King
Solomon actually wrote more than one song. The first one that comes to mind is
his ubiquitous Song of Songs, which we automatically associate with Toni
Morrison’s novel. But Solomon is also famous for his song, Ecclesiastes, which
is poetic in nature and riddlesome in its quest for meaning.
In my
mind, Song of Solomon, by Toni Morrison, has a lot more to do with Ecclesiastes
than it does with Song of Songs. Throughout the novel, there are parallels
between the lessons that Milkman learns through the trials he faces and the
very lessons that Solomon teaches us straight-out from his own text.
Firstly,
in the second verse of Ecclesiastes, Solomon writes: “Vanity of vanities, all
is vanity.” This reminds me of the episode in the novel when Guitar and Milkman
are daydreaming about what they will spend all of their money on once they’ve
stolen the ‘gold’ from Pilate. As they amble down the street, Guitar notices a
white peacock and notes: “Peacock
can't fly - "too much tail. All that jewelry weighs it down. Like vanity.
Can't nobody fly with all that sh*t"(179).
In this episode, Milkman comes to an important understanding
of who he is, in the context of contrasting his needs from Guitars. Although Guitar
dreams of material luxuries and a life of plenty, Milkman knows that the money
to him is only a means to get to his ultimate destination, which is a place of
freedom and control from his family and the society around him. Milkman
realizes that the gold is only a vehicle to secure his freedom, and that in
truth, it’s “new people, new places, command” that he wants.
Another example of a parallel between the works is Solomon’s
musings about the futility and repetitiveness of life. He says: “the sun rises
and the sun sets, and hastens to the place where it will rise again… the wind
goes south and turns about unto north; it turns about continually in its
circuit and the wind returns again to its circuits etc (1:6-7).”
Milkman too, becomes a slave to the rote patterns in his
life, and realizes that his own passiveness is what is making his life futile
and devoid of meaning. In my own understanding, Milkman realizes that without
stimulation and an active drive to pursue life, he is stagnant, like the
inanimate sun, wind, or river that Solomon describes. Therefore, Milkman
asserts himself to seek out his own roots, to dirty his expensive clothes, to
muddy his shoes in order to uncover the truth about his past and present. And in
this pursuit, where Milkman must actively work to resist entropy, he becomes
great. Just as the sun and wind follow a circuit that is dictated by nature,
Milkman must break out of his own tendencies to be lazy, selfish, and
insensitive, in order to begin to live.
And once Milkman comes to this place of understanding, he,
like Solomon, learns to “praise the dead that are already dead more than the
living that are yet alive (4:2).” After his trek, he realizes that life and
death are more than just the physiological difference in pulse. He ultimately understands
that a dead man can be very much alive, a notion embodied by Pilate, who always
maintained that man contains the intrinsic ability to transcend death. At the
same time, Milkman sees how a man who is biologically alive can be equally
dead, as Guitar increasingly immerses himself in the business of blood-exchange
and loses his conscience to the mechanic destruction of human life. Thus, when
Milkman leaps from the edge at the end of the novel, he welcomes his fate
knowing that regardless of whether he lives or dies, he has ultimately chosen
to transcend both.
Yael, I really like your blog post, especially how you thought to compare Song of Solomon to King Solomon's other book that he wrote. It is a very interesting idea that Song of Solomon parallels that abundant theme of "all is vanity" that is present in Ecclesiastes. One can see how Milkman slowly learns this powerful lesson, that his money will not solve all of his problems and that he truly does have to face his realities. Perhaps Morrison is trying to give over to the reader a very wise lesson. Milkman deeply immersed himself in the futile things of life, such as Hagar's obsessive love for him, drinks, and all the physical comforts his father's money provided him. However, it is clear that Milkman felt empty. Only after his adventures was he able to realize that to truly feel satisfied and fulfilled one has to give to others as well--as is seen when he interacts with Sweet- he reciprocates, whereas with Hagar, he only takes from her what he can and then throws her away when he is tired of her. Thus one sees, that the physical comforts of life only have value when used in the correct way; one cannot feel at peace if he/she is only out to get as much as one can. Rather, one has to invest in others and give to others, rather than taking all of the time. This is a lesson that Milkman had to learn the hard way and that Morrison is giving over as a warning to her readers to learn from Milkman's mistakes!
ReplyDeleteHey Tamar, I agree with you wholeheartedly. I think that Milkman's main struggle throughout the beginning of the book is a) realizing that his life is totally futile and repetitiveness and then b) what he can do about it. I think that somewhere deep down in Milkman's heart, he has always known that he was different from anybody else, but I think that towards the beginning, he took advantage of it and let the world dote on his every whim. Once he starts his journey to self-discovery however, he realizes that he isn't the object of everyone's affection as a merit to his own accomplishments, and so he feels used and almost disgusted with the weird dichotomy of feeling both stripped of his dignity for being taken advantage of, yet also ashamed because he hasn't given back.
ReplyDeleteI really liked this comparison. Especially since the book is called Song of Solomon and not Song of Songs, hinting to it being broader. (or am I over analyzing this?)
ReplyDeleteI think the fact that Milkman encounters a lot of the same existential questions that Solomon does in Ecclesiastes is a sign that these are really broad, archetypal questions that humans have.
Although there are many lessons that can be learned out from Ecclesiastes and many of them do parallel life lessons that Milkman learns, I think that there is one more major parallel that can be drawn between Ecclesiastes and Song of Solomon. The basis of Ecclesiastes is philosophical and cynical as Solomon debates man’s purpose in life. He suggests that perhaps man’s purpose in life is to gain infinite wisdom or to build as much as he can. However, he then sees the vanity in wisdom and prosperity. He points out that one can not take what they gained in life with them after death, nor will one ever be able to accomplish even a fraction of what is to be accomplished on this earth. He then suggests that life is about pleasure on this earth “for there is nothing good for a man under the sun except to eat and to drink and to be merry, and this will stand by him in his toils throughout the days of his life which God has given him under the sun” (Ecclesiastes 8:15). Yet again he concludes that this can not be the point in life as there are people who are born into miserable situations and there is no option for them to just enjoy life as it comes. This back and forth in essence constitutes most of the book of Ecclesiastes. So too, throughout Song of Solomon, Milkman tries to find meaning in his life. He is constantly searching for purpose, or something to look forwards to. Even as a little boy when his family would take weekend trips in their car, Milkman, crammed between his father and mother, was “flying blind, and not knowing where he was going- just where he had been” (Morrison 32). In the novel Milman is described a couple of times as dead inside, a reflection of his real name, Macon Dead. One night while he was looking for Guitar he described that the pedestrians all seemed to be going in a different direction than he was. Milkman doesn’t find the same thrill in owning properties like his father. He doesn’t care about politics. He doesn’t care for Hagar’s and Pilate’s love. He doesn’t even care about disturbing facts regarding his parents’ histories. Simply put, Milkman life is devoid of meaning; meaning that eludes his grasp, just as Solomon struggled to find meaning in life. Yael says, in the last chapters of the novel, “Milkman sees how a man who is biologically alive can be equally dead, as Guitar increasingly immerses himself in the business of blood-exchange and loses his conscience to the mechanic destruction of human life” which enables him to take the leap at Guitar at the end of the novel because whether or not he was going to die he “has ultimately chosen to transcend both.” Rather than the impetus being Guitar’s indifference towards other people’s lives, I think that the stimulus for Milkman leaping at Guitar was because Milkman was dead while living for over forty years of his life and knew what it was like, but he also finally learned what it meant to be alive while dead, a lesson he learns more and more about as he discovers the meaning behind his ancestry and specifically Pilate’s eternal love. Once he discovered meaning in his life he finally understood what ironically, Guitar had been telling him all along. “It’s about how you live and why,” not how or when you die (Morrison 160).
ReplyDeleteIt is intriguing to ponder what the novel would have been like if it was written with a different song, book, or work in mind. Perhaps Ecclesiastes is more fitting, but imagine calling the book "Ecclesiastes of Solomon" not as catchy as the original title "Song of Solomon" since everyone would assume it would be song of songs and not Ecclesiastes unless expressly told. I do not agree with your interpretation that Milkman transcends death so it doesn't matter if he is alive or dead. I do not see the ending as a triumph but as a man child who is reckless and abandons his family and responsibilities while pretending to be noble. The song lyrics
ReplyDelete"Life's for the living so go on and live it or you are better off dead" from Life's for the living by passenger fit more in line with my personal view. Milkman doesn't really live life his first 32 years and when he learns how he goes and allows himself to be killed. That cannot be the point of life.
-Ecclesiastes was written at the end of Solomon's life, when he was old and jaded, while his Song of Songs was written when he was younger and more optimistic about life. Though Milkman has made some progress by the end of the book, he doesn't really get a chance to do anything with that knowledge outside of attacking Guitar. Because of that I think Songs of Solomon is still a more fitting theme. Even though Milkman tackles some of the greater conceptual topics written of in Ecclesiastes, he doesn't really gain an understanding of them. He is still young, and kind of immature, so he doesn't have the experience and insight that's representative of Ecclesiastes.
ReplyDeleteI liked your textual comparisons, and the point you made at the end about the mixing of life and death. Macon Dead, the deadbeat husband, and Guitar, who's dead inside, contrast with the ghost of Macon's father, who is not as dead as he should be. These dead people, lacking vitality to break away from the patterns of the "inanimate sun" and nature, also strike me as similar to Grendel in the end. As opposed to Grendel, who started out thinking that he could "create the world blink by blink," and died a base mechanical monster, Milkman starts "dead" and object-like, then takes control of his destiny and flies above his miserable setting. Though I do agree with those above; Milkman has a lot of growing left to do.
ReplyDelete