Charles Chesnutt’s “Dave’s Neckliss” belongs in the pantheon of America’s greatest short stories alongside such instantly recognizable titles as “Bartleby the Scrivener,” “A&P” and even—dare it be said?—Poe’s “The Tell-Tale Heart” and Shirley Jackson’s “The Lottery.” Determining the genius at work in “Dave’s Neckliss” is difficult to do on an initial reading not just because working one’s way through the sometimes nearly-impenetrable slave dialect of Uncle Julius can be such a chore. Only subsequent readings can fully reveal the almost inconceivably brilliant mastery of control over every single aspect of the art of writing fiction which Chesnutt reveals here. What seems to be a story in which everything important about the story is displayed right here on the surface actually conceals such a wealth of meaning, theme, metaphor, allusion, philosophy, literary criticism and exposure of historical bias that by the a fourth or fifth reading one’s mind is guaranteed to be officially boggled.
Charles Chesnutt is not a name routinely mentioned among the greatest authors in American history and it is certainly not because the rest of his output is as undeserving as “Dave’s Neckliss” is irrefutably deserving. Even with the official arrival of Black Month History guaranteeing exposure of African-American fiction to students who would never have heard of them before, Chesnutt’s genius has been allowed to slip through the cracks. One would almost assume that the history of African-American fiction actually written by African-American writers did not begin until the Harlem Renaissance. In fact, the publication of “Dave’s Neckliss” preceded Cane, “Sweat” and Home to Harlem by more than three decades. That Chesnutt’s reputation was built upon a genre which was never particularly respected and has seen its reputation sink ever is perhaps the key element to his mysterious absence in so many anthologies and textbooks.
The irony is that the admittedly confounding patois with which his recurring character Uncle Julius—a concerted subversive response not to Uncle Tom, but Uncle Remus—tells the story of Dave and his unusual necklace is vital—if not necessarily entirely essential—to its genius. That part of the genius of the story is one that usually does not become clear to readers (especially white readers) until a re-reading. A cursory reading leaves one with the impression that the framing device which introduces the flashback story told by Julius is just that: a cheap gimmick representative of the era, but not integral to overall meaning and that the only part of the story that absolutely must be read with care is the old man’s recollection of his fellow slave accused of stealing a smoke ham. In fact, the framing device is absolutely essential as it progressively becomes clear that Chesnutt’s little story has more things going on than some full-length novels.
“Dave’s Neckliss” is about the dehumanizing effects of slavery, but not just within the height of bondage. The story is also about the lasting aftereffects of that dehumanization and often surprisingly paradoxical response to emancipation. The story is also who gets to write that narrative and becomes a critique of the how black history is always mediated through the lens of white American perspective. Dave’s story is also treated ambiguously enough that it opens itself to interpretation of the psychological implications of taking another person’s words literally or figuratively. Is Dave really driven to madness when he claims he is turning into a ham or has Julius misread everything that occurs from that point until he ultimately reaches an entirely wrong conclusion about the evidence at the scene of his friend’s suicide? As if that weren’t enough, Chesnutt decides he also wants to use “Dave’s Neckliss” as an opportunity for ecclesiastical criticism. Dave’s claim to be turning into “a ham” is also a symbolic referent to the Biblical figure of Ham, disgraced son of Noah, whom racist Biblical scholars used to rationalize institutional prejudice and justify alleged evidence of the inferiority of black races for millennia.
That is one whole heck of a lot for short story about a guy sentenced to wearing a ham necklace to cover. And a few readings more might just unearth evidence that Chesnutt is also dealing with yet more stuff worth investigating. Well over a hundred years have passed since “Dave’s Neckliss” first appeared in print. The time has come for it become a story as familiar even to those who have never actually read it as that story about the jumping frog or the guy who swims his way home through the in-ground pools of his neighbors.
