Sula is kinda like an Ayn Rand objectivist character...except not as good and I didn't develop a respect for Sula like I did for, say, Roark. Idk, there's something about her I can't stand. (lol cuz she's "pig meat", nah jk) But yeah, if I met Sula, I'd probably not like her. She'd piss me off way too easily with her wise cracks that aren't even clever but she tries to play them off like they are. Attitude problem, that girl. And yeah, yeah, Sula comes to town and everyone cherishes what they have and when she's gone they resort back to their ungrateful ways, blah, blah, blah. First of all, I don't see why little miss thing is important enough to make a book about. The same thing could've happened in the town had another chick come along. What am I supposed to believe? Only Sula could've made those transformations in the town? Give me a break. If I lived in the Bottom, I'd participate in the Sula mob job, no doubt. Idk, this book means just about nothing to me. But I'll have to analyze it and all that jazz so I can get good grades on Sula-related assignments. Lucky me... Ohh, and the sex parts of the book! That's manini. But if you like that kind, I think you'd enjoy Cosmo's red hot reads. Ya, Mark? Haha ;D
I thought Sula was a good book. I think I would feel confident referring to it on an AP essay question since it is simple to remember the characters and story line.
I didn't think Sula was a bad character as the Bottom made her out to be. She was an individual who was true to herself, and I think she could be respected for that. She never compromised or betrayed her values...so I'm not sure why one would have a problem with her. One may disagree with her values, but what should that matter to anyone anyway?
I think the book isn't only about Sula, but her friendship with Nel. However, Sula is the noted character because people around her change while she doesn't. This consistency helps the reader understand other characters that interact with (or are indirectly affected by) Sula. Since people like Sula were rare (or inexistent) in the Bottom, I suppose she would be the only one who could've made the "transformations" in the town.
I think the "actual" sex parts in the book were when intercourse isn't directly brought up.
I have to say that Sula took me a very long time to read. I was not as engaged in it as I could have been--but that could have been because of other outside distractions as well. However, after reading experts' opinions, I was indeed able to grasp a better understanding about the intimate relationships that occurred in the story.
I still can't get over the fact that Eva had killed Plum in the fire. How can a society (the people in the Bottom) just recognize her actions as a mother's responsibility. However, I guess this is said without the knowledge of how a heroin addiction would affect a young boy back then (would it be different from now?...probably).
I found the whole death from water/fire thing quite memorable in our socratic discussion. I know that these references have symbolic importance, especially with the elements, but I wonder how it truly ties in to the story--perhaps character development? I wonder what Morrison was thinking when she incorporated this aspect in to the book.
I thought I'd post my final remarks on Sula before moving on to my new book.
I'm sure everyone knows that Sula wasn't the most entertaining book to read, but I do think that Morrison managed to tell a good story with a strong message within the confines of two covers. Sula is an inspiration to women, expecially. I agree with what Chloe says about her being like Roark: she lives for herself and no one else.
I would say that more people should be like this, regardless of how selfish the world may turn out but that's what scares me. It's hard to look at things the way they are now and imagine it in a completely selfish aspect. That would mean no more humanitarian efforts by philanthropists, no National Wildlife Foundation, no FEMA (though that may be a good thing, lol). Regardless, Sula is the epitome of selfishness for she lives for herself.
As I said before, this is a good message. And perhaps I would like Sula a bit more if the message hadn't already been presented to me in a much better form: "The Fountainhead." Though Rand and Morrison's philosophies aren't identical, they do have comparable components and I'm sure we all agree that Rand did a better job with relaying her message. Sure, she took 800-something pages to do it while Morrison used 1/6 of that, but it was worth it in my eyes.
In summary, Sula was an okay book, but I did not enjoy reading it.
5 comments:
I didn't enjoy reading Sula.
Sula is kinda like an Ayn Rand objectivist character...except not as good and I didn't develop a respect for Sula like I did for, say, Roark. Idk, there's something about her I can't stand. (lol cuz she's "pig meat", nah jk) But yeah, if I met Sula, I'd probably not like her. She'd piss me off way too easily with her wise cracks that aren't even clever but she tries to play them off like they are. Attitude problem, that girl.
And yeah, yeah, Sula comes to town and everyone cherishes what they have and when she's gone they resort back to their ungrateful ways, blah, blah, blah. First of all, I don't see why little miss thing is important enough to make a book about. The same thing could've happened in the town had another chick come along. What am I supposed to believe? Only Sula could've made those transformations in the town? Give me a break. If I lived in the Bottom, I'd participate in the Sula mob job, no doubt.
Idk, this book means just about nothing to me.
But I'll have to analyze it and all that jazz so I can get good grades on Sula-related assignments. Lucky me...
Ohh, and the sex parts of the book! That's manini. But if you like that kind, I think you'd enjoy Cosmo's red hot reads. Ya, Mark? Haha ;D
Ehh, Sula. Bleh.
Not my cup of tea :(
I thought Sula was a good book. I think I would feel confident referring to it on an AP essay question since it is simple to remember the characters and story line.
I didn't think Sula was a bad character as the Bottom made her out to be. She was an individual who was true to herself, and I think she could be respected for that. She never compromised or betrayed her values...so I'm not sure why one would have a problem with her. One may disagree with her values, but what should that matter to anyone anyway?
I think the book isn't only about Sula, but her friendship with Nel. However, Sula is the noted character because people around her change while she doesn't. This consistency helps the reader understand other characters that interact with (or are indirectly affected by) Sula. Since people like Sula were rare (or inexistent) in the Bottom, I suppose she would be the only one who could've made the "transformations" in the town.
I think the "actual" sex parts in the book were when intercourse isn't directly brought up.
It's too bad the book meant nothing to you :)
-Nancy
I have to say that Sula took me a very long time to read. I was not as engaged in it as I could have been--but that could have been because of other outside distractions as well. However, after reading experts' opinions, I was indeed able to grasp a better understanding about the intimate relationships that occurred in the story.
I still can't get over the fact that Eva had killed Plum in the fire. How can a society (the people in the Bottom) just recognize her actions as a mother's responsibility. However, I guess this is said without the knowledge of how a heroin addiction would affect a young boy back then (would it be different from now?...probably).
I found the whole death from water/fire thing quite memorable in our socratic discussion. I know that these references have symbolic importance, especially with the elements, but I wonder how it truly ties in to the story--perhaps character development? I wonder what Morrison was thinking when she incorporated this aspect in to the book.
Well, I'm glad we're done with Sula, for now (:
- Alyssa
I thought I'd post my final remarks on Sula before moving on to my new book.
I'm sure everyone knows that Sula wasn't the most entertaining book to read, but I do think that Morrison managed to tell a good story with a strong message within the confines of two covers. Sula is an inspiration to women, expecially. I agree with what Chloe says about her being like Roark: she lives for herself and no one else.
I would say that more people should be like this, regardless of how selfish the world may turn out but that's what scares me. It's hard to look at things the way they are now and imagine it in a completely selfish aspect. That would mean no more humanitarian efforts by philanthropists, no National Wildlife Foundation, no FEMA (though that may be a good thing, lol). Regardless, Sula is the epitome of selfishness for she lives for herself.
As I said before, this is a good message. And perhaps I would like Sula a bit more if the message hadn't already been presented to me in a much better form: "The Fountainhead." Though Rand and Morrison's philosophies aren't identical, they do have comparable components and I'm sure we all agree that Rand did a better job with relaying her message. Sure, she took 800-something pages to do it while Morrison used 1/6 of that, but it was worth it in my eyes.
In summary, Sula was an okay book, but I did not enjoy reading it.
Oh, and Ms. Donnelly: Sula wasn't THAT sexual! There could have been more, lol. Maybe then it would have been a better read haha.
Post a Comment