them. Child’s tendency to placate the majority in an attempt to maintain an atmosphere in which reasoning can occur becomes important when we learn that Child not only reorganized Jacobs’ manuscript, but in the August 13^th letter mentioned above, Child asked Jacobs to add a section of narrative about Nat Turner (which she did) and to delete one on John Brown that she had written and placed at the end of her narrative. Turner was an African American slave who led the nation's largest slave rebellion in Virginia in 1831. John Brown was a militant white anti-slavery activist who in the 1850s led raids on pro-slavery leaders in which the leaders were killed. Eventually both Turner and Brown were arrested and hanged for their militant activities. John Brown’s raids took place only a few years before Jacobs’s Incidents was published.

What difference would it make to the narrative if Jacobs had left the section on John Brown at the end of her story? Why do you think Child wanted Jacobs to expand the section on Nat Turner? With your answer to those questions in mind, how important is it to consider the editor’s possible agenda when evaluating a text? Does the type of text make a difference to your answer?

Becky Nelson

Hi Becky,

In the story we see that the general attitude of Linda towards the white

people is lacking trust and sympathy. An addition of a part telling about

John Brown, who was a white man as you wrote, would completely be against

that attitude of Linda. If its true that the editor "does not like to

challenge the dominant culture but would rather reason with them," it might

be possible that she thought of the John Brown story as a direct insult

towards the white people, who would not like to read about a white man

protecting the slaves in those times.

Sancar Sallanti

Hi Sancar,

I find your comment on Linda's distrust of white people interesting. I had not

thought of the John Brown episode as being in opposition to the picture of

Linda presented in the narrative. That would have been an important editorial

consideration.

Becky

******************

Becky,
During our class discussion a similar issue was raised regarding Pringle's
edits to Mary Prince's work. It appears both works have been "pruned" (185,
337) by persons with abolitionist sympathies. Of course, I seriously doubt
that a person favoring slavery would work so diligently to raise public
awareness of slavery and "its monstrous features" (337).

With this in mind, I find Child's request for elaboration on Nat Turner's
story a shift of attention from the white abolitionist movement to the that
of the plight of the African American whose rebellion is the direct result of
those "monstrous features" previously mentioned and which Child "willingly
take[s] the responsibility of presenting...with the veil withdrawn," (338).
Perhaps Child assumed that the reader might be better able to reason or
understand the rebellious actions of someone who lived through the atrocities
of slavery more so than a white antislavery activist whose actions might be
perceived as unreasonable and even (using your word) "militant" and therefore
less credible. In this light, the Brown narrative might have been used by
pro-slavery persons to discredit the antislavery movement rather than build
sympathetic support for the movement.

For this reason I believe it is very important to understand every editor's
agenda when reviewing a text. Whether fiction or nonfiction, editing is
editing. Just as our newspapers are edited, texts too are edited and readers
should make every effort to understand the extent and context of the editing.
Students of literature are often asked to read the biographies of authors
that may contextualize the work. Perhaps we should give the same
consideration to the editors.

Sincerely,

Andrea Dunn

Hi Andrea,
Thank you for the information on Pringle's edits to Mary Prince's work.  I haven't read Prince's narrative yet, but I will be sure to note it.  Since I wasn't in class, it helps to know what was discussed there.

I found your comments on Child's editing of Jacobs' narrative helpful.  I agree that Child probably wanted to downplay the John Brown episode because of its militant nature.  I think it would not only have been threatening to pro-slavery persons, but might have been threatening to some anti-slavery persons as well--especially if the anti-slavery person was not confident in his or her position.

I agree with your comments on looking at an editor's agenda when reviewing texts.  I think that it makes a difference what gets written down and what doesn't.  In this instance I wonder whether the story presented is Child's or Jacobs'.  And the reason I want to explore that question in my own study of the text is that stories--both fiction and non-fiction--form the history of peoples as well as individuals.  History has often been viewed as a point on a timeline, but I think of it as fluid rather than fixed.  I want to explore who wrote history and why it was written the way it was in order to evaluate its validity.
Becky

Becky,
I agree with your concern about the validity of historical perspectives. As
we are led to believe, both were Jacobs' narratives and one was emphasized
more by Child than the other. In this case I'd like to believe that
exchanging narratives or elaborating on one narrative versus another does not
change the validity of the history so much as it does "slant" the work as a
means to an end. If Child's intent was to unveil the monstrosities of
slavery, it would make sense that she would "prune" the story in a way that
would best be understood by her intended audience. While I do believe that
one must consider the extent of the editing and question the true authorship
should editing appear extensive, I think, putting this argument into a
historical perspective, that perhaps less editing would potentially have
meant this narrative might have not become the classic slave narrative it is.
Child was forced to change the narrative (but not the history) so that the
white audience could read, understand and accept it. In this case, I'm not
convinced that this editing compromises the integrity of the history but
rather communicates it in a way a bit differently than Jacobs may have done
so on her own. All of this said, I'm not sure I agree with your concept of
history as fluid but rather think that the perspectives and communication of
such history are dictated by the audience to which it is being told and to
what purpose. My question: If today we did find out that this was more
Child's work than Jacobs, would it cause us to question the history of
slavery? I doubt it. My thought is that we might recategorize Child's work as
one that is "based on a true story" that tells one story for the sake of many.

Sincerely,
Andrea Dunn
To Andrea D.: You had a concern about my comment regarding the fluidity of history. Your point was well taken, and thank you for bringing it up. I hope that no one thought that I was suggesting that slavery did not exist. On the contrary, I have no doubt that it existed and was far more horrible than the words in any narrative can tell. Just the thought of Harriet lying in that teeny hole-like room for seven years terrifies me.

****************

I also wonder about the reasons underlying Child's editing of Linda Brent's narrative. However, I am inclined to accept that Child had Linda's best interest in mind. Child was diligently seeking ways to convey the brutality and "monstrosity" of slavery through Linda's story to their audience. I feel that Child was most likely trying to enhance Linda's message, not change it. Insofar as Child's changing the narrative "for the purpose of transposing sentences and pages, so as to bring the story into continuous order and the remarks into appropriate places," I see no harm in this. Again, she's attempting to create a story that would be understandable and that would flow smoothly from event to event.

With regard to the transference of the Nat Turner episode with that of John Brown, I suspect that Child wanted to keep the narrative focused on the black slave experience. The abolitionists were trying to win others over to their cause. They did not want to be conveyed as an explosive, militant group but were creating an image of working within the system. Moreover, by adding the Nat Turner event, which was a revolt led by a black slave, the narrative is continuously focused on experiences of slaves. In an interview before his hanging, Nat Turner stated that he realized that his actions meant certain death, but that he, and the others fighting alongside him, preferred death to life if it meant living as a slave (see www.toptags.com/asthma/voices/commentary/turner.htm). Turner's story is the same as Linda's; Linda's soul screamed for freedom for herself and her children. She also preferred death for herself and her children rather than living the remainder of their lives as white man's chattel. By mentioning the slave revolt led by Turner, Child lends credibility as well as reenforces Linda's beliefs and actions. Death instead of slavery is a most powerful condemnation of slavery.

To Linda H.: I think you are right--the Nat Turner episode places more emphasis on the plight of the slaves and that is probably why Child wanted Jacobs to include it.

**********************