Second Section--A "Tuft" Read

I found the second section of Tuft's narrative extremely tough to read. I think I'll have to agree with Courtney that I like Stephen Burroughs better. While the first section of Tufts was exciting and funny--and as stated in class, his message was overt, I found that a lot of his escapades were very similar: I stole a horse, I sold said horse for $30, I got caught, I burned the jail, then I ran home to Lee. I think perhaps the big issue for me is that I have a hard time seeing a plot development or even character development. We do not get anything about his wife or even his friends--just him--he is the focus. He never stays put anywhere long enough for us to get a picture of the other people in the narrative.  Burroughs' book did; I could see plot development there.  I became invested in the narrative.  Tufts' book reads like a series of incidents that, as a piece of sensational fiction, meant to titillate the senses (i.e., cloven hooves, wizardry, eating human remains, lewd women, escaping naked from prison--all this is guaranteed sensational pleasure.) In thinking about this, I wondered about the audience. From my readings about sensational fiction, the genre appeals to the lower classes. These people probably worked 12 plus hours a day and had little time to read. So, perhaps reading his text in short bits would provide the same satisfaction that our modern 30-minute television episode would provide. Reading it in long stretches was frustrating for me, however. Again, the lack of a strong plot thing.

I also feel that Tufts narrative had a lot in common with Stephen Burroughs. They both participated in counterfeiting, horse thieving, bee-hive stealing, clothes stealing, jail burning. At one point, I started making notes in places that I speculated about the SB influence.

Lastly, I could not help but note that Tufts kept returning home to Lee (And frequently I wondered why he just didn't stay put). And in thinking about the Revolutionary time period, I wondered what the novel had to say about freedom and home. If we think about it, freedom and democratic law cannot co-exits. It is a paradox of sorts. Americans can not do as they please with total freedom. Once Tuft steals, he loses his freedom and is confined in jail. And Americans are not free to steal food as they please, they must work. In fact, I think Tufts worked harder getting out of jail than he would have worked if he lived an honest life. Anyway, back to my argument. Tufts narrative did show me what life in 18th century America was like. It was under martial law and the government was, in fact, mob-ruled. Citizens had to take the law into their own hands. Going 150 miles to retrieve a horse, etc. (Yet that sounded like it was perhaps a whopper to me, but nonetheless . . .), the fact remains that if a man wants his horse back, he has to leave his farm and go find Tufts; because chances are, Tufts is the one who stole it.

And by the way, I think that the men searching for Tufts (like Johnson)  should have just set up a post in Lee; if they were patient, it was pretty much a give that as soon as Tufts broke jail, he was going home. Predictable enough to warrant some attention, yes?

2nd By the way: Rachel and Leah?  Really??