Toni Morrison Has Died
wsj.com
wsj.com
Turned out to be one of the best classes I had during those years. It was a very small group (I feel like only ten people or something) and there was a lot of really excellent discussion about the books. Jazz stood out to me as one of her best works, the focus shift in narrators throughout the novel was, I think, my first real exposure to the "unreliable narrator" concept and it made the story so powerful.
Another book that had a similar effect on me was Yukio Mishima's "Confessions of a Mask" about a boy growing up gay in 1930–50s Japan. I don't know that he ever actually says he's gay and you get this feeling that he doesn't even have the language to describe himself, let alone any kind of framework or support network. It was described to me by the friend who recommended it as "devastatingly sad" and I agree. He was absolutely, completely, and utterly fucked from the moment he was born and there's nothing he could do about it. The book threw me off for weeks. I highly recommend it.
"Look. Look where your hands are. Now."
Minor spoiler: in the bluest eye a young black girl obsesses over a white female doll with blue eyes. Before I read it, I never considered the impact that the idealization of white beauty could have on minorities. After reading that book, I realized how important it was for children to be able to look up to role models (fictional or otherwise) that look like them.
In my own life, I have had my own share of fantasy role models (I am a huge Tolkien fan, and when I was younger I loved all things fantasy) that shaped my own identity, and after reading The Bluest Eye I had to consider the idea: how would those books have affected me if all characters looked nothing like me? I do not think the effect would have been positive.
A good parallel might be the love many Westerners have for anime.
There's a great profile of the editor Robert Gottlieb who worked with her, including a few wonderful quotes from Toni Morrison revealing how she worked (search the page for "Morrison"; there are about 10 quotes), from 1994: https://web.archive.org/web/20161227170954/http://www.thepar... — the whole thing is a great read even if you don't care about Toni Morrison (every lover of reading is likely to enjoy it), but if you do, it may just be a few snippets that you might have otherwise missed as it's not “about” Toni Morrison.
> [Morrison] Writing my first two books, The Bluest Eye and Sula, I had the anxiety of a new writer who needs to make sure every sentence is exactly the right one. Sometimes that produces a kind of precious, jeweled quality—a tightness, which I particularly wanted in Sula. Then after I finished Sula and was working on the third book, Song of Solomon, Bob said to me, You can loosen, open up. Your writing doesn’t have to be so contained; it can be wider. I’m not sure these were his exact words, but I know that the consequence of the remarks was that I did relax and begin to open up to possibilities. It was because I was able to open up to those possibilities that I began to think things like, What would happen if indeed I followed this strange notion or image or picture I had in my mind of this woman who had no navel . . . whereas normally I would have dismissed such an idea as recklessness. It was as if he had said, Be reckless in your imagination.
> [Gottlieb] I remember the discussion with Toni as she was beginning Song of Solomon, because although we always did some marginal cosmetic work on her manuscripts, obviously a writer of her powers and discrimination doesn’t need a lot of help with her prose. I think I served Toni best by encouraging her—helping to free her to be herself. The only other real help I gave to her was noneditorial: I encouraged her to stop editing and to write full-time, something I knew she wanted to do. As I remember it, I reassured her about her finances—but what I was really saying was, You’re not an editor who does some writing, you’re a writer—acknowledge it; there’s nothing to be scared of. We always understood each other—two editors, two lovers of reading, and exactly the same age.
[…]
> [Morrison] Writing for me is just a very sustained process of reading. The only difference is that writing a book might take three or four years, and I’m doing it. I never wrote a line until after I became an editor, and only then because I wanted to read something that I couldn’t find. That was the first book I wrote.
“How soon country people forget. When they fall in love with a city it is forever, and it is like forever. As though there never was a time when they didn’t love it. The minute they arrive at the train station or get off the ferry and glimpse the wide streets and the wasteful lamps lighting them, they know they are born for it. There, in a city, they are not so much new as themselves: their stronger, riskier selves.”
Morrison is a giant among writers, and the world is poorer for her passing.
The NYTimes obituary titled "Toni Morrison, Towering Novelist of the Black Experience, Dies at 88" is unavoidably narrow. Toni Morrison's novels contain universes. [0]
[0] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/06/books/toni-morrison-dead....
It was the most humbling thing I remember reading. Moving, despite no personal context for the characters' experiences. Written beautifully without feeling over written.
It made me realize how far I was, and probably would ever be, from proper writing talent.
One thing I could however never understand was how a person with such deep insights into the African American experience could call Bill Clinton, 'the first Black President'. I thought at first maybe there was something I didn't understand. But as years passed, I've been increasingly feeling that perhaps that wasn't the case.
In her original comment it is more limited even than that - it refers to hearing other people "murmuring" of Clinton as "the first Black president" in the context of his impeachment, rather than giving some sort of unqualified endorsement of the idea herself; but people do love an inflammatory sound byte.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1998/10/05/comment-6543
tldr: It's complicated. But to over-simplify: the Clintons had black friends, seemed to genuinely believe that black people were just as qualified for prestigious/important jobs as anyone else, and Bill Clinton had both a personal background and expressed himself in ways that resonated with many black Americans.
None of that had ever been even a little bit true of an American President before. And it was a big deal.
All of that is easy to forget, now, after we elected an actual black person President. But man, the 1990s were a different time. Lots of things are bad (really, really bad) now. But lots of things have changed in the last 25 years, too.
It doesn't even say she considers Clinton the first black president. Just that someone unspecified have been saying that.
That doesn't mean he wasn't a flawed president, just they he was their president in a way that hadn't been experienced before.
Great book. Highly recommended. I'm afraid to read any more of her books, but I probably should.
It contrasts with The Awakening, also required reading. It's like the other side of The Bluest Eye. What did Edna Pontellier's awakening cost the black servants who enabled it?
Years later I read Beloved and I was able to appreciate it much more. I should really read more of her work.
Unrelated, but it's kind of scary how many comments have, if not an undertone, just straight up racism.
From everything I have read she was a wonderful person aside from her writing. Thoughtful and careful, influential without being loud.
I think the world will miss her, and we will always have her words.
Phone your mum, tell her you love her. My mom was inspired by Toni Morrison.
Do real world PoC even ever obsess over white female dolls with blue eyes? It was just a work of fiction, after all. Do white girls obsess over black dolls? We have a black doll, that my white wife grew up with. I don't think it disturbed her in any way.
You don't know what you don't know. Now you know there are things outside your knowledge and experience. Take this as an opportunity to look deeper.
Personally, I do enjoy finally seeing more queer characters on TV and in movies who aren't stereotypes and who aren't killed off to make cisgender and heterosexual people cry. I know a lot of people of color who are ecstatic over improving representation in the same way.
> Do real world PoC even ever obsess over white female dolls with blue eyes?
Apparently, yes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_and_Mamie_Clark#Doll_e...
Are there many non-white authors writing books with white heroes/heroines? Maybe they should just write more books about people who "look like them"?
A lot of popular children books actually have female heroines, like Pippa Longstocking, Astrid Lindgren being one of the most popular authors of children's books. I never had a problem enjoying them, strange enough. It never occurred to me as a kid that I shouldn't be allowed to enjoy reading those books, because the protagonists have the wrong gender. Good thing today's children have better education on such issues - god forbid they could enjoy a book of the wrong identification!!!
What about Lord of the Rings, should PoC be able to enjoy that book? Should it be considered a hate crime to recommend the book to a PoC? Should the government give out a grant for someone to write an alternative to Lotr with PoC heroines?
Female Superheroes exist, but it is also only one rather silly genre (and only two publishers). Plus, there are other reasons why action heroes tend to be male: because men are expendable and therefore supposed to do the dangerous work, as in real life. Superheroes are a lie, anyway, but to tell women they could simply be action heroes would be an even greater lie.
As for the experiment: "These findings exposed internalized racism in African-American children, self-hatred that was more acute among children attending segregated schools" - that is clearly an unwarranted interpretation of the result, fueled by ideology. And wanting to play with white dolls is not "obsessing" over white dolls.
I can't speak to every single case, but Harry Potter is a British franchise by origin. England is over 92% white. It does stand to reason that a fantasy novel set in England would feature mostly white characters.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_the_United_Kingd...
Edit: actually, since you did this twice in as many days, I've banned your account. If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll use HN as intended in the future.
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20626161.
FWIW: Several of my role models - if you include people who are not alive, people I've only read about - are not white males.
I guess in my case it was more important to relate to their background and their skills (or lack of ;-) than who their parents were, and where they grew up.
Growing up I identified with many people who I know are not me. And some of the things I identify as bring me great discomfort.
But you didn't and don't lack for options.
I'm a straight white man from America. No matter what personal, family, and economic difficulties I've faced:
- I have literal decades of seeing other white men in a variety of roles. I can pick and choose from the stereotypes I want to put in high regard, emulate, or dismiss, not 3 or 4.
- growing up, there was no blanket treatment of me or people others decided I was like outside of choices I made. I could adopt "redneck" habits/dress, or "frat boy", or "nerd", or "jock", but I had control over whether I was identified as a "thug", or " aggressive", or "professional".
- Because "my" culture was broadcast everywhere (TV/movies/books/magazines), I was never regarded as "weird" or "threatening" because people weren't accustomed to anything I'd do or say or how I'd dress.
As a kid, I was freaked out by the first black person I met, because his palms were a lighter color than the rest of his skin. That's a stupid thing to be freaked out by, but it was _different_ to me because I didn't see it anywhere. It wasn't "normal" My skin color, in return, was very "normal" looking to him, because fish-belly-pale is hardly a skin color that is hard to see in any community - just turn on the TV. Growing up in a more diverse area I would have seen more and wouldn't have had that reaction - but turn on the TV and it was still monochromatic.
As a kid I regularly teased a girl in my grade (a friend!) for her hairstyle, because it wasn't "normal". Of course, it was quite normal - if you have those genes, or see anyone that does. Again, put me in a more diverse world and I'd have seen it...but what did she see on TV? in movies? on magazine covers?
And there were "black" TV shows, and "black" magazines...but everything else wasn't "white" - it was "normal". Which meant "not black".
I had, and have, the liberty of choice because "normal" includes me, and I can choose if I want to include it. But if "normal" was defined to exclude me, what kinds of choices would I have? I might become a "well-spoken" and "clean" black man!
Well done for falling for the propaganda that racially divides people and is frequently sold by activists to people like yourself who seem to have bought it.
People of all colours and creeds will try to garner sympathy from the other group by claiming how disadvantaged they are. The reality is that there are plenty of people from all races that have made it to the top of society.
These people constantly bring up slavery that happened during the colonial period but they never mention what is currently happening in Qatar where foreign workers building the world cup stadium are effectively slaves. This is happening today not over a hundred years in the past, if they feel so strongly about slavery why aren't they shouting from the rooftops about this?
That is why I know this is done because these actors (quite rightly I believe) think it will give them political power because they will claim they have no representation while being broadcast on the very media they claim to have no representation in.
> The reality is that there are plenty of people from all races that have made it to the top of society.
And yet the people at the "top of society" disproportionately come from a just a few of those groups. :thinking-emoji:
> ... what is currently happening in Qatar ...
Classic whataboutism. We can care about multiple things at the same time.
> while being broadcast on the very media they claim to have no representation in.
Minorities have much better access and representation in media today than they did in the past but it's still far from equal, particularly on the business side which has major influence over our media because that's where decisions are made about which projects get funded and which don't.
Absolutely everything. This myth there hasn't been representation of minorities or women completely neglecting the fact that there has been plenty going back to mid 20th century.
> Classic whataboutism. We can care about multiple things at the same time.
Not at all. Slavery in Qatar is happening today, not in the past. The past can't be changed, but we can try to improve the future.
> Minorities have much better access and representation in media today than they did in the past but it's still far from equal, particularly on the business side which has major influence over our media because that's where decisions are made about which projects get funded and which don't.
Do white people have equal representation in Thai Cinema? What about rich white people always playing the bad guys there? This is a lie that is constantly sold to constantly sow racial division and people like you trot it out over and over again. All it does is divide people and allow both Black and White racist to whip up hatred.
The effects of American slavery linger to this day. People are allowed to care about things that impact them more than things that don't, and for most descendants of American slaves the slavery that happened 150+ years ago (and the subsequent 100 years of Jim Crow) has a more direct impact on their lives than foreign labor exploitation.
> All it does is divide people and allow both Black and White racist to whip up hatred.
Can you please provide an example of black racism and explain how it has prevented white people from achieving equality with black people.
Do they? How?
> has a more direct impact on their lives than foreign labor exploitation.
Apparently slavery that happened over 100 years ago in a first world country where there is relatively good education (a friend of mine is married to a Cambodian woman and she didn't learn how to read until she was 16) is more important than the slavery that is happening all over the world today.
Re: the legacy of slavery, this USA Today article is a good starting point[1].
Additionally, it's plainly obvious that black Americans today have much less wealth than white Americans. When whites settled in the US they were often given farm land or brought capital from abroad to start businesses. Black slaves had neither. When they were freed most became trapped in sharecropping arrangements (often for generations) that left them with little wealth. White Americans also benefited much more from the social programs of the early 20th century, such as New Deal work programs or subsidized home mortgages (look up "red lining"), that helped build wealth.
Also, you did not provide an example of black racism (which you have referenced in at least two posts as being equal to white racism).
[1] https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2018/02/08/co...
Right I am no longer interested in talking to you. Pretending something is whataboutism when I am trying to bring some perspective is a nonsense.
As for your stats. I've seen stats that if Black couples get married and have a household they do just as well as White couples from a similar background (not I am not going to trawl the internet to cherry pick some proof).
>A lso, you did not provide an example of black racism (which you have referenced in at least two posts as being equal to white racism).
I never claim it was equal, I never claimed to know the proportions. TBH I am getting quite fed up of someone constantly putting words into my mouth.
Whitewashing the proud boys:
> The proud boys are a strange white power group when they have prominent black members.
Claiming UKIP aren't racist because they are 'normal' people:
> Have you actually talked to many UKIP supporters? I've spoken to UKIP when they knocked on the door and they seemed like pretty normal people.
(I'm sure they're normal, but they're also racists)
Claiming apparent race-baiting:
> As for the the actual article you linked, the author herself has nice race-bait titles of work
Comparing criticisms of historic oppression in science to Nazi Germany:
> There is also ideas of "Colonial Science" or "White Science" which reminds me of movement of removing "Jewish" Science and Mathematics in preference to "Aryan Science" before World War II.'
I might not call you a racist, but you're sure carrying a lot of water for them.
Clearly everyone has had it equally difficult and there is no grouping of peoples that get systemic mistreatment, evidence and statistics be damned.
Yes, people can have it hard. And people can have it hard out of proportion with their peers. This doesn't alter provable facts about sweeping populations.
> The reality is that there are plenty of people from all races that have made it to the top of society.
And just like your grandmother disproves any systemic problem by difficulty, any success by any individual does the same, proving that they cannot be an exception to the rule.
> while being broadcast on the very media they claim to have no representation in
I think if you dig a bit you'll find a lot of things you aren't seeing. And surely just one case will prove the whole, right?
Never claimed that.
> Yes, people can have it hard. And people can have it hard out of proportion with their peers. This doesn't alter provable facts about sweeping populations.
I didn't claim it disproved anything. I was pointing out that life wasn't fair and there was poverty that you and I can't possibly fathom and it affected everyone no matter what the colour of their skin.
> And just like your grandmother disproves any systemic problem by difficulty, any success by any individual does the same, proving that they cannot be an exception to the rule.
Never claimed that.
It is really astounding that someone can spend so much time logic chopping and fail to understand what I was actually saying.
This lie of people having to be represented by someone of their own skin in a nonsense that is sold by activists to students to make them feel bad because of the colour of their skin. The person I was replying to had bought this nonsense.
The fact is unfortunately that racists (both white and black ones) will use this to further racially divide people about what happened in the past.
Perhaps because I was interpreting it in the context of the comment you were replying to (mine).
Poverty is devastating. True...and not related at all to what I said. I didn't mention economics or finances AT ALL save to mention that my comments were true regardless of my financial background. So if your comment wasn't in relation to what I said...but it was. There's an implied connection that I gave a rebuttal to, and in the face of that rebuttal, you deny the connection. That implodes my rebuttal...but leaves your comment without contextual purpose.
> I was pointing out that life wasn't fair and there was poverty that you and I can't possibly fathom and it affected everyone no matter what the colour of their skin.
Another true statement. And also unrelated to what you were replying to, unless you were trying put in the implied connection.
> This lie of people having to be represented by someone of their own skin in a nonsense that is sold by activists to students to make them feel bad because of the colour of their skin
Citation needed - at this point you're denying misrepresentation of minorities in popular media, which is such a well-documented problem and so obviously observable that your unsupported assertions would be laughable if the issue wasn't related to tragedy. Also - I don't feel bad for the color of my skin. At all. (Except when I get a sunburn) I _do_ feel bad for supporting a system that is systemically unfair, but the solution to that is not to deny the problem, nor to assume a vast burden of guilt that you assume I (and others) have taken on. The solution is to improve the system. To modify my support.
Sorry I don't see it. All through my life (I am almost 40 years old) there has been plenty of black people on the television and in films and most of the time it has been everything from Gangstars to Action Heroes.
> I _do_ feel bad for supporting a system that is systemically unfair, but the solution to that is not to deny the problem, nor to assume a vast burden of guilt that you assume I (and others) have taken on. The solution is to improve the system. To modify my support.
It isn't systemically unfair. You keep on asserting it is.
We live in a society that only really cares about your ability to make money i.e. produce. That is capitalism.
In the UK we had a black rapper head up the largest outdoor festival in England.
"In the UK we had a black rapper head up the largest outdoor festival in England."
Again, anecdotes don't prove anything.
Also, would you please not post in the flamewar style to HN, regardless of how wrong or provocative another comment is? It only leads further into hell.
This crosses into personal attack. That's not ok here, so please don't. Also, please don't get sucked into flamewars, regardless of how annoying another comment is; they're tedious and off topic here.
As I've dealt with various issues throughout my life, I've had identity crises where I've had to deal with similar introspection due to being a male, which comes with a number of ... social benefits (I feel gross saying it). while I'm mostly white, the dark skin color that I had as a child set me apart, and I think prepared me for the introspection that I had to go through.
Was there a specific book or experience that aided you? I'm always hunting down challenges to what I perceive as natural, normal or inevitable.
But yeah, I would say she has continued to increase in popularity (popularly and in school curriculums) since the 1980s, although some high schoolers were probably reading her works in the 80s. I graduated from high school in 1983, and read Beloved in a class.