Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

I think perhaps the Mr.____ in Celie's letters to God are form of trying to own what little power she has in life. By not naming them, she lessens their visibility and humanity...in her own eyes, if nothing else.
Naming, as feminists know, is a huge issue as women throughout the centuries have had to fight for identity & acknowledgement both public and personal. They say that the name of the most famous woman author of all time is "Anonymous".
Plus, Celie was not terribly fond of men (as well she shouldn't have been, given her treatment) so not naming them keeps her protected from the intimacy a name might embue.
I think Walker's use of Mr. ______ is a brilliant, yet subtle vehicle for Celie. Any other thoughts on this?

I wasn't understanding why the author was saying Mr ---, I didn't get it. However what you said makes perfect sense and it is very interesting what you said about History and not naming woman etc. Thanks for your post:)

I think it depends on if the author was trying to express her own feelings on it, or if she used it as part of Celie's personality.

You could interpret it as if she was trying to show her disgust for the men of the story. But she may have used it in order to show that Celie was too afraid of those men. Or maybe it's both, or something else.

But I don't actually think Celie tried to lessen those men by doing it. Her personality doesn't really fit into that.

PS: Just read 10% of the book so maybe I'm wrong haha.

I have read other books before where the __________ device is used. For example, in Les Miserables one character is Bishop of D_____. However, I do agree with your analysis that by not naming him, Celie has power. It is not until later that we learn his first name, and by a character who loves him. Celia's relationship with Mr______ changes as she learns more about herself, finds her strengths and independence, and finds love with Shrug. She begins referring to Mr____ as Albert, and we as the audience begin to understand him a little more.

I found that interesting too! At first it was almost as if she was protecting his identity. But now it seems much more nuanced than that. Looking for an explanation online from the author herself turned up zero results.

I do know that sometimes in letters people used to use a dash instead of a persons full name if that person was well known to the reader. For example, in a book I read about George Washington's spy ring, the letters included in the book read something like, "I talked to G----, and he said R--- is doing well." The letter writer assumed the reader knew that G--- was George and R--- was Ronald (for example, that is totally not what the actual letter said). Maybe there was some practical reason Walker chose to use the dashes??

The Mr. _____ thing is very common in books from the Victorian era and earlier, but I think there must be a more specific reason in a modern novel. It is an interesting way to create distance and anonymity, which I think you all have kind of mentioned. Does anyone know if it was common for a woman to use "mister" to refer to a husband in this time period? Or is it because Celie is much younger than her husband, and would have just not bothered to learn his first name?

I'm not too far into the book but I think it's just a way to show the emotional detachment she suffers as a consecuence of the sexual abuse? Maybe she just thinks all men are the same and they blur together in her mind or she is trying to put some distance by not naming them. Just a thought.

In the Kindle version that I have there is an introduction written by Alice Walker that says:

"...a 'Pa' and/or 'Mister' are likely to turn up in anybody's life. They might be wearing the mask of war, the mask of famine, the mask of physical affliction. The mask of caste, race, class, sex, mental illness, or disease. Their meaning to us, often, is that they are simply an offering, a challenge, provided by 'God' i.e., the All Present and All Magical, that requires us to grow. And though we may be confused, even traumatized, as Celie is, by their historical, social, and psychological configuration, if we persevere we may, like her, eventually settle into amazement: that by some unfathomable kindness we have received just the right keys we need to unlock the deepest, darkest dungeons of our emotional and spiritual bondage, and to experience our much longed for liberation and peace."

Sandy wrote: "I think perhaps the Mr.____ in Celie's letters to God are form of trying to own what little power she has in life. By not naming them, she lessens their visibility and humanity...in her own eyes, i..."

I agree. Giving him a name makes him more human, and more power. Taking the name away shows that she's trying to make him less powerful, not as important. I too think it was a great idea for the author.

..I think it might also be a way to 'generalize' the situation.
Like it is not really important who this person is but what this person does, and his role as a male dominator. Even Pa at the beginning is reffered to as 'he'.
Moreover it could be a way to make the siuation universal, like Celie is not the only woman to be abused by her husband, this was the common husband-wife power relationship. Which also explains why, when Celie learn more about herself and get out of this role, she refers to him as Albert. They become individuals living theiir personal life.

KaliDina wrote: ..I think it might also be a way to 'generalize' the situation.
Like it is not really important who this person is but what this person does, and his role as a male dominator. Even Pa at the beginning is reffered to as 'he'.
Moreover it could be a way to make the siuation universal, like Celie is not the only woman to be abused by her husband, this was the common husband-wife power relationship. Which also explains why, when Celie learn more about herself and get out of this role, she refers to him as Albert. They become individuals living theiir personal life.""

I completely agree with this. For the most part of the book the men are essentially just a dominating force in Celie's life - she does not really have positive relationships with any men, and it is as though 'men' as a whole are just negative dominators. Celie can't really see them as anything else as she hasn't known them as anything else. So when she begins to have a better relationship with Albert (which she manages by effectively breaking free from the role of wife completely) she uses his name rather than calling him Mr---. It is as though Celie feels that if a man is acting as 'husband' he will always be repressive and dominating, but if he is not taking on that role (albeit by her own choosing) they can begin to understand each other and have a better relationship.

I like your theories! I think you're right. Also, sometimes, books like these (when they are real accounts of real events) also use different names for the men (or people in general) in them, to make the author feel safer. But taking away the whole name goes one step further, I think.

Taking away Mr. ____'s name has different layers/reasons.
Celie says, at one point, that to her, all men are somehow the same (or something like it...I can't find it just now...it's somewhere in the first 60 pages of the book). So, not giving Mr. _____ a name fits in perfectly, because for her, all men actually are the same. It's enough to know that he's a man (Mr.).

There are a lot of things in the book where naming/names play a role (are important to her). Just think of Olivia or when Shug sings "for" Celie at Harpo's and Celie says, "First time somebody made something and name it after me." So, again, taking away Mr. _____'s name says something in that regard, too.

Lindsey wrote: "In the Kindle version that I have there is an introduction written by Alice Walker that says:

"...a 'Pa' and/or 'Mister' are likely to turn up in anybody's life. They might be wearing the mask of ..."

Thank you for posting this introduction. I like the idea also of universalism and wearing masks.

Matt wrote: "The Mr. _____ thing is very common in books from the Victorian era and earlier, but I think there must be a more specific reason in a modern novel. It is an interesting way to create distance and a..."

Yes, in times past it was common for women to call their husband Mr (insert name). This was a sign of respect to the men and a social norm. However, it also illustrates inequality in relationships with women regarded as second class citizens. Women, until recently, were the property of their husband and husbands were legally allowed to abuse women (rule of thumb law).

Did you notice that she refers to the Nettie's adopted reverend as Reverend Mr._________ too? I had thought many of the same things about the power of naming and the way she takes that power away by not giving them names, and then I saw this. It's interesting how when she first learns Olivia's name from the reverend's wife, there is a moment of magic and power with which her name is imbued, and reading Celie's trepidation to even ask emphasizes the extra power of naming herein.

Heather Acosta wrote: "Sandy wrote: "Naming, as feminists know, is a huge issue as women throughout the centuries have had to fight for identity & acknowledgement both public and personal."

The moment when Squeak finall..."

I thought this as well! It's a great juxtaposition that she demands that she be called by her given name while Celie denies men the power that comes with being addressed by a name at all. It's interesting, as well, that Celie continues to refer to her as Squeak for awhile and has to consciously remind herself to call her by her given name. It is a small example of internalized misogyny, and how patriarchy interferes with women's ability to show one another outward respect.

I agree with the posts above mine. I also found it interesting that as the women gained more freedom, independence, inner-worth, etc that the men also became nicer. In other words, the women changed first, then the men followed.

Hi, first of all i want to said thank you for share your opinions I can understand another way the book. before this post I think like Erika said maybe " she was protecting his identity " but now I believe is possible she show in this way the reality of some woman has to live and unfortunately still happen

It's interesting what you have all said. When I read the book, I thought that the lack of a name and just referring to men as Mr.--- was to show how she was below these men and so didn't have the 'right' to say their name or even know it (she only found out later that the man she married was names Albert). I do like what you have all said though, that this was her basically taking the control of what she was able to.

Waw, it's interesting the debate around Mr.____

Am I the only one who thinks that Mr. is finally a great hope in this story ?

(view spoiler)[I thought at first he was some kind of desperate feminist who will never change. But he showed that repentance is possible, even if it's late in your life, and even if you have done such terrible things as beating someone "just because you didn't love her" for like forty years.

He make me think "Waw. I can never stop fight those racists, sexists and/or unfair arguments when I'm witnessing them, because even if there's only a 0,1% possibility that I can change them, there is a possibility" (hide spoiler)]

Julie wrote: "Waw, it's interesting the debate around Mr.____

Am I the only one who thinks that Mr. is finally a great hope in this story ? I thought at first he was some kind of desperate feminist who will nev..."

You might want to use spoiler tags in case people haven't read to the end yet.

But I totally agree with you! (view spoiler)[ He certainly shouldn't be forgiven completely for all that he did to Celie, but his redemption in that end was very uplifting and hopefully. Like you said, it makes me believe that we can make even the worst offenders realize that what they did was wrong! (hide spoiler)]

P.S. When you say feminist in your post, do you mean sexist? ;)

yes of course, i meant sexist. Not easy to keep my ideas right in a foreign language :) Sorry for the spoiler thing, I can't change it on my phone but will try to do it tomorrow on my computer

EDIT : both done :)

In my personal opinion I think the author decided to not name him because she is showing a certain role in the society. She is showing us the sexism, not just a character, as she doesn't go on deeply describing him, just the neccesary to understand his role. She is trying to give some sort of explanation as why men act like they act.
SPOILER.
He was alienated by the society and lastly by his father who didn't allow him to marry Shug in the first place. It's the loss of his sensibility what made him hit Celie among other bad behaviour. Then, when Sug makes him realize that, he changes.
He embodies the hope that sexist men can change, and she doesn't name him so we don't end up thinking, okay, he wasn't the bad guy after all, but we understand that men aren't after all the enemy.
Again I repeat is my personal opinion, i'm not trying to be the authority here hahaha. Also I want to make clear that english isn't my motherly language, so I'm sorry if you notice some mistakes, and I wold be pleased if some of you correct them :)

I found by not naming mr._ and only knowing pa as 'pa' if gave them a certain generic air to them. I don't know what it's like for everyone else but neither mr_ or pa had faces to me, they were generic copies. However, as the book progressed they got more individual (e.g mr._ sewing with celie) and by then end when she called him Albert it gave him a face, a personality that extended out beyond his violence and sexism. It also gave a lot of power to celie as well, I thought. If he wouldn't acknowledge her as a person then neither would she, it's only at the end when they see each other as (more or less) equals does she begin to register him as a person (or at least, that's what it was like for me).

I think that the "Mr. ______" comes from the idea that all these men have blurred into one image of abuse. To Celie these men didn't distinguish themselves enough to be named, as they only fit the role of man - which in her eyes was synonymous with the role of abuser.

I know she begins to use names later on, but I haven't gotten to that part of the book yet so my analysis of this may change as I continue the book.

, anyway I completely I can completely see your point of view because Buy actually naming them in her letters that she would be giving them that power that power that knows that power is if they were to get the letters or something they would know that they were but they had the power to bother her that they would have the power to be in her letters but by not naming them she strips away the power and she strips away their identity and so the letters are strictly her there her telling what was going on what was going to happen

I wondered if it was a sort of self-insertion device...for readers to insert a man they knew that was shitty/abusive

I agree with a lot of what a lot of you have analyzed. Indeed, it is a way for her to deal with the abuse by taking control and detaching herself. Also, using names to address someone implies a mutual respect, equality, and some sort of connection. All of which, Celie didn't get in relation to her stepfather and husband.
Later, as she is empowered and she sorts her life (her and Albert are equals too), she does start to use names.

This is a really interesting thread and I enjoyed hearing what other people thought about this. I wondered if this technique echoed the relationship between them. Using 'Mr ___ ' was a reflection of the distant, impersonal, even fearful relationship between them, then as the story went on and his character developed, they became closer and she felt she was able to use his first name.

Somehow, it actually made me think even farther back, to all blacks being forced to speak to their owners (and really, any white male) as "Master." The implication being that they all owned and had control over her. I don't know if that's really what's intended in this case, but for some reason, it came to mind.

I'm jumping in the discussion late but better late than never! :)

Personally, I interpreted the "Mr______" as a generalization just like the author wanted to point out that many women underwent (undergo) those situations. Along the pages, Mr______ becomes (if I am not wrong) more often "Albert" especially when we hear from Celie he is trying to "change". When he appears more human he is Albert, when he is not he is the personification of a behaviour.

I did not think about the fact that not naming him was a way to give him less power or to put distances (not sure about the expression), those our interesting thoughts.