“Among other things, you’ll find that you’re not the first person who was ever confused and frightened and even sickened by human behavior. You’re by no means alone on that score, you’ll be excited and stimulated to know. Many, many men have been just as troubled morally and spiritually as you are right now (Salinger 189). In The Catcher in the Rye, we follow Holden from where he was kicked out of school on his journey all the way home to his little sister. He stops at various locations and meets some old friends as well as some complete strangers, who he tries to make a connection with. The quote above is a representation of his status as well as an example of someone reaching out to him. Though the phrase specifically mentions men, women can be just as troubled. In Plath’s The Bell Jar Esther mirrors much of Holden’s experiences but the fact that she is female changes everything. Both novels have the protagonists face a world of phonies and each have a unique way of coping with those around them.
Intelligence is dwelled on in each book to not only build the character we are reading about but to also show that it doesn’t matter how smart you are. When Holden is speaking to his professor about the courses he failed, we see that he has no interest in school and the only class he passed was composition. His disinterest is so profound that he openly admits it with no regard to what society expects of him. “I can’t seem to get very interested in them although your lectures are very interesting. It is all right with me if you flunk me though as I am flunking everything else except English anyway (Salinger 12). Since the whole book was written by Holden from his asylum, we eventually see that writing has a therapeutic effect on him. In The Bell Jar, Esther is very goal oriented and has done very well in school. She studied botany because the idea of studying abroad on account of a grant and studying something that “seemed real to me (Esther)” (Plath 34) was what she loved. The only complaint she had was the way some of the course work presented itself. Though she passed with an A, she described Physics as being “these hideous, cramped, scorpion-lettered formulas…” (Plath 35). Intelligence is one of the first things to be addressed to show just how insignificant it is to the respective characters downfall. Both Holden and Esther end up employing their urge for knowledge in very different ways, but still end up on the same road down.
A common dream for most people is to be married and living happily ever after. For Esther and Holden though, it is quite difficult because they believe that cannot be secured in a world of phonies. Holden is quite young to be thinking of such things, but that romantic quality is still present when we see him in the hotel with a prostitute. When the prostitute begins to undress and get on with the business, Holden is not feeling it. He describes it as “Sexy was about the last thing I was feeling. I felt much more depressed than sexy” (Salinger 95). The fact that the prostitute doesn’t involve any romantic emotional quality only feeds on Holden’s idea of all those around him being phony. Similarly, Esther is confronted with a naked Buddy and explains that “The only thing I could think of was turkey neck and turkey gizzards and I felt very depressed.” (Plath 69). Esther believes Buddy is a phony because of his hypocritical letters he sends her from his TB clinic. Notice within the statements that Esther’s is more observant while Holden is strictly internal. Both however, are searching for that fullness and end up being very disappointed when it is put in front of them.
When one adopts an identity, it is meant to be a defining attribute of who you are and what you stand for. It is often agreed that identity shifts during the teenage years. There is experimenting with new visages, quirks, clothing styles, and so on. This is a natural part of figuring out who you are. Holden and Esther simply put on a mask. When Holden is on the night train to Penn Station, he sits next to the mother of one of the people he went to school with. When a conversation ensues, Holden gives the lady a false name, his reason being “I didn’t feel like giving her my whole life history. Rudolf Schmidt was the name of the janitor of our dorm.” (Salinger 54-55). Like that wasn’t enough, he goes on giving the woman false information about their son, who in Holden’s eyes was “Penceys biggest bastard”. I can understand not wanting to spill the beans about who you are but continuing with false information only distances yourself while promoting an identity you only created for that occasion. If Holden was himself with the lady he might’ve discovered something interesting, like where the ducks go during winter. Esther’s case is slightly different. When she goes out for drinks she says that her name is Elly Higginbottom and that she’s from Chicago. Before she spoke, she was very observant of how the people were behaving around her, and she didn’t feel very safe. Just after putting on her mask though, she said she felt safer. Where Holden lied for conversation, Esther does it so that she feels more secure with the people around her.
Both of the novels are Bildungsroman which echo each other very well. The Bell Jar is clearly a female version of The Catcher in the Rye. Esther is smarter, more observant, and in touch with reality. She lies from time to time, but her lying is there as a sort of shield that helps her cope with those around her. Overall, she has accepted to follow what society expects of her only to still fall in the end. Holden, on the other hand, isn’t very intelligent. He questions some aspects of his environment and lets only the real mundane parts bother him, like the whereabouts of the ducks. He lies to everyone around him and seems to enjoy putting himself out there. The two are nearly identical because of their downfall, and the fact they are a different gender changes the flow of each story dramatically.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
King Lear V.S. Macbeth
The two protagonists are sympathetic characters who share sympathetic qualities found in certain criteria. Both are unique in their ways but I find Macbeth to be more sympathetic if not equal to Lear. Both characters seek power but behave differently to acquire it. Though Fate is addressed in one of the plays, it is clear that they both also contribute to their demise regardless of what is said, Macbeth in particular. The anagnorisis of the characters, or self-revelation, is strongly apparent but more meaningful in Macbeth. Poetic Justice is also applied to both characters, though the extremes are different, the result is all the same. Macbeth and King Lear both demonstrate the qualities that identify with a sympathetic character but the actions are most pronounced with that of Macbeth.
The right to rule as king is a given for both characters, the only difference is how this power is attained, and used. Macbeth does not possess the right to be crowned as king. The only reason he was even remotely interested was when the witches spoke the prophecies (1.3 lines 46-48). After having one come true, he assumes responsibility to make the rest come true as well. Macbeth is not fit to rule as king because the king is appointed by God. Macbeth was appointed by the devil. Also, the king is meant to help people and rule with honor. Macbeth, however, kills the king in his sleep thus framing him a coward and dishonorable. In stark contrast to Macbeth, King Lear is right to rule. He is rightfully appointed and people obey him with pleasure or passively because he is appointed by God. Similar to Macbeth however, Lear shows signs of being unfit to rule. He is rash in his decisions and draws radical pre-mature conclusions. When one of his daughters, Cordelia, stumbles in her words of love for him he immediately banishes her and Kent for sharing his opinion. In the first place, King Lear was going to divide the kingdom between his daughters, a mistake and not very king-like behavior. It is clear then, that both are unfit to be king, which leads us to their fall.
The characters have an extreme difference to their downfall, the main difference being the amount of violence that went into it. Macbeth is solely responsible for his own downfall. He clearly describes his inner desire to kill the king (2.1 lines 33-49) and allows himself to be manipulated by Lady Macbeth. She is constantly telling to do things. She tells him to kill the king (1.7 lines 48-57), wash his hands (2.2 lines 44-45), and to be calm so to not arouse suspicion (3.2 lines 27-29). Furthermore, he becomes continually paranoid. This paranoia feeds his need to consult the witches on additional issues (4.1 lines 66-77). If he hadn’t come across the witches in the first place, Macbeth probably would not have gone through such an elaborate plan to claim the crown or send men to kill Macduff’s family (4.3 lines 205-208). After wrongfully banishing Cordelia and Kent, Lear’s mental state continues to deteriorate. When Albany arrives to speak to Lear, Lear goes off again on his distaste for Cordelia’s behavior (1.4 lines 252-267). He continually does this throughout the play, becoming more and more insane. Not only is he confronted with Cordelia but also a possible assassination scheme. Though the characters contribute to their downfall, they are not completely lost in their “mind”.
The characters come to term with their problem and their anagnorisis is poignant and insightful. Macbeth’s anagnorisis is brief but very worldly and thought provoking. Throughout the play, Macbeth is consulting witches and plotting a coup with his wife. His character quickly degrades and any sympathetic qualities become lost to his dependence on the prophecies his growing paranoia, and his impulsive need to solidify his position. His anagnorisis is very pessimistic, describing life as a shadow, or “a tale told by an idiot… signifying nothing” (5.5 lines 17-27). Although he resumes his previous behavior, Macbeth is looking at life and ponders his position. He wishes a better death for his wife, who helped drag them both down. There are moments of guilt that Macbeth expresses, like when he killed the King, but nothing as revealing as this. At the end of the play, Lear is remorseful over the hanging of Cordelia and goes on wondering why all other things should have life at all (5.3 lines 304-309). I find it interesting that he doesn’t address the other events of the play. After cursing Cordelia throughout the play, you’d think he’d be glad to see her hang. Lear’s love for his daughter is no mistake and though he appears completely mad and senseless in the end, he has a final moment of remorse for the person he cursed the most. Though they can have these insightful moments in the play, this doesn’t stop Justice from being administered.
Poetic Justice is definitely met. During Macbeth’s paranoid episodes, he sends murderers to the Macduff castle. The slaughter of Macduff’s family is evil and is met with revenge. Macbeth and Macduff duel leaving Macduff the victor (5.11). The king’s death is also avenged through the paranormal death of Lady Macbeth. Lady Macbeth is haunted by images of blood and succumbs to an illness that the doctors cannot identify (5.1 line 30). If you consider Harsh language as a weapon then I suppose Lear met his doom to that extent, otherwise it is quite tricky to place an absolute moment of poetic justice. King Lear appeared to grow bored with his huge stature and decided to take radical steps as a King. First he attempts to divide the kingdom, banishes a few people, and quickly recruits another who is in plain disguise. All is done without a second thought. I believe the Poetic Justice comes in to close up his trail of bad decisions much like Macbeth.
Though it is clear that none of the two are fit to be king, because Lear is mad and Macbeth is a homicidal paranoid. Both also commit a huge amount to their downfall; Lear cannot get a grip on himself and Macbeth is obsessed with keeping his kingship with murderous intent. The two have a small blessed moment where they reflect on life in general and decide there is no meaning to any of it. This pessimistic view is then quickly followed by their collapse. The two also get their share of poetic justice which they most rightfully earned. The one who comes out the most sympathetic would have to be Macbeth. His instant arousal in the prophecies and submissive behavior toward Lady Macbeth clearly label him as being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Works Cited
Shakespeare, William. “The Norton Shakespeare Volume 2: Later Plays”. New York: W. & W. Norton & Company, 2008. Book.
The right to rule as king is a given for both characters, the only difference is how this power is attained, and used. Macbeth does not possess the right to be crowned as king. The only reason he was even remotely interested was when the witches spoke the prophecies (1.3 lines 46-48). After having one come true, he assumes responsibility to make the rest come true as well. Macbeth is not fit to rule as king because the king is appointed by God. Macbeth was appointed by the devil. Also, the king is meant to help people and rule with honor. Macbeth, however, kills the king in his sleep thus framing him a coward and dishonorable. In stark contrast to Macbeth, King Lear is right to rule. He is rightfully appointed and people obey him with pleasure or passively because he is appointed by God. Similar to Macbeth however, Lear shows signs of being unfit to rule. He is rash in his decisions and draws radical pre-mature conclusions. When one of his daughters, Cordelia, stumbles in her words of love for him he immediately banishes her and Kent for sharing his opinion. In the first place, King Lear was going to divide the kingdom between his daughters, a mistake and not very king-like behavior. It is clear then, that both are unfit to be king, which leads us to their fall.
The characters have an extreme difference to their downfall, the main difference being the amount of violence that went into it. Macbeth is solely responsible for his own downfall. He clearly describes his inner desire to kill the king (2.1 lines 33-49) and allows himself to be manipulated by Lady Macbeth. She is constantly telling to do things. She tells him to kill the king (1.7 lines 48-57), wash his hands (2.2 lines 44-45), and to be calm so to not arouse suspicion (3.2 lines 27-29). Furthermore, he becomes continually paranoid. This paranoia feeds his need to consult the witches on additional issues (4.1 lines 66-77). If he hadn’t come across the witches in the first place, Macbeth probably would not have gone through such an elaborate plan to claim the crown or send men to kill Macduff’s family (4.3 lines 205-208). After wrongfully banishing Cordelia and Kent, Lear’s mental state continues to deteriorate. When Albany arrives to speak to Lear, Lear goes off again on his distaste for Cordelia’s behavior (1.4 lines 252-267). He continually does this throughout the play, becoming more and more insane. Not only is he confronted with Cordelia but also a possible assassination scheme. Though the characters contribute to their downfall, they are not completely lost in their “mind”.
The characters come to term with their problem and their anagnorisis is poignant and insightful. Macbeth’s anagnorisis is brief but very worldly and thought provoking. Throughout the play, Macbeth is consulting witches and plotting a coup with his wife. His character quickly degrades and any sympathetic qualities become lost to his dependence on the prophecies his growing paranoia, and his impulsive need to solidify his position. His anagnorisis is very pessimistic, describing life as a shadow, or “a tale told by an idiot… signifying nothing” (5.5 lines 17-27). Although he resumes his previous behavior, Macbeth is looking at life and ponders his position. He wishes a better death for his wife, who helped drag them both down. There are moments of guilt that Macbeth expresses, like when he killed the King, but nothing as revealing as this. At the end of the play, Lear is remorseful over the hanging of Cordelia and goes on wondering why all other things should have life at all (5.3 lines 304-309). I find it interesting that he doesn’t address the other events of the play. After cursing Cordelia throughout the play, you’d think he’d be glad to see her hang. Lear’s love for his daughter is no mistake and though he appears completely mad and senseless in the end, he has a final moment of remorse for the person he cursed the most. Though they can have these insightful moments in the play, this doesn’t stop Justice from being administered.
Poetic Justice is definitely met. During Macbeth’s paranoid episodes, he sends murderers to the Macduff castle. The slaughter of Macduff’s family is evil and is met with revenge. Macbeth and Macduff duel leaving Macduff the victor (5.11). The king’s death is also avenged through the paranormal death of Lady Macbeth. Lady Macbeth is haunted by images of blood and succumbs to an illness that the doctors cannot identify (5.1 line 30). If you consider Harsh language as a weapon then I suppose Lear met his doom to that extent, otherwise it is quite tricky to place an absolute moment of poetic justice. King Lear appeared to grow bored with his huge stature and decided to take radical steps as a King. First he attempts to divide the kingdom, banishes a few people, and quickly recruits another who is in plain disguise. All is done without a second thought. I believe the Poetic Justice comes in to close up his trail of bad decisions much like Macbeth.
Though it is clear that none of the two are fit to be king, because Lear is mad and Macbeth is a homicidal paranoid. Both also commit a huge amount to their downfall; Lear cannot get a grip on himself and Macbeth is obsessed with keeping his kingship with murderous intent. The two have a small blessed moment where they reflect on life in general and decide there is no meaning to any of it. This pessimistic view is then quickly followed by their collapse. The two also get their share of poetic justice which they most rightfully earned. The one who comes out the most sympathetic would have to be Macbeth. His instant arousal in the prophecies and submissive behavior toward Lady Macbeth clearly label him as being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Works Cited
Shakespeare, William. “The Norton Shakespeare Volume 2: Later Plays”. New York: W. & W. Norton & Company, 2008. Book.
The role of dolls in the Bluest Eye and Invisible Man
“Adults, older girls, shops, magazines, newspapers, window signs – all the world agreed that a blue-eyed, yellow haired, pink-skinned doll was what every girl child treasured” (Morrison Pg 20). In this part of Morrison’s bildungsroman novel, The Bluest Eye, the narrator is a nine year old African American girl named Claudia who is expressing her distaste for dolls. The doll motif is strongly present throughout the novel and demonstrates the various characteristics of two main characters, Claudia and Pecola. The doll seen in Ralph Ellison’s Invisible Man plays a similar role by addressing issues concerning identity, racism, and class status. In both novels, the dolls offer a glimpse into the thoughts and views of those who wield them. They become devices that quickly envelop a character, allowing us to observe them, as well as recognize the critique on social issues and stereotypes.
Stereotypes, in relation to dolls, are the single most addressed issue in The Bluest Eye. When Claudia is given a doll for Christmas, she is initially confused and wonders, “What was I supposed to do with it? Pretend to be its mother” (Pg 20). Claudia then explains that she is only interested in interacting with humans. The doll helps us realize that not all little girls want to even pretend to engage in maternal procedures. Claudia then bluntly states that, “Motherhood was old age” (Pg 20). We recognize her reason for wanting to wait for such behavior, but the fact that she does not even want to pretend raises more questions.
Claudia attempts to do so anyhow, at the scolding of her mother. However, the doll is white with blonde hair and blue eyes. Before she receives the doll there is a sort of preparatory phrase, “…this is beautiful, and if you are on this day ‘worthy’ you may have it” (Pg 21). It is clearly said in this phrase that the accepted form of beauty in the country are the characteristics represented by the doll. Any other doll was out of the question. When she mentions a Raggedy Ann Doll, she says that she is “physically revolted” by its appearance. The white doll is more life-like but Claudia is still disgusted with it. However, she is intrigued to finding the so-called “beauty” that it was supposed to embody. Her investigation reveals her inner desire to confront and maim this stereotype.
Claudia’s violent tendencies towards the doll are not necessarily the precursor to something more dreadful, but perhaps something more animalistic. When dogs, for example, are neglected and seeking attention from their owner, they chew on things (Masse). This chewing helps relieve tension and stress. Claudia could be tearing apart the doll for the sole purpose of getting her mother to recognize her, whether that she is beautiful or to spend more time with her. Early on, Claudia and her sister are introduced to Mr. Henry as pieces of furniture so this lack of attention is present. When asked what she really wants for Christmas, her answer is simple; she wants attention. Claudia could also be doing this to express her anger towards what is directly considered beautiful, little white girls.
Pecola, on the other hand, is enveloped by the stereotype. She wishes for blue eyes and engages in behavior that troubles those around her. She is fascinated by the Shirley Temple cups, another item that is “beautiful”, that are in Claudia’s home. So much so, that she drinks “three quarts of milk” simply to satisfy her need to see Shirley materialize in the absence of the white liquid (Pg 23). Pecola longs for blue eyes, but perhaps she also wishes to be white. The doll stereotype may not be convincing to Claudia, but is getting the best of Pecola. Perhaps she thought drinking so much milk would turn her white and blue eyes would be soon to follow.
The effect of the doll is present throughout the novel but is strong in the scene where the girls are by the ice cream shop. Maureen is talking about Pecola’s father and is threatened by Claudia. When Claudia goes to swing at her, she instead hits Pecola. Maureen is white but she is a brunette, not the famed form of “beauty” represented by the doll, but still way up there. Therefore, she is self-proclaimed “cute” (Pg 73). Since Claudia’s anger is towards the “beautiful” she hits the next best thing, someone who wants to be beautiful. Pecola wishes for blue eyes constantly and is distraught with being “black and ugly”. This self-loathing is not accepted by Morrison.
In an interview of Morrison, she speaks about a conversation she had with a friend when she was younger. When her friend said that God did not exist and she had proof, which was that she prayed for blue eyes and never got them, Morrison is visibly upset by her statement. She then mentions two things that came to her when she looked at her friend, “She would be awful if the wish had been granted… For the first time, I noticed […] how astonishingly beautiful she was.” (The Black List). Morrison embodies these thoughts in Claudia, and her reaction to Pecola’s self–loathing, though it was an accident, the action is a subliminal blow to those who engage in such behavior. Though self-loathing is not a flattering aspect of any personality, the image can be turned around to comment on one’s identity.
In Ralph Ellison’s Invisible Man, The protagonist is a young African American man who is trying to find a steady workplace and community in New York City. He is sent on wild goose chases, altered in hospitals, victimized, and mistaken for a two-faced pimp. The doll seen in IM is a symbol of the African American’s effort to seek equality and standing in a predominantly “white” environment. The racist element is present and demands the reader to look past it, so that lack of control and class status is seen as well.
The doll, unlike the one in The Bluest Eye, is a Sambo doll. The caricature nature of the doll is offensive and undermines the identity of African Americans. The nature of racism is always present in the world and the doll shows this by not being destroyed. When IM is sent fleeing down a sewer, he is forced to burn the things that help shape who he is so that he may find a way out. When he comes to burning the doll, “it burned so stubbornly that I reached inside the case for something else” (Ellison pg568). The explanation, though brief, is a powerful mention that racism will always be around to affect everyone in one way or another.
The lack of control and class status is addressed by Erik M. Dell when he mentions IM’s hospital scene. “He is the black man on the strings representing the Sambo doll sitting in the hospital bed/box” (Dell). In this scene, IM wakes up in a hospital surrounded by doctors who are trying to “cure” him for an unmentioned ailment. The doctors, who represent white people, are connecting IM to wires to perform the shock treatment. "Look, he's dancing, someone called […] They really do have rhythm, don't they? Get hot, boy! Get hot! It said with a laugh" (pg 237). The image parallels the scene where IM encounters Clifton and his dolls, comparing that the doll is lower in status and is controlled by someone else.
When IM meets Clifton in the street and finds him selling Sambo Dolls, he is upset by the scene. When the man makes a break for it and the surrounding crowd dissipates, IM is left standing with an old woman. He promptly attempts to crush one doll left behind when the lady says “Oh, no!” (pg 434). Not having the doll stepped on or destroyed shows the importance that degrading behavior will always be present.
Both dolls have qualities that express a demeaning attitude towards African Americans. They both have visual qualities that do this. The doll in The Bluest Eye is a national symbol of beauty that does not recognize African Americans in context but is widespread enough that it ends up in African American hands without any second thoughts. If color were added, the closest representation would come to the Sambo Doll, which is offensive. The second aspect that makes the dolls powerful symbols are their respective physical characteristics.
The Sambo doll has strings attached to it meaning that the doll, or African American, cannot move unless someone else is controlling them. This is a common theme seen throughout Invisible Man; the hospital scene, Ras’ mob, and IM’s manipulation of Rinehart’s persona. The doll in Morrison’s novel is described by Claudia as “a most uncomfortable, patently aggressive sleeping companion” (pg 20). Of the two, I believe that Morrison’s doll is more effective in the describing of African American mentality and will.
Morrison’s doll does a superior job of addressing social issues because when Morrison was talking about her influence to write the book, she mentions that the stories of a young black woman are “virgin territory” to her, which is rich with possibilities for storytelling. I agree with this statement and believe her doll motif is one of the more powerful poetic devices used to address the issues that trouble the African American girl. While IM’s doll is wholesome and addresses society, I prefer the specific nature of the doll in The Bluest Eye.
Works Cited
Dell, Derek. “Dancing Dolls on strings: A look at Invisible Man by Ralph Ellison”. AC Associated Content. 21 Apr. 2008. Arts & Entertainment. 28 Nov. 2009
In this article, Dell briefly examines the Sambo Doll’s symbolism which I found to be fitting to describe the role of the doll. His comment on control was especially preffered because of the resemblance between the marionette and IM’s “strings”. Class status is integrated as well, which helped me usher into the identity portion of my argument.
Ellison, Ralph. Invisible Man. Random House Inc.: New York, 1952.
Masse, Annette. “So Why Do Dogs Chew Things? Here is How to Keep Your Dog From
Chewing Up the House”. Articlesbase. 23 Jul. 2008. Pets Articles. 28 Nov. 2009
I feel like this is an important source to include because of the parallelism in behavior that Claudia exhibits to a doll that a dog might to a shoe. Dogs chew on things to make their masters notice them and to relieve stress. Claudia tears apart her Christmas present and briefly shares an intimate desire for attention. It’s not my intent to compare Claudia to a Dog, but the pattern of behavior is similar, which makes it worthy to mention.
Morrison, Toni. “The Black List, Vol. 1: Toni Morrison (HBO)” Portrait Interview. 18
Aug. 2008. Youtube. 26 Nov. 2009.
I decided to use this source to explain Morrison’s intent of having Pecola accidentally hit in the face. While she is speaking, you will notice that she is visibly upset by her friend. This influence may have prompted her to include a brief action of how she does not approve self-loathing.
Morrison, Toni. The Bluest Eye. Penguin Group, Plume. New York, 1970.
Morrison, Toni. “Challenges as a female writer – Toni Morrison”. Video Interview. 20 May 2009. Youtube. 26 Nov. 2009.
This video is my final approving source for siding with Morrison’s doll. Her mention of African American Women having a multitude of possible stories is remarkable in its specificity and intent.
Stereotypes, in relation to dolls, are the single most addressed issue in The Bluest Eye. When Claudia is given a doll for Christmas, she is initially confused and wonders, “What was I supposed to do with it? Pretend to be its mother” (Pg 20). Claudia then explains that she is only interested in interacting with humans. The doll helps us realize that not all little girls want to even pretend to engage in maternal procedures. Claudia then bluntly states that, “Motherhood was old age” (Pg 20). We recognize her reason for wanting to wait for such behavior, but the fact that she does not even want to pretend raises more questions.
Claudia attempts to do so anyhow, at the scolding of her mother. However, the doll is white with blonde hair and blue eyes. Before she receives the doll there is a sort of preparatory phrase, “…this is beautiful, and if you are on this day ‘worthy’ you may have it” (Pg 21). It is clearly said in this phrase that the accepted form of beauty in the country are the characteristics represented by the doll. Any other doll was out of the question. When she mentions a Raggedy Ann Doll, she says that she is “physically revolted” by its appearance. The white doll is more life-like but Claudia is still disgusted with it. However, she is intrigued to finding the so-called “beauty” that it was supposed to embody. Her investigation reveals her inner desire to confront and maim this stereotype.
Claudia’s violent tendencies towards the doll are not necessarily the precursor to something more dreadful, but perhaps something more animalistic. When dogs, for example, are neglected and seeking attention from their owner, they chew on things (Masse). This chewing helps relieve tension and stress. Claudia could be tearing apart the doll for the sole purpose of getting her mother to recognize her, whether that she is beautiful or to spend more time with her. Early on, Claudia and her sister are introduced to Mr. Henry as pieces of furniture so this lack of attention is present. When asked what she really wants for Christmas, her answer is simple; she wants attention. Claudia could also be doing this to express her anger towards what is directly considered beautiful, little white girls.
Pecola, on the other hand, is enveloped by the stereotype. She wishes for blue eyes and engages in behavior that troubles those around her. She is fascinated by the Shirley Temple cups, another item that is “beautiful”, that are in Claudia’s home. So much so, that she drinks “three quarts of milk” simply to satisfy her need to see Shirley materialize in the absence of the white liquid (Pg 23). Pecola longs for blue eyes, but perhaps she also wishes to be white. The doll stereotype may not be convincing to Claudia, but is getting the best of Pecola. Perhaps she thought drinking so much milk would turn her white and blue eyes would be soon to follow.
The effect of the doll is present throughout the novel but is strong in the scene where the girls are by the ice cream shop. Maureen is talking about Pecola’s father and is threatened by Claudia. When Claudia goes to swing at her, she instead hits Pecola. Maureen is white but she is a brunette, not the famed form of “beauty” represented by the doll, but still way up there. Therefore, she is self-proclaimed “cute” (Pg 73). Since Claudia’s anger is towards the “beautiful” she hits the next best thing, someone who wants to be beautiful. Pecola wishes for blue eyes constantly and is distraught with being “black and ugly”. This self-loathing is not accepted by Morrison.
In an interview of Morrison, she speaks about a conversation she had with a friend when she was younger. When her friend said that God did not exist and she had proof, which was that she prayed for blue eyes and never got them, Morrison is visibly upset by her statement. She then mentions two things that came to her when she looked at her friend, “She would be awful if the wish had been granted… For the first time, I noticed […] how astonishingly beautiful she was.” (The Black List). Morrison embodies these thoughts in Claudia, and her reaction to Pecola’s self–loathing, though it was an accident, the action is a subliminal blow to those who engage in such behavior. Though self-loathing is not a flattering aspect of any personality, the image can be turned around to comment on one’s identity.
In Ralph Ellison’s Invisible Man, The protagonist is a young African American man who is trying to find a steady workplace and community in New York City. He is sent on wild goose chases, altered in hospitals, victimized, and mistaken for a two-faced pimp. The doll seen in IM is a symbol of the African American’s effort to seek equality and standing in a predominantly “white” environment. The racist element is present and demands the reader to look past it, so that lack of control and class status is seen as well.
The doll, unlike the one in The Bluest Eye, is a Sambo doll. The caricature nature of the doll is offensive and undermines the identity of African Americans. The nature of racism is always present in the world and the doll shows this by not being destroyed. When IM is sent fleeing down a sewer, he is forced to burn the things that help shape who he is so that he may find a way out. When he comes to burning the doll, “it burned so stubbornly that I reached inside the case for something else” (Ellison pg568). The explanation, though brief, is a powerful mention that racism will always be around to affect everyone in one way or another.
The lack of control and class status is addressed by Erik M. Dell when he mentions IM’s hospital scene. “He is the black man on the strings representing the Sambo doll sitting in the hospital bed/box” (Dell). In this scene, IM wakes up in a hospital surrounded by doctors who are trying to “cure” him for an unmentioned ailment. The doctors, who represent white people, are connecting IM to wires to perform the shock treatment. "Look, he's dancing, someone called […] They really do have rhythm, don't they? Get hot, boy! Get hot! It said with a laugh" (pg 237). The image parallels the scene where IM encounters Clifton and his dolls, comparing that the doll is lower in status and is controlled by someone else.
When IM meets Clifton in the street and finds him selling Sambo Dolls, he is upset by the scene. When the man makes a break for it and the surrounding crowd dissipates, IM is left standing with an old woman. He promptly attempts to crush one doll left behind when the lady says “Oh, no!” (pg 434). Not having the doll stepped on or destroyed shows the importance that degrading behavior will always be present.
Both dolls have qualities that express a demeaning attitude towards African Americans. They both have visual qualities that do this. The doll in The Bluest Eye is a national symbol of beauty that does not recognize African Americans in context but is widespread enough that it ends up in African American hands without any second thoughts. If color were added, the closest representation would come to the Sambo Doll, which is offensive. The second aspect that makes the dolls powerful symbols are their respective physical characteristics.
The Sambo doll has strings attached to it meaning that the doll, or African American, cannot move unless someone else is controlling them. This is a common theme seen throughout Invisible Man; the hospital scene, Ras’ mob, and IM’s manipulation of Rinehart’s persona. The doll in Morrison’s novel is described by Claudia as “a most uncomfortable, patently aggressive sleeping companion” (pg 20). Of the two, I believe that Morrison’s doll is more effective in the describing of African American mentality and will.
Morrison’s doll does a superior job of addressing social issues because when Morrison was talking about her influence to write the book, she mentions that the stories of a young black woman are “virgin territory” to her, which is rich with possibilities for storytelling. I agree with this statement and believe her doll motif is one of the more powerful poetic devices used to address the issues that trouble the African American girl. While IM’s doll is wholesome and addresses society, I prefer the specific nature of the doll in The Bluest Eye.
Works Cited
Dell, Derek. “Dancing Dolls on strings: A look at Invisible Man by Ralph Ellison”. AC Associated Content. 21 Apr. 2008. Arts & Entertainment. 28 Nov. 2009
In this article, Dell briefly examines the Sambo Doll’s symbolism which I found to be fitting to describe the role of the doll. His comment on control was especially preffered because of the resemblance between the marionette and IM’s “strings”. Class status is integrated as well, which helped me usher into the identity portion of my argument.
Ellison, Ralph. Invisible Man. Random House Inc.: New York, 1952.
Masse, Annette. “So Why Do Dogs Chew Things? Here is How to Keep Your Dog From
Chewing Up the House”. Articlesbase. 23 Jul. 2008. Pets Articles. 28 Nov. 2009
I feel like this is an important source to include because of the parallelism in behavior that Claudia exhibits to a doll that a dog might to a shoe. Dogs chew on things to make their masters notice them and to relieve stress. Claudia tears apart her Christmas present and briefly shares an intimate desire for attention. It’s not my intent to compare Claudia to a Dog, but the pattern of behavior is similar, which makes it worthy to mention.
Morrison, Toni. “The Black List, Vol. 1: Toni Morrison (HBO)” Portrait Interview. 18
Aug. 2008. Youtube. 26 Nov. 2009.
I decided to use this source to explain Morrison’s intent of having Pecola accidentally hit in the face. While she is speaking, you will notice that she is visibly upset by her friend. This influence may have prompted her to include a brief action of how she does not approve self-loathing.
Morrison, Toni. The Bluest Eye. Penguin Group, Plume. New York, 1970.
Morrison, Toni. “Challenges as a female writer – Toni Morrison”. Video Interview. 20 May 2009. Youtube. 26 Nov. 2009.
This video is my final approving source for siding with Morrison’s doll. Her mention of African American Women having a multitude of possible stories is remarkable in its specificity and intent.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
