In Song of Solomon, we do not see Milkman experiencing typical struggles; he is from a very wealthy background, has been presented the only job he needs, and does not experience racism on a daily basis from what we understand. Instead, he is haunted by the disturbing past of his parents and the legacy of his father which he cannot escape. The sudden change in the plot arc of the novel in the second part is especially indicative of Morrison's free writing style. Neither Milkman nor his parents are even particularly likable, as they are portrayed with a great deal of flaws. Milkman is self-consumed, and childish in his lack of motivation, purpose, and respect for his family. Macon and Ruth's past is riddled with traumatic events, with each side bringing the other's morality into question with accusations of murder and incest.
While reading novels by Tony Morrison, I've noticed that I rarely find myself contemplating the race of the main characters. I think this can be attributed largely to Morrison's deep and subtle description and narration, which gets the reader to think primarily about how her story describes an aspect of the human experience instead of assigning a racial paradigm to it. While this has its uses in protest novels and critical literature, which are explicitly serving a societal function, I believe the relative absence of this makes Morrison's writing unique and appealing. For instance, in Mrs. Dalloway we do not stop and contemplate the whiteness of the protagonist, as novels concerning white characters are never expected to adhere to a certain mold. I see Tony Morrison's work as an attempt to achieve that sort of mainstream acceptance for African-American literature as well.
Great post! I hadn't thought about that before. I agree with you that Toni Morrison doesn't ask the reader to dwell upon the race of her characters, which is interesting because I don't think the story would work as well if they were of a different race. Maybe it's the lack of identity that the ex-slaves had that they passed down to their children, which is the basis of the novel.
ReplyDeleteI think it stands as a testament to her ability to so seamlessly present as community of people that feels so natural even though many readers may not have had the same experience.
ReplyDeleteWhile race was a factor in the book, I agree with you that I was not focused on the racial backgrounds of the main characters. I was focused on the main characters' personalities, which seem grounded in many things outside of race such as wealth, relationships, and family history.
ReplyDeleteI agree that race, though it did exist as an important topic, was sort of on the peripheries of the plot and of Milkman's life more so than in some other books focusing on African American characters. I think that SofS almost more actively a feminist novel, given the themes of men running away from women, women not needing to leave the ground to "fly" (whatever that means), and the fact that Pilate is by far the coolest character.
ReplyDeleteThis is a really interesting observation. Sometimes, when teaching this novel, in the early days I've had to nudge some students away from assuming that, as a novel by a black author, it's going to be primarily concerned with critiquing racial injustice. This is an expectation people may bring to the book (remember the Wright/Ellison debate in African American Lit.), but Morrison, as you say, creates an entirely black cast, with a dizzying diversity of characters--white power exists, but it's kept mostly offstage. This dynamic became clear in our discussion Wednesday about hair and Eurocentric beauty standards in the novel: Hagar isn't comparing herself to actual white girls, characters in the novel, and when we identify Macon II with "white" values (ownership, accumulation of wealth), it means that these values have penetrated the black community. They exist in abstract form.
ReplyDelete