From Llyke:
Throughout the novel Morrison narrates the story with a omniscient third person point of view as if she were a storyteller telling a folk tale. As Nel finds Jude and Sula "down on all fours naked" (105), the point of view switches to first person point of view. What is the significance of the shift in point of view? Why did Morrison choose to Nel's confrontational voice to narrate that portion of the story?
Dominic Monares
ReplyDeleteI think that Morrison chose to switch the point of view from third person omniscient to first person during this moment in the novel to show the myriad of emotions that overcome Nel in this particular moment. Morrison makes this switch in point of view to let the reader get inside Nel's head and to emphasize the effect that Sula and Jude's actions had on her. Nel has a rush of mixed emotions that range from shock to denial. Nel thinks to herself "So it's all right. I am just standing here. They are not doing that" (Morrison 105). She seems to be in denial of the scene taking place in front of her and this could be a result of the shock brought on by the event, as she loved Jude and Sula was her very close friend. In addition, she thinks to herself "I just stood there seeing it and smiling, because maybe there was some explanation, something important that I did not know about that would have made it alright" (Morrison 105). Once again Nel is in denial about what is actually happening between Sula and Jude. Morrison changing the point of view to show the reader exactly what Nel was thinking during this moment also reflects on Sula's lack of morals, in addition to her evil qualities. However, Sula is not the only character that should be demonized because of this, because Jude had also chosen to become involved with Sula. Both Sula and Jude's betrayal of Nel and the effect that is has on her is emphasized in this point of view shift
Morrison chooses to switch from third person omniscient to first person because Nel’s grief can best be understood through her own eyes. Due to the betrayal of her husband and best friend, she is at lost for words and can only look on in shock as she sees them “down on all fours” (Morrison 105). Through Nel’s shock, Morrison is able to display Nel’s racing, conflicting thoughts, as well as her inability to deal with the situation. Through Nel’s eyes, Morrison infers Nel’s detachment from Sula as she disagrees with Sula’s “real hell of Hell” (Morrison 107). Morrison is also able to convey Nel’s heartbreak due to the betrayal of her husband and best friend. Leaving her with “no thighs and no heart just her brain raveling away” (Morrison 111), Nel feels incomplete. In closing, Morrison wants to express Nel’s emptiness and evoke her feeling of heartache.
ReplyDeleteWhile first person point of view is normally used in order to better readers’ knowledge of the character’s mentality, Morrison creates less understanding of Nel through the switch in Sula. When Nel sees her best friend and husband together, she goes into shock. Morrison shows this through the use of “they” for the majority of page 105, creating an ambiguous identity for the two people “down on all fours.” During the brief switch to first person point of view, all readers learn about Nel is that she is in denial and mentally distancing herself from her soon-to-be ex-husband and ex-best-friend. Readers learn much more about Nel after Morrison switches back to third person limited point of view. For example, that Nel cannot fully erase her memories of her past with Sula but can much more easily do so with Jude, that she believes “Hell is change” (108), and that she continues to live with denial rather than even imagine the idea that the affair really happened. Yet, when Nel walks in on Jude and Sula, Morrison chooses to portray that moment in first person point of view. Morrison does this in order to show Nel’s humanity, her plausible reaction that echoes Morrison’s view of “evil” – that it is something to be accepted. Nel cannot accept the evil in her life, and as such she loses her ability to feel alive instead becoming an empty shell because she could not break out of denial.
ReplyDeleteIn the current time of the reading, nothing truly interesting is happening within the Bottom. I say this because I agree with Ian’s statement that Morrison tend to write only facts about the characters and where they live, and the fact that she loves drama within her writing. Within each passage or chapter there is always something to try and stir up the emotions of the characters and the readers, the PDSD, the train ride, Sula and Nel meeting and comparing families, the deaths, etc. Taking this style of writing, the shift was most likely to add to the emotional tone for the book, giving us the facts on how it affected Nel. The reason why she chose Nel as the first person shift is because she is the one who gets the most torn up about the ordeal. Both Sula and Jude just left while she was in the bathroom, “Hunched down in the small white room…waited for the oldest cry…a deeply personal cry for one’s own pain” (108). This insight on Nel leads up to her relationship with Sula and the strain it might put on them once they see once more. Most likely we will have Sula’s opinions on the matter in a later chapter.
ReplyDeleteNemiah Guimbatan:
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree with the others about delving into Nel’s mind in order to comprehend the mood of the story. Also, the shift in POV helps emphasize the distance between Sula and Nel’s husband and Sula because as someone stated before, Sula uses “they”. I felt like the shift in POV gives the reader freedom to infer about events in the book, which lacks throughout the book, as Ian stated before. Instead of Morrison just stating facts and letting readers follow her train of thought, the shift to 1st person gives the reader a decision whether or not to trust Nel. Nel seems emotionally unstable since she tries to convince herself “maybe there was some explanation, something important that I did not know about that would have made it all right” (105). The 1st person POV helps us get an insight on the character of Sula. The 3rd person POV makes Sula seem like she is pure evil, but since Nel was her best friend, reading the story through her eyes raises questions on whether that questions Sula’s purpose for her actions. What I noticed also was that Morrison chose to change perspective instead of just using dialogue to express Nel’s feelings(104-105). My theory is that she was so in shock or in denial that only thought surfaced instead of words. When unpredictable, radical events occur, people are usually speechless and can’t put their feelings into words.
Evan Jones
ReplyDeleteI agree with Natalie, while usually a first person point of view is to give insight into a characters life, Morrison's use of it here has somewhat of an opposite effect. While it is obvious from Morrison's shortened syntax that Nel is in shock, she remains in denial about the events that unfolded in front of her, stating that "maybe there was some explanation, something important that I did not know about that would have made it alright" (Morrison 105). Instead of her expected explanation, Nel is treated with a shameful "I'll be back for my things" (Morrison 106). Overall, the shift in point of view is to convey the idea that Nel is shattered and confused. She is unsure of what to think, and even later when she find time alone, she cannot feel anything.
The transition from third-person omniscient into first-person signifies the change that is occuring throughout the book. As Natalie previously stated, the primary use of third-person is to allow the reader to obtain some extra knowledge and less biasness with regards to the characters and how they are feeling. However, the use of third-person, in the scene with Jude and Sula engaging in an affair, simply does not give off the same sympathetic feeling that occurs when the scene is written in first-person. The use of first-person illustrates Nel's reaction towards the incident since it captures Nel's umcomprehensible feeling by only providing her feelings and observations opposed to an omniscient lens. Morrison's switch into first-person highlights and emphasizes Nel's inability to grasp reality, since the reader, like Nel, is unable to fully take in the event due to the lack of understanding between the series of events that take place. Similary, the fact that Morrison chose to provide a time skip between the first reunion of Sula and Nel (third-person) and Nel's first acknowledgement of the affair (first-person) emphasizes and highlights Nel's sense of disorientation. In addition to the shift in perspective, Nel's syntax and diction (through the use of Morrison's first-person point of view) becomes elongated and unfocused. After witnessing the sexual engagement, Nel claims, "And even when you began to talk, I couldn't hear because I was worried about you not knowing that your fly was open and scared too because your eyes looked like the soldiers' the time on the train when my mother turned to custard" (Morrison 106). This transition accentuates the unclear mindset that is partaking in both the reader's and Nel's mind.
ReplyDeleteMorrison chooses to narrate in Nel's point of view not only to amplify Nel's suffering but also to continue with her effort to make reading Sula a "communal experience."
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, we can deduce that Nel is recounting her experience and emotions to a person or people (someone encourages her to "uh huh, go on, say it"(105). That way, readers get a more intimate and accurate connection with Nel and her distress. Although she refers to Jude as "you," we know that Jude isn't the one she is talking to because he has already left for Detroit. Sometimes when a person becomes very emotional and accusatory, she accuses the guilty as he is present. By directing her despair directly to the guilty through "you," the shakiness of Nel's emotional and psychological stability is revealed, causing her despair more moving.
Secondly, now the narrator is no longer the only voice for Nel has joined the ranks of the storytellers. Her voice is different from the normal narrator's; the colloquial diction is less refined and more casual. Nel lets herself go as if she were talking to a real person for she uses run on sentences and commonly used phrases in conversations such as "O Sweet Jesus"(111). Nel's conversational voice contributes to the "communal experience" as she shares her emotion, revealing her weakness. That way, the reader can sense her despair directly through her words and not an omniscient, unbiased narrator as if the reader were in the same room as her. African-American slaves brought the practice of replying to or participating with the parishioner such as "Amen" as the tribal rituals included such replies. This communal experience reflects the roots of African-Americans and their prevailing culture.