Uncomfortably Good Art
Stories are written in a multitude of flavors. For example, some
are presented as works of art with magnificent sentences, vivid metaphors, ingenious
allusions, or other qualities critics hold in high regard. Other stories are
designed solely for entertainment purposes. For this we have genres and
sub-genres to satisfy someone even with the most obscure interests. Still other
stories are set up in a way that the reader will derive a lesson or message. Of
course, not all stories are so simple and they can combine different flavors to
get new and wonderful blend. I consider Toni Morrison’s The Song of Solomon
to be one such story.
The story is entertaining. The plot is fast paced and there
are shocking twists and turns to keep readers reading. The story also has
messages woven into the text without it being preachy. A reader can choose to
interpret the point of the story arbitrarily without a set meaning shoved down
their throats. And part of the beauty of the story lies with its characters. They
are so real, and I believe that is part of the problem.
In many stories the hero is someone with strength of
character. The hero may not be perfect but he learns to overcome his weaknesses
and becomes all the stronger for it. In some stories the hero’s weakness may be
something that would be considered good in other situations. For example, the
inability to kill people for the greater good or being too trusting, etc. In The
Song of Solomon the hero isn’t conventional. He doesn’t do the good things.
He doesn’t seem to have strength of character. He isn’t even likable. But he is
real. The average human being has more negative qualities than a hero. People
lie, cheat, steal, and murder. People are petty and miserable. But, the average
human being is not a villain and also has positive qualities.
In The Song of Solomon, we learn about the characters
as children. They are still innocent and do not yet have the negative qualities
of their adult counterparts. This contrast is relatable as well. It is infrequent
that we come across a child villain. The contrast also serves to highlight
their shortcomings. They weren’t destined to be evil from childhood, but they
are only human.
In other stories some of the main characters are motivated by
power, or selfishness, too. The difference is that the motivation is singularly
driven. The characters are not complex as they are in The Song of Solomon. In
The Song of Solomon the characters are motivated by relatable desires
such as greed, love, revenge, and power. But the motivation is not
all-consuming, extreme, or singular as in other stories.
Perhaps the story leaves me with a sense of distaste because
it forces me to confront that people are not perfect. The story shows the truth
about people and it is not so easy to swallow. It is easier to believe that
people will do the right thing, protect the weak, and save mankind. It is
comforting to assume the best about people, but it is not real.
Great post Chana! I agree, the characters have many obvious flaws and flawed motivations, and that does add a harsh realism to the story. I think the key descriptive word would be gritty. The characterizations are an uncompromising look at all the sordid deficiencies of the characters. It is unpleasant to read about their selfishness, their immoral choices, their self pity, but it is a validation of the ugly feelings that everyone has, that many stories ignore.
ReplyDeleteI still generally have a problem with gritty literature though. I appreciate it’s perspective, even if it does makes me uncomfortable, and even if it’s not pleasant to read, but I think that it’s skewed toward negative representation in a way that isn’t necessarily true. While the negative aspects may not necessarily be exaggerations, I think there are positive aspects to balance out the negative qualities. There is good and bad in people, and one doesn’t exclude the other. People aren’t perfect, and they won’t always do the right thing, but they won’t always do the wrong thing either. SOS especially, for the larger part chooses to show ugliness more than beauty. It does have a very pessimistic view of human nature, but that pessimistic view isn’t any less true than the optimistic one. Ultimately, neither one is provable.
Nice post. I agree that the realism of the characters is striking, despite them being dissimilar to people I know well. Milkman, as he grows, appears borderline sociopathic, with no empathy for anyone but himself. Guitar is more passionate than he, but that only makes him a murderer, obsessed with his cruel cause. When you first referenced our seeing them as children, I thought that we feel more sympathy and connection with the characters having known them since childhood. But it also kind of reminded me of what perfect monsters kids can be, especially those who are not conditioned differently. Piaget's theory of moral development claims that people need to grow into moral reasoning; they don't just start out with it. Similarly a teacher of mine once claimed that you're born with the desire to be bad, but the desire to be good doesn't catch up until adolescence.
ReplyDeleteMilkman and Guitar were cute kids, but you expect kids to have an underdeveloped moral sphere. I think Morrison showed us their childhood to show how they did not grow up as they aged.