Charles Johnson Versus Toni Morrison

So I hear that Charles Johnson, author of The Middle Passage, opposes Toni Morrison's thematic focus on historical issues (especially those that deal with slavery and the African American experience). Apparently this rivalry started way back in the 90s, when Morrison won the Nobel. While Johnson respected the significance of Beloved, he thought that the novel didn't have much in "plot, structure, and character development". Really? Now I want to read the American Scholar article in which Johnson "invites fiction writers to consider leaving slavery and its long aftermath (group victimization) behind" (Poets & Writers, Nov/Dec 08). His rationale is that "slavery has lost its potency as a lens through which to view the black experience."

Morrison is said to have found some valid arguments in Johnson's essay, but she told Kevin Nance (author of the P&W article) that: "slavery can never be axhausted as a narrative. Nor can the Holocaust; nor can the potato famine; nor can war. To say slaver is over is to be ridiculous. There is nothing in those catasrtrophic events of human life that is exhaustible at all."

So there you have it--two powerful writers, two different approaches to an issue that once connected them.

I am reading A Mercy and am enjoying it. When reading Morrison, I have learned to slow down; I trust that in each sentence there is a whole world; if the world doesn't seem to be there I look for it in that sentence until it emerges. When I am done with the novel, I will grab a copy of Johnson's Middle Passage and get a feel of his style, then the dialogue will begin.