One Side Stories; Guilty Victims

After listening to Chimamanda Adichie's ted talk on the dangers of one-sided stories, I find myself wavering between two discerning feelings. One one hand, I relate to what she is talking about and feel, as a Colombian, a victim of one-sided stories too. On the other, I feel ashamed for being much like Chimamanda's roommate in a lot of ways; I have a handful of predispositions towards the world because of one-sided stories I chose to blindly absorb.

First, I felt ecstatic. This woman was talking about something Colombians suffer from every single day: one-sided stories. Not only was she pointing out the ridiculousness of this, but also she was able to inspire her listeners to reflect upon the issue. The story of her roommate being incredulous at her fluent English repeated itself recently on my trip to Washington D.C during October Break. While riding a cab with some people I had met, I started singing to the song that was being played on the radio. A guy who was sitting next to me turned, surprised, and said, "Oh my God, how come you know the lyrics to this song?". I stared at him and replied, "Well, Colombians also listen to this type of music." He was bewildered at the fact that Colombians actually heard pop music, and additionally seemed a little confused that I could sing the song, which meant I knew, or could at least decipher, English. This comprehensibly opposed his one-sided story about Colombians being indigenous, ignorant, barbarian drug dealers.

Nonetheless, I have to admit that I too have been guilty for formulating one-sided stories. I am incredibly ashamed of accepting this but as I heard Chimamanda's talk I felt surprised by the fact that she, an African, could fluently speak in English. This is ironic, having in mind that I suffered from the same discrimination during my recent trip. But then I quickly wondered, why is it that people in Africa are only thought of as HIV infected natives?  Well, one-sided stories. The exact same reason why Colombians are though of as close-minded, uncultured terrorists.

Chimamanda not only inspired me to speak up for my country and against its one-sided prescribed reputation but also to have an open mind before taking any other stories in. People should have, as she emphasizes, a "balance" of stories before judging people, countries, or just anything around us. We need a balance of stories before we can understand anything that happens around us.

Kurtz's Omnipotence

Heart of Darkness, by Joseph Conrad, idealizes a particular man named Kurtz only to have him die a few pages after he first comes into presence. Kurtz was a great man, indeed. His accomplishments and his vista were beyond the ordinary, but he did not strike me as a man who would go down in history. What was it of Kurtz that made people put him on a pedestal?

Charlie Marlow, the story's narrator, starts off by merely hearing rumors about Kurtz's greatness. This quickly grows into an obsession to the point where Marlow mourns even the idea of Kurtz dying before he is able to listen to him. Marlow's idealization of Kurtz convinced him that Kurtz was a man worth listening to, as if Kurtz were above Marlow and therefore incapable of interacting with him. 

To this point, the reader only knows that Kurtz is some kind of an innate leader who was able to establish a successful ivory business in the middle of a savage milieu. This, to me, did not make Kurtz a god-like man at all.

In Part III of the novel, however, we are able to see Kurtz for the first time. Beyond rumors, Kurtz really is an outspoken man. Although suffering from a lethal disease, Kurtz is still able to impress those around him. He seems like a leader, yet fails to correspond to the God he has been portrayed as by his servants. 

Unconvinced by Kurtz's apparently admirable traits, I was reassured by Marlow's similar reaction. Notwithstanding the fact that Marlow is loyal to Kurtz and to his unquestionable reputation, Marlow also ventures to conclude that Kurtz isn't so unbelievably great. When traveling with him back to Europe, and after a series of deep conversations, Marlow conclusively states that Kurtz has a childish side to himself. More specifically, a "contemptibly childish" side to himself. This he noticed after getting to know Kurtz's vista's on a more intimate level and realizing that most of these were remarkably foolish. Nevertheless, this could also be the personification of what the doctor had foreshadowed in Part I of the novel; the changes that occur inside the men's head once they leave off to colonize.

Kurtz died, as does every other memorable hero, and I still failed to recognize him as an overly admirable man. What was it about him that seized the rest of the men? Was it his ability to speak up? Was it his skill of alleging possessions? Was it his perseverance? All these seem like very common human traits to me, but why was he idealized then?

I have come to believe than men at the time were far less innovating and independent than they are now, which would explain Kurtz's reputation to some extent. This is not convincing though. Does it have to do with the wilderness' darkness? Did Kurtz have a darkness of his own that would struck other men as threateningly admirable? I believe the answer to Kurtz's real magnificence cannot be answered until we grasp the underlying meaning of his surroundings. Was his omnipotence the omnipotence of the jungle that enveloped him?

 

Part I, Mateo Wiesner

In his blog entry to Part I of "Heart of Darkness", Mateo Wiesner raised an interesting question as to the use of irony in the novel. What I enjoyed the most, aside from his relevant, textual references, was his conclusion. He actually gave an answer to the question he had initially proposed and concluded that no, an effective use of irony on behalf of Joseph Conrad cannot yet be claimed.

Additionally, Mateo has a straightforward way of writing that allows the reader to enjoy his analysis. It is neither repetitive nor wordy. He does a great job at introducing his entry; giving slight background information about the thesis he was about to propose and, most importantly, going straight to the point.  He is able to create a superb mixture between scholar diction and unusual sentence structure.

I liked the fact that Mateo went beyond the text. I, for example, analyzed Part I on a literal level; I used what Conrad had written and worked with that. Mateo, on the other hand, took what Conrad had written and worked with the way it had been written; why Conrad achieved through the use of irony and what possible underlying message this may have had.

Fog Revisited

Part II of Joseph Conrad's novel, "Heart of Darkness", depicts Charlie Marlow's journey being conveniently interrupted by the "whiteness of a blinding mist". Marlow's experience with a palpable fog establishes a parallelism with Chief Bromden's hallucinative fog in Ken Kesey's, "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest". But do both fogs deliver the same message?

In "OFOCN", Bromden claims that he feels the safest when going unnoticed by hiding behind a symbolic, blinding fog that builds up whenever he feels fear. Marlow, similarly, feels comfortable in the fog that encapsulates his steamboat; it reassures him that no native attack will likely happen. Although he is overwhelmed by how the mist makes them practically blind, he is calm. Marlow knows, much like Chief Bromden did in "OFOCN", that nothing will happen to them if they stay hidden in the fog. It is some sort of a "if I do not see them, they will not see me" mentality that really seems to work out for human beings.

Overcoming the fog what allowed Chief Bromden from "OFOCN" to extricate the ward. However, escaping the fog was what led Marlow's steamboat to a shower of lethal arrow. Marlow acquired a greater panorama once the mist faded out, but his crew is now vulnerable again; the steamboat is not hidden anymore. But which of the two situations is better? Should we stay hidden behind our fears or should we overcome them and face all the possible consequences that may arise?

The concept of fog has appeared twice in two consecutive, unrelated novels. It represents, in both, the safety of hiding behind one's fears. Marlow and his crew escape the fog as they navigate up the river and closer to Mr. Kurtz's station, while Chief Bromden escapes the fog once he establishes a relationship with McMurphy. Is the symbolism of both fogs reliant on the existence of these two particular characters?

Fearing Darkness

Joseph Conrad's novel, "Heart of Darkness", depicts the story of a group of colonialists and their pasts. Part I of the book starts off with one of the men, Marlow, narrating how he had been introduced in the world of colonialism. Unlike popular belief, many of these marines disagreed with their missions and knew that what their nations claimed about the colonies was false.

Marlow starts off by telling how he had been enrolled in the navy and how he started having uneasy thoughts about the trip days before leaving. His anxiety is evident when the doctor is checking him; he becomes easily annoyed at the doctors questions. The doctor tells Marlow that he never sees the men he examines again once they take off. Marlow keeps quiet and comments on how he felt very annoyed at the doctors remarks.

Further on, Marlow expresses his neglect about leaving to another continent when his aunt hugs him good-bye and tells him to detach the natives from their horrid ways. Marlow felt uncomfortable at this comment, even quite vexed for he claims that women live in their own oblivious worlds. He knows his nation's interest is not within educating the Indians but rather within the continent's profit. What worries me as a reader is that he does not merely comment that he has this theory; he "ventures" to hint that what the Company wanted was profit. Noting the word "ventured" made me realize that these sailors were brainwashed before their trips and that it was not common at all for one of them to notice that.

Finally, Marlow's lack of conviction about sailing off to colonize becomes evident when he says, "I felt as though, instead of going to the centre of a continent, I were about to set off for the centre of the earth." (Page 77). Here, the centre of the Earth is depicted as a location alien to mankind, they know less about the centre of the Earth than what they know about the centre of this new continent. Marlow is nervous, he feels uneasy about setting off to a place he knows nothing about and from where he can expect practically anything; particularly not coming back home.

Marlow's worrisome attitude makes me feel sorry for him. He reminds me of the hundreds of soldiers in classical paintings that are fighting in the middle of colonialist wars or conquering unknown lands and have expressionless faces in them; they do not really feel or understand what is going on. Marlow saw an opportunity in what he country saw as a revolutionary colonialist act, and he feels worried about what he is about to encounter.

Irony

What examples from the song are ironic? How can you tell?

I noticed two examples that struck me as ironic:

1. "Hide your wives and daughter; hide the groceries too.
The great nations of Europe comin through."

- This is ironic on behalf of Randy Newman because he first warns listeners about having to hide their women and their food and then goes on to explaining it is because the "great" nations of Europe are coming. People associate the word "great" with something exciting and admirable, but the excerpt here is describing what these nations do as exactly the opposite. In reality, you would not have to hide anyone or anything from something great. 

2. "Balboa found the Pacific, and on the trail one day,
he met some friendly Indians whom the Church told him were gay,
soooooooooooooo
he had them torn apart by dogs on religious grounds they say
the great nations of Europe were quite holy in their way."

- The last phrase, "the great nations of Europe were quite holy in their way", is ironic in the sense that "holy" usually means something very sacred and saint-like. What the nations of Europe did with the indians by tearing them apart, etc. is not sacred at all; it is exactly the opposite. 

Throughout the song in general, the author describes horrific events and then connects them to the "great nations of Europe". The excerpt below is another example of how these "great" nations actually committed terrible things:

 "destroying everything in its path from sea to shining sea,

like the great nations of Europe in the 16th century"

What examples are not ironic? How can you tell?

1. "The Great Nations of Europe had gathered on the shore.
They'd conquered what was behind them and now they wanted more,
so they looked to the mighty ocean and took to the Western sea -
the great nations of Europe in the 16th century."

- This example is not ironic at all. Here, the nations of Europe are described as the fearless conquerors they were and the adjective "great" has been supported by historical references such as the nations pioneering into the Western sea. 

The Growth of a Giant

"If we don't change, we don't grow. If we don't grow, we aren't really living."

- Gail Sheehy 

"One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest", by Ken Kessey, narrates the story of how one particular person  impacted the lives of several inmates in a lunatic asylum. What is interesting to notice within the novel's development is how characters change because of this person's influence and inspiration and how they grow either crazier or sane; specifically, how they grow out of the Combine.

Perhaps the most dramatic change occurs within Chief Bromden, the novel's narrator and one of the most important characters in the book. Bromden, originally an Indian from Columbia, starts off as a massive, mute outsider who is incredibly observant, passive, and inoffensive. This upsets the reader because the Chief, as he is nicknamed, could easily stand up not only for himself but for the other men in the ward if he were brave enough; his size is intimidating. Bromden repetitively demonstrates how fearful he is by describing some sort of "fog" that blocks his vision whenever the Big Nurse attempts to control the men in the ward. 

Thankfully, McMurphy is introduced into the asylum. After he discovers that the Chief is not really deaf, both of them start building a friendship that inspires Bromden speak; he starts off only chatting with McMurphy at night but then grows more confident and occasionally speaks up or simply acts up against the fog. One of the most surprising moments is when Bromden raises his hand and votes in favor of a schedule change under the eyes of the Big Nurse and then confesses to himself that he raised his hand because it was his will and not because of peer pressure.

He continues growing more and more confident until one day McMurphy notices the potential within Bromden's size and promises the Indian that he will make him "big" again until he is capable of lifting the metal box that would allow them to break a window and escape the hospital. This promise on McMurphy's behalf of making the Chief "big" again cannot only be understood from a literal perspective but also from a symbolic angle; McMurphy wants to trigger Bromden's confidence in himself.

The red-headed is able to do so and Bromden's development is demonstrated at the end of the book when, aside from hitting the black boys back when they hit McMurphy in the showers, he faced the punishment for that with courage. He did not see any fog before the EST took place and was able to easily escape it once it ended; something that surprised even himself. However, what surprises readers the most and what proves the theory of Bromden undergoing an internal change is the fact that he suffocates McMurphy. McMurphy, who is the ward's saint and inspiration and impulse, becomes a Vegetable after three EST's and an operation. Bromden and the rest are incapable of believing he could actually end up that way, so Bromden acts "courageously" and suffocates McMurphy with a pillow. Yes, Bromden is killing a man, but it took a lot of bravery to do so specially when he could suffer terrible consequences for doing so. Moreover,  the act of accepting how such a lively man like McMurphy could not undergo the rest of his years as a Vegetable took a lot of courage too. More surprisingly still is the fact that Bromden escapes the ward after murdering his friend. 

Conclusively, regardless of whether Bromden is now crazier or not, he became brave. He gained his voice again and his confidence was restored, so much as to make him escape the ward and hop on a truck off to Canada. One single man was able to transform Bromden into a more courageous indian who then escaped the Combine and overcame his fears. This should serve as an inspiration to stand up for our selves and avoid wasting time following unjust rules from either Big Nurse's or the Combine itself.