quote:

---

Unfortunately, having accompanied my reading of the book with a video-recorded interview with the author reveals some other things about her I would rather not have known, and which paint her and her race in an extremely bad light. She tells (in the same excessive language she uses in her work) the interviewer that the Africans of today are a superficial and shallow race, without history and without culture, and explains that her work is an attempt to fabricate a history for them.

---

The video interview would seem to contradict your points, aka. . . at least insofar as we can trust that the author (Toni Morrison?) actually said the things Steel said she did.
 

---

Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
 
To bring to society a consciousness of the existence of a history for a people, there must be some stories of some individuals of those people in our collective repertoire. This does not mean any such story is ABOUT that race, anymore than Beowulf is about white people, and shows how bloodthirsty and xenophobic they are.

[ August 12, 2003, 08:14 AM: Message edited by: ak ]
 

---

Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
 
Here is the Nobel Museum Page on Toni Morrison. There are links there with biographical information as well as some of her talks. This acceptance lecture is a wonderful evocation of what she is all about. I'll let her tell it in her own way, as she's much better with words than I.

As I read her words I'm reminded that true art is always subversive. That it overturns our established ideas and conventions. You cannot serve both God and Mammon. True art to me serves God, the eternal truth that is always bigger and realer than we can hold in our minds, that ever eludes our ability to fathom Him.

[ August 12, 2003, 09:09 AM: Message edited by: ak ]
 

---

Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
 
*irratated*
Are people ever going to learn not to judge an entire group of people by the actions of a handful of people? Why do you think we still have this stupid race crap in the first place? We don't need it, it's completely unnessasary in my opinion and yet the prejudice still exists.
Probably because a person will have a bad experience with one "black" person and the judge the entire "race" by that one person's actions. How is that fair?
Now onto the book. ak makes some good points. You have no idea how horrible slavery is. Most people do not. It was a dehumanizing experience. Toni Morrison is just telling it like it was. That's why it's such a difficult book to read because of the pain, the fear, the sheer depressing nature of the subject.
Read anything with some sort of open mind and don't be so quick to say such obnoxious things.
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
Well, she's certainly more wordy, I'll say that. . .



Aka, if she said the things that Steel says she did, what does that mean to you?
 

---

Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
 
Steel,

I think you have an expectation which is unfair, but very common. You expect a black author to tell the story of what is like to be black, and when it doesn't fit with your image, which you want to be a good image, you get angry.

Toni Morrison is black, and writes about the African American experience. She is not claiming to be writing the White Reader's Guide to Black People Everyhere.
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
I think we are all jumping on Steel a little too much-- and a little too personally.

His post, as far as I can see, was not trolling or malicious. He did critisize Toni Morrison, but his is a critiscism OFTEN leveled at her, so I wouldn't say that it is without merit.

Evaluate the book, not the reader.

[ August 12, 2003, 08:51 AM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
 

---

Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
 
Scott, what I hear from what I know of Toni Morrison as well as what Steel heard her say is this: I think that African-Americans are a people without knowledge of their history and cultural heritage. Society does not carry stories of their ancestors, as it does for the rest of us. It does not give them a strong sense of who they are. Those stories were mostly lost, because of slavery and its aftermath, and are only now reemerging and again taking shape. She sees part of her role as being part of that process.

But don't listen to my poor words. Please go read that Nobel acceptance speech. It is powerful and evocative. She's a master.
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
I DID read it, AKA.

I got the impression that Morrison thinks that the only literature that should be censored is the literature that disagrees with her. . .

That said, I wish Steel could provide us with the text from the interview he saw so that we could evaluate THAT. . .

[ August 12, 2003, 08:57 AM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
 

---

Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
 
I don't know how to account for your impression. Perhaps she's a writer whose work you can't connect with? There are many such for me. But her I do love.

[ August 12, 2003, 09:00 AM: Message edited by: ak ]
 

---

Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
 
This thread has gotten me thinking about Uncle Orson's rant #11 about literary fiction and its proponents. (I've taken the liberty of assigning your rant to the rantlist, Uncle Orson, and giving it a number for ease of reference.) I think I've finally hit upon what bothers me about that rant. (See, I've been pondering these things for two years, ever since your talk at the Southern Writer's Conference I went to.)

I think I agree that insofar as academic type people dismiss Science Fiction as a genre, they are being very stupid. SF and Fantasy are the most vibrant living forms of our literature today. They express who we are better than any other genres. This fact will be recognized in the far future, (if we have a far future ... see thread about rebuilding in Iraq), when SF and Fantasy are seen as the defining literature of the 20th c.

BUT. Here's the but. This is the part that bothers me. Uncle Orson, you seem to in the same breath DENY the validity of the point of view of true lovers of literary fiction. People like me who really don't like Stephen King, though they can see that he has a certain appeal. He leaves them empty. Who enjoyed Gone with the Wind immensely but don't see it as being really anything like as good or important a book as a lot of stuff by Faulkner or Steinbeck or most everyone else on that list of Nobel Laureates. Who honestly feel that the Nobel committee usually makes good choices. You seem to paint us all as poseurs, Uncle Orson, and if you do feel that way, I think you are being as blind as those who dismiss F & SF.

That is my counter-rant. I will number it -11 in honor of yours. Thank you for listening.

[ August 12, 2003, 09:30 AM: Message edited by: ak ]
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
From Morrison's essay:

quote:

---

Oppressive language does more than represent violence; it is violence; does more than represent the limits of knowledge; it limits knowledge. Whether it is obscuring state language or the faux-language of mindless media; whether it is the proud but calcified language of the academy or the commodity driven language of science; whether it is the malign language of law-without-ethics, or language designed for the estrangement of minorities, hiding its racist plunder in its literary cheek - it must be rejected, altered and exposed. It is the language that drinks blood, laps vulnerabilities, tucks its fascist boots under crinolines of respectability and patriotism as it moves relentlessly toward the bottom line and the bottomed-out mind. Sexist language, racist language, theistic language - all are typical of the policing languages of mastery, and cannot, do not permit new knowledge or encourage the mutual exchange of ideas.

---

quote:

---

Perhaps she's a writer whose work you can't connect with?

---

Hallmark of the intellectual elitist.

[ August 12, 2003, 09:35 AM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
 

---

Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
 
She says it must be rejected, altered, and exposed. I think she means that what she does is try to do that. Not suppressed. Nothing in anything she said makes me think she wants to censor or suppress anyone's use of language.

And this:

"There are many such for me."

Elitist, indeed. Again, I can't account for your impression.

[ August 12, 2003, 09:44 AM: Message edited by: ak ]
 

---

Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
 
When revelation bids us write journals for our descendants, I believe it serves this same purpose. To bind the generations together. I feel that is what Toni Morrison means. To give people a sense of who they are from knowing the stories of their forebears. Think how powerful a legacy this is for the LDS, and how much poorer we would be without it.

<goes off to write in her journal, to her descendants in whom she would love to be able to believe>

[ August 12, 2003, 09:56 AM: Message edited by: ak ]
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
Isn't what Morrison says basically comparable to what fanatic Christians say about Harry Potter? That it should be utterly rejected, seen for the subversive, wrong-headed, deadening literature it really is?

Why laud HER sensibilities and decry theirs? Because she couches her censorship in good turns of phrase?
 

---

Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
 
"She tells (in the same excessive language she uses in her work) the interviewer that the Africans of today are a superficial and shallow race,"

I have not read the book, but is she talking about Africans, as in, live in Africa, or African Americans? There is a "wee" bit of a difference.

Many American slaves were whipped or killed if they spoke in their own languages, learned to read or write, but they kept right on doing it. they developed codes of language, as you can hear in Zydeco music.

I'll tell you what. I want not to be a racist. It is my ultimate goal. So much is ingrained in me that I want to be weeded out. The only way I can weed it out is by self reflection, and by people calling me on my crap. The most crap-filled thing I can say is that I am not a racist.

I recently read "Onion John" by Gary Paulsen. I read "Life is So Good," by George Dawson. I keep going, I keep trying to evolve, and the only way I can do that is by learning.

Sorry to be so intense about all this.
 

---

Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
 
First: I disagree with Toni Morrison on many points when it comes to issue of literature, language, race and culture.

Second, I don't like most of her narrative works.

Third, I don't like the simplistic way that _Beloved_ is used in many classroom settings i.e. as a way to encourage white guilt.

Fourth, just because a writer wins the Nobel Prize, doesn't mean her work is worth reading.

Fifth, while I have a much higher tolerance for wordiness than most readers, I don't believe in it just for the sake of sounding intellectual. I don't feel, for instance, that everybody should read Joyce's _Ulysses_.

However...

_Beloved_ is a master work. All Americans would do well to read it, to think about it, to set aside whatever readerly prejudices they have, and chew on it a bit. There are very few works I say this about. Shakespeare. Don Quixote. Camus' _The Plague_. Fitzgerald's _The Great Gatsby_. Most of Kafka. _Huckleberry Finn_. Bulgakov's _The Master and Margarita_. Chaucer. But this is one of them. It irritates me to say so because there's content in _Beloved_ that I don't like and especially because I haven't been impressed with Morrison outside of the context of this one novel. But there it is.

--Rant Warning--

Yes, this is the type of book that academics get all elitist about, but sometimes you got to cut through all that and try to engage with the narrative -- even if it's not the type of thing you'd normally read. There's nothing elitist, imo, about learning to read works that are foreign to your own tendencies. All genres require certain reading demands of their audience. Just like I think "intellectuals" should get over themselves and learn to read science fiction, so too should readers of genre fiction at least try some of the great "literary" works. And everybody should get over themselves and try to read stuff written prior to the 20th century. I was amazed to find so many English majors who only read pre-20th century literature when they were forced to take a class that wasn't modern lit.

Literature is one of the primary ways how we engage with our history and humanity. It's not the only way -- and I think litterateurs would do well to read more history and science and philosophy and theology -- but world narratives are incredibly important to our understanding of each other and of life and society and history and in helping us engage with others who aren't like us.
 

---

Posted by Jenny Gardener (Member # 903) on :
 
Oh heck. I read this book as a GHOST STORY for crying out loud. I had no idea it was great literary fiction. I loved it. It was very disturbing, but I understood why the mother murdered her daughter. And I also understood why the baby came back dark and seeking to suck the life out of her family. It was cool. I didn't read it as "the African-American experience" or any such thing. It was just a great ghost story, with interesting characters.
 

---

Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
 
Yes.

I think that's one of the major reasons why the novel works so well. Morrison's other novels are too soap-operatic. Plus they lack the lyrical prose of _Beloved_ (which helps create the atmospherics of the ghost story).
 

---

Posted by Deirdre (Member # 4200) on :
 
I had to post this scene. Big points for whoever can identify it.

quote:

---

“I just went to work and kept quiet about it. I guess I kept hoping it would go away. But then, it was like I had a viral infection that would flare up at the worst possible moment, and I started saying these…things.”

“What sort of things?”

“Well, this once I was at the faculty Christmas party and I got drunk, and I told this English professor how much I hate Toni Morrison.”

“You hate Toni Morrison?”

“Yes.”

“Why?”

“Her books suck.”

“That is so stupid.”

“They do, though. Beloved sucks. Stylistically it’s a mess. It’s like a sloppy first draft. Third person, first person. Realism, magical realism. What the f***?”

“You’re imposing traditional standards for a narrative structure on it that don’t allow—“

“Yeah, yeah, Eurocentric, patriarchal standards, and she’s resisting and I’m saying rewrite. I know why I’m supposed to like her, but I don’t. And I don’t think that hating Toni Morrison makes you racist. I just know that other people think it makes you racist.”

(Beat.)

“What’s your point exactly?”

“My point is that I didn’t need to tell that professor that I don’t like Toni Morrison, but I needed to tell him something. What I really wanted to do was unburden myself completely. To get it out of my system somehow.”

(Beat.[…])

“So you still feel this way?”

“Yes. It’s just maybe not as bad, because there are hardly any black people here.”

---

[ August 12, 2003, 08:31 PM: Message edited by: Deirdre ]
 

---

Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 
I have not read any Toni Morrison yet, although I have enjoyed works by many other African American women. One in particular who seems to not get mentioned enough is Gloria Naylor, whom I think is absolutely fantastic.

While I generally agree with those who believe that freedom of speech has been encroached upon in the last fifteen years or so by political correctness, this is not a case in point. As AK notes, she is not advocating suppression of oppresive language, but the rejection of it. Not only is there nothing wrong with this, she is actually very right. Sometimes the pendulum swings back and we get so gung-ho about protecting speech that we think we have to treat all speech as though it has equal merits. I think Morrison is calling on alleged moderates who nevertheless propagate stereotypes and use hateful language to see the error of their actions and stop, and I think she is calling on us to tell people it's not ok when they say hateful things.

Free speech just means the government can't stop me from saying disgusting things. It doesn't mean that if you hear me saying them you should stay silent, or even applaud me. You are not curbing my freedom of speech when you exercise your own and tell me something I have said is disgusting.

I think that is a valuable and necessary message. The difference between this and the Potter bashers is that they seek to censor what people read through official means. If you think Potter books are hateful and immoral, you have the right to think that and to express that, and to try to win people to your belief. And you have the right to discourage reading of the books. When you remove them from my kids' library, you have gone too far.
 

---

Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 
♫ "This is where the party ends,
I can't stand here listening to you,
and your racist friend . . . " ♫


 

---

Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
 
Okay, Icarus, how on earth did you get those musical note images? That's so cool!

I read Beloved so long ago that I really don't remember anything about it now, except that I enjoyed it and took it much as Jenny did.

Having read Zal's incredibly well spoken post about the books importance, to him, in the scope of western literature, I'm definitely going to be rereading it. Really Zal, that was just a fantastic post.
 

---

Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
 
Thanks to Icarus, I now have to stay up for another hour listening to Flood.
 

---

Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 


Just use character map!


 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 

quote:

---

Sexist language, racist language, theistic language - all are typical of the policing languages of mastery, and cannot, do not permit new knowledge or encourage the mutual exchange of ideas.

---

Who decides? I guess that is my problem with Morrison's essay. If I write a book about a white preacher who overcomes his sexual deviancy to lead hundreds of inner-city Latinos to Christ, do I get to be labeled a hate-mongering, homophobic, misogynistic Murderer of Souls?

Man, I hope so. I already eat babies, so Murderer of Souls is a step up. . .
 

---

Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
 
Wait. Is that a real book? Because if it is, I want to read it.

If not, you better get started on it Scott.
 

---

Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
 
Scott, I guess each person decides for himself or herself. It seems to me that you think of her as trying to censor or suppress when she's really in favor of the opposite of that.
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
But ak, SHE'S NOT.

She says so.

The words "rejected, altered and exposed" are not concilliatory terms. She SAYS she wants openmindedness-- but only when it applies to her and her ideals. She even lays down the type of literature she wants to censor-- "Sexist language, racist language, theistic language."

:shrug:

I wish I knew what she meant by 'theistic.' Maybe aka's right-- I just don't "connect" with Morrison enough to be able to understand her.


 

---

Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
 
And this is where, although I think that I get what she's saying, I part ways with Morrison. Language does limit what can be said and thought, imo. But the solution isn't to seek to limit the disourses you disagree with through some censorship of the medium or outlawing of certain terms. We've seen how well that works via the culture wars of the 80's and early 90's.

The solution, imo, is

1) To create your own creative, generative discourse -- yes it will have its own limits and blind spots, but that's inescapable. And even though that discourse may be geared towards a certain audience, hopefully it ties into the traditions/genres of world literature enough that other readers can find entry points and immerse themselves in your discourse without too much discomfort (although a little discomfort ain't bad). Toni Morrison does that in _Beloved_, but I'm not convinced that she's quite as successful at that in her other works.

This is exactly why I am trying to support the Mormon literary community -- too often the discourses that are out there about Mormons contain a very limited view of LDS theology and the Mormon experience. Official LDS Church discourse has its own limitations (and most of the time for good reason, imo). Other than the speculative fiction writers (most notably our host), most of the writers that have been successful in taking the Mormon experience to a broader audience have bought too much into, imo, (or borrowed from) modern literary discourse (I'm thinking of Walter Kirn, Brian Evenson, Brady Udall). Thus, I'm looking for writers who can create sophisticated, robust narratives of Mormonism that aren't didactic and that don't minimize the realities of Mormon life, but still treat the faith as a living, operative force. There aren't many so far.

2) To somehow encourage readers to dialogue with those foreign discourses that are worth checking out. I don't mean cram it down their throats. That's too often what happens in our schools and universities. But instead to develop readers who can glean some good from a particular discourse while at the same time acknowledging its faults (instead of all this stereotyping, blanket-statementing garbage we see). Basically I'm talking about a comparative approach. One that's done with civility, meaning readers feel they can read a certain work without having to swallow and digest the thing wholesale.

EDIT: didactic not didactit. And stop titterrin.... I mean laughing [insert male hatrack handle here]. It was a typo.

[ August 13, 2003, 04:16 PM: Message edited by: Zalmoxis ]
 

---

Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
 
Believe it or not, Zalmoxis, you guys are lucky. At least you do have a few good writers like Card.

To the best of my knowledge, fiction in the churches of Christ is limited to a few writers of devotional and children's stories. This is particularly sad when one considers that "the Disciples don't have bishops--they have editors"; in other words, "official" discourse arises from those who control the flow of information.
 

---

Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
 
That's an incredibly clearly worded and convincing post, Zal, I'd save it, and use bits and pieces later in your editor's column of your literary magazine, which will have a larger base than the Ensign if you corral the right bunch of writers. In the LDS faith, you have more juice to work than the Catholic Church, and we know how many Catholic-themed tales abound, and not only that, I LOVE reading them. It's got this fascinating charasmatic energy. Even better, the LDS church is uniquely American so the culturalisms and values will be salient to non-members in an eerily familiar way.

You need to find a group of writers with lively prose, strong faith/knowledge, and a willingness take chances and be deemed heretic by their peers. Good luck.

[ August 13, 2003, 08:57 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
 

---

Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 
*sigh*

Evidently nobody read my post . . .

As far as I can see, Morrison is not calling for censorship or suppression; she is calling for people to reject hateful speech. That is not the same as censorship.
 

---

Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
I read it. I agreed with it. I breathed a sigh of relief because I was trying to figure out how to say exactly what you said, and you said it better than I would have.

ATTENTION WORLD: I agree with Icarus!

(Not that there's anything new in that.)
 

---

Posted by Deirdre (Member # 4200) on :
 
Yes. I also agree with Icarus. And Zal. But I'm tired of talking about how I agree with Icarus and Zal.

Also, I’m lazy, and can’t find my copy of Morrison’s Playing in the Dark ANYWHERE , so I’m lifting a couple paragraphs from one of my term papers.

quote:

---

Morrison emphasizes the importance of recognizing and examining racial differences, asserting that “criticism that needs to insist that literature is not only ‘universal’ but also ‘race-free’ risks lobotomizing that literature” (12). By arguing that literature that reveals racialist and even racist views should not only be read but also frankly discussed, Morrison takes the opposite view of black scholars like Chinua Achebe, who argues that the offensive racial subtext of Conrad’s Heart of Darkness disqualify it as a work of great literature, or the numerous critics in favor of banning The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. Her position also provokes the outrage of detractors like Heather Mac Donald, who accuses her of “working busily to dismantle the ideal of color-blindness and to erect in its place an insistent awareness of race…as the most important feature of ourselves” (10).

Yet Morrison argues that such awareness is essential because “in a wholly racialized society, there is no escape from racially inflected language” (12-13). She refuses to propose solutions for correcting dehumanizing racial constructs or to pass political or aesthetic judgment on the authors she discusses, asserting that “an author is not personally accountable for the acts of his fictive creatures” (86). Such exoneration seems disingenuous, if not ironic, given her scathing analysis of the racial attitudes she encounters, but she maintains her ostensible position of scholarly detachment by insisting that her “deliberations are not about a particular author’s attitudes toward race” (90). Instead, she merely seeks “to avert the critical gaze from the racial object to the racial subject” (90), allowing her readers to examine the “fish bowel,” the transparent structure or social constructs through which we view race (17).

---

[ August 13, 2003, 11:35 PM: Message edited by: Deirdre ]
 

---

Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 
OK, sorry . . . I'm just in a whiny mood lately.



[/whine]
 

---

Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
 
I HATED Beloved.

Its the only thing I ever read by morrison, including any of her essay's, speeches, whatever, linked to on this thread.

I couldn't read it. I'm sorry. I had to, for AP english... and it sucked. It was one of only two books I didn't finish for my high school reading. That, and Jane Eyre, which was the boringest peice of crap ever put to paper.

Beloved wasn't boring. It just did not connect to me on any level. That includes literary merit. I didn't find anything interesting in the narrative. Nothing to draw me in. No where.
 

---

Posted by Deirdre (Member # 4200) on :
 
Jane Eyre, too, eh?

Paul, I'm afraid I'm going to have to regard all your posts with suspicion from now on.
 

---

Posted by Tristan (Member # 1670) on :
 
Hmmm, I love Jane Eyre. Perhaps I should pick up Beloved too.
 

---

Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
 
Icarus, I think people are having trouble understanding what is meant by "rejection" if not "suppression". I assume someone who "rejects" certain literature does not write it, prefers not to read it when avoidable, and speaks against it in the sense of explaining what's wrong with it. Is this what you mean?
 

---

Posted by Ralphie (Member # 1565) on :
 
Not only that, Deidre, but he's a communist. Think what your dad would say!
 

---

Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
 
On the other hand... wait, no, there is no other hand. My favorite book from high school english was "Grendel," followed closely by "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are dead," and my favorite book from college was "We" by Zamiaytin.
 

---

Posted by Ralphie (Member # 1565) on :
 
Okay, now you're back in Deirdre's good books.

But ask about her dad and communism someday. It's a very funny tale.
 

---

Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
 
Those sorts of funny tales chill my blood
 

---

Posted by Ralphie (Member # 1565) on :
 
It's really nothing specific. Just an endless railing of the communist mentality and the indoctrinization of the importance of hording gold for when the economy collapses.

"But, Dad, what are you going to do with all that gold when the economy collapses and you have nothing to eat?"

"At least I'll have the most of it."


 

---

Posted by Deirdre (Member # 4200) on :
 
No, no, no. It went:

"Dad, what's the point of hording all this gold if we're going to have to throw it in the streets."

"I just want to have more to throw in the streets than anyone else."

But actually I was more concerned about the rabble. Dad made it pretty clear that once the revolution came, roving mobs would be after anyone with food or money. And if the mobs didn't get us then, the communists would later. So I figured I might as well spend all my money on movies and CDs and haircare products, just so I wouldn't be a target.
 

---

Posted by Ralphie (Member # 1565) on :
 
::dies laughing::

I love you and your dad's dynamic, KT. It KILLS me.
 

---

Posted by Deirdre (Member # 4200) on :
 

quote:

---

...my favorite book from college was "We" by Zamiaytin.

---

A communist who likes Zamyatin? I don't buy it. You must one of those anarchists in commie clothing.
 

---

Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
 
Anarchy is simply a form of communism

That said, most of the famous distopia's (1984, for example) were written by socialists. Zamiatyn was one of them. He wrote about a totalitarian distopia... in my opinion, recognizing that the greatest enemy of a utopia is a dictatorial or totalitarian take-over of the utopia, thereby corrupting completely the ideals of the utopia.
 

---

Posted by Deirdre (Member # 4200) on :
 
I'm glad my childhood anguish brings you joy, Tone. But I'll have you know I spent many a sleepless night wondering if it would be wise to get my hair permed. I was so afraid that if I did, and the economy collapsed, I wouldn't be able to reperm it. And I really hated grow out.
 

---

Posted by Deirdre (Member # 4200) on :
 
I'm still not convinced. You use far too many smilies to be a true communist.
 

---

Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
 
Thats my disguise so I don't get killed!
 

---

Posted by Deirdre (Member # 4200) on :
 
Ah, well, fair enough. Your secret's safe with me, as long as you promise me that, come the revolution, I get 15 acres, a pair of oxen, and a duck pond.

A POND, mind you. If you so much as CONSIDER relocating me to some smelly marshland, I'll have the CIA on you like that. *finger snap*

Deal?

[ August 14, 2003, 02:26 PM: Message edited by: Deirdre ]
 

---

Posted by Deirdre (Member # 4200) on :
 
But back to Toni Morrison…

After scanning her Nobel speech, I think it’s important that it’s “oppressive language,” not literature, that she says “must be rejected, altered, and exposed.” She seems to be talking about the language itself—our system of communication—not any one person’s choice of words. Honestly, though, it’s hard to tell what Morrison really wants here. She’s the sort of writer who goes for flare more than precision, and sometimes that makes her hard to pin down.

In the essays I read earlier, she protests (maybe too much) that she has no desire to legislate tolerance. She says it wouldn’t work; it would only kill the discussion and drive racism underground. As I see it, that kind of repressed racism is what Beloved is all about, with the ghost’s arrival representing a return of the repressed. (The play I quoted earlier, Spinning into Butter by Rebecca Gilman, deals with the same thing, only as it affects white academics instead of poor ex-slaves.)

But on the other hand, she clearly has a political agenda, even if only in the sense that the personal is political, and I’m not sure that her way of dealing with racism—-essentially rubbing our noses in it instead of pushing it under the couch—-is any better than the sort of PC censorship she attacks.
 

---

Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 
Yes, Maccabeus, that seems to sum it up well. I think censorship is the attempt to legislate distasteful speech into oblivion, but convincing people to stop listening of their own volition is not censorship.
 

---

Posted by Deirdre (Member # 4200) on :
 
Ooowwh! Why aren't you paying any attention to MY POSTS!

( )
 

---

Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 
I'm sorry, did you say something?


 

---

Posted by Mrs.M (Member # 2943) on :
 

quote:

---

One in particular who seems to not get mentioned enough is Gloria Naylor, whom I think is absolutely fantastic.

---