October 26, 2009

I found the last three pages or so some of the most interesting in Tufts. He says on  p. 364, "I have worn no masks, no disguises, but have appeared in my every day dress." This remark is particularly interesting after all of the various forms of dress we have seen him wear. He has gone through several sets of clothes, some stolen and some bought, and has escaped from jail naked and made clothes from women's undergarments and pew pillows. If this is the every day dress of Henry Tufts, who is Henry Tufts? He most reminds me of an actor or a jester. His clothes are often ridiculous and comical, and they represent the outlandishness of his life. Since the two essential elements of disguise are performance and costume, it is fitting that his clothes should demonstrate his characteristics. As a counterfeiter, Tufts skillfully uses clothes to become whoever he needs to be. Two of his most memorable costumes represent two of his recurring personalities. He steals a church pew and makes underwear, which I think strikingly reflects his continual subversion of religion through his imitations of prayer and preaching and his reverence for superstition and fortune. He also attempts to make clothes out of women's undergarments, which illustrates his sensuality. His use of material that would be very close to a woman's skin exhibits his own constant desire for women.

I think it is also significant that the clothing market was vastly changing at this time. Mills and factories were just emerging in the American northeast and making a huge difference in communities. Clothes used to be a scarce commodity; they were the result of hard labor, and that probably by a woman within the family. With the introduction of factories and mills, clothing became literally distanced from people, even though once worn that distance was diminished. Eventually clothes also became cheaper. Instead of having a few items, Americans now have closets jammed with clothes. Clothes still play a significant part in self-representation, but they are vastly more interchangeable than they were in Tufts time. It is much easier for us to deceive others (and ourselves) through a quick costume change than it would have been for Tufts and his fellow rogues.

Another remark of Tufts that really struck me on these last Tufts was when he quoted Romans 6:23, "the wages of sin is death." He stops this verse just before the all-important "but"; "but the gift of God is eternal life through Christ Jesus our Lord." Instead of finishing the verse, Tufts shares his own harsh view of judgment and religion. He writes, "the wages of a vicious, dissolute life is punishment" (365). He has seen a lot of punishment, but as is typical of Tufts and other counterfeiters, he feels his punishment his curse and not the natural result of deviant behavior. Tufts chooses to quote law over gospel. The gospel would set him free from sin and give him a new life and a new chance. Instead, he wallows in his punishments. He traps himself in a pattern of stealing and counterfeiting instead of finding a new start. His choice of the old testament (the law) over the new is especially interesting in light of his position within a new republic. Shouldn't the citizens of a new nation have hope for new beginnings? Instead, Tufts seems to damn himself. He resigns himself to the "certain doom" rather than trying to truly reinvent himself into the persona he has not yet tried- an honest man.

October 19, 2009

I am really enjoying reading Johnson along with Tufts' narrative because it opens up questions about how Tufts fits in with a forming nation. I am especially interested in the "neighboring" concept that Johnson discusses and how Tufts rebelled against that system. His stealing and the destruction of his own "credit" cut him off from his neighbors and the community at large. Tufts points out on several occasions that he could not really return to a normal life after a certain point because of his ruined reputation. By ruining trust he eliminated his ability to function in the neighboring economy. Stealing and cheating of course has negative and isolating effects in our society as well, but in an economy that was based on face to face recognition and trust, stealing was more like economic suicide. We now have numeric values to place on our credit that can be transmitted electronically. I give you my credit score, you sell me a car. The early Americans had to look someone in the eye who would judge them based on gossip, truth, and appearance. The distance provided by literal distance across a vast country and the internet allows buying, selling, and trust to become much less personal.

I think it is interesting to read Tufts as a figure rebelling against many different forms of community. Not only was he rebelling against an economic community, but also a community of friends and neighbors. He picks up a nomadic lifestyle that is partly a result of his criminal activities and that separates him from his family. He also determinedly rebels against marriage conventions and the familial community through his many affairs. He makes no spiritual mentions of God, and thus rebels against the religious community that surrounds him.

How important is community in the formation of a nation? I think that can depend partly on the rhetoric used to discuss the state. Is it a nation, a government, or a country? A government implies a ruling body that may or may not create a community. A nation, however, gives a sense of commonality amongst individuals. A government taxes and starts wars, but a nation competes in the Olympics. So what were all of these men trying to create in the formation of the United States? They discussed and tried to form an ideal "government," but while Washington had these debates, Johnson shows that the people in the countryside and the emerging cities like New York and Philadelphia were creating a nation and a people. Tufts shows the value of individual liberty in a nation made up of individuals. He tries to take liberty as far as it can go. Perhaps that is really how nations are created; through testing the limits.

Tufts also tests the boundaries of another word: fortune. Tufts is a fortune teller, a sufferer of misfortunes, and the constant receiver of fortune. I think that Tufts repetition of fortune is related to his test of liberty because it demonstrates a lack of personal responsibility. The all-mighty fortune can be blamed for every good or bad thing that happens to us or that we do to other people. Fortune is another exercise of liberty as it is really just an excuse. Providence, on the other hand, would demonstrate a total lack of liberty. Providence is based on a belief in a will outside of our own that has absolute control. When we speak of providence, we give credit for the good and trust for relief from the bad to a higher power. Fortune is more convenient than providence because it does not come from the will of a deity, but from a throw of the dice.

October(!) 5, 2009

The exclamation point means I really like October.

I also like Tufts. Why? I am not really sure. He certainly is worshipping at the altar of Venus more openly than Burroughs, and I feel like I should be offended by that, but I'm not. I'm intrigued by his notions of truth and the truth he wishes to convey in his narrative. He says in the preface, "concealment has become no longer useful, and the suppression of truth unnecessary" (iv-v). His story is built on his deeds of un-truth; both in literal lies and the deception of stealing and counterfeiting. But he claims to be truthful as he relates his narrative because there is no point in not telling the truth. This point reveals something in the nature of

Tufts, and perhaps in the nature of humanity in general. He tells the truth only as it is useful. To what degree do we all do this? To what degree are all of our utterances utilitarian? Are all of our words serving our own purposes, or do they serve their own purposes? Or the purposes of "truth"? I seem to be getting back to Bakhtin. I think I want to think that words work both independently and dependently. They serve our purposes, but they also dialogically interact and support greater, larger purposes. We never have complete control of our words, and they still hold allegiance to greater truths than we intend or are aware of.

Tufts goes on to say on that same page that, "truth, not fiction, [is] the object of my views." Tufts reveals something about the audience he expects for his narrative. They will not be picking up a "fiction" (a novel?), but a truth. He enriches the definition of the title his work is given, which on the cover page is narrative, not memoir. That is interesting because I would be more likely to associate truth and accuracy with a memoir than a narrative. He also says that he has at least some intention of amusing or entertaining his audience. He wonders at why "fable and romance have long amused the world ... [and] not plain truth and real fact" (vii). Why do we enjoy fiction? Surely people's own lives have consisted of romances and adventures enough to amuse society. Certainly real people's lives may provide more insight into the human condition, since they are literally formed from the human condition. But art often strives for truth made from un-truth. I read once that Van Gogh said he did not use the colors that he actually saw, but the colors that felt real* (this is a drastic paraphrase and interpretation, forgive me). Fiction uses the colors, the words, the characters, that feel more true than the truth often does.

Like this picture. I love this painting. I connect with it. It feels so true even though no one has ever been that blue. So in addition to what is literature, I think Tufts makes us ask, what is truth? What is fiction? And, what's important?

*"Instead of trying to reproduce exactly what I see before me, I make more arbitrary use of color to express myself more forcefully." 

[Letter to Theo van Gogh, 11 August 1888]- from http://painting.about.com/od/artandartistquotes/a/Quotes_Van_Gogh.htm