Donald B. Gibson lecture, "The Politics of Richard Wright's Fiction part two," at the University of Iowa, July 27, 1971

Donald Gibson: Well, I thought I'd wear you down so you wouldn't have anything to say afterwards. Speaker 2: Yes, in your concluding statement, you referred to the fact that the critics were rather extensively judged on study basis were really judging on political basis. Now after you're developing this thesis, what [inaudible] judgments would you make of these later works that are so often criticized? Do you think they're successful in a limited way or what? Donald Gibson: Well, I guess I do make this thematic judgements. We're talking about me, right? Yeah, okay. I guess I do. And what do I think of them? I think they're good. I feel like that period, and this theme, this has gone through the conference over time [inaudible]. But I feel that after you get over Moby Dick, you can get through anything and after you get through The Scarlet Letter even. If you can accept the limitations of that novel, then you can accept the limitations of practically anything, and of course we could go on and on and on. Donald Gibson: So I think they're pretty good. I think that they have some limitations. I think, for example, that The Outsider has too much baggage, too much intellectualization, and I think some of that could've been left out and so forth. But I think [inaudible]. Speaker 3: [inaudible] said that, "I know of no greater work of art [inaudible]." Donald Gibson: Yeah, right. Those chapters on psychology are balanced. Speaker 3: [inaudible] Donald Gibson: The nature of the writer's position? Speaker 3: [inaudible] Donald Gibson: You're thinking of my suddenly having moved to the right? Speaker 3: Yes. Donald Gibson: By that I meant to. No, I will not lie on the nature of a writer's position. I guess I could in a way. What I meant was that if we assume that a position generally negative in its orientation towards institution has left this notion of the position that wants to change institutions or to even to do away with institutions, which I think is one extremist way. To say that is one thing, but the opposite of that, the notion which says, well in effect, that there's a limitation in that position. You see, I think I can answer your question without answering it, that is, without defining writing, what's writers [inaudible]. Donald Gibson: Wright moves against that, but as he says, "No, no, you can't live outside of institutions," you see? And so, I don't know what that means. I don't think it's described fully in the novel. I mean does that mean then that you go to church? He doesn't say, but it seems to me that you can say that that's a move to the right without... I didn't mean to say that right is a rightist, but that juncture seems to be an un-left... Speaker 4: That is about the [inaudible] that I've read in a long time. Donald Gibson: Have I talked with you today? Speaker 4: I could ask you for the definition of un-left, but I won't do that. But certainly it seems to be you got one of the [inaudible] involved in this shipment that has to do with the kinds of institutions that [inaudible]. Obviously it doesn't mean, for example, that one moves to the left that one rejects the [inaudible], which is an institution too. In other words, if he's the projection of traditionalist of the [inaudible], then obviously what is involved truly seems to be, in [inaudible] of what you say is that new attitude toward the individual, which is not [inaudible]. It makes it very difficult to define the right [inaudible]. Donald Gibson: Mm-hmm (affirmative). Yes, it is a different attitude toward the individual. Unfortunately, he's interested in the kind of individual definition of self, and one of the possibilities he explores, and I think this is one of the things I learned at the institution here. This may be something that's so obvious to everybody else here is I thought I understood it, but in myself knew I really didn't understand it. That is that last section of Bigger Thomas. I feel like one of the things I've gained from the institution here is a very real understanding of that, and maybe I'm just developing my own way of thinking further without being journal [inaudible]. Donald Gibson: But in any case, it seems to me that when Bigger says, "What I killed for I am," that what he means by that is that he exists outside of institutions, and he is self-created. And that's why Max recoils in horror. And so then it seems to me that Wright began there and said, "Well, what does this mean?" And so he went to The Outsider, and he talked about that, explored it in one way. And eventually to The Outsider and explored in another way and I think finally decided, "Well no, that's not for me. That's not the way." Speaker 4: That you're obviously suggesting there is that so often we hear people say, "I wish Wright had left off his last scene, the trial with [inaudible]." What do you think he's saying, that it's [inaudible]? I would say that Max is [inaudible] more and more sophisticated. Donald Gibson: No, I didn't mean to say that because I think that Wright truly believed. I think that you can hear Wright in Max. I think you can hear, that is, I feel when I read that I can hear people talking. Doesn't everybody feel that way? You hear the tone, and you can sort of tell what people mean by the way that they say it. I mean the writer it seems to me arranges things in this way. But no, I think that Wright really believed. If he had been a more simple man, if he hadn't been as complex as I think he is, then we might not have had that last scene at all with Bigger saying, "What I killed for I am," because Wright turns a screw once more. Donald Gibson: But I think Wright truly believed what Max was saying and Max's perspective, but I think Wright also, he believed it. And I don't think... Is this difficult? I mean is it not the way people react? People hold more than one idea in mind at once and believe whole contradictory ideas, and I think he believed. But I think that he ultimately felt that he believed this really truly but really felt that finally, ultimately, he was going to die, he in particular person. And that was what he had to deal with. I think he felt that was more important than anything he might think. Well, did I mean to say that? Yeah, I think so. Yeah, I think I did. Speaker 5: Aren't you making a distinction in [inaudible] is that it's not really a political novel like Doctor [inaudible]. But here obviously there is something else. Political convictions are terribly important. [inaudible] so I suspect never was in any great novel. Political convictions are always very important. Donald Gibson: Mm-hmm (affirmative). Yes, that's a way of putting it. I originally began this lecture with a kind of brief theoretical discussion of the perspective I was coming from, but I decided to leave that out, well, in large part because I couldn't say that. I couldn't say all the theoretical things in such a brief way, but yes, I think it is a political novel in a certain way. That is, I think that all novels are political, and that's one of the... Since Wright did the work with, since he is so political, but I think that other novels have [inaudible] limitations as well. Speaker 6: [inaudible] namely, the removal of political [inaudible]. But at the same time, Wright's politics are moving to the right. How do you convince yourself connection between the politics of that time and his [inaudible]? Donald Gibson: No, I meant very carefully to avoid implying that. That is, I meant to say that in his non-fiction work that he's quite political, and Michelle [Farber] pointed out the fact that Marx's political analysis remains Marxist. I didn't mean to suggest that Wright becomes non-political and that he becomes rightist. No, I didn't mean to suggest that he becomes rightist. No, but I'm simply saying that that is a tendency in his fiction, and I'm saying that again he's holding, I think, that is, at one point, he didn't see it possible to write novels and engage in political discourse. You see, it's two separate kinds of entities, and ultimately, he's able to see these as separate things, different kinds of activities. Speaker 6: And you think that is the [inaudible]? Donald Gibson: Yes. I'm talking about his fiction. I'm not talking about the man. You see, I'm not talking about what Richard Wright is. I'm saying that this seems to me to be implied by the fiction itself. I mean maybe we should talk about the man, but I haven't got that far in my thinking about it. Speaker 7: I've heard it suggested, not in relation to Wright, but it might be applicable that if you define left as they might have been the Depression days as wanting to make society more human and so forth, that it is not possibly Richard Wright that has moved toward the right because he's departed from the communist position. But it might be that the communist position has moved to the right and thus created the gap between them. Donald Gibson: Well, when I spoke of Wright's moving to the right, I was thinking specifically of what seemed to me to be... You can see it's problematical because obviously we all know that Wright could never be a fascist. But it seems to me that the implications of The Outsider point toward fascism, and that's all I mean when I say... Well okay, well, that's one thing. Oh yeah, okay, I'm saying several things. So I mean that in part, but I also mean that in writing a fiction whose direction and whose thrust and whose emphasis is not social nor political but is personal and private and subjective, that he reflects thereby in the fiction and by the fiction, by act of the fiction, a perspective that tends toward the right. Donald Gibson: And again, you see, not rightist because as I said, he never loses sight of the social. We're talking about emphasis only, you see? But it becomes more right than it was before. I would never say that Wright was a rightist. Speaker 8: What is more personal [inaudible] that this movement to the right- Donald Gibson: Excuse me, but I don't think those are synonyms, personalism and humanism. But I don't mean to... Ask your question. Speaker 8: This is where I was getting mixed up and I wanted you to clarify. Donald Gibson: I believe that a humanistic work could be socially oriented, you see? But at the same time, I believe that the more personal a work is, the more private and subjective, the more it by implication suggests the insignificance of the social and the political. Speaker 8: I wonder if someone like [inaudible] suggested in some earlier [inaudible]. I think Wright's at the start, and I think [inaudible] as being fully courteous of who traditionally [inaudible]. Donald Gibson: In Bright Morning Star, you mean? Speaker 8: Bright Morning Star. She's purchasing two positions, which really has social implications also [inaudible] the story is her own. The ending of it has the direction that attracted the personal [inaudible]. Donald Gibson: No, not by any means because I don't think her vision is personal at all. I think it's a social vision. That is, we see a particular person suffering, but we know that that's for a cause much beyond her. You see, it would be one thing if this were a story about this woman's suffering because, well for any number, personal, private, individual suffering, but it seems to be not about that at all. Speaker 8: Well, I grant that she is [inaudible]. I grant you all of those implications, but you're talking about tendencies [inaudible] in her mind is intriguing. The error that she made and finally when she dies, she said that she had barely begun herself, and it seems that the sensibility is one that is personal [inaudible]. But I don't see it as being the best story [inaudible]. Donald Gibson: Mm-hmm (affirmative). Speaker 8: That's why I'm wondering if this is simply a hint of the tendency [inaudible]. Donald Gibson: It may be in the sense that Wright was, I think, too clever to write those kind of... I hesitate to say this because I think that there is a lot of very good work, fiction, that came out of the '30s, but I think a lot of it was sort of one dimensional. And so, I think Wright did some one-dimensional things. I don't mean to suggest that, but I think that story suggests his awareness of complexity and yeah, I would say so. Yeah, I would say that especially, it seems that every conversation I get in, I say the same thing, but I've talked about that story so much, it seems as though I've been saying the same thing over and over about that story. And maybe I'm saying something everybody knows and feels themself, but I think I have at certain times talked about that story in relation to Blueprint for Negro Writing where Wright talks about the necessity of the Black writer working through Black institutions. And it seems to me that the story indicates this awareness, which was an awareness that was quite different. Some of his cohorts didn't understand that. They felt it was just a matter of explaining what Marxism is. And so, I think you see that complexity in the story. So yeah, in that sense, yeah, yeah. Speaker 9: In commenting on the fact that [inaudible], you mention that was homegrown right out of the South. [inaudible] young writers in France is not attracted by a new type of existentialism, but it certainly was [inaudible] comment on that. It seems to me that type of philosophy never got moving toward anarchy. This is just in Wright's conclusion for that [inaudible]. Donald Gibson: I'm probably seeing too many dimensions to that question. Would you restate it please? Speaker 9: Well, [inaudible] the movement that Wright, in his [inaudible] was first of all Boris from America [inaudible]. Donald Gibson: Okay. Speaker 9: And then you say that he was moving into the political right. Now [inaudible] existentialism. I'm wondering first of all if you would agree with Michelle [inaudible] that Wright- Donald Gibson: Well, wait. We have to stop there because see, that's isn't precisely what I intended to suggest. I didn't intend to okay, he's moving to the right. Okay, I hope we can understand that. I sort of have in my mind a continuum that suggests right and left, and I hope that we understand that I'm not saying that Wright is rightist because I don't think he could be. But he had tendencies in all sorts of directions. Of course, if we- Speaker 9: [inaudible] in his thinking when he's in France [inaudible]. And it's moving. Perhaps it's to the left [inaudible] that Wright himself was attracted toward [inaudible]. Now isn't that philosophy, if you take it to its limits, leading us to the fact that [inaudible]? Donald Gibson: Is that what we have here because- Speaker 9: [inaudible] Donald Gibson: Uh-huh (affirmative). Speaker 10: If you talk about connectivism [inaudible]. If you look at, say, enough deviations [inaudible]. Donald Gibson: Okay. Speaker 10: That would be. It would be left. It would be moving away from the conservatism [inaudible]. Donald Gibson: Yeah. Speaker 10: [inaudible] It seems to me that that was really deliberately an attack [inaudible]. And this woman actually suggested that it was spontaneously and taking it into her own [inaudible]. And I think that what you're talking about personally is the antithesis. I don't mean to [inaudible]. It depends again on- Donald Gibson: Well no, I didn't mean they were simply antithetical. I mean they weren't necessarily antithetical. Speaker 10: Well, I could see the one point of view why moving towards subjectivism and towards [inaudible] would be considered reactionary and conservative- Donald Gibson: Yes. Speaker 10: ... depending from what vision you're looking for [inaudible]. It's not really a moot choice reading [inaudible]. Donald Gibson: Yeah, okay, yeah. Speaker 11: I just wanted to say something about what he just said. I think the right subjection and the left and its equation [inaudible] in fascism really not [inaudible] to the right, but he's subjective because he's searching for freedom and he's trying to find freedom in whatever ways he can, whether it's on the [inaudible]. And I think that because of that, there isn't a dichotomy in his fiction [inaudible]. Donald Gibson: Mm-hmm (affirmative). Speaker 11: He is not [inaudible] before or after, before a [inaudible], but he's talking about a third way or some other way that you would [inaudible]- Donald Gibson: In the fiction? Speaker 11: No, in the non-fiction. Donald Gibson: In the non-fiction. Speaker 11: And in fiction also is this quest [inaudible]. As a result of that, he has rejected [inaudible]. Donald Gibson: Yeah well, let me say two things. One thing is in this discussion, I found it necessary to talk about the fiction. Now I'm not talking and to indicate that I'm not talking about the man necessarily as he might be, though there might be grounds for doing that or something of the kind, but I'm talking about what it seems to me the novels indicate, you see? And I'm saying that it's quite conceivable that the novels would say something quite different from what the non-fiction is saying. Donald Gibson: Okay, but now insofar as a other matter is concerned, in my thinking it seemed to me okay, so he rejected communism and fascism in the Cross Damon's killing these two people. But what does Cross Damon become? What is Cross Damon after this? And it seems to me that Cross Damon moves toward and especially in his philosophy or his thinking or his thinking about this whole group of men who are coming who are just like him and so forth and so on. This seems to me to tend toward fascism. Speaker 11: But then he's rejecting that. Donald Gibson: But of course, of course. Yes, yes. I said that he rejects that, and he rejects it in favor of what? Speaker 11: [inaudible] I think that there really is a connection between his non-fiction and his fiction, is there not? Donald Gibson: Well, I don't say there isn't a connection. I just said I'm not interested in that connection right now in this context. I am, and I'd love to talk about it. But I didn't talk about that here. Speaker 12: [inaudible] his novel, complete with what was happening and such. It's like in The Outsider, [inaudible] is very brave about Cross Damon. They don't know exactly what's wrong with him. Well, he may be a [inaudible], but they're not sure. [inaudible] they recognize that there's something revolutionary about him. He thinks that they identify him as a leftist, and [inaudible]. And there's something very leftist about him. He sounds like a [inaudible], which he gives to the representatives of the [inaudible]. In a sense, I think he is a leftist [inaudible] I think are very simple, except that there is another strand of his sympathy for the way that Black people [inaudible] if you will, in the [inaudible], which does exist in the [inaudible]. It seems to me there's much more sympathy for Black people and for where Black people live, especially in the South [inaudible] then increasing respect, [inaudible] for Blacks in his early works, much more sympathetic and much, much more aware of [inaudible]. It seems to me that you can talk about a drift to the right if you want to talk Black people as fascism. [inaudible] Donald Gibson: Well, I understand what you mean, and in a way, I'm sorry I didn't see what you're saying in the way that you're saying it because that is quite true. And you see, for example, you see [inaudible] interacting with other Black people, and you see them responding in a very credible kind of way. Yeah, that's quite true, but at the same time, I wouldn't say that that book advocates Black Nationalism or has any sympathy for Black Nationalism or even says anything about Black Nationalism. Speaker 12: Well, [inaudible] in the sense that it's not political Nationalism. It's token Black Nationalism. There's a respect [inaudible] in the sense that [inaudible] still have a respect for [inaudible]. I think that is more [inaudible]. It's not apparent in a highly individualistic [inaudible]. Donald Gibson: Mm-hmm (affirmative). Speaker 3: One more question. Speaker 13: Yeah, I have another question. When you talk about the [inaudible], I don't really quite see that. I see the anarchism, but what do you mean by fascism? Donald Gibson: Yeah well, you see, I see that as being problematical, and it was clear to me when I said that what I meant. That is I didn't mean to say that they are fascists, but rather, it's the same problem with talking about the relationship between Nietzsche and fascism. And I realize that, but it seems to me that Wright recognized that tendency. I mean not that essence but that tendency or that danger or something of the kind and sort of withdrew from it because he felt that... I think he throws it out in the novel that we really can't trust, we can't rely on these men. We can't rely on them making the proper judgments and the right judgment. Speaker 13: I think it goes too far to label that as fascism. Donald Gibson: I didn't label it as fascist. I was talking about the tendency, you see? I don't think that Wright intends us to see Cross Damon as a fascist. No, but I see the direction, the potential, of fascism in Cross Damon. I mean don't you? Speaker 13: Yeah, but I mean I was thinking of Nietzsche actually when you said it. Donald Gibson: Yeah. Speaker 13: I think conversion of [crosstalk]. Donald Gibson: Wow, of course. But it's a perversion in a sense, but in a sense, it's an interpretation. Speaker 3: I wish now to redirect your fascinating attention, direction, from that of [inaudible]. And I'm reminded at this point of my old friend, late friend [inaudible] way of finding himself politically. And I hope I remember it correctly if I can remember it. He used to think of himself with [inaudible] as being the last of the royal Christian [inaudible]. Seems to me that we found all categories. Perhaps that's the best way we can. Thanks very much, Mr. Gibson, for this really thoughtful political analysis of Wright's fiction. I would remind you that you all get together again after the setting of the sun [inaudible] at 9:30. Thank you.