Multimedia project for Dr. McGinnis’ E338- American Literature from 1865-present
Monthly Archives: November 2013
A Distorted Sexuality: Masculinity in Toni Morrison’s Sula
Susan Neal Mayberry’s article “Something Other Than a Family Quarrel: The Beautiful Boys in Morrison’s Sula” explores Toni Morrison’s description of the male characters in her novel, as well as Sula’s own maleness. Mayberry’s thesis states that Sula “challenges us to reconsider how histories of tops and bottoms, ups and downs, within American social structures become convoluted into the ironic hierarchies and differences in African American society” (Mayberry 517). Sula is a novel that depicts the African American woman’s struggle for power in society, and Morrison utilizes the lack of male characters in the novel to emphasize this idea. Mayberry explains Morrison’s process here, somewhat muddily.
Mayberry’s article begins by explicitly stating that “Morrison’s is the ‘womanist’ insight that relationships between African American men and woman must be understood not only in terms of the intersections of gender…but also in terms of their participation in a larger, historically racist culture” (517). Throughout the article, the author lengthily explains the way in which African American women must fight for their freedom of individuality from men. She argues that African American men are torn down by white men, as well as African American women trying to be independent of their masculinity. She goes on to explain how the novel represents a certain “crisis in masculinity” (519). Mayberry uses examples of ways in which the black woman confronts everyone, men, and other women alike, to gain a sense of superiority. Mayberry, with the help of some 21 sources, states that the female characters, particularly Sula, “must address the men in their lives to accept the masculine in themselves” (520). An example of this can be seen in the way that the “Pease household is named for the women who love maleness for its own sake” (523).
Mayberry’s argument regarding the masculine aspects of the female characters, especially Sula’s, personality can be seen throughout the novel. In a comment made to Sula in Part Two of the novel it is stated that ‘“white men love [Sula]. They spend so much time worrying about [Sula’s] penis that they forget their own”’ (Morrison 103). Throughout the novel Sula’s sexuality is blurred. In the scene depicting Sula and Nel as young girls digging a hole in the grass, the reader can detect the sexual undertones of the situation. Morrison’s diction in this passage alludes to the sexual nature of the scene. The author uses words such as “undressed,” “bare,” “rhythmically,” “intense,” and “one” to portray the attraction between the two young girls and the bond they create with one another, with Sula acting as Nel’s male counterpart (58). Another example of Sula’s maleness occurs when she states that Nel’s dream had always been to fall in love with a man on a horse, and Sula saw herself riding that horse.
To an extent, I agree with Mayberry’s article. The article helps the reader to understand the way in which the lack of male characters in the novel allows Sula to take over this role. However, I believe that Mayberry’s article is quite dense and does not clearly support its claims. Mayberry boldly states at the beginning of her article that the novel deals with conflict between African American men and women in a historically racial culture; however, I didn’t get a good sense of the historical from reading the article. Overall, it’s a start at recognizing what Morrison does with Sula in her novel, but Mayberry draws from so many other authors and sources that it’s hard to discern which claims are actually hers and what she is merely quoting.
Works Cited
Mayberry, Susan Neal. “Something Other Than A Family Quarrel: The Beautiful Boys in Morrison’sSula.” African American Review 37.4 (2003): 517-533. MLA Bibliography. Web. 17 Nov 2013.
Morrison, Toni. Sula. New York: Vintage International, 1973. Print.
Mimicry in Poetry–Shakespeare vs. Mullen
vs 
Harryette Mullen’s poem “Dim Lady,” a work in her collection Sleeping with the Dictionary, cleverly mimics William Shakespeare’s sonnet #130, also titled “my mistress’ eyes are nothing like the sun.” Mullen’s use of form, poetic structure, style, rhyme scheme and subject matter share many comparisons, as well as present many differences, to Shakespeare’s original work. Although written more than three hundred and fifty years later, Mullen’s poem brings to light the same distorted view of beauty that Shakespeare originally wrote about; however, this is done in a uniquely contemporary fashion. “Dim Lady” provides twenty-first century readers with a playful satire that is concerned with the erroneous western standard of beauty in a modern way.
Shakespeare’s sonnet #130 exhibits a very traditional poetic structure and style. The fourteen-line poem features three quatrains and a rhymed couplet that acts as the poem’s conclusion. It is important to note that the couplet is offset from the margin with the lines in the quatrains. The traditional sonnet’s fourteen lines feature the five beat iambic pentameter, consisting of five stressed beats per line. Each line alternates an unstressed syllable followed by a stressed syllable. Shakespeare’s rhyme scheme features his classic Shakespearean sonnet metre consisting of an ABAB, CDCD, EFEF, GG pattern. Shakespeare’s use of the sonnet form is quite traditional. The traditionalist style of this sonnet directly correlates to the time-honored content; antiquated structure, antiquated style. The reader can imply the way society views “beauty” by the diction Shakespeare utilizes. The modern reader must labor to clearly understand this Old English language.
On that note, the content of Shakespeare’s sonnet features many outdated stereotypes and sixteenth century vocabulary words not used by poets, such as Mullen, today. For example, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, Shakespeare’s use of the word “dun,” described as a dusky color, is not familiar to modern poets and their readers today. The Oxford English dictionary states that the word was most frequently used between 1568 and 1894, being considered somewhat obsolete to authors today (“dun, n.1”). Shakespeare’s sonnet #130 also possesses English stereotypes. Although these are still regarded with some truth today, these stereotypes were considered the standard for European citizens in the sixteenth century. Shakespeare makes reference to the “breath that from [his] mistress reeks,” drawing on the stereotype that Europeans do not particularly value dental hygiene and fresh breath (Shakespeare). However, on a more modern note, Shakespeare draws on the idea of a class connection to beauty in his sonnet. This is an idea that is unfortunately just as true today as it was in the sixteenth century. In line three of the sonnet, Shakespeare makes a contrast between the whiteness of snow and the aforementioned dun color of his mistress’ breasts. He goes on to describe the thick, black, wiry hair that grows on his mistress’ head. The diction in these two lines of the sonnet suggests that the dark complexion and dark hair possessed by the mistress is not considered to be the most beautiful “standard” of appearances. Shakespeare also mentions the ideally beautiful rosy cheeks, declaring that he does not see these in the face of his mistress. In the concluding couplet of the sonnet, Shakespeare states that despite these stereotypes he maintains a “rare” love for his mistress that cannot be compared (Shakespeare).
Harryette Mullen’s mimicry, “Dim Lady,” on Shakespeare’s sonnet #130 consists of many differences from that of its parent poem. The most notable difference between the two is in that of the structure of the poem. By looking at the way in which the poems lines are arranged, the reader can immediately discern that the poem does not feature the same fourteen-line, three quatrains, followed by a rhyming couplet, structure. Mullen’s poem consists of twelve lines that are read more like prose. The entire poem is one paragraph, without indentions or line-defining characteristics. Unlike Shakespeare’s sonnet, punctuated with many commas and semicolons, Mullen’s poem is punctuated solely with periods. The use of Mullen’s punctuation suggests to the reader that the poem is structured and recited like prose. Mullen’s “Dim Lady” does not feature a traditional rhyme scheme like sonnet #130. In fact, not a single line rhymes with that which follows. Mullen’s work also differs from that of Shakespeare in lack of a specific beat pattern. “Dim Lady” does not possess the iambic pentameter metre. This modern, experimental-style poetry utilized by Mullen directly corresponds to the modern distorted view of what constitutes beauty. This argument is furthered by Mullen’s diction.
When thinking about Mullen’s content, the reader can see that the vocabulary Mullen uses is also quite modern when compared to that of Shakespeare’s. Mullen uses words such as “honeybunch,” “peepers,” “racks,” and “noggin” that a sixteenth century reader would not have been familiar with (Mullen). Mullen also makes use of words made somewhat famous by modern, twenty-first century pop-culture. The phrase “main squeeze” is a prime example of this. There is no doubt that a sixteenth century Shakespearean reader would not have understood this reference. It is also important to note that the references to Red Lobster and Twinkies are unquestionably modern-day ideas that would perplex a sixteenth-century reader. However, in comparison, Mullen, much like Shakespeare, references the idea of a timeless sexual icon in her poem. Shakespeare simply makes reference to an unspecified goddess, when discussing his mistress; however, Mullen specifically makes reference to the iconic Marilyn Monroe, a definite modern sexual symbol.
It is vital to consider the ways in which both sonnet #130 and “Dim Lady” parody and satirize the western standard of beauty. Unfortunately, this stereotype has survived over the years separating these two works. Although written five centuries apart from one another, readers from the sixteenth and twenty-first centuries can and would have understood this parody. Mullen, like Shakespeare, calls attention to the fact that the lady being portrayed is “plain” and has a darker than fair complexion. Mullen writes that the lady’s “racks are institutional beige” and describes her hair as having the characteristic color of dishwater (Mullen). Much like Shakespeare’s concluding couplet, although differing in form, Mullen ends her experimental piece with the statement that her “scrumptious Twinkie has as much sex appeal… as any lanky model or platinum movie idol who’s hyped beyond belief” (Mullen). The poets here share the view that despite whatever the western standard of beauty is thought to be, their women are beautiful in their eyes.
Implications for the readers of both of these poems are essentially the same. Readers in the sixteenth century, as well as readers today, take away the same basic idea from the poems. Stereotypical western beauty is not the only look that is “beautiful.” These two poems are in sync with their main idea, or moral if you will.
Harryette Mullen’s poem “Dim Lady,” a work in her collection Sleeping with the Dictionary, cleverly mimics William Shakespeare’s sonnet #130, also titled “my mistress’ eyes are nothing like the sun.” Mullen’s use of form, poetic structure, style, rhyme scheme and subject matter share many comparisons, as well as possess many differences, to Shakespeare’s original work. Mullen’s modern take on a Shakespearean classic allows readers to understand the stereotype of what is considered “beautiful” today, while also seeing the way in which this disgusting form of judgmental and demeaning behavior by humans has not changed in the past three centuries. This longstanding stereotype has developed a modern feel and context which is ultimately presented through Mullen’s experimental poetry.
Works Cited
Mullen, Harryette. “Dim Lady.” Sleeping with the Dictionary. Los Angeles: University of California, 2002. 20. Print.
“Dun, n.1”. OED Online. September 2013. Oxford University Press. 10 November 2013 <http://www.oed.com.ezproxy.lib.utexas.edu/view/Entry/58436>.
Shakespeare, William. “My Mistress’ Eyes Are Nothing like the Sun (Sonnet 130).”POETS.org. Academy of American Poets, 1997. Web. 10 Nov. 2013. <http://www.poets.org/viewmedia.php/prmMID/15557>.
I like Spanish. I like poetry. Here’s a nice Spanish poem
ORACIÓN POR MARILYN MONROE
Señor
recibe a esta muchacha conocida en toda la tierra con el nombre de
………Marilyn Monroe
aunque ése no era su verdadero nombre
(pero Tú conoces su verdadero nombre, el de la huerfanita violada a
………los 9 años
y la empleadita de tienda que a los 16 se había querido matar)
y ahora se presenta ante Ti sin ningún maquillaje
sin su Agente de Prensa
sin fotógrafos y sin firmar autógrafos
sola como un astronauta frente a la noche espacial.
Ella soñó cuando niña que estaba desnuda en una iglesia
………………(según cuenta el Time)
ante una multitud postrada, con las cabezas en el suelo
y tenía que caminar en puntillas para no pisar las cabezas.
Tú conoces nuestros sueños mejor que los psiquiatras.
Iglesia, casa, cueva, son la seguridad del seno materno
pero también más que eso…
Las cabezas son los admiradores, es claro
(la masa de cabezas en la oscuridad bajo el chorro de luz)
Pero el templo no son los estudios de la 20 th Century-Fox.
El templo –de mármol y oro- es el templo de su cuerpo
en el que está el Hijo del Hombre con un látigo en la mano
expulsando a los mercaderes de la 20 th Century-Fox
que hicieron de Tu casa de oración una cueva de ladrones.
Señor
en este mundo contaminado de pecados y radioactividad
Tú no culparás tan sólo a una empleadita de tienda.
Que como toda empleadita de tienda soñó ser estrella de cine.
Y su sueño fue realidad (pero como la realidad del tecnicolor).
Ella no hizo sino actuar según el script que le dimos
-El de nuestras propias vidas- Y era un script absurdo.
Perdónala Señor y perdónanos a nosotros
por nuestra 20 th Century
Por esta Colosal Super-Producción en que todos hemos trabajado.
Ella tenía hambre de amor y le ofrecimos tranquilizantes
para la tristeza de no ser santos
…………………………………………se le recomendó el Psicoanálisis.
Recuerda Señor su creciente pavor a la cámara
y el odio al maquillaje –insistiendo en maquillarse en cada escena-
y cómo se fue haciendo mayor el horror
y mayor la impuntualidad a los estudios.
Como toda empleada de tienda
soñó ser estrella de cine.
Y su vida fue irreal como un sueño que un psiquiatra interpreta y archiva.
Sus romances fueron un beso con los ojos cerrados
que cuando se abren los ojos
se descubre que fue bajo reflectores
………………………………………………y apagan los reflectores!
y desmontan las dos paredes del aposento (era un set cinematográfico)
mientras el Director se aleja con su libreta
…………………………..porque la escena ya fue tomada.
O como un viaje en yate, un beso en Singapur, un baile en Río
la recepción en la mansión del Duque y la Duquesa de Windsor
…………………..vistos en la salita del apartamento miserable.
La película terminó sin el beso final.
La hallaron muerta en su cama con la mano en el teléfono.
Y los detectives no supieron a quién iba a llamar.
Fue
como alguien que ha marcado el número de la única voz amiga
y oye tan sólo la voz de un disco que le dice: WRONG NUMBER
O como alguien que herido por los gangsters
alarga la mano a un teléfono desconectado.
Señor
quienquiera que haya sido el que ella iba a llamar
y no llamó (y tal vez no era nadie
o era Alguien cuyo número no está en el Directorio de Los Angeles
……………………………………contesta Tú el teléfono!
(De ORACIÓN POR MARILYN MONROE Y OTROS POEMAS, 1965)
UT English Lit Major 