Chesnutt's Parallel Constructions

Both “The Goophered Grapevine” and “Dave’s Neckliss” are similar stories.  As I read “Dave’s Neckliss,” I kept noticing names of characters and locations being repeated: Annie, Uncle Julius, Mars Dugal, Rockfish, Mars’ Dugal’s second plantation on Beaver Crick, and Wimbletom/Wim’l’ton Road.  This makes sense as the stories belong to a collection or series as Dr. Campbell explained in class.  However, I could not help but notice similarities in structure as well. 

In both, Uncle Julius tells a story from his slave past in an attempt to get what he wants.  In “The Goophered Grapevine,” he wants to keep the narrator and his wife from buying the ruined plantation, so he tells a story to try and convince him that the place is cursed.  In “Dave’s Neckliss,” he wants the ham, so he tells a story to make John and Annie not want the ham any longer.  Are the tales he tells real or made-up?  Is he able to relate a real experience that fits to his purposes or does he create one to get what he wants?  The “goophered” story seems made up to me because while the slaves may have believed in the “goophered” grapes and attributed deaths to something that doesn’t exist, there is no such explanation for the fact that Henry got young and grew hair and then got old and bald in a seasonal cycle.  The story of Dave seems a bit more believable, which is perhaps why it seems more appalling.  However, that story could also be made-up as the tear while eating his sixth slice of ham seems a bit staged. 

It is interesting that the “goophered” story does not succeed – while Dave’s story does – in bringing about what Julius wants.  Partly, this could be due to the fact that Dave’s story is more appalling – and seems more likely to be true.  However, I also think that it has to do with which of Julius’ listeners is responsible for the action.  In both cases, Annie seems more affected by the stories and more likely to believe them to be true.  When she asks him if the “goophered” story is true, she does so “doubtfully, but seriously” (696).  This suggests that at least a small part of her believes the story – or, at least, the tragedy tugs at her emotions.  Similarly, in “Dave’s Neckliss,” she gives Julius the ham because she “couldn’t have eaten any more of” it (508).  This implies that after hearing the story of Dave, she was bothered enough that she couldn’t eat more ham.  On the other hand, her husband does not appear as bothered in either story.  He purchases the plantation regardless of the story and he wants ham after Julius’ story.  Thus, the success of Julius’ story in the “Dave’s Neckliss” seems to rely on the fact that Annie was the one in the position to give him what he hoped to gain by it, whereas in “The Goophered Grapevine,” he was relying on John to do as he wanted. 

The fact that Annie seems more affected by these stories also raises the question of whether Chesnutt was making a point about women being more susceptible than men to these sorts of ploys.  It’s hard to tell if he was trying to denote a gender difference in general or if these are just characteristics of two particular characters that happen to be of different genders as they are the same characters.  If they had been different characters in each story, the conclusion of a statement regarding gender would be easier to come by.