Group Read: “Paradise” by Toni Morrison

Last year I began reading all eleven of Toni Morrison’s novels in order of publication. In January I read her sixth book, Jazz, and a bunch of 75ers followed suit. Since February is Black History Month in the US, and also Morrison’s birthday month, we decided to move directly to her seventh novel, Paradise. Given the level of interest, a discussion thread is in order. All are welcome to join in!

A few guidelines for posting on this thread:
* Use spoiler tags as appropriate in your comments.
* Identify the chapter your comments refer to so others know whether it's safe to click on the spoiler link.

----------



Chloe Anthony Wofford Morrison (February 18, 1931 – August 5, 2019)

Born and raised in Lorain, Ohio, Morrison graduated from Howard University in 1953 with a B.A. in English. In 1955, she earned a master's degree in American Literature from Cornell University. In 1957 she returned to Howard University, was married, and had two children before divorcing in 1964. In the late 1960s, she became the first black female editor in fiction at Random House in New York City. In the 1970s and 1980s, she developed her own reputation as an author, and her perhaps most celebrated work, Beloved, was made into a 1998 film. Her works are praised for addressing the harsh consequences of racism in the United States.

Morrison was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1993. In 1996, the National Endowment for the Humanities selected her for the Jefferson Lecture, the U.S. federal government's highest honor for achievement in the humanities. Also that year, she was honored with the National Book Foundation's Medal of Distinguished Contribution to American Letters. In 2012, President Barack Obama presented Morrison with the Presidential Medal of Freedom. In 2016, she received the PEN/Saul Bellow Award for Achievement in American Fiction. In 2020, Morrison was inducted into the National Women's Hall of Fame.

Source: Wikipedia

Morrison’s novels, in publication order:

The Bluest Eye, 1970
Sula, 1973
Song of Solomon, 1977
Tar Baby, 1981
Beloved, 1987
Jazz, 1992
Paradise, 1997
Love, 2003
A Mercy, 2008
Home, 2012
God Help the Child, 2015

I plan to start reading closer to mid-February to coincide with Morrison’s birthday. I hope anyone who wants to read the book will do so whenever it fits their schedule, and post questions and comments.

Who’s with me?

I am in. Thanks, for setting this up. Copy at hand.

Thanks Laura. I starred it.

I’ve added this thread to the group wiki.

>3 msf59:, >4 BLBera: Welcome, Mark and Beth! I'm glad you're in.
>5 drneutron: Thank you Jim!

I'm in. I won't start reading until closer to mid-month myself, but I'm looking forward to revisiting this powerful novel.

>7 laytonwoman3rd: welcome, Linda! Thanks for joining in.

I'm not going to read with you - this is the only Morrison I have read, and I want to follow along on your thoughts and comments. Just think of me as Gladys Kravitz.

>9 Crazymamie: That's cool Mamie Gladys! I know you're a shy sort (HA), but I hope you'll chime in once in a while.

I too read it (or most of it) last year, but wasn't really following the story arc so I'll mostly be lurking also to see if comments help me see what I missed.

>11 dudes22: Welcome, Betty!

I'm in! I'll probably start around the middle of the month, too.

>13 katiekrug: Great, glad you'll be joining in, Katie!

I'll join--I've already read it, but not for a while, and it's actually one of my favorite Morrisons.

>15 AnneDC: Hurray! I read Paradise over a decade ago myself, but as I've been working my way through Morrison's novels I have found the re-reads are well worth it.

I'm in! The library has three e-copies and I'm number four in the queue. So I should get it pretty soon.... The only thing about e-copies is that I think folks are less likely to bother to "return" the book when they are done reading it; rather, they just let the auto-return function do it. So I'm hoping the folks in front of me are on top of things!

>17 EBT1002: I'm glad you'll be joining, Ellen!

And, just like that, my copy is available! I'll wait a couple days before I check it out, see if I can finish The Thursday Murder Club first.

I'll be joining, too. I'll also be starting about the middle of the month.

>20 streamsong: Excellent! Welcome, Janet.

I read the first chapter of Paradise this morning. Whew, this is a change of pace from The Thursday Murder Club! It is vintage Toni Morrison, dense, poetic, visual, and demanding. Morrison asks her reader to invest in the experience, to give her one's full attention and concentration, and I am settling in for that kind of focus.

I just finished a book this afternoon, so I think I'll start reading Paradise tonight.

I am starting as well - good timing. I last read Paradise in grad school when it was first published. When I opened my book, I found a notecard with some notes on it.

Some of them will no doubt make more sense after I've read a bit, but two comments were:

Numbers are important.
Note Biblical allusions.

That should give us all something to think about.

I’m 45% into it.

I’ll start paying more attention to numbers but the truth is that biblical allusions are usually lost on me. 😀

>24 BLBera: and >25 EBT1002: - I'm in Ellen's boat re: Biblical allusions... But I can handle numbers!

For me to get the Biblical allusions, they have to be pretty obvious. I guess we're just a bunch of heathens! :)

*heathen fist bump*

I'm probably going to start reading today. I'll be interested to see how many of the Biblical allusions I get...I was once fairly well grounded in such things. Of course if I miss them I won't necessarily know, will I?

*joining the fist-bumping heathen dance*

>29 laytonwoman3rd: Sister Linda will enlighten us, I'm sure. 😀

*fist-bump in solidarity*

>29 laytonwoman3rd: You won’t know if you miss one, Linda, and it appears pretty unlikely that any of us will be able to point them out to you! LOL

This novel is running hot and cold for me. I get deeply engaged in the individual women’s stories but the threads connecting them aren’t working well for me.

I'm on page 94 of 318 in my edition, early in the "Seneca" chapter. I'm still in discovery mode, with each chapter requiring careful reading in order to determine how the events and characters connect with what I've already read. Ellen, I too find myself drawn into the original stories. I haven't read enough yet to say whether it's working for me or not. It certainly requires concentration, as Morrison's writing often does.

>30 lauralkeet: Verra amusing, I'm sure! I've never been the Bible expert in the room before (well, maybe when there's a Jeopardy category and my husband is the only other person present). I'm only about half-way through the "Grace" section, but I haven't caught a reference yet. My education in the subject seems to come from the time period in my life that remains clearest in my memory, somehow!

When I tried to read this last year, I had the problem Ellen mentioned and ended up quitting about 3/4 way through. I liked the individual stories but never found the common thread/theme that made it all come together into a cohesive story.

For Ellen, Betty, and others who are thinking about themes or connections that bind the novel together, I found this short piece in Kirkus Reviews. Does it resonate with you?

I've searched a bit for reviews and other secondary sources to guide us but I'm being careful about that since I don't want to run into any spoilers. The Kirkus Reviews piece looks safe.

Since everyone here is reading at their own pace, I'd like to make a couple of suggestions when posting your thoughts about the book:
* Use spoiler tags as appropriate in your comments.
* Identify the chapter your comments refer to so others know whether it's safe to click on the spoiler link.

I'll add these to the first post on this thread, and will do the same for any input from others on ways to manage our discussion.

I have a hardcover edition of the book, but I also downloaded the Kindle version from the library, and that one includes a Foreword by Morrison talking a bit about her intentions with the book. It didn't have any spoilers, and it's worth reading if you have access to it.

>35 lauralkeet: - Thanks for this, Laura.

>33 laytonwoman3rd: After giving my post further consideration, I will note that, naturally, the title of the book is a Biblical reference; "Grace" is, of course, a Christian concept; and even "Ruby" might be a reference to Proverbs...who can find a virtuous woman, etc.

Oh, and of course we can infer an allusion to Moses leading his people out of the wilderness.

I'm just throwing stuff out there.

I have the kindle edition from the library, too, and I am thinking that before I continue, I will go back and re-read Morrison's Foreword. I completed Patricia's chapter this morning; I'm 69% in.

>35 lauralkeet: I will go look at that between my afternoon meetings. Thanks Laura.

>35 lauralkeet: - I'm going to look at it too.

>35 lauralkeet: That is a helpful little essay. Thanks Laura.

I'm hesitant to dive fully into Paradise before I finish The Vanishing Half, which should be today. If any of you have read this, I got very strong echoes of Paradise from the beginning of this book. It will be interesting to read them back-to-back.

Meanwhile my copy has the Morrison foreword, which I read, and the Kirkus article (thanks Laura). I'm only about 20 pages in. However, I'm thinking about a writing coach who used to work with students in our elementary school. One of his mantras for student writing was "Dive right in to an interesting scene" and Morrison sure pulls that off here, doesn't she?

>41 AnneDC: That's a VERY interesting observation about The Vanishing Half, Anne. I read somewhere that Brit Bennett (not surprisingly) considers Toni Morrison a source of inspiration in her work in general. Have you read her book, The Mothers? Morrison's influence is strong there as well.

In the Seneca section, there is reference to pregnant women being turned away from accommodations. What does that sound like?

>41 AnneDC: - She definitely dives right in. I'm only in the Grace section, but I'm enjoying the read.

>43 laytonwoman3rd: - Oooh! I actually know the answer! Maybe not such a heathen after all?!!? :)

>44 katiekrug: I'm pretty sure "heathen" just means you don't subscribe to any organized religion, not that you don't know anything about them! You can keep your badge.

>45 laytonwoman3rd: - I shall wear it proudly.

>43 laytonwoman3rd: I think I know the answer, too! LOL

>41 AnneDC: Interesting comparison to The Vanishing Half. I've not read that one yet, still in the library queue. Now I want to read it before too much time goes by after finishing Paradise.

>42 lauralkeet: I have found Bennett's writing vaguely reminiscent of Morrison's, and it makes complete sense to me that she regards her as an influence. From reading Morrison's forward about the formation of all-black towns post emancipation:

Implicit in those warnings were two commands: 1) If you have nothing, stay away. 2) This new land is Utopia for a few. Translation: no poor former slaves are welcome in the paradise being built here.

What could that mean for ex-slaves--threatened, exhausted refugees with no resources? How would they feel having trekked all that way from chains into freedom only to be told, "This here is Paradise but you can't come in." I also noticed that the town leaders in the photographs were invariably light-skinned men. Was skin privilege also a feature of the separation? One that replicated the white racism they abhorred?

It seems like Morrison is trying to invert that history in creating the fictional town of Ruby, reserved only for the very dark-skinned, whereas Bennett doubles down on that history in creating the fictional town of Mallard, where all of the residents are so light-skinned they can pass for white.

I have no desire to hijack this thread to talk about The Vanishing Half, but reading them both is giving me unexpected context.

>48 AnneDC: I, for one, don't consider it a hijack to discuss a related work here. I am just more excited to read The Vanishing Half which so many have recommended to me.

And, this discussion is helping me "get more" out of my reading of Paradise, so all of it is good!

>48 AnneDC: I find all that extremely interesting...and like Ellen, I think it informs Paradise, and isn't hijacking in any way, but merely contributing to the discussion. Thank you!

My book club is reading The Vanishing Half in March, so I will get to it soon!

I'm not as far as you all are; I'm on page 100, in the Senaca part. I'm interested in the Oven.

The legacy of Toni Morrison looms large in The Vanishing Half

I was going to post this on Anne's personal 75 Books thread, but seeing the comments from Ellen, Linda, and Beth I decided to post it here. The article mentions Beloved, not Paradise, but also discusses the importance of the oral tradition both for Morrison and Black writers in general.

I've been paging through The Source of Self-Regard as well, looking for what she says about Paradise.

>53 BLBera: thanks for researching that, Beth. I accidentally boxed up my copy as we were getting our house ready for sale. Our realtor wanted the bookshelves to look less overstuffed, what's that about?! ha ha. I wish the book had an index, because references to her novels can be hard to find.

>54 lauralkeet: I find the lack of an index annoying, Laura. I did find a couple of sections; I think most of her comments about her own writing were in the last section of the book, so I concentrated on looking there. I haven't really looked at them yet; I wanted to make some progress on the novel. I'm finding I remember very little of it.

I'm halfway through, and other than having to work my pathetic memory to recall all the characters and connections, I am enjoying it. I expect it will evolve as I go on, but right now, I am struck by how racial concerns are more in the background. It's the gender issues that are center-stage and much more obvious, at least to me. Anyone else have thoughts on this?

ETA: I should say, obviously race was the central factor in developing the communities of Haven and Ruby, but in the specific narratives, I am not seeing it as a major theme (yet?).

>56 katiekrug: That was my impression when I read this the first time, Katie, that themes around gender were much more prominent. Also that other themes like power and authority seemed to be almost race neutral, the way Animal Farm is a fable about power. I'm interested to see whether those earlier impressions are the same on a second read.

>52 lauralkeet: Thanks Laura! Very interesting.

>53 BLBera: >54 lauralkeet: >55 BLBera: You reminded me I also have The Source of Self Regard. Although I haven't had a chance to look at it much, I see there is an essay called Paradise and one called God's Language (which some of the Foreward seems to come from). Possibly a good starting point.

I'm only a couple of sections in, but in the very first chapter I found myself thinking a lot about conspiracy theories and how they get their power. Violence triggered by a false set of beliefs seems timely.

>56 katiekrug: Patricia's section may change that conception for you. But isn't that first sentence just eating away at you? "They shoot the white girl first"----which one is the white girl?

I also have trouble keeping the characters (especially those we only hear about, but rarely meet) straight.

>58 laytonwoman3rd: I agree with your reference to the Patricia chapter, Linda. Although that may be more about colorism than racism, what do you think?

And oh yeah, that opening line. Here's what Morrison had to say about that in the Foreword:

With these opening sentences I wanted to signal 1) the presence of race as hierarchy and 2) its collapse as reliable information. The novel places an all-black community, one chosen by its inhabitants, next to a raceless one, also chosen by its inhabitants. The grounds for traditional black vs. white hostilities shift to the nature of exclusion, the origins of chauvinism, the source of oppression, assault, and slaughter. The black town of Ruby is all about its own race--preserving it, developing myths or origin, and maintaining its purity. In the Convent race is indeterminate--all racial codes are eliminated, deliberately withheld. For some readers this was disturbing and some admitted to being preoccupied with finding out which character was the "white girl"; others wondered initially and then abandoned the question; some ignored the confusion by reading them all as black. The perceptive ones read them as full realized individuals--whatever their race. Unconstrained by the weary and wearying vocabulary of racial domination, the narrative seeks to unencumber itself from the limit that racial language imposes on the imagination. The conflicts are gender-related and generational. They are struggles over history--who will tell and thereby control the story of the past? Who will shape the future? There are conflicts of value, of ethics. Of personal identity. What is manhood? Womanhood? And finally what is personhood?

Whew.

I am halfway through as well and the overwhelming sense that I get so far is that of the vulnerability of women. Even in Ruby and Haven, the women don't seem to be safe.

Morrison wrote a story called "Rectitatif," with two little girls. One was white and one was black and we don't know which is which. I think she's doing the same kind of thing here. In interviews she says she did his to be "forced as a writer not to be lazy and rely on obvious codes...I use class codes, but no racial codes."

>59 lauralkeet: "Whew" is right, Laura. I agree also about the colorism in the Patricia section... but it's almost as clear a distinction among the people of Ruby as black and white on the outside, it seems. A slightly different criteria to accomplish the same thing----putting one group above or below another, based on something as superficial, but easily identified, as the shade of their pigmentation.

>59 lauralkeet:, >60 BLBera: I found a very interesting discussion of Paradise by a professor at Indiana State University here. I haven't read all of it, but his take on the "who is the white girl" is that after teaching the book several times, he still doesn't know. He also mentions "Recitatif". Clearly Morrison demanded as much of herself as a writer as her work demands of us when we read it.

>61 laytonwoman3rd: nodding in agreement with your spoiler comments, Linda.

Thank you for sharing that article. I'll read it later today. I read the first paragraph where he compares the experience of reading Paradise to Morrison's earlier novels. I loved this line: Paradise is so problematic a book that Oprah's book club didn't like it, and they like everything.

I am nearing the end now (currently reading the Lone chapter) and am finding the book compelling in a very different way from most reading experiences. I've been completely drawn into each woman's story, although I struggle to keep all the characters straight, and I don't fully understand what's happening, or what Morrison is trying to say. There's a lot to unpack but I'm kind of enjoying that aspect of it as well.

I'm really enjoying all the discussions here even though I'm not currently reading it. I never finished it last year because I was so confused by all the characters and what Morrison was trying to say. I intend to read it again and I think these thoughts and articles will help with that. Like Laura, I was drawn into each woman's story although I wasn't sure how it related to the whole at the time I was reading it.

I have this book on the shelves. The only one I own of Toni Morrison. I never took part in a group read so I like to know how that works. Starring this thread.

I am finally starting Paradise today, so I have skipped much of this discussion so far. I will go back once I get at least a third of it done. Sounds like there is plenty to chew on.

>64 connie53: Welcome, Connie! This group read is fairly unstructured. Some of us started the book early in the month, others are just getting started. Everyone reads at their own pace and can comment as they wish, using spoiler tags to hide as appropriate so as not to spoil the reading experience for others. I hope you'll join in!

>65 msf59: Hi Mark! Looking forward to your thoughts as you "chew on" this book. I'm resisting the temptation to post a silly gif.

>66 lauralkeet: Or maybe something like this?

>67 BLBera: LOL.

Mark's been doing this all his life. It's an obsession, really. Sad.

>69 lauralkeet: I knew you would. Resistance is futile.

>69 lauralkeet: That one just made my day, Laura but how the heck did you get my baby photo?

I am close to finishing the first 50 pages. As expected, her narrative is not always easy to digest but her prose still shines with beauty and intelligence.

Soon after I posted >56 katiekrug:, I began to see more racial themes emerge, especially around Reverend Misner and the civil rights movement. So external to Ruby. But now that I'm in Patricia's chapter, it's expanding and the racial - internal and external - is a bit more at the fore. I have about 100 pages left. I don't think I'll finish it today, but definitely should tomorrow.

>71 msf59: *diabolical laugh*

---

I finished the Lone chapter a little while ago. Absolutely gripping. I need to sit with it for a while before reading the final chapter.

>72 katiekrug: We're at about the same point now, apparently. I hope to finish it this weekend, too.

Found the book om my shelves and took it downstairs.

I finished this morning and am letting it percolate before trying to share any substantive thoughts...

I finished it last night, Katie.

I started this afternoon.

I'm glad you're joining us, Connie!

Wow! What an amazing book. I am so glad I read it again.

I've finished as well.

So it looks like there are at least four of us who have finished the book: me, Katie, Beth, and Linda. Feel free to jump in with thoughts, but please use spoiler tags.

This was a re-read for me, but once again (as with Beloved and Song of Solomon), I remembered absolutely nothing. Granted, I first read it sometime in the 1990s. I was in my 30s with two young children. I probably read it because it was an Oprah book. But I know for certain it didn't affect me as much as it did this time, and I'm guessing I couldn't figure out what was going on. This time I've rated it 4.5 stars.

From the opening chapter we know something horrific will happen, but how? Why? The chapters about each woman offer no real clues until Lone. As I mentioned, I found that chapter absolutely gripping and terrifying. The part where Steward shoots, and Deek almost-but-not-quite prevents him from doing so really got me. And in the final chapter, when Deek is trying to come to terms with it all was very sad and moving.

I liked the way Morrison provides a denouement of sorts in the last chapter while also maintaining a high degree of ambiguity.

I've been preoccupied with this book all day today.

I should finish tonight so I will wait to catch up on this thread until later.

My not-very-coherent thoughts - throwing it up here for discussion :)

Paradise begins with a shocking crime and then for 300 pages, Morrison provides the background and context for what happened on page 1. She details life in the small, all-black community of Ruby, Oklahoma and the “convent” outside of town that has become a haven for women in trouble. There is a lot going on in this novel with issues of gender and generational expectations at the fore and race and colorism providing the backdrop. It’s very complex, the language rich and nuanced, and the stories of the convent women and citizens of Ruby compelling.

I have been having trouble formulating articulate comments on the book, because several disparate threads seem important to me, and I can’t seem to wrangle them into much coherent thought, so I’m just going to lay them out:

- The convent is a haven for the women; the founders of Ruby fled a town called Haven and tried to recreate it. The idea of haven, safety, security is personal; one’s own haven can be seen as a threat to another’s?
- The fertility of the garden at the convent, “early melons,” abundance – like the garden of Eden, Paradise
- Generations/time/progress - the leaders of Ruby reliving/recreating the past, distrustful of new ideas/people; the convent women escaping their pasts and trying to realize a way forward.
- At first, I was frustrated with the number of named characters and trying to keep them straight, but I wonder if there was a point to it. Was Morrison illustrating the tangled relationships in Ruby and making a comment on the insignificance of keeping it all straight, despite the town’s insistence on maintaining a hierarchy of families and individuals and who married who and who is important and not?
- The ending - the murdered women appear to people from their pasts in a kind of benediction, as if they’ve broken free of that past and can forgive? Unlike in Ruby where the past is ever-present?
- A question: What happened to the baby? Connie leaves the baby in the basement room at the end when she goes upstairs and is shot. I don’t think further mention is made of the baby? So it, too, just disappeared, like the women? That was confusing to me.

I’m really glad to have read Paradise. Thank you, Laura, for the impetus, and to my shared readers!

4.25 stars

"Over and over and with the least provocation, they pulled from their stock of stories tales about the old folks, their grands and great-grands; their fathers and mothers. Dangerous confrontations, clever maneuvers. Testimonies to endurance, wit, skill and strength. Tales of luck and courage. But why were there no stories to tell of themselves? About their own lives they shut up. Had nothing to say, pass on. As though past heroism was enough of a future to live by. As though, rather than children, they wanted duplicates."

Great comments, Katie.

Thanks Laura.
I had too many spoilers in my comments, so I posted them on my thread.

I loved, loved, loved this.

Thank you Katie, very fine comments indeed. And Beth, I liked what you wrote on your thread as well.

I, too, loved this book. Katie, I have the same question that you posed. But I also wonder if we are reading it too literally. Could it be that, as in Beloved, some of the characters in Paradise aren't real, living beings?

I read an interesting essay by Sarah Appleton Aguiar, published in African American Review Vol 36, Number 3. She suggests that all or some of the women are dead before they reach the Convent, the result of tragic life circumstances. This would explain why no bodies were found after the raid, and no mention of what happened to the baby. She supports this theory by noting that no one seems to be missing or searching for the women. I think with their invisibility, Morrison is also saying something about gender.

This essay also describes character "doubles" between Ruby and the Convent; for example Soane and Mavis, who both are unable to move past the grief of losing their children.

-----
For anyone crying out for a linear plot summary, try this:
Paradise Lost / A black community tears itself apart in Toni Morrison's latest novel
It's a fairly literal interpretation of the novel, but Morrison is usually up to something more than just telling a story.

Interesting comments from Appleton Aguiar, Laura. I'll have to read that article. I certainly thought they were dead in the last chapter, but I didn't think about the fact that the Convent might be haunted .

>86 lauralkeet: - That's an interesting reading, Laura. I feel like I would have to re-read it with that in mind to see how well I felt it held up...

I think there is a lot of "magic" going on in Paradise (as there should be in Paradise, no?), and the idea that not all the women at the Convent are alive, nor all the events actually happening is compatible with that. If the women appear to their families after being killed, it isn't a stretch to think they might be "appearing" at other times as well. Supernatural happenings are not unusual in Morrison's work, in general.

>87 BLBera:, >88 katiekrug:, >89 laytonwoman3rd: maybe I'm easily swayed by one essay but the more I think about it the more I'm all in on the supernatural happenings.

After a (very superficial) think on it, I'm not so sure. I mean, if they were all dead I might buy it more, but Gigi's relationship with K.D. was very real (I think?) and the Ruby women tending to two shot women... The one the supernatural theory works best for me is Pallas/Divine - all that drowning stuff...

>91 katiekrug: good points, Katie. And despite buying the theory, I can't reconcile it with Deek trying to keep Steward from shooting, and the impact of that on Deek and on the twins' relationship. *shrug*

>92 lauralkeet: - Oh, that's a good point, too!

I struggle with so much ambiguity...

>91 katiekrug:, >92 lauralkeet: AND, Connie's relationship with Deek was apparently a very real thing as well. I don't say it all works...but I do strongly wonder about the actual existence of the baby, as I mentioned on Katie's thread.

>93 katiekrug: I normally struggle with ambiguity, too, Katie. But with this book, I'm fascinated by it. To the extent that the piece I referenced at the end of >86 lauralkeet: almost seems too clear-cut for a Morrison novel.

>94 laytonwoman3rd: - Yes, I was thinking the theory might be that Connie was alive and real, while the "girls" weren't...

Did anyone else feel like that baby came out of nowhere? Or did I miss something?

>95 lauralkeet: - I agree about the review you linked to. Very literal and almost a shallow (?) reading of it?

Also, this is the most fun I've had at work in a while. Thanks for the distraction, friends!

>96 katiekrug: To answer your spoilery question, I believe Pallas is pregnant when she returns to the Convent.

And weirdly, I found that "literal" review as a footnote in the Appleton Aguiar essay. It doesn't offer up anything to support her thesis, but I suppose it provides a jumping-off point.

>97 katiekrug: LOL! Well, if they're gonna make you work on a holiday you might as well have fun doing it.

>96 katiekrug:, >98 lauralkeet: I think Laura is right about Pallas, but we didn't experience the birth of a baby, did we? Maybe I missed it too. Now I'm questioning myself, but I was leaning toward Connie imagining that child's existence. Because some things might not be supernatural, but merely happening in a character's dreams or imagination, or visions? They do have almost out-of-body experiences at times.

What a great discussion!

In response to my comments that I also posted on my personal thread, Richard had this to say about the last line of the quote I included: "As though, rather than children, they wanted duplicates."

Richard: "I think that's the key insight into the book: The desire to recreate the past with different faces, wearing the same labels. A desperate forcing of patterns; the inherent coerciveness of the Idea of Paradise, its cruel exclusiveness and procrustean demands on the living to *be* the dead incarnate."

I appreciated this insight and wanted to share it.

>100 laytonwoman3rd: No, we didn't experience it Linda, and I like your Connie theory.

>102 katiekrug: interesting!

I'm loving this conversation even though it's distracting me from writing a review ha ha.

>102 katiekrug: That also explains the twins, Katie.

I have so many thoughts! Because I'm still sorting them out I'll just jump into the conversation that's going on, but first I have to figure out how to do that spoiler thing.

OK, not that hard!

I was confused by the ending, not that I expect a clear, straightforward ending from Morrison.

I'm intrigued by the idea that some of the characters at the Convent aren't real living women per the preceding discussion.

Here's something from the second paragraph that may be pertinent:
"They are nine, over twice the number of the women they are obliged to stampede or kill..." How does that math work out? It works out great if some of them are already dead/not real.

It doesn't completely satisfy me though--some of the women seem all too real. Mavis steals the Cadillac and drives to Ruby. This doesn't seem like a supernatural journey, there is no obvious lethal trauma, and the car seems very tangible, paint job and all. However, she comes and goes, and maybe when she returns something has happened to her?
When Mavis first arrived, the old nun was still living, so maybe something about the Convent changes after that.

Also, it sure seems like Pallas goes back home to her father in real life.


The ending:

They do seem to be unreal in the final section--but they are oddly corporeal ghosts. Everyone they encounter mentions their cut-off hair, an actual thing that happened at the Convent. Sal can hug and kiss Mavis. Gigi swims in a lake and dries off, observes that her hair has grown less than an inch. Pallas goes back for her shoes, doesn't speak to her mother. First I thought they were real, and had miraculously escaped, then I thought they were like ghosts setting things right for their loved ones, now I wonder if these scenes exist in the minds of the women, like dream states, allowing them to work things out in a sort of afterlife.

I found myself wondering what Lone thinks happened, since Lone was present when the bodies disappeared. And Lone thinks God swept them up and took them away, giving Ruby a miraculous second chance. In itself supernatural, although different.

I love that I'm trying to decide whether the idea that they are some kind of phantom women or the idea that God intervened is more plausible!

The baby: I think Pallas was pregnant when she first came to the convent--when Billie Delia found her she was vomiting outside a clinic. On their very first meeting Connie tells her she's pregnant, but she denies it. When she returns she is putting on weight. We don't experience the birth, and it's unclear how much time has gone by. When she resurfaces at her mother's in the final section, she has a baby strapped to her front. (But how does the baby get from the crib in the basement to Pallas?

A different baby question: At the very end of the Divine chapter, Mavis and Pallas are upstairs.

"When they were in front of Mavis bedroom door she didn't open it. She froze. "Hear that? They're happy," she said, covering her laughing lips. "I knew it. They love that baby. Absolutely love it." She turned to Pallas. "They like you too. They think you're divine."

I assumed she's hearing Merle and Pearl, since she does all the time but what baby do they love? Is it the ghost of Arnetta's baby? Some other baby, real or imagined?

>105 AnneDC: I think it's really important that Mavis hears her dead babies laughing, and then sees them as older children. If we accept that she has these visions or dreams, then others may be having their own. It could definitely be Arnetta's baby that the twins "love"---all three are dead, in the real world, but Mavis's twins were never there in life. So again, it feels to me more like they are all existing in her imagination than that they are ghosts in the Convent.

>103 lauralkeet: Reading my name is always a bit awkward. I had to skim the spoiler, could not resist.

Since I wasn't reading along this time (read last year and abandoned partway through), I skipped all the spoilers that were in the conclusions. However, I am going to reread this and I think a lot of the conversations and linked references will help me understand what was going on as I read.

This is the Dutch version of Het Paradijs



I'm now on page 70/301. And I'm still confused but not as much as I was on the first 20 pages. There seems to be a pattern surrounding the Convent. But I will figure it out so on with the reading.

Today is Toni Morrison's birthday. She would have been 90 years old.

So you share a birthday, eh? :)

>111 katiekrug: 😀 Yes.
Also with this guy:

The New York Times is celebrating Morrison's birthday with this piece. Aimed primarily at those new to her work, it recommends which book to read first depending on the reader's interests: The Essential Toni Morrison

Not surprisingly, Paradise is not a recommended starting point. I liked this quote in the article:

One of the greatest joys of Toni Morrison’s work is knowing that you will never get it all on the first read. In her Nobel Prize speech, she famously said, “We know you can never do it properly — once and for all. Passion is never enough, neither is skill. But try.”

>113 lauralkeet: One of the reasons I love Morrison (big surprise coming) is that she reminds me of Faulkner, both in themes and in style to some extent. Especially the part about needing to be re-read. Jay Parini, one of Faulkner's biographers, said something very similar about his work to what the Times article says about Morrison: "Faulkner cannot be read; he can only be reread."

I wanted to respond to the Governor's Tweet about our group read but figured that would be a bit weird... ;-)

Happy Friday everyone. Seems like a good time to check in with the group.

Is anyone currently reading or planning to read the book? Has anyone else finished it recently?

I'm still reading and on page 196/301

I'm not that confused anymore and I really like this book. Although 'like' may be not the right word for it. It's more intriguing and I want to know what's happened and happening still. I see this book as kind of a puzzle. You get all the pieces but not on the right spot in time.

>117 connie53: - "Puzzle" is a great description of it, Connie.

>117 connie53: what >118 katiekrug: said. Like you Connie, I liked the mental exercise of trying to figure everything out.

I finally started this afternoon. So far, it's totally compelling. I'll read the thread after I finish.

Finished Het Paradijs by Toni Morrison and this book gets

My Review



I'm not sure what to think of this book. It is certainly an intriguing book, but not easy to read. Toni Morrison begins and ends with the end of the story. In between, she describes the history of a small town / village in Minnesota. The town is populated exclusively by black families, 9 in total. With all the children and grandchildren, quite a group. A few kilometers outside the village is a building called the 'Monastery'. It used to be, but now it is inhabited by five women. Connie (Consolata), Mavis, Gigi (Grace), Seneca and Pallas. Connie lives there permanently, but the rest moves in, leaves, but always returns. The book describes the backgrounds of the five women and the reasons why they ended up in the Monastery.
In the village harmony reigns, but that all changes when the youngest generation is no longer satisfied with the situation and the older people blame the women from the Monastery. They decide to chase the women away, but that gets terribly out of hand.
Because you have to guess when which part of the described periods take place, it is quite difficult in the beginning to make a coherent story. Fortunately, that works in the end.

I just had a meeting get canceled and came back to read through the comments. I finished the book a couple weeks ago but didn't find the time or mental energy to stop by here. I wish I had done so! What a terrific discussion! Even though I finished the book a while ago, this brought back some of the questions and impressions I had, and especially gave me new things to consider. Thanks everyone!

Great discussion. Sorry I wasn't able to start the book sooner, and add my two cents as the thread went on. I finished about an hour ago, and I'm relieved that others found it confusing, not just me!

I found the writing quite powerful, the characters as well, although I wish I had Pat's genealogy to guide me! Next time I read it, I will at least keep track of who married whom and which children belonged to which family.

As for the reality of the women at the Convent, I never doubted it. How their bodies disappeared is certainly a mystery, as is (to me) that door or window that Richard and Anna sense in the garden. I think Mavis might be alive at the end - when her daughter embraces her she winces - but maybe not. I think Pallas is certainly dead, as is her baby, because she doesn't answer or look at her mother later when she comes back for her shoes, carrying the baby. I don't know if Lone was able to employ her power to restore any of them, but it's a possibility.

The story of exclusive communities is very old, of course, and we still carry that in some parts of our society today. It's meant as a bulwark against change and contamination, but without change thoughts and habits ossify. The nine families recoil from the hurt of exclusion (no room at the inn for them) into themselves. I was a little surprised that the young men of the latter generation went off to war - so little mention was made of the government I thought the town was itself invisible. But of course, once the boys see the realities of the outside world, it's harder to keep new ideas out. And then the very personal damage that can be caused by exclusion becomes overt. See Richard's quoted remarks in >102 katiekrug: above.

Much more to be said, if I can think of it. This book certainly bears careful rereading, but I don't expect that to explain things.

I'll go check other's posts on their own threads now. I've been passing them by until I'd finished my own read.

Thanks for posting your thoughts, Judy. I'm glad you enjoyed reading the book (if "enjoyed" is the right word -- you know what I mean).

----

Announcement

For anyone interested in continuing this Toni Morrison reading project: a few of us will be reading her eighth novel, Love, in March. Our discussion of Paradise was so rich; I'm really looking forward to another round. I'll create a group read thread this weekend.

I'm sorry to be so far behind. I enjoyed all the discussion and links. Thank you!

You’re welcome! I’m glad you enjoyed it.

This is my favorite passage from Paradise. It's definitely too long for my review, but it spoke to me.

To set the scene: There is a problematic wedding with two different preachers. The first speaks and points out the problems with the couple and the marriage and how they have failed under Biblical law.

The second preacher is dumbstruck and can only hold up the cross and hope the congregants know the gospel that is in his heart.

“See what was certainly the first sign any human anywhere had made: the vertical line; the horizontal one. Even as children, they drew it with their fingers in snow, sand or mud; they laid it down as sticks in dirt; arranged it from bones on frozen tundra and broad savannas; as pebbles on riverbanks, scratched it on cave walls and outcroppings from Nome to South Africa. Algonquins and Laplanders, Zulu and Druids – all had a finger memory of this original mark. The circle was not first, nor was the parallel or the triangle. It was this mark, this, that lay underneath every other. This mark, rendered in the placement of facial features. His mark of a standing human figure poised to embrace. Remove it, as Pulliam had done, and Christianity was like any and every religion in the world: a population of supplicants begging respite from begrudging authority; harried believers ducking fate or dodging everyday evil; the weak negotiating a doomed trek through the wilderness; the sighted ripped of light and thrown into the perpetual dark of choicelessness. Without this sign the believer’s life, was confined to praising God and taking the hits. The praise was credit; the hits were interest due on a debt that could never be repaid. Or, as Pulliam put it, no one knew when he had “graduated’. But with it, in the religion in which this sign was paramount and foundational, well, life was a whole other matter.

“See? The execution of this one solitary black man propped up on these two intersecting lines to which he was attached in a parody of human embrace, fastened to two big sticks that were so convenient, so recognizable, so embedded in consciousness as consciousness, being both ordinary and sublime. See? His wooly head alternately rising on his neck and falling toward his chest the glow of his midnight skin dimmed by dust, streaked by gall, fouled by spit and urine, gone pewter in the hot, dry wind and, finally, as the sun dimmed in shame, as his flesh matched the odd lessening of the afternoon light as though it were evening, always sudden in that climate, swallowing him and the other death row felons, and the silhouette of this original sign merged with a false night sky. See how this official murder out of hundreds marked the difference; moved the relationship between God and man from CEO and supplicant to one on one? The cross he held was abstract; the absent body was real, but both combined to pull humans from backstage to the spotlight, from muttering in the wings to the principal role in the story of their lives. This execution made it possible to respect – freely not in fear – one’s self and one another. Which was what love was: unmotivated respect. All of which testified not to a peevish Lord who was His own love but to one who enabled human love. Not for His own glory – never. God loved the way humans loved one another; loved the way humans loved themselves; loved the genius on the cross who managed to do both and die knowing it. “ p 145-146