In my previous blog post I briefly mentioned gender roles, an issue that related to the way we act within our family. Morrison is clearly commenting on the problems of society (well, as most authors do), further than just about racism. A defined family structure might have its benefits, but as the book shows wanting an ideal lifestyle creates a problem as everyone has his or her own version of it. By showing Macon's frustration about family relationships, Morrison comments on the importance of family
So far, the author has contrasted the loose organization of Pilate's home with Macon's old-fashioned style. Both versions of family seem rudimentary for twenty-first century standards, but it is important to see how each came to be.
On one side, Macon tries to have a patriarchal home. He acts, and is, the leader and center of the household. Milkman grows up disliking his father yet bound to him probably because of his strict personality. As a child he wanted his father to explain things to him and communicate with him, but all he got was exclusion. As Milkman grew up, he began to love his father while holding a grudge for him. Eventually, he gets angry enough at him and hits him after Macon hit his mother. The fact that only Milkman stood up to her after years of fighting shows that only men could afford to do that in their family or even in their society. Even though Ruth probably contributed to their wealth and had enough power to shake him up, Macon represents oppressive men that, despite his reasons for being like that, impede women from progressing. Morrison shows his machismo, the narrator says, "Milkman looked at his sisters. He had never been able to really distinguish them (or their roles) from his mother" (pg. 68). As Macon raised Milkman in a misogynist way, his son came to the point where he barely thought about his mother. Macon Dead's family represents the old-fashioned misogynist family that has been twisted by the situation of African Americans.
Meanwhile, Pilate has a completely different family life. She's a grandmother at a young age because both, her and her daughter, had early pregnancies. Neither of them got married and lived in a way that embarrassed Pilate's brother. Although Macon is rich and his family lives comfortably, Pilate's family seems happier. She sits with her daughter and granddaughter to make their fruit wine, which they won't sell much, and sing in harmony, enjoying the moment even though everything seems to be doing badly. Pilate doesn't get to live in one of the best houses in their town nor is married to one of the richest men, but she is freer and happier than Ruth, her sister-in-law. Morrison suggests that discrimination is worse than poverty.
Tuesday, April 30, 2013
Sunday, April 28, 2013
Futureless Mentality
Despite their economic standing, the Dead family is stuck in its unfortunate past and cannot move forward, making them neither a poor African American family nor privileged White one. As the Deads aren't part of the clichéd categories the media portrays, Morrison makes the reader understand social issues in a different way. In this section of the book, the author has shown how Milkman can't look forward and progress and can't either truly understand his history. When taking a ride in the Dead's hearse, Milkman could only look back, something that later Morrison expands on when saying that, "It was becoming a habit--this concentration on things behind him. Almost as though there were no future to be had" (pg. 35). When I began reading this book I expected it to be about poverty-stricken African Americans, probably because of my lack of exposure to this subject, but the author is showing how racial issues go beyond wealth or slavery. Morrison is beginning to show how being different from one's stereotype can create a confusion about oneself. While the book shows how stereotypes can cause uncertainty about identity in African Americans, this is true about segregated groups as a whole.
Clichés about African Americans are evident on the book but I believe there is a similar nature that affects other discriminated groups. In the case of women, even though they're not a minority, by being underrepresented they act like one and might end up in a situation similar to the Dead's. I recently read an article in Time about Sheryl Sandberg, a Facebook businesswoman, regarding her new book intended to reboot feminism. By reading the article and commenting on Lean In, Sandberg's book, with my sister, who read it, I've noticed that I share many of her ideas and can relate women's discrimination to some aspects of Song of Solomon.
As society objectifies minorities, people begin to identify themselves not by their personalities but by the superficial aspects that separate them from others. The issue beneath discrimination isn't only the visible part of it but rather the mental part of it. In the setting of the novel, society taught White people that Blacks were different, but that didn't stop there. Minorities are even more susceptible to become mentally prejudicial against themselves. Corinthians declares that, "Negroes don't like the water"(pg. 35) and Mrs. Bains says that, "A nigger in business is a terrible thing to see" (pg. 22). Self-discrimiantion or differentiation has appeared more in the novel than the evident White bigotry to show that society penetrates our brains with bias. So far in the book, Morrison has shown that intolerance can go deep enough to the point where it influences all our thoughts. Feminism faces this issue in the present now that legal barriers have been overcome. As tangible discrimination is mostly over in the West (or the US at least), feminism slowed down because only mental carries were left. Sandberg proposes to fight against the deep-rooted aspects of discrimination that cause women from impede themselves from being successful. Just like characters in Song of Solomon have prejudices about themselves and Milkman is stuck with his past, many women that decide to work feel insecure about who they are and might try to fit into the male working model. Both cases of discrimination, against African Americans and against women, show that we need to get rid of social stereotypes because they make us limit ourselves, not to mention be treated unfairly by others. Milkman, when talking to his aunt, feels uncertain about his identity. His family is rich but their past, represented by Pilate, was miserable. As Blacks were put all together into one category by society, the Deads didn't quite fit in. Similarly, many people still have outdated beliefs about gender roles. People should change their way of thinking about labor and their "responsibilities" as men or women for life to be fair for all. Segregation or violence against a group are the effects of a discriminative mind that society creates. Although it sounds naive, for those issues to be resolved, there shouldn't be categorization in society.
Wednesday, April 17, 2013
A Deliberate Creation
I began reading Song of Solomon a few hours after a discussion in my Spanish class about drafting novels. We were talking about Umberto Eco's The Name of the Rose, which involves many allusions, historical events, a criminal investigation and several plots, and even though we were all amazed that he spent around ten years writing the book, it actually seems reasonable. A good novel isn't just an amusing story but rather one that has no unnecessary parts because all construct the author's main ideas. As I began reading Toni Morrison's novel, admittedly with the help of the author's foreword, I could see that she chose every single detail deliberately to build up the plot and, I presume, critique something.
The opening line, as Morrison states in the foreword, is not just a brief narration I would likely go over quickly. She writes, "The North Carolina Mutual Life Insurance agent promised to fly from Mercy to the other side of Lake Superior at three o'clock." Morrison explains that she was mocking journalistic writing as she gave important signs or clues (like Eco). "North Carolina"and "Lake Superior" suggest a trip from south to north, the company's name is important because of "mutual" and "life," which apparently will mean something, and because it's owned by someone Black. As you continue to read you soon realize the importance of "Mercy" and Mr. Smith's story.
I began reading looking for signs or symbolism in the plot, perhaps motivated by the foreword, and although I don't understand some of them, I've seen that the book has a complex plot and meaning. One of the first things I noticed was the meaning of the names. The names have meanings, like Dead to show how life was miserable for them and that when Ruth became Dead, she joined Macon's sort of sad lifestyle, but what I found interesting about them was the situation that lead to their existence. Many African Americans got their last names from slave owners many generations ago and have inherited since the unaffectionate designations. They had to "abide by a naming done to them by somebody who couldn't have cared less," (pg. 18)'s Morrison writes it. So far in the book, it is clear that Morrison will explore African American identity and the ambiguity in the lives of people like the Deads, separated from other Blacks by their wealth. Both Ruth and Macon have lived different lives from most African Americans around them but they keep looking back at their past. While she tries to hold on to something through her afternoons breastfeeding Milkman or her comfort when looking at the tablecloth's watermark, Macon had a hard childhood that makes his family be dead-like. The book shows African American reality through a broad spectrum clearly beyond the conventional depictions.
Song of Solomon has an interesting beginning that introduces several themes I adequately don't understand or even spot right on but I like the way Morrison begins to present them. The plot is amusing and, so far, insightful into the history of African Americans.
The opening line, as Morrison states in the foreword, is not just a brief narration I would likely go over quickly. She writes, "The North Carolina Mutual Life Insurance agent promised to fly from Mercy to the other side of Lake Superior at three o'clock." Morrison explains that she was mocking journalistic writing as she gave important signs or clues (like Eco). "North Carolina"and "Lake Superior" suggest a trip from south to north, the company's name is important because of "mutual" and "life," which apparently will mean something, and because it's owned by someone Black. As you continue to read you soon realize the importance of "Mercy" and Mr. Smith's story.
I began reading looking for signs or symbolism in the plot, perhaps motivated by the foreword, and although I don't understand some of them, I've seen that the book has a complex plot and meaning. One of the first things I noticed was the meaning of the names. The names have meanings, like Dead to show how life was miserable for them and that when Ruth became Dead, she joined Macon's sort of sad lifestyle, but what I found interesting about them was the situation that lead to their existence. Many African Americans got their last names from slave owners many generations ago and have inherited since the unaffectionate designations. They had to "abide by a naming done to them by somebody who couldn't have cared less," (pg. 18)'s Morrison writes it. So far in the book, it is clear that Morrison will explore African American identity and the ambiguity in the lives of people like the Deads, separated from other Blacks by their wealth. Both Ruth and Macon have lived different lives from most African Americans around them but they keep looking back at their past. While she tries to hold on to something through her afternoons breastfeeding Milkman or her comfort when looking at the tablecloth's watermark, Macon had a hard childhood that makes his family be dead-like. The book shows African American reality through a broad spectrum clearly beyond the conventional depictions.
Song of Solomon has an interesting beginning that introduces several themes I adequately don't understand or even spot right on but I like the way Morrison begins to present them. The plot is amusing and, so far, insightful into the history of African Americans.
Sunday, March 31, 2013
When We Are Not Sure, We Are Alive
The titles of chapters O, P and Q are contradiction, doubt and thinking respectively. I found these chapters interesting as they show the uncertainty of the human mind. We don't and will not understand everything and our thoughts aren't perfect or logical. This topic is relevant in the book as it deals with how we express and perceive ideas, which is ultimately our reality and our art.
Humans feel superior to other animals, and well I guess we are, but we still have the same type of thinking. In studies to see children's emotional coefficients (EQs), scientists have seen that a lot simply cannot control themselves from eating candy even if they know they'll get a better reward if they wait. Some kids did wait and were rewarded, but short-term instincts are part of all humans at some point. Even when we know that doing something will not be good eventually, we often act upon impulses. Our brains are not completely logical so we must try to make the best out of them.
Shields writes several antithetical statements like "This sentence is a lie" (pg. 135), "Something can be true and untrue at the same time" (pg. 135) and "There's nothing and everything going on" (pg. 137). The first shows that things can be contradictory. Two opposing ideas can coexist because there isn't one reality where things are either true or false, as the second antithetical statement says. The third points out that perception changes reality. Previous chapter included all these ideas but Shields is now showing not only that there are many realities, as I wrote in previous blog posts, but that the term reality is paradoxical. I guess that in our search for truth we will find many because our brains are genetically susceptible to see everything differently. I acknowledge that I have a very Darwinist way of thinking but humans simply are quarreling lost animals and don't have the capacity to be objective (there is "evidence" that genes influence politics). Shields writes, "The real story isn't the official story; the real story is my version (wrong, too, but I'm aware that it's wrong) of the official story" (pg. 139). Since everyone sees things differently, there cannot be one reality. There are many realities, which is paradoxical with the definition of reality: "the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them," according to my computer's dictionary.
Humans feel superior to other animals, and well I guess we are, but we still have the same type of thinking. In studies to see children's emotional coefficients (EQs), scientists have seen that a lot simply cannot control themselves from eating candy even if they know they'll get a better reward if they wait. Some kids did wait and were rewarded, but short-term instincts are part of all humans at some point. Even when we know that doing something will not be good eventually, we often act upon impulses. Our brains are not completely logical so we must try to make the best out of them.
Shields writes several antithetical statements like "This sentence is a lie" (pg. 135), "Something can be true and untrue at the same time" (pg. 135) and "There's nothing and everything going on" (pg. 137). The first shows that things can be contradictory. Two opposing ideas can coexist because there isn't one reality where things are either true or false, as the second antithetical statement says. The third points out that perception changes reality. Previous chapter included all these ideas but Shields is now showing not only that there are many realities, as I wrote in previous blog posts, but that the term reality is paradoxical. I guess that in our search for truth we will find many because our brains are genetically susceptible to see everything differently. I acknowledge that I have a very Darwinist way of thinking but humans simply are quarreling lost animals and don't have the capacity to be objective (there is "evidence" that genes influence politics). Shields writes, "The real story isn't the official story; the real story is my version (wrong, too, but I'm aware that it's wrong) of the official story" (pg. 139). Since everyone sees things differently, there cannot be one reality. There are many realities, which is paradoxical with the definition of reality: "the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them," according to my computer's dictionary.
 |
| There simply will not be one truth. |
Representation Hunger
Michael Kimball (from the article) allowed people to see their lives in a summarized simple way that made them happy. As David Shields points out in chapters K, M and N, people want to see their dreamed reality in literature, as Kimball's postcards showed people's lives. The writer of the Guardian article, referring to the postcards, wrote, "It felt like being exposed, but also strangely satisfying; the postcard doesn't sum up my life, but what got me to where I am now. It's a snapshot of a moment." As a short and oversimplifying type of literature, the postcards show what people want to read. People like enjoy reading them and apparently can even cure their depression from it. Memoirs are the same. This genre is defined as a written account of someone's memory of certain events or people. Authors craft a version of their lives when choosing what and how to write. As everything we do and say is rhetorical, and people like to win, whenever you can show a reality you'll want to show your version of it. Art seeks to find fulfillment--its purpose is to satisfy its creator (I've never heard of anyone who writes or creates some type of art to hurt him or herself). It is clear that literature is biased in the author's interests. As people share existential problems, readers often find a similar satisfaction as the author.
Shields is trying to show that nonfiction doesn't exist. It is an abstract idea that is incompatible with the human mind. Section 385 describes that point: "The roominess of the term nonfiction: an entire dresser labeled nonsocks." Shields also quotes, "We make a mistake in thinking of memoir as nonfiction. It's really nonpoetry" (pg. 134). These chapters of Reality Hunger pointed out that the usual term of nonfiction doesn't work on human-made works.
Self-Created Realities
As I read further into Reality Hunger, I've begun to understand what David Shields means by the title. The first chapters talked about imitation in language (mimesis), the recurring ideas in art along history, the changes and problems of art in the present and, finally, what reality is. The answer to that, as I've understood, is that there isn't a single definition. Reality is a blur that each of us defines. Shields, using a new genre, is trying to show that the typical ones (fiction, nonfiction, memoirs, etc.) are not enough and that we need a new type of art that helps us understand our realities.
G-blur
If there is something that I've gotten so far from Reality Hunger is that our defined genres have aged enough and do not work well for our societies. In chapter G, Shields introduces that fiction and nonfiction works cannot be categorized into only one category. In section 205 says, “The poles of fiction and nonfiction are constantly bouncing their force fields back and forth between each other." Although I hadn't thought of it ever before, now I really agree with Shields point. The modernist strict distinctions between genres have fallen apart and are now outdated for people's means of expression. A book nowadays isn't strictly of one of those two genres.
I've recently read several of David Sedaris' memoirs or essay collections and a biography of Louis XIV. Supposedly both are nonfiction but they're truly just different ways of expression. In chapter G, Shields refers to genres saying "It's all in the art" (section 225), and think it applies to these books. Sedaris shows his reality were he portrays his family in a very biased way. Some books of his books show the same people in different ways. For example, in some personal essays his father is strict and close-minded but in others he is laid back and comforting, showing that there's not one reality. I'm sure that Sedaris works off from actual events but the absurd situations he often writes about include distortions from his memory and desire to make it funnier. His memoirs are fictitious nonfiction. As for Louis XIV's biography, the author constantly cites her sources or mentions facts. The author probably wants her book to be very historically accurate but if you compare her interpretations about the French king with others, you see that there isn't one right version. When someone writes nonfiction, he or she twists it into fiction simply by writing it. There isn't fiction or nonfiction as you would need a single reality to define what each genre is.
The other point, the one I like better, is that everyone can share and access knowledge (if you have technology). It is evident that by sharing new movements can emerge before anyone has time to even notice. People started the revolutions of the Arab Spring because they realized what their situations were and they carried out the revolutions by inciting them online. The twenty-first century will have a lot of social and artistic movements because technology will allow them to grow quickly. The barriers in art and society that were imposed in the past are not longer sustainable for people's necessities and with technology that allows every person to engage globally, they will not survive. Section 245 shows the scenario Shields has described about the rise of postmodernism.
 |
| Did he really look like that? |
If there is something that I've gotten so far from Reality Hunger is that our defined genres have aged enough and do not work well for our societies. In chapter G, Shields introduces that fiction and nonfiction works cannot be categorized into only one category. In section 205 says, “The poles of fiction and nonfiction are constantly bouncing their force fields back and forth between each other." Although I hadn't thought of it ever before, now I really agree with Shields point. The modernist strict distinctions between genres have fallen apart and are now outdated for people's means of expression. A book nowadays isn't strictly of one of those two genres.
I've recently read several of David Sedaris' memoirs or essay collections and a biography of Louis XIV. Supposedly both are nonfiction but they're truly just different ways of expression. In chapter G, Shields refers to genres saying "It's all in the art" (section 225), and think it applies to these books. Sedaris shows his reality were he portrays his family in a very biased way. Some books of his books show the same people in different ways. For example, in some personal essays his father is strict and close-minded but in others he is laid back and comforting, showing that there's not one reality. I'm sure that Sedaris works off from actual events but the absurd situations he often writes about include distortions from his memory and desire to make it funnier. His memoirs are fictitious nonfiction. As for Louis XIV's biography, the author constantly cites her sources or mentions facts. The author probably wants her book to be very historically accurate but if you compare her interpretations about the French king with others, you see that there isn't one right version. When someone writes nonfiction, he or she twists it into fiction simply by writing it. There isn't fiction or nonfiction as you would need a single reality to define what each genre is.
H-now
We live in an age where facts, whether we perceive
them as “real” or fictitious, are pushed against us. With the media and social
networking showing us a version of what’s happening, and so making us doubt the
truthfulness of incidents, we are becoming hungry for reality. I feel that
chapters H and I began to introduce Shields’ idea of our reality hunger and
what it means. In section 245, Shields presents people’s enigmas in the
twenty-first century, which I agree with:
The culture disseminates greater and greater
access to the technology that creates various forms of media.
"Ordinary" people's cult of personal celebrity is nurtured by these
new modes of communication and presentation and representation. We're all
secretly practicing for when we, too, will join the ranks of the celebrated.
There used to be a monopoly on the resources of exposure. The rising
sophistication of the nonexpert in combination with the sensory overload of the
culture makes reality-based and self-reflexive art appealing now. There are
little cracks in the wall, and all of us "regular" people are pushing
through like water or, perhaps, weeds.
As the excerpt shows, technology clearly changes
the rules of sharing. There are several points to note. First is the
creation of the "personal celebrity." The superficiality nucleus of
society previously seen in social magazines or journalism is now spread over
everyone's life. With Facebook, Twitter and Instagram (among thousands of
similar websites), everyone can watch their friends' lives and his or her own
in a screen, as if everybody cared. Many people communicate with others showing
it to everyone (through Facebook) and post everything that happens to them
through tweets and, thanks to smartphones, to Instagram, as public figures in
the past made public announcements. Now everyone worries about communication,
many boost their egos and others destroy theirs.
The other point, the one I like better, is that everyone can share and access knowledge (if you have technology). It is evident that by sharing new movements can emerge before anyone has time to even notice. People started the revolutions of the Arab Spring because they realized what their situations were and they carried out the revolutions by inciting them online. The twenty-first century will have a lot of social and artistic movements because technology will allow them to grow quickly. The barriers in art and society that were imposed in the past are not longer sustainable for people's necessities and with technology that allows every person to engage globally, they will not survive. Section 245 shows the scenario Shields has described about the rise of postmodernism.
I-the reality-based community
"People like you are in what
we call the reality-based community. You believe that solutions emerge from
judicious study of discernible reality. That's not the way the world really
works anymore. We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality.
And while you're studying that reality (judiciously, as you will), we'll act
again, creating other realities, which you can study, too, and that's how
things will sort out. We're history's actors, and you–all of you–will be left
to just study what we do" (Section 253).
I agree with section 253 of Reality Hunger as it supports what I was writing about chapter G. As the world changes to become one in which every person can actually make a difference, art and society change. I do believe in the clichéd saying that everyone can make a difference in the world but only if you have access to technology. Shields mentions this "reality-based" community to show the change to postmodernism. The traditional society of the twentieth century has changed and so have our ways of expression. I suspect Shields will expand on that point specifically in art or literature.
________________________________________
I read several of my classmates' blogs and I agree to some extent with most of their interpretations of the book. From those that I read, the only that I disagree with was Lina's explanation of section 188. The fragment she quotes says, "I like to write stuff that's only an inch from life." Lina condemns that writer as a liar but if you see it from Shields' perspective there are no lies in art. Just like there isn't fiction or nonfiction or one reality, art cannot be a lie. She sees "unreal" writing as something bad, caused by our bad memory and feelings. I believe that perspective is what Reality Hunger says we need to get rid off. I understood section 188 as an example of the blur in genres and how that's OK.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)