This will be a very jumbled post.
Mr. Mitchell keeps mentioning that naming has significance to Beloved, and to slave culture. The names in the story are certainly interesting. Sethe and Denver are both unusual names devoted to other people (Sethe's father and the helpful white girl), there are a bunch of Pauls, the grandma is named Baby (named by her husband), and the baby wasn't named till her death. The dog's name (like Baby Suggs') seems to have simply evolved from the phrase used to call him. In the story, naming seems to be a lot more spontaneous and less constrained than is typical nowadays. There isn't a list of baby names that is carefully adhered to. There seems to be a related flexibility of language in the book as well- words are often stuck together or warped to mean something slightly different. This idea also came up a lot in our discussion of Their Eyes Were Watching God. There seems to be something creative and free that comes from language that isn't burdened with being "correct". We learn that Baby Suggs was sold as "Jenny", a fairly ordinary name, even though she had never been called this. When she leaves Sweet Home, Mr. Garden advises her to stick with Jenny, saying "Mrs. Baby Suggs ain't no name for a freed Negro". This implies that being free requires a more proper sort of name, which is an interesting idea. Could it have something to do with gaining person-hood (within society: obviously slaves are people, but they may not be considered people) and by extension respectability or lack-there-of?
I'm not even gonna try to transition.
Time is also definitely something to think about while reading Beloved.
I agree with what Pauline said in class about how things lasting in the novel could relate to the idea that the impact of slavery lives on in society in a very real way even after abolition.
At first, I thought that she meant that events lived on in people's memories, and perhaps that's the actual message she's trying to get across, but in the book the past has a much more tangible footprint; Ghosts for one thing. When Beloved says that she won't ever leave 124 because "this is where she is", I see some of that timelessness coming through. She's a permanent facet of the house as a ghost for sure (if not as a living person). Her memory will live on there forever, timeless, like everyone's lives inside 124. It's as if the key event in the book has trapped them, keeping them from moving forward, forcing them to live in the past, as painful as it is, or perhaps to just abandon the concepts of change and time if that's possible. Like, when Paul D. (who sort of represents Sethe's future) is chased away by Beloved and the story of her death (the past), the whole household just settles into this stable (perhaps to the point of being inescapable), introverted and timeless state. And Sethe just wants to forget and live in the now--living with her dead daughter as if past events had never taken place.
I suspect this isn't going to last though. Memories of Sethe's past will haunt her forever, and perhaps the town will interfere with their family, or Beloved will fall apart at some point, maybe Paul D. will even return. They will have to face the past the present and the future.
Having the freedom to love is another thing that keeps coming up. Paul D. says that they can't afford to love, presumably because it could destroy them when whatever they love is taken away (like children sold off to other plantation owners). So, one not-so-obvious freedom stolen by slavery is the freedom to love. We see this in Sethe's hardy (almost to the point of being cold) constitution and in Paul D. moving from home to home before planning to settle with Sethe. Sethe tells Paul D. that she was allowed to love her children more when she escaped slavery. I think she opened up some during that month of freedom before the incident. Unfortunately, even in the North she wasn't safe from the horrors of the slavery system and several of those she loved were still taken away (in pretty much the most traumatic way possible).
I'm now very confused about Beloved's feelings towards Sethe. At first I thought she just really loved her because she was her mother and she's still basically a two year old. Now I'm thinking maybe she wants to kill her for what she did (which makes her fascination really creepy). Or maybe she wants to kill her to be with her?
Also, Hereboy was a puppy when Sethe first arrived at 124. He's a very old dog.
About the naming--I think the spontaneous, flexible naming that the slaves employ is a result of their spontaneous naming from their owners. These slaves have experienced arbitrary definitions imposed upon them by masters (both names and the position of slave), and from this experience they realize that things like names and definitions are very fluid, and have little to do with reality. Hence, you can name something really anything you want to.
ReplyDeleteThis is indeed a confusing book, and I find myself wondering what's intentional on Morrison's part and what isn't. The naming, as you said, doesn't really seem to follow our modern day guidelines. I think the difference between names like Jenny and names like Baby Suggs is that the first one gives you an identity while the latter is a description of an identity people want you to be. If she was called "Jenny," there wouldn't have been many name-based guidelines she would have to follow. Much like today, we work to make a name for ourselves, not the work to fulfill the one stamped upon us by others. Being called "Baby Suggs" meant that she was permanently bonded to her husband, and abandoning him would result in her loss of identity as a whole. I guess I found it interesting, then, when she decided to keep it even after she had been freed. The best explanation I can think of for this is that taking up a new identity so late in her life would be too much for her. I mean, what if we were told that we can change our names once we turn a certain age. Most of us would adhere to the one assigned to us at birth, because that is how we view ourselves. Nice post!
ReplyDelete