| Author |
Message |
    
Chris Hayden
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, December 06, 2003 - 10:45 am: | 
|
It was interesting to read Zane's latest NERVOUS after reading Toni Morrison's LOVE. I found some interesting similarities.
Certainly not in the writing style, though Zane did tell the story primarily through the voices of Jonquinette and Jude, alternative personalities of the same woman--a shifting of voices--she did use first person POV. Zane's style is also straight ahead and melodramatic--her work scans well (meaning one could scan the pages as opposed to reading them deeply and still get the meaning--useful when I wanted to skip over slow parts--usually the Jonquinette passages)
and Morrison's must be read and re read deeply with reference to what has gone on before)
And of course Zane is fullbore and out there; Morrison is Roberta Flack or Nina Simon and Zane is L'il Kim or Foxy Brown (and one thing that Zane shows is that she is in tune to the reader of the hip hop generation--LOVE is definitely a Baby Boomer woman's book)
I found the similiarities in the liberation of woman's voice and view, and also in the use of the perverted daddy figure as the author of all woe, the frank handling of sexual matters--Zane is a daughter if not a disciple of Morrison whether she has so dedicated herself formally or not.
As a writer I enjoyed the Morrison book more, but as a reader I must admit I liked the adventures of Jonquinette--fiesty, up front, off the hook.
Both of these books are, to me, markers on the parameter of that land called black chick lit--they are obviously authored primarily with a female audience in mind and deliver to that audience what they want. Toni Morrison's is the fine, upscale version and Zane is the Get Buck Wild, down and funky version.
I would like to see Zane and Toni Morrison on a panel discussion (maybe round out with Terri McMillain and Gayl Jones) |
ta bonne fee
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, December 06, 2003 - 12:05 pm: |
|
ooo Chris, "they are obviously authored with a female audience i mind..." I will not address Nervous since I have never read it (nor have I read any of Zane's published work) BUT why is it that when the core of a piece is centered around women it is automatically assumed that the book was written for women?
I see Morrison's work as a study in human nature (isn't this the case with all accomplished writers?). I would hate to think that Toni Morrison sits down and contemplates, "Hmmmm, I wonder what story I can tell now for my sisters." Wouldn't that greatly decrease her audience thus limit the deposits to her bank account?
Women, for centuries, have been reading works by, of, and about men. I'm sure the same can be said about men but since I am a woman I'll stick to what I THINK I know. And before anyone loses their minds, I KNOW Chris reads all kinds of books by males, females, and undecideds.
I don't know where I'm going with this or if I really want to "bark up that tree" so to speak. I could venture into so many socialization issues I would be here for days. That statement just kind of lured me in. So there you have it. |
Cynique
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, December 06, 2003 - 01:53 pm: |
|
Well, Chris, as usual I find myself somewhat at odds with you. Your analysis of the similarities between "Love" and "Nervous" were hampered by the fact that you persist in labeling these books as "chick-lit", an opinion which dims the clarity of your insight because it casts you as a male trying to define what is female. I'll forgive you for skimming over certain passages of "Nervous" because they were too slow moving for your impatience, but I challenge your conclusion that "Love" was written with a female audience in mind just because it showed one man in a bad light. Furthermore, to compare authors to singers is like comparing apples to oranges. Morrison is not like Roberta Flack or Nina Simone; these singers are women who either interpreted other people's lyrics, or mouthed their own simple verses which placated rather than stimulated. Zane is not Lil Kim or Foxy Brown spouting sassy rap rhymes that make no attempt to explore the human psyche. Morrison, in her ingenious style, and Zane, with her flair for titillation, are talents who write with expertise about themes which have universal appeal. BTW, does a book that features strong male characters fall in the category a "dude-book"? |
Woe Now
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, December 06, 2003 - 04:50 pm: |
|
Cynique--I totally disagreed with Hayden's post. I like Chris, but since discussing "LOVE", I've come to accept that he's a likeable barfly-type well meaning "sexist" from the old school.
But Cynique, your description of Roberta Flack and Nina Simone's achievements in music was nothing less than..."bird brained".
Nina Simone tackled every bit of the terrain in her music that Toni Morrison does in her literature.
Have you never heard the song "Four Women"? Never heard "Mississippi Goddamn"? Never heard "Pirate Jenny"? Never heard "Sugar In My Bowl".
How bout "To Be Young, Gifted and Black"?
ALL these classically introspective political/social songs were WRITTEN by Miss Nina Simone.
Nina Simone's music has MOTIVATED..INSPIRED just about everybody white or black who ever stood up to make a public statement about...ANYTHING.
Forget just racism and civil rights. Nina Simone tackled "color prejudice" before it even had a name. She did sexism from start to finish. She explored "ownership" of the land and her relation to blackness and Africa. She sang about crime, taxes, ecological pollution.
If anything, I would say that books like "Bluest Eye"..."Sula"...and "Tarbaby" have all been done in musical form by Nina Simone.
Her astounding and epic version of "Wild Is the Wind"...is the song version of Morrison's novel "LOVE". Nina tells it in 6 epic minutes.
Roberta Flack, in her first 3 albums, was quite a powerful artist as well. Visiting social themes, sexual and racial ideologies and even classism in her music.
The recent album by Lauryn Hill (Miseducation) has as much literary merit-importance as any Toni Morrison novel (Hill was influenced by Simone and Flack), encompassing levels of social and political introspection that haven't been touched since Curtis Mayfield and Nina Simone. And with the specter of Bob Marley's heavy influence infused as well.
I usually agree with you, Cynique, but sometimes I am absolutely BAFFLED by the things that you scratch off the top of your head. There is no way that Toni Morrison's achievements with literature are Greater Than Nina Simone's identical prowess in music.
And remember.....Nina couldn't even SING! That's how bad that sista was.
|
Woe Now
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, December 06, 2003 - 04:56 pm: |
|
My take on Morrison's novel "LOVE" and Simone's "Wild Is the Wind"...IS THIS.
There is no love.
We are a species of ANIMAL with intellectual powers high enough to "construct" the ideal of romantic love stemming from our same need for "superstition" (ie. religion). Race is also a "mental contruct" born out of need for territory/ownership. It's just easier to do it by race.
Morrison and Simone reached the same conclusions--"there is no love".
Of course, beautifully desirable people...confined to wheelchairs already know that.
|
Cynique
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, December 06, 2003 - 06:38 pm: |
|
OK, WoW Now. I'll take my licks on this one. The talented charismatic Nina Simone does occupy legendary status as a vocalist, as does Roberta Flack to a lesser degree. But music is there forte and I just don't see the necessity of comparing vocalists to novelists. To call Toni Morrison a literary version of Nina Simone is like saying Duke Ellington is a musical version of Langston Hughes. What does the comparison prove? Nina and Toni have both have earned their place of acclaim in their field, and making them alter egos detracts from their uniqueness in, my opinion. |
Woe Now
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, December 06, 2003 - 07:19 pm: |
|
Cynique, I agree 100% with your last post.
love ya!
. |
Chris Hayden
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, December 08, 2003 - 03:00 pm: |
|
ta bonne fee:
Trust me. I know what I'm doing. I do not assume that if the core of a piece is centered around women that is is automatically written for women--this is not the only thing I based it on--
I base it on Morrison's history and prior works and their orientation, and my situation has been incorrectly stated on this point--to wit: it has been stated that LOVE is the only Morrison piece I read--not so. It is the only one I have been able to read cover to cover.
The efforts to clone or create a unisex human being have failed primarily because nobody wants one--women don't want them, men don't want them. There are differences. One can find them in many cases, but generally men and women will enjoy different types of things in stories.
Women will enjoy stories about relationships, senusal descriptions of food, clothing, setting, stories about relationships between women, stories and narrative that speak to the deep secrets of the woooommb, child bearing, child rearing, etc.
Since most of the readers of fiction are women, and since most black readers of fiction are women, nobody goes broke just writing to women, ask Barbara Cartland.
A man would have handled the story of Bill Cosey differently. He would have told it through the eyes of Cosey because he knows that. This is what I am saying.
Cynique: Got a little burnt there, didn't ya? Rest assured when I make a comparision, especially a musical one, it is on da money. By the way, homie, apples and oranges are both fruit.
I did not conclude that LOVE was written with a female audience in mind just based on the treatment of Cosey--again it was in the use of a majority of female POV's, the focusing on relationships, the viewing of this story in the prism of the lost friendship between the two girls, Heed and Christine.
A dude book--anything by Tom Clancy. Mickey Spillane. Zane Grey. Robert E. Howard.
Woe Now--I am not an old school sexist--they believe women are inferior, that they should be paid less, that they are not as smart as men, that they are the "weaker sex" that they should be barefoot and pregnant, all of which is BS.
But you picked up on my Nina Simone/Robert Flack comparison (I am in the process of writing a poem about Dr. Simone and doing a lot of studying and after a process of elimination, found in her body of work and Ms. Flack's the same balance I get from Toni Morrison.
Cynique: Duke Ellington is not Langston--Duke was more Ralph Ellison or Robert Hayden. Langston was like Satchmo, Louis Jourdan, Leadbelly, or Dizzy Gillespie--or a mix of them.
Also L'il Kim and Foxy can be quite deep with their crudity.
Hey folks, LOVE is a great book, one of the greatest. As a female, Toni Morrison told this story differently say than John Edgar Wideman would have.
Vive la differance! |
Carey
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, December 08, 2003 - 07:16 pm: |
|
Great rebuttals Chris! I understand and agree on your POV's/female audience take. Hang in there my brother, you're holding your own just fine. |
Chris Hayden
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, December 08, 2003 - 07:33 pm: |
|
Carey:
They puttin' the wood to me, my brother. Long as you got my back I can stay strong. |
Cynique
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, December 08, 2003 - 08:53 pm: |
|
Well, Chris, it's hard to challenge a person who thinks their words are the gospel... but I'm not daunted by your rebuttal because, like you, I am entrenched in my opinion. Unlike you, I wouldn't presume to know what Toni Morrion's motivation was in writing "Love" but I would venture to guess that there's nothing to be gained from her writing something that would appeal only to women. I can, however, conceive of her penning a work that would have universal appeal because it deals with the human condition.
And your trying to defend your comparing Morrison to Simone by saying that apples and oranges are both fruits is not on the mark as far as I'm concerned. An apple is an apple, and an orange is an orange. They aren't the same in consistency, color, or taste. Also, I chose to compare Langston and Duke because they both used their craft to celebrate what is unique about blackness. Your comparing the sensitive Langston to the rambunctous Sachmo doesn't strike a note in me. |
Cynique
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, December 08, 2003 - 09:16 pm: |
|
Carey, did you read "Love"? Or are you allowing Chris to be your spokesman?? |
JMHO
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, December 08, 2003 - 09:29 pm: |
|
Chris wrote:
Again, not taking away from the artistry of the book it will appeal mostly to women. There are lots of scenes with food, and parties and hair dressing--it is concerned a lot with relationships and emotional attachments--as a man I would have wanted to hear the story of Big Bill Cosey directly, get descriptions of the wheeling and dealing he did to keep the place open, his adventures, his successes and failures, not see it mostly through the eyes of the women who knew him--what did you think about Junior kind of falling for his portrait?
Chris, there was only one scene of hair dressing, and Cosey ran a hotel, in which, one of the main character was the cook. This was also a place where couples could dance and listen to live music, and not just have "parties" but then the men were also at those gatherings, played in the bands on the stage, etc. I think there is more about eating as a family and this is something that families do each day, including the male family members. Did you miss the scenes that mentioned of fishing, too?
Morrison also told how Cosey's was able to do as well as he had, mainly in conspiring with the Sheriff and his son, or father, depends upon how you look at it. Granted she might didn't go into minute details as you would've wished, but I see Cosey as one of the main characters and the story is also about the women and men who had a relationship with him. I was able to get a pretty good idea about Cosey and thought he was presented as most of us . . . some good, some bad, and some ugly. The manner in which the story was told, you hear his story, as it was told through those who loved and/or hated him. If you missed Cosey's wheeling and dealing, his adventures, his successes and failures, I sincerely suggest you reread the book. 
Also, I am sure that a black male, a white male, a white female, etc, would have written the book Love differently, too. But this can be said about every other author . . .that someone of a different gender and/or race would have written the book differently.
I agree with Cynique, I saw Cosey, as you say, whacking off at the window, as a continuation of the scene before it . . .him fondling Heed in the hallway. I don't think the scene just came out of no where. As to why he did what he did, you're a male, so you tell us. ROFL And, I think Christine didn't tell because she was probably was as much shamed as confused and knew that her best friend had gone to her room to get the jacks. If saw my grandfather doing the same in my window, I doubt I would run and tell everyone either. Christine and Heed were children.
|
Carey
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, December 08, 2003 - 10:25 pm: |
|
Chris, it's obvious they are not hearing what you are saying, they don't have a clue. You do know why that is don't you ......they are women. Never did you say the book would only appeal to women as one postee suggested. It's not about "manly" activities or who the main characters were either. That's not to say that males will not enjoy the book either. It's about how the story is told......period. And from your strong black male standpoint it was not written for you. Now how could a female argue that point?
JMHO said: Also, I am sure that a black male, a white male, a white female, etc, would have written the book Love differently, too. But this can be said about every other author . . .that someone of a different gender and/or race would have written the book differently.
There it is! NUFF SAID, THANKS JMHO |
Cynique
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, December 08, 2003 - 11:44 pm: |
|
Carey:
If, as you claim, Chris is saying that because "Love" was told from the point of view of a women, it is not for him, then why did he finish the book and subsequently praise it? We women don't have a clue as to what he is talking about because his commentary is ambiguous. What he is saying, in effect, is that "Love" is told from a female point of view, but as a male he thought it was a good book. So what's his point??? |
Chris Hayden
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, December 09, 2003 - 01:45 pm: |
|
Cynique:
Now to the titles
Cynique's Road Dawg
Kola Boof's Spy and
Yukio's Arch Emeny (as opposed to enemy)
I must add the soubriquet
Carey's Spokesman??
*Sigh* I am known by many names
My words are not the Gospel--though I must admit to feeling Messianic at times, as though I goeth forth, healin' suckas and castin' out demons an' stuff--
Part of this exciting illuminative exchange we are having is to guess at her motives--the author may never explain them or may not know them his or herself or may say, seek them and ye shall find them in my scriptures.
I would guess her motives in writing Love were that one day she woke up and had this story and wanted to tell it--who knows? Maybe she was vacationing in the Carolina's and saw this old resort and came up with these people and a history--maybe she spent summers in a resort like it--maybe out on the Inkwell at Martha's Vinyard and moved it down South.
It is obvious from your comments that you feel this book is worthy to be praised and any questioning of it is rank heresy--which is a valid opinion in itself--why do you feel so protective of Sister Toni?
And re Langston you must never have read his "Madame" poems or the Revolutionary stuff he did in the 30's.
If my commentary is ambiguous, let me clear it up a little--that the story is told from a female point of view does not make it bad--it is an observation--what do you think it reveals? I never said it was not for me--in the sense that I didn't like it--I guess what I am saying is that it is from an anti male POV--look at poor Junior. None of her relatives and neighbors, Bad Ole Men all, appreciate her love of learning (is this a reflection of the author's own upbringing). Her uncles, some more BOM run over her in a truck and lie about it. Another BOM gets her sent to the big house after trying to rape her
Hey, I understand the manipulation of readers. I try to do it myself. It is what made Harriet Beecher Stowe. I am saying that to me, it started getting laid on a little thick after a while.
I think LOVE was a masterpiece, but a flawed one. It was so--20th Century! |
Chris Hayden
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, December 09, 2003 - 01:54 pm: |
|
JMHO:
I remember two scenes of hairdressing. I remember getting all down in the parts of somebody's hair with some kind of hair preparation. Hey, this was for versimillitude. Women do care a lot and for their hair. There are whole magazines dedicated to haircare (Black Hair, Black Tresses, etc) There are whole stores you can walk into and buy nothing but hair stuff. Imagine me trying to have a whole store dedicated to men's hair care stuff. Imagine me out of business in a week.
That is neither here nor there.
Here we are coming down to another difference in the way men and women see the story--maybe--it may just be me. To masturbate in an open window in broad daylight is such, to me, an outrageous act that it begs some explanation. You are a pervert. You are drunk. You are crazy.
We didn't get any set up that he was this type from what went on before. It was more BOM (Bad Ole Men)--like Junior's uncles and Romen's boys.
Ms. Morrison is very good at what she do. She got all you, didn't she? |
Cynique
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, December 09, 2003 - 02:12 pm: |
|
I don't feel protective of Toni, Chris. She doesn't need me to plead her case. I just balk at the idea of calling "Love" chick lit. You can criticize this book all you want but I have a problem with you playing so fast and loose with that label. And, in my opinion, Langston Hughes' incisive poetry, which is an extension of his persona, does not translate into Louis Armstrong's Dixieland-style trumpet playing which is an extension of his Uncle Tom tendencies. |
yukio
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, December 09, 2003 - 02:44 pm: |
|
Interesting posts....i'll enter the fray jus a bit. Let me state my positions up front: I feel, like Chris, that narrative was primarily told through the voices of female characters, though their is one male adult voice and the actions of the youth, ROmen, that also faciliate the plot and meaning of the narrative. I do not, however, agree with Chris Hayden that the book is representative of "chick lit" nor that the book was "written with a female audience in mind." I don't know who the book was written for, but i believe that it speaks particularly to the entire African AMerican community and generally to male, female, black,white, asian and hispanic, etc....this is the position that i've had since we initially discussed these issues on other threads. In other words, i don't completely disagree with CH.
Here are some other points to consider that are of relevance to this particular discussion: gender and the differences among the plot, story, and meaning.
Gender is the socially constructed differences that are based on sexual difference. In other words, sex is biological and gender is social and historical. men have peniuses and women have vaginas, but the behavioral differences between the sexes have more to do with history than biology, though biology certainly are responsible for the behavior and roles of the sexes. OK, this the academic info....
What all this means in everyday language is that men and women behave the way they do because of history, though there are men and women who mostly don't fit societal characterizations.
I say all of this to say that though we are products of history, we are often able to think beyond societal proscriptions of gender roles. I think Chris' characterization of "LOVE,"is locked into a "traditional" male gendered perspective. In the sense that he argues that "Women will enjoy stories about relationships, senusal descriptions of food, clothing, setting, stories about relationships between women, stories and narrative that speak to the deep secrets of the woooommb, child bearing, child rearing, etc." There are essential points, however, to this quote. One, he is correct. Women are often more concerned with the things he discribed, for women have been historically socialized to do so. Yet, is it not possible that some men will enjoy the same things? Or, is it possible that some women will not? And if they don't are they less womanly or manly? I think CH would answer yes to both questions. BTW Carey, i do understand that this is not CHris' only point, but it is one of his points nevertheless.
Lets discuss his next point!
Chris Hayden states:"I did not conclude that LOVE was written with a female audience in mind just based on the treatment of Cosey--again it was in the use of a majority of female POV's, the focusing on relationships, the viewing of this story in the prism of the lost friendship between the two girls, Heed and Christine."
If i understand him, he is primarily stating that majority POV's=female audience. And, as the paragraph above suggests, he also argues that particulary social activity are gendered, that men do A and women do B. So we can say that female POV's and B= female audience.
As i've stated, while i don't disagree with the position the story was mostly told in female voices, and though i don't know what MOrrison's intended audience was, i'm believe that the formula doesn't work. That even if the story and the content is primarily historically related with women's concerns,the story "LOVE", not necessarily the plot(for the plot is about the action of the story, while the story is about the themes, style, meaning, etc...), can speak to, have meaning, for the entire african american community. SImilarly, I'm suggesting that what is historically for female is also for males. Just because the scene is about the a discussion about cooking does not mean that a man can not learn about women and how what men do effec them. Neither am i arguing that there is a such thing as "a unisex human being." We are products of history, not only individually but institutionally and culturally, all these factors have contributed to male and female gendered roles. There are differences; Chris is correct, but since many of these differnces are not biological, we are not restricted them. In fact, i agree with Chris that most women don't want the roles completely transformed, certain elements of the tradition male were/ are redeemable for some women. Yet, some women do want changes and even some men do. Womens rights movements and their introduction into the labor market have changed gender roles, however. And these women are raising different types of boys and girls, though i don't believe it will ever be a complete transform, but instead something boy sexes can live with. In this sense, these changes, and this story, are for both sexes. We have learned that men and women need, or at least should, understand eachother better in order to have better male and female relationships, though the gender roles may not necessarily change completely. In this sense, i submit that the meaning of the story is for the community. YOung men can certainly learn from ROmen's experiences. All men can also learn how patriachy negatively effects women, and women can learn how they are effected as well as the signs of an abusive patriach. This doesn't necessiate that folk become unisex human beings, but it does force us to acknowledge that some of the societal behaviors we were raised on aren't necessarily proactive for the community.
|
yukio
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, December 09, 2003 - 03:33 pm: |
|
Also Chris Hayden: Through placing everything in gendered terms, it makes it impossible to comment on the maladies of men and women. Men do wrong and women do wrong: This is a fact of life. Yet, is this to say that if a man does wrong to a women, then the story is only for women. Or if a women abuses a man, then the story is a warning for men? |
yukio
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, December 09, 2003 - 08:13 pm: |
|
Chris Hayden:
There are many forms of sexism, but the basis of the term denotes the belief that men and women are behaviorally and culturally different/inferior because of their sex(different from gender). And you do believe this, even if you don't believe, "women are inferior, that they should be paid less, that they are not as smart as men, that they are the "weaker sex" that they should be barefoot and pregnant."
MOst people believe this, however. Being sexist is a normal part of the culture, for women who believe that they should be treated a particular because of their sex as also sexist. You've demonstrated that you are a sexist when you stated: "Women will enjoy stories about relationships, senusal descriptions of food, clothing, setting, stories about relationships between women, stories and narrative that speak to the deep secrets of the woooommb, child bearing, child rearing, etc."
As i have said, your quote is probably true, but it is not solely because of their sex, but because they were trained to affirm these things, as men were trained to affirm other things. The point is that these differences are both attributable to sex and gender, but to marginalize these qualities to folk based on sex is inaccurate. Sorry, btw. I know i said this before.....
Another way of looking at this is sex=physiological and bio-chemical; and gender=historically socially constructed. |
JMHO
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, December 09, 2003 - 08:24 pm: |
|
Carey, seems some of the men folk are having difficulties with reading comprehension. ROFL. If this is not about the "manly" activities in this book, then why list some "womanly" activities to prove the book the book is mainly written for women? And, no one is arguing with Chris. We're having a discussion. Least you forgot, here are Chris's initial comments, in part:
Both of these books are, to me, markers on the parameter of that land called black chick lit--they are obviously authored primarily with a female audience in mind and deliver to that audience what they want.
|
JMHO
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, December 09, 2003 - 08:39 pm: |
|
Chris wrote:
I remember two scenes of hairdressing. I remember getting all down in the parts of somebody's hair with some kind of hair preparation. Hey, this was for versimillitude. Women do care a lot and for their hair. There are whole magazines dedicated to haircare (Black Hair, Black Tresses, etc) There are whole stores you can walk into and buy nothing but hair stuff. Imagine me trying to have a whole store dedicated to men's hair care stuff. Imagine me out of business in a week.
That is neither here nor there.
Chris, you want to have it both ways. If it's neither here nor there, they why did you bring this up in the first place? What you say maybe true about women caring more about hair than men, but I know for a fact that there many men who make weekly trips to the barbershop. Tell us, just how many pages, out of 200, did these hair dressing take up?
Chris wrote:
Here we are coming down to another difference in the way men and women see the story--maybe--it may just be me. To masturbate in an open window in broad daylight is such, to me, an outrageous act that it begs some explanation. You are a pervert. You are drunk. You are crazy.
You see nothing wrong with a grown azz man molesting an 11 year old girl but think a man who masturbates in a window, in the daytime, has to be a pervert, a drunk or crazy. Well, I knew he was a pervert when he did what he did to Heed. Here he was in the middle of the day and took the risk that someone could see him. Wasn't May, L., or even hotel guests, rumbling about the hotel in the middle of the day? If you are going to ignore the scene just before this, which provides context for the character's actions, then not much more to say on this.
Chris wrote:
We didn't get any set up that he was this type from what went on before. It was more BOM (Bad Ole Men)--like Junior's uncles and Romen's boys.
And, you saw the female characters as angels? How would you describe their actions and behavior, especially the ultimate one at the end of the book. Following your lead, I would say it was more of BOW (Bad Ole Women).
Chris wrote:
Ms. Morrison is very good at what she do. She got all you, didn't she?
Yes, Morrison is the best. And, I would say she got you, too. ROFL |
yukio
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, December 09, 2003 - 09:41 pm: |
|
JMHO:
Good comments!
Chris Hayden:
Perhaps your analysis is attributable to your socalled "male" gendered perspective. Again, this is not to say that there aren't differences, but what is "manly" and "womanly" has certainly changed so that generationally what is acceptable for men to do today may not have been acceptable for men a generation ago; of course some men, probably most, are a healthy mix between the socalled traditional and modern man.
Posters:
How can work transform you if you're not willing to see beyond what you think you know?
|
Chris Hayden
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, December 10, 2003 - 10:39 am: |
|
Yukio:
Work cannot transform you. That is a fiction that we writers like to entertain ourselves with when we think that we are changing the world with our scribblings.
It seems to me that what is "manly" and "womanly" have changed only in respect to the lower classes, it still holds when you move up to the ruling elite sectors of our society.
People are the same as they have been for thousands of years--they are just talking different.
JMHO:
It is here and there. And I can have it anyway I want to. Maybe you don't think much of the way I am having it--but c'est la vie.
Once again you have seen the mote and missed the beam with regard to him whacking off out the window. You are sounding like my mother and aunts discussing their soap operas--full of sound and fury discussing make believe.
Chill. LOVE is a fake story. Toni Morrison made it all up. There is no Junior, there is no Bill Cosey. It all never happened. Thus I am criticizing a construct. A Matrix.
You have taken this for the real thing. You are being carried away.
This was a weakness in the story. I know you don't think it fairly normal for a man to masturbate in a window at broad daylight. He just does this--why? I want an explanation--I guess I could make up my own--but you wouldn't agree with it and it might not jibe with what the author intended.
Toni didn't get me. I know it was all made up--when you get me you make me forget that. Hmmm
No, I wouldn't say it was BOW (Bad Ol' Women)--I had the sense that these women were making the best of a bad situation--old, hating each other, needing each other, sitting on top of a mouldering pile, stuck in a rut--she did that pretty good. |
Chris Hayden
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, December 10, 2003 - 10:46 am: |
|
Also Yukio:
How does placing things in gendered terms make it impossible to comment on the maladies of men and women? Men do wrong, women do wrong, but they tend to do wrong in different ways--most violent crime is committed by men, for instance.
The goal of a sexless society is impossible--it was proved impossible when femnists fawned over Bill Clinton despite the beastly way he treated women, the way Toni Morrison pronounced him "The First Black President" after his betrayals of Sister Souljah, Lani Guineer and Joycelyn Adams; after the feminists ran to big daddy George Bush after 9/11; when you get people like Ann Coulter, who would be bagging groceries somewhere if not for the efforts for gender equality defending Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell.
It is all about money and power--not a good thang, but da real thang.
To get back to literature, do you know of any books or writers who are examining this phenomenon? |
Anonymous
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, December 10, 2003 - 10:54 am: |
|
Ishmael Reed |
yukio
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, December 10, 2003 - 12:59 pm: |
|
Chris Hayden:
Well, many authors have changed me and enabled me to think beyond what i thought i knew, understood, etc... It your comments suggest stagnation, rigidity....
I guess we have to agree to disagree for gender relations. I believe in the notion the "changing same," where things change and are different though things are still the same. The sameness of life is an existential reality, for we all must live and die, love and hate.....but as you say, men and women do the same things differently, and of course, i believe this has as much to do with history as biology.
Things have changed, women are now representative in the public sector, as workers, officials, etc...Many women aren't financially dependent on their husbands. Men participate in the household duties, some men are not the breadwinners and are not bother by these conditions, though many still have this problem. This is still a patriachy; men still controls the power...."changing same"!
You state:
"How does placing things in gendered terms make it impossible to comment on the maladies of men and women? Men do wrong, women do wrong, but they tend to do wrong in different ways--most violent crime is committed by men, for instance."
BTW, i should have said men and women as humans. Sorry!
I think you've misinterpreted my post and/or perhaps i wasn't clear. Let me try again:
I'm talking in the context of you point about POV and certain details and descriptions suggest that the literature if for a particular sex. It makes it impossible, i should have said difficult, because if the narrative is only for women, then how do men learn about socalled females issues. Similarly, if men only read socalled men's literature then how will women learn about socalled male issues. In other words, if we segregate literature in gendered terms, then we'll not learn of the basic human experience. This is why black folk and women have fought to get their literature and history into the university curriculm.
I don't know why you're still trying to talk about a sexless society. First of all, i wasn't talking about sex! I've been talking about GENDER! Second of all, i've already agreed that with most of your comments about this issue, particularly the point that most men and women don't want gender roles tranformed. Yesterday, i stated:
"In fact, i agree with Chris that most women don't want the roles completely transformed, certain elements of the tradition male were/ are redeemable for some women. Yet, some women do want changes and even some men do."
i never left literature; you did! |
Cynique
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, December 10, 2003 - 02:08 pm: |
|
I find it interesting how hung up you are on Cosey masturbating in the window, Chris. Apparently, none of us women gave this behavior a second thought possibly because we were able to put it in the context of the scenario in which it appeared, and relate it to the persona of the man performing the act. Yet, you continue to harp on this subject as if it was such an earth-shattering event that a detailed explanation is called for. For me, it wasn't that serious because it had no great impact on the story line. I'm curious as to what the significance is of a man reacting differently from a woman in regard to this incident. |
JMHO
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, December 10, 2003 - 02:35 pm: |
|
Chris wrote:
It is here and there. And I can have it anyway I want to. Maybe you don't think much of the way I am having it--but c'est la vie.
My, how "manly" of you. ROFL But that’s it you're all over place in thought. And, then have the audacity get all personal instead of addressing the ideas presented. Why discuss issues presented when one can dip to the level and start discussing the manner in which you think one is posting? That said, continuing...
Chris wrote:
You are sounding like my mother and aunts discussing their soap operas--full of sound and fury discussing make believe.
Well, you seem to fitting very well into this discussion of make believe. So now any discussion of a book is reduced to discussing soap operas and with such full of sound and fury. I am as passionate about reading as rest of the posters and readers, both male and female, who visit this board. But that has nothing to do with the book Love.
Chris wrote:
Chill. LOVE is a fake story. Toni Morrison made it all up. There is no Junior, there is no Bill Cosey. It all never happened. Thus I am criticizing a construct. A Matrix.
Seems you're the one who needs to swallow a chill pill. I'm cool, calm and collected. ROFL More seriously, has anyone in this discussion indicated that any of these fiction book are not fake, made up? The problem, it seems, if when folks question your, eh, ahem, construct, hence this current replies. You put out questions and comments on the table and some folk seated around it, didn't totally agree or amen what you said, then all of a sudden, it's all neither here nor there, it's a fake story, it all never happened, it's all made up. This isn't about a criticizing a huh, construct especially when the criticism is along the lines of "a male would have written the story differently." Duh! But then who knows. No man has written this story, right? Even further, I am begin to think that your questions and comments that began this thread are all fake and made up, too. ROFL
Chris wrote:
You have taken this for the real thing. You are being carried away.
And, you're not? Geez. I haven't taken this any of what you say as for the real thing. Remember, unlike Carey who agreed with you, I read the book. |
yukio
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, December 11, 2003 - 11:22 am: |
|
Cynique and Chris Hayden:
The masturbation scenario didn't have a major impact on me either, but only confirmed Cosey's promiscuity and pedophilia. Yet, i thought it did impact the plot, since it was at that moment that everything changed for Christine and Heed.
|
yukio
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, December 11, 2003 - 11:32 am: |
|
Chris Hayden and JHMO:
LOVE's is fiction, but the tale is true.....this is an old story really of patriachy. others have compared it to King Lear, but it can be compared to our own patriach, Bill COsby and his promiscuity and his victorian treatment of the cast of the COsby Show. |
Chris Hayden
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, December 11, 2003 - 12:57 pm: |
|
Yukio:
Whass this about Cosby? |
yukio
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, December 11, 2003 - 02:56 pm: |
|
cosby is a patriach, who has become more conservative as he gets old. He has cheated on his wife; he has another child, i believe. At the same time, he was very much in the personal lives of his cast on the Cosby Show. So much, that he was almost there second father. Now parenting is difficult, i'm sure, but it seems from these resent programs.
The comparison with COsey, is that both were patriachs and wanted things there own way, at the same time, neither have been castigated the way the women in their lives were....ie, Lisa Bonet and her sub par performance in whatever the movie was called. |
Chris Hayden
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, December 11, 2003 - 04:09 pm: |
|
OK, Thanx:
You ain't gonna sucker me into trying to defend Bill Cosby. Bill Cosby ain't my patriarch. I have never considered the rubber faced mugging comedian (didn't he used to hang with Sammy and the Rat Pack?) a father figure. I know what a real daddy does. My real daddy, God rest his soul, did the right thing and never cheated on my momma (if he did, we never found out about it which is almost as good) worked a job and came home and for his reward, was mocked, had his sexuality questioned, and wound up like the proverbial army mule--you work him 'til you break his back and then you skin him and eat him.
Somewhere he is looking down on these man trashing scribblers and he is spinning in his grave.
But hey, he was a black man in America. What should he have expected?
I used to watch the Simpsons instead of the fake azz Cosby show--in fairness to him I must admit that his show was supposed to be a prime time family show sitcom so it must be by definition fake and brainless. Take the Lucy show. Just change the characters and the time and the situation--you have prime time tv comedy.
He is in showbusiness and those people are not anyone you should look to for paragons of virtue--the man used to hang out at the Playboy mansion
But wait a minute here--Cosey--Cosby--GASP! Do you think Toni Morrison was trying to read Bill into the Work? Yukio, I'm going to take your brain out and have it bronzed.
Actually I thought you were referring to some arcane showbiz rumors that he slept with every woman on the show and that in order for a female to guest on the show she had to get on the casting couch (cept for Rudy--I didn't go there, did I? |
Chris Hayden
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, December 11, 2003 - 04:21 pm: |
|
Anonymous:
Ishmael's discussion of these matters is not even handed. He wants to load it all on the women. One might almost come to the conclusion Ishmael hates women--or at least holds women in a bemused sort of contempt.
Cynique:
Re the whackoff scene I engaged in a long session of agonizing self analysis about my bringing it up--actually I thought about it a couple of minutes this morning while eating a banana.
It is but one scene, short. Probably nobody but me noticed it. But, positioned as it is in the book, it is almost like the great scene in Romeo and Juliette, where Juliette comes in and Romeo has committed suicide or something. Imagine if, instead of being dead, Romeo had been in there pounding the old pudenda.
Plus coming where it does, when it does, it sort of sums up Cosey. Explains him. Is his raison d'etre.
Voila, I say. The man was a pre-vert. But other than the assault on Heed, which took place shortly before, and, I suppose we are to assume, led to this gaucherie, what other instances did we have?
Was he a secret flasher all this time? An exhibitionist? Why didn't he expose himself any other of the numerous occasions he had? |
Chris Hayden
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, December 11, 2003 - 04:33 pm: |
|
Cynique:
I can't believe you ragged on Satchmo. |
Cynique
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, December 11, 2003 - 07:31 pm: |
|
Well, Chris, maybe Cosey was a chronic masturbater. But surely you know that an author doesn't have to reveal everything about a character. As for Louis Armstrong, I'm not taking away from how well he mastered his instrument. But ol grinning Satchmo wasn't somebody who ever spoke out about racial injustice, which is not to say that he didn't resent it. |
Chris Hayden
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, December 12, 2003 - 10:47 am: |
|
Ah, but he did speak out. One occasion comes to mind--in 1957 the government approached him about doing a goodwill tour overseas. Pops had been watching news coverage of the riots in Little Rock as the 9 tried to go to school down there. He sent a telegram to Eisenhower in which he stated he could not do that as long as little black girls in Little Rock couldn't go to school.
Came under a lot of pressure for it--put him in the hospital in fact.
Everybody of course wasn't a Paul Robeson--partly because of what they saw happened to him.
As far as Langston's credentials, his cringing performance before HUAC tarnished them. |
Cynique
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, December 12, 2003 - 12:19 pm: |
|
Yes, he finally spoke up once, Chris, but the public persona of Satchmo was that of a grinning, eye-ball rolling, black man always ingratiating himself to the white celebs who had nothing to do with him off stage; he himself, noted how Bing Crosby in particular always gave him the cold shoulder when they weren't performing together. As for Langston Hughes, you were the one who said he wrote revolutionary poems. Langston did not have an aggressive personality but he was at least the the same in private as he was in public. |
Chris Hayden
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, December 12, 2003 - 01:58 pm: |
|
Cynique:
Hatin' on Satchmo. It does not become you. Dizzie Gillespie had nothing but good things to say about him. I defy you even to find something bad Miles said about him--though he did rebel against his style of entertaining. |
Cynique
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, December 12, 2003 - 03:34 pm: |
|
Oh come on, Chris, I don't consider what I had to say "hatin on Satchmo". Do you consider yourself hatin on Toni Morrison just because you have some problems with her point of view??? And Miles obviously did voice his disapproval of Satchmo or you wouldn't know that he rebelled against Armstrong's style of entertaining. Also, because other trumpet players respected Satchmo's musicianship, they undoubtedly chose to overlook the fact that he came across as an Uncle Tom. The argument you need to be making is that Armstrong was a product of his times. That I will concede. |
yukio
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, December 15, 2003 - 09:12 am: |
|
CH: i think you missed my point. I'm talking less about whether or not COsby is your patriach or not. I'm talking about the fact that he was/is often characterized as America's favorite dad and that until recently he received very little criticism, like Cosey. |
Chris Hayden
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, December 15, 2003 - 03:05 pm: |
|
Yukio:
Oh, I dig. By the way, do you think Cosey is supposed to be Cosby?
That WOULD be deep! |
Blkmalereading
Newbie Poster
Username: Blkmalereading
Post Number: 12
Registered: 02-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, March 06, 2004 - 08:56 pm: |
|
This is quite interesting. I haven't read the entire thread but I had to jump in on the musical comparisons. I agree that they are very equal to each other. They also share a lot to with with each other. The entire Jazz age influenced writers. They 'worked' to write like those cats were playing. You used a perfect example because Langston Hughes has actually said that is exactly how he approaches his writing. Both arts played off of each other and had great respect of each other, they were both trying to 'do' each other. Many of the Harlem Renaissance writers have stories about this in their auto/biographies. They would often take a break from writing workshops and hit the Cotton Club. They would then become inspired by what they heard and return to write for hours, trying to duplicate what they just heard into words. The Jazz musician would do the same. The would read a piece of poetry or a wonderful written book and it would become inspiration for a song, tune or beat.
So I certainly see a connection and I think it's a compliment to them both. You're right, apples and oranges usually don't mix, but just like jazz and excellent writing the goal is to force them to and make another kind of funky fruit.
Woe Now your insight into Nina Simone's music was a joy to read. She could of used you in her liner notes. You are the reason I couldn't finish the thread, because I went searching for some Nina Simone music. She was certainly way ahead of her time and she very much reminds of Toni Morrison in many ways. Personal and artistically. I certainly hear Nina singing when I read Morrison and I see Morrison's words when I listen to Nina. |
Blkmalereading
Newbie Poster
Username: Blkmalereading
Post Number: 13
Registered: 02-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, March 06, 2004 - 09:55 pm: |
|
Okay, I'm not going to make it through this thread. I don't agree with a lot of what Chris is saying. I understand, but don't agree with it all. A lot of people forget when they read Morrison you are not just reading a writer. You are reading a scholar and master of the craft. Someone who obviously loves words and all that you can do with them, both spoken (she is a wonderful speaker) and in written form. You cannot forget this when you read her works.
The secret is there is not a huge difference between men and women. Babies are exactly the same, other than those things that are visual. But our inner beings are exact. We are not necessarily born man or woman, we are socialized that way. Reading and exploring works from the opposite sex, helps to shorten this gap.
Of course, Morrison writes from her POV and that may be female but again, this is a scholar of the world and humanity in general. Her books are universal and transcend race and class. Her books deal with the human struggle at times she uses women as her vessel to relay the human struggle, sometimes it's a man, an animal, trees, bird or a place. This woman doesn't just write. She breathes these words onto a page. She creates. She is a 'creator' of great literatary pieces that transcend all our known and sometimes unknown boundaries.
I'm sure she could take those characters and make them a piece of furniture and you would still get the same message. Of course, she choses her vessels wisely. Love is mainly about Cosey. It's about a man. The entire book deals with manhood with all it's wonder and faults. But it's more than gender it's the universal answers to questions and things that happen and seeking a deeper meaning into way things happen the way they do.
We differ because next to the Song of Solomon this is her most 'manly' novel, for lack of a better word. But she could change the gender of the characters and still tell the same message. We learn just as much about Cosey as we do the women, in fact more. She could of used animals to relay his story. What would that make it? Animal lit?
Who else does this? Shakespeare comes to mind not many others.
Because she has a 'small' scene in the book that deals with hair doesn't make it something that only women can relate to. Hair is universal. It has meaning. It represents something in every gender, race, culture, class. Hair is very important to men as well. Hair is used to show love, shame, pride...all human emotions. It's the process, the together that hair represents. You can see that part of the book as being a character telling a part of the story. I have fond memories of my mother greasing, scratching, combing my hair. The women in my life. The feelings I may have when they neglect my hair. I think hair is more important to men from an emotional point of view than it is for women. Women show their love or non-love through hair. I could go on.... With Morrison you have to pay attention. Just when you think, oh boy, another 'chick lit' hair scene. You will miss an important part. The part that may be the explanation of something to come or that has passed. It could be the key that you're searching for. Each word and sentence has a purpose and a meaning. This woman, writes, re-writes, writes again. Thinks. Re-thinks. Writes again. Then she has a WONDERFUL editor and he combs it with his pen and they sit down and bump heads and he has even said he rarely has to really 'edit' her work. He may suggest a line. A period here or there. Not much. She has said that she's writing OUR story, Black folks story. She writing our story for herself, for us and for the world, because we are universal and not much different from (you). You may eat on your left side, I on my right, but we are still eating. It takes a different path and gets to the same spot and purpose. Morrison is just like eating a good meal. If you talk and don't pay attention while you're eating a piece may fall out. That piece that you needed to complete that taste that your taste buds would immediately recognize and send the message to your brain that this is the best meal I've ever had.
I think you need to check your lap because a main piece of the meal has certainly slipped out.
All isms...come about when you are determined to concentrate on the differences in anything instead of the similarities. As stated in the beginning when you look at the core those differences are really very few and socialized into us not ingrained.
|
Blkmalereading
Newbie Poster
Username: Blkmalereading
Post Number: 14
Registered: 02-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, March 06, 2004 - 10:22 pm: |
|
The masterbation scene in the book is extremely important. It's used as both a pause and shift in the story. As well as in our emotions. It symbolizes so much. Power. The fact that he was UP in a window. She down below. Of course, it also explains a part of his personality, a long for power, being only able or interested (debatable)to inforce this on younger women/girls. The complex relationships that he had with women. His collection of things. More than anything it's used as so many other parts of the book as a show of power. From the decriptions of house, his boat, his owning the hotel, his 'fatherly' ways with the entire community. It also represents lost. A spilling of the seed. Something expelling from his body.
Of course, then on the surface it's also probably all the other things that have been mentioned. Morrison doesn't mince her words. She doesn't just place something within a book, especially such a visual and unexpected thing. I certainly marked the beginning of the change that was about to happen to to the friendship. The mention of the droplets on her clothes. The stains. They were both correctively and seperately changed and "spoiled" shortly after that.
She used this is a playwright would. This is the end of Act II. The lights go down and it sets up the beginning of Act III.
So many meaning are in that one scene of the book. It's exremely important. It's not just perversion for persersion sake. |
Cynique
AALBC .com Platinum Poster
Username: Cynique
Post Number: 86
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, March 07, 2004 - 12:54 am: |
|
Whew! I take it you admire Toni Morrison.
You mentioned that "Love" has a Shakespearen flavor. During the course of a long post about this book Thumper remarked that it did have some King Lear overtones. I thought it had all the earmarks of a Greek tragedy. Yukio mentioned that she believed Toni had some academic credentials in classical literature. I'd say Morrison's writing certainly verifies this. "Love" is a timeless tale of human foibles. |
|
Email This Page