theme and settings, as “novels that abound in dance
minutiae” (NYT,18 June 1961, X15). Van Vechten
published several novels during his career. The first,
a somewhat autobiographical work entitled Peter
Whiffle: His Life and Works(1922), was followed
quickly by other works such as The Blind Bow-Boy
(1923), The Tattooed Countess (1924), and Fire-
crackers(1925). It was Van Vechten’s sixth novel,
however, that drew the most fire and praise. NIG-
GERHEAVEN(1926) was inspired by Van Vechten’s
immersion in dynamic African-American social and
literary circles in New York City. The novel, contro-
versial because of its use of the vicious racial epi-
thet, was a satire of Harlem Renaissance life.
Responses to it were varied and included book
burnings at public rallies such as the one convened
in late December 1926 to protest the lynchings of a
young South Carolina woman and her two broth-
ers. At the rally organized by the National Negro
Development Union and the National Negro Cen-
tre Political Party, WILBERFORCEUNIVERSITYpro-
fessor S. R. Williams tore two pages from a copy of
the novel. “After reading several passages he asked
what should be done with them to show proper re-
sentment of their contents.” In response, the crowd
of approximately 400 people “shouted ‘Burn ’em
up’ ” and “he ignited the two pieces of paper” and
then noted that “there might be a later ceremony
for the burning of the entire book” (NYT,12 De-
cember 1926, 15). Leading figures such as W. E. B.
DUBOISand ALAINLOCKEvigorously protested the
novel, but Van Vechten received support for his
work from equally visible figures such as JAMES
WELDON JOHNSON and Langston Hughes. Van
Vechten, whose friendship with Hughes began in
1924, frequently discussed the novel in its early
stages, confessing in December 1925 that he was
“very unsettled” about the work and that he was
“too emotional when writing it and what one needs
in writing is a calm, cold eye” (Bernard, 34). Hughes
also provided a set of lyrics for the novel in order to
help Van Vechten avoid a costly suit for using unau-
thorized verses from a popular song of the day.
Scholar Emily Bernard, who published a com-
prehensive collection of letters between Hughes
and Van Vechten, notes that Van Vechten was well
aware of the potential damage that his novel might
do. His choice of title, for instance, had “turned
[COUNTEECULLEN] white with hurt,” and he en-
couraged his editor at Knopf to begin the publicity
campaign well in advance of the book’s appearance
so that “the kind of life I am writing about will not
come as an actual shock” (Bernard, 41). Van
Vechten’s nervousness was not easily diminished
despite the fact that he had been urged by such
keen activists as James Weldon Johnson and WAL-
TERWHITEto proceed. Historian David Levering
Lewis notes that Johnson “urged Carl Van
Vechten to write it in the first place because ‘no
acknowledged American novelist has yet made
use of this material’ ” (Lewis, 180). Still, Van
Vechten had to contend with the obvious rejec-
tion of his work and companionship, which a
number of people now regarded suspiciously. Since
its publication, however, scholars such as Lewis
have suggested that “[n]ot only is it not a memo-
rable literary work, it is not even up to Van
Vechten’s usual polish” (Lewis, 181). The novel
reflects much about the racial stakes that shaped
the Harlem Renaissance and contributes to ongo-
ing studies of how white writers like Van Vechten,
PAULGREEN, and others grappled with and pre-
sented African-American subjects. The novel also
provides rich insights into the African-American
response to such literature and the ways in which
writers articulated their specific racial agendas in
the face of potential literary and artistic poaching
or appropriation.
Van Vechten enjoyed photography, and in the
early 1930s he began taking portraits of many
friends, colleagues, and newly emerging figures.
His images of well-known figures and writers in-
cluded those of ZORA NEALE HURSTON,NELLA
LARSEN,EUGENEO’NEILL, and Anna May Wong.
The images often are evocative and powerful and
constitute one of the most impressive modern col-
lections of Harlem Renaissance–era portraits. Van
Vechten developed his prints in his own darkroom
and was known to be especially proud of the fact
that throughout his photography career, he had
never had to crop an image. One of his colleagues,
Edward Steichen, characterized Van Vechten’s por-
traits as “darned good,” noting that Van Vechten
“had a good opportunity to do the kind of work he
was interested in, and he did it very well.” Van
Vechten, who proudly noted that he had “pho-
tographed everybody from Matisse to Isamu
Noguchi,” also recalled that his “first subject was542 Van Vechten, Carl