Monica Carnall-Freaner

Monica Carnall-Freaner

English 401- Intro. to Graduate Studies

Final paper – December 13, 2002

The Power and Meaning of Authorship

The Controversy:

In 1976 when The Education of Little Tree was first published, it received critical acclaim. The title, The Education of Little Tree: A True Story, lead audiences and critics alike to believe that the story was an autobiography of the author. Forrest Carter a.k.a. Little Tree was, according to the book’s forward, “a storyteller in counsel to the Cherokee Nation.” Even before its release the controversy surrounding the book and its author began.

After 1975 an interview with Barbara Walters was aired, NBC was bombarded with callers questioning Forrest Carter's identity. Soon after the publication of Little Tree in 1976, Dan Carter (distant cousin to Asa/ Forrest Carter) wrote an op-ed piece for the New York Times exposing the author’s identity. Later that same year, Wayne Greenhaw wrote a second selection for the New York Times, which dug deeper into Asa/Forrest Carter's past and exposed his infamous relationships with the Ku Klux Klan, George Wallace and the White Citizens Council. The negative publicity did not affect the books popularity or sales.

The story of a young boy who learns his Cherokee heritage from the grandparents who rescue him from a white orphanage continued to sell even after the controversy boiled over. However, Asa/Forrest Carter had trouble dealing with the exposure. Family and friends say the controversy and pressure had a negative affect on Carter. He began drinking and seemed to be a "nervous wreck". Carter died in June 1979, reportedly after a drinking binge and altercation.

Even after his death, the questions surrounding his work continued, coming to another apex in 1991. After the book received the ABBY award, debate over the author's true identity was put to rest when Carter's widow, agent and publisher publicly acknowledged his true identity. However, the debate and discussion over his intent and authorial responsibility continued and the conversation extended into the book’s meaning, authenticity and value.

The Education of Little Tree has not been out of publication since its first review in 1976. It continues to be used in elementary schools across the country and continues to be debated in universities around the world.

While The Education of Little Tree has received a great deal of attention because of the authorial controversy, it is not the first or last book written by an ethnic impostor. In 1983, Simon and Schuster published Famous All Over Town by Danny Santiago. Although it was released with little promotion, the novel about a Chicano Holden Caulfield was praised by Anglo and Chicano reviewers. This is a coming of age novel concerning the turmoil a Mexican-American 14 year old faces in dealing with his family, community and school. In May 1984, the book received the Rosenthal Award. Because of its commercial success and literary recognition, the story was going to be used as a jumping off point for an article in the New York Times Review of Books about authors from East L.A. Instead of an article about East Los Angeles and Famous All Over Town, the magazine published "The Secret of Dan Santiago", by Jon Gregory Dunne in August 1984. The article exposed the author's real identity, that of a 73 year old Caucasian graduate of Andover and Yale. With Daniel James exposed as the real author, debates about authorship among readers and critics were again brought to the forefront.

Even though the details and responses to these two controversies differ, the basic principle of authorship lies at their heart. From these two examples three major debates erupt. First, what is the role of author identity and intent in literature? Second, does the author have a moral or ethical obligation to disclose his “true” identity to the reader? Finally, should schools use these literary selections to teach multiculturalism?

There are no universally accepted correct answers to these questions…save one… it depends. The interesting point that can be taken away from these debates, opinions and critiques is not the answer but rather the journey we go through in searching for the answer.

Author Identity:

Some critics point out that author identity is not relevant to these two works. Henry Louis Gates, Jr. argued that whether of not Carter was Cherokee was irrelevant. Instead, he argues, as does current literary theory, that the author’s personal history is not a relevant factor in judging the quality of the novel. Similarly, the author- Daniel James- believed the book itself was the only answer to questions regarding his identity and the quality of the text. “If the book were good, it would be good under whatever identity the writer chose to use” (Dunne par. 71).

Other critics expand this notion beyond Little Tree and Famous by pointing out that social representation has become more important than aesthetic considerations. Thus, for some, the controversy lies not within the identity of the author but with what is valued in writing- aesthetics or cultural representation. Greg Glazner and Jon Davis point out that if cultural representation is used as the judgment criteria for literature it is a standard that cannot be measured. “…World wide communication is changing what few coherent cultures are left. So to anchor texts exclusively in the cultural is to anchor them in the ambiguous and eroding” (Glazner par. 1).

However, these two points, which lessen the authors’ significance in the piece, ignore one important fact. Both men were aware that their writing was being read and critiqued as ethnic autobiographical literature. Does their knowledge of this not place some ethical responsibility on their shoulders? Critics like Laura Browder believe it does.

Author Responsibility:

Browder points out that narratives like The Education of Little Tree and Famous All Over Town create anxiety over racial and ethnic identity. Theses pseudo-autobiographies draw on the American belief in self-construction. Furthermore, ethnic autobiographies “offer the authentic voice of a minority group to a reading audience composed primarily of white middle class Americans” (Browder par. 6). Authors like Carter and James exploit the “implied contract” with the reader. The ethnic autobiography is a narrative not of just one man but of a people (Browder par. 6).

In this light, the authors do hold some responsibility to the reader. Carter and James have, at the very least, ignored the assumptions of the reader or, more deviously, manipulated the reader because of these assumptions. Daniel James consciously made the decision to present himself as Chicano writer. He even discussed the issue with John Dunne as he sought to have the work published. While James’ identity may not have had a great significance when the work itself was published, should he not have taken responsibility when the work was interpreted as an authentic representation of Chicano life in East Los Angeles? Similarly, shouldn’t Asa Carter have revealed his identity as his “true story” was taken as an authentic narrative of Cherokee culture?

The answer to that question lies in the interpretation of “authentic.”

In literary studies it can be debated whether or not authors can write authentically about experiences they may never have had. Frequent discussion of the larger question… Can a person of one ethnic, social or cultural background empathize with the ethnic, social or cutural background of another to sufficiently reflect the experiences of the latter? Depending on your stance in literary criticism, the answer will vary.

While this may be a meaningful discussion in the academy, it is a debate that should be extended beyond the walls of academe. Given that this debate remains locked in the halls of academia is indicative of how many readers do not bother to explore the background of the author or the authenticity of a work. This lack of information is precisely the reason that one of the most important points of this controversy lies in the use of these two novels to teach multiculturalism.

Multicultural Education and Literature:

Educators have used Little Tree and Famous to act as representatives of specific subcultures. Reading lists, curriculum guides and textbook guides all included these works as part of a multicultural curriculum. Going even further, these texts have, in some cases, even been accepted by cultural organizations that represent Cherokee tribes and Hispanic Americans. Knowing this, the controversy becomes not the nature of the author’s ethnic background or intent but that the work was touted as “authentic” in the classroom.

While teaching multiculturalism through the use of narratives, novels and autobiographies is undoubtedly more interesting than dry textbooks, using Little Tree and Famous to implement this practice does not address the goal of multicultural education. That goal being “to extend our awareness of the complex whole to include the world view values and history of the subordinated culture…to be aware of the conflicts between the world views and the values of dominant and subordinate cultures” (Pearce par. 6).

Marylin Levy points out that teaching students about a sub-culture as interpreted by the dominant culture only detracts from the goal. In this case, the lesson in culture comes from the observer and not the observed (Levy par. 21) Michael Marker goes even further in his criticism of using The Education of Little Tree in the classroom. His article, “The Education of Little Tree: What it Really says about Public School”, point out that the novel “seems ready made for the public school environment. Not only is it easily digestible for an audience brought up on television versions of Indian life, but it also steers away from any troubling questions about the history of Native peoples with regards to the existing social order” (Marker par. 9)

Similarly it can be noted that Daniel James interpretation has been criticized for its avoidance of conflicts between Chicano culture and the dominant Anglo culture.

Marker believes this lack of substance will have a detrimental effect on cultural education. Continued used of these texts “will only produce a generation of ethnocentric ignoramuses ill-prepared to deal with the complexities of a bewildering modern world” (Marker par. ) Browder agrees that the use of watered-down culture “may simply be a re-inscription of stereotypical attitudes toward racial and ethnic identity” (Gubar par.2). If these novels are used by the teacher with the intent of having the student experience the Cherokee culture or Chicano culture with no questioning, discussion or debate then there is no “real” multicultural learning. The goal in multicultural education is not merely to expose the student to diverse literature, but to look closely at what is taught and how it is taught.

Conclusions:

While the problems associated with these two novels are even wider than the three points outlined here. It is clear that there is power in authorship. The debate about author identity and responsibility will rage on in the academic world, but it seems clear to me that the use of impostor autobiographies/fiction are detrimental to the development of multicultural education. Multicultural education, like cultural studies, is meant to challenge the accepted. Presenting false, inaccurate or manipulated views of any culture perverts the lesson. It is debatable whether these inaccuracies are as harmful to the casual reader.

Bibilography

Barra, Allen. “The Education of Little Fraud” December 20, 2001. (11-27-02).

Bollman, Amy Kallio. “The Education of Little Tree and Forrest Carter: What is Known? What is Knowable?” October 2001. (12-4-02).

Browder, Laura. “Under Cover: Ethnic Imposture and Construction of American Identities.” (11-22-02)

Dunne, John Gregory. “The Secret of Danny Santiago.” The New York Review of Books. August 16, 1984. (12-11-02).

Glazner, Greg and Jon Davis. “Bring Back Excellence.” Boston Review. Summer 1997. (11-22-02).

Gubar, Susan. “Slippery Characters: Ethnic Impersonators and American Identities : Book Review” African American Review Spring 2002.

Levy. Marylin. “Reflections on Mulit-Cultualism and the Tower of PsychoBabble.” The ALAN Review. Spring 1995. 95/Levy.html (12-05-02).

Marker, Michael. “The Education of Little Tree: What it Really Reveals About the Public Schools.” Phi Delta Kappan November 1992: 226-227.

“Non-Traditional Sources as Texts: An Interpretation” Trivium June 23, 2001. (11-22-02).

Oliver, Eileen. “The Diversity Connection: Taking Responsibility for What we Teach.” The Alan Review Spring 1998. (11/22/02).

Paredes, Raymund. “Teaching Chicano Literature: An Historical Approach.” (12-4-02).