One Story, One Perspective

I've always been proud of where i'm from. Each and every time I hear about Colombia and not Columbia or in a good way my heart skips a beat. I feel pride and take my country and culture passionately. However, I am subject of ignorance and negative accusations about my country. As not everyone has come here and learned the truth, they focus their thoughts on single stories. Everyone, including me, is susceptible to the "dangers of a single story", with which we only focus on what we've been told without bothering to look in deeper. 

Last year I went to a summer camp in France with three other colombians. It was a small camp of about fifty students, of which most were Spanish or from German speaking countries. I was quite offended to hear some spaniards ask if "we could speak some colombian", as they wanted to hear our dialect, and  constantly asked "how we spoke spanish so well". I was left dumbfounded as to me it was common knowledge that the spanish had conquered colombia, and we had therefore inherited their language and many of their cultural traditions.

Most of them knew more than 3 languages, which impressed me even more. Some knew english, spanish, french, german and italian or Portuguese. I was shocked as to how they could know so much, and yet so little. They might have not known were I was from, or if that even existed, but they knew so many things about the world I was blind too. Many of the countries in the middle east I was left to think on which was which, and then I realized how this superficiality is wider than I thought. How this ignorance not only affects others, but it also affects those already affected. 

Women: African and Europe

Is there a difference between african and european women? Or more accurately, is Conrad trying to demonstrate some hidden point through his portrayal of two woman from different cultures? Through the depiction of women from different races, Conrad is able to reveal his true thoughts on each race and therefore his real thoughts on racism. By classification and comparison Conrad achieves this. 

In the book very few women are mentioned. Of those I recall important there are only three: Marlow's most beloved aunt, Mr. Kurtz native mistress, and Mr. Kurtz european fiancé. The differences found when comparing the description of each woman are very direct.  While he describes Kurtz's native woman as "savage and superb, wild-eyed and magnificent... [looking at us] like the wilderness itself, with an air of brooding over an inscrutable purpose.", the tone and syntax of the other passage of his fiancé is quite more elegant. Conrad described the european woman as "[Dressed] in black with a pale head...She was in mourning...It was more than a year since his death, more than a year since the news came; She seemed as though the she would remember and mourn forever...She had a mature capacity for fidelity, for belief, for suffering. (Pg. 139) He describes her with much more delicacy and sentiment. He is more careful with which words he uses to describe her. She is portrayed as a lady, not as a simple woman, but as an graceful lady in mourning. The contrast between these two woman might reveal what Conrad thinks of them both. He might be racist against the native woman, portraying her as wild and a part of nature which could be perceived as negative, however he doesn't explicitly say anything negative about her, he just merely implies it.

We are left to decipher ourselves what he really means, we have to pick the meaning behind his words. What these comparisons do really is nothing. They do not really give us the answer to our question, but they deepen it and raise it even more. We are left uncertain on what Conrad truly thinks about racism, or if it even is what he thinks but rather what Marlow thinks. We do not know if Marlow is supposed to represent Conrad, or the European vision towards racism at all. We are just left with uncertainty and more questions. What we do know is that there is a difference, that is clear. So there clearly is something that differs these two women, and thus these two cultures. We just do not know which of them is good and which is bad. 

Marlow. Marlow. Marlow.

When you want your point to stand there are different ways to be heard. You can shout it, or you can merely repeat it many times until it's left ringing in everyone's ears. Repetition is the key. To make constant emphasis on something can be annoying, but if it is annoying it means the point has been made, and everyone is feed up with that particular idea. That is exactly what Joseph Conrad does in a subtle way in Heart of Darkness.

We must take into account that this is a frame story. It isn't supposed to be novel, but rather a tale told casually to some friends in a boat waiting for the tide to rise. Apart from the fact that syntax is very different when we talk than when we write, our expressions are different too. Written expressions are different than oral expressions. Orally we tend to repeat the same thing various times when we get anxious or our emotions heightened. As the tone of voice changes, the feeling of monotony changes too, but when it's written we just don't picture the characters shouting the lines, but we rather calmly read them. It's different to give expression and emotion to a written work, than to an oral work. Marlow's repetitive narrative adds uneasiness to the flow of the novel. It could mean that Marlow is panting, and fidgeting while telling his story. While Marlow says there were "Trees, Trees, millions of trees, massive, immense, running up high" (Pg. 63), one could simply write "there were many trees" to make it less wordy. It sounds as if he were overwhelmed at the moment due to the recap of  his eventful journey, and not woried at all abour wordiness and being consice. 

When we believe something is important in our minds we tend to repeat it or mention it a lot as we are constantly thinking about it. We are quite aware that Marlow's experience had an emotional effect on him, and he most likely remembers the past with emotion and it is seen through his tone and diction. This ads intimacy and emotion to the tone of the novel, making it even more intriguing.  

The Inhumanity of Humans

Inhumanity is defined as the lack of pity or compassion. Its synonyms include words like savagery and brutality.  On the other hand, humanity is described as the quality or condition of being human, with synonyms like sympathy, tenderness and goodwill. I personally believe they are erroneous, and should be flipped. Humans are savages; they are discerned by their lack of condolence and empathy towards others and they seem to be incapable of sympathy or goodwill. But, why is it they are this way?

What is it that makes humans so greedy and so inhumane? Is it power or is it money? The abuse towards the black race seen in this novel is incredible. It is amazing how we humans which are supposed to be so humane, are so crude.  What Marlow describes as humans when he arrives to Africa was as follows: "They were dying slowly, it was very clear. They were no enemies, they were not criminals, they were nothing earthly now, nothing but black shadows of disease and starvation, lying confusedly in the greenish gloom...these moribund shapes were free as air-and nearly as thin." (pg. 28) These people who endure a terrible quality of life, who are deprived of their own rights and freedom are also left to die like this. Why are we so ungrateful? They were the people that gave us what we had. Without them we wouldn't have had all the luxuries we enjoyed on a daily basis. Our clothing, our food, they ivory from our pianos. It all came from work of them, each was carved by some pair of black hands in some corner of  africa, and we don't even acknowledge their existence. We treated them as if they were machines and animals, without any type of care. Instead of working to get what we wanted, we made them work for us without giving them anything in return. Not even some dignity. 

Greed makes us act this way. The belief that money and power will make us indestructible gives us that sense of supperiority. We feel we have the right to treat men like animals, like bodies without souls. We feel we have the power to to tie them up together and chain them up. To Beat them up and take everything away from them. It is shameful that things like this happened once upon a time. They, humans just like the rest of us, should've been treated like treasures, not like trash. 

Oh, The Irony...

"The Great Nations of Europe" Randy Newman

IRONIC EXAMPLES:

"He (Columbus) shook hands with some Indians and soon they all were dead."

• This is not literal, he rather is exagerating the situation because when the europeans arrived they came over with many diseases that caused the indian population to die due to the foreign diseases.

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

• The fact that he had the indians "torn apart" in religious grounds is not something very holy at all, it is rather disrespectful. The song exemplifies the truth about the view of Europeans, and mocks them by saying "they were quite holy in their way", which isn't very religious at all as they massacred people in holy grounds.

"On the horizon is the possibility that some bug from out of Africa might come for you and me destroying everything in its path"

•  The diseases brought by Europeans into America caused many people to die, and only those who survived were immune to them. The chances that a new "bug" comes from Africa and clears everything in its path, is highly unlikely. 

"The Great Nations of Europe"

• From how the song portrays the nations of Europe, they were not great at all. They might have been powerful but they swiped with them hundreds of cultures and populations of indians, forcing them to do hard and dirty work they refused to do. Turning indians into slaves is not "great" at all. 

NOT IRONIC EXAMPLES:

"Now they're gone, they're gone, they're really gone. You never seen anyone so gone."

• This in fact is true. The Europeans killed everything in their path, including thousands of indians and even leading to extinction different civilizations like the Mayans, Incas and Aztecs. 

"Some bones hidden in a canyon some paintings in a cave they're no use tryin to save them, there's nothin left to save."

• As well this isn't ironic because the europeans killed them all, and so there is nothing left for us to do than admire at the things they left behind as there is no one else left to save. All the natives were wiped out, and are all dead now. 

"There's pictures in a museum, some lines written in a book but you won't find a live one, no matter where you look."

• The europeans led to extinction different tribes of indians by massacring them and kidnapping them, so there are only what they have left behind to admire in museums, but you'll never find a living Aztec or Mayan alive. 

The Power of Power

Through out our lives we change, and we are never the same as we were before. Change is constant and it can never be stoped. Miss Ratched, McMurphy, Chief Bromden and Billy Bibbit are just examples of some people that we can see evolve through the story. But, what exactly makes them change? We believe we have absolute control of who we are, and what we choose to be, when in reality those with power model us, just like play-dough. Power is the reason behind our changes. 

When I talk about power it is not physical power, it's psychological. It is the kind of power that you cannot see, but the one that you can only feel. The unbalance of power McMurphy created when he initially arrived to the ward, is the cause for his own self to change. But, also he is the cause for nurse Ratched's change  in the end. Oppression from the big nurse shrinks him to a minuscule size. He retreats, and adjusts his behavior to that, that would please the big nurse. "The next day he surprised everybody on the wards by getting up early and polishing that latrine till it sparkled, and then went to work on the hall floors when the black boys asked him to." (Pg. 148) He does this things, because he knows she holds the power. She holds the power over him, and over his freedom. Her authority makes him change.

But, he, on the other hand, breaks her. He breaks her regime and power in the ward. After McMurphy, what she does isn't taken the same way as before, not with that same fear. He changed her, because he confronted her and rebelled her. Even after she deprived him from his own will, and basically killed him by authorizing the lobotomy operation, he had won. "She tried to get her ward back into shape, but it was difficult with McMurphy's presence still tromping up and down the hall...She couldn't rile with her old power anymore...She was losing her patients one after the other." (Pg. 277) 

Authority has the power to change people. Thats why it is used. "The Combine" as Chief Bromden calls society, uses power to mold us into shape. They take advantage of it to make us who they want us to be.  With power they fix their machines, or us, into perfection. Because that is what they want: Perfection in a machine world. However, there is always a gap. There is always a loophole, and here we find it. We found society's mistake. They never expected a McMurphy.

Human Robots

Machinery. Fear.  Pain. Control. Those words are used to describe how pathetically powerless we are against society. We live in a machine-like world, we are controlled by it and have to be just as machine-like as the rest, perfect. We cannot break that balance or perfection, but what happens if we do break it? Do we become outsiders like chief, McMuprhy, or Harding and sent to be fixed? 

The use of machine imagery in Chief's dreams is used to further exploit the true meaning behind the ward for the "insane". What are machines? They are perfect, that's what they are. They are robots that can be modified and changed; given a set of rules to follow very cautiously. Machines do whatever they are programmed to do, and never do the opposite. We are machines. Chief is a machine. Everyone is one, and there is nothing we can do to change that. "The worker takes the scalpel and slices up the front of old Blastic...There's no blood or innards falling out like I was looking to see--just a shower of rust and ashes, and now and again a piece of wire or glass." (Pg. 79) When we do not conform society, or "The Combine"-as Chief likes to call the outside world-we have to be repaired. That's the point for the medical hospital for the insane. "You men are in this hospital, because of your proven inability to adjust to society." (Pg. 144) It is a place where mistakes end up, in order to be mended and then sent back into the world.

The constant use of machines and their abundance in Chief's narrative highlights how the modern world really is. There is no individuality, everyone is the same, and everyone must be the same. We only see until now into the book something that says contrary, and that is McMurphy. By rebelling Miss Ratched imposed power in the ward, and going against it, he tries to keep his individuality, but in the end he will be up just like everyone else. Another identical machine.  

Society's Control.

What good words can be used to describe our society? How can someone describe this discriminative, oppressive, mechanical world in a positive way? We all live behind a wall fog; a blur that has been placed in our minds, but those who truly see it are those who do not conform society. Society uses their authority to control us and create what they want, and in doing so, it created fog, that so deeply represents our vulnerability. We cannot see beyond that barrier, and we cannot move past it. We only know that we are controlled by it and cannot escape from it. 

Chief makes us doubt on whether he really is a reliable character we should believe in, but what we do know, is that he does exhibit society's cruel manners."I don't fight or make any noise..I hold back the yelling. I hold back till they get to my temples. I'm not sure it's one of those substitute machines and not a shaver till it gets to my temples; then I can't hold back..They start the fog machine again...I cant see six inches un front of me through the fog" (Pg. 7) The fog could be many different things. It could be water vapor, or shaving cream, or the fact that Chief is probably is hallucinating. The problem is that we have to look deeper into it in order to grasp its true meaning. "I heard that the Chief, years ago, received more than two hundred shock treatments." (Pg. 62) Society controls us. The fog represents our  vulnerability, lack of power and authority and how easily we can be molded into shape by society. We as individuals are a piece of play dough, of a giant diorama we call earth. 
 

Unconsciously we are aware of everything that is going on. We grasp everything between our claws like a starved hawk. We just choose not to believe in what we find, and we hide it in the deepest corner of our minds. Even so, we cannot do anything. We are powerless. Chief is powerless, specially in the medical ward. We are all impotent under that while milky fog. 

Different People, Different Interpretations.

Everyone imagines everything differently. When reading a book, or a story, each and everyone of us imagines it differently. Some may think more happily about it, others more sadly. Some with bright colors and others with opaque colors. Films that are based on novels, are just one of the many ways to imagine a story. That's why many movies based on novels get so many bad reviews and negative comments from those who have read the book, because everyone imagines it differently. 

When I was reading the play, Waiting for Godot, I imagined it in a completley differently way from how it was portrayed in the film. I had in mind very different characters, and specially a totally opposite setting. "A country road. A tree. Evening." (Pg. 1)  For instance, the stage directions for the setting of the play exert a warm image to me. Country road; the connotations I get from that, is the typical unpaved road, near a field of grass protected by an old wooden fence, with mountains as a background. To me that is a "Country Road". Not a dirty, destroyed, abandoned road. 

Waiting for Godot was written in post a WWII depression era. People didn't know what to live for. God had let them down during war, and it was a time were existentialist thoughts came blooming through out the world. I recall a quote from the book, Night, by Elie Wiesel. This book narrates Wiesel's experience during the holocaust. People began to loose their faith in God, specially in his protection. For instance, Wiesel said, “How could I say to Him: Blessed be Thou, Almighty, Master of the Universe, who chose us among all nations to be tortured day and night, to watch as our fathers, our mothers, our brothers, end up in the furnaces? Praised be Thy Holy Name, for having chosen us to be slaughtered on Thine altar?” (Pg. 67)

The tree is the least important of all, because a green road as the one I imagined could have dead trees. But the dirty, and destroyed road, with no grass near by was what came as a shock to me. How the movie setting is shown, is just a way of putting the play into context. The road, the tree. They are all dead. They are a symbol of a war ragged earth. They show what wars brings. Which is only destruction. 

Waiting for (GOD)ot

What would be so important to someone, to be willing to wait for every single day? What could possibly mean that much, for us to waste our time so absurdly? One must have a lot of faith or love towards something, to be willing to wait for so long. It makes me question,who could be Godot? And why are Estragon and Vladimir waiting for him? Why not just give up? Anyone who has read, or seen this play, might have the same or at least very similar questions. We have to see many different aspects of the play to truly begin to understand who might this unknown person be.

Godot. Could it be God? Possibly. It is an open 

possibility that it could be God, it even has God in the world itself. Actually Godot means "Boot" in french slang. Even so, Beckett has stated that if with  the character of Godot, he had really meant God, then he would have simply written "Waiting for God". Furthermore, this play was originally written in french, entitled En attendant Godot and so Beckett says he was never truly aware of the connotations it could possibly bring in english, as in french, God is Dieu, and he was writing in french not in english. 

That is what they say. That is what Beckett says. But, I really do not believe him. Unconsiously he had to be aware of it. He had to be aware of what he was writing. A coincidence as such cannot be by mistake. Everything fits perfectly into picture. God in Godot. Waiting for (God)ot. His failure to show up. His absence. The post-WWII depression. The birth of  existentialism. Everything fits perfectly into picture. Somewhere inside him, Beckett had to be thinking about God. If not, the only explanation I can give myself from all this absurd, is that the world is irrational, just like this play and we a naive enough to try to give an explanation to it. It could be as irrational as a play called "Waiting for Boot."