ABSTRACT
HEMENWAY’s book is generally recognized as the major critical book-length study of Hurston’s life and work. Hemenway views Hurston’s work as an example of how the promise of the Harlem Renaissance had sadly deteriorated after World War II, as well as how black artists in America have been neglected. He accomplishes this through his groundbreaking work in situating Hurston’s work in the social, political, and historical context of the 1920s-40s in America. Hemenway painstakingly reconstructs details of Hurston’s travels from her native Southern origins in Florida, to Howard University, New York, and Columbia University to pursue her writing and folklore studies, and back to the South on folklore-collecting expeditions. He also details her brief forays into other literary and academic activities, such as performance drama and script-writing, journalism, university teaching, and lecturing. Hurston is depicted as a dynamic and flamboyantly witty, ambitious, and determined writer who, although dependent on the fickle generosity of wealthy white patronage to support her work, managed to maintain an absolute conviction in unearthing and writing the authentic African-American folklore of the South. Virtually all of Hurston’s published work is discussed, including her political essays as a journalist during World War II. Her texts are mainly presented in the context of circumstances surrounding their production and publication; Hemenway does not shirk from details of Hurston’s life and their effects on her literary career, including such low points as political conflicts with other Harlem Renaissance writers, who disparaged her anti-Communism and accused her of caricaturing Negro life, and her ill health and descent into poverty. Hemenway is most critical of Hurston’s autobiography Dust Tracks (1942), depicting it as a contradictory text, which tries to mask the obstacles of racial prejudice and disparity she faced as a writer while simultaneously celebrating her all-black upbringing and heritage. However, he ultimately defends it on the basis that it was apparently self-consciously written and manipulated for a white editor and audience.
