| Author |
Message |
    
Cynique
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, November 18, 2003 - 12:27 am: | 
|
I finally finished my leisurely journey through the pages of Toni Morrison's latest novel, and when I was through it occurred to me that the reason I was able to pick the book up, and put it down was because each chapter was complete unto itself, and this allowed the reader to pause and contemplate. I found "Love" to be an extraordinary book, one that was somewhat reminsicent of both "Sula" and "Song of Solomon." Its plot unfolded like a tapestry embroidered with the threads of Toni Morrison's inimitable prose, the completed design like a tableau of unique figures who loved well, but not wisely. In the final analysis, I took the story at face value and didn't look for subliminal messages that villified either men or women. This was a novel about flawed people who were, above all else, victims of their circumstances. |
Chris Hayden
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, November 18, 2003 - 02:07 pm: |
|
I am about one third of the way through it. I found it to be a book that one has to live with--I can finish a book of 200 pages in one night but this one I had to read and re read and study. I think that the first few pages, the sort of first person pro logue, is a key to what is going on--at least so far it is a character study of Bill Cosey as seen through many eyes--a brave and difficult way of approaching a work--sort of like the movie Rashomon. The usual Morrison Mysticism comes in--the Police heads. I will finish probably in a couple of days.
I came late to Morrison, when I did the book out was Beloved and I have never been able to finish that one. I am reminded of my attitude to Marlon Brando--I was too young when The Wild One, Streetcar Named Desire and On the Waterfront came out--I knew him from the spectacular series of bombs that he put out in the 60's.
Then he made "The Godfather" and I saw what they had been raving about. This book gave me the same feeling--Morrison sure can write. This is the kind of deep poetical book one should keep short--five or six hundred pages of this would be too daunting I think.
More when I finish. |
ABM
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, November 18, 2003 - 09:32 pm: |
|
Cynique,
I agree with you that Love’s chapters, though necessary to support the whole of the story, also potently stand on their own. That’s because Morrison’s prose is so daringly distinctive and provocative (there should be a literary treatise titled the "Morrison Metaphor") that you enjoy the myriad individual pieces of her writing.
It is interesting the way Morrison discusses sex. She seemingly enjoys incorporating paradoxical portions of delight and revulsion on that subject matter. And although she avoids explicitly detailing the act itself, she wield the sensual aura and accoutrements of lovemaking - the feral heat that precedes and the luxurious satisfaction that follows it - in ways that viscerally incite the senses and imagination.
I would like to talk about what Cosey does with the Heed. But I don’t want to reveal too much about this newly released book. What is the protocol here?
Hang in there Chris. |
Cynique
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, November 19, 2003 - 11:00 am: |
|
ABM, you can always start a new thread with some type of disclaimer such as "don't read this if you haven't read 'Love'." People who haven't read the book will then have only themselves to blame if they click on to the link. |
Chris Hayden
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, November 19, 2003 - 01:43 pm: |
|
Cynique:
Or you can give them a warning like this--
***Possible Spoilers****
Okay. I finished it.Didn't take as long as I expected after I got into her voice.
My original verdict still stands this is a good book with good writing and I liked it. And I think she is still the most dominant female writer
(there is a local radio talk show host named Onion Horton who, when somebody starts out with praise says, "OK brother. Carry us on to the but."
BUT
I had great fun and enjoyment while I was reading this but I didn't carry anything away. I think this is not only an illustration of it is not only WHAT you write but WHO you are and WHEN you write it.
If this had been a first novel, if this had been ZZ.Packer or Zadie Smith or somebody, I would have been shouting in the streets about the great new talent.
This is a Nobel Laureate and Pulitzer Prize Winner who been at it 25-30 years? In that I would say it was as good as the best (I ever read by her) but it is like hearing Satchmo do "St. James Infirmary in 1960 or Duke Ellington do "Take the A Train in 1970--well, yeah. They did it good, but.
It was like that Black Yale Law Professor who did the whodunnit a while back--the first 300 pages I was absolutely in love with the book--the second fell flat, I was thinking I expected more weight from a Yale Law Professor.
Not that anybody can't write what they want.
Also when you write it--if this had been written in the 70's, 80's even the 90's when it is set, I would have found the subject matter more profound. We lie in a different world now.
As such I found it mostly a high-toned Chick book (don't get in a lather; Hemingway wrote High toned pulp fiction, Dickens, wrote high toned melodrama, Richard Wright wrote high toned politcal propaganda, Vonnegut writes high toned Sci fi--etc etc). This ain't a book I can recommend to my card playin and beer drinkin buddies--and they do read books.
Yes it will sell like hot cakes, yes people will shout about it yes they will walk around with it like they know whats happenin. But to me it was like a lot of her books--they are like several women having a deep womanyst conversation--I can listen and comment here and there but not really take part.
The last chapter seeemed rather forced. The mystery of Cosey's death and the will were cleaned up in interesting manner, but that part on p 192--do you really want me to say what happens? was improbable, if not well set up. You know the thing with Christine and Bill Cosey and the window. In the 30's and 40's? I don't think so. |
Cynical
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, November 19, 2003 - 03:05 pm: |
|
Books where the character pivotal to the plot is dead, and is brought back to life through the eyes of others are usually a challenge to the imagination. Employing this literary technique was one of the things which made "Love" so compelling. And, too, Toni Morrison's main characters are always vulnerable people from peculiar backgrounds, and this allows her to take all kinds of liberties in regard to what they say or do. This is what distinguises Morrison's work; she is able to make the improbable seem plausible. She also places more emphasis on the importance of women bonding as friends, rather than uniting against men... 'Just some of my thoughts on the subject. |
Cynique
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, November 19, 2003 - 03:14 pm: |
|
Ooops, I mistakenly identified myself as "cynical" instead of "Cynique." What a drag. Toni's skills are one of the few things I am not cynical about. |
yukio
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, November 19, 2003 - 07:19 pm: |
|
Now, that Cynique is done, let us talk discuss this book. Perhaps, we can begin where ABM and I left off on the other thread....maybe not....
P.S.
CH: It is strange only a month or so ago, you said that you hadn't read any of Toni MOrrison's books; now, you're commenting as if you're an expert.
Lets try something different, here:
Rather than talk about if the book is a "chick book" and that ya "card playin and beer drinkin buddies," lets go into the text..or maybe not!
|
yukio
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, November 19, 2003 - 07:47 pm: |
|
ABM's comment:
"Morrison seems to be especially interested in holding an unflattering mirror to Black women. She let's you see how Black women often appear to be each others' and their own worst enemy. I don't think she excuses Whites and Black men of the troubles they cause sistahs, but she don't appear to be quite as interested in belaboring their evils."
ABM, i'm not sure if you still hold this view. I'm not sure if we can say that "L" represents MOrrison's perspective, since she says that her characters don't respect her. Nevertheless, L describes Cosey as a ordinary man, fallible. And the fact that the novel illustrates how the community could negatively charaterize black women, the COsey women, who were victims of Cosey's indiscretions, and simultaneously revere the patriarch, Bill Cosey, is representative of our community's failure to chastise our powerful and "representative" men, ie R. Kelley, more recently, Bill Cosby, Jesse Jackson, etc....
Yet, L doesn't "blame" B. Cosey, though she poisons him.
Posters:
Image a community that accepts a man, a patriarch, that weds his grand daughter's best friend, an adolescent. Cosey reminds me of a successful version of the Main character in Jazz who had the affair with the young girl. Anyways....any thoughts? |
Thumper
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, November 19, 2003 - 07:48 pm: |
|
Hello All,
Sorry Yukio, but I can't help it, but I have to agree with ABM, Love is a "chick book" done up with the Morrison treatment. Reminded me of Hitchcock and his movie Psycho. It has been said that when Alfred Hitchcock pondered, what would the 1950s slasher movie look like if it was given the class A treatment and talent. The answer is Psycho. And that's how Love seemed to me, what would happen if Toni Morrison wrote a book that had the same plot, characters and theme of the now popular sista-girlfriend book. Love. Now, if we gave the exact premise to McMillan, Roby, or even my Dickey, we still wouldn't get Love. In my opinion Morrison didn't lower her standards by doing it, she raised the standard to the sista-girlfriend books as to what they could and should be. I said it before, she's a genius and Love is another piece of evidence bearing it out. |
Samuel
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, November 19, 2003 - 08:35 pm: |
|
Yukio--I see your point completely and I'm stunned that it went over the heads of both ABM and THumper, two of the cleverest posters here.
First of all, if you really want to know what the novel "LOVE" is saying...then just read page 141 of Morrison's previous book "PARADISE". The whole book is explained in that chapter in a nutshell. But Yukio...
I totally noticed what you refer to re: LOVE. Morrison basically berating black women (as well she should) for their habit of allowing their neediness (they need LOVE) to overcome their sense of duty as human beings, women and mothers. The R. Kelly thing is a perfect example of women preaching what they wouldn't allow to be done to their daughters, or done in the name of the community, and then blaming the "14 yr. old child" for her actions, making excuses for the 36 yr. old ADULT and buying the man's music in droves--still supporting him even though we've been shown filmed proof that he's a child molester (he even urinated on one of OUR children).
The women in "LOVE" do the same thing. They continue to support and love this man even though he's done monsterly acts and in some way abused the entire community through those acts--mainly by setting an example for other males, as we men do. Morrison points out how black women have lived vicariously through black men. They see that black men as THEMSELVES...while black men hardly ever look at a black female and sees her as himself.
Micheal Baisden recently talked about how he lost respect for his wife after she allowed him to cheat on her, not once or twice, but...SEVERAL times. He began to see her as weak and wondered if she weren't dishonest and uncooth herself. He almost felt she deserved to be disrespected--because she LET HIM do as he wished, just to have a man.
That is definitely the theme in LOVE. The book almost points out that romantic love and ownership are "stupid" creations of western civilization and not really real.
|
Cynique
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, November 19, 2003 - 08:57 pm: |
|
That's an interesting perspective, Thumper. Not one that I would vigorously challenge. But chick-lit novels do tend to be formulaic books, full of stereotypes. Who would be the protagonist that the female reader would be pulling for in "Love?" And the most courageous figure in the story line was a compassionate 14-year-old-boy. I guess "L" would come closest to being the heroine because, in the end, she cared about about the welfare of the women in her life more than she did about the man whom they all loved. I'm not inclined to categorize "Love" except to say that it was a classic tragedy. |
yukio
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, November 19, 2003 - 10:36 pm: |
|
Thumper:
I don't recall if i said it wasn't a "chick book." What i did say was, lets discuss the book instead of labeling it! I think that if we label her literature we'll miss its message for the community. COnsequently, I totally disagree with you, for i believe the book is for the black community not soley women, although women and children are particularly the subject of the novel. Consider the juxapostion between ROmen at the beginning and the end: he transforms into a responsible man, unlike Bill Cosey. I ask, are we to label books based soley on who their main characters are? I would say that it is FOCUSED on black women and children, but it is not a "chick book."
Samuel:
I don't think Morrison is berating these women, but showing them in the basic humanity, fallible, vulnerable, sexual beings, angry, beautiful, loving...the range of emotions, as she does indirectly for Bill Cosey, through using other characters to tell us about him. If Christine and Heed were needy, so was Bill COsey! His child abuse to his grand daughter and his adolescent wife(several months lower than his grand daughter). Abused his daughter -in-law! The community, not just women, allowed Cosey to do what he did. Again, as i say to Thumper, this book is about the community!
Posters:
I really don't think we are really sitting back and thinking about this book....we can not follow/understand MOrrison if we attempt to understand LOve, and her writing in general, within the tradition fiction format of following the main character as he/she changes throughout the plot. We need to work a little harder! |
ABM
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, November 20, 2003 - 06:52 am: |
|
Yukio (& Samuel ?) I am not sure that I have adequately explained what I think of Toni Morrison's writing.
I don't think Morrison is indicting Black women for their failings. Rather, like you, I think she intends to proffer a warm, empathetic but honest depiction of the lives of sistahs. I think Toni has "Love" for every woman she has 'created' because she knows why she is what she is. And I think it is because she herself is a Black woman who comes from what she pens; she feels compelled, prepared and empowered to tell your full story; including your warts and wonders.
When I read Toni Morrison, I feel as though I am witnessing a very eloquent discussion among Black mothers, aunts and grandmothers talk candidly about the trouble that life has made them, their mothers/sisters/friends to suffer and the messes that they have clumsily gotten themselves into.
I do think, however, Morrison is either incapable of or disinterested giving equal treatment of the male perspective of the African American story. But having said that, unlike the myriad you-go-girl books that litter the book shelves, I don't think Morrison's writing necessarily "bashes" Black men.
For example, in spite of some of the baser things he does, the patriarch 'Cosey' comes off as arguably the most admirable character in "Love". Though flawed, Cosey was a very affable and industrious man who was so generous that he took care of 'his', 'yours' and almost 'everybody' else's. And although what he does with Heed is in one respect reprehensible, ask yourself this question: Given her familial circumstances, what would have likely happen to Heed had he let her be?
Lastly, I am not sure what "chick lit" is or isn't or why labeling "Love" as such is particularly relevant. Because almost every novel that I have read that has been written by a woman (Black/other), no matter its quality/author, could probably be categorized as some variant of "chick lit". |
Thumper
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, November 20, 2003 - 07:06 am: |
|
Hello All:
Yukio: I know you didn't say that Love was a "chick book", ABM did. And I still agree with him on that. I have to disagree with you as well. I don't see this book as being a message for the black community. It's simply a mirror reflecting back what it sees, and even with that said, its only a portion of the community.
Second, Bill Cosey only did what the women allowed him to do. It became less about Bill Cosey and more about the women and their relationship with each other.
You wrote: "I ask, are we to label books based soley on who their main characters are?" For the most part, yeah. Not so much as the identity of the main character, but the basic foundation of the main charcters' journey, or their trials and tribulations, whatever changes the characters are going through. Also, a part of "labeling" a book has to be the presentation of the story. The style in which its written, the depth of the characters, etc, should not be overlooked. This is what makes the difference between Love and say, any of McMillan's books. Also, I no problems looking at Morrison's work in the traditional frame work of a novel. In my opinion that's where her genius shows. Her ability and talent can not be determined unless there is a common point of reference in which to evaluate her work. I don't think we need to work any harder than we are, but then it could be me. I'm just not willing to say that Love accomplishes such lofty feats as parting the Red Sea, or that its deeper than dinosaur bones. Obviously, you're seeing more to it than I am. So, maybe its not up to us to "work a little harder", but more of you showing us the way.
Samuel: I got the point, I simply choose to discuss another one. |
Cynique
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, November 20, 2003 - 11:47 am: |
|
ABM wrties:
"I do think, however, Morrison is either incapable of or disinterested giving equal treatment of the male perspective of the African American story. But having said that, unlike the myriad you-go-girl books that litter the book shelves, I don't think Morrison's writing necessarily "bashes" Black men."
Cynique asks:
As a female, is Toni Morrison qualified to give the black male perspective? Nobody but black males can do this and it's up to them to get their message out. When black females engage in male bashing it's because they are drawing from their experiences. |
Cynique
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, November 20, 2003 - 12:24 pm: |
|
I'd like to elaborate on my opinion about "Love" being a classic tragedy. Why? Because it has all of the earmarks of this type of literature: the flawed characters who are the architects of their own downfall, the mythical figures, the ghostly presences, the irresistible siren, the Adonis-like youth, a poisoned monarch, an impending doom - everything that characterizes Greek tragedy is contained in the story. I repeat: "Love" is a latter-day version of this ancient form of drama! All hail Toni Morrison, our esteemed black scribe! |
Thumper
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, November 20, 2003 - 04:47 pm: |
|
Hello All,
Cynique: You know, I see where you're coming from. Looking at it from the perspective you mentioned, I would think Love would be closer to King Lear, only the focus has shifted slightly from the King (Bill Cosey) and more on the daughters (the Cosey women). |
Cynique
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, November 20, 2003 - 07:53 pm: |
|
Yep, you could say that "Love" also has Shakespearean overtones, Thumper. I guess, that's the beauty of the work; there are so many layers to it. |
ABM
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, November 20, 2003 - 09:11 pm: |
|
Cynique,
In counter-response to your response to my prior post: I was not intending to criticize Morrison as much as I was making an observation of her literary treatment of Black men. I, however, disagree with your apparent inference that only a Black man can or should effectively tell the tale of Black men. I think a talented, competent and industrious non-AA male writer - and surely one of Morrison prodigious skills - could likely write quite convincingly about Black men, provided she (or he) is willing to disabuse herself of stereotypes and biases and earnestly try to view the world from a different perspective.
For example, I would have liked to see Cosey try to explain why he married Heed. Could he have in some bizarre way really loved her? Did he have so sicko sex fantasy thing going on? Or did he feel the only way he could protect this poor girl was to marry her?
Also, why did Cosey apparently try so hard to do right by neighboring Black people when his own father was a sellout? Was he trying to make up for his fathers sins? Did something dramatic happen to him during his youth that gave him a change of heart? Or was he merely pretending to be generous to quell simmering jealousy and resentment of those less fortunate?
Those are questions that I would have liked Morrison to at have attempted to answer. After all, even though Cosey was in many respects a good guy, she made him into the catalyst of everything that went wrong in "Love". So as a reader, I would have appreciated knowing more about the inner thoughts and makings of man from which all the trouble ensued. Besides, even if you separate him from everyone else within "Love", Bill Cosey still comes across as a very interesting Black man.
Still, those views don't in anyway diminish how I feel about Morrison's book. I "Love" it as much most who will read it.
BTW: I think it was Chris, not myself, who initially tagged "Love" as "chick lit". |
Thumper
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, November 20, 2003 - 10:11 pm: |
|
Hello ABM,
You're right. My mistake. |
Cynique
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, November 20, 2003 - 11:54 pm: |
|
Well, ABM, as usual, you and I are getting caught up in a semantic bind. A woman has to think like a man in order to write from his "perspective." Either that, or she has to think like she thinks a man thinks, which is treading on shaky ground. The best a female author can do is to use men as objects for women characters to bounch off. (I'm reminded of one of the things that triggered the feminist movement. It was when latter-day male disciples of Freud appointed themselves as experts on the female orgasm.) Anyway, one of the things Morrison subtlely does is to allow her readers to use their imaginations. Having once introduced her readers to her vivid characters, Morrison assumes the reader is well enough acquainted with these people to figure out why they would do what they did. |
ABM
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, November 21, 2003 - 01:36 am: |
|
This is not a "semantic bind", Cynique. And this isn't even really a female-male issue. This is mostly just an appreciative reader who wishes a story that he enjoyed was expanded a bit.
But I DO wish both male and female authors, especially Blacks, would make more of a concerted effort to transcend the boundaries of their sex/gender. Because perhaps more literary empathy would aid in engendering a mutually beneficial dialog between all women and men. |
Chris Hayden
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, November 21, 2003 - 10:29 am: |
|
Yukio:
I said it was Chick lit too. High toned chicklit (read the posts through, please) in the manner of Hemingway doing Hi toned pulp fiction, etc. Read the post--it will say who is also turning this out in other genres or who has.
What gives me the right to comment? I read THIS book and I'm an expert on what I think about it. You can decide for yourself whether I'm all wet or not.
I knew that anything less than fawning admiration for the book would engender knee jerk comments from some quarters--bring em on. Let's examine my labels the validity. Talk about it. I will say upfront you have to know any of my comments about this book can't be personal--I don't know Toni Morrison.
Everyone puts labels on things, as when you labled some of my comments sexist. I am from Missouri, show me!
I agree with Cynique that this form of narrative, a character study of an off stage character through the eyes was a difficult form to use and that I think Morrison carried off the job brilliantly.
I think Morrison was brilliant in pushing buttons (I mean she got us all with Romen's gallantry to the victim of the gang bang, and also when Junior got run over by her uncles--the only person decent in the Settlement--a good student, too!)--her fans will get all the things they want and they will love it to death.
You want to get into the text, Yukio? Fine. What about it. I don't have any comment about the style save brilliant. But you can point something out, we can get into it. This is a discussion board. I am throwing things out for discussion.
I think also this sheds light on the career of Zora Neale Hurston. It is often overlooked by many who state that she was unjustly ignored that she held back a lot of her work pursuant to an agreement with her patron--the old rich woman--so that when her work came out what would have been great during the Renaissance was now trivial in compare to the great proletarian literature that was being produced--we forget the Stock Market Crash of 1929 killed the Renaissance--
All that to say I am approaching all work now in reference to what has happened since November 2000 many questions have been raised since then
many of us are looking to art to answer.
Should Art have to answer my questions or any questions? No. But then people who are looking for them are going to look elsewhere.
Let me further say that I think the cover of the book was tacky. It looked like gift wrapping from Sacks Fifth Avenue--it makes the book seem like a Danielle Steele book. This is not a book Daniele Steele has ever or could ever write in a million years.
I think cover art reflecting a theme/scene/person from the text would have been better. On subsequent printings maybe an art director will think of that. |
Chris Hayden
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, November 21, 2003 - 10:35 am: |
|
ABM:
I think Morrison was using the technique of the unanswered question to let us fill in those spaces about Cosey. Those are all interesting questions. Maybe they had several answers or none. I didn't find her leaving those ends up in the air a problem. It made for a poetic aftertaste.
Come on, ABM! This is chick lit. In all chick lit, going back to the early Gothic works of Monk Lewis and the CAstle of Otranto on through Dracula and up through Ann Rice the male is a figure of mixed menace and attraction.
What you guys still haven't talked about is on the page where after the initial meeting with Heed, Cosey is masturbating in the window and Christine sees him (and throws up. I had to give it to her with that one. She is going to have her fans cussing at us for months for that--not to mention marrying her when she was eleven)
It disturbed me, it is supposed to disturb so it accomplished that. What I thought was that it wasn't properly set up. He hadn't shown he was this type before--or maybe she was saying that he was this type all along--his preference for this Celestial character--who I feel should have gotten more space, too. |
Chris Hayden
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, November 21, 2003 - 10:49 am: |
|
Samuel:
I think they support this man because he has a lot of pull, property and money. I think in this case she is explaining why women will hang with a cad and a bounder--the reason why maybe so many femnists refused to pile on Bill Clinton for his beastly behaviors. |
Cynique
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, November 21, 2003 - 12:12 pm: |
|
To me, it was obvious why Cosey had the hots for 11-year-old Heed. Having their partner dress up as a thumb-sucking nymphet in a girl scout uniform, wearing white cotton panties and socks is the fetish of many men who are turned on by virginal, nubile young girls. Bill Cosey was a lecher who had the power to indulge his perversion with the real thing.
ABM: a book where the male and female characters transcend their sexual disparity and perfectly understand each other would make for a dull read. Such harmony would rob the plot of its conflict. LOL
Chris: What you had to say about Zora was very enlightening. And, yes, women are drawn to men in high places because "power is a great aphrodisiac." But you really have to stretch the parameters to classify "Love" as chick-lit. It was lacking the one essential element for that genre: it had no romance in it, - just lust and rejection. And as far as book covers go, puleez! Like Toni Morrison has to have an eye-catching cover. Her name on a cover is all the embellishment a book by her needs. To zero in on something as trivial as the cover of one of her books, is an insult to her status.
Yukio:
"Love" is a book which lends itself to the diverse interpretations of opinionated people, so have your say! |
Chris Hayden
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, November 21, 2003 - 01:14 pm: |
|
Cynique:
I think it had plenty of romance--between Romen and Junior, between Cosey and the mysterious Celestial, between the two old folks that take Romen in the memories of Heed and Christine about the Golden age at Coseys.
It was not bodice ripping, sweep 'em of their feet fantasy romance of chick lit, but it was romance. |
Cynique
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, November 21, 2003 - 01:35 pm: |
|
But "bodice-ripping sweep em off their feet" is what romance is all about, Chris. What existed between the couples in "Love" was affection and regard and lust. |
yukio
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, November 21, 2003 - 01:39 pm: |
|
CH:
You're so defensive. Of course you have the right to comment! I don't have the power to deny you da right nor did i attempt to.....
Also, where did i disagree with ya comments about the book? Where is the knee-jerk comments? From whom? Your comments are knee-jerk; i rarely see your writing so poorly constructed..lol!(while my writing is consistently poorly constructed..lmao!)
Seriously, I only commented on your usage of the term "chick lit." I believe that when we quickly label work, then we can often essentialize and simplify their work. Similarly, i believe that when we discuss a book by analogy we aren't truly discussing the particularities of the book.
Chris, i have no beef, no challenge! My comments were directed to everyone, i should have been more careful and redirected my address!
I really hope you're over the "sexist" comments. I think you are(but not necessarily the abrasive kind), but most men and women are; daily I work on not being sexist(i also daily work on not being US and African American centered; i'm a work in progress). These things are a part of this country's culture, but that is another discussion! |
yukio
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, November 21, 2003 - 02:42 pm: |
|
This is exciting, so much to comment on.....
ALL posters:
I think this book is about how people love and struggle with love and the strain and stress of its absence.
ABM, I don't think Love is the novel to use to see how she characterizes some black men; Song of Solomon and Paradise are better choices. Also, as i've said on another thread and as CH as mentioned, Cosey was quite problematic and disturbing. (Chris Hayden, i think the story was less about Cosey, though he was central, and more about the tensions among what others knew and thought about him, and how these factors influenced the characters. Also, Sandler's comments and L's comments tell us much about B.Csoey's indiscretions and the potential that he could be so nasty...remember when Sandler talks about how Heed was so familar since Cosey had always talked about her adolescent body with him on their boat trips). I don't see Cosey as likable at all, but disgusting, selfish! May and L made him successful! Cosey's could marry a child but he could only love Celestial in a boat! He really loved her, but she couldn't step a foot in his hotel! And he had the audacity to leave Celestial his property...this is why L poisoned him! The Will even hints to the possibility that he had other kids! I'm not sure, but remember how her spirit sits on his tomb and smirks and chides at the tomb's inscription!
Cyn., i do think Morrison does a good job in the other books mentioned above. I thought she did an adequate characterization of ROmen, even Sandler.
Thumper, i believe this is a study about the community using several voices, mostly women, vida, romen, sandler, L, christine, and heed to talk about the Cosey family(patriarch). The characters discuss how the community's transformation influenced the their actions. More importantly, this novel especially shows how the community, not just these women, embraced COsey and denigrated Heed and Christine. This represents the historical failure of our community to accept women as fallible and ignore similar characteristics in our men.
ALL:
I thought all of the characters were fallible, as Cynique as mentioned. Btw, i believe that Morrison majored in Classical literature as an undergrad. at Howard U. ALso, i though that ROmen's transformation, and his preoccupation with Junior, was used to suggest a different image of black men than how she rendered the Cosey clan.
What do you think about May? I'm still trying to get a hold on her response to "integration." Was it primarily a bourgeios preoccupation with their temporary/assumed loss of power?
ABM: i like ya questions, but i think they would have changed the focus on the book.
CH:
"I think they support this man because he has a lot of pull, property and money. I think in this case she is explaining why women will hang with a cad and a bounder"
Hmmmmm...Antropologically, historically, sociologically at least in patriachial societies as this one is as well as most, women support men(Cosey) because women, are taught to honor and respect a man, especially powerful as well as an attractive man. ...culturally these types are perfect for the reproduction of family, community, and wealth...men are constructed as the leaders and representatives of power in most society....the father in the family functions the same, as the Coseys did as the patriachs in the family, hotel, and the community in general!
May learned this from her preacher father, Heed from poverty and the absence of a father figure, this was also the case of Christine, whose father died. Again the absence from these men, i think could suggest much.
"'I think it had plenty of romance--between Romen and Junior, between Cosey and the mysterious Celestial, between the two old folks that take Romen in the memories of Heed and Christine about the Golden age at Coseys.'
'It was not bodice ripping, sweep 'em of their feet fantasy romance of chick lit, but it was romance.'"
I have to agree with Cynique. Also consider the place of Junior and ROmen with the larger contexts of the novel....This was about LOVE and the PAIN that it often insues. Junior begins to love Romen, since he licked and kissed her feet, and ROmen transforms from a almost rapist to a man. The LOve and pain between mother and daughter, MAy and CHristine. The Irony of Cosey, love and pain, hating his father and his grand daughter because she shared Bill COsey's father's grey eyes. |
Cynique
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, November 21, 2003 - 08:48 pm: |
|
Yukio,
The quote "It was not bodice ripping, sweep 'em of their feet fantasy romance of chick lit, but it was romance.'" was an opinion expressed by Chris so, like it or not, you're agreeing with him. LOL "Romantic" is a not how I'd describe the relationships between couples in the book. There was freaky passion, warm fondness, seething tolerance. Yes, all of these emotions were rooted in love but the glamour and rapture and cherished endearment that exemplifies romance were missing.
BTW, I was very interested to learn that Morrison majored in classical literature as an undergrad because I still believe that all of the elements of Greek drama and Shakespearean tragedy are present in "Love." As for Bill Cosey, I didn't think he was totally despicable. I'd describe him as a charming rascal. I thought "L" died before the things came to a head but her spirit carried on her narration. And May, she was one of those people caught in transistion, and was desperate to maintain the status quo because change would bring upheaval to life as she knew it. That's my take on things.
|
ABM
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, November 21, 2003 - 11:35 pm: |
|
It is interesting how so politically charged our discussion of "Love" has become. There are other questions/comments I have about Morrison's book. I, however, fear that I would likely only exacerbate the male-female rigmarole we seem to frequently digress into. |
Cynique
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, November 22, 2003 - 12:06 am: |
|
ABM:
I find your observation curious. People really do see things differently. From my point of view, there has been a minimum amount of politics or male/female rigamaroe injected into this discussion. It certainly hasn't been the focus of my input. We've mostly been discussing the nature of the characters and the genre of the book. And when did you become too timid to add your comments to a discussion??? |
Chris Hayden
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, November 22, 2003 - 11:06 am: |
|
Yukio and Cynique:
There is romance there, though. The way Junior fantasizes off Bill Cosey's picture calls him Her Good Man, all the memories of good times past in the hotel--and any good romance has love and pain in it--the proud duchess hates the pirate who sank her ship, killed her servants and kidnapped her but grows to love him after she is carried away, etc etc.
Would you call the relationship between Heed and Christine romance? Hating each other's guts for years and finally coming to term together in that attic--the love hate relationship.
I think the love hate relationship is the special province of the black artist.
Yukio:
Power is the ultimate aphrodisiac. We don't live in a strictly patriarchal society--a bum ain't getting any respect from women unless he got plenty of cash. See how so many femnists rallied to George Bush after 9/11 because he was the protective father figure, no matter his opinion of them.
ABM:
Come on with the comments--unless of course it involves slander and personal attack. |
Cynique
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, November 22, 2003 - 11:45 am: |
|
Chris:
You and I apparently have different concepts of what the word "romance" implies. I still don't agree with your opinion. There was too much degradation and dissension and mundaness between the couples involved for romance to come into play. Their circumstances were all about drudgery and desperation and deception. This is not romantic. There was no grandeur to their emotions and nothing epic about their adventures. And love didn't conquer all, it was their ruination. |
Chris Hayden
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, November 22, 2003 - 11:57 am: |
|
Cynique:
Re Love--ya gotta take it where ya find it. |
yukio
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, November 30, 2003 - 03:50 pm: |
|
Damn, i see i need to get DSL, again. I'm so late with my responses. Anyway, let me try to speak the last few comments from CH, Cyn, and ABM.
Cynique,
I was agreeing with you, not Chris. That part of the post was addressed to CH. I used the quotes to specify which quote i was talking about. Also, i'm not sure if she majored in classics, but i believe i remember reading it somewhere.
ABM, speak your mind, as you always have. It is interesting how more essential the spoken word is than the written. I don't see or know why you see this as politically charged. I do wish you comment; you're analysis are always interesting. I disagree with Chris Hayden; though the agreement is about gender, it is not political posturing.
Chris Hayden:
Unfortunately, i don't know the literary usage of romance; so, for now, i'll maintain my position, for i suspect that romance lends itself to a sentimentality while what i'm talking about is effused with emotions that are grounded by the muddiness of hard life. I'm not sure what that is called.
As it pertains to patriachy, i will again maintain my position. Of course, it is not "strict" as it was a century ago. Yet, it is fundamental to the workings of this society. The fact that a gold digger wouldn't mess with a man w/o cash, suggest that she wants the socall "provider," a patriachial category. Also, don't confused what happens within the interpersonal with structural power dymanics. |
Chris Hayden
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, December 01, 2003 - 11:34 am: |
|
Yukio:
Not only a gold digger would not mess with a man without cash. Any woman with any prospects herself should avoid it, too. Long term relationships, especially marriage, which we have perverted to service of romantic love where it is really to serve the purpose of combining the resources of two families/clans/communities, etc, are based on there being the promise of some economic stability. There is nothing wrong with that.
Though men are sometimes hornswoggled by out of control libidoes (The Anna Nicole Smith syndrome) they don't want a woman who comes from nothing either, generally. What can two poor folks do for each other, anyway?
Re patriarchy it bows in the face of class. Imagine a worker or peasant of any time going up to upbraid or pull rank on or order around a woman from the upper classes--it wouldn't happen at any time in history. No where in the world do you find any situations where men of lower classes were or are allowed to dominate women of higher classes.
From what I see on the basis of economic power, it is as powerful as ever with regard to the upper classes versus the lower classes--maybe weakened within classes |
Cynique
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, December 01, 2003 - 01:28 pm: |
|
I don't know about your blanket statement, Chris. Queens were very often dominated by older men of lesser rank who were thought of as being the power behind the throne. |
Chris Hayden
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, December 01, 2003 - 01:35 pm: |
|
Lesser rank maybe. But not peasants, or warriors or merchants. They were all powerful aristocrats.
And this was true of Kings as well. And what did it say if the King or the Queen could be dominated by someone of lesser rank--perhaps the Baron or Earl or Count was, in fact, more powerful or richer than the King or Queen--certainly Prince Charles is not dominating anybody over there right now--he couldn't even dominate Diana. |
Cynique
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, December 01, 2003 - 02:02 pm: |
|
The Queen of England, one of the world's richest women, is a powerless figurehead who is controlled by the Parliament which includes the House of Commons. And there were always male commoners exerting their influence on the very vulnerable and rich Princess Diana. |
Chris Hayden
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, December 01, 2003 - 02:38 pm: |
|
Ah, once again you have seen the mote and missed the beam. We were talking about Prince Charles' relation with her, ground you conceded because you must know I have won it. She may be controlled by Parliament but when she says "Jump!" Bonnie Prince Charlie says "How high?" And Diana was so buffaloed by Charles she was running around with an Egyptian on him.
The point is, all this patriarchy stuff breaks down when it comes to economics and class--if there are any commoners exerting their influence on these women they are not run of the mill, working stiffs--they are men with lots and lots of money.
You are not about to suggest that I, a commoner could tell them a thing--even if I was a British subject. Same with the Kennedy women, same with Laura Bush, etc.
A rich woman in this so-called patriarchy cannot be bossed around by a poor, middle class, or upper middle class man. |
Cynique
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, December 01, 2003 - 07:36 pm: |
|
You're not making yourself very clear, Chris. Who was talking about Whose relationship with WHOM? My point was that Queen Elizabeth is rich but she is controlled by a parliament partially made up of commoners. And Princess Diana was very much under the thrall of the men in her life, including her butler who even went so far as to tell her how to dress. Your remarks about Prince Charles are irrelevant. Both of the Queen and Princess are examples of women of high stature who are told what to do by men who are not aristocrats or royalty. Something you adamantly stated doesn't occur.
|
|
Email This Page