Monday, February 10, 2020


Libraries and Authoritarianism 1940, 2020



JANUARY 28, 2020

ON HALLOWEEN 2016, former Fox News anchor Greta Van Susteren tweeted, “Colleges should stop building vanity projects like huge libraries and billing students–full libraries are on our smartphones!” At the time, this statement sounded like garden-variety know-nothingism, ideological in the sense that it didn’t choose to disparage lavish athletic facilities or dining halls, but not an act of motivated Truther-ism. Because it came eight days before the 2016 presidential election, however, the tweet now feels less random. As information sources, smartphones are now recognized as primary conduits of cutting-edge propaganda, and the platforms that have best exploited the smartphone (Google, Facebook, Twitter) have by definition failed to perform libraries’ enduring role of maintaining and providing public access to reliable information.


While the former point is a constant source of mainstream journalistic intrigue, the latter — which involves libraries’ historic role in combating propaganda and supporting civic practice — is easily neglected. To examine it requires going back to another time when the United States’s ongoing status as a democracy was not foreordained — to Archibald MacLeish’s tenure as Librarian of Congress, when, in response to fascist propaganda, this mission for American libraries was most clearly shaped and articulated. It is important to do this now, as our national library system is increasingly hospitable to disinformation: in January 2020, the National Archives displayed a photograph of the 2017 Women’s March that had been digitally altered to make criticism of the president of the United States illegible.


As Librarian of Congress from 1939 to 1944, MacLeish was the first person to hold the office without previous library training. Lawyer, essayist, radio playwright, and second-tier modernist poet, MacLeish was author of what would become the New Critical bromide “A poem should not mean / But be.” By the time of his appointment at the LoC, however, MacLeish openly disowned the uncommitted position staked out by the poem that contained those lines (“Ars Poetica,” first published in Poetry magazine in 1926).


Shortly after leaving the position, but before the end of World War II, MacLeish delivered a lecture titled “Libraries and the Nation” in which he reviewed some of his activities as FDR’s wartime Librarian of Congress, placing them in the context of the then finally foreseeable postwar period. “[T]he world cannot survive in freedom and safety and enlightenment,” he said, “unless librarians alter basically their conception of their responsibility for the materials in their charge.”


In the course of his lecture, MacLeish described the two major projects of his tenure at the Library. One had been to build the Library’s collections and existing resources for the purpose of antifascist national security defense. Though not exclusively items of foreign propaganda, the new acquisitions during World War II testified to the Library’s instrumentality to the development of the US security state. On the other hand, at MacLeish’s direction, the Library of Congress, in concert with regional libraries, had been charged with disseminating and promoting public information about the war in general, as well as in advocacy of democratic institutions and the liberties they guaranteed. Although, as Brett Gary argues in The Nervous Liberals, these projects at times met at cross purposes, each was centrally involved with the problem of antidemocratic propaganda in an ostensibly free society.


To put it in terms coined by the corporations governing the distribution of information today, MacLeish’s position was that if a library was to be an “organizer of the world’s knowledge” and “not be evil” (as Google styled itself, years before its autocomplete algorithm was gamed to promote right-wing hate speech), it would have to acknowledge that its social function was to be something closer to a media company than the supposedly neutral platform Mark Zuckerberg would have us believe Facebook to be. For a democratic society, this would mean emphasizing the library’s function as a repository for the most comprehensive collection of materials — thus protecting its holdings from censorship of any kind, including, implicitly, items of propaganda — while also openly embracing librarians’ expertise in actively shaping the conditions of materials’ use and reception, and in promoting that vocation as a public good. If libraries were “the people’s university,” as MacLeish had written in early 1940, it was “the duty and obligation of the university to interpret between the books and those who need them.” In 1939, MacLeish had admitted that although librarians had been excellent custodians, “[t]hey have not learned to get readers for the books.”


In “Libraries and the Nation,” MacLeish said candidly that it was “a matter of public interest, but of limited public knowledge” that key military and intelligence initiatives, including CIA predecessor the Office of Strategic Services (OSS), had been organized from within the Library of Congress. This activity would have a grave legacy in the Cold War period, but it can be inferred that MacLeish’s interest in speaking openly about it — before the war had ended — emphasized his concern that information about the OSS should become a matter of public knowledge and accountability as soon as possible. [1]


MacLeish went on to speak at greater length on the subject of “public knowledge,” which had been the principal theme of his public writings during his tenure as Librarian of Congress, asserting, “In a society as complex as ours, the great reference libraries are an essential part of the functioning mechanism of the nation’s life. Not only are they essential to scholarship, but they are essential to operations which are not ordinarily considered to be related to scholarship.” He stressed that the destruction of libraries and burning of books — as had been exemplified in Poland, Western Russia, China, and in the bombing of the East Wing of the British Museum — had explicitly been part of the program of total warfare. And he went so far as to say that what was most distinctive about the current war was that “[t]he spoils […] for which the Nazis fight are men’s minds.” In MacLeish’s view, the war had essentially been of and for public knowledge and information, and he suggested this should be seen recursively as an ominously ironic tribute to the function of libraries. He concluded his talk by announcing plans not only for the rebuilding of Eastern Europe’s libraries, but also for the invention of a system of international interlibrary loan and a universal cataloging system.


As Librarian of Congress, however, MacLeish’s public writings had, unsurprisingly, been much more directly concerned with conditions in his home country; and they were strikingly candid about what he saw as the possibility, even the likelihood, of a homegrown fascism in the United States. This was something he openly mused about as early as 1935, when he worried about the combined effects of mass unemployment and “all the forces which fascism can buy — the press, the movies, the commercial theatre,” by which he meant the organs of propaganda and disinformation (later writings would also stress the importance of radio).


He returned to these issues in his first public address as Librarian of Congress, which came on October 19, 1939, just over a month after Germany’s invasion of Poland, a week after Adolf Eichmann’s first forced deportation of German Jews to Poland, and three days after the first Nazi air attack on Great Britain. MacLeish insisted that it was now the public vocation of libraries to educate adult citizens about their rights and freedoms in a democratic society, and in the more general skills of reading and interpretation that he hoped would prove valuable in resisting fascist propaganda:


The “either,” as I see it, is the education of the people of this country. The “or” is fascism. We will either educate the people of this Republic to know, and therefore to value and therefore to preserve their own democratic culture, or we will watch the people of this Republic trade their democratic culture for the non-culture, the obscurantism, the superstition, the brutality, the tyranny which is overrunning eastern and central and southern Europe.


“[Governments] have learned,” MacLeish later wrote, “that if the citizens of a democracy are not taught the traditions of democracy they will be taught other traditions — and that they can be taught other traditions.” Teaching not only the history but the civic sensibility of republican democracy — which together are what MacLeish intends in the word “tradition” — was the most important of the “operations not ordinarily considered to be scholarship” MacLeish would reference in the “Libraries and the Nation” address in 1945. Both depended on materials for, and competencies in, reading and reference.


Insisting that the library could no longer be conceived as a neutral site in the ideological war of information, MacLeish repeatedly stressed that librarians could not be satisfied “merely by delivering books from public libraries as books are called for” — that is, with policies of what is today commonly termed “access.” They should instead become “active and not passive agents,” and even become identified with the library itself as a social institution: “They must think of their libraries as organizations of intelligent and well-trained men and women qualified to select from the record in their keeping such materials as are relevant to the decisions the people must make and able to provide those materials to the people in a useful form.” (These words were written in May 1940, after the fall of Denmark, Norway, Luxembourg, and Belgium.)


Given the off-site availability of so many library resources today, MacLeish’s sentiments may seem like artifacts of a bygone age even to committed researchers. And we might also be tempted to view his emphasis on books and print nostalgically, a hallmark of what George Hutchinson, in Facing the Abyss, has recently identified as the decade of maximum participatory literacy in US history. But it would be wrong either to overlook the “intelligent well-trained men and women” working in libraries today, or to confuse MacLeish’s emphasis on books as a sign that his was a less complicated or media-saturated environment. MacLeish’s project was entirely conversant with an age of mass communications research, which he in fact assisted from within the Library of Congress, and he was especially sensitive to the fact that it was the imbrication of new media with structures of profit that made them especially susceptible to disinformation purposes. Disinformation was especially successful, MacLeish implied, because of its amenability to manipulation through advertising, and also because of the hyperactive, enervating temporality already inherent in the culture of mass communications.


Asserting that Sherman’s responsibility for the burning of Atlanta had consumed an entire generation of debate, MacLeish claimed that by contrast, the atrocities of Guernica and Badajoz had already been forgotten. The psychological tendency to forget — or become desensitized to — these events, he suggested, was produced both by their seemingly serial nature, and, counterintuitively, by the magnitude of the atrocities (a point often made of life under the Trump regime as well). The fascist practices on the ground were in this way mirrored by fascism’s discursive practices:


[Acts of intimidation and disinformation, at home and abroad] are commonplaces to such a point that they no longer shock us into anger. Indeed it is the essential character of our time that the triumph of the lie, the mutilation of culture, and the persecution of the word no longer shock us into anger.


It was because of the numbing effects of actual aggression, together with discursive confusion, that MacLeish was so strident in his affirmative defense of democratic institutions, and of libraries most of all. But within the more programmatic activity at the Library of Congress, he also oversaw more specific means of defusing fascist propaganda. Shortly after the United States entered the war in 1941, MacLeish was tasked with heading a new agency, organized out of the Library of Congress, named the Office of Facts and Figures. Normally understood as FDR’s propaganda wing — and subject to attacks from the left and right — one of Office’s publications was a 1942 booklet titled Divide and Conquer, which was designed to educate US citizens about the strategies of fascist disinformation that were now actively present in their daily lives.






















It also, notably, included a list of sources, further emphasizing the civic virtue of scholarly practices, and the central role of the library in facilitating them.


Analyzing the information economy of the war, the OFF publication quoted liberally from Hitler’s own public statements, going so far as to include as an epigraph his notorious theory of the utility of the “big lie,” which has been referenced more than once in recent months. In his recent book The Road to Unfreedom, Yale historian Timothy Snyder has argued that the overarching purpose of Russia’s television network RT — which broadcasts internationally in six languages — is less to provide specifically targeted instances of disinformation than it is to undermine the very concepts of truth and factuality. This accords directly with MacLeish’s thesis that “[t]o lie, not in the name of truth, but in the name of lies, is to destroy the common basis of communication without which a common culture cannot exist and a work of learning or of art becomes unintelligible” — a theory of gaslighting that dates to 1940. In 1942, before the OFF was abandoned and replaced by the Office of War Information (OWI), MacLeish identified Divide and Conquer as a part of the Library’s “Strategy of Truth”; in recent months, of course, Facebook and Twitter executives have each disavowed the obligation to act as “arbiters of truth.”


Recent events have also underscored the essential function of the library — and of librarians — as “active and not passive” agents in the face of the contemporary crisis, perhaps the most famous recent example being the January 2017 “DataRefuge” initiative undertaken at the University of Pennsylvania, and joined by librarians and hacktivists in many other cities including Toronto, to download and preserve climate change data housed at the Internet Archive. In the weeks after the 2016 election, the Internet Archive itself announced plans to build a complete copy of its entire holdings in Canada. Inspired by the American Library Association’s famous privacy policy — instituted in 1939, and more recently used to successfully challenge the Patriot Act in 2005 — activist librarians have turned their attention to concerns over data privacy. They have pointed up the way that for-profit academic journal publishers such as Elsevier surveil their users (even in academic libraries), exploiting harvested data in their ongoing turn away from publishing and toward data analytics. Greta Van Susteren’s false choice — smartphones or libraries — returns with a bitter irony, as both can be means of surveillance on university campuses. For its part, the Cornell University Library plans to introduce a new Privacy Services program in spring 2020.


The question of educating citizens on the insidious agencies of disinformation is one that libraries share with other institutions. A 2016 article in Salon that observed that the citizens of Finland have been notably resistant to propaganda gives reason to affirm this work: Finland has one of the strongest school systems in the world. Meanwhile, last year’s report from the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) reported that fewer than one in 10 15-year-old children, worldwide, were able to distinguish between fact and opinion in standardized reading tests. Teens in the United States were successful 13.5 percent of the time. Unfortunately, it is not hard to imagine that report’s warm reception in the corporate boardroom of Van Susteren’s former employers.


¤


Jeremy Braddock is Associate Professor of English at Cornell University, where he is co-chair of the University Faculty Library Board, chair of the Media Studies Initiative, and a Milstein Fellow in Technology and Humanity. He is the author of Collecting as Modernist Practice, which was awarded the Modernist Studies Association book prize in 2013.


¤


[1] Gary’s The Nervous Liberals provides an excellent account of the dilemmas that propaganda intelligence research itself posed for a liberal democracy, and of MacLeish’s extraordinary sensitivity to the problem. It is in this context that Gary also examines the origins of Harold Lasswell’s communications research, housed during the war in LoC. A concise analysis of the cold war legacy of Lasswell’s work can be found in Christopher Simpson’s Science of Coercion.




Away in a Manager: On Michael Lind’s “The New Class War”



Away in a Manager: On Michael Lind’s “The New Class War”

By Gregor Baszak JANUARY 28, 2020



The New Class War

Saving Democracy from the Managerial Elite

 

 

Published 01.20.202
Portfolio
224 Pages
 
A FEW DAYS AFTER Donald Trump’s electoral upset in 2016, Club for Growth co-founder Stephen Moore told an audience of Republican House members that the GOP was “now officially a Trump working class party.” No longer the party of traditional Reaganite conservatism, the GOP had been converted instead “into a populist America First party.” As he uttered these words, Moore says, “the shock was palpable” in the room.

The Club for Growth had long dominated Republican orthodoxy by promoting low tax rates and limited government. Any conservative candidate for political office wanting to reap the benefits of the Club’s massive fundraising arm had to pay homage to this doctrine. For one of its formerly leading voices to pronounce the transformation of this orthodoxy toward a more populist nationalism showed just how much the ground had shifted on election night.

To writer Michael Lind, Trump’s victory, along with Brexit and other populist stirrings in Europe, was an outright declaration of “class war” by alienated working-class voters against what he calls a “university-credentialed overclass” of managerial elites. The title of Lind’s new book, The New Class War: Saving Democracy from the Managerial Elite, leaves no doubt as to where his sympathies lie, though he’s adamant that he’s not some sort of guru for a “smarter Trumpism,” as some have labeled him.


Lind cautions against a turn to populism, which he believes to be too personality-centered and intellectually incoherent — not to mention, too demagogic — to help solve the terminal crisis of “technocratic neoliberalism” with its rule by self-righteous and democratically unaccountable “experts” with hyperactive Twitter handles. Only a return to what Lind calls “democratic pluralism” will help stem the tide of the populist revolt.


The New Class War is a breath of fresh air. Many on the left have been incapable of coming to terms with Hillary Clinton’s defeat. The result has been the stifling climate of a neo-McCarthyism, in which the only explanation for Trump’s success was an unholy alliance of “Putin stooges” and unrepentant “white supremacists.” To Lind, the case is much more straightforward: while the vast majority of Americans supports Social Security spending and containing unskilled immigration, the elites of the bipartisan swamp favor libertarian free trade policies combined with the steady influx of unskilled migrants to help suppress wage levels in the United States. Trump had outflanked his opponents in the Republican primaries and Clinton in the general election by tacking left on the economy (he refused to lay hands on Social Security) and right on immigration.

The strategy has since been successfully repeated in the United Kingdom by Boris Johnson, and it looks, for now, like a foolproof way for conservative parties in the West to capture or defend their majorities against center-left parties that are too beholden to wealthy, metropolitan interests to seriously attract working-class support. Berating the latter as irredeemably racist certainly doesn’t help either.

What happened in the preceding decades to produce this divide in Western democracies? Lind’s narrative begins with the New Deal, which had brought to an end what he calls “the first class war” in favor of a class compromise between management and labor. This first class war is the one we are the most familiar with: originating in the Industrial Revolution, which had produced the wretchedly poor proletariat, it soon led to the rise of competing parties of organized workers on the one hand and the liberal bourgeoisie on the other, a clash that came to a head in the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917. Then, in the 1930s, while the world was writhing from the consequences of the Great Depression, a series of fascist parties took the reigns in countries from Germany to Spain. To spare the United States a similar descent into barbarism, President Franklin D. Roosevelt implemented the New Deal, in which the working class would find a seat at the bargaining table under a government-supervised tripartite system where business and organized labor met seemingly as equals and in which collective bargaining would help the working class set sector-wide wages.

This class compromise ruled unquestioned for the first decades of the postwar era. It was made possible thanks to the system of democratic pluralism, which allowed working-class and rural constituencies to actively partake in mass-membership organizations like unions as well as civic and religious institutions that would empower these communities to shape society from the ground up.

But then, amid the stagflation crisis of the 1970s, a “neoliberal revolution from above” set in that sought to reverse the class compromise. The most powerful weapon in the arsenal of the newly emboldened managerial class was “global labor arbitrage” in which production is outsourced to countries with lower wage levels and laxer regulations; alternatively, profits can be maximized by putting downward pressure on domestic wages through the introduction of an unskilled, non-unionized immigrant workforce that competes for jobs with its unionized domestic counterparts. By one-sidedly canceling the class compromise that governed the capitalist societies after World War II, Lind concludes, the managerial elite had brought the recent populist backlash on itself.

Likewise, only it can contain this backlash by returning to the bargaining table and reestablishing the tripartite system it had walked away from. According to Lind, the new class peace can only come about on the level of the individual nation-state because transnational treaty organizations like the EU cannot allow the various national working classes to escape the curse of labor arbitrage. This will mean that unskilled immigration will necessarily have to be curbed to strengthen the bargaining power of domestic workers. The free-market orthodoxy of the Club for Growth will also have to take a backseat, to be replaced by government-promoted industrial strategies that invest in innovation to help modernize their national economies.

Under which circumstances would the managerial elites ever return to the bargaining table? “The answer is fear,” Lind suggests — fear of working-class resentment of hyper-woke, authoritarian elites. Ironically, this leaves all the agency with the ruling class, who first acceded to the class compromise, then canceled it, and is now called on to forge a new one lest its underlings revolt.

Lind rightly complains all throughout the book that the old mass-membership based organizations of the 20th century have collapsed. He’s coy, however, about who would reconstitute them and how. At best, Lind argues for a return to the old system where party bosses and ward captains served their local constituencies through patronage, but once more this leaves the agency with entities like the Republicans and Democrats who have a combined zero members. As the third-party activist Howie Hawkins remarked cunningly elsewhere,

American parties are not organized parties built around active members and policy platforms; they are shifting coalitions of entrepreneurial candidate campaign organizations. Hence, the Democratic and Republican Parties are not only capitalist ideologically; they are capitalistically run enterprises.

Thus, they would hardly be the first options one would think of to reinvigorate the forces of civil society toward self-rule from the bottom up.

The key to Lind’s fraught logic lies hidden in plain sight — in the book’s title. Lind does not speak of “class struggle,” the heroic Marxist narrative in which an organized proletariat strove for global power; no, “class war” smacks of a gloomy, Hobbesian war of all against all in which no side truly stands to win.

In the epigraph to the book, Lind cites approvingly the 1949 treatise The Vital Center by historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr. who wrote that “class conflict, pursued to excess, may well destroy the underlying fabric of common principle which sustains free society.” Schlesinger was just one among many voices who believed that Western societies after World War II were experiencing the “end of ideology.” From now on, the reasoning went, the ideological battles of yesteryear were settled in favor of a more disinterested capitalist (albeit New Deal–inflected) governance. This, in turn, gave rise to the managerial forces in government, the military, and business whose unchecked hold on power Lind laments. The midcentury social-democratic thinker Michael Harrington had it right when he wrote that “[t]he end of ideology is a shorthand way of saying the end of socialism.”

Looked at from this perspective, the break between the postwar Fordist regime and technocratic neoliberalism isn’t as massive as one would suppose. The overclass antagonists of The New Class War believe that they derive their power from the same “liberal order” of the first-class peace that Lind upholds as a positive utopia. A cursory glance at the recent impeachment hearings bears witness to this, as career bureaucrats complained that President Trump unjustifiably sought to change the course of an American foreign policy that had been nobly steered by them since the onset of the Cold War. In their eyes, Trump, like the Brexiteers or the French yellow vest protesters, are vulgar usurpers who threaten the stability of the vital center from polar extremes.

A more honest account of capitalism would also acknowledge its natural tendencies to persistently contract and to disrupt the social fabric. There is thus no reason to believe why some future class compromise would once and for all quell these tendencies — and why nationalistically operating capitalist states would not be inclined to confront each other again in war.

¤

Gregor Baszak is a PhD candidate in English at the University of Illinois at Chicago. His Twitter handle is @gregorbas1.



https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/away-in-a-manager-on-michael-linds-the-new-class-war/

Before “American Dirt,” There Was “The Korean Angela’s Ashes”


Before “American Dirt,” There Was “The Korean Angela’s Ashes”

By Marie Myung-Ok Lee

FEBRUARY 5, 2020


THE CONTRETEMPS OVER Jeanine Cummins’s American Dirt revolves around a narrative of a publishing industry eager for blockbusters, white authors who inhabit the stories of marginalized people, and embarrassment when the multiple flaws and tone-deaf passages of the hyped-up book are exposed.

Amnesia about such fiascos is also common, which is why it is important to revisit an all-but-forgotten story about a would-be blockbuster from 20 years ago that had been billed as the “Korean Angela’s Ashes” — before it self-destructed. I was exposed involuntarily to the machinery that creates these publisher-to-Oprah pipeline books, because my own novel was likely sucked into the manufacturing of Ten Thousand Sorrows, a book that was unmasked to be so egregiously fake that the publisher quietly stopped publishing it in the United States (heavily revised paperback editions appeared in the United Kingdom, South Africa, Australia, and New Zealand).

A woman calling herself “Elizabeth Kim” wrote this book at the behest of an agent she met at a Marin County dinner party for vegetarians. Even though she’d been a very young child when she was adopted by a white American couple, Kim managed to construct a memoir of a Korean childhood. The finished product, Ten Thousand Sorrows, blazed onto the literary scene in the premiere issue of O, The Oprah Magazine, with a big blurb from Arthur Golden, the author of Memoirs of a Geisha, and received a half-million-dollar advance. Then it all began to unravel.

There was no doubt that the author was Korean-born and adopted by a white family. But everything else about the story was taken on trust. In one particularly unbelievable scene, she wrote of watching her mother murdered by her evil grandfather and uncle in — according to the press release — an “honor killing” for having a mixed-race honhyul child. Kim recounts excruciating details of her grandfather stringing her mother up on a roofbeam of their humble Korean hut. “All I could see through the bamboo slats were her bare feet, dangling in midair,” she writes. “I watched those milk-white feet twitch.” After this horror, these same male relatives burn her private parts as she’s pinned down on her mother’s Buddhist altar. Not for nothing did a review in the San Francisco Chronicle call it “so thick with grief and violence that at moments, it’s almost unbearable to read.”

But readers with even rudimentary knowledge of Korean society also found it unbearable to read — because they could tell the book was full of fabrications. First, Korean houses, especially “huts,” don’t feature roofbeams you could hang someone from. Second, there’s not even a word for “honor killing,” something the author describes as “disturbingly common” in Korean culture. Third, her traumatic memories of being called honhyul — mixed blood — are extremely strange; this is a formal, almost clinical term, not at all pejorative. Much of her book centers on this poorly chosen word, which she claims she can never forget having heard almost every day while growing up in Korea.

Here is where I may have unwillingly entered the picture. I had used this word myself, erroneously, in my own unpublished novel about a Korean adoptee, Somebody’s Daughter, which my agent had submitted to Doubleday, to Kim’s editor, where Kim may also have worked as a freelance reader. When Kim’s book came out, bearing many similarities to my manuscript, including the odd word honhyul, I had to rub my eyes. This mistake was my own; I’m a child of Korean immigrants, and my parents were afraid of us kids picking up accents, so I only learned the language formally, at a Korean university as a Fulbright scholar on a research grant, and my guess at the word “mongrel” turned out to be quite amusing to my manuscript’s more informed readers — the equivalent of calling someone “biracial” as a slur. When others who had also seen my work-in-progress encouraged me to speak out, I wrote letters, including to O, not seeking compensation but merely protection of my personal intellectual property. But the editors refused to speak to me.

Korean studies professor Brian Myers, meanwhile, noticed that much of Ten Thousand Sorrows just didn’t add up, and he compiled a list with dozens of inaccuracies that he said he sent to the publisher. Book industry writer Hillel Italie at the AP wrote a piece called “Book Criticized for Factual Errors,” which rounded up these and others’ objections. Even the title, said by Kim to have been taken from a Buddhist proverb her mother loved — “Life was made up of ten thousand sorrows and ten thousand joys” — came under scrutiny, because, while this expression might appear in a Marin vegetarian-potluck as a westernized Zen catchphrase, it’s not Korean. Choe Sang-hun, the co-author of How Koreans Talk: A Collection of Expressions, told me via email: “I don’t recall any proverb that contains 10,000 sorrows.” Ten thousand also colloquially indicates “a lot” — our American “millions.” Seoul-based journalist Charse Yun, who’d written an article on the debacle for KoreAm Magazine, told me that he remembers it as “explicitly Orientalist and immediately problematic. There’s no way she could have ‘known’ these ethnographic tidbits and ‘facts’ sprinkled in as a young child, but she makes it sound like she’s an anthropologist explaining Korean culture to the non-Korean reader.” Further, similar to accusations leveled against American Dirt, “The book caters to a reading audience that probably likes and or wants to read such distorted, two-dimensional depictions of other cultures, masking the sense of their society’s assumed superiority. Such a book just aims to cash in on reinforcing stereotypes.”

Having my work possibly lifted, and having the well poisoned for my novel, was a bitter pill — after holding on to my work for months, Doubleday rejected it. However, I thought my problems were smoothed over when I received an offer for a two-book deal with another big publisher. This was on a Friday. On Monday, the offer was mysteriously rescinded, and no one told me why. I suspected it was because somebody was worried that my own work tracked too closely to the now-suspect Ten Thousand Sorrows.

My only real recourse was to do nothing. My agent agreed that squawking by a yet-unpublished author would be unproductive and that I just had to bury this novel in a drawer. Years later, however, an editor who remembered the book called my agent to ask why she couldn’t find it on Amazon. This editor was then able to buy my manuscript for the price of a used Toyota Corolla. My agent advised against it, finding the cheapness insulting, but I felt by then (five years after Sorrows was published) that it was time, and I am grateful my novel had this unexpected chance to see the light of day. Somebody’s Daughter — after being edited to make it less like Ten Thousand Sorrows — was published with Beacon Press’s Bluestreak imprint, devoted to fiction by women of color.

By then, the clarion call over the inauthenticity of a majority of the details in Ten Thousand Sorrows coalesced around the primary one: the “honor killing.” Charse Yun reported Doubleday’s statement, an astonishing walk-back: “We do now believe that there are not sufficient studies for Ms. Kim and Doubleday to have stated as an established fact that there is a tradition of honor killing in Korea.”

Defenders of appropriative literature often wonder why people claim to be “hurt” by mere words on the page. But consider that Doubleday three years later published James Frey’s A Million Little Pieces, i.e., “the War and Peace of addiction,” according to the blurb by Pat Conroy. When it also became an Oprah pick, increased sales also meant increased scrutiny, and an investigation by The Smoking Gun revealed this memoir was also a pile of fake details — so fake that aggrieved readers took to the courts and forced Doubleday to address damages in an unprecedented move: offering refunds to readers who could prove they bought the book believing it was a memoir.

Compare this with the damage to Korean and Korean-American communities by the people who hyped Kim’s Orientalist narrative as a “true” story, in which Asian men come across as misogynist honor-killing fiends, where a barbaric Confucian culture leads to the murder of a sweet mother who just wanted to do right by her child, who toils alongside her in the rice paddies — in a season when rice is not grown in Korea. There is no evidence that Kim even remembers her actual birth mother, or her situation. As she says in her epigraph to the memoir, “There is no record of my mother’s brief life.” Translator and professor Heinz Insu Fenkl, who also wrote an autobiographical novel about growing up as a biracial child in Korea, told KoreAm that the book “comes across more as a fictional pastiche of a range of works than something actually recalled from experience.” What was sold to readers was witness; what they unknowingly consumed was fantasy — including my mistake of honhyul, which Ji-Yeon Yuh, a professor of Asian diaspora history at Northwestern, confirms “most certainly would not have been used in casual circulation in Korean rural farming villages of the 1950s” (KoreAm interview).

I still do not view Elizabeth Kim or Jeanine Cummins individually as bad actors. The Oprah train to fame and fortune pulls up, and they accept a ride: who can be blamed for that? This is also a gendered issue. In an NPR interview with journalist Maria Hinojosa on Latino USA, Cummins suggested she was so traumatized by the uproar that she was considering stopping writing. Frey, in contrast, has hardly slunk away; he’s the CEO of — fittingly — a writing factory that produces young adult novels, one of which was made into a feature film by DreamWorks. And, as a born-again novelist, Frey became a best seller.

But the Ten Thousand Sorrows fadeout and lack of paperback release was not the big news its publication had been; Doubleday did everything to avoid drawing attention to this debacle. A former editor at O at the time of Sorrows’s appearance was shocked to hear the book had had these problems at all. She told me that memoirs at the time were taken at face value, and that Ten Thousand Sorrows perfectly fit the magazine’s needs as a “woman’s story with a compelling narrative.”

But if the compelling stories are fake or inaccurate, we can’t say they are just whimsy or honest mistakes. The major audiences for American Dirt and Ten Thousand Sorrows are white women who are reading about brutalities (a child being crushed by a garbage truck in Cummins’s novel, rape and more rape in both works). They believe in the act of reading that they are learning about another culture, developing empathy and doing “something” about the border crisis or about Korean adoptions. But the opposite is happening. They are imbibing erroneous stereotypes about the people Cummins and Kim ironically state they are trying to “humanize.”

What the defenders of these books also often miss is that a six- or seven-figure advance to a writer who writes an inaccurate book about the border or Korea could also fund, say, 40 more accurate and knowledgeable writers at $25,000 each.

But I studied economics long enough to know this isn’t going to happen. “Money creates taste,” as the artist Jenny Holzer has said, and the forces that created American Dirt and its barbed-wire launch-party centerpieces are going to gravitate to a future work just like it. Narratives for middle-class white readers pay off big, and there’s nothing wrong with that, except writers of color are already often at too much of an economic disadvantage to access the structures that provide these million-dollar advances with the accompanying huge publicity budgets.

So what can be done to serve engaged white readers who want the “real” but can’t tell the difference?

The American Dirt case differs from Ten Thousand Sorrows because fiction has — and should have — a wider artistic license. I would not suggest the book should be “cancelled,” as Sorrows was, but I have a modest proposal: truth in labeling. Taking cues from the food industry, we should recognize that books that center on a general theme of injustice and race can fall into one of two metaphorical types: GMO and Organic.

Organics, like Mexican-American author Luis Alberto Urrea’s Across the Wire and By the Lake of Sleeping Children, are renderings of lived experience at the border (and apparently, Cummins has “sampled” vivid scenes from these books). The category of Organics would also cover novels that have an underlying social justice theme, that bear witness, that spur readers to action, and that, importantly, show awareness of their author’s position. Good storytellers of any ethnicity can bring forgotten and marginalized communities vividly to life. John Steinbeck lived and worked in the communities he chronicled, and his work shows it. Who can forget the beginning to The Grapes of Wrath, with the starving family watching food being destroyed?

Cummins’s and Kim’s work, on the other hand, exemplifies the genetically modified organism — that is to say, synthetic amalgamations of various pieces of existing literature. Cummins admits as much, in her author’s note. She takes a story line of “saintly mother in the Mexican border crisis” and fills out its DNA helix by splicing in others’ work as Kim might have done with mine. Similarly, it was the addiction community that first supported and then was disappointed by Frey’s work. These books are created and pushed for entertainment purposes, and it’s disingenuous to suggest otherwise, as was done with Cummins.

Having a bookstore “border wall” between Organic and GMO would allow consumers to purchase an entertaining, escapist book without the illusions that it was anything but an alternate universe. Esmeralda Bermudez, a writer for the Los Angeles Times who has been critical of the American Dirt for its inaccuracies, told NPR that it could indeed be “cheap entertainment, like a narco-thriller on Netflix.”

One of the most popular TV shows in South Korea right now is Crash Landing on You, a romance/thriller about a paraglider who accidentally gets blown into North Korea. Having been to North Korea myself, I was impressed with how accurate some of the details were. But at the same time, a scene of the two principals kissing at the Military Demarcation Line is the kind of goofy license allowed, even expected, in these kinds of “K-dramas.” Knowing the genre, no one would object that, in real life, the characters would immediately be shot or blown up by mines.

Being publicly shamed and having her book out of print did not seem to hurt the career of Elizabeth Kim. She is a member of a speakers’ bureau where Ten Thousand Sorrows is now “a novel,” and an edition appeared in Korea, where its Korean translation tellingly eliminates the faux proverb; now, perhaps karmically echoing A Million Little Pieces, its decidedly un-Buddhist title is Ten Thousand Kinds of Sadness.

¤

Marie Myung-Ok Lee’s next novel, The Evening Hero, is forthcoming with Simon & Schuster. She teaches at Columbia, where she is Writer in Residence at the Center for the Study of Ethnicity and Race.

Oscar Wilde in the United States




BLACK HISTORY MONTH THE FOPPISH DILETTANTISM OF THE AESTHETE 

The Wilde Woman and the Sunflower Apostle: Oscar Wilde in the United States



FEBRUARY 8, 2020

Dedicated to the memory of my dear friend Ricky Jay.

¤

OSCAR WILDE ARRIVED in New York on January 2, 1882, on his first trip to North America. [1] By the end of the month, he’d landed (more or less) on the cover of the nation’s most widely read journal, Harper’s Weekly. The seated figure, dressed in fancy clothes, gazing dreamily into space and surrounded by a book, a horseshoe, a sunflower, and a lily, referred to the poet — but it was not Wilde. [2] It was a monkey. An invidious lampoon titled “The Aesthetic Monkey,” the image was reproduced from the painting by William Holbrook Beard, an American artist well-known for his anthropomorphic animal pictures, especially those of carousing bears. [3] But for their cover, the editors at Harper’s chose to present the recently arrived poet as a simian, a choice that began an avalanche of derogatory, disdainful, and satiric images of Wilde, whose presence in America caused a sensation unlike anything previous. [4] Yes, Charles Dickens had toured the country (1842 and 1867) as had Jenny Lind (1850–’52), each to great fanfare — Sarah Bernhardt’s tour was still nearly a decade in the future — but no 19th-century celebrity garnered as much attention as did Oscar Wilde in 1882.
William Holbrook Beard. “The Aesthetic Monkey.” Wood engraving for the cover of “Harper’s Weekly,” January 28, 1882. Published just a few weeks after Wilde’s arrival in America, it set the tone for many of the vicious caricatures to come.

To make the cover of Harper’s, one had to be famous or notorious — Wilde was both. At 27, he had published just one book, a volume of poetry, yet he had become a celebrity, and it was not because of his verses. [5] Rather, his vocal support for the then radical Aesthetic Movement, his unusual clothing, physical appearance, dandyish manners, and of course, his witticisms and epigrams, had made him infamous. Recruited by opera impresario Richard D’Oyly Carte, Wilde was about to embark on a lecture tour across America to promote the Gilbert & Sullivan operetta Patience, which had debuted in London in April 1881 and in New York that September. [6] A spoof on the Aesthetic Movement — its main characters were limp-wristed poets based on Swinburne and Rossetti, and possibly Wilde himself — Patience drew crowds. D’Oyly Carte, the opera’s producer, had hoped that Wilde’s growing notoriety would drum up business in America, but it was Wilde who captured the lion’s share of the public’s attention: his American tour lasted nearly a year; Patience closed in New York after six months and 177 performances. [7] Although it was successful, it was no match for Wilde himself.

Wilde was so novel, so audacious, so “utterly too too,” as the popular phrase he inspired had it, that he created a sensation everywhere he went. And he went far, and wide. Between January and November of 1882, Wilde visited and lectured in 125 American cities, including such far-flung places as Milwaukee, Omaha, San Francisco, Leadville, Cedar Rapids, Memphis, Louisville, New Orleans, Galveston, San Antonio, Savannah, Charleston, Portland, Atlantic City, and Pawtucket. [8] He lectured on the subjects of art and decoration, beginning with his first public speaking event in New York a week after he arrived: on January 9 he gave an hour-long talk titled “The English Renaissance” in which he explained the Aesthetic Movement: “I call it our English Renaissance because it is indeed a sort of new birth of the spirit of man, like the great Italian Renaissance of the fifteenth century.” [9]

Home decoration and aesthetics had become popular topics among rich and prosperous Americans after the Civil War, especially the wives of tycoons who were eager to display their wealth by building the most fashionable homes their husbands could afford. Colonel William Francis Morse, Wilde’s tour manager, recalled: “His lectures were always of the greatest interest to women. Men, unless cultured and students, rarely took much notice of the new gospel of art. His most attentive listeners were women, and to them his views came often as a new revelation.” [10]

Although the Aesthetic Movement had originated in England, it generated a great deal of interest across the Atlantic; books about interior decoration and applied art by such authors as Clarence Cook, Christopher Dresser, Charles Eastlake, Mary Eliza Haweis, Owen Jones, Walter Pater, and Candace Wheeler were read with enthusiasm on both sides of the Atlantic. Because the women of America were especially eager to hear Wilde’s decorating theories, his lectures were not entirely without a context. It was Wilde who was without precedent — his first lecture quickly sold out, even at the high price of $1 per ticket, to 1,200 eager audience members, many from New York high society. [11]

Unfortunately, Wilde’s Oxford English struck many in the audience “as a voice that might have come from the tomb. It grew monotonous, and was fast becoming painful,” according to The New York Times, but a moment of levity was struck when Wilde, smiling, said something humorous and the audience began to laugh. “At the finish of the lecture the poet was vigorously applauded, and when he retired from the stage he blushed like a school-girl.” [12]

Wilde had dressed for the lecture in an aesthetic 18th-century-inspired outfit consisting of a “low-necked shirt with a turned-down collar and large white necktie, a black claw-hammer coat and white vest, knee-breeches, long black stockings and low shoes with bows.” [13] White kid gloves completed the ensemble. It was hardly the attire of the American entrepreneurs and businessmen in the audience, and Wilde’s clothing never failed to capture the attention of the public and the press — he was interviewed at least 98 times during his tour, and special attention was always paid to his wardrobe. As one New York Times reporter noted: “He was dressed as probably no grown man in the world was ever dressed before.” [14] Artists and illustrators began to create caricatures of him, launching a mini-industry that included sheet music, advertising trade cards, photographs, Currier & Ives prints, and newspaper cartoons.
“Strike Me with A Sun Flower.” Chromolithograph, 1882. E. B. Duval, printer. One of scores of advertising cards that lampooned Wilde; a merchant’s business information was printed on the verso.

Wilde must have understood the power of visual imagery, and soon after his New York lecture (and at Morse’s urging), sat for 28 portrait sittings with Napoleon Sarony, the city’s leading commercial photographer. [15] Sarony cleverly arranged for an exclusive contract that made him the only photographer permitted to take Wilde’s likeness, and it proved profitable — Wilde told a reporter that the demand for his portraits far exceeded the supply. [16] Wilde, Morse, and Sarony all astutely perceived that the dissemination of Wilde’s likeness would increase his celebrity, and these images, which were sold throughout his tour, are the images that now provide the clearest impressions of the young Oscar Wilde.
Napoleon Sarony. “Portrait of Oscar Wilde.” Cabinet card photograph, 1882. Sarony was Wilde’s one and only photographer during his two American tours, making 28 images in 1882 and three in 1883.

Many other printed images were created in Wilde’s wake, images generated not by Wilde but by businesses eager to piggyback on his growing fame by associating themselves with his views on home decor. The new printing technique of chromolithography created colorful images that were cheap to print; it was used extensively to disseminate all sorts of ads, including those associated with Wilde. Manufacturers of household items such as wallpaper, paint, and thread created thousands of business cards depicting Wilde in a variety of poses and postures, typically with sunflowers and lilies, the flowers that became his hallmark — he became known as “The Sunflower Apostle.” Publishers of sheet music, who provided much of the home entertainment of the time, put Wilde on their covers in a variety of guises in order to sell popular songs; some of the tunes were inspired by Wilde himself.
Anonymous artist. F. H. Snow [music]. “Oscar Wilde Galop.” Sheet music cover, 1882. Wilde inspired numerous waltzes, galops, mazurkas and serenades.

While most of the printed messages are obvious in their attempts at broad humor and satire, many mocked Wilde in ways that today seem unthinkable, especially those that began to emerge portraying him as a black man. One South Carolina photographer made a startling, coded image that warrants our attention, as we shall see. Cryptic in nature, only recently has it been decoded as anti-Wilde. All of these images, whether lithographic or photographic, share similar iconographies that reveal an attitude of derision, a mindset of racism and an obliviousness to prejudice — and they all align with the visual culture of the late 19th century that included casually cruel images of black people. How Oscar Wilde became enmeshed in this imagery reveals a great deal about America’s deep-seated unease with racial, sexual, and cultural differences.
 
Currier & Ives. “The Aesthetic Craze.” Lithograph, 1882. One of many images depicting Wilde as an African American. From “Darktown Comics,” a popular set of 75 separate caricatures of African Americans issued between 1879 and 1896.
“Ise Gwine for to Wushup Dat Lily…” Chromolithograph, 1882. E. B. Duval, printer. From the series National Aesthetics, a series of six caricature trade cards portraying Wilde in various ethnic guises including an African-American fop (as here), but additionally, as an Irish leprechaun, Chinese Mandarin, Jewish merchant, French dandy and German farmer, all using the disparaging clichés of the era.

After the end of Reconstruction in 1877, when the era of Jim Crow began, the plight of African Americans became nearly as perilous as it had been under slavery, as blacks lost the political and social rights they had gained after the Civil War ended in 1865. The former slaves and their descendants were subjected to many iniquities, including being portrayed in print as either monkeys or buffoons, a result of pseudo-scientific interpretations of Darwin. The American tragedy of slavery was never expiated, and the shameful results manifested themselves in new ways to exclude and deride black people. Racist caricatures permeated American society, and with technological advances in color printing, the realms of advertising, entertainment, and the press — the mass media of the day — churned out demeaning images of black people that were meant to keep them in permanent bondage to white society along with exclusion from it. Blacks were depicted as semi-literate and childlike, unable to speak standard English; as being closer to household pets and apes rather than fully realized humans; as inherently unable to perform any but the most menial tasks; and as foolish imitators of a white society they could never join. Into this cultural milieu stepped Wilde, and unbeknownst to him, he would become part of this phenomenon when, after having been portrayed as a monkey, he began to be portrayed as a black man, and in one instance of gender reassignment, as a black woman. African Americans, the ultimate outsiders, were the easiest people to mock and humiliate in late 19th-century America, and Oscar Wilde joined their ranks.

Wilde’s persona was just too much for most Americans to appreciate, let alone understand. An effete man dressed in velvet and silk who espoused what were typically thought of as women’s subjects (interior decoration, household matters, art, opera, and literature); a man who spoke in epigrams and witticisms; a man whose weapons were words and not firearms was someone to fear, isolate, and ridicule, and that is what happened. A newspaper report from Wilde’s three Texas appearances noted:

Oscar Wilde made a failure of it in Texas. In many places a large percentage of the audience left the hall before the lecture was half over. It is about fifty years too soon for aestheticism to take root in Texas. The cowboy element could not be persuaded but he was a woman. They never saw a man like that before. [17]

Never, indeed. Wilde’s dress and manners were considered effeminate and unmanly, making him seem like a woman; he contravened expectations of how a man should appear. Yet paradoxically, in one instance during his tour, Wilde was mistaken for an actual cowboy, when, in Los Angeles, an article appeared with Wildean overtones entitled “Too Tenderly, Utterly Too. How He Made a Mistake — It Wasn’t the Sunflower Apostle,” in which a reporter took note of a recent local incident:

Last Saturday a gentleman well known in commercial circles rushed madly home — about lunch time — and calling excitedly to the partner of his terrestrial joy, said:

“Wife, I’ve seen him.”

“Seen who?” said his unsyntactical superior fraction.

“Why, Oscar Wilde, of course. Met him on Spring Street, all dressed up in long hair, knee-breeches, yellow cravat and everything. Gimme clean collar, quick!”

And straightway arraying himself in a white vest and his best sunflower, he meandered his way toward Baker block, unconscious that the party he mistook for Oscar, the aesthete, was none other than Buffalo Bill, the Comanche scout, who was laying over in Los Angeles a day or two to have a jamboree all to himself. [18]
Postcard of Buffalo Bill in Paris in 1889 during the centennial celebration of the French
 Revolution. Because Buffalo Bill dressed in flamboyant clothing, he was often compared to Wilde.

Napoleon Sarony. “Portrait of Oscar Wilde.” Cabinet card photograph, 1882. Wilde’s dashing capes, velvet coats, cravats and hats added to his notoriety.

Buffalo Bill, whose flamboyant garb was easily accepted by the public, was never caricatured as anything but a white he-man. Wilde, equally florid, was understood to be the opposite and was always portrayed as a limp-wristed sissy or a grotesque black man. The cultural norms of the time allowed only for the approval of traditional masculine attributes, which fit Buffalo Bill, but not Wilde. Wilde’s homosexuality was perceived, but any mention of it was prohibited — the English language itself had very few words then to refer to a homosexual — and visual imagery was the most effective way to convey and ridicule it. [19]

Easier to target than homosexuals were African Americans. Derisive images of black people, often used to sell products, were thought of as humorous, embodying the culturally accepted stereotypes used to normalize racism.
“A Colored Bawl.” Lithograph, c. 1880, for Minard’s Liniment, a camphor-based ointment used to treat aches and pains. Minard’s issued numerous trade cards showing children, including this racist image. The brand still exists today.
“The Aesthetic Darkey.” Color wood engraved trade card, c. 1882. Wilde, again portrayed as an African American, advertises Ashley Phosphate, a fertilizer made in South Carolina.

After being on tour for a few months, both in the South and the North, Wilde was invariably portrayed as an absurd black man, the ultimate insult. The fact that he was Irish compounded the tendency since Irish immigrants were often vilified by being called “Black Irish.” The anti-Irish bigotry that was so prevalent in 19th-century America became an element in the transmogrification of Oscar Wilde into a black person.

One image stands alone in the visual record of Wilde’s American tour — the one that portrays him not as a black man, but as a black woman. It is not a cheap chromolithograph advertising card, but instead, a cabinet card photograph by James A. Palmer, a professional photographer in Aiken, South Carolina, who specialized in stereograph “views of Negro Groups, Cabins, Teams, Cotton Fields and Plants.” [20] Aiken was a very small town with a population of about 2,000 in 1882, and because of its mild winter climate, it had become a popular winter resort for well-heeled Northerners after the Civil War. Palmer’s many images of rural black folk supplied such visitors with what would have been to them, “exotic” souvenirs, akin to buying photos of “native” people in foreign lands. The “Wilde Woman of Aiken” was something else. Created as a scathingly insulting portrait, the image shows a seated young black woman dressed in an Aesthetic Movement–style patterned dress in much the same pose as the Beard cover of Harper’s Weekly. Palmer merely substituted the monkey for a black woman, while keeping the sunflower, horseshoe, desk, and chair. [21] However, he added an element that was meant to further demean both the sitter and Wilde — a face jug. This object would have been familiar to Aiken inhabitants as an example of local pottery made by slaves in Edgefield County. [22] The exact origins of these unusual water jugs is unknown, but they are thought to have first been created by slaves from the Congo who arrived in the region in 1858 and who had transposed some of their cultural iconography from African wood to South Carolina clay.
J[ames]. A. Palmer. “The Wilde Woman of Aiken.” Cabinet card photograph, 1882. Wilde is transformed into a black woman wearing an Aesthetic Movement–style dress seated next to a sunflower, his most recognizable emblem. The face-jug is a distinctly local reference; such vessels were made by slaves (and later, freed men) in the area around Aiken, South Carolina, where the photographer had his studio.



The photograph, which appears to modern viewers as beautiful, was not intended as such, and appears to have been meant for a select audience: the cabinet card format, larger than Palmer’s typical “tourist” stereographs, was much less common in his output, and its seemingly strange, single subject based on Oscar Wilde would have appealed to only a limited number of buyers — he must have published only a few. [23] A copy that appeared in a recent auction bears the photographer’s label on the verso and is titled in ink in a contemporary hand “Wilde Woman of Aiken” and “The Aesthete of Aiken SC 1882.” [24] A viewer in 1882, especially one in Aiken, most likely would have laughed at it, understanding the vicious iconography that portrayed someone as lowly as a black woman as being a part of the Aesthetic Movement. The face jug added a further insult by implying that the young woman could only appreciate something as “ugly” as a distorted face, perhaps recalling (and misunderstanding) some of Wilde’s lecture that had appeared in the extensive newspaper coverage he received. He had stated:

In your [American] art schools I found no attempt to decorate such things as the vessels for water. I know of nothing uglier than the ordinary jug or pitcher. A museum could be filled with the different kinds of water vessels which are used in hot countries. Yet we continue to submit to the depressing jug with the handle all on one side. [25]

Did Palmer read Wilde’s criticism of American water jugs in the press? Perhaps, but more likely is that he actually heard Wilde’s lecture on the decorative arts. On July 6, 1882, Wilde gave one of his five Georgia presentations at the Opera House in Augusta, just across the Savannah River from Aiken. [26] Hearing the lecture may have inspired Palmer to include the face jug as a way to satirize Wilde, an extra insult heaped onto the one portraying him as a black woman. In any case, his inclusion of the face jug, unique in anti-Wilde imagery, tends to bolster this view. [27] Since James L. Gow, Palmer’s label printer, was in Augusta (then a city with a population of around 25,000, 10 times larger than Aiken), he must have gone there often on various business matters. Because Gow was also a stationer, he most likely kept a stock of photos for sale, as did many such businesses at the time, which would have made Palmer’s photos available to a much wider audience than would have been possible in Aiken alone. An object of curiosity and unlike the majority of images in Palmers output, “The Wilde Woman of Aiken” was undoubtedly printed at the time of Wilde’s appearance in Augusta, a snide souvenir of his lecture, and one with a regional reference. Given Wilde’s unfavorable press coverage that aligned with Palmer’s negative iconography, the image would have appealed to at least a few locals, an inside joke to those who understood its references. The day after Wilde’s talk, the Augusta Chronicle and Constitutionalist reported:

At nine o’clock Mr. Wilde came on to the stage, in a peculiar, gliding walk. […] He was clad in black velvet — full dress coat, waistcoat and knee breeches[.] […] He at once struck an attitude[.] […] This attitudinizing was never relaxed for a moment, and it struck the audience as both uncomfortable and ungraceful[.] […] The subject of the lecture was “Decorative Art,” and the matter was both instructive and interesting, but much of its interest was destroyed by the mannerism of the lecturer. [28]

Wilde was aware of the negative press he was receiving, and early in the tour complained about it, to no avail, to his tour manager, Colonel Morse. Unfortunately for Wilde, Morse was interested in publicity, both good and bad, and he generated a lot of each. (The early caricature of Wilde as “Mr. Wild of Borneo” may have come directly, and secretly, from Morse.) [29] After Wilde left Augusta, the criticism continued in the usual vein. In Charleston, his next stop, a reporter described Wilde as “two hundred pounds of avoirdupois of aesthetic human flesh and bones done up in a mouse-colored velveteen shooting jacket and salt and pepper small clothes […] something out of the style of Buffalo Bill or Texas Jack.” [30] A month earlier, in Memphis, he was described as a “long-haired, round-bodied, slimly-underpinned apostle of the BEAUTIFUL […] He is not a thing of Beauty[.] […] Their [the audience’s] curiosity satisfied, they care no more for the Wilde man of England than for his prototype, the wild baboon of the Amazon.” [31] The Goldsboro (North Carolina) Messenger reported: “Oscar Wilde, in an abridged form, appeared upon our streets yesterday. He wore a low collar and long hair, and sighed heavily. A luminous vest surmounted a pair of eccentric breeches, and an aesthetic langour roosted all over him. The general sentiment was — ‘take him out and kill him.’” [32]

It was one thing to portray Wilde as a monkey, but to suggest that he be murdered is stupefying. Goldsboro was then a whistle-stop town between Wilmington, North Carolina, and Richmond, Virginia, but Wilde was not in either place in early June (he was in Ohio and Tennessee), so the press report seems to be both vicious and spurious. There were, however, numerous Wilde imitators traveling around the country during Wilde’s tour, and the reporter hints that it was one of these faux Wildes who so enraged the town by stating that it was Wilde “in an abridged form.” Whoever he was, the Wilde-like character managed to provoke an animosity that still shocks and disturbs — such malice explains a great deal about the anti-Wilde imagery that dogged the poet on his tour.

Not only were there Wilde imitators, there were several minstrel show satires of him, among them, “The Utterly Too Too’s, or Parodies on Oscar Wilde,” and “Patience Wilde or Ten Sisters of Oscar.” Not surprisingly, both were performed in blackface, and the latter featured “The Only Leon,” a cross-dressing, white mega-star of the time. [33] The popularity of minstrelsy cannot be overstated: it was the dominant form of popular entertainment in 19th-century America. Such troupes as Haverly’s Mastodon Minstrels and the Christy Minstrels toured the country for decades. Some troupes did away with blackface and featured African-American performers, including Callender’s Georgia Minstrels, but Haverly’s show remained the largest and most spectacular of the genre. In New York in March 1882, Haverly featured “a burlesque on Patience,” entitled “Patience Wilde; or, Ten Sisters of Oscar,” with Leon as Patience. [34] A cross-dressing man in the title role of the opera associated with Wilde and with all 70 of the performers in blackface clearly demonstrates the emerging link between Wilde, transvestitism, and racism in the popular imagination.

Racist images of black men dressed up as dandies had a long history, appearing soon after the emergence of the word “dandy,” circa 1816. The term was used to describe a man unduly devoted to style and fashion “wearing immense plaited pantaloons, coat cut away, small waistcoat, cravat and chitterlings immense, hat small, hair frizzled and protruding.” [35] One such image appeared on the cover of the popular minstrel song “Zip Coon,” introduced in about 1829 and made famous by the blackface performer George Washington Dixon in 1834; it demeaned free blacks by satirizing their speech and clothing. Such images were copied, reinterpreted, and reimagined throughout all manner of printed media, and for decades they would have been familiar to most Americans. It wasn’t a stretch to incorporate Oscar Wilde, with his dandified dress, unfamiliar mannerisms, and Irish “blackness” into that visual vocabulary.


“Zip Coon.” Lithograph sheet music cover, c. 1834. New York: J. L. Hewitt. Lithography by [George] Endicott. Satirizing African American men as dandies was a common practice in 19th-century America. Such images paved the way for those depicting Wilde as a black dandy.
“Ceticism, My Beloved, Bredren…” Chromolithograph, 1882. New York: Donaldson Brothers [printer]. Wilde, as a black dandy, lectures to a crowd of African Americans; his speech is transcribed in dialect. Clarence Brooks & Co was a manufacturer of varnish for coaches and although the company issued numerous trade cards caricaturing black people, this is the only one that satirizes Wilde. 



A trade card for Clarence Brooks & Co., a New York manufacturer of coach varnishes, features one such image. Here, Wilde has been transformed into an exaggerated black dandy lecturing to a black audience, a satire of his lecture on aestheticism, which is rendered in black dialect.

Although the Wilde craze would subside, the mania to depict blacks as grotesque creatures did not. African Americans would have to wait a century before the overt, vicious racism of the printed image would begin to subside. Wilde had merely to leave America, where he had become a household name, and where, with his earnings of $5,600, he had made a great deal of money. [36]

Had Wilde sensed that America would be the ideal place to launch his career as a public figure? Somehow, he understood that to succeed in America he would have to play a role, that of an aesthetic dandy, a character out of Patience. Had he appeared in the attire of an American businessman or professor, or even that of an English gentleman, he would have been largely overlooked. His hundreds of lectures and interviews, given in character, were full of sensational and witty observations that made him a darling of the press. “Interviewers are a product of American civilization, whose acquaintance I am making with tolerable speed.” [37] Interviews were then a new phenomenon, unknown in Europe. “We have no interviewing in England,” he went on to say. [38] Wilde, who instantly recognized their usefulness, was among the first to capitalize on them. He is said to have received more press coverage than Queen Victoria. He had become famous in America for playing a character, not for any substantial achievement. That was yet to come. He reversed the typical course of fame by winning a fortune first, and whether he was portrayed as a monkey, a black person, an effeminate dandy, or a limp aesthete, he triumphed in the end. As he famously wrote: “There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about.” But it may have been his experience in America that caused him to remark: “In old days men had the rack; now they have the Press.”

Wilde returned to Europe in January 1883, and by the spring, he was living in Paris. He threw aside his mask and wig as an apostle of aesthetics, had his hair cut, and donned ordinary garments. Of his connection with the Aesthetic Movement, he said: “That was the Oscar Wilde of the second period. I am now in my third period.” [39]

¤

This article appeared in the Winter 2019 issue of The Book Collector.

¤


¤

[1] Wilde returned to New York for his second (and last) American trip during August of 1883 to supervise a production of his play Vera, or The Nihilists; it closed after a week.

[2] The sunflower and the lily were flowers associated with the Aesthetic Movement. Wilde had championed their use in the garden and in decoration, and they became visual metaphors for him.

[3] William Holbrook Beard (1824–1900). The painting (current whereabouts unknown), had an interesting provenance in the 1880s: it belonged to Hugh D. Auchincloss, the prominent merchant and financier whose son Hugh D. Auchincloss Jr. married the mother of Gore Vidal; after that, he married Janet Lee Bouvier, mother of Jacqueline Kennedy.

[4] A few small caricatures had appeared in the press the week before Harper’s cover, including “The British Fungus and the Wild American Sunflowers,” by Thomas Nast that depicted Wilde as a mushroom-like creature (January 21, 1882. Nast satirized Wilde at least two more times in 1882). An unsigned caricature appeared in the Washington Post (January 22, 1882) comparing Wilde to “Mr. Wild of Borneo,” an ape-like creature, but the cover of Harper’s Weekly was the most significant and influential of these early negative portrayals.

[5] Wilde’s first book, Poems, was published in October 1881. He brought copies with him to America. One such is a signed copy, now at Magdalen College Library; it bears Wilde’s inscription “Jany. ’82, Philadelphia” and is also inscribed and dated “1882” by philanthropist and publisher George William Childs, who gave it to his wife Emily. The Childs had entertained Wilde at their Philadelphia home the evening of January 18, 1882. Earlier that day, Wilde had called upon Walt Whitman in Camden, New Jersey, where they famously drank elderberry wine and, according to Whitman, “had a jolly good time” and as Wilde suggestively reported: “I have the kiss of Walt Whitman still on my lips.”

[6] Extremely popular in London, Patience ran for 578 performances, second only to The Mikado’s 672. Wilde had yet to publish any poetry when the opera was written, but over time, the lead character of “Bunthorne” has come to be associated with him.

[7] Patience closed on March 23, 1882; Wilde departed America on December 27, 1882, nearly a year after he arrived.

[8] Patience had been performed in various American cities in 1881, before Wilde’s arrival (including St. Louis and San Francisco), and afterward, was staged in various North American cities from coast to coast. In the smaller cities, the productions were one-night-only events, but most performances occurred in conjunction with Wilde’s lecture tour. Wilde also went to several Canadian cities including Ottawa, Montreal, Toronto, Halifax, and Charlottetown.

[9] Wilde lectured approximately 150 times in the United States and Canada, ultimately delivering four different talks: “The English Renaissance,” “The Decorative Arts,” “The House Beautiful,” and “Irish Poets and Poetry of the Nineteenth Century.”

[10] W. F. Morse in The Writings of Oscar Wilde, London, 1907, p.84. Morse (1841–1922), an imposing Civil War veteran and Indian fighter, had become a business manager for D’Oyly Carte in New York and as such, arranged for all of Wilde’s North American appearances.

[11] One dollar in 1882 would equal $25 today.

[12] “Oscar Wilde’s Lecture,” The New York Times, January 10, 1882, p. 5. That he “blushed like a school-girl” hinted at his perceived effeminacy, which would provide much fodder for the press and disapproval from certain journalists and public figures.

[13] Ibid. A claw-hammer coat is a formal tailcoat.

[14] New York Times, October 24, 1883, p. 8

[15] Sarony made 28 portraits of Wilde in 1882 and three in 1883.

[16] New York Tribune, June 11, 1882, p. 9

[17] Los Angeles Times, July 23, 1882, p. 1.

[18] Los Angeles Times, April 11, 1882, p. 3. The aesthete and the scout had more in common than just their dashing clothing. A rumor circulating in 1888 had it that Gilbert & Sullivan, whose Patience Wilde was promoting, were composing an opera on the “Buffalo Bill Craze” (Los Angeles Herald, 4 March 1888, p. 6). Regrettably, the opera never appeared.

[19] The few 19th-century English slang words synonymous with homosexual include poof, bugger, bardash, and invert, but many of the terms we know today did not enter the language until after 1900.

[20] James A. Palmer (1825–1896), born in Ireland, had emigrated with his family to the United States when he was a boy. He had lived in Rochester, New York; Illinois; and Georgia before settling in Aiken, where he set up his successful studio.

[21] The horseshoe, a common Victorian symbol, meant not only luck but also alluded to superstition, especially protection from evil spirits; black people were thought to be especially superstitious.

[22] The Edgefield area of South Carolina became the center of a thriving stoneware industry based on the local red clay and deposits of kaolin known especially for the distinctive face jugs made by enslaved African-American potters. These Edgefield face jugs are characterized by their exaggerated facial features and technical achievement although their meaning and function are still unknown. The Edgefield District, created in 1785, contained the town of Aiken until 1871, when the region was divided into smaller divisions and Aiken became part of Aiken County. The region had a reputation as a center of racial violence and was home to the Red Shirts, a late 19th-century Ku Klux Klan–like faction; it was also the birthplace of Strom Thurmond, the controversial United States senator who opposed civil rights and supported segregation.

[23] Currently, there are two known examples of the image, an indication of its rarity; one is at the Metropolitan Museum of Art and the other is in a private collection. Both examples bear Palmer’s printed label on the verso identifying the images as being from his “Aiken and Vicinity” series, but because the series was made up of stereographs, rather than print a new label for the cabinet card, Palmer must have used one that was readily at hand.

[24] Sold at auction in 2018 for $12,000 plus $2,400 premium, it is the one in the collection of the Metropolitan Museum of Art.

[25] Oscar Wilde, “House Decoration,” in Art and Decoration by Oscar Wilde. London: Methuen, 1920, p. 12. Although the title of the lecture changed during the tour (‘The House Beautiful,” “Art Decoration,” “The Decorative Arts’), the substance remained the same and was the lecture he gave most frequently, including at all six stops he made in Georgia and South Carolina between June 30 and July 7, 1882.

[26] He also spoke in Columbus, Macon, Atlanta, and Savannah, and from Georgia, went to Charleston, South Carolina; Wilmington, North Carolina; and Norfolk and Richmond, Virginia, where his Southern tour ended.

[27] Palmer created one other anti-Wilde image, a stereograph entitled “The Aesthetic Darkey,” an image of a young black boy seated in much the same pose as “The Wilde Woman” and with the same props. Also from his “Aiken and Vicinity” series, this image was more in keeping with Palmer’s other stereographs, especially his images of black children and black families. After Wilde’s departure, it would have appeared to viewers as just another regional picture of a poor black child rather than as a Wilde satire, similar to Palmer’s images of black children eating watermelon. Teal, Harvey S. Partners with the Sun: South Carolina Photographers, 1840–1940, 2001, p. 273. Teal himself was unaware of the Wilde connection, writing that the “Aesthetic Darkey” was a picture of an “African American boy […] looking at a ‘voo doo’ or face jug.”

[28] Chronicle and Constitutionalist, [Augusta, Georgia], July 7, 1882.

[29] See Mendelssohn, Michèle. Making Oscar Wilde, 2018, p. 100.

[30] Charleston News and Courier, July 8, 1882, p. 4. “Texas Jack” Omohundro was a cowboy who, as a performer in Buffalo Bill’s Wild West shows, dressed in a flashy style similar to Buffalo Bill. At the time, these showmen, because they wore elaborate embroidered and fringed buckskin jackets and shirts, were the only men with whom Wilde was compared in terms of looks despite their differences in attitude and temperament.

[31] Public Ledger, [Memphis Tenn.] March 2, 1882.

[32] The Goldsboro Messenger, June 8, 1882, p. 3.

[33] Francis Patrick Glassey (1844–c.1903), who performed in drag as “The Only Leon,” was the highest-paid minstrel performer of his day, earning $100 a week (equivalent to $2,500 in 2020 dollars).

[34] New York Times, March 21, 1882, p. 5.

[35] Jon Bee and John Badcock. Sportsman’s Slang: A New Dictionary of Terms Used in the Affairs of the Turf, The Ring, The Chase… London: For the Author, 1825, p. 63. This work cites the term “dandy” as being “an invention of 1816.” In the 18th and early 19th centuries, jabots, or ruffled neckbands, were also called “chitterlings.”

[36] $5,600 is approximately $141,000 in 2020 dollars.

[37] Boston Globe, January 29, 1882, p. 4.

[38] St. Louis Republican, February 26, 1882, p. 13.

[39] Morse, op. cit., p. 138