Thoughts on The Bluest Eye and why she included "those" parts

[msjones]

I read most of the thread on Morrison's The Bluest Eye.  I was required to read the book and deliberately skimmed that section because I couldn't stand it.  So, I appreciated the question in the thread of why/how it could possibly be necessary/helpful to include such horribly graphic descriptions of sexual assault.  

 

I thought about that question a lot today.

 

I (like many others on this board, I'm sure) was the victim of a sexual assault.  It was a stranger.  It was violent.  It was on the news, and many people knew I was the victim.

 

I remember feeling bothered that many people seemed inclined to use language to somehow downplay what had happened.  People were reluctant to even speak the word "rape."  They came up with lots of different terms.

 

I understand why people do that -- I don't mean to criticize them.

 

But it made me feel...something...I can't find the word...ashamed?  Dirty?  Not sure what I want to say here...

 

So, I can see where Morrison may (of course I don't know for certain) have wanted to make very clear just who was the sick-o, how sick his actions were, how evil he indeed was -- no sugar-coating, no avoiding the miserable, unpleasant, horrifying facts of such an assault. 

 

Such a horrifying description is far, far different from an author just saying she was molested by her father.  

 

I would never, ever wish to describe the details of what happened to me, and I don't know anything about Morrison's history.  But there is something that comes down on the 'side' of the victim in such a graphic account.

 

This is certainly not to say that i believe it should be required reading.  But I do think I can perhaps see some literary 'value' in the sickening details.

[Mrs. Tharp]

Thank you for your perspective--I can't stand those sections either and your testimony to your experiences & feelings is the most compelling reason I've heard for bringing myself to read them.

[*Lulu*]

My assaults were not by strangers, nor were they singular events. The attitude of, "some things are too ghastly to think about", that so many of the posters in the other thread expressed is an attitude I have seen too frequently in response to the revelation that SA has happened, not to some statistical person never met, but the flesh and blood person standing right here.

 

I couldn't find a way to express what was bothering me as I read the other thread, but now I can.

 

To white wash these things, to say they are too horrible to inflict upon ourselves, to deem the discussion and detailed writing of these acts as sinful or depraved is to condemn those who have suffered the reality of these acts to live in a world where they can never give full voice to what they have experienced. It is to say as a society, "We are so sorry you are hurting; here is a hug and a smiling mask to wear.", and when the victim cannot stand the mask any longer we say,"You are only hurting yourself by dwelling on this and you are bringing the rest of us down. We are relegating you to the corner where your pain does not interrupt our celebration of sunshine, rainbows, and happy endings. But feel free to join us once you've put the mask back on."

[Kathryn]

Morrison herself said why she included it:

"From The National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE) Novel Rationale CD: The Bluest Eye by Toni Morrison" http://aplangrocksthefreeworld.wikispaces.com/file/view/The+Bluest+Eye-NCTE+rationale.pdf

 

"Probably the most important reason that The Bluest Eye may be challenged is on the basis of sexual references and/or portrayals of sexual activity. The central action is the rape of Pecola by her father. For many readers, this is probably as objectionable a thing as could be imagined. It wouldn't be surprising if quite a few people had an objection to this element of the story, but readers need to understand what Toni Morrison was trying to do and not judge her on the actions of her characters. In an interview with Tate, Morrison tries to explain what she wanted readers to see and how, through the structure of her novel, she tried to get them to that point:

I tell you at the beginning of The Bluest Eye, on the very first page, what happens, but now I want you to go with me and look at this, so when you get to the scene where the father rapes the daughter, which is as awful a thing I suppose as can be imagined, by the time you get there it's almost irrelevant because I want you to look at him [Cholly] and see his love for his daughter and his powerlessness to help her pain. By this time his embrace, the rape, is all the gift he has left. (Rigney 32)

Morrison was trying to relieve readers of the shock of such a deed early so that they could see beauty under the surface. She wasn't trying to justify anything, merely to allow readers to look at what happens in a different way, to get them to realize that it isn't so simple as they would like to think. The world isn't black and white as many would like to think. Morrison's novel has objectionable parts, but that is a part of what makes it so valuable."

[msjones]

 

To white wash these things, to say they are too horrible to inflict upon ourselves, to deem the discussion and detailed writing of these acts as sinful or depraved is to condemn those who have suffered the reality of these acts to live in a world where they can never give full voice to what they have experienced. It is to say as a society, "We are so sorry you are hurting; here is a hug and a smiling mask to wear.", and when the victim cannot stand the mask any longer we say,"You are only hurting yourself by dwelling on this and you are bringing the rest of us down. We are relegating you to the corner where your pain does not interrupt our celebration of sunshine, rainbows, and happy endings. But feel free to join us once you've put the mask back on."

 

Yes.  Well said.  Perfect.  

 

I am not good at talking about what happened to me.  I can't seem to express it.  It's all very jumbled and complicated and I go from a somewhat articulate person to speaking mush when I try to talk about it.  (See what a poor sentence I just wrote? :))

 

I find that people will talk about any other crime.  Will read about any other crime.  Will stand there and commiserate and share their own stories about any other crime.  But if it's rape, you're supposed to be quiet and polite about it.  It just cannot be discussed or referred to in polite company.  

[msjones]

I just lifted this from the other enormous thread -- a thought from Lucy Stoner:

 

 

There is nothing gentle about sexual assault. Part of the reason books like this have been meaningful to me as a survivor is that I do not feel that something I am all too familiar with is being glossed over, watered down or trivialized. Or at the crux of it, made palatable for others. It's not palatable. It shouldn't be easy to read about. It shouldn't be minimized or hidden so that people can live easy comfortable lives. 

 

Well said.  Thank you LucyStoner.  

[Parrothead]

Morrison herself said why she included it:

"From The National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE) Novel Rationale CD: The Bluest Eye by Toni Morrison" http://aplangrocksthefreeworld.wikispaces.com/file/view/The+Bluest+Eye-NCTE+rationale.pdf

 

"Probably the most important reason that The Bluest Eye may be challenged is on the basis of sexual references and/or portrayals of sexual activity. The central action is the rape of Pecola by her father. For many readers, this is probably as objectionable a thing as could be imagined. It wouldn't be surprising if quite a few people had an objection to this element of the story, but readers need to understand what Toni Morrison was trying to do and not judge her on the actions of her characters. In an interview with Tate,

Morrison tries to explain what she wanted readers to see and how, through the structure of her novel, she tried to get them to that point:

I tell you at the beginning of The Bluest Eye, on the very first page, what happens, but now I want you to go with me and look at this, so when you get to the scene where the father rapes the daughter, which is as awful a thing I suppose as can be imagined, by the time you get there it's almost irrelevant because I want you to look at him [Cholly] and see his love for his daughter and his powerlessness to help her pain. By this

time his embrace, the rape, is all the gift he has left. (Rigney 32)

Morrison was trying to relieve readers of the shock of such a deed early so that they could see beauty under the surface. She wasn't trying to justify anything, merely to allow readers to look at what happens in a different way, to get them to realize that it isn't so simple as they would like to think. The world isn't black and white as many would like to think. Morrison's novel has objectionable parts, but that is a part of what

makes it so valuable."

This is exactly why I have a problem with this.

 

Rape is not beautiful.

 

Rape is not a gift.

 

Ask any victim of rape if she thought she was being given a beautiful gift.

 

Would it be illegal if it were a beautiful gift?

 

Flowers are a beautiful gift.

 

I find it horrendous that anyone would like rape to be seen as a gift or as beautiful. Yet, here in her own words this is what Morrison says she wants her readers to see.

 

This ultimately goes back to blaming the victim. The rapist says, "I was just giving her what she wanted. It was a gift, not an act of violence."

[msjones]

I think we're supposed to see how twisted and empty and ugly his love was.  

 

That's my take on her remarks.

[Parrothead]

Morrison was trying to relieve readers of the shock of such a deed early so that they could see beauty under the surface

Only someone who hasn't been raped could possibly say there is beauty under the surface of such a violent act. Either that or their mind has been twisted in some way.

 

Rape is a violent horrific act.

[umsami]

I think other posters like msjones and Dialectica bring up good points.

 

 

There was a story about a little 5 year old girl named, Lama al-Ghadil, who was raped, abused, and tortured by her father and eventually died.  Reading that is horrible. Reading that can make you feel outrage. However, it was knowledge about the extent of her injuries...(and I'm not going to post them here, but you can google them if you desire)... just what he did (and yes, it's quite quite horrific), that lead to public outrage that caused change.... and a big change in Saudi Arabia.  Sometimes, you don't get just how bad it is/was when it is glossed over.  

 

 

[shawthorne44]

I think this is the basis of my problem with the book.  It is taken from a previous thread which itself was quoting what Morrison was trying to do.

"Morrison was trying to relieve readers of the shock of such a deed early so that they could see beauty under the surface. She wasn't trying to justify anything, merely to allow readers to look at what happens in a different way, to get them to realize that it isn't so simple as they would like to think. The world isn't black and white as many would like to think."

 

I would not have had a problem with the book if it was from the perspective of the child.  With all the horror left in.  Some things are black and white.  Evil exists.  Period.  Some things ARE simple.  Some acts don't deserve compassion.  Some people deserve to die.  I don't want to see life from the perspective of a sick-o.  I don't want my DD seeing life from the perspective of a sick-o. 

 

 

[LucyStoner]

This is exactly why I have a problem with this.

 

Rape is not beautiful.

 

Rape is not a gift.

 

Ask any victim of rape if she thought she was being given a beautiful gift.

 

Would it be illegal if it were a beautiful gift?

 

Flowers are a beautiful gift.

 

I find it horrendous that anyone would like rape to be seen as a gift or as beautiful. Yet, here in her own words this is what Morrison says she wants her readers to see.

 

This ultimately goes back to blaming the victim. The rapist says, "I was just giving her what she wanted. It was a gift, not an act of violence."

Totally missing the point. Morrison is not saying the rape is beautiful. Have you read the book?

 

I am a survivor of child rape and this book was of some meaning to me in the years after I was assaulted. Don't speak for all survivors.

[msjones]

I think this is the basis of my problem with the book.  It is taken from a previous thread which itself was quoting what Morrison was trying to do.

"Morrison was trying to relieve readers of the shock of such a deed early so that they could see beauty under the surface. She wasn't trying to justify anything, merely to allow readers to look at what happens in a different way, to get them to realize that it isn't so simple as they would like to think. The world isn't black and white as many would like to think."

 

I would not have had a problem with the book if it was from the perspective of the child.  With all the horror left in.  Some things are black and white.  Evil exists.  Period.  Some things ARE simple.  Some acts don't deserve compassion.  Some people deserve to die.  I don't want to see life from the perspective of a sick-o.  I don't want my DD seeing life from the perspective of a sick-o. 

 

I completely see your perspective.  I think I may share it.

 

I was just trying to discuss what Morrison's reasons may have been.  

 

Really, I'm no Toni Morrison fan.  But I think I see what she was trying to do in her book.  

[LucyStoner]

If people who rape children could be written off as only evil, the world would be an easier, safer place. Evil is black and white and born that way.

 

Was Cholly born evil? How is abuse like this perpetuated in long cycles?

 

Breaking the cycle of generational poverty and abuse is a theme I care a lot about. This is a book about black America but it is also about poverty, hopelessness and struggle.

[LucyStoner]

Rapists don't think themselves rapists. I may find it abhorrent and wrong and unacceptable (certainly I do) but I am interested in seeing things from a perspective that is not my own and not just perspectives I can empathize with or support.

[msjones]

Only someone who hasn't been raped could possibly say there is beauty under the surface of such a violent act. Either that or their mind has been twisted in some way.

 

Rape is a violent horrific act.

 

It is bizarre to read of anyone talking about the "beauty" in rape.  Ugh.  

 

But, the book is about the extent of this child's poverty.  And that poverty includes her father's impoverished (twisted, perverted, violent, degrading) version of love.  That is all he has to give her.  

 

Hideous.  

 

That's what I think she's getting at.  

[msjones]

Rapists don't think themselves rapists. I may find it abhorrent and wrong and unacceptable (certainly I do) but I am interested in seeing things from a perspective that is not my own and not just perspectives I can empathize with or support.

 

Yes.  Cholly actually sees himself as loving his daughter.  What is more pathetic and ugly than his attempt at love?

 

 And we see that (all too graphically) in "those" parts of the book.

[*Lulu*]

I think this is the basis of my problem with the book. It is taken from a previous thread which itself was quoting what Morrison was trying to do.

"Morrison was trying to relieve readers of the shock of such a deed early so that they could see beauty under the surface. She wasn't trying to justify anything, merely to allow readers to look at what happens in a different way, to get them to realize that it isn't so simple as they would like to think. The world isn't black and white as many would like to think."

 

I would not have had a problem with the book if it was from the perspective of the child. With all the horror left in. Some things are black and white. Evil exists. Period. Some things ARE simple. Some acts don't deserve compassion. Some people deserve to die. I don't want to see life from the perspective of a sick-o. I don't want my DD seeing life from the perspective of a sick-o.

Okay, I am going to get very personal here, so I'd appreciate it if no one quotes me. I may flip in 10 minutes and erase what I'm about to say.

 

Not everything we want to be black and white is.

 

My rapist did undeniably evil things and left physical and emotional trauma that decades later I am still being treated for. My rapist is a flesh and bone person, twisted and damaged by others equally of flesh and bone. He is not some subspecies of human; he is one of us. If I cannot acknowledge his need for compassion and healing what does that say about my humanity?

 

I believe we are each of us loved by God. This includes those that steal, cheat on their taxes, run red lights, wear shoes in the house, cut me off in traffic, politicians, VMA performers, and, yes, my rapist.

 

Do I believe he should have suffered the consequences of his actions? Yes.

 

Do I believe he is evil and deserving death? No.

 

 

"Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them?"

-LOTR

[Luanne]

So, basically because you all had to go through this, you think everyone should know what it feels like to be put through something so horrific?  I would think you wouldn't want anyone to have to go through what you went through.  My daughter was molested from ages 6 to 10 and I know she wouldn't want anyone else to have to deal with those feelings she had to deal with.  No one has to hear every little sordid detail to understand and be supportive of someone who has been through this.

[msjones]

BLA5, I too have compassion for the man who raped me.  I told him as much in the courtroom.  I pray for the man.  It would perhaps have been easier to deal with if he were just a monster or a demon -- like being attacked by an animal maybe.  But the man has a daughter and a family and it's not so simple...

 

Thank you for adding to the discussion.  

 

You're getting at some of what Morrison was writing about: "She wasn't trying to justify anything, merely to allow readers to look at what happens in a different way, to get them to realize that it isn't so simple as they would like to think. The world isn't black and white as many would like to think."

[LucyStoner]

So, basically because you all had to go through this, you think everyone should know what it feels like to be put through something so horrific? I would think you wouldn't want anyone to have to go through what you went through.

Please. Do you really think that is what is being said?

[msjones]

So, basically because you all had to go through this, you think everyone should know what it feels like to be put through something so horrific?  I would think you wouldn't want anyone to have to go through what you went through.  My daughter was molested from ages 6 to 10 and I know she wouldn't want anyone else to have to deal with those feelings she had to deal with.  No one has to hear every little sordid detail to understand and be supportive of someone who has been through this.

 

No, no.  I don't think that at all.  Not at all.  As I mentioned earlier, I can't even really read those portions of the book. I went to the link posted on the big thread and was haunted by those excerprts all day.  Wished I hadn't even skimmed them.

 

I hope it isn't assigned to my boys, and if it is I'm not sure what I'll do.  We'll work through that if and when the time comes.

 

In this thread, we're just trying to discuss why she may have made the decisions she made as an author.  

 

I don't believe anyone has intentionally stated that it should be required reading.  

[LucyStoner]

Ok, I'm going to do the please don't quote thing.

 

My rapist was my mother's biological father.

She had just found him as a an adult and we relocated to get to know his family. My mother knew without being told that being around him was mistake and got us out of there before I even had the words to tell her what had happened. She had spared us most of the generational abuse she'd experienced at the hands of her mother and her mother's boyfriends and I don't think she ever really forgave herself for exposing me to her father (who she didn't know until just before we moved there.) my assaults were vicious and involved weapons and sodomy with certain everyday objects, some that I still refuse to keep in my house. The physical damage left lasting complications. I was with my husband over 2 years before we could have sexual intercourse.

 

I don't like him.

I don't see him.

I think he is dead.

 

But I also wouldn't exist without him.

My mother, tall and broad and strong and beautiful with a yard of dark red hair wouldn't have been my mother, wouldn't have been that same tall, redheaded yet Lakota featured woman.

 

I can't hate him. Anymore. There is no point. I forgive him. I know that he was born in prison. I know that he was abused by his mother and the men in his life. I know he never got an education and had little chance to change and be a better person. I don't feel sorry for him. But why hate him? What is gained except continuing to let hate have free rent in my heart? And because he is genetically my heritage, I can't even wish he was never born. I have my mother's eyes, my mother's brow, my mother's broad shoulders and strong build. My hair has auburn highlights. I see some of these in my own sons. All of which she took in part or whole from her tall red headed 1/2 Lakota father. Terrible person. But a person who must have existed for my own sons to exist.

 

Black and white doesn't even vaguely apply.

[Dana]

:grouphug:

 

I can't click "like" on some of these posts.

I appreciate your bravery and courage in sharing your stories.

I bear witness to your experiences.

 

Thank you all for sharing.

I'm sorry for your hurts and I'm in awe of your resilience and strength.

 

:grouphug:

[kroe1]

Sorry, but I do not see how reading about how a perpetrator's loins feel makes me more understanding of abuse. Porn is porn irrespective of the social message one is portraying. There are plenty of porn films which graphically display rape and even death, yet making a 16 y.o. (or adult) watch these eventually desensitizes most to the event. Repetition does this. Having an element of unknown keeps us disgusted. The fact that people do not know how to identify with a victim is not necessarily a bad thing. It means they are disgusted by what has happened. We all have experiences in life that make us different than others. These experiences can be horrible or wonderful. We do not expect everyone else to have the same experiences to "understand" us.

[msjones]

Thank you Lucy S for sharing.  

 

No.  There's no black and white in your story.  

 

 

[nmoira]

:grouphug:

 

I can't click "like" on some of these posts.

I appreciate your bravery and courage in sharing your stories.

I bear witness to your experiences.

 

Thank you all for sharing.

I'm sorry for your hurts and I'm in awe of your resilience and strength.

 

:grouphug:

 

I "liked" yours by proxy.

 

I hope this thread stays respectful.

[msjones]

Sorry, but I do not see how reading about how a perpetrator's loins feel makes me more understanding of abuse. Porn is porn irrespective of the social message one is portraying. There are plenty of porn films which graphically display rape and even death, yet making a 16 y.o. (or adult) watch these eventually desensitizes most to the event. Repetition does this. Having an element of unknown keeps us disgusted. The fact that people do not know how to identify with a victim is not necessarily a bad thing. It means they are disgusted by what has happened. We all have experiences in life that make us different than others. These experiences can be horrible or wonderful. We do not expect everyone else to have the same experiences to "understand" us.

 

I don't think any of us said we expect to be "understood" or "identified with."  I have no wish to require anyone to do that.

 

We're discussing Morrison's possible reasons for including such graphic details in her writing.  She wrote about the extent of poverty in one particular family.  She chose to use graphic description to further her ideas.  

 

 

And, again, none of us (on this thread) is saying a child should be required to read it.  

[teeniebeenie6]

My cousin was sexually abused by a family friend as a child. It really, really messed him up. He has been hooked on heroine and in and out of jail since he was a teenager. I don't need to know the details to feel abhorrence for what happened to him, or to feel compassion for him or to feel anger and disgust for his attacker. I don't need a minute to minute detail to feel this act is wrong. I'll never agree that we need to show are children the nitty gritty of a situation for them to understand it better. I don't want such twisted thoughts (the ones of the rapist) getting in my kids heads and confusing them. I believe morality is within us. There is a feeling of horror over murder, rape, etc.but some choose to ignore those feelings.

 

Isaiah 33:15: He who walks righteously and speaks uprightly, who despises the gain of oppressions, who shakes his hands, lest they hold a bribe, who stops his ears from hearing of bloodshed and shuts his eyes from looking on evil.

 

Philippians 4:8: Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things.

[msjones]

My cousin was sexually abused by a family friend as a child. It really, really messed him up. He has been hooked on heroine and in and out of jail since he was a teenager. I don't need to know the details to feel abhorrence for what happened to him, or to feel compassion for him or to feel anger and disgust for his attacker. I don't need a minute to minute detail to feel this act is wrong. I'll never agree that we need to show are children the nitty gritty of a situation for them to understand it better. I don't want such twisted thoughts (the ones of the rapist) getting in my kids heads and confusing them. I believe morality is within us. There is a feeling of horror over murder, rape, etc.but some choose to ignore those feelings.

 

Isaiah 33:15: He who walks righteously and speaks uprightly, who despises the gain of oppressions, who shakes his hands, lest they hold a bribe, who stops his ears from hearing of bloodshed and shuts his eyes from looking on evil.

 

Philippians 4:8: Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things.

 

I agree with all of this.  I hope my boys never read The Bluest Eye.  

 

And that Philippians verse is on my fridge.  

 

But, this thread is about Toni Morrison's choices as an author.  We're discussing the possible reasons Morrison may have chosen to write such an ugly, graphic description of child rape from the rapist's point of view.  It is difficult to understand.

 

That discussion led to some of us sharing our experiences as victims of sexual violence and how we feel about our culture's reaction to our experiences.

 

No one is saying everyone and their children should read the book and agree with or appreciate her style.  

[I.Dup.]

:grouphug:

 

Thank you all for sharing.

 

:grouphug:

[Parrothead]

Totally missing the point. Morrison is not saying the rape is beautiful. Have you read the book?

 

I am a survivor of child rape and this book was of some meaning to me in the years after I was assaulted. Don't speak for all survivors.

No, and if I ever had any intention of reading it that is gone now after reading the excerpts in the other thread and what Morrison said herself about the "beauty under the surface." I have no need or desire to find beauty in what the pervert did to me as a child. I have no need or desire to go into the depraved mind of a child rapist- either real or fictional.

 

I'm glad you found some healing by reading the book. I know all it will do I make me furious. Each to his own.

[Kathryn]

I don't feel the graphic description is needed to convey how the father got to that point. I'm perfectly capable of understanding how evil happens without having to get inside the head of the perpetrator during the sickening act itself. I know that the man who raped me had horrible issues in his own childhood. I have no need to ask him what he was feeling during the act itself to understand how he got to that point.

[LucyStoner]

Sorry, but I do not see how reading about how a perpetrator's loins feel makes me more understanding of abuse. Porn is porn irrespective of the social message one is portraying. There are plenty of porn films which graphically display rape and even death, yet making a 16 y.o. (or adult) watch these eventually desensitizes most to the event. Repetition does this. Having an element of unknown keeps us disgusted. The fact that people do not know how to identify with a victim is not necessarily a bad thing. It means they are disgusted by what has happened. We all have experiences in life that make us different than others. These experiences can be horrible or wonderful. We do not expect everyone else to have the same experiences to "understand" us.

Pornography and erotica is something that people watch or read for arousal and satisfaction. That is not the case with this book.

 

My husband and I have a few erotic books with dog eared corners on select passages tucked away in the recesses of our nightstand, along with massage oil and the sorts of things a married couple might enjoy having in their nightstand from time to time. I've never put a copy of The Bluest Eye or The Color Purple there. I sincerely doubt anyone has.

[Irishmommy]

Thank you all for sharing your stories. I pray that all of us overcome the violence to the "survivor" point. Now I am stepping away from this discussion. I thank you all for your valid points (pro/con).

[MeeganZ]

LucyStoner, you'd be completely wrong in this. The bluest eye was checked out generally by boys at my school in the late 80's to use as masturbation material. Several boys on my school bus actually passed it around. Porn wasn't as easy to come by back then in our little town. They read the graphic sex descriptions, not the whole book.

[mommymilkies]

Rapists don't think themselves rapists. I may find it abhorrent and wrong and unacceptable (certainly I do) but I am interested in seeing things from a perspective that is not my own and not just perspectives I can empathize with or support.

Exactly.  How many times do we hear that the victim "deserved it" or "asked for it".  Rapists don't usually see themselves as rapists or as being wrong.  Mine told me that it was my fault.  That I wanted it.  And you know what the sick thing is?  I almost believed that.  You know who else believed it?  Almost everyone we knew.  They knew about some of it.  They thought it was ok.  Or cute.  Or normal.  They were good guys.  They were charming and kind to others.  They had families, mothers, siblings, jobs.  That made it ok.  

[mommymilkies]

LucyStoner, you'd be completely wrong in this. The bluest eye was checked out generally by boys at my school in the late 80's to use as masturbation material. Several boys on my school bus actually passed it around. Porn wasn't as easy to come by back then in our little town. They read the graphic sex descriptions, not the whole book.

No kidding?  I mean, Anne Rice went around (and that, honestly is what I would consider titillation and some crazed messed up pedophilia in Cry to Heaven), but Bluest Eye?  Never.  Apparently kids in my area aimed lower or had more access to actual porn instead of small passages out of literature.  

[MeeganZ]

Lol, Anne rice was probably passed around too. I remember Tropic of Capricorn being popular. The bluest eye stuck in my head because I'd tried to read it for an AP English paper and couldn't get through it. It upset me too much. I was shocked that some kids only saw the sexual aspect and didn't get the real message. Which is why I came out against it in the other thread regarding whether it should be read in high school.

[LucyStoner]

LucyStoner, you'd be completely wrong in this. The bluest eye was checked out generally by boys at my school in the late 80's to use as masturbation material. Several boys on my school bus actually passed it around. Porn wasn't as easy to come by back then in our little town. They read the graphic sex descriptions, not the whole book.

 

If that is true with regards to the rapes, the boys at your school had bigger issues than would be solved by lack of access to any book.  If boys were doing that, they were in need of much help before they ever heard of that book.  Seriously.  None of the boys in my high school were like that and my husband sure as heck would have a lot to say to any son of his who was titillated by sexual violence.  Sexual violence is not sex.  Seeing it as such is to be complicit in rape culture.  

[mommymilkies]

I agree, I think that speaks to some serious issues that definitely weren't caused by Bluest Eye.  Some sickos will use anything to get off. 

[MeeganZ]

I didn't say it was caused by the bluest eye. I simply stated that some kids are not mature enough to read that book and see it for what it is, they may just read the descriptive sex. And Lucy stated that no one would use something like the bluest eye on their nightstand for sexual gratification which is completely wrong. I can point you towards several erotica sites that also have stories of rape, incest etc that are viewed by hundreds of thousands of people specifically to get off. (I did a lot of research on sexual aberration for a paper once many moons ago ;) ). Some people absolutely are into very taboo stuff and can/would/have used books like the bluest eye to satisfy those issues. These aren't people who commit heinous acts either, just people who seem quite "normal" and average. Which is why I don't want my teenagers exposed to books like the Bluest eye. Who knows how or when fetishes begin? Better they wait and read books with mature content when they ARE mature. But this is totally off topic. I meant to only respond to Lucy's comment that no one would read it for titillation value. I know from experience that isn't true.

[dbmamaz]

really got a lot out of this discussion, thank you all for sharing.  i suspect part of the difference between being able to wade through hard material like this and being horrified at giving it to a child could be how 'sensitive' people are.  I've known kids who, at 7, still found most disney movies too scary.  Some people have less ability to partition what they read from what they experience.  

[MeeganZ]

Absolutely dbmamaz! I tried to read this book and couldn't because when I read I get very visual images. It was just too much for me. Toni Morrison is a brilliant writer but isn't for everyone. I personally can't read books with very dark topics. I'm too imaginative and too empathic. I will carry it around with me for a long long time. Too each his own though. I can see how it might be a very healing book for some people to read.

[LucyStoner]

Absolutely dbmamaz! I tried to read this book and couldn't because when I read I get very visual images. It was just too much for me. Toni Morrison is a brilliant writer but isn't for everyone. I personally can't read books with very dark topics. I'm too imaginative and too empathic. I will carry it around with me for a long long time. Too each his own though. I can see how it might be a very healing book for some people to read.

 

Plenty of very imaginative, visual and empathetic people can read books like this.  

[LucyStoner]

really got a lot out of this discussion, thank you all for sharing.  i suspect part of the difference between being able to wade through hard material like this and being horrified at giving it to a child could be how 'sensitive' people are.  I've known kids who, at 7, still found most disney movies too scary.  Some people have less ability to partition what they read from what they experience.  

 

 

Very true.  I have a son like that.  His 4 year old brother can tolerate movies he still can not.  He can read Harry Potter because he controls the scene.  To see the movies though?  Well he's 10 and he won't want to anytime soon.  

 

I do think there is a difference in how people interact with books vs. movies.  A reader is more in control than a viewer.  And people react differently to various kinds of inputs.  A reader can skim and skip and isn't subjected to, in addition to words, a score or cinema tricks that are expensively designed by professionals to provoke emotions.  I self censor movies a lot.  It is rare that I find a rape scene that adds to a movie rather than seems tacked in for edgy cred.  But with books, even those who see things visually in our heads have more control.  

[LucyStoner]

The new porn bookshelf, stuffed full of Morrison and Atwood...I don't think...

 

Speaking of an author I don't read- I haven't ever enjoyed an Atwood novel.  I have enjoyed some of her poetry and other writing but I gave up on her novels.  The Handmaiden's Tale and me don't get along so well.  

[msjones]

Thanks for the discussion, everyone.  The OP is bowing out now.

[MeeganZ]

I never stated that other imaginative/empathic people can't read this book. I said I tried and couldn't. I stated a personal opinion about myself.

[LucyStoner]

I never stated that other imaginative/empathic people can't read this book. I said I tried and couldn't. I stated a personal opinion about myself.

 

I wasn't arguing with you.  I was adding in that one doesn't need to be detached to read these sorts of books.