Finally Blue

I couldn't help but relate Pecola to Precious. Plus, both start with P.

Although it had a connotation (or denotation?), The Bluest Eye, literally meant Pecola's fervent desire for blue eyes. Not only did she want them, she wanted them to be the bluest. From this, many things resulted:

1. Wanting those blue eyes so much made Pecola blind. Blind of what really imported in life: the essence. Not beauty.

2. The famous "price of beauty." Her eyes cost her her sanity. To the reader she isn't yet free, like she thinks she is because she has blue eyes. We can see at the end that she doesn't get away with freeing Cholly from her mind; she hash't escaped her demons. And supposedly, with those eyes she would finally be free, which she clearly isn't, because, going back to what I said, she is imprisoned by other people's perspective of beauty.

3. The blue eyes didn't satisfy her fully. It will never be enough. Even with blue eyes she couldn't escape jealousy because she felt that someone had bluer eyes than her. She hasn't escaped her demons.

4. Since everyone told Pecola she was ugly and treated her harshly at the same time, she paired both behaviors and got conditioned to think that people treated her badly because she was ugly. This is why at the end she tells her imaginary friend, "The bluest eyes. Will you come back if I get them?"(204). At this point she already has blue eyes, she just wants to have the bluest fearing the friend will leave her.

In the final chapter, Morrison shows us that even if a person has had the most unfortunate life, their "end" (because Pecola didn't die, but there is is some sort of ambiguity there) still isn't going to be happy. Claudia, then, proceeds to juxtapose Pecola's and everyone else's states by saying that "her awkwardness made [them] think [they] had a sense of humor, her inarticulateness made [them] think [they] were eloquent."(205). As Claudia begins to analyze the whole situation, we understand that she has her own version of what seems to be the "ending." This is why there is an unsure feeling; we don't really know what happened to Pecola or how she really felt, all we know is Claudia's version of it.

Another interpretation of the ending may be Pecola's death. Yes, the texts around that final chapter tell us that she isn't dead, but once she starts talking with her imaginary friend and bragging about her new blue eyes, we can infer that she went to heaven and got what she wanted. And although she may not have died, the bluer her eyes made her blinder and more invisible to others. That is some sort of death.

If at the end, her eyes are finally blue, she is blue with them as well.

Who is Pecola Breedlove?

Pecola's identity crisis vlog:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKyWl2mrnUU

Pecola: the Object of Pity

Aesthetic interpretations are socially imposed, right? So then, the word aesthetics could stand for a lot of things, right? It doesn't only refer to someone that is pretty, but something that fits; that looks good in a certain context. 

I just really wanted to get that off my chest. Thanks. 

*cough*Pecola*cough*

Today we will try to understand why Morrison fooled us into Claudia being the principal character and suddenly demonstrating favoritism towards Pecola. 

First of all I would like to clarify: I hate when that happens. Just because Pecola is a victim of everything - literally (and somehow she's still perfect to the cliche viewer's eye) - it means that everyone, including the narrator have to turn to her side. She isn't trying to victimize herself, I know, but she does incite people to either feel pity for her or to bully her. This is why I came up with this theory: everyone thinks Pecola is much more interesting because she is poor, ugly and needs someone to help her. I am not trying to be mean or anything, I really am sorry for her harsh reality (it is, in fact, the toughest reality for a little girl) but she isn't as interesting as Claudia. Pecola is easily driven away by the rules of aesthetics while Claudia has an opinion of her own and isn't always demonstrating vulnerability. But I figured, Claudia kind of knows that she is ahead of Pecola, so she decided to "tell her story." All with a specific purpose, of course. 

Also, it's always Pecola who steals Claudia's light. Well, a little bit. The MacTeers wanted Claudia to love the doll they had given her but they were disappointed when she teared the doll apart because of her not finding any beauty in it. And there was Pecola, innocently desiring blue eyes and blaming herself of being ugly, needing someone to congratulate her for liking blue-eyed Mary Jane.

Another time was when Maureen bought an ice cream only to Pecola because she felt pity for her. What about Claudia? Just because her life wasn't entirely dysfunctional she didn't get an ice cream? As Frieda and Claudia waited for Maureen and Pecola outside the ice cream store they were  "thinking that [Maureen] would treat [them], or that [they] deserved it as much as Pecola did." (69). Did you see that? Pecola deserves stuff because she lives it tougher. And somehow, even though she lives in an environment with so much conflict, she manages to be a harmless little creature full of curiosity and love. 

Pecola is the perfect way for Morrison to demonstrate the irony with innocence that occurred at the time: the context she lives in would typically make her a bad person, but she turns out to be completely the opposite. 

Such a good metaphor. 

Hoez, Hoez Everywhere

As I was reading The Bluest Eye where Pecola interacts with the "whores," I noticed the whole scene was very similar to Edith Piaf's experience in La Vie En Rose. In both works, the authors' perception of these prostitutes congrue. They "did not belong to those generations of prostitutes created in novels, with great and generous hearts, dedicated because of the horror of circumstance...they weren't young girls in whores' clothing, or whores regretting their loss of innocence. They were whores in whores' clothing, who had never been young and had no word for innocence." (57). These are whores that hated men, not in a cliche-kind-of-way, but in a ain't-nobody-got-time-fo'-that way. These are whores that prefer spending time with a little girl and teaching her about life and men, like she was their own little girl. They take the reality they are given as it comes, and are fine with it. Coincidence? I DON'T HAVE A CLUE.
That's the thing with this book. I never know. 

I just wanted to say that word corrected me when I typed ain't. It suggested I should type Ann's or Anita. Racist word. 

I figured this novel has a lot of irony. It often intends to be funny with topics that are actually very harsh and difficult to talk about. For example, in this same part with the prostitutes, the three women laughed and made jokes about their poverty and loss of dignity as Marie "threw back her head. From deep inside, her laughter came like the sound of many rivers, freely, deeply, muddily, heading for the room of an open sea." (52).  It is not funny, it's actually pretty sad how easy it is to come down from all to nothing. Yet Morrison insits in making them laugh about this. A bit cynical. 

Going back to aesthetics, in this part a great influence of it is found. They're all old, trying to look like they are twenty again, but the more make up they put on (a social construct made for people to think they will fit in if they use it) the more harassed they looked like. Contradicting, huh? How society uses the enemy's strength at its favor. 

What I don't get is, how come a book narrated with such innocence contains absolutely the opposite? R-H-E-T-O-R-I-C.

Morrison and Aesthetics

I don't know if Claudia's mind is shaped by "the eye of the beholder" (which is the culture, the magazine editors and video directors) or not. Therefore, I decided to carry out an investigation that will define if Claudia is or isn't following the ideas of the way in which aesthetics are being imposed to her.

When she receives a blonde-blue-eyed doll for Christmas, she destroys it. Her parents tell her that this doll is astonishing and imply that having that doll will classify her as a normal girl. I have two theories for my investigation:
1. Claudia thinks she doesn't fit the mold, and because the doll represents that whole media, she is angry she can't be like the doll.
2. She doesn't agree with the beauty scheme she lives in. She purposely doesn't think the doll is beautiful as everyone says so. 

The first one implies that she is, in fact, shaped by the beauty scheme because she is already judging herself based on other's opinions of "beauty." The second one shows how she doesn't "go with the flow." Well let's see...
Claudia is a little girl who doesn't understand much about the harsh reality she's living. This mentality would lead her to actually nodding and yielding to what she's told. But remember what I had said in my previous entry: she isn't just any child, she's a prodigy. Prodigies often go against the flow. They don't let their society manipulate their thoughts. Claudia doesn't let anyone alter her perception of beauty. Look at how she destroys that doll.

Oohh but wait a second...why would then Claudia describe, thoroughly, her family's ugliness?
Would this mean that she isn't part of it but wants to be? Well, I am not sure but even if she's not shaped by it, she is till being influenced by it. It's inevitable to avoid and not-surrender.

A Little Bit of Behaviorism

It all has to do with our childhood.

It's funny how everyone victimizes themselves when talking about their childhood. When someone has to synthesize their life as little kids, somehow they were never cool, they were always bullied and pressured by their other friends. Well, just for the hell of it...I WAS A FOLLOWER AND MANIPULABLE AND WEIRD TOO. When Claudia puts herself in that weird, freak-like position, I imagine myself, physically, doing the exact same thing. I imagine myself with the typical awkward face, looking around to see if someone is watching me, not because I'm doing something wrong, but because I know that what I'm doing is extremely queer and am uncomfortable to watch (whoops, victimizing again). Yes, little Claudia inspires that type of inner child in me. Child reasoning is very, very tangled. 

Everything is manipulable. Even our behavior. Well, actually only manipulable if we are trained since little.

Let's see if AP Psych actually served me something.

Claudia's way of interpreting stuff is also very...different. Her type of behavior approaches our instinctive kind-of-behavior. When we are little, we are less influenced by humanity and its rules to everything. These are the times in which our inner animal is let out. When Claudia doesn't understand something, she twists and adapts it to her own comprehension. For example, while watching two people have a conversation,  she immediately catches their gestures and says that "their conversation is like a...dance: sound meets sound, curtsies, shimmies, and retires"(15). Did you see that? You just experienced the way of processing thoughts and encoding them of little Claudia. Interesting huh. Those brains are full of wonders. 

You may wanna write that down, it all has to do with classical conditioning. (Old guy in pic). 

Okay, we don't want to drive off too far from the topic. Think Great Depression. Think different ways of interpreting crises. Think genuine imagination. Think modesty, incomprehension, and mostly, failed love attempts. Conclusion (for today): corrupted childhood and innocence because of the evil ways of humanity. 

Different Claudia is Different

So there's this girl called Claudia. She's kinda like the typical prodigy that sees everything differently. You can tell this by the way she narrates the events. She seems so naive and questions everything like a child would, but her questions are often about humanity at its worst, without her knowing of course.  Poor kiddo. 

You know how Harry Potter's family thought he was weird and dumb and he turned out to be wizard Gandhi? Well, this book is kinda like this, except for the magic. Claudia is a special/weird nine-year-old, African American that narrates her tough present (and past?) through the Great Depression. I imagine you can imagine what she imagined at that time. She lived it tough and she didn't know that until she compared her Great Depression reality with the one she lives in the present. The Bluest Eye, is told from that perspective: a tormented past. 

While in some parts the book addresses innocent, casual everyday life situations, in other parts, it introduces dark topics such as oppression, fear and inequality. 

Although the way Ms. Morrison writes at the beginning doesn't continue, there is still an infant-innocent-like tone going on, which, I think, is there to create empathy. Also, let's have in mind that we read whatever Toni wants us to read. Therefore, the way she writes tells us something about her that she wants us to know but can't directly say. 

There is much more to this novel than just a little innocent girl trying to understand the world.