Abstract:This essay analyzes two works of historical fiction about abolitionist John Brown and his followers: James McBride's The Good Lord Bird (2013) and Russell Banks's Cloudsplitter (1998). Both texts decenter John Brown from the raid on Harpers Ferry and examine how his followers, historical and imagined, made the choice to participate in violent resistance. Both authors use the metaphor of castration anxiety to depict their protagonists' relationship to Brown: his leadership leaves them "unmanned" and destabilizes their identities. I argue that, while Banks's text reinforces traditional notions of masculine leadership and privileges the story of his protagonist's white male maturation over the politics of abolition, McBride more genuinely focuses on the contributions of women and people of color in the abolitionist movement. In doing so, he tears down the Freudian notion of "normal" development and celebrates the possibilities of being "unmanned." For his character Onion, losing a stable male identity allows him to build solidarity and empathy with women and to reject stereotypical assumptions about what it means to be a man.

中文翻译：

---

关于约翰·布朗和激进运动中男性身份的历史小说

摘要：本文分析了两部关于废奴主义者约翰·布朗及其追随者的历史小说作品：詹姆斯·麦克布莱德的《好鸟》（2013 年）和罗素·班克斯的《破云》（1998 年）。这两篇文章都让约翰·布朗远离了对哈珀斯费里的袭击，并考察了他的历史和想象中的追随者如何选择参与暴力抵抗。两位作者都使用阉割焦虑的比喻来描述主角与布朗的关系：他的领导让他们“无人”，并破坏了他们的身份。我认为，虽然班克斯的文字强化了男性领导力的传统观念，并赋予主人公白人男性成熟的故事优于废除政治的故事，麦克布莱德更真诚地关注女性和有色人种在废奴运动中的贡献。在这样做的过程中，他推翻了弗洛伊德的“正常”发展观念，并庆祝“无人化”的可能性。对于他的角色 Onion 而言，失去稳定的男性身份使他能够与女性建立团结和同理心，并拒绝关于成为男性意味着什么的陈规定型假设。