I just finished reading "Uncle Tom's Cabin."

[Carol in Cal.]

I had never read it before. I had actually read an essay quite a few years back that called this the greatest definitively American novel, arguing against the often named "Huckleberry Finn" for that designation.

 

Finally I understand why.

 

Certainly it has elements of melodrama, and certainly many of the virtues that it embraces are not honored anymore. Certainly being an Uncle Tom has become an epithet, as have several other images from the story. But as a Christian, I was struck by the obvious type of Christ that Uncle Tom is in the book, and by the perfection of ideals that he embodies all the way through. It is a shame that such a character is maligned. It is also a shame that such a character was ever misused enough to stand in for a whole race as an example of such self-sacrifice that it is unreasonable to expect of anyone, which is, I think, why the character is maligned popularly now.

 

Anyway, the book is much more complex and multilayered that I would have expected and it is a great read. I recommend it to you all.

 

But, I'm not going to be reading it with my 11 year old to go with our ante-bellum studies this year. It is just too harrowing for that.

[cajun.classical]

I had never read it before. I had actually read an essay quite a few years back that called this the greatest definitively American novel, arguing against the often named "Huckleberry Finn" for that designation

 

Wow. I hate to be the voice of dissent here. But I find it shocking that anyone would argue that Uncle Tom's Cabin is the great American novel. In the academic circles I've traveled (taught literature in a university), it was always understood and outrightly spoken, that the book is not very good, and that it is generally only read/studied for it's social/political influence. Hmm.

 

Here's a quote to show you what I'm talking about:

 

Despite this positive reaction from readers, for decades literary critics dismissed the style found in Uncle Tom's Cabin and other sentimental novels because these books were written by women and so prominently featured "women's sloppy emotions."[40] One literary critic said that had the novel not been about slavery, "it would be just another sentimental novel,"[41] while another described the book as "primarily a derivative piece of hack work."[42] George Whicher turned his nose up at the book in his Literary History of the United States by saying it was "Sunday-school fiction" and full of "broadly conceived melodrama, humor, and pathos."[43]

 

[elegantlion]

I just finished "Huckleberry Finn" a few days ago. I had never read it either. I'm still gnawing on it, as Huck would say.

 

Thanks for the rec on "Uncle Tom's Cabin", I'll add it to my list.

[WTMCassandra]

Yes, I read it for the first time when I was about 35 or so, and I was sorry I waited that long. But I do think it is best to be in the 18-21 range before one reads it. I would agree that 11 is too young.

 

Yes, I had much the same reaction to Uncle Tom as you did. He is a wonderful type of Christ, and I too am very sorry that he is maligned now in the culture.

 

I was also pleasantly surprised to see a variety of slaveowners in the book (nice, mediocre, and evil) and see the questions the "nice" ones had to face. They didn't know how to free the slaves in such a way that it would work because the whole culture was so mired in the practice. There wasn't a "demonizing" of all slave owners, yet there was a recognition that slavery didn't "work" as a culture even if the masters were "nice."

 

I wholeheartedly second your recommendation.

[TracyR]

Yes. This is a very good book. I read this in my Senior year of high school . There was a movie made from the novel as well . I do agree it is a very good book . I also enjoyed " A Brave New World " as well . This story is for the 18 to adult range as well . Its been said any well educated person will have read " A Brave New World " by Aldous Huxley.

 

I do agree though that "Uncle Tom's Cabin " is a story that I wouldn't introduce until at least 17 years of age the book is just too mature for an 11 year old .

[paula j]

I read this a few months back while ds was studying the Civil War. I agree, it's a great read. I didn't have ds read it but there is a Young persons version available.

[WTMindy]

Wow. I hate to be the voice of dissent here. But I find it shocking that anyone would argue that Uncle Tom's Cabin is the great American novel. In the academic circles I've traveled (taught literature in a university), it was always understood and outrightly spoken, that the book is not very good, and that it is generally only read/studied for it's social/political influence. Hmm.

 

Here's a quote to show you what I'm talking about:

 

Despite this positive reaction from readers, for decades literary critics dismissed the style found in Uncle Tom's Cabin and other sentimental novels because these books were written by women and so prominently featured "women's sloppy emotions."[40] One literary critic said that had the novel not been about slavery, "it would be just another sentimental novel,"[41] while another described the book as "primarily a derivative piece of hack work."[42] George Whicher turned his nose up at the book in his Literary History of the United States by saying it was "Sunday-school fiction" and full of "broadly conceived melodrama, humor, and pathos."[43]

 

I would say that the book is a sentimental novel, which is exactly why it had the effect it had. It was accessible to readers on every level and not just the intelectuals of the time. It made the problems of slavery very real and tangible to the common person. It is not particularly well written, but it is impressive considering the time and place that it was written.

 

I agree that I couldn't bring myself to calling it the Great American novel, but it certainly moved me deeply.

[Jenny in Atl]

Wow. I hate to be the voice of dissent here. But I find it shocking that anyone would argue that Uncle Tom's Cabin is the great American novel. In the academic circles I've traveled (taught literature in a university), it was always understood and outrightly spoken, that the book is not very good, and that it is generally only read/studied for it's social/political influence. Hmm.

 

Here's a quote to show you what I'm talking about:

 

Despite this positive reaction from readers, for decades literary critics dismissed the style found in Uncle Tom's Cabin and other sentimental novels because these books were written by women and so prominently featured "women's sloppy emotions."[40] One literary critic said that had the novel not been about slavery, "it would be just another sentimental novel,"[41] while another described the book as "primarily a derivative piece of hack work."[42] George Whicher turned his nose up at the book in his Literary History of the United States by saying it was "Sunday-school fiction" and full of "broadly conceived melodrama, humor, and pathos."[43]

 

Kinda like Gone With the Wind. You always see that one on the great American novel must reads... :001_huh:

[Kristen in NC]

I read it earlier this year and also thoroughly enjoyed it. I agree it was sentimental but I like sentimental books. It did make me think more deeply about the horrors of slavery. I didn't really think of Uncle Tom as a type of Christ though. I was moved by his ability to "do all things through Christ who strengthens", his contentment even in horrible circumstances, how he did his work for the Lord, and how he shared his faith. Obviously no real person could always be so faithful, but he was inspiring nonetheless.

[Carol in Cal.]

Wow. I hate to be the voice of dissent here. But I find it shocking that anyone would argue that Uncle Tom's Cabin is the great American novel. In the academic circles I've traveled (taught literature in a university), it was always understood and outrightly spoken, that the book is not very good, and that it is generally only read/studied for it's social/political influence. Hmm.

 

Here's a quote to show you what I'm talking about:

 

Despite this positive reaction from readers, for decades literary critics dismissed the style found in Uncle Tom's Cabin and other sentimental novels because these books were written by women and so prominently featured "women's sloppy emotions."[40] One literary critic said that had the novel not been about slavery, "it would be just another sentimental novel,"[41] while another described the book as "primarily a derivative piece of hack work."[42] George Whicher turned his nose up at the book in his Literary History of the United States by saying it was "Sunday-school fiction" and full of "broadly conceived melodrama, humor, and pathos."[43]

 

 

That line of argument is precisely what had always deterred me from reading this book before--that and the maligning of many of the characters subsequently. The essay I read was clearly bucking a long, significant trend in criticism.

 

However, the specific example you give here is one that I find quite sexist. (Note that I'm not saying that YOU are sexist, rather that the essayist is making a sexist argument.) Frankly, the argument that 'women's sloppy emotions' are a counter to good writing is one that I find insulting to women.

 

In addition, the original contrast was to "Huckleberry Finn." A good book, for sure, but really, is it worth the level of accolades that it receives? I really don't think so. I studied this in quite a lot of depth in 10th grade, and even our literature teacher said that the main bulk of the book did not move the book forward at all in a literary sense. The key in HF that supposedly makes it the quintessentially American great novel is Huck's decision to go to hell instead of turning in the runaway slave who has become his friend. That's a sentimental decision in and of itself. However, it is presented in non-evocative terms and poses a choice that most of us today would not agree with--the choice that marries Christianity to following the law, and pits all compassion against both of them. Just because it presents that emotional decision in a masculine way does not mean that it is an outstanding book.

 

I should have read UTC years ago, drat it.

[kokotg]

Yeah, most of the efforts to "reclaim" Uncle Tom's Cabin that I've encountered are from feminist critics who argue that the sentimental novel is disparaged because it's a style of writing associated with women. Personally, I don't buy it.

 

I wrote a paper in grad school on UTC...I argued that the chapter where Eliza hangs out in the Quaker community is a very deliberate move on Stowe's part--that she presents this vision of a Quaker utopia as an alternative to Uncle Tom's brand of Christianity (with focus on the afterlife to the exclusion of any attempt at earthly solutions to suffering). Uncle Tom's religion (and little Eva's,et. al.) always seems to running up against insurmountable limitations that Quakerism and the Quaker community offer a way past.

[cajun.classical]

Yeah, most of the efforts to "reclaim" Uncle Tom's Cabin that I've encountered are from feminist critics who argue that the sentimental novel is disparaged because it's a style of writing associated with women. Personally, I don't buy it.

 

I wrote a paper in grad school on UTC...I argued that the chapter where Eliza hangs out in the Quaker community is a very deliberate move on Stowe's part--that she presents this vision of a Quaker utopia as an alternative to Uncle Tom's brand of Christianity (with focus on the afterlife to the exclusion of any attempt at earthly solutions to suffering). Uncle Tom's religion (and little Eva's,et. al.) always seems to running up against insurmountable limitations that Quakerism and the Quaker community offer a way past.

 

Yes, precisely.

[cajun.classical]

In addition, the original contrast was to "Huckleberry Finn." A good book, for sure, but really, is it worth the level of accolades that it receives? I really don't think so. I studied this in quite a lot of depth in 10th grade, and even our literature teacher said that the main bulk of the book did not move the book forward at all in a literary sense.

 

Well, with all due respect to your 10th grade literature teacher, I studied Huck Finn in Grad School under one of the world's foremost Twain scholars. He--and I--would have to disagree.

[elbac]

I'm going to have to put it on my list to read again. I actually read it for the first time when I was about 12 (by my own choice). I'm sure I would get much more from it now than I was probably able to grasp at 12 though!

[cajun.classical]

Yeah, I read Huck Finn in high school and then again in grad school. I couldn't believe it was the same book! I got much more out of it the second time, and with the able guidance of my professor.

[Guest Shanna]

Never read it but just ordered it from the library. Looking forward to it.

[Carol in Cal.]

Yeah, most of the efforts to "reclaim" Uncle Tom's Cabin that I've encountered are from feminist critics who argue that the sentimental novel is disparaged because it's a style of writing associated with women. Personally, I don't buy it.

 

I wrote a paper in grad school on UTC...I argued that the chapter where Eliza hangs out in the Quaker community is a very deliberate move on Stowe's part--that she presents this vision of a Quaker utopia as an alternative to Uncle Tom's brand of Christianity (with focus on the afterlife to the exclusion of any attempt at earthly solutions to suffering). Uncle Tom's religion (and little Eva's,et. al.) always seems to running up against insurmountable limitations that Quakerism and the Quaker community offer a way past.

 

Personally I don't consider feminist to be an epithet. And, although I think that you can argue quite a bit about whether or not a particular novel is the quintessential American novel, it is certainly insulting to both women and men to reject a style specifically because it is associated with women; just as it is insulting to both women and men to reject a style specifically because it is associated with men.

[kokotg]

I don't consider feminist to be an epithet, either. Not at all. I am one. I just disagree that the patriarchy is responsible for Uncle Tom's Cabin's literary reputation. My personal opinion is that it's poorly written (though certainly an interesting book to read and an important one, from a historical perspective). I realized after I wrote that that it could come across as dismissive of feminism or feminist criticism. I didn't mean it that way at all...I think that particular feminist critique is off base, though.

[Friederike in Persia]

since it's many years that I read it, but why wouldn't you read it with a child of about 10 or slightly older?:confused:

[Carol in Cal.]

since it's many years that I read it, but why wouldn't you read it with a child of about 10 or slightly older?:confused:

 

My daughter is too tenderhearted. This book is really, really harrowing, and has an ending is less than uplifting. I read her "Amos Fortune, Free Man" and "Amistad" and some books about the Holocaust, and they were all horrifying in some ways, but none of them were as completely evocative as this one was.

 

I do want her to read it sometime, but this is not really the year.

 

This is a kid in the throes of pre-puberty, who has reconnected with all of her stuffed toys (because of her burgeoning maternal instincts) and who has a hard time giving a stuffed toy as a present because she bonds with them. It has been really interesting to watch her develop these feelings. I don't remember having them, personally, but maybe I did. Anyway, this is SO not the year to get her more riled up. Facts are fine. Harrowing is not.

[LadyAberlin]

I haven't read it so correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that my college History prof told me that Stowe had never even been to the South and the book is nothing more than her imaginations of what slavery was like.

[cajun.classical]

I haven't read it so correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that my college History prof told me that Stowe had never even been to the South and the book is nothing more than her imaginations of what slavery was like.

Yes, that's correct.

[LilyK]

I think UTC has tremendous historical importance, but I don't think that it is considered to have much literary importance. It is easy to see why. IMO, the writing is quite sloppy, especially toward the end.

 

I think someone earlier, compared it to Gone with the Wind. But there you have a brilliantly constructed novel with living, pulsating characters, something which UTC lacks.

 

That said, I think all students (high school) should read it. It's role in American history is undeniable. Stowe's intention was to stir people toward abolition, and in this, she was hugely successful, and God bless her for it.

[Reya]

Wow. I hate to be the voice of dissent here. But I find it shocking that anyone would argue that Uncle Tom's Cabin is the great American novel. In the academic circles I've traveled (taught literature in a university), it was always understood and outrightly spoken, that the book is not very good, and that it is generally only read/studied for it's social/political influence. Hmm.

 

Here's a quote to show you what I'm talking about:

 

Despite this positive reaction from readers, for decades literary critics dismissed the style found in Uncle Tom's Cabin and other sentimental novels because these books were written by women and so prominently featured "women's sloppy emotions."[40] One literary critic said that had the novel not been about slavery, "it would be just another sentimental novel,"[41] while another described the book as "primarily a derivative piece of hack work."[42] George Whicher turned his nose up at the book in his Literary History of the United States by saying it was "Sunday-school fiction" and full of "broadly conceived melodrama, humor, and pathos."[43]

 

I have to agree. Like The Jungle, it is heavy-handed and abominably written, but it's significant for its influence rather than its quality. It's horrible as literature, and it's worse as a representation of slavery. But it's important in the context of mythologizing the North's moral stance to justify their participation in the war. It, more than anything else, made the war "about slavery" when it was really about states' rights to regulate things *like* slavery--including the right to secede! Really, though, books like Uncle Tom's Cabin are what gave women novelists bad names.

[Carol in Cal.]

I think it is a very effective work of propaganda (and I have a deep fondness for it), but, imho, it is not "great" literature, or even "good" writing. Why?

 

Because there are no real depths to it. Once it has been read, there really isn't more to get out of it. ...and that is okay! Not every book has to be "Great" to be worth reading.

 

UTC certainly has a significant place in American literature, but it doesn't offer any new insights into what it is to be human, it doesn't stretch our mind or our understanding, it isn't the sort of book which seems to have grown every time we come back to it - for me at least, each time I reread it, it seems to have shrunk.

 

Perhaps, for you, it will be different - perhaps, for you, this will be a great book, one to which you will return again and again each time gaining more understanding, and deeper insights - and your experience is completely valid. But that has not been the case for most readers of UTC and that, more than any scholarly rigmarole, is why it isn't in any Great Books canon I have seen. Again, these lists are generalized, but each of us has our own reactions to each work, and what might be a great book for me might be a merely good one for you... or not even worth reading once, in your opinion.

 

I think it deserves to be read, but, like you, I have not given it to my older girls yet - they are not ready to encounter the ugliness Tom endures, and the Xtianity in it wouldn't be the comfort to them that it might be to children with a different background...

 

Carol, I don't want to belittle your taste or your judgment... I'm responding because the discussion expanded to great vs good literature, and I have some strong, personal opinions on that subject... as on so many others! :)

You have responded with such grace and kindness to having a book you loved jumped on - and I do remember the vivid emotional impact UTC had on me when I first read it... I was so young (10-11), that it made a very deep impact. I can understand your reaction to it very well, and I know I wouldn't have been as nice if anyone had criticized it shortly after I first read it! My critical viewpoint came after rereading it, and grew with my second reread (done to see if my kids could read it yet).

 

:grouphug:

 

I don't have an opinion that UTC is the definitive book of American literature, but I don't have that opinion of any other book either. I don't feel that I have the basis to make such a pronouncement.

 

But I was struck, finally reading this book at my age, by how much I have heard it criticized. Everything I have ever read about this book is bad, often almost to the point of being polemical at times. The only good thing I have ever read about this book is that feminist essay claiming that it is superior in many ways to Huckleberry Finn, and by implication, that it is therefore the quintessential American novel. That it is superior to HF I would agree with, but for me, frankly, that is ****ing the book with faint praise; as I have never felt that HF was really all that great.

 

Much of the criticism of UTC is unjust or over the top; that is my opinion after finally having read it. And I am not sure but that some of my enjoyment of it is due to my surprise at finding it so far superior to critical views of it. That does not necessarily mean that it is excellent, though--another example of ****ing with faint praise, I suppose.

 

It is a much more complex book than I would have believed, and treats its subject from many sides. It creates much more complex and varied characters than I would have expected. It is a profoundly Christian book, which resonated with me but certainly would not with everyone. I understand the argument that it is a Quaker one, and that has some merit, but it is not as clearcut as all that. Other Christian beliefs and teachings permeate it, and it is more non-denominational than anything. But, of course, at the time the Quakers were heavily involved in the underground railroad, and their pacifist views are well known, so it makes sense that these would figure prominantly in this novel.

 

I am intrigued by your defination of a great book as something that you go back to over and over, and find something more in each time. It reminds me of how I feel about visual art--I love an abstract or semi abstract piece that pulls me in and triggers my imagination, making me see something different in it each time I look at it. That is the art that wears well in my environment, because I don't ever grow to taking it for granted.

 

But there is another kind of visual art that I also just love. The famous Caraveggio Madonna would be one example--Vermeer's paintings would be another. These are pieces that convey beauty and/or virtue in a very technially superior way, that is rarely accomplished by artists. I guess I view UTC as that kind of good book. It is really breathtaking to see UT exhibit the kind of relentless goodness and commitment to conscience that he does. It seems ennobling and inspiring to me, in a very striking way; all the more so because my expectations were so low before I read it.

 

Interesting discussion!

[Carol in Cal.]

 

That is all.

[Carol in Cal.]

I haven't read it so correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that my college History prof told me that Stowe had never even been to the South and the book is nothing more than her imaginations of what slavery was like.

 

It is true, I think that Stowe did not observe the South firsthand. But it is also true that there was a lot of information about the South and the Peculiar Instituation floating around in her circles. She was a member of a prominent family with strong Abolitionist ties. The movement of escaped slaves through the Underground Railroad brought to light a lot of their stories of treatment at various points and under various circumstances. Coming from the family that she did, Stowe would have had reason to be familiar with these.

 

Certainly one could argue about whether or not such stories are representative. But to imply that since Stowe does not visit the South her novel did not ring true does not seem quite fair. Most historical fiction, and most historical writing for that matter, would be subject to the same criticism.

[Reya]

That is all.

 

Oh, please. Women novelists had a horrible name in the 19th century. Anyone who knows the slightest bit about the history of the novel knows this. It is books like UTC that caused this--sloppy, soppy, contrived twaddle. I never said that women novelists are bad--exactly WHAT do you think I do for a living? I said they had a bad name. And they did. They still do--why do you think there's a genre of "women's fiction" but not one for "men's fiction"? Gotta segregate the "pretend" novels from the real ones, you know. (In case you don't realize, that's sarcasm.)

[LilyK]

never said that women novelists are bad--exactly WHAT do you think I do for a living?

 

I am always fascinated by the tremendous backgrounds that people bring to this board.

 

What have you written? Do you use a pen name?

[Carol in Cal.]

Oh, please. Women novelists had a horrible name in the 19th century. Anyone who knows the slightest bit about the history of the novel knows this. It is books like UTC that caused this--sloppy, soppy, contrived twaddle. I never said that women novelists are bad--exactly WHAT do you think I do for a living? I said they had a bad name. And they did. They still do--why do you think there's a genre of "women's fiction" but not one for "men's fiction"? Gotta segregate the "pretend" novels from the real ones, you know. (In case you don't realize, that's sarcasm.)

 

I haven't the slightest idea what you do for a living. Why in the world would you think that that is self-evident? If I assumed anything about you, it would be that you are a homeschooler.

 

All woman novelists certainly do not write what you term as 'women's fiction.' When one broadly labels a set of writers, and identifies them with an inferior genre in a perjorative way, and that set of writers is women, and that genre is women's fiction, it IS sad. The comment, "This is what gives woman writers a bad name" does just that--intentionally or not.

 

And no one could possibly equate UTC with Harlequin romances. Please. Whether or not it is good/great literature is debatable, but it bears no relation or similarity to the books sometimes labelled "women's fiction."

[Reya]

All woman novelists certainly do not write what you term as 'women's fiction.' When one broadly labels a set of writers, and identifies them with an inferior genre in a perjorative way, and that set of writers is women, and that genre is women's fiction, it IS sad. The comment, "This is what gives woman writers a bad name" does just that--intentionally or not.

 

 

*sighs* Pejorative, I think you mean. You don't seem to get why it is significant that there is "women's fiction" and not "men's fiction" *even though* there are any number of subgroups of fiction produced by and for men. Wow. I really can't understand how you go from my post to such statements as "All woman novelists certainly do not write what you term as 'women's fiction.'" Um. Hello? Hon, I don't call it women's fiction. It's a genre term. I'm not protesting the existence of the books--I'm protesting the existence of such a label. I have no idea how you managed to misunderstand that, either. The fact that you feel it is an INFERIOR GENRE is the most telling statement of all. Amazing--and hilarious, considering what you're defending.

 

Please note that I ALSO used the preterit tense, noting a historical fact, while you changed it to the present. I'm not sure if you are trying to misunderstand me on purpose or really don't understand. I'm not sure how you COULD misunderstand that badly and that consistently.

 

I find it absolutely hilarious that you would go and denounce me for stating a historical fact (that women novelists had a bad name) and THEN go and make such broad-brushed, ignorant statements yourself about an entire group of books you have probably read little to none of.

 

Now, the worst book that I have ever read in my life was a Harlequin Historical. However, Harlequin has also published some very good books. But books like that awful Harlequin Historical and more than two centuries of literary sexism combine to make people who have little to no experience with the books look down on them.

 

Hmmm.

 

Notice a parallel with UTC?

 

To put it even more clearly: There are good Harlequin romances and bad Harlequin romances. Harriet Beecher Stowe was writing in a genre that was the 19th-century equivalent of Harlequin romances--sentimental fireside women's novels. Her work contributed to the genre's bad name and, by extension, to the bad name of all women novelists, giving weight to a sexist stereotyping that women would have had to fight against in any case.

 

Your blind acceptance of these kinds of stereotypes as expressed above--not a recognition of what happened in the past but a present, active promulgation of them--is a great example of the legacy of Harriet Beecher Stowe and her ilk. I think you've JUST proven my point roughly a thousand times better than anything else could have.

 

You'll probably manage to "misunderstand" this, too, but I don't care. I'm done with this conversation.

[Reya]

I am always fascinated by the tremendous backgrounds that people bring to this board.

 

What have you written? Do you use a pen name?

 

Email me privately, and I'll let you know! I use several pen names, though.

[Carol in Cal.]

Although we disagree about this particular book, we seem to agree about respecting woman writers, although your earlier posts would have given a different impression, and although you seem very invested in misunderstanding me. Whoda thunk.

 

Heat rather than light--an interesting style choice.