Disruption of Privacy in The House Behind the Cedars

When we write a letter, we expect it to be a direct exchange between ourselves and the recipient. Even when multiple recipients are expected, this is made explicit because the form of a letter includes a direct address. The same goes for multiple authors, whose presence is made explicit through the signature. A letter is understood to be contained within the two explicitly named parties named at its address and signature. Liz Stanley utilizes the term “‘epistolary intent,’” defining letters as a representational medium meant to bridge the distance between two subjects (Stanley 242). While Stanley focuses on the removal of time and space, I’m particularly compelled by the undercurrent in this passage affirming that a letter affirms the relationship between two people (or groups of people).

This gets complicated, however, in The House Behind the Cedars. As a result of her illiteracy, Molly, Rena/Rowena and John’s mother, is forced to use a scribe when sending letters to her children. Yet, when she writes to John after George spots Rena/Rowena in Patesville, her scribe (Frank, at this moment) does not sign off as a fellow author. Introducing the third entity to transcribe her letters inherently complicates the perceived privacy of her letters. When Frank’s involvement in penning the letter is disclosed to John, the letter reads “Frank knows all about it, and so I am having him write this letter for me, as Rena is not well enough to yet” (Chesnutt 105). Here, Frank’s very presence during a tense and high stakes conversation has to be justified. He had to be disclosed as “in on the secret,” and safe to have this discussion in front of, instead of being brought into the conversation himself.

-BH