American Literature II

After completing the novel, I am still unsure about who Beloved really is.  I’m pretty certain that she is not simply a woman who escaped slavery and coincidentally has the same name as the baby that Sethe killed.  From what  I can tell through Morrison’s writing, Beloved is more of a materialized otherworldly character.  However, I am on the fence about Beloved’s true identity.  Is she the manifestation of Beloved’s ghost or a sort of reincarnation of Sethe’s mother?  There is evidence that Beloved is Sethe’s dead baby, such as Sethe’s urge to urinate as soon as Beloved first appears at 124, and the scar under her chin in the place where the baby was killed. Yet there is evidence that Beloved could instead be representative of Sethe’s mother.  In chapter twenty two Beloved has knowledge of the passage from Africa to America that only Sethe’s mother would have, and then in chapter twenty six Beloved switches places with Sethe and takes on a motherly role.  Either way, if she supposed to be Sethe’s baby or her mother, Morrison uses Beloved to portray that the people can never escape their past, especially Sethe who has constant “rememories” of hers.

Excerpt from “Why is Beloved So Universally Beloved?”

While reading Beloved, I often find myself angry at the characters who cannot forgive or even sympathize with Sethe and her situation at 124. People who have also been through slavery and escaping it, ostracize Sethe for killing her daughter when Schoolteacher comes to bring her back to Sweet Home—but why are they so quick to judge her actions? Shouldn’t we praise her for pushing back against the institution that so readily enslaved her? Characters like Paul D. say that it wasn’t her only option, but wasn’t it? Could she have gone willingly with Schoolteacher and her children back to Sweet Home and then try to run again, yes, but would that experience and added trauma that she and the children would go through be worth it? There’s no telling what ottrocites would have happened at Sweet Home. Perhaps all of her children would have died or they would have become so traumatized by the incident that they ended up like Halle. Killing Beloved was a sacrifice for the family, a sacrifice for their freedom, a sacrifice for no more pain. By doing the most painful thing, Sethe finally frees herself and her family from slavery—it no longer can touch them. This moment reminds me of Medea by Euripides, a Greek tragedy, where Medea goes and kills her children as a last resort. These two moments are acts which are so unthinkable and so taboo to readers, but make perfect sense to the mothers, in fact they finally seem to have a sense of agency over their children. This may seem like a twisted way of thinking about it, but within the context of these two stories, the women’s children are not even legally theirs. According to society, they have no sense of ownership or motherhood over their children because of their status and background, but by killing their children, they can have the last word and do what is right by their motherhood. For women to judge and condemn their actions seems insensitive and shows a lack of understanding. I feel this inherent sense to defend Sethe and Medea because there is no one else who is willing to put themselves in that unthinkable situation. Of course they both live with immense guilt and pain after the fact, but their rash actions were done in a moment of complete instinct and survival, so it’s just as hard for them to process as it is us. It’s hard to picture what they went through, but we get no where closer to their thoughts by simply critizing them.

“Beloved” by Toni Morrison depicts the long-lasting and devastating effects that slavery has on African-Americans, physically as well as emotionally. The story takes place after the Civil War during the so-called period of Reconstruction. The story skips between a time when slavery was still existent in the South, and a time when former slaves were struggling to get used to their newfound freedom.

One thing that immediately stood out to me is the author’s habitual use of magical realism. Despite the numerous descriptions of supernatural events, the story never comes across as unrealistic or unauthentic. Fiction and reality merge seamlessly as all characters believe in ghosts, and their beliefs are a reflection of Afro-Caribbean spiritual beliefs and practices which were common amongst slaves at that time. Nevertheless, I think it is somewhat paradoxical that the character of Sethe would believe in ghosts as she is otherwise portrayed as a tough as nails and cynical woman. The ghost is not the only thing in the novel that show’s how the past is connected to the present. Sethe is constantly moving back and forth between the past and the present through her rememories that it seems like she is stuck in an endless loop of the same events.

An aspect that is very interesting is the impact that Beloved’s ghost has on the family’s life. To me it seems that the ghost itself is a representation of slavery. It wreaks havoc on the family’s life, and even led Sethe’s two sons to leave the family home. Thus, the ghost is responsible for the separation of the family just like slavery broke up countless families. In general, the character of Beloved is one that keeps me guessing. When she later appears as a physical form, she is suffering from health problems and has a hard time breathing. I think this is connected to the part in which Sethe describes holding her baby after its throat had been cut. While I can’t help but wonder how a ghost can experience health problems, I think it is another beautiful example of the author connecting the past with the present as well as her having an eye for detail.

Another detail that stood out is the author’s use of oxymorons such as “the old baby” which I think are intentionally used to confuse readers (Morrison 5). By ascribing unconventional adjectives to nouns, the author conveys to the reader the feeling of confusion and uncertainty which slaves must have experienced every day of their lives. Being treated like property they were unable to decide over their own body or fate. They could be sold any day and whole families were ripped apart. Morrison uses strong adjectives and sensory imagery throughout her novel which draws the reader into the story and makes him go through what the characters are going through.

Personally, I always have to like the characters and be able to relate to them in order to enjoy reading a novel. Even though Morrison’s characters come with a plethora of flaws, they are likable enough to make the novel an engaging read. I like Sethe’s inner strength and bluntness. I also appreciate Morrison’s bluntness, and that she’s not trying to sugarcoat the descriptions of slave practices. Of course, the tone is oftentimes very dark and depressing but in my opinion it is necessary if you approach a heavy topic like that of slavery.

Morrison is the first, and so far the only, African-American woman to win the literature’s most coveted award- the Nobel Prize. And Morrison is not like one of those writers that only devoted English professors know about. Morrison is a national treasure and as the Professor pointed out today- arguably the most important living American writer. And with her literature, you either love it or hate- there is very seldom in between. I have been a big fan of her ever since I have first encountered her short story “Recitatif”, before reading The Bluest Eye and Sula. But I didn’t want to read Beloved. Unfortunately I have seen the film, so I know the plot and the ending. But that is not the reason why Beloved was something that I wanted to hold on to. Morrison’s language, with it’s complicated syntax, picturesque lexicon and suspenseful rhythm, is not an easy read. I thought that in order to read a novel of such caliber, I needed to reach a certain literary maturity. The context of what she writes, no matter how brutal it is, is actually not the biggest challenge.

What makes Morrison’s writing so genius is her unique ability to place the reader into the mindset and the atmosphere of her stories without explicitly detailing every single experience. Her works make people feel the same emotions as the characters. Every time she recollects how the character was raped, or beaten, or punished, the readers are exposed to the character’s psychological open wounds, resulting in an extrasensory translation of emotions from page to mind. Morrison’s characters come to life not because of their overly meticulous descriptions, but of their energy that the writer pushes onto those who read her works. So far, we have read only a few pages, but we already have a very clear understanding of who Sethe and Paul D and Denver are, and their stories were not even fully developed yet. And the fact, that the title of the book is a sympathetic term that is usually used towards dead people helps to convey Morrison’s central focus- to bombard the reader with depression and misery, as her readers have a choice in not to read her book, but her characters, already written, have no choice in their lives and all of the generations of African-american ruined and traumatized by slavery have no escape from their circumstances.

The first time I ever heard of Allen Ginsberg was when I saw in Bob Dylan’s music video for “Subterranean Homesick Blues.” Allen Ginsberg is a difficult poet to like, the initial response to his poetry is usually an eyeroll. Throughout his career his writing process was aided by a lot of psychedelic drugs, especially the poem “Howl.” “Howl” has been criticized as romanticizing mental illness, crime, and a lot of terrible things that seem difficult to ever portray in a positive light. However, I think Allen Ginsberg actually liked the seedy underbelly of the city. What most people saw as tragedy I think he saw as poetic. The rejected members of society are a team, and they have each other’s backs. But those that went to college, got jobs, got married and moved into suburban homes were robots, sellouts and they could never understand what it means to truly be human. Yeah I think Allen Ginsberg has moments where he’s really annoying. Going to college, getting a job, getting married and providing for your family is awesome, and ideal. Simultaneously, I agree with Ginsberg that for some people there’s a different road than that. Following a roadmap even if it’s a good one leads to the terrifying notion of everyone thinking the same, society can’t function like that. The best societies, the richest ones, operate on human differences. That’s why I really like the poem “Howl” it’s about all the things happening below the surface.

The title Malest, Cornifici, tuo Catullo is taken from the poem Carmen 38 written by Catullus, a Latin poet of the late Roman Republic, who died around 54 BC.

Malest, Cornifici, tuo Catullo

malest, me hercule, et laboriose,

et magis magis in dies et horas.

Quem tu, quod minimum facillimumque est,

qua solatus es allocutione?

Irascor tibi. Sic meos amores?

Paulum quid lubet allocutionis,

maestius lacrimis Simonideis.

Things are bad for your Catullus, Cornificius,

Things are bad, by Hercules, and painfully so,

and more and more so as days and hours pass.

With what word of comfort, which is the least

and the easiest, have you comforted him?

I am angry with you. Is this how you treat my love?

Give me a tiny bit of comfort,

sadder than the tears of Simonideus.

Structures of the both poems (by Catullus and Ginsberg) are very similar, as well as the lives of the both poets. Catullus was an avant-garde poet of his times, who rejected traditional social and literary norms and refused to write in conventional style about gods and heroes. In the same way Ginsberg and his fellow poets from the Beat Generation opposed existing literary conventions and openly expressed their views on homosexuality and drugs in their poetry.

In the Malest, Cornifici, tuo Catullo Ginsberg tells Kerouac that he has found a new boy “your madman Allen’s finally made it: discovered a new young cat.” Ginsberg is happy (even excited) about his love life and he is very open about it. However, he realizes that his openness about it might not be particularly pleasant to others, so his tone switches “Yore angry at me. For all my lovers?”. In this way he attacks socially acceptable morals and norms. In the 50’s, when homosexuality is still punishable by law, Ginsberg protests loudly and audaciously by writing this poem.

I see how Ginsberg, being a part of the Beat Generation, in this short poem tries to adhere to the new avant-garde style; however, I personally find it difficult to fully understand, accept and like this style of writing. I do, on the other hand, enjoy doing a research, learning about the both poets and comparing their writing styles.

For your fifth response paper, please propose a topic and a thesis for your major essay.  Identify the questions that you intend to focus on and offer a tentative thesis statement.  Indicate 2-3 passages from the text (or, if you are focusing on poetry, several lines) that you plan to explore and say why.  Finally, in a couple sentences explain why you have chosen this topic.  Why does it matter to you?

1-2 Pages, double spaced.  Due Tuesday April 17.

I, Too

I, too, sing America.

I am the darker brother.

They send me to eat in the kitchen

When company comes,

But I laugh,

And eat well,

And grow strong.

Tomorrow, I’ll be at the table

When company comes.

Nobody’ll dare

Say to me,

“Eat in the kitchen,”

Then.

Besides,

They’ll see how beautiful I am

And be ashamed-

I, too, am America.

Langston Hughes’ I, Too is a statement about racial equality, a declaration of pride in African American’s progress, and a hopeful look into America’s future. The poem opens with a reference to Walt Whitman’s I Hear America Singing – an extraordinarily patriotic poem that glorifies individuals of all occupations and genders in America. And to Whitman’s claim for America love, Hughes says: “I, too, sing America.” By establishing his stance with Whitman’s audience, the speaker reveals that he is an outsider to a majority. Evidently, the poem raises a strong sense of self by starting with the word “I”. However, this sense of self cancels out when paired with “too” since it shows the speaker’s desire to be part of the masses. The peculiar image of singing a nation is exceptionally well-crafted when that nation is America. For a large part of history, America was regarded as the New World, a place that accepts all and is defined by all. Similarly, a song accepts all for it can be sung by all. More correctly, perhaps Hughes plays with Whitman’s phrase as this is the America that he aspires to: a nation that rejects none. Then, the speaker reveals himself as “the darker brother”. By this point, it has become quite apparent that the speaker is no longer one individual but rather is a representative of the African American population. The speaker has greatly shortened the distance between the majority and him when he calls himself their brother – a blood relative but more significantly, an equal. Unfortunately, the speaker is faced with a very different reality. He is sent to the kitchen whenever the family is joined by company. Now, the speaker does not seem like a brother in the family anymore, but rather like a servant of the house. Instantly, readers are taken back to the slavery era, when the kitchen was the dining area for slaves and animals. As much as it is a historical truth, the kitchen is also a symbol of warmth and prosperity. So, even though it is used as a way of oppression, the speaker still “laugh[s], / and eat[s] well, / and grow[s] strong.” Ironically, it works against the white owner’s intention. The tone here seems daring, provocative, as though he is challenging them to throw their best effort at him and still he will bloom and thrive. This is also Hughes’ recognition of the progress African Americans have made against all adversity. They not only grow stronger under oppression but also are still able to retain joy in their lives as they thrive for more. In the third stanza, Hughes looks to the future and sees equality as the speaker looks to “tomorrow” and sees his seat “at the table/ when company comes.” Not only he has claimed a seat, but also he has their respects for he is able to “dare” them to say “Eat in the kitchen,” The end of the third stanza is painted with slight sorrow by one word only – “then”. Similar to “tomorrow” at the beginning of the stanza, “then” indicates a point in time and stands on its own in singularity. But unlike “tomorrow”, “then” suggests an unknown point in time, while “tomorrow” seems more hopeful, specifying a closer future and showing a stronger certainty. So, the speaker knows that this future will come but is uncertain of when it will come: in his lifetime, in his children’s lifetime or in his grandchildren’s lifetime. The speaker turns away from this melancholic note with a casual “besides”.

Besides,

They’ll see how beautiful I am

And be ashamed-

Finally, his beauty will be recognized and they will turn shameful of the past. It is absolutely amazing how the speaker is still able to see his own beauty (while living in such horrible time and being told differently repeated times) and believe so strongly that one day, he will be seen too. And then, yes then, he will be the bigger one as they will look back and look down. The last stanza is like a loud declaration at the faces of all the racist and ignorant white Americans. As though the speaker, after holding his breath for years have finally been able to scream from the deepest depth of his lung: “I, too, am America.” At last, he has not only joined in the choir to sing the tunes America sings but he has become America. Like them, he is the nation too.

When I first read this poem, I read it from the perspective of the housewife’ husband. At first, it didn’t make sense and then I realized this was written from the view of a stranger. When I read it from that vantage point I was a little unnerved. This, to me, sounded very much like a man stalking his prey. When I read the line “I pass solitary in my car” I imagined someone slowly driving by, studying and surveying their interest. There were three words in this poem that made the overall tone dark and threatening: “solitary”, “noiseless”, and “smiling”.

The imagery that played through my mind was a man driving his car by slowly, once, twice, or more. Until the woman comes out of the house for the “ice-man”. He then looks her over, from her hair to her clothing. When she catches him looking, he bows his head and gives her a toothy smile.

This can be the beginning of a psychological movie…