Skip to main content

The End of Milkman?

Just like the rest of the characters we've met this year, Milkman, our protagonist, is a conflicting one. On one hand, his entire personality throughout the novel seems to be one of an adolescent in an adult's body, characterized by his immaturity and brattiness. Yet as the story progresses, the metaphor of a bird learning to fly seems to clarify, and we end with the baby bird leaping and finally flying. After learning about his family history, the change in Milkman is astounding, as he is able to let go of all his curiosity, trauma, and truly understand the implications behind his ancestry. Since this novel focuses on the lives of African Americans, I wonder how Morrison intends for us to interpret the ending of the novel. Initially, I thought the friendship between Guitar and Milkman was a subtle way of criticizing Milkman, of his lack of interest in black rights and equality. But the ending of the novel has proved otherwise. If anything, Morrison states that the power of knowledge and understanding black heritage and culture is the key to finally being "free" and being able to "fly." Despite Guitar's passionate, albeit, controversial reasoning for fighting for black rights, never does he fly in the novel. Rather in my eyes, he serves as the hunter, who shoots down his fellow people, just like Pilate. In the end, as Milkman is able to embrace who he is by learning of his past, he is the one who is chosen to fly despite being strapped to the ground throughout a majority of the novel.

Morrison also purposefully leaves the ending at a cliff hanger. Does Milkman die? Does he live? It doesn't matter. As he states, "if you surrendered to the air, you could ride it." Rather than letting himself fill with fear or anger, he lets himself be apart of the air, or dare I say, God. The word "surrender" is interesting in the sense that it is letting himself go. He lets his fears, doubts, worries, and trauma go away, and he embraces God and the his recognition of his culture. 

This ending scene was extremely powerful to me. Milkman is the only character who has completely changed my opinion and perspective of him. In the other novels we've read, a good amount of the characters have had somewhat of a cathartic scene. Yet this scene of Milkman's rebirth and freedom touched me in the sense that he finally understood who he was and changed spiritually. This was a beautifully written scene, and I appreciate Morrisson's ambiguity at the end, allowing readers to focus on the metaphorical and spiritual implications behind the ending. 

Comments

  1. I think this is really interesting - I hadn't really put much thought into what kind of message Morrisson was sending through Guitar's Seven Days activity and how Milkman changed after learning about black culture and heritage. I also really like how you provided a deeper understanding for the significance of the ambiguous ending because I, for one, was confused and annoyed that it ended on a cliff hanger.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I think that the book ultimately paints Guitar as vengeful, especially at the end, because he is obsessed with the non-existent gold that he thinks Milkman has, and ends up attempting to kill Milkman and killing Pilate, even though they have nothing to do with his Seven Days group.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The book certainly does end in ambiguity. We never do find out whether or not Milkman survives the fight. I agree the Morrison does this intentionally so that we can focus on the more significant things, like Milkman's rebirth/his epiphany about surrendering to the air.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I like your point about his character development because looking back on it, I would say that Milkman's character development is one of the biggest changes we've seen throughout the novels this semester. I also think that the ambiguous ending right after we see all of the development in Milkman is an interesting choice and I like your point about that fact that it doesn't matter, and despite my hatred of ambiguous endings, I would have to agree with you on this one. I wonder if a less ambiguous ending would take away from the recent character development that the readers have seen in Milkman.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I think your point about Morrison leaving the ending ambiguous is interesting. I feel like if Morrison had given a definitive ending to the book, it would have taken away from the main idea of the ending, that being that Milkman finally learned how to fly.

    ReplyDelete
  6. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Yeah the ambiguity of the ending is extremely powerful, without a defined ending it really leaves it up to the readers imagination I think that you're right and it is a smart choice which offers many interpretations for the whole transformation of milkman

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Conflicting Clarissa

In the initial stages of the story, I wasn't quite sure as to how I would get a good grasp of Clarissa Dalloway, since this narrator is so unique. The narrator doesn't remain with Clarissa, and has already established its ability to travel within the deep minds of multiple characters. From what we saw of Clarissa in the beginning, all I could really grasp was her bird-like qualities, and the fact that she had been sick for a while. Yet while reading last night's chapter on her encounter with Peter, it really pulled together a stronger image of her, and I could finally see at how Woolf focuses on her as a person.  On page 40, Peter says, "Here she is mending her dress; mending her dress as usual, he thought; here she's been sitting all the time I've been in India; mending her dress; playing about; going to parties..." The narrator is clearly revealing Peter's true thoughts on Clarissa in that moment. Yet I can't help but disagree with Peter. Clar...

Rochester

I found the panel presentation on ecofeminism extremely interesting. I never realized the obvious parallels between Rochester's attitudes towards women and the island. Hearing the discussion, I could definitely see how closely the two are intertwined. Moments in which Rochester would criticize Antoinette, a criticism towards the island would also occur shortly after. The fact that the two are so closely intertwined is because they are both foreign and strange to them. The island's culture and people shock Rochester and even disgust him at times, just as Antoinette shocks and disgusts him at times. This eurocentric view that Rochester has of Antoinette and the island were extremely prevalent during the time period, and his obvious desire to dominate them both disturbs me even more.