As possibly the most exciting part of the novel comes up Morrison throws us something rather unexpected. To put in a little bit of a pun you might say that she sends us in to a bit of a spin. Just as we get around to really learning what this traumatic event was in Sethe's path the author decides to play with us even further by changing drastically who our point of view is from. Instead of viewing her plight through the eyes of Baby Suggs, or Stamp Paid or even Sethe herself, we get this scene portrayed from the view of the slave catcher who is coming to try and capture Sethe and bring her and her children back to Sweet Home presumably. I think this does a few things for us as readers who have awaited finally being told what it was in Sethe's past that is so dark. First off I think it perpetuates messing with our heads in the way Morrison loves to do, it certainly did for me, but also in a very interesting way I think that, ironically, this change in perspective helps us understand Sethe's rational better.
By changing up the perspective of who we're witnessing Sethe's deed from Morrison shies away from addressing the issue head on, which she does as well with Baby Sugg's accounting, and then even with Sethe herself as she talks to Paul D. Throughout the book we've been periodically picking up on subtle little hints that the author has been giving us, but never actually telling us exactly what happened. We continually flirt with being told what happened to Beloved, but it's never actually portrayed until the last 30 pages before the end of part one. She circles around the answer for much of the book, and when she does get around to telling us what it happens she doesn't actually tell us in a way that shows Sethe's though process. Instead she continues to circle around the matter, which I think is supposed to be indicative of how Sethe feels about her past. By constantly circling around the matter she never really deals with the dark secrets she has, and when she finally does stop circling the person she loves leaves her.
The second thing that Morrison's switch of perspective does for the reader is somewhat counter-intuitive. In certain way it actually helps the reader understand what Sethe is talking about and why her decision possibly could have made sense. By seeing just how cold and calculating the slave catchers were, and how they only wanted to capture Sethe and her children alive. They have no interest in killing her. In fact once the realize that she is "damaged goods" they are perfectly content to simply leave and let her be taken away. In this way I think it paints a perfectly clear rational for why killing her children protects them from slavery. If she takes their lives then she effectively stops any slave catchers from taking them for themselves.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteEven more than allowing us to understand the slave-catchers' point of view, "seeing" the people in the woodshed as "property"--the thing Sethe is trying to save her children from--Morrison goes a bit further, implicating the reader in the drama of the plot from the bounty hunter's point of view, sharing good advice with us about how you have to handle these kinds of situations. This makes for a very discomfiting shift, as we occupy the eyes that appraise the horrifying scene using a totally different standard than we would use. She doesn't allow us to feel comfortably distant from the slave-catchers here.
ReplyDeleteBut then, later, when Sethe is sharing her perspective with Paul *and* with us, she doesn't allow us to feel comfortably distant from her, either.