|
|
Post by betsyrahe on May 10, 2014 23:12:54 GMT
Names! Let's discuss how Morrison answers the central question of the novel through the motif of names!
|
|
|
|
Post by elizabethmeyer on May 10, 2014 23:36:34 GMT
I think the motif of names from Song of Solomon is super intriguing. Some of Morrison's characters have one set name, and that's what they stick with all their lives, whether these names make their lives harder (Pilate and connotations surrounding her name) or not (First Corinthians and her getting a job with a poet partially because of her name). While other characters go by names different from their given names (Jake turned Macon Dead or Macon Dead III turned Milkman). Then there's the whole connection between names and family, or "people". I wonder if Morrison may have been trying to answer the question "Where do we get our names from?", but I'm not positive that she answered this because of all of the different names that each character possesses. (ie: Milkman got his nickname from an observer who observed his mother, and now he's called "Milkman", but his "name" is Macon. Which is really his name? If Milkman is his name, then he got it from Freddie, the observer. If Macon is his name, then he got it from his father.) If we have multiple names, then which truly defines us, and how do we choose? Maybe Morrison chose not to answer her own question directly to let the reader decide (or possibly just to make the reader more confused.... because that's definitely me!)
|
|
|
|
Post by Lacey Doby on May 12, 2014 0:14:56 GMT
To tie together three motifs in one, Singing Bird is a pretty fascinating name. Birds fly, singing is music, and both of those motifs make up the name of one of Milkman's oldest relatives.
Similarly to Elizabeth, I think the question Morrison was asking had to do with what makes an identity. What makes a person who they are?
The book makes many references to birds and flight to describe people and their way of looking at life, and the music is a central part of how Milkman discovers his family's past and also how the women connect to one another. In class we were discussing how a name can effect who a person grows up to be, but in this case, it is almost as if Singing Bird's name has an impact on what her family will be at the point the book what placed. If a single name can have the power to effect an entire family through many generations, then Morrison must attach a lot of importance to names. This would propose a theory as to why all of the names in the book are so strange. They all have an impact on who that person is.
As a side note, I think Morrison also showed the significance of how a person is named having an impact on who they are. Guitar, for example was named like this, "'Where'd you ever see a guitar?' 'It was a contest, in a store down home in Florida. I saw it when my mother took me downtown with her. I was just a baby. It was one of those things where you guess how many beans in a big glass jar and you win a guitar. I cried for it, they said. And always asked about it,'" (45). He got his name because of how badly he wanted something he couldn't have, which could translate into his greedy nature and desperation later in life.
|
|
|
|
Post by jessicalee on May 13, 2014 1:03:55 GMT
I completely agree with Lacey in regards to Morrison's central question. I think she is trying to ask what makes us, well, us. Does the name control us or do we control the name? Can we be who we want regardless of what kind of stigma or predisposition our name puts upon us? In the novel, the characters are often directly associated with their names, as if their names control them. For example, when Macon chooses Pilate's name when she is first born, people suggest he change it because of the negative connotation that Pilate carries in the bible. But Macon believes that the name chooses the person, rather than the person chooses the name. The name is a central part of who we are. It chooses us and we follow its path, whether that be bad or good.
|
|
|
|
Post by betsyrahe on May 13, 2014 1:20:17 GMT
I agree with Elizabeth in thinking, "if we have multiple names then what really defines us?" and what sticks out to me is Morrison's search for the meaning of identity. I personally am named Elizabeth but everyone calls my Betsy, am I a different person when my dad for instance calls me Elizabeth? Sometimes it does feel like being called a different name brings out a different side of me. Each name has it's own connotations, like when a kid comes up to me saying "Buttercup" I know to be nurturing and friendly because that my camp counselor name. I wonder then if Milkman behaves differently when called Macon. When he was in Danville the people there associated him with Macon so he was proud to be called by that name. However, back home he doesn't want to be associated with his dad because of his complex frustration and dislike towards him, but the name itself brings complicated emotions towards his mother.
Then Guitar once said,"X, Bains-what difference does it make? I don't give a damn about names."(160) Here Guitar is disagreeing with I believe Morrison is writing about. To him names don't make up someone's identity or who they are. Names are even something we choose most often, yet they do make an impact on how we see each other. If Guitar was named X we'd view him as mysterious and probably tie him with Malcolm X's views. Names clearly change our perceptions of each other.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjharris on May 13, 2014 3:24:37 GMT
I love this idea that a name chooses a person (it reminds me of Harry Potter how the wand chooses the wizard)and have always been obsessed with nicknames. All my life I never felt attached to my name. I respond to it, sure, but it doesn't feel right in my mouth and I don't feel that its very special to me. Which is why I encourage any sort of nickname a person decides to give me- I believe I am still trying to find my name. I think it is a very important connection a person can have in themselves. Not only does it identify you but it ties you back to your birth family by commonality of last/first names and to your created family (ie those you choose to associate with or by defect of time and place) by what names you have been given. But i also feel that once you accept a nickname you distance yourself a little bit from who you once were before. Something in the perception of you changes. And it's always something that seems to suit you even better than your old name did. For example, Guitar and his greediness. Milkman and his unhealthy relationship towards the women in his life. So, I believe the name chooses the person, but based on this the name also comes from who the person already is. There's the saying, "You are what you eat" but you don't eat what you are. In this case I think it works visa versa, 'You are what you're called and you're called what you are.'
|
|
|
|
Post by Lauren on May 13, 2014 3:44:50 GMT
I definitely agree with y'all, names change who we are. There's always those moments when people say "My parents almost named me ___" "Oh yeah I could see you as that!". Names have so much power to them because in our American culture we say that a name is that personal quality that differs from us everyone else in that role call. Morrison's idea of nicknames is also intriguing, because those characters are almost always known by those names (Milkman, Magdalene called Lena, Jake going to Macon Dead). These names define these people by giving them baggage attached to them. We don't chose our names, but we also can't escape what notions they have. Since a huge question in this book is who are we, the name motif adds to that. The book shows just how much others influence who we are as humans by what they choose to call us, and what that word means to them.
|
|
|
|
Post by juliamoreland on May 13, 2014 4:24:22 GMT
Has anyone noticed a theme of names across multiple works we have read this year? The lack of names in A Wild Sheep Chase, power of names in The Destructors, there are plenty more but those are the two I know we have had extensive conversations about this year. Seems names and identity are a common thread....
If you are like me and pronounced Pilate like Pilates, the aerobic activity, and Guitar like a guitar, the instrument, names in Song of Solomon brought some difficulty. The intriguing part to my odd pronunciation is that the different pronunciations changed my perception of the individual. Names hold such a powerful control on not only their owner, but to the audience they meet. Now, if you had a name that you were not fond of, it could change everything.
Similar to what Lauren said above, names carry tremendous baggage and identity. Perhaps you do not want this identity, or perhaps it changes relationships, or perhaps it is who you are, all apply in Song of Solomon. Do names make the individual? Or does the individual make the name? Either way names and nicknames and how you pronounce them all have a huge impact on the audience. At least, to me, because of the personal connection associated with a simple thing such as a name. A formation of letters that apparently defines someone, is the basis of any relationship.
|
|
|
|
Post by clairem on May 13, 2014 4:50:41 GMT
After reading through the end of Song of Solomon I think it is interesting to look at the correlation between names and the values of that person. In the beginning of the novel Guitar comments on names and their lack of importance. This apathy towards personal identifiers is further manifested in his ability to murder random white people for 'justice'. As he does not place much value on names and thus it is easy for him to look at white people as an entire population and when one does something to wrong a black person, it reflects poorly on the entire population. Dissimilar to Guitar is Milkman who spends much of the novel searching for his heritage and genealogy. I can't find the quote right now, but in one of the last few chapters I remember Milkman commenting on the importance of names and this value that he places on names is more outwardly manifested in his actions throughout the story that are focused on finding his family and piecing together their history.
|
|
|
|
Post by racheladele on May 13, 2014 6:15:53 GMT
The names in Song of Solomon are very interesting because the majority of the characters do not exactly choose their names or allow a name to define them. Guitar and all of his friends have very odd nicknames such as Empire State, but I see this nicknames as slightly arbitrary because they don't seem to carry noteworthy meaning for each person. It would be like seeing a pretty picture and getting a tattoo of it right away. People accept this adornment and its permanency and then everyone moves on while the tattoo remains. I do think names are important, but I'm having trouble seeing the significance in Song of Solomon of names like Guitar's that was chosen from the quote Lacey pointed out earlier: "'Where'd you ever see a guitar?' 'It was a contest, in a store down home in Florida. I saw it when my mother took me downtown with her. I was just a baby. It was one of those things where you guess how many beans in a big glass jar and you win a guitar. I cried for it, they said. And always asked about it,'" (45)
Thinking about Milkman and his siblings this way, simply as characters they do not treat their names as guiding lights or prophecies to be fulfilled, they just seem to accept their names.
Because they all have such odd names, I think the characters define their names rather than the other way around. We have discussed this in class before; how I much prefer to be called Rachel than "Student 29401" because my name has associations and is specific and personal. After reading Song of Solomon, when I hear the word Milkman I have so many images and associations from the novel that pop into my head, whereas before it was just a word from a line from the song "Lullaby of Broadway." The same goes for the names of almost everyone in the novel, except a few like Ruth. These characters are special. They couldn't possibly have common names. By granting First Corinthians and other characters bizarre names, Morrison ensured that the reader would make new and unique associations with these word combinations, as well as come into the novel without any preconceived ideas of the people or their character traits.
|
|
|
|
Post by carolinedorman on May 13, 2014 19:47:13 GMT
I particularly find the motif of names interesting regarding Pilate. Originally, I associated Pontius Pilate with the murderer of Jesus (which is partially true). However, Pontius Pilate gave the crowd the option of freeing Barabbas or freeing Jesus and the crowd choses to crucify Jesus. Contrary to what I previously thought, Pontius Pilate gives the responsibility of Jesus’s death to the people, to humanity. Thus, it is impossible to avoid guilt by pinning Jesus’s murder on one person. In Song of Solomon, Pilate plays a similar role of making Milkman accountable for the death of Hagar and actions that he causes. Although her name comes from a figure associated with murdering Jesus, Pilate serves as more of a guide than as a negative influence. Pilate further evidences the role of names in the novel by perpetuating how much a given name plays into shaping one’s role in the novel and in life.
|
|
|
|
Post by jennyxu on May 18, 2014 22:11:57 GMT
I love the idea mentioned by several people that you have no control over your own name. Like PJ said, a name chooses a person like a wand chooses a wizard. Even though the name Macon Dead originated from a mistake, Jake and Sing did not try to fix the mistake, which shows that sometimes you have to accept whatever comes along and becomes a part of you.
It is also really interesting that the characters all chose to pass down the name Macon Dead to their son. It is a legacy and fame that is passed on through the generations. Milkman fits in so easily when he visits the home of his father because of the association people there hold with the name Macon Dead. Yet, the youngest Macon goes by Milkman for most of the novel, which distinguishes and distances him from the other Macon Dead's. It represents him trying to escape the shadow of his father. Yet, the name Milkman still carries a lot of weight and scandal with it.
I love this quote towards the end of the novel: "How many dead lives and fading memories were buried in and beneath the names of the places in this country. Under the recorded names were other names...Names that had meaning. No wonder Pilate put hers in her ear. When you know your name, you should hang on to it, for unless it is noted down and remembered, it will die when you do" (329). It sums up the disregard of the characters for the "official" name of people and things, like how they call the street Not Doctor Street instead of its real name. It shows the meaning, power, and history behind a name that you accept and recognize as your own.
|
|
|
|
Post by Daniel Hong on May 19, 2014 18:57:27 GMT
For those of you who have read "Pygmalion" I think that the idea that a name or a status defines us vs defining ourselves raises an interesting set of questions about who we are. I think that Morrison is showing us, through Milkman that though our names are related to who we are, we can still transcend nominal boundaries set by those around us. The random naming of the Dead family from the bible seems to suggest that names are really just a way to set apart people and nothing else, but the symbolic name of Milkman is much more definitive of behavior. However, according to the principle of neuroplasticity, we are, in effective what we are doing at the moment; the past and the future selves are not actually who we are. The thing I have the most problem with, in this case then, is that names are traditionally a one time event. The Milkman was coined once to Macom for a singular set of events in his life and Macom named only once at birth.
|
|
|
|
Post by danyhong55 on Jun 4, 2014 4:36:02 GMT
I just wanted to come back and really make this point because I think that this is important.
Who we are, is not defined by our name. In fact, in conjunction to the pomo group that language cannot truly capture reality. I just wanted to say that our names are part of an inaccurate, artificial human construct to differentiate us from another. Even our names and the associatiosn with our names with ouselves and who those names embody is never going to be the same form person to person. It's always going to change and is never objective. Who we are can never be captured by words not even for the person who is writing those words. It is impossible, in essence for a word or two, let alone entire essays to describe who we are. Our names are but an abstract representation of the truth.
It would be disingenuous of me, however, to say that your names doesn't at all define who you are. While it is possible, like Pilate, to defy names, titles and pre-contextualized association of a name to a person. It is not always so. Even Pilate is defined by us readers partly as being related to the person who "killed" Jesus, when in fact, her actions seem to represent supernatural powers reminiscent of Jesus. Names do define how we may act or how others portray us. But that alone does not have to define who we are as people.
Names can be important or arbitrary, just remember that each person has their own reactions and preferences to these association. There are those out there who have been marginalized by society by the use of their names, title and even their pronouns. What seems superficial to one's identity can have a huge impact. If someone prefers to be called a name, or even a non-gender specific pronoun, please take that into consideration. Even though they may not define us entirely, it helps how society receives them and how they define themselves.
|
|
