Class Assignments for Song of Solomon

5 point Quiz - Compose five (5) factual questions from the assigned text for a short quiz.
Quote of the Day – Choose at least one line or fragment from the assigned novel reading for reaction.
Historical Factoid – Research an important date or fact that pertains to the historical life of the book.
Literary Allusion – Clarify some biblical, classical or cultural allusion from the assigned novel reading. You may bring in a picture, prop or definition.

F-2/25
Lauren - 5 point Quiz
Melissa - Quote of the Day
Claudia- Historical Factoid
Miss Jefferson- Literary Allusion

M-2/28
Katie - 5 point Quiz
Claudia- Quote of the Day
Melissa- Historical Factoid
Claudia- Literary Allusion

W-3/2
Claudia- 5 point Quiz on Chapters 3-4
Katie - Quote of the Day
Lauren - Historical Factoid
Melissa - Literary Allusion

F-3/4
Melissa - 5 point Quiz on Chapters 5-6
Miss Jefferson- Quote of the Day
Miss Jefferson- Historical Factoid
Miss Jefferson- Literary Allusion

M-3/7
Kirsten - 5 point Quiz
Lauren - Quote of the Day
Nicholas - Historical Factoid
Lauren - Literary Allusion

W-3/9
Justin - 5 point Quiz on Chapters 7-8
Justin - Quote of the Day
Justin - Historical Factoid
Michael - Literary Allusion

F-3/11
Miss Jefferson - 5 point Quiz on Chapter 9
Michael - Quote of the Day
Miss Jefferson - Historical Factoid
Justin - Literary Allusion

M-3/14
Michael - 5 point Quiz on Chapters 10-11
Kirsten- Quote of the Day
Katie - Historical Factoid
Nicholas - Literary Allusion

W-3/16
Nicholas - 5 point Quiz on Chapters 12-13
Miss Jefferson - Quote of the Day
Michael - Historical Factoid
Kirsten- Literary Allusion

F-3/18
Miss Jefferson - 5 point Quiz on Chapters 14-15
Miss Jefferson - Quote of the Day
Kirsten - Historical Factoid
Katie - Literary Allusion

A Pervert

By Lauren Shuler

Are you all not disgusted by Soaphead Church? I was appalled by his monologue and story. His rationalization of pedophilia was astonishing especially when one looks at the tendency in relation to his misanthropic lifestyle. But I wondered, was he always such a person? How did he become so disturbed?
In the beginning of his biography, Morisson describes Soaphead’s lineage. According to her, “he had been reared in a family proud of its academic accomplishments and its mixed blood—in fact they believed the former was based on the latter” (167). She goes on to explain that the family “married “up,” lightening the family complexion and thinning out the family features” (168). So the family does not pride itself on mixed blood, it prides itself on having some white lineage. According to Soaphead, “all that was worth learning [was to] separate [oneself] in body, mind, and spirit from all that suggested Africa” (167). Growing up in this manner, where half of his ethnicity was not only ignored, but frowned upon, must have created strong dissonance in Soaphead’s identity. How was he to know who he was if part of what he knew to be true, his race, was viewed with hate.
He learned at a young age “the fine art of self-deception” (169). The confusion based around his identity, or lack thereof, created a denial mechanism in him as an only means of salvation. The less confidence we have in something, the more likely we are to deny its existence. Since Soaphead deceives himself, maybe he finds no fault in the deception of others. Furthermore, this self denial leads to misanthropic tendencies perhaps to avoid all those who may find comfort in their own identities. Soaphead becomes so perversely confident in his lack of identity that he launches a diatribe on God blaming him for making “a sloven and unforgivable error in judgment: designing an imperfect universe” (172). Soaphead becomes so lost that he believes he has God-like powers: “I played you. And it was a very good show!” (182). Soaphead skirts his own identity so extensively that he believes himself invincible and deserving of complete perfection.
In his desire for cleanliness, Soaphead ends up indulging in dirty acts. His disturbing fascination with little girls might only be explained in his own words, “they were those humans whose bodies were least offensive” (166). His sexual molestation of fulfills his “fascination with disorder and decay” without violating his compulsive cleanliness. He finds the rare comfort in a perverse intimacy with small children perhaps because they themselves still control the pure innocence he admires but never had. Maybe he doesn’t attempt to molest Pecola because he senses her lack of innocence as per her request of blue eyes.
Soaphead’s own lack of identity may result from the mixed messages in his childhood or even simple brain chemistry. Whatever the reason, his self-confusion causes his “hatred of, and fascination with, any hint of disorder or decay” (169). He isn’t “a very clean old man,” but truly a perverted one.

Cholly vs. Soaphead Church: Who to Blame?

By Melissa Langer

A couple of days ago I was talking to some girls about a comment someone made that we had all found both disrespectful and mean. I argued that this person should not be excused for his comment, but the others disagreed, saying that because of his environment and the way in which he was raised, one must excuse his senselessness. Shortly afterwards I forgot the conversation, but remembered it once again when I was thinking about ideas for this blog. One day in class we discussed that Morrison’s account of Cholly’s earlier life might in some small way pardon, or at least provide some explanation for, Cholly’s appalling actions. Suddenly the fact that Cholly was abandoned by his mother, raised by a dying woman, humiliated by white men during an act which is traditionally supposed to be beautiful and pure, and dismissed by his own father seemed to trigger empathy in all of us; there was a story of human suffering behind the façade of a rapist. With the addition of these stories Morrison implores the reader to absolve (only partially) Cholly of our condemnation, for ones environment can oftentimes make him do crazy, outrageous things.
While Morrison asks us to at least try to understand how Cholly’s environment had perpetuated the rape of his daughter, she does not do the same with Soaphead Church, a man who takes advantage of small girls and occasionally claims superiority over God. According to the Morrison, Church came from a well educated, mixed blood family who traced their heritage back to a man named Sir Whitcomb. According to the novel, education and whiteness would be very advantageous qualities for prosperity in society. While Cholly was overlooked by his own father, Soaphead was "seldom overlooked by schoolmasters." Although his mother died during childbirth and his wife "simply left," Cholly "was saved from visible shattering by the steady hand of his father"(170) (also, his mother died, and did not abandon him like Cholly’s mother abandoned her son). Because Morrison shows Cholly as having such a heightened chance in life from the start, we are not required to forgive him for his later actions because they must be the product of his own nature, not of his environment. Morrison even says that "for all his exposure to the best minds of the Western world, he allowed only the narrowest interpretation to touch him" and he developed "a hatred of, and fascination with, any hint of disorder or decay" (169).
Another aspect of Soaphead that makes him more contemptible than Cholly is his claim to be equal, if not superior to, god. I suppose the severity of blasphemy is relative and depends upon ones own religious convictions, but the claim is still a serious one. According to Soaphead, God "had done a poor job" in designing an imperfect universe, and "suspected that he himself [Soaphead] could have done better" (173). He even says that he did what god "could not, would not do" by giving Pecola blue eyes. "I played You," he boasts in a letter to God (182). Is absolute blasphemy like that worse than rape? Although rape is a more grievous act because it physically wounds a person, Soaphead’s claim to divine power, coupled with his lewd acts is, nevertheless, quite despicable. Because of his "head start" in life (through education and family background), Morrison invites us to consider his acts more unforgivable than Cholly’s acts.