Saturday, August 29, 2009

I haven't read much about Langston Hughes, which strangely I think is the case for quite a few people, but what comes to my mind when I think of him is the trials that he faced with the communist hearings. I know that that doesn't cover the span of his career but every time I read a poem of his that is what I think of. The language of Langston's work is simple and sarcastic and easily accessible to anyone who reads it. Considering the time period I am always fascinated by the fact that Hughes spoke so plainly.

During the "hearing" that took place Hughes has to answer for so much of that language and it makes me wonder if he ever regretted writing so simply. If he ever wished he'd been more coded in his language but then would he have been considered revolutionary? And to some people he's not really a revolutionary at all. I think it was Richard Wright who criticized him for not saying enough and for allowing himself to live and work among white people. Wright felt like there needed to be a separation betweenand Hughes seems so much more interested in being understood by everyone. I have a feeling that I'm rambling so I'll stop now but those were some things I was thinking of as I was reading the poems.
Posted by at
Labels:

4 comments:

  1. FURIOUS PENAugust 29, 2009 at 7:06 PM

    Hi my name is Melissa Lozano.
    There is a delicate balance of keeping it real and selling out. That's real though and sadly, pins poets and people of color. I like what you said about Langston writing so simply and
    "If he ever wished he'd been more coded in his language but then would he have been considered revolutionary?" Even though he wrote simply it still was a threat and he had to prove himself to so many people: a communist hearing and a hearing between himself and his peers....

    ReplyDelete
  2. elmazAugust 30, 2009 at 7:45 AM

    Eboni,
    you bring important distinctions here (as does Melissa) and expand our references points for Hughes, but here in this blog, you also need to go INTO his poety.
    e

    ReplyDelete
  3. Meg DayAugust 30, 2009 at 1:58 PM

    i think also that much of his poetry is more complex than it seems. perhaps he WANTED it to seem simple, perhaps his poetry, like Harryette Mullen's sleeping with the dictionary, is intentionally exclusionary. there are so many allusions & interior structures in his work that aren't visible or understandable without some serious attention to whom or about what he might be speaking/writing. i think context is huge here.

    ReplyDelete
  4. AriesAugust 31, 2009 at 3:18 PM

    Every writer faces some level of criticism and as each writer reaches a new audience and with a new level of approval there's always someone to remind us that what we're doing isn't enough that responsability becomes three fold for writers of color. As you'll learn about the BAM Black Arts Movement Black poets and writers of color have to take on an urgency in their writing to create work that standouts and speak for an audience that is otherwise forgotten and silenced. We have to step back here and think outside the realm of academia is his writing really that simple or does we suppose it is because it isn't slapping us in the face but rather something that takes more introspection.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)