Although Sula contains several male characters, the book is, in many ways, a novel that celebrates women. Sula looms so large in the reader's mind because Morrison strips away the power tradition¬ally given to men. Examine the deficiencies of two male characters that suggest contrasting strengths in female charac¬ters
The portrayal of the strength of female characters in the novel can be summarized by some of the actions Sula commits. The treatment of women in Medallion is mundane and seems to be unimportant. For instance, Sula states that "every man I ever knew left his children" (Morrison144), this shows how the men in their society were treated higher than the females, exhibiting the fact that they had more rights and the ease to do whatever they pleased. This is exemplified by Jude's actions after having an affair with Sula, just like the quote states, he leaves Nel and his children behind. But when Sula has many sexual affairs with men, she is instantly disdained upon by the townspeople. This displays Sula's power because she doesn't conform to those around her, she continues to exercise her freedom even though it isn't socially acceptable, showing her powerful mentality and confidence. This shows how Sula looks down on men as undependable. The way young Sula reacts when the Irish boys try to attack Nel and herself show her sense of bravery and in this case, taking over " the knight in shining armor" role as a way to protect them (which is usually performed by a man). This recognizes Sula's sense of power, justice and even takes extreme measures to display it in order to prove the Irish boys that even though they were a couple of girls, she was not someone to mess with.
I really liked how you summarized Sula's power. Although her actions are unfortunate, they are seen as despicable because she is a woman. Sula's power is that she dares to act as a man would, which isn't very extreme or unforgivable on its own, but in the context of the story it everyone hates her for it. It shows how the community has a strong sense of contempt for women in general, despite there being lots of independent women living there.
I also agree very much, especially with the point which you made being "Sula looks down on men as undependable." This may also be evidence of her thought process during her conversation with Nel as Sula states "Well, there was this space in front if me, behind me, in my head. Some space. And Jude filled it up. That's all. He just filled up the space"(Morrison144.) which signifies; that men may fill spaces but simply can not be dependable. In addition to the condescending of women, I also agree with the other quote you provided being "every man I ever knew left his children"(Morrison144.) which evidently proves that irony of women in this novel. For example when Sula leaves to attend school she returns to the Bottom, unlike the men who are obligated to provide for their families; however Sula is still viewed with scorn no matter her actions.
I definitley agree with your opinions and your evidence definitley supports them. I would also add that Sula's characteristic of taking responsibility for her own actions is quite empowering as well. She also emphasizes what is "hers," showing that she gives power to her possessions both physical and non-physical, ultimately giving power to herself as her image of independence is empowered. Nonethess, her morales are no more messed up than already shown; however in a way this kind of contributes to her empowerment and vice versa.
To Kunsang: I agree with what you're saying. The way Morrison portrays men really highlights the strength women have, which is pretty evident in Sula, when she tries to not conform to a "traditional woman's role" in the novel.
Toni Morrison once said, "I know evil preoccupied me in Sula…" Examine the nature of evil in Sula, especially as it occurs in the protagonist. To what extent is Sula evil and how does she manifest this trait? What are the sources of her evil and what is its ultimate significance in terms of her relationship with the Bottom residents?
Towards the end of the novel, it is hard to not admit that Sula's actions made her an evil protagonist. The townspeople consider her " [the] Devil all right"(Morrison 117), slept with white men, had an affair with Jude, threatened Eva, and watched her mother die. But in the end, all of these reasons are based on her own perception/judgement on things. When Nel confronts Sula about her affair, she states "What you mean take him away?/I didn't kill him/how come you couldn't get over it?"(Morrison 145). As Sula is about die, she dreams of her mother burning and thinks "I never meant anything/ [I] was thrilled/ I wanted her to keep on dancing"(Morrison 147). Based on these examples, it can be viewed that Sula has her own independent mind and has different ways of seeing/reacting to things. It may seem like acts of evil to the townspeople, but to Sula be normal. She does not follow the conformity created by her society and ultimately gives reason as to why the others don't like her.
I super agree with the idea of Sula not conforming to society's standards. But just because Sula finds the way she acts as normal, it doesn't mean that what she is doing is evil in general. Of course to Sula, she hasn't done anything wrong, but in general, watching your own mother die and having in affair with your best friend's husband and killing a Chicken while not feeling guilty about it is beyond evil (she's crazy). But this does ultimately give the townspeople a reason to hate her, just like how I hate her. ~@~
Yes, I agree with your response sister. I like your choice in quotes, I disregarded some without thinking of the actual meaning Sula was trying to display but you helped me clear some controversies going on in my head. Sula has control of her own body and she clearly shows that by her actions. She doesn't care about the townspeople' opinion and social norms because she is independent. Cool job cool girl.
While Sula's actions and lifestyle might paint a picture of an evil person, she is not inherently evil. The presumption of her "evil" nature is based primarily off of the judgements of the townspeople. The Bottom is very small and closely knit community where the majority of the residents share many of the same principles and ideas, and from these similar ideas spawns similar judgements. Sula had been away for nearly ten years at a university, and likely lost touch with many of the aspects of her original community. Upon her return, it seemed people were fearful of her, or fearful of what she might do, because she was an unknown and was perceived to be a negative force. Eva had even said, "I might have knowed them birds meant something" (Morrison 91), associating the "plague" of robin birds as omen of Sula's return. Sula had been the unfortunate culprit in the accident that was Chicken Little's death, had watched her mother burn alive but did not budge, and had seduced men away from their wives. These were all actions attributed to her that created a likeness of evil, however she did little else to impact people's lives negatively. When compared to other characters or real-life people associated with evil, she is far below their level of wickedness. Her "adventuring" from man to man, had essentially been her lifestyle. And Jude did not leave Nel because of Sula, Jude left because he chose to. Nel had placed much of the blame on Sula when there was not much behind it in the first place, so she subsequently ended an otherwise prosperous friendship; one that may have kept Sula much more content with her life had she remained friends. The judgements placed on Sula that characterized her as evil were formed from the spiritual and cultural morals of the citizens around her; these morals and principles Sula did not share.
reply to Lhamo I really like how you talk about how the town see her as a villain of the story. I feel like I can relate this to the betrayal prompt. This is because she uses betrayal to build the type of character she is. A women who just wants to show power by using sex.
Through the book, Sula is portrayed as an evil character. her actions and personality were vilified by the town. Due to this the town reacted very positively to her death. The symbol of evil in their town was finally gone. Shortly after her death, the town became immoral as a whole.Sula’s role ,as the antagonist of the town, essentially kept the residents of the bottom together. Having a shared object of evil caused the town to concentrate on moral values in fear of becoming immoral, like Sula. Toni Morrison is trying to show that good cannot exist without evil. This is because without a clear example of evil, there cannot be a clear definition of good. This is also evident in the character Nel. Towards the end of the book, Nel admits she also felt excitement during Chicken Little’s death. This is another example of the fact good cannot exist without evil. Even Nel, a morally sound character had evil premonitions, but because of this she became Sula’s biggest critic.
Reply to Josh, I agree with what you had to say. I especially related to your thoughts that a greater evil brings out the good from the less evil. I feel like good and evil work as a yin to the others yang so that there is never one without the other, which you made clear in your post. However, I don't think that Nel was able to become Sula's biggest critic because she had evil premonitions, but rather it was because she was Sula's best friend previously that she is able to critique Sula in such a way.
Reply to Josh I didn't think about the fact that there was no good without evil which is a really strong and interesting point. I think that Nel's openness at the end of the book is really important to her and Sulas character because it shows they are similar even though throughout the book they were seen as opposites; good and evil.
Reply to Josh I also think that you're idea works both ways as evil defines good as much as good defines evil. Without the contrast of Nel, Sula might seem angelic. In that way I think that the story is as much about perspective as it is about good and evil.
To Josh I never thought of the idea of how the town's hatred towards Sula brought them together. Although I do agree that evil and good cannot exist without each other, I don't believe that Nel's feeling towards Chicken Little's death made her evil. I thought that Nel and Sula shared many opposites and with these differences, they were able to judge and critique each other because of their close relationship.
Death is a dominant motif in Sula. The text begins, "There was once a neighborhood," signifying that the community no longer exists (3). Morrison portrays death as an event that purifies, renews, and brings freedom to the deceased and/or their family and friends. Death is also an event that is often witnessed in the text; it is a spectacle that demands attention. Consider how this notion of death subverts more traditional depictions and why Morrison uses this strategy.
Although the townspeople were brought together through the common hatred of Sula, this unity unfortunately led to their deaths in the New River Road. The tunnel was meant to connects blacks and the whites and the Bottom to Medallion. Although it could have been the promise to economic fortune and prosperity to the Bottom (like how tunnels relate to the saying of "the light at the end of a tunnel") after a long time of struggling, lets not forget that the unfinished tunnel also was the site of where injustice happened, discrimination of black employment. White people were building the road for their own gains in order to expand their domain and to have fancy golf courses and houses, and they didn't really care for black people and what they went through. As a result, they didn't even let them work on a project that was supposed to unify the two. The Bottom attempted to fight the faceless system of their exploitation that in a way, was responsible for their current situation (poverty that the silver ice heightened) by never fulfilling its promises of prosperity and they did it because for what it represented. It is ironic that the desire for liberation ultimately ended up killing many from the Bottom. Perhaps Morrison is trying to illustrate that the white man's idea of liberation towards communities that they oppress, puts victims into a hopeless system. Although the black people of the community tried to fight against it, it was ultimately futile. The hope for change led them to keep on enduring more oppression, which at this point, could not have been alleviated by fighting back.
Death in Sula serves to signify change within the Bottom. For example, after the death of Chicken Little, there was a lingering feeling of guilt around Nel, but not around Sula. This exemplifies a change that occurred between the two best friends as they grew differently such that Nel became more obedient and submissive, while Sula continued her free spirit lifestyle. Traditionally, this death would have impacted the town in a negative way, but Morrison subverts this by having the characters directly involved grow as a result of the death. Furthermore, the death of Plum brought Eva relief rather than the stereotypical despair that would come from killing a family member. However, this event brought freedom to both Plum and Eva since Plum would no longer suffer from his addiction to heroine, and Eva wouldn’t have to sit back and watch her son kill himself. Morrison is able to depict death as a catalyst for change because the effects of the deaths contribute more to the growth of the characters rather than the standard grief/sadness that accompanies death. Lastly, the deaths of the townspeople at the end of story signified the biggest change, not for the characters, but instead, for the town. Year later, the town had certainly changed from how it once was, which contributes to the idea that death contributed to the reshaping of the town. The sudden difference from how life was in 1921 as compared to life in 1965 suggests that as time ages, so does the culture and lifestyle within the town.
In contrast to how many people view death, Morrison uses it to describe those that must react to the dead ones, not those that died. For example, after Sula dies, Morrison describes the opinion that others had on Sula. The members of the community believed that Sula's death was a blessing, she had been a curse that they were now free of (as they believed she was a witch). When a character dies, Morrison uses their death to reveal more about the characters that are still alive, those that are still relevant to their community. This is shown when Chicken Little died. Morrison describes the difference between Nel's reaction and Sula's reaction in order to differentiate their characteristics. After Chicken Little died, she said nothing about the little boy that had lost his life because in her eyes, the person who died is not vital to the story, but the reaction to their death is. After Sula watches her mother burn and perish, Morrison does not describe the way in which Hannah passed but rather the interest that Sula took in it, and that this causes her to be an evil character. Morrison continuously uses other characters deaths to relate to other people so that more can be revealed about them due to their actions and reactions.
Reply to Elizabeth I had not really though about the fact that Morrison uses death to also show other's reactions to that death. It's a very good point as Morrison really does show aspects of the characters with their reactions to a death.
Response to Tyler: I agree with your point that death points out the change within the people. For example, as Sula and Nel were growing up, they also grew apart. However, when Sula died, she remembered all of her past and the goodness in Nel. After Sula’s death, Nel remembered the good times she had with Sula. In both of these women, we see a change in their perspectives from disliking each other to acknowledging each other for who they were.
To Tyler I really liked how you used the splitting relationship of Sula and Nel after Chicken Little's death as evidence. I never really thought how the author used his death as a starting point for the characters to grow with Sula carrying on with her rebellious style and Sula becoming more obedient.
Comment from Nathan Hodge: What is the possible significance of the switch in point of view for characters like Nel, where the POV goes from third-person to first-person, and back and forth?
The change in perspectives highlights the importance of Nel and Sula's friendship. Despite their contrasting personalities, Nel and Sula were so close they were like one person. However, when Sula comes back to Medallion after ten years, a rip in their friendship is apparent. For example, Sula mentions that she never had to explain herself to Nel and especially when Sula asks Nel that if they were such good friends, why couldn't she get over what she Sula did. The change in perspectives reveal the intentions and thoughts of both Nel and Sula, revealing how Nel felt betrayed and couldn't look at Sula as her friend even more, This contrasts with how Sula felt as she thought about Nel even at her deathbed showing that she still thought of Nel as her friend. In the last chapter, Nel finally realized the importance of Sula's friendship and how her misery came from the empty spot Sula filled and not because Jude left. Nel reveals through her perspective that she lost her identity like everyone else over the years, and finally regained it after remembering Sula and the things they experienced together.
The change in perspectives highlights the importance of Nel and Sula's friendship. Despite their contrasting personalities, Nel and Sula were so close they were like one person. However, when Sula comes back to Medallion after ten years, a rip in their friendship is apparent. For example, Sula mentions that she never had to explain herself to Nel and especially when Sula asks Nel that if they were such good friends, why couldn't she get over what she Sula did. The change in perspectives reveal the intentions and thoughts of both Nel and Sula, revealing how Nel felt betrayed and couldn't look at Sula as her friend even more, This contrasts with how Sula felt as she thought about Nel even at her deathbed showing that she still thought of Nel as her friend. In the last chapter, Nel finally realized the importance of Sula's friendship and how her misery came from the empty spot Sula filled and not because Jude left. Nel reveals through her perspective that she lost her identity like everyone else over the years, and finally regained it after remembering Sula and the things they experienced together.
Reply to Camille: I like how you pointed out the important highlights of the relationships through the point of view. I agree that the change in perspectives does reveal the intentions of Nel and Sula while also letting the reader know how both characters felt.
Reply to Camille: I agree with what you say on how a change in POV really is meant to outline the thoughts of a character and how that character's views could differ for a given situation. They might have a different way of justifying things that makes the reader feel that they are the "right" ones.
Between Sula and Eva, it seems like Sula has the upper hand in their relationship. Although they both have opinions about one another that cannot be altered, Eva is at a disadvantage because of her old age. Sula uses Eva's age as leverage to send off Eva away from her life and moves her into a nursing home. Therefore, Sula betrays many people, including her own grandmother, because she usually has the control over situations, allowing her to have the upper hand.
Reply to Tiffany: I agree that Sula has the upperhand in the argument with Eva. Sula takes advantage of her old age and deteriorating health to convince everyone that Eva is going crazy and should be sent away. However, it's because of Sula's manipulation and threats that Eva ends up scared in the first place.
Sula and Eva have a very interesting relationship, because out of everyone in the novel, they are the most similar. They are both extremely strong-willed and fierce, and commit controversial actions that are misunderstood. Although they are on different ends of the spectrum in regards to age, they are cautious of each other because the two know that they are each others match. Sula knows that although Eva is old, she has the capability of setting Plum on fire, and, out of lack of understanding, she is afraid for her safety and feels threatened of her power, so she sends her away. Sula talks back to Eva because of this fear and and feeling of being threatened. Although the two are similar, it is eventually their ages that determine who has the upper hand; which as seen through the novel, Sula is clearly more advantageous.
Question from Christine: In 1937, Morrison switches the point of view from third person to first person. What are the advantages and disadvantages of doing this, and what does this reveal about the characters?
Sula doesn't feel any guilt because she thinks that she isn't doing anything wrong. Towards the end of Sula's death scene, she mentions that, "...my lonely is mine," (pg.143). Sula feels that she is the only one responsible for the emotions she feels, and not anyone else. The way she feels is the way that SHE wants to feel, and not what she is supposed to feel, which is why she doesn't feel guilty about the different acts she committed.
To Jaden I agree with your idea that Sula acts on her own mind. Sula believes that what she does isn't wrong and that her actions are truthful to her own views. Based on this, she doesn't follow the conformity set up by her society. Your response was very similar to mine :)
To Jaden and Lhamo I agree with the both of you when stating that Sula acts the way she wants the act without any input from anybody else. Maybe it's because of the fact of how she feels about how she treats someone doesn't get her anything, "You don't get nothing for it" (Morrison145). In the end, Sula can't see why she should feel guilty is she's not going to gain something from it.
Jaden and Lhamo and Tiffany, I concur with your reasoning as to why Sula never regrets the commitment her absurd offenses; she does not understand the pain and sorrowful consequences her actions create, and is too stubborn to admit fault—not that she would recognize it as fault in the first place. She believes her actions are virtuous because, as you have asserted, she feels the way she wants to feel and, as Lhamo stated, she has a mind of her own. She does not let her surroundings influence her.
This definitely highlights her strengths as a character: a strong, independent black woman who don’t need no man. But although her self-determination can be admirable, it also underlines her flaws: selfish, prideful, and possibly even deliberately ignorant. To continuously commit controversial actions against other people, to not consider other people, to disrespect other people, and to purposely refuses to apologize to other people while making herself the victim who must have sympathy clearly shows this. For example, although she slept with Jude—which is best described as an act of betrayal—she believed that Nel was the one who committed betrayal, who abandoned her, who became one of the townspeople. Hmm—say, doesn’t this focus on another vulnerable, sorrowful aspect of her complex character?
I agree to the fact Sula does not have guilt, because she believed what she was doing was not evil. This shows that the idea of evil can be dependent on a person's perception of it.
Sula does not feel guilty as she she knows what she did was wrong but won't apologize for it. She related her life as though she was a "Redwood" to where she stood tall and proud, feeling guilty would not follow this idea as Sula lived her life doing as she pleased. Sula lived for herself, she was even lonely nut she said at least it was hers, just like her life is and she is not going to apologize for living her life her way.
Similar to my response to josh the novel shows different persectives of scenes, such as Sula not truly realizing how her actions effect others and Nel attempting to express how it affected her. The novels perspectives shape the way me see the characters and how we judge their actions on a moral level. Sula is effectively morally ambiguous in her actions as all of her actions have both a good and an evil reaction. Although she was mean to the townspeople they did become better people because of it. In this reasoning I think the reason Sula doesn't feel guilty is that she lacks the perspective to see all of the possible reactions her actions could have on others, not just the person that is diractly effected by said act.
I think it's because Sula is a sociopath. But also because she thinks she understands the importance of opinion in a life set in one perspective, her own.It's not that Sula thinks it's right or wrong to sleep with people, it's because she chooses to stand by her own senses of self rather than bow to the opinions of others. Everything life is a sensory experience fed to a brain powered by water and fat, Sula understands this and thus values any influences outside her own brain to be false ad useless. She feels sadness and loneliness, but she believes that because she chose that they are worth experiencing. Sula is perhaps the only truly independent person in the entire novel, yet no one really looks at why she is that way. She's not like Nel, who didn't care about chicken little's death, she is a person shaped by tragedy who decided to never let it define her again. But in her struggle to remain above the opinion of others, she becomes a slave to her own and cannot learn to truly enjoy her life. She has one set of options, always, like a little puppet on strings, strings she made for herself. She's trapped inside her own philosophies and experiences life only vicariously, from outside herself. Sula died a long time ago. These last few years were only her death throes.
Question from James: Throughout the story, Sula has sex with a lot of people. How does the author use sex to help develop the protagonist's personality?
Sula's act of having sex with many people could be seen as a part of her rebellious attitude. During that time it wasn't common for a woman to sleep around with that many men. Especially not white and/or jewish men. So the authors use of sex develops Sula's character by making her appear different then the rest of the women in the story. Compared to Nel she's almost the exact opposite person. Speaking of Nel, Sula's affair with Jude allows people to continue to believe that Sula is evil. Sula's multiple relationships separates her from everyone else by making her stand and and contributing to her evil and rebellious personality.
Morrison uses sex to make Sula do what she wants, but at the same time make her look like a bad person. As a child, Sula grew up with Hannah sleeping with other women’s husbands, which would make her see sex as something good and not a big deal, so she can’t be blamed for growing up thinking sex was a good thing. However, this backfires at Sula because she sleeps with Jude with no shame at all, whereas Nel doesn’t see Sula as a friend anymore, which costs them both a friend that they grew up with. Eventually, she has sex with Ajax, revealing her drive for money. One day while having sex with him, she saw a “gold leaf” under his skin, which is the gifts he would bring each time he visited Sula, and she wants to “water his soil, keep it rich and moist”, which means that she wants Ajax to keep coming with these gifts.
My answer is not very different from the previous answers. I believe that Toni Morrison uses Sula's lust for her to break conformity. With this Sula has a plethora of affects. She gives herself a bad reputation as she is looked down upon in her community, she also destroys her community as she breaks the conformity. However on the other hand, she is also empowered as her choices make her independent to anyone else in the novel, making decisions based on what she desires (such as sex) rather than choosing to conform.
I feel as if the motif of sexuality in Sula does more in portraying her community and the society that women, especially black women face, rather than Sula's personality. They use Sula's sexuality against her, and feel as if because she does not have the same "morals" as them, she should be punished. It's true that Sula sleeps with white men and in general, is very promiscuous. However, it is very important to note that at an extremely young age,12, Sula and Nel were sexualized and catcalled by grown men in the streets as they walked on by. The normality of pedophilia in their community is something that is never addressed by the Bottom as a problem that they are willing to fix. In addition, Sula gets so much hate for sleeping with white men. However, she questions why when black men sleep with white women, no one says anything. Not only this, but when Jude and Sula had an affair, everyone blamed Sula for ruining the relationship between Nel and Jude, when it was Jude who not only cheated and betrayed his wife, but ultimately made the decision to leave. Men can be just as promiscuous as the women who are being persecuted, but are free from those consequences. The effects and reactions to Sula's "abnormal" sexuality shows the misogyny and to be more specific, misogynoir that black women face in their own communities, who'd rather treat them as pariahs for not conforming, rather than even glancing at the problematic parts of their community.
Question from Christine: Throughout the novel, Morrison uses irony. For example, the Bottom is on a hill overlooking the valley, therefore situated above the white people. Why would Morrison use this literary technique? And how does it enhance the story?
Morrison's use of irony enhances the story by forcing the reader to stop and think about the position of the ironic element in relation to the rest of the story. Sula, the evil pariah of the town, is also the person who brings the rest of the town together. The townspeople band together in their hatred of her and challenge themselves to rise above her evilness. Women are better mother and wives, men work harder, and families treat the elderly more kindly. Even though she does terrible things, Sula makes the town a better place, and after she dies that all goes away. Sula's ironic affect on the Bottom makes the reader ask, is Sula an evil character after all?
Reply to Leah: I agree that Morrison uses irony through Sula's effect on the town. I like your point that if Morrison bases a characters personality off of others then does it not make Sula a good person? However, I think that Morrison uses this irony to stress the ambiguity of Sula's character, because although Sula causes the townspeople to become kinder and less sinful, she also stops them from being who they are, by forcing them to become what are fake versions of themselves. This irony could be used to emphasize Sula's lack of evil, but it may also be used to highlight her contrasting character.
I feel like Toni Morison situated the Bottom overlooking the valley to show how in some ways black communities are more superior than white communities. Throughout the book, the community of the Bottom is seen as a more dynamic community where as the city of Medallion is seen as static. In the Bottom, black communities were ever changing, from the demolishing of roads to redefining how important women are. However in Medallion, the communities were seen static remaining constantly "glorious." Also, at the end of the book the Bottom was taken into part for its luxurious land over that of Medallion.
Although Sula contains several male characters, the book is, in many ways, a novel that celebrates women. Sula looms so large in the reader's mind because Morrison strips away the power tradition¬ally given to men. Examine the deficiencies of two male characters that suggest contrasting strengths in female charac¬ters
ReplyDelete
DeleteThe portrayal of the strength of female characters in the novel can be summarized by some of the actions Sula commits. The treatment of women in Medallion is mundane and seems to be unimportant. For instance, Sula states that "every man I ever knew left his children" (Morrison144), this shows how the men in their society were treated higher than the females, exhibiting the fact that they had more rights and the ease to do whatever they pleased. This is exemplified by Jude's actions after having an affair with Sula, just like the quote states, he leaves Nel and his children behind. But when Sula has many sexual affairs with men, she is instantly disdained upon by the townspeople. This displays Sula's power because she doesn't conform to those around her, she continues to exercise her freedom even though it isn't socially acceptable, showing her powerful mentality and confidence. This shows how Sula looks down on men as undependable. The way young Sula reacts when the Irish boys try to attack Nel and herself show her sense of bravery and in this case, taking over " the knight in shining armor" role as a way to protect them (which is usually performed by a man). This recognizes Sula's sense of power, justice and even takes extreme measures to display it in order to prove the Irish boys that even though they were a couple of girls, she was not someone to mess with.
Reply to Kunsang:
DeleteI really liked how you summarized Sula's power. Although her actions are unfortunate, they are seen as despicable because she is a woman. Sula's power is that she dares to act as a man would, which isn't very extreme or unforgivable on its own, but in the context of the story it everyone hates her for it. It shows how the community has a strong sense of contempt for women in general, despite there being lots of independent women living there.
Reply to Kunsang:
DeleteI also agree very much, especially with the point which you made being "Sula looks down on men as undependable." This may also be evidence of her thought process during her conversation with Nel as Sula states "Well, there was this space in front if me, behind me, in my head. Some space. And Jude filled it up. That's all. He just filled up the space"(Morrison144.) which signifies; that men may fill spaces but simply can not be dependable. In addition to the condescending of women, I also agree with the other quote you provided being "every man I ever knew left his children"(Morrison144.) which evidently proves that irony of women in this novel. For example when Sula leaves to attend school she returns to the Bottom, unlike the men who are obligated to provide for their families; however Sula is still viewed with scorn no matter her actions.
I definitley agree with your opinions and your evidence definitley supports them. I would also add that Sula's characteristic of taking responsibility for her own actions is quite empowering as well. She also emphasizes what is "hers," showing that she gives power to her possessions both physical and non-physical, ultimately giving power to herself as her image of independence is empowered. Nonethess, her morales are no more messed up than already shown; however in a way this kind of contributes to her empowerment and vice versa.
DeleteTo Kunsang:
DeleteI agree with what you're saying. The way Morrison portrays men really highlights the strength women have, which is pretty evident in Sula, when she tries to not conform to a "traditional woman's role" in the novel.
Toni Morrison once said, "I know evil preoccupied me in Sula…" Examine the nature of evil in Sula, especially as it occurs in the protagonist. To what extent is Sula evil and how does she manifest this trait? What are the sources of her evil and what is its ultimate significance in terms of her relationship with the Bottom residents?
ReplyDeleteTowards the end of the novel, it is hard to not admit that Sula's actions made her an evil protagonist. The townspeople consider her " [the] Devil all right"(Morrison 117), slept with white men, had an affair with Jude, threatened Eva, and watched her mother die. But in the end, all of these reasons are based on her own perception/judgement on things. When Nel confronts Sula about her affair, she states "What you mean take him away?/I didn't kill him/how come you couldn't get over it?"(Morrison 145). As Sula is about die, she dreams of her mother burning and thinks "I never meant anything/ [I] was thrilled/ I wanted her to keep on dancing"(Morrison 147). Based on these examples, it can be viewed that Sula has her own independent mind and has different ways of seeing/reacting to things. It may seem like acts of evil to the townspeople, but to Sula be normal. She does not follow the conformity created by her society and ultimately gives reason as to why the others don't like her.
DeleteReply to *Lhamo:
DeleteI super agree with the idea of Sula not conforming to society's standards. But just because Sula finds the way she acts as normal, it doesn't mean that what she is doing is evil in general. Of course to Sula, she hasn't done anything wrong, but in general, watching your own mother die and having in affair with your best friend's husband and killing a Chicken while not feeling guilty about it is beyond evil (she's crazy). But this does ultimately give the townspeople a reason to hate her, just like how I hate her. ~@~
Reply to Llamo:
DeleteYes, I agree with your response sister. I like your choice in quotes, I disregarded some without thinking of the actual meaning Sula was trying to display but you helped me clear some controversies going on in my head. Sula has control of her own body and she clearly shows that by her actions. She doesn't care about the townspeople' opinion and social norms because she is independent. Cool job cool girl.
While Sula's actions and lifestyle might paint a picture of an evil person, she is not inherently evil. The presumption of her "evil" nature is based primarily off of the judgements of the townspeople. The Bottom is very small and closely knit community where the majority of the residents share many of the same principles and ideas, and from these similar ideas spawns similar judgements. Sula had been away for nearly ten years at a university, and likely lost touch with many of the aspects of her original community. Upon her return, it seemed people were fearful of her, or fearful of what she might do, because she was an unknown and was perceived to be a negative force. Eva had even said, "I might have knowed them birds meant something" (Morrison 91), associating the "plague" of robin birds as omen of Sula's return. Sula had been the unfortunate culprit in the accident that was Chicken Little's death, had watched her mother burn alive but did not budge, and had seduced men away from their wives. These were all actions attributed to her that created a likeness of evil, however she did little else to impact people's lives negatively. When compared to other characters or real-life people associated with evil, she is far below their level of wickedness. Her "adventuring" from man to man, had essentially been her lifestyle. And Jude did not leave Nel because of Sula, Jude left because he chose to. Nel had placed much of the blame on Sula when there was not much behind it in the first place, so she subsequently ended an otherwise prosperous friendship; one that may have kept Sula much more content with her life had she remained friends. The judgements placed on Sula that characterized her as evil were formed from the spiritual and cultural morals of the citizens around her; these morals and principles Sula did not share.
Deletereply to Lhamo
DeleteI really like how you talk about how the town see her as a villain of the story. I feel like I can relate this to the betrayal prompt. This is because she uses betrayal to build the type of character she is. A women who just wants to show power by using sex.
Through the book, Sula is portrayed as an evil character. her actions and personality were vilified by the town. Due to this the town reacted very positively to her death. The symbol of evil in their town was finally gone. Shortly after her death, the town became immoral as a whole.Sula’s role ,as the antagonist of the town, essentially kept the residents of the bottom together. Having a shared object of evil caused the town to concentrate on moral values in fear of becoming immoral, like Sula. Toni Morrison is trying to show that good cannot exist without evil. This is because without a clear example of evil, there cannot be a clear definition of good. This is also evident in the character Nel. Towards the end of the book, Nel admits she also felt excitement during Chicken Little’s death. This is another example of the fact good cannot exist without evil. Even Nel, a morally sound character had evil premonitions, but because of this she became Sula’s biggest critic.
DeleteReply to Josh,
DeleteI agree with what you had to say. I especially related to your thoughts that a greater evil brings out the good from the less evil. I feel like good and evil work as a yin to the others yang so that there is never one without the other, which you made clear in your post. However, I don't think that Nel was able to become Sula's biggest critic because she had evil premonitions, but rather it was because she was Sula's best friend previously that she is able to critique Sula in such a way.
Reply to Josh
DeleteI didn't think about the fact that there was no good without evil which is a really strong and interesting point. I think that Nel's openness at the end of the book is really important to her and Sulas character because it shows they are similar even though throughout the book they were seen as opposites; good and evil.
Reply to Josh
DeleteI also think that you're idea works both ways as evil defines good as much as good defines evil. Without the contrast of Nel, Sula might seem angelic. In that way I think that the story is as much about perspective as it is about good and evil.
To Josh
DeleteI never thought of the idea of how the town's hatred towards Sula brought them together. Although I do agree that evil and good cannot exist without each other, I don't believe that Nel's feeling towards Chicken Little's death made her evil. I thought that Nel and Sula shared many opposites and with these differences, they were able to judge and critique each other because of their close relationship.
Death is a dominant motif in Sula. The text begins, "There was once a neighborhood," signifying that the community no longer exists (3). Morrison portrays death as an event that purifies, renews, and brings freedom to the deceased and/or their family and friends. Death is also an event that is often witnessed in the text; it is a spectacle that demands attention. Consider how this notion of death subverts more traditional depictions and why Morrison uses this strategy.
ReplyDeleteAlthough the townspeople were brought together through the common hatred of Sula, this unity unfortunately led to their deaths in the New River Road. The tunnel was meant to connects blacks and the whites and the Bottom to Medallion. Although it could have been the promise to economic fortune and prosperity to the Bottom (like how tunnels relate to the saying of "the light at the end of a tunnel") after a long time of struggling, lets not forget that the unfinished tunnel also was the site of where injustice happened, discrimination of black employment. White people were building the road for their own gains in order to expand their domain and to have fancy golf courses and houses, and they didn't really care for black people and what they went through. As a result, they didn't even let them work on a project that was supposed to unify the two. The Bottom attempted to fight the faceless system of their exploitation that in a way, was responsible for their current situation (poverty that the silver ice heightened) by never fulfilling its promises of prosperity and they did it because for what it represented. It is ironic that the desire for liberation ultimately ended up killing many from the Bottom. Perhaps Morrison is trying to illustrate that the white man's idea of liberation towards communities that they oppress, puts victims into a hopeless system. Although the black people of the community tried to fight against it, it was ultimately futile. The hope for change led them to keep on enduring more oppression, which at this point, could not have been alleviated by fighting back.
DeleteDeath in Sula serves to signify change within the Bottom. For example, after the death of Chicken Little, there was a lingering feeling of guilt around Nel, but not around Sula. This exemplifies a change that occurred between the two best friends as they grew differently such that Nel became more obedient and submissive, while Sula continued her free spirit lifestyle. Traditionally, this death would have impacted the town in a negative way, but Morrison subverts this by having the characters directly involved grow as a result of the death. Furthermore, the death of Plum brought Eva relief rather than the stereotypical despair that would come from killing a family member. However, this event brought freedom to both Plum and Eva since Plum would no longer suffer from his addiction to heroine, and Eva wouldn’t have to sit back and watch her son kill himself. Morrison is able to depict death as a catalyst for change because the effects of the deaths contribute more to the growth of the characters rather than the standard grief/sadness that accompanies death. Lastly, the deaths of the townspeople at the end of story signified the biggest change, not for the characters, but instead, for the town. Year later, the town had certainly changed from how it once was, which contributes to the idea that death contributed to the reshaping of the town. The sudden difference from how life was in 1921 as compared to life in 1965 suggests that as time ages, so does the culture and lifestyle within the town.
DeleteIn contrast to how many people view death, Morrison uses it to describe those that must react to the dead ones, not those that died. For example, after Sula dies, Morrison describes the opinion that others had on Sula. The members of the community believed that Sula's death was a blessing, she had been a curse that they were now free of (as they believed she was a witch). When a character dies, Morrison uses their death to reveal more about the characters that are still alive, those that are still relevant to their community. This is shown when Chicken Little died. Morrison describes the difference between Nel's reaction and Sula's reaction in order to differentiate their characteristics. After Chicken Little died, she said nothing about the little boy that had lost his life because in her eyes, the person who died is not vital to the story, but the reaction to their death is. After Sula watches her mother burn and perish, Morrison does not describe the way in which Hannah passed but rather the interest that Sula took in it, and that this causes her to be an evil character. Morrison continuously uses other characters deaths to relate to other people so that more can be revealed about them due to their actions and reactions.
DeleteReply to Elizabeth
DeleteI had not really though about the fact that Morrison uses death to also show other's reactions to that death. It's a very good point as Morrison really does show aspects of the characters with their reactions to a death.
Response to Tyler:
DeleteI agree with your point that death points out the change within the people. For example, as Sula and Nel were growing up, they also grew apart. However, when Sula died, she remembered all of her past and the goodness in Nel. After Sula’s death, Nel remembered the good times she had with Sula. In both of these women, we see a change in their perspectives from disliking each other to acknowledging each other for who they were.
To Tyler
DeleteI really liked how you used the splitting relationship of Sula and Nel after Chicken Little's death as evidence. I never really thought how the author used his death as a starting point for the characters to grow with Sula carrying on with her rebellious style and Sula becoming more obedient.
Comment from Nathan Hodge:
ReplyDeleteWhat is the possible significance of the switch in point of view for characters like Nel, where the POV goes from third-person to first-person, and back and forth?
The change in perspectives highlights the importance of Nel and Sula's friendship. Despite their contrasting personalities, Nel and Sula were so close they were like one person. However, when Sula comes back to Medallion after ten years, a rip in their friendship is apparent. For example, Sula mentions that she never had to explain herself to Nel and especially when Sula asks Nel that if they were such good friends, why couldn't she get over what she Sula did. The change in perspectives reveal the intentions and thoughts of both Nel and Sula, revealing how Nel felt betrayed and couldn't look at Sula as her friend even more, This contrasts with how Sula felt as she thought about Nel even at her deathbed showing that she still thought of Nel as her friend. In the last chapter, Nel finally realized the importance of Sula's friendship and how her misery came from the empty spot Sula filled and not because Jude left. Nel reveals through her perspective that she lost her identity like everyone else over the years, and finally regained it after remembering Sula and the things they experienced together.
DeleteThe change in perspectives highlights the importance of Nel and Sula's friendship. Despite their contrasting personalities, Nel and Sula were so close they were like one person. However, when Sula comes back to Medallion after ten years, a rip in their friendship is apparent. For example, Sula mentions that she never had to explain herself to Nel and especially when Sula asks Nel that if they were such good friends, why couldn't she get over what she Sula did. The change in perspectives reveal the intentions and thoughts of both Nel and Sula, revealing how Nel felt betrayed and couldn't look at Sula as her friend even more, This contrasts with how Sula felt as she thought about Nel even at her deathbed showing that she still thought of Nel as her friend. In the last chapter, Nel finally realized the importance of Sula's friendship and how her misery came from the empty spot Sula filled and not because Jude left. Nel reveals through her perspective that she lost her identity like everyone else over the years, and finally regained it after remembering Sula and the things they experienced together.
DeleteReply to Camille:
DeleteI like how you pointed out the important highlights of the relationships through the point of view. I agree that the change in perspectives does reveal the intentions of Nel and Sula while also letting the reader know how both characters felt.
Reply to Camille:
DeleteI agree with what you say on how a change in POV really is meant to outline the thoughts of a character and how that character's views could differ for a given situation. They might have a different way of justifying things that makes the reader feel that they are the "right" ones.
Question from Llamo:
ReplyDeleteWhy does Sula talk back and threaten Eva? Who do you believe has the upper hand between the two?
Between Sula and Eva, it seems like Sula has the upper hand in their relationship. Although they both have opinions about one another that cannot be altered, Eva is at a disadvantage because of her old age. Sula uses Eva's age as leverage to send off Eva away from her life and moves her into a nursing home. Therefore, Sula betrays many people, including her own grandmother, because she usually has the control over situations, allowing her to have the upper hand.
DeleteReply to Tiffany:
DeleteI agree that Sula has the upperhand in the argument with Eva. Sula takes advantage of her old age and deteriorating health to convince everyone that Eva is going crazy and should be sent away. However, it's because of Sula's manipulation and threats that Eva ends up scared in the first place.
Sula and Eva have a very interesting relationship, because out of everyone in the novel, they are the most similar. They are both extremely strong-willed and fierce, and commit controversial actions that are misunderstood. Although they are on different ends of the spectrum in regards to age, they are cautious of each other because the two know that they are each others match. Sula knows that although Eva is old, she has the capability of setting Plum on fire, and, out of lack of understanding, she is afraid for her safety and feels threatened of her power, so she sends her away. Sula talks back to Eva because of this fear and and feeling of being threatened. Although the two are similar, it is eventually their ages that determine who has the upper hand; which as seen through the novel, Sula is clearly more advantageous.
DeleteQuestion from Christine:
ReplyDeleteIn 1937, Morrison switches the point of view from third person to first person. What are the advantages and disadvantages of doing this, and what does this reveal about the characters?
Question from Kunsang:
ReplyDeleteWhy doesn't Sula feel guilty about any deceitful acts she has committed?
Sula doesn't feel any guilt because she thinks that she isn't doing anything wrong. Towards the end of Sula's death scene, she mentions that, "...my lonely is mine," (pg.143). Sula feels that she is the only one responsible for the emotions she feels, and not anyone else. The way she feels is the way that SHE wants to feel, and not what she is supposed to feel, which is why she doesn't feel guilty about the different acts she committed.
DeleteTo Jaden
DeleteI agree with your idea that Sula acts on her own mind. Sula believes that what she does isn't wrong and that her actions are truthful to her own views. Based on this, she doesn't follow the conformity set up by her society. Your response was very similar to mine :)
To Jaden and Lhamo
DeleteI agree with the both of you when stating that Sula acts the way she wants the act without any input from anybody else. Maybe it's because of the fact of how she feels about how she treats someone doesn't get her anything, "You don't get nothing for it" (Morrison145). In the end, Sula can't see why she should feel guilty is she's not going to gain something from it.
Jaden and Lhamo and Tiffany, I concur with your reasoning as to why Sula never regrets the commitment her absurd offenses; she does not understand the pain and sorrowful consequences her actions create, and is too stubborn to admit fault—not that she would recognize it as fault in the first place. She believes her actions are virtuous because, as you have asserted, she feels the way she wants to feel and, as Lhamo stated, she has a mind of her own. She does not let her surroundings influence her.
DeleteThis definitely highlights her strengths as a character: a strong, independent black woman who don’t need no man. But although her self-determination can be admirable, it also underlines her flaws: selfish, prideful, and possibly even deliberately ignorant. To continuously commit controversial actions against other people, to not consider other people, to disrespect other people, and to purposely refuses to apologize to other people while making herself the victim who must have sympathy clearly shows this. For example, although she slept with Jude—which is best described as an act of betrayal—she believed that Nel was the one who committed betrayal, who abandoned her, who became one of the townspeople. Hmm—say, doesn’t this focus on another vulnerable, sorrowful aspect of her complex character?
I agree to the fact Sula does not have guilt, because she believed what she was doing was not evil. This shows that the idea of evil can be dependent on a person's perception of it.
DeleteSula does not feel guilty as she she knows what she did was wrong but won't apologize for it. She related her life as though she was a "Redwood" to where she stood tall and proud, feeling guilty would not follow this idea as Sula lived her life doing as she pleased. Sula lived for herself, she was even lonely nut she said at least it was hers, just like her life is and she is not going to apologize for living her life her way.
DeleteSimilar to my response to josh the novel shows different persectives of scenes, such as Sula not truly realizing how her actions effect others and Nel attempting to express how it affected her. The novels perspectives shape the way me see the characters and how we judge their actions on a moral level. Sula is effectively morally ambiguous in her actions as all of her actions have both a good and an evil reaction. Although she was mean to the townspeople they did become better people because of it. In this reasoning I think the reason Sula doesn't feel guilty is that she lacks the perspective to see all of the possible reactions her actions could have on others, not just the person that is diractly effected by said act.
DeleteI think it's because Sula is a sociopath. But also because she thinks she understands the importance of opinion in a life set in one perspective, her own.It's not that Sula thinks it's right or wrong to sleep with people, it's because she chooses to stand by her own senses of self rather than bow to the opinions of others. Everything life is a sensory experience fed to a brain powered by water and fat, Sula understands this and thus values any influences outside her own brain to be false ad useless. She feels sadness and loneliness, but she believes that because she chose that they are worth experiencing. Sula is perhaps the only truly independent person in the entire novel, yet no one really looks at why she is that way. She's not like Nel, who didn't care about chicken little's death, she is a person shaped by tragedy who decided to never let it define her again. But in her struggle to remain above the opinion of others, she becomes a slave to her own and cannot learn to truly enjoy her life. She has one set of options, always, like a little puppet on strings, strings she made for herself. She's trapped inside her own philosophies and experiences life only vicariously, from outside herself. Sula died a long time ago. These last few years were only her death throes.
DeleteQuestion from James:
ReplyDeleteThroughout the story, Sula has sex with a lot of people. How does the author use sex to help develop the protagonist's personality?
Sula's act of having sex with many people could be seen as a part of her rebellious attitude. During that time it wasn't common for a woman to sleep around with that many men. Especially not white and/or jewish men. So the authors use of sex develops Sula's character by making her appear different then the rest of the women in the story. Compared to Nel she's almost the exact opposite person. Speaking of Nel, Sula's affair with Jude allows people to continue to believe that Sula is evil. Sula's multiple relationships separates her from everyone else by making her stand and and contributing to her evil and rebellious personality.
DeleteMorrison uses sex to make Sula do what she wants, but at the same time make her look like a bad person. As a child, Sula grew up with Hannah sleeping with other women’s husbands, which would make her see sex as something good and not a big deal, so she can’t be blamed for growing up thinking sex was a good thing. However, this backfires at Sula because she sleeps with Jude with no shame at all, whereas Nel doesn’t see Sula as a friend anymore, which costs them both a friend that they grew up with. Eventually, she has sex with Ajax, revealing her drive for money. One day while having sex with him, she saw a “gold leaf” under his skin, which is the gifts he would bring each time he visited Sula, and she wants to “water his soil, keep it rich and moist”, which means that she wants Ajax to keep coming with these gifts.
DeleteMy answer is not very different from the previous answers. I believe that Toni Morrison uses Sula's lust for her to break conformity. With this Sula has a plethora of affects. She gives herself a bad reputation as she is looked down upon in her community, she also destroys her community as she breaks the conformity. However on the other hand, she is also empowered as her choices make her independent to anyone else in the novel, making decisions based on what she desires (such as sex) rather than choosing to conform.
DeleteI feel as if the motif of sexuality in Sula does more in portraying her community and the society that women, especially black women face, rather than Sula's personality. They use Sula's sexuality against her, and feel as if because she does not have the same "morals" as them, she should be punished. It's true that Sula sleeps with white men and in general, is very promiscuous. However, it is very important to note that at an extremely young age,12, Sula and Nel were sexualized and catcalled by grown men in the streets as they walked on by. The normality of pedophilia in their community is something that is never addressed by the Bottom as a problem that they are willing to fix. In addition, Sula gets so much hate for sleeping with white men. However, she questions why when black men sleep with white women, no one says anything. Not only this, but when Jude and Sula had an affair, everyone blamed Sula for ruining the relationship between Nel and Jude, when it was Jude who not only cheated and betrayed his wife, but ultimately made the decision to leave. Men can be just as promiscuous as the women who are being persecuted, but are free from those consequences. The effects and reactions to Sula's "abnormal" sexuality shows the misogyny and to be more specific, misogynoir that black women face in their own communities, who'd rather treat them as pariahs for not conforming, rather than even glancing at the problematic parts of their community.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteQuestion from Christine:
ReplyDeleteThroughout the novel, Morrison uses irony. For example, the Bottom is on a hill overlooking the valley, therefore situated above the white people. Why would Morrison use this literary technique? And how does it enhance the story?
Morrison's use of irony enhances the story by forcing the reader to stop and think about the position of the ironic element in relation to the rest of the story. Sula, the evil pariah of the town, is also the person who brings the rest of the town together. The townspeople band together in their hatred of her and challenge themselves to rise above her evilness. Women are better mother and wives, men work harder, and families treat the elderly more kindly. Even though she does terrible things, Sula makes the town a better place, and after she dies that all goes away. Sula's ironic affect on the Bottom makes the reader ask, is Sula an evil character after all?
DeleteReply to Leah:
DeleteI agree that Morrison uses irony through Sula's effect on the town. I like your point that if Morrison bases a characters personality off of others then does it not make Sula a good person? However, I think that Morrison uses this irony to stress the ambiguity of Sula's character, because although Sula causes the townspeople to become kinder and less sinful, she also stops them from being who they are, by forcing them to become what are fake versions of themselves. This irony could be used to emphasize Sula's lack of evil, but it may also be used to highlight her contrasting character.
I feel like Toni Morison situated the Bottom overlooking the valley to show how in some ways black communities are more superior than white communities. Throughout the book, the community of the Bottom is seen as a more dynamic community where as the city of Medallion is seen as static. In the Bottom, black communities were ever changing, from the demolishing of roads to redefining how important women are. However in Medallion, the communities were seen static remaining constantly "glorious." Also, at the end of the book the Bottom was taken into part for its luxurious land over that of Medallion.
Delete