Please contribute to the blog with your thoughts, questions, and ideas. For each assignment, you must do AT LEAST TWO of the following:
A. Respond
to one of the guiding questions (I will post them on the blog for you).
B. Send
me an email with a thoughtful question, so I can post it on the blog.
C. Build
on someone else’s idea or politely disagree, with a thoughtful alternative
opinion.
Guiding question (GQ):
ReplyDeleteWhat is the significance of names and naming in the novel?
I think the significance of the names are related to the person and their situation in the story. For example Shadrack created what was called National Suicide Day for people to kill themselves. This is in correlation with Shadrach in the bible because he was sentenced to be put to death in the furnace and was probably stressed out about dying.
DeleteNames in Sula represent characters by referencing other texts. The names typically represent a defining characteristic of the characters in these other texts. The prime example of these chapters is Jude. Biblically, Jude is remembered as a traitor. He exchanged the life of Jesus Christ for his own selfish desire of money. In Sula, Jude is ,similarly, a traitor. He betrays Nel by having an affair with Sula. Like Jude from the Bible, Jude exchanged the life he had for his own selfishness. The act of Biblical Jude, giving away Jesus Christ, is considered Evil, because he followed his own selfish desires. This “Evil” is symbolically present as Sula’s Birthmark which the townspeople say looks like a snake. Once again, Biblically, The snake represents evil and temptation. Due to this, both Jude from the Bible and Jude from Sula have an affair with evil.
DeleteResponse to Juelz:
DeleteI agree to your statement in that the events and or actions taken by characters in Sula are parallels to the character they are referencing. Parallels include Shadrack and death and Jude and betrayal
Response to Josh:
DeleteI find your response to be quite interesting, I did not know much about Jude and you really helped clear things up! Nice connections with the snake and Sula having an affair with evil, it is a good point to think about. Overall I agree with your response!
I agree with both of your statements. However, I believe that these allusions not only reference other texts to create a plot but rather used to convey the similar themes between the novel SULA and the texts referred to. On that note, what SULA does is represent those themes in a more real-world scenario as it applies to a more modern community rather than some ancient civilization which no longer exists. I believe Toni Morrison does this to show that these traditional values which have been brought down and passed on for hundreds of years still apply to the modern society of today whether it be good or bad.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThe significance of names in Sula is that these characters often share similar traits/personalities and meet similar fates. In the case of Sula, Ajax is an allusion of the greek myth hero from Homer's liad. In the greek mythology, Ajax is a magnificent man, highly arrogant, but flawed deeply. In the case of Sula, Ajax is seen as the same arrogant man, having a way with words with his "magnificent potty mouth." Ajax is also flawed in some ways as he sleeps with countless women yet finds them unappealing or uninteresting.
DeleteResponse to Josh:
DeleteI agree with your response and how Sula's birthmark represents her evil. At first her birthmark was seen as a tiny stem, shaping into a rose, but as she began to grow more chaotic like in the watching of her mother burning, the birthmark grew. I think the book also mentions about how the birthmark is perceived differently by the town, whether a snake or a rose.
Response to champman
DeleteI like the idea of the birthmark representing her evil Nd how it grows over time to represent her evilness growing too. Do you think that the author wants us to see the birthmark as the rose or the snake. As snakes as a symbol of evil and roses one of love.
GQ 2. 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.
ReplyDeletePlum is pretty good example. The dude was babied his entire life, he was given every opportunity, but he still ended up taking a kerosene bath. His dependence directly contrasts Hannah's promiscuity, he couldn't get out of bed and she couldn't stop getting in it. She made the choice to go where she pleased whilst her brother withered away under the eye of her amputated crazy-eyed pyromaniac of a mother.
DeleteAnother good'n is Boy Boy, the traipsing piece of trash who wouldn't know responsibility if it came and stomped his faithless pelvis into a mound of bone vaguely resembling the word "deadbeat". His foil is of course Helene who stays at home cares for her daughter every hour of every day with or without her husband home. She probably has the word "maternity" tattooed on her forehead. She has no other purpose than to raise her daughter, the clear opposite of Boy Boy.
All in all, the me serve as motivation for the women to do something or other, it's not particularly flattering but that's not really the point. Sula explores the human experience through the eyes of women therefore Morrison cannot be as careless with her female protagonists as she can with her males. Sula is about the existence and relevance of autonomy in human life, and self awareness is not going to be realized by tying oneself to a man like muscle to bone.
Morrison describes the male characters as weak people without self control or the responsibilities of the woman characters. For example, Tar Baby lives in Eva's house throughout his life getting drunk, listening to music, and letting his body wither away. He does not have children, or responsibilities like Eva and Hannah do, and wastes away slowly, intellectually, physically, and emotionally. Eva, on the other hand, cared for her children after her husband left her alone, found them a home, and somehow managed to feed them along the way. Both characters are affected by difficulties in their lives, (poverty and illness for Eva, drunkenness for Tar Baby) but only Eva comes out of it stronger and successful. It shows Eva as an infinitely more capable person than Tar Baby. Plum, who also suffered from addiction, contrasts largely with his sister Hannah. Although both character are raised by the same mother, Plum does not succeed like Hannah does. Through the misery of experiencing war, which could be likened to single-motherhood, he gives up and sacrifices himself to addiction, where Hannah stays strong for Sula and allows her daughter to grow up in good environment. Morrison puts male and female into two similar situations, and shows the success of the women and the failure of the males to contrast them against each other.
DeleteReply to Elizabeth:
DeleteI agree that there is a difference between the portrayal of men and women in the story. It made me think of the chaos and order motif/topic we discussed in class. While men are the ones who are getting into wars, violence, drugs, the general chaos in life, women in this instance are at home, a housewife to an extent and thriving (the order in life). While order trumps chaos in this sense, most of the women in the story cannot be without men for one reason or another. They literally said that they need them, for Hannah, she believes that she needs to complete them, for Eva, she sees them as equal comrades. So I think Morrison is trying to show that while that women (order) is clearly better portrayed than men (chaos), they in a sense, need each other, and level off to some extent, in order to be at peace.
GQ 3.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?
ReplyDeleteWas Sula truly evil? Considering the novel has not even been completed yet, my decision is not quite set in stone but this is what I can get out of it so far. "Eva's arrogance and Hannah's self indulgence merged into her" (Morrison 118). This quote shows how Sula was raised between a combination of bad influences. I can assume that if Sula was raised in a more friendly environment, her actions would most likely differ from those seen in today's readings. Sula disregards the social rules of marriage and sleeps with Jude, this selfish act destroys Nel. Sula's current actions are enough to make the community label her as "evil". But you might be wondering, just because Sula's morals clash with those of society, does that really make her an evil person? If this was the case, my decision would have been easy to make, but after reading this quote "she lived out her days exploring her own thoughts and emotions, giving them full reign, feeling no obligation to please anybody unless their pleasure pleased her" (Morrison 118), my opinion changed. This mentality dictates Sula's current actions and as the quote states, she only cares for herself. This makes her come across as a terrible person to the residents of the Bottom and ultimately is the reason for why they despise her.
DeleteReply to Kunsang:
DeleteI agree with the part about Sula's selfishness, and how that potentially marks her as an evil person, but I don't think Sula's actions would change even if she lived in a more friendly environment. Just look at how Nel reacted to having her mother wanting her to become a perfect daughter. Nel's living environment was more friendly than Sula's and she still wanted to be herself and not what her mother wanted her to be. I think that Sula's actions would still be the same because she would most likely defy the friendly and controlling environment if she had lived in one.
I also agree with both of your ideas about how the environment they were raised in have an effect on the way their personality is. I think it would have change the way she is prescribed in the story.
DeleteSula's evil is very interesting because it is juxtaposed with her brightness and humor. She makes Nel very happy for many years, and lights up the room whenever she walks in. Men love her, and want her, so she has a good side, but it really is hiding her evil nature. She does not step in to help her burning mother, or her dying grandmother, and she ruins Nel's life. It is hard to combine the image of this horrible woman with Nel's laughing friend. She is like the town of Bottom herself, on the outside she is warm, but really she is destructive and traps the people in her life. She traps them in death or despair.
DeleteReply to Kunsang:
DeleteIf we accept that Sula's actions are a result of her upbringing then we must accept that all human actions are the result of past experience no one is to blame for their own misdeed because they don't control what they do at all. I think we must accept Sula as evil or else we cannot realize the theme of the book as Morrison would like. Humans must independent of their experience or the journey along the mortal coil is as monotonous electricity gliding down a wire.
At first encounter, Sula wouldn't appear evil, but as the people are more exposed to her, they soon realize her true colors. She has slept with many men, and the ones she got especially close to, Jude and Ajax, made her harm those around her and ultimately, herself. She stole Jude from Nel, and that was the nail that sealed Nel's inner bubble. Ever since childhood, they had been the yin to each others yang such that their opposite lives balanced each other out; however, Jude's affair with Sula proved to be the despair that consumed Nel's life. In addition, Sula's actions towards her grandmother was unforgivable from the eyes of the townspeople, so not only was Sula ruining her relationships with friends, but also the townspeople whom she had known since childhood. This casts Sula off into her own island where she can only fill the void with the intimacy that comes from love, which is where Ajax came in to play, but her intimacy towards him eventually caused him to leave her and left Sula devastated. Therefore, Sula's actions subconsciously caused distress for not only the townspeople, but also herself, and contributes to why she became hated upon arriving back in the Bottom.
DeleteSula’s unpredictable, independent personality results in a substantial amount of hate from the Bottom residents. And this is understandable: she does not conform to the expectations of their society, she has had affairs with numerous men—including her best friend’s husband—and she has disrespected her family and neighbors. However, although her actions make her seem evil, I personally—at least at this very moment—believe she is misguided and ignorant.
DeleteFirst, the environment she grew up in was less than ideal; she lacked proper affection from her family, for example, and was devastated when Hannah said she didn’t like her. This must have affected her mentality and relationship with other people since this issue plagued her from the start, being an underlying cause for her loneliness. It seems her “evil” has been rigged from the beginning. However, further on, she sleeps with Jude and devastates Nel, and states that “she had no thought at all of causing Nel pain” (Morrison 119). In this context, she had no regard for her best friend, and it seems that she is making herself the sympathetic victim. Absolutely upsetting and absurd.
Truly, "Eva's arrogance and Hannah's self indulgence merged into her [Sula]" (Morrison 118).” But she is human, after all.
Sula is only evil in her inability to feel; Sula says herself that she does things for its wickedness or to feel an emotion like sadness. Sula isn't aware of the type of pain Nel feels when Sula slept with Jude. She is just aware that Nel feels the type of pain a "wronged wife" feels. Sula is evil because she cannot and does not relate to anyone. Her evilness comes from her own curiosity, indifference and self-expression. For example, being interested in her mother's burning, her belief in the wickedness of sex, her humor, and her decision to sleep with many men. These are all examples of her choice to do what she wants and gain a certain feeling. Her ultimate relationship with the citizens is basically another evil day that they need to adapt to. Her presence in town changed how many citizens lived, by accepting to Sula's evilness/perceived character and adding it to the norms of living in Medallion. They endure her evilness rather than fight it.
DeleteSula is only evil in her inability to feel; Sula says herself that she does things for its wickedness or to feel an emotion like sadness. Sula isn't aware of the type of pain Nel feels when Sula slept with Jude. She is just aware that Nel feels the type of pain a "wronged wife" feels. Sula is evil because she cannot and does not relate to anyone. Her evilness comes from her own curiosity, indifference and self-expression. For example, being interested in her mother's burning, her belief in the wickedness of sex, her humor, and her decision to sleep with many men. These are all examples of her choice to do what she wants and gain a certain feeling. Her ultimate relationship with the citizens is basically another evil day that they need to adapt to. Her presence in town changed how many citizens lived, by accepting to Sula's evilness/perceived character and adding it to the norms of living in Medallion. They endure her evilness rather than fight it.
DeleteI don't believe that Sula is as evil as the Bottom portrays her to be. Because she has not been in Medallion for about a decade, there is obvious disconnect between Sula and her community. Sula was never really apart of her community in the first place. She was raised by two women whose sexuality was very fluid-like, and this trait (Eva's arrogance and Hannah's self-indulgence) was passed on to her in a mixture that does not sit well for the community. By sleeping around with men, she manifests her sexuality, in which she cannot really change. Unfortunately, she slept with her only "true" friend's husband, which was wrong, however, she always believed that love and sex is very experimental and almost undefinable, which goes against a woman's role in society to stay loyal, faithful and submissive to men. Her birthmark also alludes to this; the fact that people resemble it to a snake shows how she is the one who is tempting men, like Satan, the serpent, tempted Adam and Eve. This and past rumors of her, cause Sula to be an outcast. They use her sexuality against her, and punish her (ruining her reputation) because they thought she was sleeping with around with men, particularly white men. However, black men sleep with white women and no one says anything. As a black woman, Sula struggles the most in her community that believes she should conform. However, Sula coming back to Medallion helps the citizens a bit. By mistreating her, they unify and take pride in black identity and hold it very high, which is great. So in reality, Sula's return helps the community, although she has to suffer the most because of it.
DeleteReply to Kunsang: I believe that it is fair how you see both sides of the argument, but I also think that Sula can be seen as evil by the actions she took when Chicken Little was killed and when her mother was burned alive. She was a child, but either way her actions may not be seen as evil, but they are definitely cruel.
DeleteReply to Christine:
DeleteAt the moment, I see Sula in the same kind of light as well. She rubbed me the wrong way when she spoke to her grandmother in such a vicious tone and she's had a lot of very traumatizing experiences that I guess, molded her to be the person she is, in a sense.
GQ 4. 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.
ReplyDeleteTowards the end of the chapter labeled 1937, after Nel had witnessed the infidelity of both her husband and best friend, Morrison reflected back on the scene of Chicken Little’s funeral as part of Nel’s own thoughts. The event had evoked harsh cries and screams from the women in particular, out of sheer grief. It is a stark contrast to the conventional image of death and funerals, where the crowd is silent, and only slight sounds of sorrow are uttered. However, Morrison writes that, “They could not let that heart-smashing event pass unrecorded, unidentified” (107), meaning that deafening screams are sound and understandable reactions in the face of devastating events such as death. Death is an event worthy of attention, “And there must be rage and saliva in its presence… The hands should have no peace, and the throat should release all the yearning, despair and outrage that accompany the stupidity of loss” (107). The depiction of rage in this scene is comparable to the poem “Do Not Go Gentle into that Good Night” by Dylan Thomas; the similarity being that they both talk about the fact that death is never a painless ordeal. The emotional impact of death constitutes severe reactions of anger and devastation.
DeleteReply to Nathan:
DeleteI really liked your comparison to "Do Not Go Gentle into that Good Night". That poem and Sula both highlight the real affect death has on those around it. Morrison shows that death does not go unnoticed in a community, and that people continue to have an impact on others even after they are gone. Chicken Little's death haunts Nel for years, which shows that even if death is common and inevitable, it is not meaningless.
GQ 5. Add your own guiding question or idea here! There are so many to choose from, from motifs to the circular nature of life to Biblical allusions in the book. If you come up with a good question, email it or submit it to me and I will post it on the blog as a potential discussion question.
ReplyDeleteSula fails to comply to any of the social norms, yet she still seems to be doing better than Eva, who had lost generally everything in a sacrifice for her children and her children themselves, and Nel, who had lost her husband due to him having an affair with Sula herself. Which allusion best represents this situation and what is its contextual purpose? Does Sula's birthmark take significance in these actions to you?
DeleteIn cases such as Eva and Plum, to where a mother would kill her son to end his suffering, is extreme love always a positive thing? Based on your decision, what do you think Morrison is saying about this idea?
DeleteQuestion from Jaden:
ReplyDeleteWhy does Nel feel guilty about the death of Chicken Little and not Sula? Is this related to their different personalities?
In regards to Chicken Little's death, both Nel and Sula feel shocked but have different takes in it. Nel feels guilty and heavy with grief, but does not shed a tear. Meanwhile Sula cries for a long time but does not feel at fault. It can be seen that Chicken Little's death caused "something newly missing"(Morrison 61), which symbolically refers to the two's innocence. C.L's death also displays the two girls's character in more depth and how their reactions define themselves. Sula's "no guilt" and Nel's "guilt" reaction may relate to the fact that she was still a child and didn't know what to make of the situation, like when Nel is in C.L's funeral, "she knew she had done nothing"(Morrison 65).
DeleteI also agree with the fact that both characters have unquie takes on the situation. However, I would add that Sula's interpretation of "no guilt" may not only be because they were still children of the time; but also "the Bottom" being Sula's source of evil which she no longer has any feeling for, as past events have developed from Plum's death and so on.
DeleteResponse to Lhamo
DeleteQuestion from Llamo:
ReplyDeleteDo you believe that Eva killing her son was considered a murder or was her actions of a martyr?
I think that Eva killed Plum because she believed that she would be putting him out of his misery. I guess this could be considered as a martyr, since Eva killed him because of her beliefs, but it could have also been because she just wanted to have a break from taking care of Plum. Although she cries about it when she thinks of it, I think that at the time when Eva was killing Plum, she could have felt relief in it. Plum was a very trouble some baby, and now that he came back, Eva has to experience the hardships of taking care of him again. This could have caused her to think that she killed him because she was putting him out of his misery, but in reality she could have done it for herself. Either way, this would be considered a martyr since she believed she was helping herself and Plum.
DeleteIn my opinion, I believe that Plum's death was considered murder; although Eva's intentions may have been for the best she could have approached the situation differently. As many know WWI or "the Great War" to have been a war that impacted citizens of the U.S. greatly with images of their experiences within the war; I also believe that as a female character in a novel which praises women and strips men of their traditional power Eva must act upon the necessary. In this case, the necessary may have been to relieve Plum of his internal pain which was most likely her intentions. However, what seems to be unclear to me is the difference between Hannah and Plum, and Eva's process of ideology during each other's fate; as Eva intentionally acts upon burning Plum to relieve him from living a life of resentment from the war though when Hannah begins to burn, rather then prevent her from living a painful scarring life she intends to rescue her. Furthermore, I do believe that Plum's death can be identified as murder, because if Plum had not wanted an attempt in returning to a normal life he would have never returned home from the war.
DeleteI agree that killing Plum is considered martyr because her actions were led by her beliefs and although Plum's death could be for the selfless reasons of Eva, it could also be for selfish reasons of hers. Plum coming back as a heroine addict placed a lot of weight on Eva and how she could care for the rest of the household, setting him on fire would mean that he wouldn't place a burden on Eva anymore and she wouldn't have to deal with his addition. At the same time, Eva couldn't stand to see Plum suffer so much and wanted to put an end to his misery, ultimately ending his misery forever.
DeleteI think another big reason why Eva kills Plum is because she can no longer bear seeing her son live in so much pain. It hurts her to see him that way, so she kills him to end both of their sufferings. While we are unsure if Plum would ever come back from his drug addiction, Eva took it upon herself to "solve" it without giving Plum the option. In Eva's eyes she was helping her son reach peace, as now he was no longer effected by the material world including his addiction. I feel that Eva did this in both selfishness and selflessness as she killed him partly to stop seeing her son that way and partly to put him at peace.
DeleteResponse to Joseluis:
DeleteI agree with you because as a book that praises women, Eva could’ve tried remedies that didn’t involve killing Plum. However, in my opinion, I think that Plum’s death wasn’t murder because Eva’s intention was positive; to relieve Plum of his suffering. If it was a negative intention, like killing him just because she didn’t like him, then it would be murder.
Eva had no right to kill plum and I think it was a murder that there was no martyrdom involved in her killing of plum. Why would you kill someone when you had the option to help them live? Especially after all that she did for plum and all that she sacrificed. Her killing of plum revealed a little bit of evil in her. Maybe this is why she never had time to love her kids, she was prepared to at one moment do everything for them and at the next kill them. She says she had no time for love but I think she had no room in heart for love after boyboy left.
DeleteI don't necessarily consider Plum's death as murder, because of its complexity. For one, I think Eva certainly loves her son. This is the same man who as a baby, Eva wasted her last bit of food supply so she can ram it up his rectum, to relieve his pain. Eva is known to be a harsh parent, because she tells Hannah that they wouldn't be alive had it not been for her love. To me, she's the type who believes in the obligation of love. Plum has been a burden to her and her family, by risking the family of starvation as a child, and now becoming a thief and a heroine addict. In the same way Eva inserted the can of food into him to relieve him; killing him is similar, because she's putting him out of his misery. Although he didn't really have a choice, she's told Hannah that she's given him many chances to leave, and he won't. Her love for her son is so strong that she doesn't want to see him die an agonizing death as an addict, so she decides to kill him not only for him, but so that the other members of the family don't have to see the messy side of drugs. If she hadn't killed him, the drugs would have eventually, and I think to her, it is more devastating to have the possibility of a drug-related death than anything else, because she had put so much effort into keeping him alive. By setting on him on fire, she is essentially cleansing him of the evil that tainted his character. It might hard to understand, but I think there are two perspectives to almost everything in this book.
DeleteQuestion from James:
ReplyDeleteHow does the author use geographic location and race throughout the story to express more than just the settings?
Question from Kieran:
ReplyDeleteInnocence plays a big role in this novel. How does Toni Morrison use specific events to strip that innocence away from her characters in the novel?
Marriage strips away innocence from death. This is because of how the characters value their life more after their marriage. This is especially true in the last couple chapter. The way Hanna talks about that marriage is closer to death. This is also related to the wedding that takes place because of how Sula now portrays death. In addition the characters that often die in the story are characters that has been married, all knowing that death will come soon.
DeleteThe first sign of a lost innocence is when Nel meets Sula for the first time. From that point on it seems that Sula played a big influential part in her life and not always for the better. Without Sula, Nel probably wouldn't of dealt with the death of chicken little and the effects of that on her. And it's hard to determine the moment Sula lost her innocence because her life has always been so hectic. In summary Toni Morrison uses these events to show that 1. Innocence isn't forever 2. You can't always decide what's going to happen in life. Because you never know what's going to happen or what horrible even will take place next. With the realities of the world innocence is bound to be taken away from you at some point, and sadly at times it's sooner than expected.
DeleteResponse to James:
DeleteI agree with that statement in some ways but not totally. I agree that it seems death and marriage are possibly connected. But i don't know if innocence can be directly related to both of them. I do support your comment though cause it was persuasive, you had good evidence.
Some events that Morrison uses to strip characters of their innocence is the rumors of the townspeople. Obviously this will be more directed towards Sula, and how she was affected by them. For one thing, people start to say that her birthmark isn’t a stem and a rose, but the ashes of her mother, Hannah. With this marking of her mother, she falls into the sins of her mother; adultery, for example, sleeping with Jude and other women’s husbands, which would lead to accusations of Sula sleeping with white men. This strips Sula’s innocence because it creates a negative connotation that all she wants is sex. Other accusations like pushing Teapot down some stairs, killing Mr. Finley, and being called a devil because she was found around Shadrack, also strip Sula of her innocence because these accusations don’t make her innocent, they make her evil. I think what Morrison was trying to show here was that innocence isn’t fully protected because an accusation with a negative connotation will lead to more accusations, which could slowly eat away at the victim’s innocence.
DeleteResponse to Aaron:
DeleteI agree with what you had to say. I also had similar ideas with the negative connotation that Sula only wants sex; however, I feel that Sula seeks that intimacy because she is missing something in her life that -as strange as this sounds - only sex can provide. For sure though, her innocence was revoked the minute all these nasty accusations were put upon her, and eventually corroded her figure.
Reply to Aaron:
DeleteI agree with your response. I like how you mentioned the change in the citizen's perspective of Sula. Like how the rose turned to ashes, Sula's innocence was replaced with remnants of it; it represents her maturity.
Reply to Aaron:
DeleteI agree with your response. I like how you mentioned the change in the citizen's perspective of Sula. Like how the rose turned to ashes, Sula's innocence was replaced with remnants of it; it represents her maturity.
Question from Joseluis:
ReplyDeleteHow are the names displayed in the novel significant to men's traditional power being stripped away; and how is this portrayed through female characters?