Biography as the "telescope of life..."

As I am investigating my text, I am amazed how the deeper I dig, the more questions I come up with and how each new piece to the puzzle is sending me in a new direction. In the Preface to "The Narrative of the Life of Mary Jemison," James E. Seaver claims biography is the “best field in which to study mankind” (iii) and he places the written words of a person’s life above any other form of monument.

In the introduction, Seaver sets the scene for the narrative and describes the “Peace of 1783” (vii). Using the foundation of the history of post-Revolutionary War upstate New York, he introduces how the story of Mary Jemison, “The White Woman” became part of that history. He positions Mary as a kind, giving woman with a “natural goodness of heart” (viii), despite her years of association with an Indian companion and “notwithstanding her children and associates were all Indians” (viii). Realizing that her story was important from a historical standpoint, some prominent gentlemen from the area, especially Daniel W. Banister, Esq., decided to collect her stories. In 1823, Banister hired Seaver to “collect the materials, and prepare the work for press” (ix).

Seaver continues in his introduction by describing Mary and even admits: “[h]er appearance was well calculated to excite a great degree of sympathy” (x). Mary Jemison is depicted in the introduction in a compassionate light in order to create a sense of identification with the white audience. Her “whiteness” is shown in the introduction as her kind, giving qualities and this creates a believability for the audience while constructing a character that is sympathetic. As Seaver recounts her personal history in the narrative form, he displays the duality of Mary’s existence. He demonstrates how her whiteness creates sympathy which brings the audience into the story, while simultaneously reminding the audience that because she remained amongst the Indians, she became Indian: “when she looks up and is engaged in conversation her countenance is very expressive; but from her long residence with the Indians, she has acquired the habit of peeping from under eye-brows as they do with the head inclined downwards” (xi). This back and forth between cultures is explicitly addressed throughout the author’s introduction. I believe this cross-cultural exchange is the focus of the book. How does an individual from one culture be taken from that culture and forced into another only to stay part of that new culture by choice?

:)