Talk:African-American literature/Archive 1

Archive 1

CSB

I see this came up on CSB. I'm not prepared to write it, but thought I'd point out some material that should certainly be touched upon:

• slave narratives and later autobiographies; certainly The Autobiography of Malcolm X (about which, BTW, we have only a stub: it deserves a major article).
• oral poetry, including spirituals and African American gospel music onwards to blues and to rapping
• the specifically African American tradition in sermons
• writers of the Harlem Renaissance (and we should make a point of not replicating too much of that here)
• literary novelists such as Richard Wright, Zora Neale Hurston, James Baldwin, Toni Morrison and (even though I'm not a fan myself) Alice Walker
• genre novelists such as Walter Mosley and Samuel R. Delany
• controversial figures like Ishmael Reed and Amiri Baraka
• literary critics such as Henry Louis Gates, Jr.; probably also worth mentioning Oprah Winfrey's importance as a popularizer.
• The economics of publishing as it has affected African Americans, including the economics of the decision whether to write towards a specifically African American audience or a more general one.

I'm sure I've left out entire areas that are equally important, but I believe all of this will belong in the article. Jmabel | Talk 05:27, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

Just to note that after this was ignored for a while longer, I took the above and rewrote it in appropriate style as a stub. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:06, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

Hopefully once summer rolls around I can help develop this. I've been thinking of things that we need to add too, such as the trope of the talking book, or literacy in general in Af.Am. lit and major topics of Af.Am. literary criticism... maybe a note about how the study of African American literature contributes to other fields, such as how now many "white" texts are being studied as raced. Leyanese 18:58, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hyphenation

The trend is moving away from hyphenating "African American," both in its noun and adjective forms. I defer to the author and/or consensus. —Wayward June 29, 2005 23:23 (UTC)

• I would hyphenate as an adjective (as in this title), but not as a noun. -- Jmabel | Talk July 2, 2005 01:26 (UTC)

I brought up this issue because some consider the use of a hyphen in this case as suggestive of bias—something that could be easily avoided by leaving all instances of "African American" open. —Wayward July 2, 2005 02:38 (UTC)

I tend to go along the lines of Jmabel--hyphenate as adj but not as noun. I am not familiar with the hyphen denoting bias (aside from some commentators deriding what they sees an a hyphenated-ethnic agenda in literature, which is addressed in the Balkanization of Literature section of the article). Can you supply a link to info on this bias? Thanks.--Alabamaboy 2 July 2005 12:42 (UTC)

Chicago Manual of Style, 15th ed., 8.42: Use of hyphen: "Whether terms such as African American, Italian American, Chinese American and the like should be spelled open or hyphenated has been the subject of considerable controversy, the hyphen being regarded by some as suggestive of bias. Chicago doubts that hyphenation represents bias, but since the hyphen does not aid comprehension in such terms as those mentioned above, it may be omitted unless the writer prefers it." —Wayward July 2, 2005 16:42 (UTC)

• More on "African American," or "African-American," Robert C. Maynard Institute for Journalism Education.
• Indiana University Style Guide
• Sensitivity to labels, APA Publication Manual Crib Sheet
• Review of Guidelines for Bias-Free Writing
• American Anthropological Association Style Guide

I don't totally agree with this but it can't hurt either. I'll move the page to the non-hyphenated African American literature. Thanks. --Alabamaboy 4 July 2005 01:44 (UTC)

some help?

Would any Langston Hughes fans mind helping me out, over on page color metaphors for race? One "PhilWelch" keeps trashing and reverting the page I started. I'm 141.161.54.36 . Thank you! Your additions are much welcomed.

The input of experienced Wikipedians who grasp NPOV is especially welcome. Tverbeek 1 July 2005 04:42 (UTC)

Notes section

Shouldn't the notes section be the same font size as the article? As it is, the notes are too difficult to read. Please advise. FeanorStar7

I didn't make the notes that size--the editor who first formatted them that way for the article did (see Footnote3 for more info on the style). I thought that size was part of the style. Now that I've read more on it, I see it isn't. As a result, I have increased the size. Thanks for pointing this out.--Alabamaboy 12:41, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

What's it about - Literature / Sociology / Politics ?

I don't quite get it? What's this article about? It is sort of OK as a chronological list of Afro-American authors. But else? There's the "characteristics" and "critiques" paragraph but they are quite detached from the rest of the text. To me the article might go under a lemma such as "List of African-American authors" or "Politics of African-American authors" (and then it would be very sterotypical at best), yet there's hardly anything concering art, form, aesthetics - and that's what literature is about, isn't it? (the only point where such a question is raised at all is the DuBois/McKay controversy towards the end).
Just a few details:

• Baldwin: His most important ( = most artistically satisfiying) novel "Another Country" is not even mentioned - nor is "The Fire Next Time" (this is like an article about Irish/British lit. that mentions Joyce but not "Ulysses").
• Chester Himes is not mentioned at all. - An article about Afro-American literature without mention of Himes is strictly absurd. (But then he doesn't fit into any of the purely political/sociological categories applied here)
• Amiri Baraka is only mentioned in one sentence - and then as a playwright. OK, he wrote plays, but his poetry, his essays and his music criticism are definitely more important.
  

As it stands the article is something like a rough draft at best. My impression is that it's a rehash of very limited second-hand, online source. Why not look at the ample literature available? --Albrecht Conz 00:17, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. This is an article about a literary genre that is extremely well researched and is a result of the ample literature available. This assertion is backed by the fact that the article has been peer reviewed and gone through the Featured article process, with rave reviews along the way. You are correct that Chester Himes is someone to add to the article; however, most scholars would not rank him as a major African American writer. There is also debate about Amiri Baraka's status. With more recent writers like Baraka, the article only covers them in passing b/c history has not yet settled on what their overall assessment will be--the exception to this are writers like Toni Morrison (who won the Nobel) and Alice Walker (who won a Pulitzer). As for Baldwin, there is of course much more that could be written about him, which is why he has his own article (along with almost all of the writers mentioned in here). The thing to keep in mind is that this is an ENCYCLOPEDIA article that provides an overview of African American literature. --Alabamaboy 02:09, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Alabamaboy, I mostly agree with you, but would agree with Albrecht Conz that Amiri Baraka is better known as a poet and critic than as a playwright. I don't think I'm unusual in having first encountered him through his music criticism. And The FIre Next Time would seem particularly worth mentioning in the context of African American literature. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:56, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Albrecht Conz and you are correct that Baraka is now known more as a poet and critic and I will make the change in a few minutes (along with adding the Fire Next Time to Baldwin and a mention of Chester Himes). I have no issue with adding the info on these writers that Albrecht Conz pointed out; what I took issue with was the tone of his critique, which crossed the line into insulting. As I mentioned, this is an ENCYCLOPEDIA article that provides an overview of African American literature. As such, it follows the history and sociology of African Americans, from which the literature developed. Albrecht Conz seems to disagree with this format but I think most people would understand that this is neccessary. After all, African American literature developed out of the culture, experiences, and history of Black people in the United States and not as an isolated, artistic undertaking. Thanks,--Alabamaboy 12:18, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments & edits! - There's of course always a lot to disagree about concerning details (and the one detail I would very much insist on is: Chester Himes. Just because he doesn't sit comfortably with any kind of purely political - whatever one's politics are - kind of categorisation - this is no reason why he should be omitted. It's not just that I know all his works (and am a fan) - that's not the point: there are lots of fans of all kinds of things around. Yet I'm also fairly familiar with the more recent academic literature on African-American literature, and it's a (although belated) consensus by now, that Chester Himes is one of the major African-American writers of the 20th cent. (In case you're interested I'll provide the references). The edits concerning Amiri Baraka are sort of OK. Still they leave the impression that the passage in question was written by s.o. who doesn't know the works (nor the chronology) of Baraka's works at all.

On a more general level: I still generally dislike the article as far as the lemma is concerned (not in substance, i.e. as to its factual basis). Literature is about literature. Period. Of course literature is not an island, yet what would you think if the article on African American history were mainly about African-American literature / painting / cooking / music - whatever - it's all history, too, somehow, isn't it? - Yeah: Everything is everything as Brand Nubian sang. But why then have lemmass at all?

Just have a look on the article Literature of the United States for example. I find it very condescending to mainly discuss African-American literature as a political / sociological phenomenon: Sure those aspects are very important. But why not put them under a different lemma? Or discuss them in relation to the art of literature? As it stands - and I would like to be very clear here : not to offend, quite the opposite - but in order to open a very important debate - to discuss African-American literature as a mostly political / sociological phenomenon to me seems to be purely condescending (and the - it its way excellent bit - concerning "Early lit." and "Slave narr." is rather amiss here - most of the works mentioned are not literature but documentary evidence of historical phenomena; and where they are literature they are minor works. Still they have to mentioned - sure - but were's the balance?). Or to put it more plainly: 'Aw, well, maybe the art is no good - but anyway, it's important somehow, isn't it?' - How patronising can you get? Especially so because the artistic achievement of African-American literature within 20th century literature is first rate, it really is, and I mean first rate on a world wide level. Why then not explain it as such? As literature, as art? --Albrecht Conz 03:59, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

• I'm not opposed to expanding the article to incorporate more of the art, form, aesthetics--as long as the article remains NPOV. The article you mentioned, Literature of the United States, follows a similar sociological and historical framework as this article does (i.e., following the literature through time and tying it in with the events in America at that time through sections like Becoming American, the American Century, and so on). Within this framework, the US lit article gives some mention of each artist's aesthetics and art. However, I should mention that the African American literature article also does this (although it could also have more added for each artist). That said, I totally disagree with your comments about Slave Narratives and Early Lit not being literature. Several of the slave narratives are seen as excellent examples of literature. In addition, while some of the authors mentioned in the Early Lit section might not be considered World Class authors today, they laid the groundwork for later Black authors and an article that omits them would be seriously lacking. I am also a little puzzled by your concerns since almost every overview of literature on Wikipedia--English literature, Tamil literature--follows the basic sociological and historical framework that this article uses. The ones that don't do this focus on a narrow section of time and history (such as Augustan literature or Anglo-Norman literature) provide a general overview of a broad subject (such as Literature), or are seriously in need of a lot of work (as is the case with Irish literature). If you want to add more of the aesthetics for each author and section (such as in the Harlem Renaissance), that is great. However, I would be opposed to substantially changing this article just b/c you don't consider slave narratives and other examples of early African American lit to be "great literature" and you don't like the article following the history, politics, and social changes of African Americans. This strikes me as wanting to discuss Black literature without having to mess around with actually mentioning Black people at all.--Alabamaboy 12:36, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

It's about quality writing

Dear Albrecht Conz,

I fail to understand what is so "condescending" about explaining the political and sociological pressures that gave rise to various forms and adaptations of African American literature. Literature does not grow out of a vacuum; in fact, it is most often a response to current events and trends. After having to read all kinds of literature and poetry to earn a Bachelor's Degree in English at UCLA, I can tell you that I never met a professor who didn't discuss the work we were reading in terms of the art and poetry alone. You had to know that William Faulkner was from the south and talking about southern mores before you could even approach his work. That's what African American literature does, and quite well, at that.

I am surprised by the example you give to back up your claims. In my opinion, the Literature of the United States article reads like a series of topic sentences rather than a well-thought-out or well-structured encyclopedia entry. As opposed to African American literature, which presents an full and rich treatment of the genre, the authors, and the political and social pressures which gave birth to this style of writing, as well as criticism and counter-criticism, the Literature of the United States article needs a whole lot more work to make it more than a laundry list of American writers. (Frankly, the section about African American literature, which was lifted from the larger Wikipedia article, is the most well-written section in this piece.)

I also don't understand what the problem is with slave narratives. I agree with Alabamaboy that even those that weren't written down laid the groundwork for future African American literature. Do you have the same problem with Homer's Odyssey, an oral poem that is credited as the foundational text of world literature? And if you want to call something "documentary evidence" instead of "literature," are you willing to do the same to The Diary of Anne Frank, which is a mainstay of Holocaust literature? After all, it was just a girl writing in an attic. I think you're nitpicking here. The African American literature article is fine just the way it is, and the addition (rather than subtraction) of any Black author will only improve it.Yoninah 18:05, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Direction (and mediation)

It seems that Albrecht Conz rattled some active Wikipedians on this article. Assuming hir good intentions, what I gather, from what has been exchanged above, are two separate views as to the direction of this article.

From my understanding...

• 1. Albrecht Conz feels:
  • That the article must be more well-rounded in its analysis, and more descriptive of the traits and characteristics of African American Literature. The focus, sie feels, should be on literary merits, such as form and style.
  • ibid. would mean there are pieces now, which would be irrelevant to the scope.
  • That notable contributors to the body of AALit have been left out.

• 2. Alabamaboy, Yoninah, and Jmabel feel otherwise:
  • The focus of the article should be on AALit as a genre.
  • As an encyclopedic article, analysis is outside the scope.
  • The pieces that exist now are essential for foundational purposes:
    • they show the the rise of AALit as a genre,
    • show how the content of these literary works is unique among genres,
    • "set up" other sections for the structure of the article.

• Where everyone seems to agree:
  • This piece could use more about the literary merits (detailed below) of the AALit genre, objectively
  • The CSB stub (above) mentioned some literary contributors that never made it into the draft — which should be corrected.
  • This is an overview article, whose "Main Article" links/detail should be brief.

• Concessions that could be made:
  • could agree to add more in the way of literary merits (ie common structure, symbolism, themes, style, and so forth) while refraining from POV analysis.
  • could agree to edit the article to be more inclusive of authors.
  • could agree to streamline "Main Article"-linked detail, and be open to reorganiztion — in place of deletions.

Setting aside any offenses and hostilities, assuming the best of Albrecht Conz's intentions, I think the points that each side has raised are very valid. One points to an overall direction and focus of the literary merits I've mentioned, and the other points to a direction of detailing the genre as a whole. These points don't have to be exclusive of one another.

— <TALKJNDRLINETALK>     20:12, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the summary (and thank to Yoninah for her comments). As I've said before, I am totally open to additions to the article in the areas of common structure, symbolism, themes, style, and so forth (these would be good sections to have at the start of the article). I have also added in the writers that Albrecht Conz already mentioned (or wished to have more info on). In addition, on my own initiative today I retitled several of the subheads of the history section of the article, so that the subheads don't mislead people into thinking that the literature of a certain era was only focused on that theme (for example, I changed the "Civil Rights Movement literature" subhead to "Civil Rights Movement era". I'm not quite clear, though, what you mean by "streamline "Main Article"-linked detail, and be open to reorganiztion — in place of deletions." Could you clarify?--Alabamaboy 21:10, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

These points (mostly under the History section) are very detailed. Personally, I like it, and think it fits very well with the overall organisation of the article. I can see people thinking that it is too much information for an already-exisiting article, and wanting these pieces to be pared down in the interest of focus. This is a point that I think could be conceded to, if need be.

— <TALKJNDRLINETALK>     22:05, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand why we need to take a terrific article and turn it into something else. This article was peer-reviewed, declared a Featured Article, and stood as it was until it was displayed again on the Main Page on August 25. The next day, we suddenly hear from a German reader who apparently missed out on the whole review process, and now Alabamaboy is being asked to rework an already fine article. I would agree with Jnderline that adding a small section on common structure, symbolism, themes, style, etc. would be appropriate, but anything else is just going to ruin a fine product. Like they say, "Too many cooks spoil the broth." Yoninah 22:30, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

• I agree with Yoninah. While there can be additions to the article, I do not think it needs any deletions. Compared to many of the Featured Articles, this article is not that long. As such, taking out information will only harm it. I should also point out that I have agreed with most of the points raised by Albrecht Conz. I added info on the writers he mentioned, I agreed that new sections on section on common structure, symbolism, themes, style, would be great to add (along with expanded coverage of the aesthetics of each writer). I even made other changes to address his concerns. However, in the interest of reaching consensus, I must admit that I am not seeing any compromise from Albrecht Conz. I mean, the point is that that this article recently went through the FA process and no one else raised any concern about how the article was structured. I believe it is not right for one editor to override the opinions of everyone else who took part in creating this article and bringing it to FA status (especially when so many of this editor's concerns have been addressed or agreed to).--Alabamaboy 01:40, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

• I pretty much agree with these last 2 comments. African American literature as an entity is defined by history, ethnicity, and subject matter, not by aesthetics. Does it have certain distinct aesthetics? Yes, but not universally. On the one hand, if a non-African-American tried to write like Alice Walker, or to sermonize like Martin Luther King, Jr., it would pretty much amount to cultural appropriation. On the other hand, Toni Morrison, who certainly qualifies as an important figure in African American literature, probably writes more like William Faulkner at his best than like any other writer, and while Faulkner was undoubtedly influenced by the cadences of black speech, it would be a very bold critic who would venture to call his work African American literature. In short: possibly the article could use more on aesthetics, etc.—appropriately cited from major critics, not just some contributor's assessment—but the basically historical approach here is correct: the changes over time in African American literature reflect the history of African Americans and of American literature generally more than they flow from some strictly aesthetic imperative internal to African American literature. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:49, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

• I am in agreement with the comments above. As the author, sole or joint, of several of the literary history articles on Wikipedia, I have some experience with the topic in an encyclopedic format. Additions are almost always helps, but when additions exist merely to satisfy someone's private enthusiasms, they're not. One duty of the encyclopedist giving a survey is to present a thesis that helps contextualize the subjects of discourse in time, place, and culture. All three of these involve "history" and "politics," and only the last is "style" and form, and the general scholarly community gave up the naive notion that form is ahistorical fifty years ago. Finally, there is, in my opinion, no reason for wikilove to turn absurd and expect a featured article to alter its very organizational principles to satisfy one reader. While Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, it is not the Magical Book that everyone must agree with on every line. The general beats the private, so to speak, and the long, active, and intense review process of Peer Review and FAC should not be superseded by a solitary, disgruntled voice. (On the general approach, see next.) Geogre 11:34, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Looking at the orange that is being compared to an apple tree

Albrecht Conz wishes the article to be not merely inclusive of stylistic issues but exclusive of history, it seems. If I read his comments correctly, he not only wishes for the chimera of a single stylistic observation that will unite and undergird all African American literature, but he objects to the authors being presented in historical context. I hope that I wasn't too dismissive, above, nor that what I am about to say will seem insulting, for I intend neither.

However, the idea that form is not a product of history is quite naive. When I was getting my Ph.D. at ----, we all had to engage the general destruction of New Criticism, how its claims themselves were historical products, how the things they pointed to were potentially non-existent, etc. That was decades ago, and by now I know of no one who would still hang onto the idea of a Text speaking for itself. (We may all believe in the primacy of the text as a practical matter, but that's not the same thing as believing that the text is ex nihilo.) Whether a Marxissant History, a post-Hegelian historical moment, or a New Historicist episteme, the Text has wilted under the attack of history. On the other side, structuralists proclaimed the death of the author, the existence of a text as a relatively impotent codification of materials, or the freak expression of a semiotic code. Post-structuralists said that the text itself is non-determinant because super-determinant. Psychoanalytic critics suggested that the style, in particular, can only be seen biographically and clinically. The German reception aesthetic and Reader Response critics have argued that the text is never there in one place, that it is a process of negotiation with a reader who is mandatory. The only thing everyone has in common is the belief that you can't talk about "style" innocently. The moment you mention style at all, you are actually starting a conversation about one of those "other" things that Albrecht Conz believes shouldn't be here.

If the New Criticism's "text" is gone, how much more desiccated is the Romantic concept of the Genius? If I read him correctly, he wishes to see the artists spoken of as Artists, as forgers of consciousness, and he wishes to see the Great works all listed. Aside from that being only the first volley in a "What's your favorite book" conversation that we should not have, it is also impossible to complete and irresponsible to start.

Finally, in an encyclopedia article we present the maximum of coherent and informative contexts for viewing an object. The limitations are on the presumed general reader. An article on Walter Mosley could place him in the context of genre, the context of best sellers, the context of biography/autobiography. All of that is possible, but one of these three doesn't belong with the others. The reason is that it (biography/autobiography) requires a long form to establish and will not be intelligible in any format that mixes it with the other. This is why literary survey articles need to have a thesis. The thesis doesn't have to be universal, just true, and it doesn't have to be definitive, just helpful to readers. In that regard, a thesis (implicit in this article) that says that AA literature responds to the same pressures as US literature and establishes a body of work that is torn between issues of separation and homogeneity is a very good thesis. It makes all the examples comprehensible. It affords dozens of contexts for the authors. To reject the thesis is a sign of a reader's disquiet, but not the failure of the thesis. The authors of this article simply could not incorporate a thesis establishing what style makes AA lit AA lit, because their thesis (and I think they're right) is that there isn't a single style that is common to all African American authors and only to African American authors. Geogre 11:54, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

First U.S. novel by black

Wasn't there a recent discovery of a manuscript written by a slave woman that predates Clotel? --squadfifteen (24 Sept 2005)

I haven't had a chance to read much of this piece, but in skimming it, it seems very limited/informed by a relatively recent view of AA lit. And, yes.Henry Louis Gates came across a manuscript Our Nig about 20 years back -- 1983 (I just looked it up), to be exact. deeceevoice 12:47, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Correction. Our Nig was the first novel by an African American woman, Harriet Wilson. It was published in 1859. (I thought it was published in 1854, but I was apparently wrong.) And Clotel was published a year earlier, in 1853, but apparently was published in three or four different versions, as late as 1857. deeceevoice 12:59, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Pre-Civil Rights era?

I was to understand Baldwins Go tell it on the mountain, Wright's Native Son and Ellison's Invisible Man fall in the Pre-Civil Rights era. Even our civil rights article says its usually seen to start around 1955 (although I think most people consider it popularly as "the sixties"). Perhaps we should rename the section to "Pre-Civil Rights era", I think its an important distinction. Bigger was not about civil rights, more a subversive social protest novel. Stbalbach 22:08, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

While the American Civil Rights Movement (1955-1968) is the most well known era of the movement, there was also an earlier movement which laid the groundwork for the advances in the late 50s and 60s. In fact, a number of historic sources place the main part of the Civil Rights Movement as being from the 1940s through the late 60s and, to be more inclusive, this is the time frame I used. --Alabamaboy 00:30, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok I was not aware of the periodization distinctions for Civil Rights. A 2004 issue of Bookmarks Magazine did a feature article titled "Literary Voices of the Pre-Civil Rights Era" and highlited those three authors. --Stbalbach 01:28, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Victor Séjour

I think Victor Séjour deserves a mention here, as the first African American to produce a work of fiction (of course, I did start his article). Given, the story was in French, and wasn't translated into English until fairly recently, and it had very little influence on American writers outside New Orleans, but it does deal with themes picked up by later writers. And, like I said, he was first.--Cuchullain 06:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm open to adding him but because I've never heard of him and, as you state, most African American lit people haven't either, I think we'll need to see some references for what you are saying. How about adding the references to the Victor Séjour article. I'll check out the references once you add them and as long as the references back up what your are saying, we can add him in here. Is that ok?--Alabamaboy 14:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Done. I couldn't find an online version of "Le Mulâtre" in English, but there's one in French. I don't know that there are any English translations outside of the Norton Anthology at this point.--Cuchullain 18:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

thanks. I added the info back in.--Alabamaboy 14:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

About influential anthologies and the Black Arts Movement

I have to say that, although Emanuel's anthology was reasonably well received in its day, the two anthologies that firmly established African American literature as a distinct genre were compiled by two literary giants: firebrand playwright, essayist and poet LeRoi Jones (Black Fire, 1968) and (more old school) noted literary critic and poet Sterling Brown (The Negro Caravan, 1969). I don't know how the contributor arrived at mentioning only Emanuel's work and then Toni Morrison, but the former was relatively obscure in comparison to Fire, and Toni Morrison's huge Bluest Eye essentially reaped the benefits of many who came before her and brought AA lit and theater to center stage. As always (a point already made in the article), black literature developed in tandem with black political and social ferment. After the Civil Rights Movement, came the Black Arts Movement (which needs a decent article), which in the States returned to the Deep South and Mother Africa for its muses. Musicians: Miles Davis, Pharaoh Sanders, Leon Thomas, Wayne Shorter, Hubert Laws, Abby Lincoln, Doug & Jean Carnes, Oscar Brown Jr. In theater, Barbara Ann Teer (National Black Theater - NY), Robert Hooks (DC Black Repertory Theater), Karamu House in the midwest. Among the writers, there were Kalamu Ya Salaam, Ed Bullins, Don L. Lee (later Haki Madhubuti), Baraka (when he was still LeRoi Jones), Dudley Randall, Johari Amini (Jewell C. Lattimore), Gwendolyn Brooks and Robert Hayden (still hangin' in :p), Dudley Randall, Larry Neal, Nikki Giovanni, Sonia Sanchez, Ted Joans, the Last Poets, Gil Scott Heron, Ahmos Zu Bolton, Etheridge Knight and a whole bunch of people I'm, unfortunately, blanking on right now.

An important aside: Sterling Brown is a giant in African American arts and letters. The Depression-era publication of Southern Road was a landmark in AA literature. Caravan was a second. And his literary criticism is brilliant.

I'd suggest a section on the Third World Press out of Chicago, Black Box and other publishing concerns (including some AA newspapers and magazines, like Crisis, for example) that provided outlets for black writers. And perhaps a segment on the spoken-word poets of the day (pre-rap): Oscar Brown, Jr.; Nikki Gionvanni; the Last Poets; Gil Scott Heron. Maybe not. Just riffin'.

I know it's a big topic, and so far, so good. And I know it'd be helpful if I actually wrote some of this stuff. But right now, I don't have any time. Just throwing out things that, hopefully, others will take and run with (or at least consider) -- or that I may come back to later. deeceevoice 16:37, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I mentioned Emanuel b/c his role wasn't mentioned. Of course Emanuel's anthology wasn't the only contribution he did b/c he also set up one of the first African American lit studies at a prominent American University. That's why I mentioned him with Morrison b/c the two of them did a lot to define the genre and were in a location (New York) to really influence the definition of the genre. Naturally enough, Morrison's later fiction also formed the backbone of Black lit but the article already covered all of her writings. My thought is to keep Emanuel and Morrison as the two main people who helped create the definitions of the genre but to also mention those other groundbreaking anthologies.--Alabamaboy 17:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the more I think on it it's not correct to name Emanual and Morrison as the only two. When I get a chance I'm going to rework this paragraph. What I intended was to give the two of them credit for bringing awareness of African American lit to academia and the intellectual snobs (so to speak :-). --Alabamaboy 21:44, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Good. I'm glad. Actually, that credit, I think, goes to BAM (which is why I mentioned it), which had a huge following on HBCU campuses back in the day. deeceevoice 22:09, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Just googled BAM, and there's all kinds of stuff on it. I gather it was before your time, so you might want to take a look online. BAM was the artistic expression of the black power/African nationalist movements of the day, and it sparked the interest in African American literature in academia and the publishing world. deeceevoice 22:17, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

About criticism

There's the issue of literature written in AAVE that should be mentioned. It's been criticized by the public and by some educators and librarians (these days, the politically correct term is "library media specialists") as contributing to the failure of some African American children to learn SAE in terms of syntax, pronunciation and vocabulary. deeceevoice 16:46, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Add it in. Do you have a good reference for it?--Alabamaboy 17:32, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but no. :( Did a quickie search and didn't come up with anything. Nowadays, the enlightened view is, of course, that such literature has a richness and authenticity all its own -- and it's also useful as a pedagogical tool in helping speakers of AAVE learn SAE. deeceevoice 22:12, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

About fantasy and sci-fi

This may be useful. Maybe not.[1] deeceevoice 16:48, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Here and there

I've just hastily read portions of this piece -- and often out of sequence -- so please excuse if this stuff is already mentioned. But it's occurred to me that, going back to my old, old, old classroom studies of AA lit, that because sermons, speeches and political tracts are also considered an important part of the genre, you have to include such things as David Walker's Appeal and Sojourner Truth's famous "Aint I a Woman" speech. I also don't recall any mention of anti-lynching crusader Ida B. Wells Barnett. And even if the article is purposely separating out journalism, Barnett's work includes several monographs. In addition to the mention of Sterling Brown's contributions, another individual who should be mentioned is Alain Locke, perhaps the most important intellectual of the Harlem Renaissance. I was reminded of his contributions when I went to my HR bookcase the other day. I don't know if his The New Negro anthology of AA lit (1924 or 25 -- I don't recall at the moment) was the first of its kind, but it was certainly one of the first.

The African American oral tradition

I suppose this goes back to the necessary inclusion of speeches, sermons, spirituals and song. But there're also AA folklore and folktales (e.g., the Gullah "Aunt Nancy" -- a corruption of "Anansi" tales and others, and southern folktales, generally -- e.g., the Brer Rabbit tales as recorded by Joel Chandler Harris. Also, perhaps, there should be a mention of African American children's rhymes and songs and Mardi Gras chants -- which are notable/remarkable in and of themselves. There's the (adult) classic saga of Shine ("'You gotta be a strokin' muthafucka to outswim me' ... and Shine swam on....") and the juvenile handclap/jump rope poetry of "Miss Mary Mack" and "Three, six, nine, the goose drank wine, the monkey chewed to tobacco on the streetcar line...."), the Mardi Gras chants, one made into a pop music hit, "Iko, Iko."

Gee. Guess we're looking at a separate article on the African American oral tradition, huh? :p deeceevoice 08:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be good to start that article but the info should also be placed here. Perhaps a summary section here with the main article at African American oral tradition. Also, I think I've fixed the section of the article dealing with the defining of AA lit in the 1970s to be more inclusive. I know there are more names that we could include but I just tried to hit the highlights. As with anything at Wikipedia, we could spin this section off into its own article if we had the time. I'm about to take a long Wikibreak to finish a book I'm writing but I'll check back here once or twice during that time so let me know if there are any other things happening. Best, --Alabamaboy 13:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Looks like there is a great agenda here for anyone who wants to work on this and has some time (which, sadly, isn't me either right now, I'm lagging over 2 weeks just on my watchlist). Does someone want to take this one up? I'll post a note somewhere withing WP:CSB and see if that helps. -- Jmabel | Talk 16:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks. I also lack the time in the coming weeks but agree that this could be a great article. Best, --Alabamaboy 20:04, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Very Impressed

It's been a while since I've looked at this page and it's come so far. Went from a stub to a feature in no time. Good job folks. --Leyanese 16:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The section on Langston Hughes

I just want to point out that the photo shown there as Langston Hughes is , well, that is NOT Langston Hughes at least it is not the Langston Hughes refered to in the article.

Just wanted let someone know that. I've always been a fan of Langston's work. You might want to check the wikipedia page on him. Or google his image. (lol) that photo doesn't even slightly resemble him. ;-)

I love the article tho' and thank you for sharing it

Peace and Blessings, Torrena

Someone had uploaded another image over the image of Hughes. It's fixed now.

In general, if you see a wrong image, it is worth following up to the image page to see if the problem is there. It is very often exactly this. - Jmabel | Talk 01:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Template at top or as footer

For quite a while the African American topic template used on this page has been in the footer format at the bottom of the page. This allows multiple templates to be placed on one article without being too intrusive (as the template is at the top of the page). I couldn't find a guideline for all topic templates, but similar topic template guidelines state "It is usually appropriate to add the template at the end of an article." Do people support moving the template to the top or keeping it as is?--Alabamaboy (talk) 13:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't mislead readers, please! That guideline is completely irrelevant, because African American is neither a continent nor a region. Look at Gay, or Transgender; the navigation templates are near the top of the page. This is a similar template, related to a social group, and as you can see in this version, the template actually fits quite nicely alongside the TOC. Photouploaded (talk) 14:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Please remember good faith and keep things civil. I wasn't attempting to mislead people--I stated that I couldn't find a guideline for all topic templates, but similar topic template guidelines state that the topic templates should be at the bottom. It is not irrelevant to show that other topic templates guidelines state keeping the templates at the bottom. Besides, I think the box template that reaches across the entire article at the bottom is easier to read and navigate. --Alabamaboy (talk) 17:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Color purple.jpg

The image Image:Color purple.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --02:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Nella Larson

Why is there no mention of Nella Larson? Lwnf360 (talk) 01:23, 11 July 2008 (UTC)