So far, I have been impressed with Waiting for the Barbarians for two reasons. The first of which is that I have truly enjoyed reading it, which I rarely experience when dealing with award winning novels. The second reason is that the narrator retains a great amount of dignity in the eyes of the reader despite his odd sexual pondering(s). Perhaps the dignity the character holds is due to his contrast with the colonel, or perhaps it is due to his position in the outpost as the magistrate. I personally believe his dignity is due to the gentle soul the narrator is shown to have.
His constant sexual judgments and conclusions come off as very human, and strangely not eccentric. Instead, I am left reading thoughts that could be anyone's. Well, maybe that is an extreme. Hence, we have arrived at perhaps the most interesting part of WFTB so far, the lack of historical detail. With no frame of reference, the beginning of the story was almost grinding to me, but Coetzee hooked me in with the narrator's thought process. The way he analyzes Joll's actions strikes me as such perfect examples of legitimate human behavior that it is difficult not to be sucked into the story.
The barbarian women he keeps with him is submissive, while not being submissive at all. The scene toward the end of the second section, the second of her sexual advances, is natural while being awkward. And that is essentially the beauty of Coetzee's writing: his ability to gently draw contradictions in actions and circumstances without overtly writing about internally conflicted characters, instead making them seem commonplace and average.
Perhaps that wasn't phrased too well, but I think you get what I'm sayin. No? Well, luckily we've only begun to discuss.
Peace
Sunday, November 23, 2008
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Conrad = Bigot, A Terminological Examination of Heart of Darkness
"Race, Ethnicity, Nationality, Empire"
-Peter Edgerly Firchow-
"Because its alleged endorsement of racism has been the principal charge leveled against Heart of Darkness in the heated postcolonial critical debate of the last two decades-followed by the more attentuated charge of really supporting imperialism while seeming to subvert if- it seems advisable and and even necessary to first clear the terminological ground before starting off on any discussion as to whether or how or to what degree Heart Of Darkness is or is not racist and imperialist."
• When Conrad was writing, the word Racism did not exist, so though this doesn’t mean that racism itself was not present, it meant that people back then thought differently about the subject.
• The ideas of racism were so inherent and widespread that a word to characterize it was not needed.
• The first word with negative connotations was “racialism,” which entered into vocabulary in 1907.
o Definition: belief in the supervisory of a particular race leading to prejudice and antagonism towards people of other races, especially those in close proximity who may be felt as a threat to one’s cultural and racial integrity to economic well-being.
o This does not describe the attitudes exhibited in Heart of Darkness, for the Europeans didn’t feel their culture or economy to be significantly threatened by Africans.
• In his other works, it can be seen that Conrad doesn’t like Germans, Russians, Dutch, Belgians, Arabs, North Americans, and Irish people as much as he likes the English, Scottish, Malay, or French people. These “rankings” were not unusual at these times.
• As Englishmen became more exposed to racial minorities, texts show they began to like them less.
• For Conrad, race and imperialism were inclusive words without the negative connotations that are associated with them today, after the holocaust.
-Peter Edgerly Firchow-
"Because its alleged endorsement of racism has been the principal charge leveled against Heart of Darkness in the heated postcolonial critical debate of the last two decades-followed by the more attentuated charge of really supporting imperialism while seeming to subvert if- it seems advisable and and even necessary to first clear the terminological ground before starting off on any discussion as to whether or how or to what degree Heart Of Darkness is or is not racist and imperialist."
• When Conrad was writing, the word Racism did not exist, so though this doesn’t mean that racism itself was not present, it meant that people back then thought differently about the subject.
• The ideas of racism were so inherent and widespread that a word to characterize it was not needed.
• The first word with negative connotations was “racialism,” which entered into vocabulary in 1907.
o Definition: belief in the supervisory of a particular race leading to prejudice and antagonism towards people of other races, especially those in close proximity who may be felt as a threat to one’s cultural and racial integrity to economic well-being.
o This does not describe the attitudes exhibited in Heart of Darkness, for the Europeans didn’t feel their culture or economy to be significantly threatened by Africans.
• In his other works, it can be seen that Conrad doesn’t like Germans, Russians, Dutch, Belgians, Arabs, North Americans, and Irish people as much as he likes the English, Scottish, Malay, or French people. These “rankings” were not unusual at these times.
• As Englishmen became more exposed to racial minorities, texts show they began to like them less.
• For Conrad, race and imperialism were inclusive words without the negative connotations that are associated with them today, after the holocaust.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
A Tearful Goodbye
The Sound and the Fury was an interesting read, to say the least. Had it not been in the supportive environment of an English there is no doubt that I would not have read beyond the second page, the fist section, and the rest of the novel for that matter being so complex. But, looking back on the past month or so, I guess it has been a good experience because now I will always win the most confusing book read contest.
The book provided me closure through its focus on Dilsey. After enduring the characters’ assorted flaws during the first three sections of the book, the fourth section focuses on Dilsey, a down to earth character. This gives the reader a grounded sense with which the book ends. I think this is very important, because it allows the reader to truly see a stark contrast between the craziness in the family, and the normalcy outside of it. I feel as if Dilsey is the only character I would have trusted to raise me.
The book provided me closure through its focus on Dilsey. After enduring the characters’ assorted flaws during the first three sections of the book, the fourth section focuses on Dilsey, a down to earth character. This gives the reader a grounded sense with which the book ends. I think this is very important, because it allows the reader to truly see a stark contrast between the craziness in the family, and the normalcy outside of it. I feel as if Dilsey is the only character I would have trusted to raise me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
