Skip to main content

What is 'American' about American literature?

In his essay "Paleface and Redskin" (The Kenyon Review, 1939), the 20th century literary critic Philip Rahv went a long way to defining what is uniquely "American" in American literature. Rahv posited that American letters has produced two "polar types" of writers. On one hand, there is the "paleface," writers such as Henry James with his "drawing-room fictions" and Herman Melville, who was, in his "tragic loneliness," acutely interested in what William Faulkner would later call "the problems of the human heart in conflict with itself." On the other hand were the "redskins," writers such as Walt Whitman, with his "open air poems," and Mark Twain, who tended to revel in adventures and new experiences rather than contemplate life from afar with "a refined estrangement from reality." Moreover, Rahv argued that the redskin was more of a "lowbrow," uneducated (whether he was or not) and intensely aware of emotions and spontaneity rather than "personal culture." The redskin might choose to write a description of a war or some masculine endeavor. The paleface was "highbrow," concerned more with the intellectual. He might write something which attempts to get at the meaning of religion or man's refinement of his spirit.


Throughout American history it is possible to divide American writers into these two categories. Early in America's history writers such as James Fenimore Cooper, with his wilderness adventures and pitched battles, and Washington Irving, with his tales of the common man, might be labeled redskins, while William Cullen Bryant, especially in his reveries on nature, and Jonathan Edwards, in his pontifications on religion, are definitely palefaces. In the 20th century it could be said that a writer like F. Scott Fitzgerald was a paleface because of his concentration on mostly "polite" society and the doings of the rich and influential. In contrast, John Steinbeck was a redskin with his stories about "Okies," "bindle-stiffs," prostitutes and the seedier elements of American society. Some writers, however, might defy these labels. Henry David Thoreau could be at least partly redskin in his descriptions of everyday life on Walden Pond, but it is probably more comfortable with the palefaces because of his tendencies to look at life as a contemplative endeavor.


In the 21st century it could at least be somewhat argued that this dichotomy remains in American literature. Novels such as The Road or No Country for Old Men by Cormac McCarthy represent the redskin in their adventure and willingness to present the grittier side of American life. In the paleface category might be writers such as Dan Brown who has created a series of books which seem to concentrate on the spiritual aspects of the world. In any case, the paleface/redskin labels are still relevant in American culture. 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...

Is 'efficate' a word in English?

I routinely hear the word "efficate" being used. For example, "The most powerful way to efficate a change in the system is to participate." I do not find entries for this word in common English dictionaries, but I do not have an unabridged dictionary. I have checked the OED (I'm not sure if it is considered unabridged), and it has no entry for "efficate". It does have an entry for "efficiate", which is used in the same way. Wordnik has an entry for "efficate" with over 1800 hits, thus providing some evidence for the frequency of use. I personally like the word and find the meaning very clear and obvious when others use it. If it's not currently an "officially documented" word, perhaps its continued use will result in it being better documented.