Toni Morrison's The Bluest Eye tells the story of Pecola, a young black girl who wants blue eyes. The document analyzes Morrison's portrayal of Pecola's father Cholly and argues that she manipulates the reader's emotions to feel unwarranted sympathy for him. It asserts that Morrison downplays Cholly's horrific acts like raping Pecola while exaggerating his own victimizations through descriptive language. This leads the reader to sympathize with Cholly and overlook his wrongdoings, which is unfair given the severity of his criminal actions. The document concludes that Morrison guides the reader towards misplaced sympathy for a man who does not deserve it based on the facts of the story alone.

1. Running head: THE BLUEST EYE 1
THE BLUEST EYE 11
Toni Morrison’s The Bluest Eye
Author Note
Toni Morrison’s The Bluest Eye
The Bluest Eye delivers social interpretations on a lesser
recognized portions of black culture in America. The central
character, Pecola, is a young black girl who badly wants to feel
lovely and obtain the “bluest eyes” as the title suggests. The
book seeks to describe beauty and love in this abnormal,
perverse society, dragging the reader through Morrison’s
emotional influences. Her father Cholly Breedlove takes the
reader’s emotional responsiveness from Pecola as he enters the
story. In fact, Toni Morrison’s portrayal of Cholly unfairly
evokes pity.
The understanding for Cholly conjured in The Bluest Eye from

2. the reader is not warranted. By definition, Sympathy means
feeling compassion, pity, or sorrow for the suffering of another.
The cleverness of the author influences the reader into feeling a
certain way towards specific characters. Compassion for
characters – Cholly being no exclusion – originates from an
author’s skill to use words and the structure of the story to lead
a reader into a precise emotional direction.
The reader is the prime reason the author constructs a story.
Because all authors are completely aware that an audience
exists for their stories, authors are, in turn, completely aware
that their words can manipulate their readers. It is this
awareness that allows all sentence structures and idea portrayal
to be the product of an author’s manipulation. Because there
exists an audience, there exists someone to persuade or
influence. Thus, an author, like Morrison, builds a textual
relationship between the characters in her story and that of the
reader digesting her story. Morrison, like all artists, understands
that the user searches for a moving direction in which to follow
in the interpretation of characters. The very nature of writing
and language consists of the choice by the author to convey her
ideas and guide the reactions of her reader in the text.
Morrison deemphasizes Cholly’s horrific actions and
emphasizes his victimizations. To remove the emphasis from
certain aspects of a story includes words with less harsh
connotations, the omission of certain points in a plot, and
concentration on other parts of the story. Cholly commits
horrible actions throughout the book including the rape of his
daughter, the beating his wife, burning of his family’s house,
the murder of three men, Pecola’s guilty feelings, drunken
episodes, and his abandonment by his family when he was
younger. Other incidents overshadow all of these terrible
actions.
Through Morrison’s use of short, off-hand descriptions of
events, certain horrible acts appear to be less than horrible, if
not acceptable. The reader learns that Cholly murdered a few
men in an explanatory clause at the end of a meaningless

3. sentence. The Bluest Eye describes Cholly as being completely
free as to say “No” to a jailor and then “…smile, for he had
already killed three white men,” (Morrison, 1970) as if this
seizure of human life should not warrant more than half a
sentence. From this off-hand comment, Morrison progresses to
“Free to take a woman’s insults…” which places the horrible act
of triple murder within the context of innocent actions like
smiling and being subject to a woman’s biting humor. The
contextualization diminishes the shock value and forces the
reader in a direction of apathy towards this awful crime.
The most terrible act that Cholly committed was the rape of his
daughter Pecola. Pecola’s rape becomes an act not of sin but an
act of redemption. Cholly uses the rape as a means to show his
love to her. The text explains that “tenderness welled up in
him” and at the end of the novel, the act is described more like
love. Morrison writes, “Cholly loved her…He, at any rate, was
the one who loved her enough to touch her, envelop her, give
something of himself to her.” Morrison uses loving diction to
downplay the actuality that Pecola did not ask nor want to be
“loved” in this way. The actual rape of Pecola is sprinkled with
passionate, loving language when, in reality, the act is that of
terror and death of innocence. At the end of the rape, Cholly
finds that “Removing himself from her was so painful to him he
cut it short and snatched his genitals out of the dry harbor of
her vagina.” (Revisionist History, Smut in AL Common Core
Text, n.d.) This sentence remains the only sentence where the
reader finds perversion. Of the entire description, one sentence
reveals the horrific event in the context of three full pages of
text.
Besides the deliberate word choices to describe the incident, the
rape does not come up again in the novel unless it is stated in a
casual manner. Cholly raped Pecola for the second time, and the
reader does not become aware of this dehumanizing, incestual
sin until Pecola mentions it during her insane conversation with
her invisible friend. The invisible friend aggravates Pecola
saying, “I do not mean for the first time. I say about the second

4. time when you were sleeping on the couch.” (Vizcaino, 2013)
Pecola’s response of “I was not sleeping! I was reading!”
verifies the reality of a second rape by ignoring the accusation
and clarifying vague details about what she was doing before
the horrible event.
Morrison uses Pauline’s narrative to reveal quickly and
carelessly Cholly’s alcoholism and the effect it has on the
financial state of the Breedlove family. Cholly had “come there
drunk wanting some money…she told Cholly to get out, or she
would call the police. He cussed her and started pulling on
me…She said she would let me stay if I left him.” (Vizcaino,
2013) Because of Cholly’s drunken anger and demands,
Pauline’s job for the white woman fell into jeopardy. Instead of
focusing on the fault of Cholly and his irrational insists, the
narration highlights the conflict that Pauline faced as she
attempted to receive the money she had earned. Cholly, who
was the cause of the problem, becomes merely a simple detail
overshadowed by other mental elements that Morrison
emphasizes instead.
Also within in critical language choices, Morrison finds areas of
victimization to emphasize. The past of Cholly becomes the
crux of his characterization. The chapter devoted to Cholly’s
story begins with his humble beginnings: at “four days old, his
mother wrapped him in two blankets and one newspaper and
placed him on a junk heap by the railroad.” (Morrison, 1970)
This description immediately intensifies Cholly’s situation.
The sequence in the woods with his girlfriend Darlene was a
very long passage, and it appeared again later in the novel.
Morrison uses lengthy descriptions and repetition to show
emphasis on elements of the story. By elongating series of
events, Morrison heightens the importance. The first sexual
experience Cholly has in life lasts for one very long, very in
detail paragraph describing every button being undone, every
article of clothing removed, every movement of the bodies.
Also, the smell, feeling, and sight of the white men are
described in enough detail to last three pages. The repetition of

5. “Hee hee hee hee hee” adds to the Cholly’s humiliation that
Morrison attempts to convey.
Cholly is not even safe in his house. Cholly lays victim to the
very woman who has pledged her life to him: Pauline, his wife.
She wins most of the fights and orders him to help her around
the house. Morrison describes Cholly and Pauline’s arguments
in detail, calling out every blow and punch. His fighting is
likened to that of how “a coward fights a man,” Cholly being
the coward and Pauline the man.
The downplaying of Cholly’s horrific deeds and exaggeration of
his victimizations wrongfully evokes sympathy from the reader.
These language choices force the user in a sympathetic direction
for Cholly. The long descriptions of wrongs that have happened
in Cholly’s life impact the user so that he remembers this
situation more so than the off-hand utterances of Cholly’s
wrongdoings. The repetition of Cholly’s humiliation in the
woods, horrible abandonment at the beginning of his life, and
his constant inability to take responsibility for his actions
because of his terrible past all emphasize situations worthy of
pity. No reader can be turned away from a man whose mother
trashed him, father abandoned him and then cursed him later in
the novel, or was embarrassed by two white strangers egging
him on during his first sexual experience. Of course, some
loving attention must be paid to Cholly, but not at the expense
of overshadowing events that deserve criticism.
The minimization of Cholly’s awful deeds cannot allow the
reader to feel much sympathy for Cholly and a few unfortunate
events. Sympathy may be due to an innocent man who
experiences the above incidents, but sympathy is not due to a
man who rapes his own daughter, abandons two women he may
have impregnated, and lives as a horrible husband. The horrific
actions of Cholly outweigh any pathetic sympathy that may
exist for him. The de-emphasis of Cholly’s sins leads the reader
to feel sympathy for him which is unfair to those whom he has
wronged.
The rape of his daughter is not justified by a sweet, tender

6. language of love. The rape of his daughter remains, whether
Morrison portrays it to be or not, a stripping of innocence and
the ultimate crime against his daughter. Just because Morrison
describes the thoughts of Cholly before he makes the move and
because Morrison omits thoughts from Pecola during the rape
does not justify the apathy raised from this scene. Rape should
induce strong feelings of hatred and despise towards Cholly.
This hate should prevail over that of any sympathy Cholly
received from being born to an unloving mother. The language
choices for this passage discredit the hellish ordeal that Pecola
is forced to endure. The passionate and lengthy build to the
actual act of rape seems to undercut the terrible nature of the
violation. Because his thoughts preceding the crime were that of
tenderness and love, Morrison insinuates that the abuse was
appropriate.
Cholly’s early events in life are overemphasized by the wrong.
Morrison refuses to elaborate on the fact that, though his mother
and father abandoned him, a motherly and a fatherly figure
emerged within Cholly’s life: Great Aunt Jimmi and Blue.
Cholly’s sexual humiliation in the woods was uncalled for, but
his anger towards the innocent girl he encountered was
unjustified and ought to have provoked anything but sympathy
from the reader. Morrison’s use of omission and emphasis
directs her reader towards sympathy which is unfair.
Toni Morrison depicts Cholly Breedlove as a free and impulsive
character. The first passage of the book seems as if it is an
excerpt from a children’s story. The first image of a father
comes from this story where it says, “See Father. He is big and
vigorous. Father, will you play with Jane? Father is smiling.
Smile, Father, smile.” This first instance of paternalism is
loving and playful. The readers expect this father image to be
parallel to that of the protagonist’s father. Cholly is indeed big
and vigorous. He does indeed play with Pecola (Jane), but not in
the usual way. He plays in a hurtful, sexual way. His smile is a
provocative smile, used to his freedom and willingness to laugh
at his enemies and provoke them to action.

7. Cholly becomes a character of ultimate freedom, lacking in
responsibilities. His freedom extends into violence where he
beats his wife, crime where he kills three men, perversion where
he rapes his daughter, gaiety where he drinks all the time and
escapes where he runs from difficulty. The first instance within
the actual story when the reader learns about Cholly, it is
extremely harmful. Cholly is compared to an animal, “an old
dog, a snake, a ratty nigger.” He is in jail and has burned down
his own family’s house. Immediately, the depiction of Cholly
expresses a lack of concern for his family and a denial of
responsibility as a male figurehead.
The reader, in the prolog, is likened to Cholly (which is not
named but is merely referred to as Pecola’s father) in this
instance: “We had dropped our seeds in our little pot of black
dirt just as Pecola’s dad had dropped his seeds in his plot of
black dirt.” The reader is not aware of the sexual and racial
undertones of this statement, but upon further entry into the
story, the reader soon learns from Morrison’s depiction of
Cholly that he is not a man of good virtue but a selfish man
seeking freedom.
Toni Morrison’s depiction of Cholly downplays his horrific
actions and exaggerates his victimizations. The representation
of Cholly and his free nature provides the excuses for his
horrible actions by emphasizing wrongs done to him. Morrison
explains his freedom saying that “Cholly was free. Dangerously
loose. Free to feel whatever he felt—fear, guilt, shame, love,
grief, pity. Free to be tender or violent, to whistle or weep…”
(Dharawat, 2011) The freedoms that Morrison allows Cholly to
have – and forces her reader to allow as well are freedoms from
the responsibility of his actions.
Cholly’s free and impulsive character confuses a reader’s
instincts. The reader should feel hatred by his actions, but
because of the de-emphasis of offensive actions that he has
done and the emphasis on terrible actions done to him, the
reader finds Cholly’s character one of a victim, perhaps even a
savior to the women. He provides his wife with what she needs

8. in life, but it is not emphasized that what she needs is a husband
who is dangerously free, drunk, and abusive. It is through
Morrison’s characterization of Cholly that allows her to focus
on his victimizations more so than his wrongdoings.
Toni Morrison’s depiction of Cholly wrongly evokes sympathy
from the reader. Morrison creates Cholly as a character of
freedom, acting however he pleases. Thus, when Cholly does
any action – regardless of good or bad, though most are bad – it
is simply within the bounds of his character. This excuse allows
the victimization which Morrison hyperbolizes to steal center
stage, causing the reader’s emotions to fly towards sympathy.
Morrison’s characterization allows the reader to feel sympathy
for a man who does not deserve it. The reader should hate this
man for his awful deeds, but Morrison paves the way for
sympathy by shoveling responsibility to the side. Cholly is
entirely capable of faults; Morrison depicts his faults and
wrongdoings but only in such a small, unimportant manner. By
describing his freedom and the horrible situations he must
overcome, the reader is forced to feel sympathy because the
depiction of Cholly excludes moving direction for hatred.
Morrison forces her reader to want to forgive Cholly for his
actions because Cholly can be recognized as a victim more so
than a criminal.
If one were to look at the facts and forget about the
presentation, one would list all Cholly’s “bads” and all of
Cholly’s “goods” and determine sympathy based on this. He has
raped his daughter (twice). He runs out on a girl he thinks he
has impregnated (twice). He burned down his family’s house,
beat his wife (multiple times), killed a man (three times), ruined
one of his wife’s job, and acted like a horrible father. On the
other side, Cholly was abandoned as a child by both his mother
and father (but had two parental-like figures enter his life to
replace those which he had lost). He was humiliated in the
woods during his first sexual experience (nothing like the horror
of Pecola’s first sexual experience: her father rapes her). He had
a difficult marriage situation (caused by his drunkenness). The

9. “bads” certainly outweigh the “goods” in his situation. Thus,
the reader ought not to feel sympathy for Cholly. However,
Morrison presents evidence about Cholly in such a way that
commands sympathy from her reader. This portrayal of Cholly
as a man of freedom and the victim of dreadful happenings is
wrong because it suggests sympathy for a man who does not
merit it. He earns the reader’s hate, but Morrison thwarts hate
for Cholly with a blanket of unjustified, inescapable sympathy.
Morrison creates unmerited sympathy from the reader using
language and her portrayal of Cholly acting within the restraints
of his character. This eventually generates a user who becomes
soft on crime and led by emotions manipulated by the authority
of the text.
References
Dharawat, N. (2011, April 01). The Bluest Eye: Cholly
Breedlove prezi. Retrieved from Prezi:
https://prezi.com/e4eyvagaocsg/the-bluest-eye-cholly-
breedlove-prezi/
Morrison, T. (1970). The Bluest Eye. Holt, Rinehart, and
Winston.
Revisionist History, Smut in AL Common Core Text. (n.d.).
Retrieved August 01, 2016, from Eagle Forum of Alabama:
http://alabamaeagle.org/2014/04/01/revisionist-history-smut-in-
al-common-core-text
Vizcaino, A. (2013, October 29). Cholly and Family Structures
in The Bluest Eye. Retrieved August 02, 2016, from Prezi:
https://prezi.com/3-sikpeonbop/cholly-and-family-structures-in-
the-bluest-eye/