CR Post #1: Emmett Till
When reading the account of Emmett Till’s murder, it is clear that the author is biased. Though thought to be generally objective pieces in theory, it is apparent that the article is wrought in subjectivity. When giving background information on the parties involved, both the victim and killer, and the story of the circumstances leading up to Till’s death, there is a clear difference in the level of detail given and the tone behind the words. The article paints the story of humble beginnings for the killer, Roy Bryant, and his wife, Carolyn, describing her as a “small farmer’s daughter” and him a “soldier”; descriptions sure to incite certain biases in the minds of the readers since it lends the wife an air of naivete and tells us that the killer has fought for his country, portraying him in the image of heroism. The article also calls for sympathy on their behalf, telling us that they earn little because “for one reason”, the government has been giving the money they earned to Negroes, expressing confusion and a bit of outrage for their predicament as well. It paints Bryant as a family man, even truck driving for all eight of his brothers, while his wife stays home and tends the store for extra money. It paints their whole family as quaint, and the author is good and ready, five paragraphs later, we finally start hearing the story of what lead to Till’s death, and with that, the description of him. Which consists of “stocky, muscular, weighing at 160” and that “‘he looked the a man’,” that is all. So, while we are left with pleasant, cute and cuddly, perhaps relate-able feelings towards the killer and his family, the only impression we have of Till is juxtaposed in that he is basically strong and manly, and very impersonal.
I think you do a good job of gathering textual evidence for every claim you make. I am wondering a little bit about which close reading method you use. It seems like make you’re doing an archaeological dig, but your texts are from more than one small passage. And if you are doing follow the trail, I’m not totally clear about what it is you’re following. I love that you have a position and you try to illustrate that position using the texts. Your voice is strong, and the clarity will help you in all your writing.
I think though that if you had used one of the close reading methods we discussed, it would have helped you to push your analysis further. There’s something about your reading of the text that is still hovering above the text. For example you say we have a cuddly relatable feelings towards the murders. I’m not sure what of how they are described communicates cuddly. I appreciate that you are leaning towards hyperbole to underscore your point that there’s a real divide in how the narrative describes the white Bryants and how it describes Till. Still I think you have to root your analysis in the text and you have to explain what part of the text gets you to say cuddly (and if there is no part that does, then you should figure out what word does get at what you see going on in the text).
One question I pose here is if the narrative is so obviously slanted, sensationalist even in how it plays up the divide, what might the effect of that be? Is it just that the author is racist? Why tell this story? Are their traces of irony or sarcasm here?