Well, it is very late, and I am wondering why it has taken me so long to come up with something to write about concerning Toni Morrison’s Beloved. Perhaps, it has something to do with not actually liking the novel that much. Don’t get me wrong, it is a fine literary achievement, but for some reason it doesn’t “strike a chord” with me (but I will leave my personal taste out of this discussion).
More importantly, I am struggling with the postmodern-ness of the novel (and of Toni Morrison in general). So it is a relief to see that as a class, we seem to be struggling together. I keep trying to find a postmodern entry into this novel but have found little success, and so my last resort is to attempt to situate Beloved with the other postmodern texts we have read up to this point. Obviously, this is no walk in the park either…but I did find one thing that could prove useful, but could also prove worthless.
In Kimberly Chabot Davis’ essay “Postmodern Blackness,” she discusses the interaction between past and present in Morrison’s Beloved:
One way to free oneself from the horrors of the past is to reenact and reconfigure the past in the present, as Sethe does with an icepick at the end of the novel, attacking not her own children this time but the white man Bodwin, whom she perceives as a reincarnation of her slave master Schoolteacher. (251)
Could we not consider this idea (reconfiguring the past in the present) in terms of Le Guin’s The Lathe of Heaven? I believe a comparison with Le Guin’s novel depends on how one reads the ending of Beloved. As Davis explains, some critics see the ending as a positive resolution; however, Davis “find[s] that the last chapter denies such a simplistic closure. Morrison ends the novel with the word “Beloved,” suggesting that the past is a lasting presence, waiting to be resurrected. […] Although the ending suggests partial healing, the spectre of the past reamins, waiting to resurface” (251).
To reinforce her claims, Davis turns to Hutcheon who I think can be used also to consider The Lathe of Heaven:
the past is not something to be escaped, avoided, or controlled. . . the past is something with which we must come to terms and such a confrontation involves an acknowledgment of limitation as well as power. (251)
So to try to pull this shaky argument together: Sethe’s icepick maneuver is comparable to the chaotic ending of Dr. Haber’s effective dream in The Lathe of Heaven. These resolutions are not perfect. Instead, the endings demonstrate an “acknowledgment of limitation”: Sethe cannot erase the past by stabbing someone with an icepick, and Dr. Haber cannot alter the wrongs of the past by changing the world’s present condition (Note: his attempt to do so results in chaos. Had it not been for George reaching the “off” switch, the world would have been staring into the eye of an apocalyptic disaster.)
Alternatively, both novels demonstrate the failing attempts to reconfigure the past through the present: Beloved in terms of a personal, familial past and The Lathe Heaven in terms of a broader world history.
Well what exactly does all of this tell me? By placing Beloved alongside a postmodern text, can a claim of postmodernism be made for Morrison’s novel? I’m not sure. As was stated in Davis’s essay, Beloved‘s ending can be read several different ways. If we read the ending as a positive resolution, then I can see the case being made against a postmodernist reading. Either way, a comparison between the two novels certainly raises questions about the reconfiguration of the past through the present, and whether or not this can be achieved.