In the novel Jazz, almost every character makes choices at some point. These choices involve race, origin, preference and other subjects that are closely related to the character’s personal experiences. Even love, which is usually considered an uncontrollable matter of impulses, is involved in choices, in this novel. While such an excessive number of choices seem to contribute to the notion of freedom and autonomy, they actually contribute more to the revelation of truths, which are obscure due to stream of consciousness and the unreliable narrator employed in this novel. These choices reflect both prospects, such as the hope of a more open-minded city and better feeling about one’s self, and problems, such as reinforcement of stereotypes, the restrictive nature of certain historical events and unsatisfied need of support, in the society. And some of the choices even lead us further to explore the motive of certain acts, including both saving and killing. Choices in this novel are not just decisions, but also characters’ process of reasoning, which allows readers to learn about the various factors involved in each choice, and prevents the unreliable narrator from manipulating the plot.

First of all, unlike what people usually believe, choice does not necessarily contribute to freedom. In his review The Burden of Liberty: Choice in Toni Morrison’s Jazz and Toni Cade Bambara’s The Salt Eaters, Derek Alwes claims that “the notion of a freedom to choose who we are, is a constant theme in the novel [Jazz]” (Alwes 354). Yet, the phrase “a freedom to choose who we are” is improper for this novel since certain choices contradict freedom. When the mulatto boy, Golden Gray, and his biological father, Henry Lestory, argue about the boy’s racial identity, Henry asks Golden to choose between two races: “Be what you want—white or black.Choose. But if you choose black, you got to act black, meaning draw your manhood up—quick like, and don’t bring me no whiteboy’s ass” (Morrison 173). However, Golden’s origin is not a simple matter of choice: asking him to choose between one of the two races is asking him to deny the other race as a part of his origin. In other words, though Henry seems to offer Golden two options for his racial identity, the choices actually restrict Golden to limited existing catalogs and thus deprive him of the possibility to form a whole new identity of his own. Hence, in this case, the two options, “white or black,” by their restraining nature, represent Henry’s subconscious reinforcement of racial classifications, rather than freedom. Moreover, such choices disrespect each individual’s freedom to be unique and thus call the idea to classify people by races into question.

Besides,the process of reasoning involved in each choice helps readers better understand the character’s behavior: According to the initial definition of stream of consciousness by William James, in his work The Principle of Psychology, consciousness is “nothing jointed” (James 239). Since Jazz employs stream of consciousness from time to time, readers are taken through different minds, perspectives and surroundings, and observe “nothing jointed”. The process of reasoning then brings the disjoint thoughts, perspectives, and surroundings together, and organizes them into understandable motives.

For instance, when Golden Gray sets out to meet his bio-father, he finds “a naked berry-black woman” who looks terrified in the trees; and after a moment of hesitation, Golden gets the woman, who is named Wild later on by another guy, into his carriage and brings her to some safe house (Morrison 144). In her book Toni Morrison, Pelagia Goulimari claims that Golden Gray’s hesitation and decision to save Wild are “Sexual choices involve[ing] sociopolitical choices” (Goulimari 99). On one hand, I agree with Goulimari on the sociopolitical implication of Golden’s thoughts and acts; but on the other hand, the fact that Golden Gray is male and Wild is female by no means implies that Golden is making sexual choices－h(huán)is thoughts explicitly indicate that his hesitation is due to the prevalent racial stereotype. When Golden wants to ignore the woman and continue his trip, he notices that “his horse is also black, naked, and shiny wet,” just like the “naked berry-black woman” (Morrison 144). Golden Gray then reflects on his feelings about his horse and the woman, respectively, and is surprised, as well as shamed, to recognize “the pride he takes in his horse” and “the nausea the woman provoked” (Morrison 144). As Golden questions himself about his instinct to leave a frail woman unattended simply because of her race, the implied author implicitly questions the society about the reasonableness of racial stereotypes and suggests that judging people by their skin color is illogical.Hence, Golden Gray’s hesitation is the process of “face[ing] and attempt[ing]to overcome his racism,” as Goulimari suggests, and his decision has no specific relation with gender or sex (Goulimari 99). Additionally, Golden’s eventual choice to save Wild also gives hope of a future society where stereotypes are broken down.

Furthermore, regardless of a character’s claim,his (or her) choice always reveals his (or her) true situation. In particular, although Joseph Trace claims to have “changed into new for seven times”, his imaginary choice of the identity of his biological mother reflects that his reinvented self is still faulted, and suggests that he is in need of societal and internal support to accomplish the reconstruction of his identity (Morrison 123):

There are boys who have whores for mothers and don’t get over it. There are boys whose mothers stagger through town roads when the juke joint slams its door, Mothers who throw their children away or trade them for folding money, He would have chosen any one of them over this indecent speechless lurking insanity (Morrison 179).

The phrase “would have chosen” indicates Joe’s preference for “whores,” drinkers and baby-traffickers, in comparison to his biological mother. And this unusual preference conveys an intense sense of shame in Joe. By comparing Wild to the other three examples of mothers Joe gives, we can see that the essential difference between Wild and the other women is that Wild does not live in any human settlement, and is thus socially unaccepted. Additionally, if we take a close look at how Joe’s foster parents avoid giving a direct answer to Joe’s question “where my [Joe’s] real parents were,” we can infer that Wild is actually socially unacceptable (Morrison 123). Thus, Joe’s shame on his biological mother is partly caused by the society’s exclusion of people, such as Wild, who are different from the majority. Nonetheless, if Joe had a self-determined identity, i.e., if the answer to “who I am” did not depends on the answer to “who my mother is” for Joe, then Joe wouldn’t have had such a strong sense of shame just because this unfamiliar bio-mother of his lives alone in the wild. Therefore, in order for Joe to feel better about himself, he needs the public’s support in eliminating bias upon the minority, as well as internal support in understanding his own individuality.

Yet, Joe is not alone in hypothetically re-selecting his parent. When the narrator retrospects the City during the period of Great Migration, he imagines:

They are down there [in the sea-like night sky], along with yellow flowers that eat water beetles and eggs floating away from thrashing fins; along with the children who made a mistake in the parents they choose; along with slabs of Carrara pried from unfashionable buildings (Morrison 35).

The words“thrashing” and “pried” suggest that the “eggs” and the “slabs” are forced away from their origin. Since the three clauses all start with the phrase “along with,” this paratactic (or, more precisely, anaphoric) structure implies that the second clause should share a similar sense of passiveness and unwillingness as the other two clauses. That is to say, “the children who made a mistake in the parents they choose” implicitly refers to abandoned kids, just like Joe. Besides, the ironic suggestion that it is possible to choose one’s parents recalls Joe’s wish to choose another mom. And since Joe is a member of the Great Migration that the narrator is talking about, we have the very reason to believe that “the children” here refers to immigrants who have similar experiences and thoughts as Joe. Hence, Joe’s origin is just one specific example of a common phenomenon among the immigrants in the City. That is to say, there are lots more people who feel helpless without the kind of support similar to what Joe needs.

Moreover,Joe’s belief that an offspring’s identity is related, or even bounded, to the identities of the parents is a possible explanation of the two options, “white or black,” that Henry Lestory offers Golden Gray. In some sense, Joe’s opinion resembles the idiom “chip off the old block,” which is to say, each feature of a child should be inherited either from his (or her) mother or from his (or her) father. If so, then it is not surprising at all that Henry Lestory doesn’t offer a third option. Furthermore, the idea that family origin exclusively determines one’s characters is exactly where social stereotypes originate. Therefore, Joe’s seemingly na?ve wish to choose another woman to be his mom implicitly reveals a long-standing assumption that has led to some prevalent social stereotypes.

Surprisingly, even love is drawn into the territory of choices in Jazz. People usually consider love as an intense feeling of affection caused by impulse, hormone, or by other uncontrollable factors. That is to say, love is commonly considered choiceless. Yet, in her interview with Elissa Schappell, Toni Morrison offers a novel view that “Exercising choice in who you love was a major, major thing” (Denard 83). Morrison’s statement involves two ideas: first, there exist choices in love; and second, making these choices is important. Though Morrison does not further justify her claim in this interview, characters in her work Jazz carry out this view of hers. However, two things remain in question: To whom is this “exercising choices” major? In what way is it “major”?

Intuitively,we would think that the “exercising of choices in who you love” is important for the one who makes the choices. And our intuition is true for Joe Trace in the following case. When Joe Trace loses track of Dorcas, and then recalls the first time he sleeps with her, he says:

I chose you [Dorcas]. Nobody gave you to me. Nobody said that’s the one for you. I picked you out. Wrong time, yep, and doing wrong by my wife. But picking out, the choosing. Don’t ever think I fell for you, or fell over you. I didn’t fall in love, I rose in it. (Morrison 135)

The repetition of “Nobody,” and the insistence on using the word “rose”, which sounds more active, instead of “fell” or “fall,” emphasize Joe’s initiative in his choice of Dorcas, and produce a tone that sounds serious but positive. Yet, this excessive emphasis on initiative also insinuates that it is rare for Joe to carry out a choice that accords with his will. For instance, in preceding cases, Joe feels inferior and wishes to choose any other woman to be his biological mother, but he cannot; and his plea for the confirmation of his biological mother, Wild, is not fulfilled, since Wild does not “say anything” or “l(fā)et me [Joe] see your [Wild’s] hand” (Morrison 178). Besides, when Joe says “I rose in it,” the positivity of his tone indicates that the choice to love Dorcas let him feel less inferior, and even gives Joe confidence in himself. Hence, “exercising choice in who you love” is “a major, major thing” for Joe in the sense that such choices offers him what he has always longed for: the experience of performing his wills. Consequentially, it’s explainable that Joe decides to shoot Dorcas in order to prevent this vital choice of his from leaving him.

However, the feeling of agency that comes from the practice of choice can be illusory. As an example, Violet’s choice in who she loves is actually choiceless. Though she knows that her husband, Joe, is just “a substitute” for “the golden boy” on her mind, she still cannot give up Joe (Morrison 97). When Violet imagines a possible date between Dorcas and Joe, she suddenly cries out: “she [Dorcas] was the heifer who took what was mine,what I choose, picked out and determined to have and hold on to, NO!” (Morrison 95). Here, the verb “have” and the phrase “hold on to” suggest that Joe is more like a possession to Violet, rather than a person. Even so, the fact that the word “NO” is capitalized and the sentence ends with an exclamation mark indicates Violet’s resolution to stick with her choice, Joe. According to Violet’s conversation with Alice, her odd determination is due to the fact that “Everybody I [Violet] grow up with is down home. We don’t have children. He’s what I have. He’s what I got” (Morrison 111). That is to say, although Joe is not Violet’s ideal, he is the next best thing and the only accessible option for Violet, since the Great Migration has separated Violet from her acquaintances, her past, and thus her choices. Furthermore, corresponding to the narrator’s comment that people in the City “always end up back where you[they] started,” even Violet’s attempt to “punish Joe by getting herself a boyfriend” is meant to “fall back in love with her husband” (Morrison 120,4-5). That is to say, Violet’s choice is entirely restricted, plotted, and even indicated by the time and place she lives in. The practice of such a choice therefore disproves Violet’s ability to act independently, contradicts the widespread impression that the Great Migration and the North are equivalent to autonomy, and thus provokes a reconsideration of historical events.

Furthermore, active choosing is not always desirable. For Dorcas, freedom to choose seems to be more of a detriment. When Dorcas decides to leave Joe Trace and consort with Acton, she makes the following comparisons:

“He [Joe] didn’t even care what I looked like. I could be anything, do anything－and it pleased him. Something about that made me mad. […] “Acton, now, he tells me when he doesn’t like the way I fix my hair. Then I do it how he likes it. […]Joe didn’t care what kind of woman I was. He should have. I cared. I wanted to have a personality and with Acton I’m getting one. […]

“[…] I’m Acton’sand it’s Acton I want to please. […]” (Morrison 190-191).

By saying “I could be anything, do anything” and “Something about that made me mad,” Dorcas complains about the absolute freedom of choice Joe offers her; and by saying “I do it how he [Acton] likes it” and “it’s Acton I want to please,” Dorcas implies that she wishes partner to make choices for her, which is to say, Dorcas chooses Acton to avoid choosing for herself. Judging by these thoughts of hers, we might think that Dorcas is incapable of choosing or unwilling to choose overall. However, from other parts of this novel, we observe that Dorcas is “bold” and “never afraid,” and has been “planning and plotting how to deceive Mrs.Manfred” (Morrison 61, 201). And since Dorcas is capable of acting against others’ commands, Dorcas is able to make choices on her own. Then why does ?Dorcas decides to avoid choosing for herself in her relationships? Notice the sentences “Joe didn’t care what kind of woman I was. He should have. I cared.” By saying so, Dorcas suggests that the absolute freedom of choice Joe offers makes her feel uncared for by him. Hence, Dorcas’ decision to avoid choosing for herself is actually a concession to her lover in exchange for consideration.

Additionally, according to previous examples of Joe’s choices and Dorcas’ comment, “it pleased him,” we can infer that Joe offers Dorcas so much freedom in choosing because he find active choosing a treasure. Yet, one man’s meat is another man’s poison: while Joe values the freedom to choose, Dorcas finds such freedom the opponent of the care she needs. Besides, though making choices according to one’s own will is a form of liberty, being imposed to make one’s own choices is not. Hence, Dorcas’ seemingly contradictory choice to not choose suggests that, first, in certain cases, freedom comes at the expense of other values, and second, liberty, once imposed, is no longer liberty.

Moreover, by choosing, the characters add reasons to each act of theirs, and thus preclude the narrator’s unfounded manipulation of the plot. At the end of the novel, the narrator says “I was sure one would kill the other. I waited for it so I could describe it” (Morrison 220). However, Joe, Violet and Dorcas’ reasons for their choices suggest that the narrator’s expectation cannot be met since the motive for another killing does not exist. First, Joe regards Dorcas, but not Violet, as a precious choice.That is to say, while Dorcas is so treasured to Joe that he would kill her to retain her, Violet is not important enough for Joe to go to such length. And second,even if Violet is some kind of choice to Joe, since she has no desire to leave Joe, which Dorcas has, Joe’s motive to shoot Dorcas does not stand up in this case.

Throughout the novel Jazz, the choices reflect social situations including geographical and mental restrictions, and their need of care or help before and during the Great Migration, and gives hope to a future society with fewer stereotypes. But more importantly, the process of choosing unpretentiously add reasons to each character’s behavior, and thus keeps the development of plot away from distortion caused by unreliable narrator and confusion caused by the tremendous amount of information included in each character’s stream of consciousness.

Work Cited

Alwes, Derek. “The Burden of Liberty: Choice in Toni Morrison’s Jazz and Toni Cade Bambara’s The Salt Eaters.” African American Review 30.3 (1996): 353-365. Print.

Goulimari, Pelagia. “Jazz”.Toni Morrison. New York, NY: Routledge, 2011. 93-103. Print.

James, William.The Principles of Psychology, Vol. 1. New York, NY: Cosimo Classics, 2013. Print.

Morrison, Toni. Jazz. New York, NY: Vintage International, 2004. Print.

Schappell, Elissa. “Toni Morrison: The Art of Fiction.”Toni Morrison: Conversations. Jackson, MS: University Press of Mississippi, 2008. 62-90. Print.