Toni Morrison’s “ Sula ” is an facile treatment of the nature of immorality. The narrative follows the lives of two black female friends, nowadayss differing positions on immorality. On one manus, we have society ’ s conventional position of immorality represented by the character of Nel and besides seen in the Bottom ’ s disapproval of Sula. The other position of immorality is seen through the character of Sula and through her actions which conflict with traditional society. The friendly relationship of Sula and Nel is the agencies by which the writer conveys her message about immorality in the relationship. In the relationship the two different constructs of evil mix and make an basically impersonal mixture. By looking at Nel ’ s and Sula ’ s friendly relationship and the two different positions of immorality that they surface, the writer shows us the subjective and comparative nature of immorality and how friendship can get the better of any immorality.
In the Bottom, the dominant position of immorality is society ’ s construct. Its guidelines for good and bad behaviour can be seen through society ’ s reaction to Sula. Her return to the Bottom after a 10 twelvemonth absence is greeted with the same manner one would recognize a plague, a pestilence or an unwellness. The novel shows society ’ s negative position of her when it describes how Sula arrived “ accompanied by a pestilence of redbreasts ” ( Morrison 89 ) . Her clip spent in the Bottom is grouped with other immoralities the “ inundations, white people, TB, dearth and ignorance ” ( Morrison 90 ) and her stay in the town is called the “ evil yearss ” ( 89 ) , because the town positions Sula as an overpoweringly evil force. The town ’ s chief ailments about Sula centre around her sexual wonts and the flaunting of every convention that the Bottom holds affectionately. Sula herself knows that the townsfolk “ despised her and … framed their hatred as disgust for the easy manner she lay with work forces ” ( 122 ) , because matrimonial fidelity is one of the town ’ s most of import rules. Even worse is the 1 “ inexcusable thing ” , the harshest accusal made “ that Sula slept with white work forces ” ( 112 ) , piquing the town ’ s corporate racial pride.
Not merely are the occupants horrified by her sexual openness, but they are offended by her direct rebellion. To gall her neighbours, Sula “ came to their church suppers without underwear ” ( 114 ) and as farther cogent evidence of her immorality, “ they believed she was express joying at their God ” ( 115 ) . Once once more, we see through the town ’ s disapproval of Sula what it holds affectionately. Then as if Sula ’ s rebelliousness of their imposts isn ’ t evil plenty, she anger the town even more by openly mocking their beliefs. Sula ’ s offense is non merely her actions outside of the mainstream, but besides the fact that she is non in the least ashamed of them ; she is evil because she has defied society ’ s Torahs and in has openly mocked them by declining to even acknowledge their rule over her.
Immersed in this construct of evil her whole life, it is Nel who becomes the incarnation of the town ’ s moral codification when she gets married and is “ one of them ” ( 120 ) , intending a member of the prevailing/mainstream society. Immediately, her views become aligned with those of the town and she “ belonged to the town and all of its ways ” ( 120 ) . She is peculiarly offended by Sula ’ s promiscuousness, because Sula slumbers with her hubby. While Nel has used the town ’ s moral codification, Sula is in unfastened rebelliousness of it, and therefore Sula is caught off gaurd by Nel ’ s “ possessiveness ” ( 119 ) , non recognizing that “ matrimony … had changed all that ” ( 119 ) , mentioning to their earlier inclination to “ portion the fondness of other people ” ( 119 ) . Nel ’ s indignation at Sula ’ s actions is brooding of the town ’ s choler at Sula and we see the personal injury that Sula ’ s inconsiderate actions have caused.
While society ’ s position of immorality is directed at disapproving of anything that would interrupt down the establishment that makes society work, Sula ’ s position of immorality and her motivations are based on a different end and she evaluates her actions by a different set of criterions ; in other words, “ Sula was clearly different ” ( 118 ) . Sula “ had been looking all along for a friend ” ( 122 ) and that is the lone end by which she measures her action ’ s. In kiping with many work forces, she is seeking an mercantile establishment for the “ wretchedness and … deep sorrow ” ( 122 ) which she feels. By this she is seeking to happen a friend who she can confide in. In her pursuit for some alleviation of the “ loneliness ” ( 123 ) that she feels and her hunt for a friend, she commits many Acts of the Apostless that are harmful to others, such as kiping with Jude. The lone evil action would be one that is non
directed towards friendly relationship. She is non so much seeking to happen the “sadness that she yearned for” ( 122 ) , as she is seeking to portion it with person such as Nel. Equally long as Sula tries that, she can non judge herself to be wicked, even though her promiscuousness makes her seem evil to society. For Sula herself, “as her experiences multiplied she realized that non merely was it non wicked, it was non necessary for her to raise up the thought of evil in order to take part fully” ( 122 ) , because she knows that the act of sex is merely her manner of accomplishing the ultimate end of friendly relationship.
Toni Morrison makes a powerful statement about evil through the friendly relationship between Nel and Sula. When Sula sleeps with Jude, a direct conlfict between their different constructs of evil surfaces. Sula feels no shame, because her construct of immorality includes merely actions non directed towards friendly relationship, while her kiping with Judes was an effort at organizing a friendly relationship. However, Nel feels rather hurt, because Sula “ had no thought at all of doing Nel hurting when she bedded down with Jude ” ( 119 ) . Whereas before “ they had ever shared the fondness of other people ” ( 119 ) , things have changed since they parted their separate ways, Nel had merely gotten married, while Sula left for the metropolis. During this period their positions grew farther apart and changeless, as Sula became promiscuous and rebellious, Nel adopted society ’ s ethical motives. Because of this clip apart and a alteration in values Sula was “ ill prepared for the possessiveness of the one individual she felt close to ” ( 119 ) . However, the two Begin to discourse their differences, and Nel states her cardinal job with Sula by stating, “ You can ’ t be walking around all independent-like, making whatever you like ” ( 142 ) , to which Sula responds, “ It matters, Nel, but merely to you ” ( 144 ) . This is the cardinal struggle between their two positions of immorality: Nel thinks that Sula ’ s independency is evil, while Sula doesn ’ t think that she hurt anybody except for Nel, and merely because she was responding from society ’ s point of view, without understanding Sula ’ s. To reason their treatment, Sula asks an of import inquiry, “ About who was good. How do you cognize it was you?” I mean possibly it wasn ’ t you, possibly it was me ” ( 146 ) . The remainder states the construct of immorality as something comparative and subjective, while their eventual rapprochement examines the issue of friendly relationship.
Sula ’ s inquiry raises the of import issue like, whose definition of immorality is right? In puting up this argument, the writer wants the reader to make the decision that cipher ’ s definition is right and that the construct of immorality is comparative and subjective. For illustration, while Sula is widely viewed as an evil force by society, her ain construct of evil prevents her from being seen as immorality. Therefore, immoralities can non be a construct agreed upon by everyone, because Nel and Sula each disagree on its significance. The fact that two people disagree on the same subject shows how subjective and personal a construct of immorality is ; for both characters, it is based on their ain experiences. To further turn out how subjective immorality is, Sula could even be viewed as a good force, because it is her really presence that makes the people of the Bottom “ protect and love one another. They began to … in general set together against the Satan in their thick ” ( 117-118 ) . The writer is turn outing that immorality is a construct left up to each person, and that no one individual has a right over its definition. There is a stronger force at work in the novel, which transcends different constructs of immorality.
For Nel and Sula, and all their tests together, they last because of their deep friendly relationship. The construct of immorality is raised in their friendly relationship. Despite their divergent positions on what constitutes evil, Sula and Nel reconcile in the terminal, as Nel realizes that what ultimately affairs is the deepness of their friendly relationship. At the terminal of the novel, Nel feels a sense of sorrow. However, she realizes that “ all the clip, I thought I was losing Jude ” ( 174 ) , when in fact she was losing Sula, her closest friend throughout about her full life. Puting aside any sentiment about Sula ’ s actions with Jude, she longs for the Sula, stating “ We was girls together. O Lord, Sula, miss, miss, girlgirlgirl ” , a call with “ circles and circles of sorrow ” ( 174 ) . Nel realizes that what mattered was non how she and Sula differed but instead it was the strength of their common friendly relationship which overcame any at odds constructs of immorality that they might hold held.