Search This Blog

Wednesday, April 3, 2013

Tiny Disturbance: Third Beloved Analysis


After Sethe ponders how Beloved’s fingers felt exactly like those of the baby’s ghost, she realizes something more important—that she wants Paul D in her life. Toni Morrison uses Sethe’s desire for Paul D in her life to provide an example of how history and suffering are easier to deal with when one has friends or family. Sethe, although she comes to the understanding that Beloved and the ghost are the same, she says about their touches “it was only a tiny disturbance anyway” (116). If one follows the perspective that Beloved represents Sethe’s history as a slave, then this scene makes her suffering less important in comparison with how good her life can be with Paul D. She goes on to say how she wants his “awful human power” (116). One would think that an angry spirit has more power than a human, however, Paul D has more healing power than the baby has destructive power over Sethe. Sethe says how “Her story was bearable because it was his as well—to tell, to refine and tell again.” (116). Even though the circle of suffering and history must continue to be told and even felt, Sethe’s story is “bearable” because she shares it. This scene might be to show how all slaves share a common story, which makes it more “bearable.” The understanding the two have for each other allows for a healing process that makes the ghost baby less important. 

1 comment:

  1. Vera, I think you have a solid analysis but some of your statements are flawed and your wording can be misleading. For example, your statement that Sethe "comes to the understanding that Beloved and the ghost are the same" is false. One possible way of reading the novel is as the ghost and Beloved being the same but Sethe doesn't comes to that realization. Sethe thinks that Beloved's fingers feel the same but never that they are the same person/ghost in general. Later on in tonights reading, Sethe even ponders if Beloved blocked her memories of being kept as a plaything for men in the past.

    ReplyDelete