Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Welcome to our Aiea High School class blog! Here you will be able to share your reflections on the class assignments and read your classmates thoughts.
The Original Tommy's
yes, the chili cheese burger is the best in the world!
42 comments:
Just to let everyone know. . . the reference to Latoyah's question is toward the bottom of page 169.
In response to group... Latoyah Lasean
Eva was in the psych ward or something right?
Anyways she was crazy, and b4 the end of the conversation she was calling Nel by Sula.
I also think its because just as Nel watched Chicken Little fall into the water, so did Sula watch Hannah burn. They both offered no help, and were not paralyzed, but fascinated.
Wheres eric... he was supposed to put our group's question on here.
Something about evangelism. Ahahhaa well it sounded like a good question at the time... =p
Response to Latoyah Lasean:
They were one and the same. The girls did everything together, from thinking to actions, they were like the deweys.
On Sula's deathbed, after Nel asked her about Jude, she replied, "It matters, Nel, but only to you." If Nel had valued the friendship as much as Sula did it wouldn't matter at all. The marriage brought only separate paths, not minds. Sula never meant for hurt because she thought that her and Nel would always share everything, including experiences and other friendships.
The second piece of evidence in support in my reasoning is Nel's encounter with Shadrack by the cemetery. She caused Shadrack to stop and think. The only person, as far as readers know, that ever affected him was Sula. Nel reminded him to think of Sula. I interpret the "Sula?" question she asked after that as a answer to the reaction of Shadrack. This was who he saw. I finish with Nel's words, "We was girls together."
This answer may not be the best answer, but I think that there is a good chance that it has something to do with it.
Response to pages 138-174:
Because Eva is such an unpredictable and unorthodox woman, I really enjoyed the scene between Nel and Eva at Sunnydale. When she brought up Chicken Little's death and asserted to Nel that she had WATCHED him die, I was reminded of the scene where Sula watched her mother burn to death. I liked how Morrison differentiated between "saw" and "watched" as the latter seems to convey more of an intent, an attentiveness to the event, more so than the former.
What a good segue into Latoya Lasean's question. My answer would mirror that of sugarcherrypartyprincessmuffinman...'s answer. Eva believes both of the girls to be "guilty" (not really the word I was looking for) of the same thing and though Nel does not outwardly appear to be anything like Sula, they are two halves of the same whole (the circle concept). Eva, though she is pretty crazy, is a very perceptive and intuitive woman and I believe she realized this.
In response to Sam's comment:
Though I disliked Sula because of her carefree and selfish attitude, I understand why she is the way she is and can somewhat sympathize with her. Sula lived her life according to the saying, "what's yours is mine and mine, yours" which shows through her carefree and selfish attitude. She lived her life "owning" nothing (by nothing, I basically mean men) and used other peoples' things (men) as she pleased because she didn't see them as being off-limits. Though I would have reacted the same way as Nel if my husband were to make love with another woman, and my best friend at that, if I put myself in Sula's shoes (or at least try to) I do see that there are two sides to this "betrayal".
Response to Marcie:
Aha! I agree. The two are opposites. I did not like Sula and thought that Nel was justified, as far as Jude was concerned, but could not see the right connection. I can't believe the tangent, or rather completely different plain, that I went on! Haha.
The rest of the book was, unfortunately, disappointing to me. I honestly didn’t feel like it changed my life but I will admit that it did complete the “circle.” I can also understand why this book is good to discuss.
I thought it was sad to see the Bottom changing into a more modern area. Although a lot of the people in the Bottom had strange ways, the reader connects to the culture and wants that place to be a certain way forever. This type of change is, however, very common in the history of America. Cultures are often absorbed into another culture much like in Hawaii.
When Nel visited Eva, it was heart breaking to visualize her this way. Although I don’t think she became weaker mentally, physically she did. I am curious to know how Eva found out about Chicken Little’s death. I understand that Morrison is trying to show the reader that Sula and Nel are essentially the same person but I don’t know how Eva knew. It is possible that Morrison’s purpose of this was to show that they are the same and that Sula will never leave Nel regardless of Sula’s death.
In response to Ross's comment:
I like the connection that was made between Nel and Chicken Little and Sula and Hannah. I did not think of connecting them like that. But these events do show how Nel and Sula are similar. Like Ross said, they both found fascination in death. Nel found her fascination with Chicken Little's death and Sula found her's with the burning of Hannah.
Alus's question is
Is it possible to live in a world full of objectivitst or collectivists? In other words, is it possible to have a world where every single person is unique and different? Or is it possible to survive by conforming to one another based on the mores of society?
In response to "Alus"'s question:
I think it is possible to have a world full of ONLY objectivists, or ONLY collectivists, or people who ALL conform to the mores of society. The catch is that everyone has to comply. As soon as someone wants to go and be different, conflict will arise.
It is also possible to have a world where everyone is different. Whether or not the people living in it would be able to survive there is the actual question. If everyone was unique there would be conflict and confrontation up the ying yang, if you will excuse my use of language:).
Part of the problem is the fact that everyone is trying to be different. Not that being unique is always bad, just that being different for the sake of being different is completely different than being different because you are different. (Hahaha have fun with that one.)
This is in reference to Katrina's reference to Ross's comment [hahha].
I just think it is really interesting and also a little difficult to believe that Nel and Sula, despite their differences in character and choices, would have something like a fascination with death in common. But at the same time it cannot be denied.
I mean, the way they chose to live their lives was so different yet a bond like THAT would serve as a similarity between them. I think it just goes to show that Nel probably would have led a much more fulfilled life if she had not been afraid to be herself.
And in response to Marcie's reference to Sam's comment:
I sort of wish that I could be like Sula. Maybe it is just one of those cases of "the grass is greener on the other side", but who wouldn't want to be the person who motivates others to bring out the best in themselves? Even if it has to be at the expense of your own reputation. The beauty of it all is that Sula cared not about her notoriety anyway. It must be really nice to truly not care about what others think. At this point in my life I doubt that I could ever be like that, but it would be a very intriguing experience.
It is obviously possible to live in a world of only unique people, because that is how the world today functions. As far as I know, everyone on the earth is different from every other person. But since I'm not good at supporting anything remotely philosophical, I'll also say that I think it would possible for a society to function where everyone is the same, especially if they all had the same morals! If the whole Bottom believed that killing messed up people would fix a problem, then no one would be upset by a single incident of it. If the whole bottom shared the same moral that sleeping with each other's husbands and wives is okay, then no strife would arise between any two married people.
Yay. I'm finally able to log on!
I found this ending to be completely predictable and a tad boring. The climax of the book is obviously the affair that Sula had with Jude, and based on the amount of deaths and misfortunes in the book there will be no happy ending for any character.
I'm unsure as to whether or not the ending can be considered ironical because everything in the book was never what it seems. The "plague of pidgeons" that would normally be an omen for misfortune was actually good for the people of the Bottom. With the death of what they considered "evil" one would normally think that events would improve, but in actuality they got worse.
As for the whole theme of identity found in the book, it was summed up quite nicely. The dichotomy that Nel and Sula possess is finally cleared up when Eva and Nel discuss the death of Chicken Little. The collective identity that Sula gave to the people of the Bottom disappeared along with Nel's other half when Sula died.
Sula said that she wasn't ready to make other people, but instead wanted to make herself. But her entire purpose in life was filling an identity gap for other people.
I honestly don't understand how Sula died. When i first read the passage, i thought it was a flash back or something, so i went back to read it again and realized that she had died. By the descriptions presented it sounded as if sula had burned to death, which would have been ironic, but i dont think thats how she died. Maybe the scene described was just the pain she felt as she passed away. So i'm not exactly sure what happened. Does anyone else have any other thoughts on this passage of the book?? (pg 148)
in response to Sarah:
we're not told how Sula dies but we do know that she is sick. Sick enough for Nel to come to visit her one last time. I tihnk the main part of that scene was to see the current status of the relationship between the two friends. The descriptions are used to tell readers how Sula is really feeling. She's feeling the pain of death (or actually life) with the burning and loss of strentgh and finally realizes that she has died, and it didn't hurt at all. Once she felt numb, Sula realized that it's life that hurts but death is numb.
In response to Katrina:
I agree that the ending was kinda a disappointment. Who knew that the best way to stop the towns celbration was to just to kill them all. I don't think the novel as a whole really worked because it didn't really have a strong focus. The storyline kept switching from character to character which still makes me question why it's called "Sula". For example, I don't think the relationship between Sula and Nel was really defined. Of course Morrison said that they were good friends but the only proof we have of that was when Sula cut her finger in front of the Irish boy.
In response to Latoyah Lasean's question:
It was just a way to show that the two were one in the same part. Like ying and yang, the two opposites complement each other; completing the circle. This is ironic seeing that it's only Sula that is seen as different in the town. She's unique to Medallion but collective with Nel. I guess it does make sense in that they are opposite but stil, being collective means being in the same group and Nel and Sual were seen as one in the same.
hmm thanks darwin..that helped to clear up some of the questions i had..
in response to darwins response to katrina, i agree. Sula and Nel's relationship was strongly implied, but there wasn't much to back it up. I understand that sometimes when you have a really strong bond with someone, its sometimes hard to put into words just how important it is, but in this case it was a little hard to see the bond between them. Although, i do understand that they are much like the ying and yang.
I agree with sam, sula never meant to hurt nel in anyway because she believed that what was one was also the others. Although i don't totally agree with sula sleeping with nel's husband, i do understand where sula is coming from. They have shared everything through out their lives, and it is a friendship that surpasses words, and men. I'm glad that Nel realizes that it was sula that she had missed all along, and not her husband. I dont think its ever too late to have this type of realization. i believe that sula probably understood what nel was going through, and didn't feel any type of hatred toward her before passing away.
I'm sorry my posting is a bit late. The first comment is deleted and I suppose that was where the question was posed by group "Latoya"? I'm going to assume, gathering from the comments in response, that it's about Nel's visit with Eva.
Um, Ross, I don't think that Eva was in a mental ward but rather just an old person's home. And I don't believe she is crazy either because of how keen and intuitive she is. It just takes a little while to understand what she is trying to say with her brash and blunt words.
I totally agree with Sam that the reason why Eva called Nel, "Sula," was because they are both one and the same in her eyes. They used to be as such and they continued to be as such - at least in her eyes, if not anyone else's when the two split and broke the what seemed like a symbiotic relationship.
Between the two, I think I prefer Sula's more carefree ways because she makes for a more interesting character. I find her to be the dominant powerful woman who knows what she wants and it's intriguing. Nel fell back into the stereotype of the town. It's sad to see how their relationship fell apart when it used to be so strong. It's more than losing your best friend, but rather your other half.
____________
Katna: I do agree with you that the rest of the book disappointed me. I had expected for Sula to do more before she died although the she needed to die for the book to have as much of a meaning as it does. Anyway, I am however particularly pleased that Eva was brought back somehow. I mean, after all of the character descriptions and elaborations, it would have been such a waste to have the characters "die off."
____________
Janelle:
"I think it is possible to have a world full of ONLY objectivists, or ONLY collectivists, or people who ALL conform to the mores of society."
I have to disagree with that, although oddly enough I agree with the rest of your quote.
Anywho, the reason being that there must be a balance in all aspects of life so therefore you cannot have ALL of either. You must have a proportional ratio of each to survive, to reference yin and yang.
If all people were objectivists then the world would not function because no one would do what is necesaary, but just what they want. That means that should no one want to do trash pick ups or environmental conservation then the world would collapse of pollution and such. Or if no one wanted to have laws anymore!
On the other end, if everyone gave, there would be no one to receive the goods. There would be an overabundance of "goods." This doesn't work out either.
So really, no, it's not one or the other but both.
in response to ross's comment i agree that eva was a little crazy, yet i think she knows that people think this of her, and kind of uses it to her advantage. Eva plays an important role in tying together sula and nel. (the fascination with death, and watching people die)
In response to Sarah:
I thought she had burned too after reading about her dream but then, when reading further, I realized that she actually just died. As Darwin said, we’re not told how Sula dies. However, Morrison tends to leave out information to let the reader’s mind wander. She does this multiple times throughout the book. For example, she does this when she leaves out the years that Sula was gone and when she leaves out how Eva lost her leg.
Here's the third groups question rack shacl and enney:
What is the purpose of the biblical parallels in the novel?
A response i have to this initial blog is about the religious symbolism, which i suppose is why my group posed the question. I do like these references in the book, although i cannot come up with a definate answer as to why it is used. I guess this is where reading literature like a professor comes into play.
Well i beleive it is to emphasize the character's purpose, so it is used as a form of symbolism. Such as Jude playing the back stabber Judas or Shadrack representing the one who stood up to a society. I find it interesting how this is done becasue i know my bible stories and it make me think. I cannot figure out whats Sula's name means though if it does carry a meaning. For some reason i cant stop thinking of Jesus though. But anywho, thats what i noticed in these pages especially after the discussion.
As for the Latoya group, i believe that Eva called Nel by the name of Sula to prve a point, that they are the same. They are two halves of a whole. Eva realizes this as the grandmother and thus, refers to her as such. She watched chicken little drown as much as Sula watched her mom burn. Sula might be dead, but the other half is still alive, something Eva wants Nel to realize.
I dont think it is possible to live in a world full of only objectivists or collectivists. I mean no one is the same and that is fact. You have those that conform and you have the rebels who enjoy living for themselves. Its a simple matter of understanding that no one is the same because everyone has different ambitions and objectives. It would require mindless clones in order to run a society like that.
Furthermore, if a society was made up of only collectivists there would be no progress, no one to think outside of the box and push society into the future. This goes for objectivism as well, anarchy would be the ruling factor and again, nothing would get done. Society requires both in order to progress.
This isnt the fountainhead darwin :P
Ahhh omg so much reading ><
Thanks for the replies.
Yeah the part where Sula died, I remember reading it when we went back to it in class, but I kind of missed it the first time through.
I knew she was in pain, then later that she wanted to tell Nel that it didn't hurt when you're dead haha. But I didn't connect the pain, to the death, to the no pain in death thing ><
In response to Darwin
I do believe we live in a world where everyone is unique and different, only that many of our habits and mannerisms are adopted from other close peers.
Everyone affects everyone, but you will always be yourself on the inside because nobody has the same people affecting them.
I do not believe that we can live in a world where everyone just does their own thing however, and I couldn't tell if thats what you were asking or not. If everyone did their own thing, even nearing to how much Sula did, society would crumble as there would be no order.
We already live in a society where the vast majority conform to norms and mores, which is what the definition of those two words are...
In response to Alus:
Like Erik was saying, society must progress and in order for this to happen, there needs to be diversity. This is why there are artists, philosophers, and inventors. In order for society to move on to greater accomplishments and better understanding, there must be the outside thinkers.
Human are imperfect, and everyone can awknowledge that to some degree. There is no such thing as a perfect society and there never will be. If everyone believed in the "right" ideals and cared for the earth and each other, yes, society would progress at an amazing speed. Though, that would go against the laws of nature. The same goes for all people being different, there would be no general direction of change. The way I see it, the world was meant to be the way it is.
I somewhat agree with what Albert said in class. The story was predictable.
Towards the end of the book, what people were going to do and what the next event was become quite easy to guess. Because of the full circle, it was only logical for it to come to the ending it did. What kept it colorful was the deeper meaning behind the words and smaller actions.
Was this unavoidable? Can an author change this predictability?
I somewhat agree with what Albert said in class. The story was predictable.
Towards the end of the book, what people were going to do and what the next event was become quite easy to guess. Because of the full circle, it was only logical for it to come to the ending it did. What kept it colorful was the deeper meaning behind the words and smaller actions.
Was this unavoidable? Can an author change this predictability?
I somewhat agree with what Albert said in class. The story was predictable.
Towards the end of the book, what people were going to do and what the next event was become quite easy to guess. Because of the full circle, it was only logical for it to come to the ending it did. What kept it colorful was the deeper meaning behind the words and smaller actions.
Was this unavoidable? Can an author change this predictability?
wow, good job with all the comments everyone lol. i think it's the most we have so far
to answer rack shacl and enney's question
i think the question to ask is why are biblical references used in all other pieces of literature. I think you would have to look at Morrison's background to see if she is religious because clearly we can see references from the bible through the characters. It's interesting that the parallels are udes because it shows that teh problems that happen in biblical times are still occur at teh time the novel was written
In response to rack shacl and enney's question:
I'm not really a religious person so I don't know much of the bible (only stories I remember from preschool and whatever snippets from parents and friends throughout the years). I didn't really catch onto the biblical allusions until it was brought up in class, but I would assume that Morrison included them because the bible is an important piece of literature to many people and many people can relate to it (or at least would be able to make the correlations). It's kind of like how Shakespeare's works are part of the "literary canon" and are used as teaching tools because his subject matters can be applied to life now, just as they could be applied to life when they were written.
In response to Albert's comment:
Ooh...don't you just love the irony? It was probably the most interesting facet of the book. Morrison must have thought very hard about this (well, I would have had to to get everything just right). I actually didn't really realize (or maybe I just didn't think about it) one of the ironic things that Albert pointed out ("Sula said that she wasn't ready to make other people, but instead wanted to make herself. But her entire purpose in life was filling an identity gap for other people") so...good thinking! Although I didn't fall in love with this book, I did enjoy it for its irony.
uhh...im so confused with this having everything in one blog thing -.-
In response to Alus’s question:
I do not think it’s possible to live in a world full of objectivists or a world full of collectivists. Although it is true that every single person is different, many times people generally conform to society. A world full of only objectivists would lead to a world more concerned about the individual. We would not have unity and no one would be able to cooperate with each other because objectivists are selfish. We would not be able to live in a world full of collectivists either because, while unity would be possible, the world would not progress. There would be no one to think of new and innovative things. The world needs to have a balance of both collectivists and objectivists. We need the objectivists to think of new ideas and the collectivists to catch on to that idea and then spread the idea.
In response to Erik's group...
I actually did not notice too many biblical parallels in the novel. I’ve never read or studied the bible so I really don’t know much about it. I did notice that Eva’s name was very similar to Eve. I think this parallel showed how, much like Eve, Eva was the “creator” of many people and their identities. The biblical parallels could also emphasize the timelessness of these situations. Morrison shows how many of the events from the bible can still be applied to today’s society.
In response to Sam’s response to Latoyah Lasean’s question:
Ah, I didn’t realize that Shadrack did that. The theme of identity becomes clearer throughout the book and the ending scene with Eva and Nel really explains everything. I was really concerned about how Eva knew about Chicken Little’s death but I suppose that it’s not important. The important part is that she knew. I like how Morrison doesn’t really explain how a lot of things happen. She lets the reader decide and she also emphasizes the fact that the “how” isn’t necessarily the important thing.
Since I didn't have a group I guess I'll just answer all the questions I can find.
In response to Alus's questions:
No. It is completely impossible to live in world completely made up of either objectivist or collectivist, like Nel and Sula they complete each other and cannot exist without the other.
Beginning with a world of objectivist, which are defined as those that exist for themselves, for everyone in the world to be unique, and not have another copy of themselves in the world. Is that not already what humanity is? DNA dictates that we are all different from one another, even identical twins have different fingerprints at the very least. So are we living in a world of unique individuals? No. We try to conform to some norm even though we all know we cannot be completely the same.
As for a world of collectivist, that is impossible as well. If everyone were to commit to one social norm I think we've done that already. We're all human, and yet we strive to prove ourselves different from other humans, to prove that we're better. Not to mention, how are we to live by a norm if there is not one who can define the norm as we are all people who wish to convert to a norm?
See how contradictory humanity is? We all wish to fit in despite our individuality, but we also wish to stand out as part of a collective.
In response to Erik's group question:
As an atheist I'm not too keen on the biblical allusions. The stories I still remember from back when I was a Christian do not fit with the book.
I will go out on a limb and say that what biblical allusions do exist in the book are probably a testament to the noblest of deeds, self sacrifice. They who put their own needs before themselves died, while those who thought only of others were redeemed. Plum and his alcohol, Hannah and her men, Sula and her life, they were all absorbed in their own pursuits and died. However, Shad concerned with only the lives of others and giving them a chance to kill themselves on his holiday is a sort of self sacrifice and he lived.
Post a Comment