Flashback

The idea of courtship is a central theme in Chronicle of a Death Foretold. Bayardo, through lavish gifts, worries more about proving his social power than his fiancé, Angela Vicario. For example, Angela describes her future house as “the farmhouse belonging to the widower Xius.” Bayardo, intent on satisfying her, doesn’t take no for an answer when he offers to buy the house “along with everything inside.” Bayardo demonstrates just how much money he is willing to spend on her. He also buys a music box for her, carefully wrapped. Although not keen on the engagement at first, Angela was told that love could be learned.

The Columbian social structure set up in Chronicle of a Death Foretold is not unlike old knight tales. Courtship, gifts, strong sexism, and an even stronger gender gap. Angela is “returned,” as if talking about something bought, to her house after Bayardo discovers her not a virgin. Angela is viciously beaten by her mom and returned by her husband, perpetuating a brutal social structure. Although it is perfectly acceptable, presumably, for a male to engage in premarital sex. Sometimes, while reading, I imagine a time period much earlier, only to be rudely awakened by the introduction of cars or other modern technology. But then again, maybe this just reminds me how glad I am to live far away from Bayardo.

Karma

Both TFA and CDF share similarities in portraying individuals who go against instinct and in doing so suffer a bad fate. A sense of predestination also seems to play a big role in both works. Both cultures believe that a sense of duty acts through members of their society. Members get 'chosen' to carry out specific tasks. For instance, Clotilde Armenta says, "It's to spare those poor boys from the horrible duty that's fallen on them" which the narrator says occurs "Because she'd sensed it. She was certain that the Vicario brothers were not as eager to carry out the sentence as to find someone who would do them the favor of stopping them" (57). This suggests that is it not their fault if they were willed to carry out a duty. It is ironic because often they go about getting vengeance in a violent way and this makes them no different than the perpetrator. This leads to a proactive approach where they believe it is there duty to seek justice in this way instead of letting that individual receive their own destiny separate from their vengeful behavior (Michael Kohlhaas!).

At times it seems like the gods or fate's choice is sometimes against their own interest (even though at the time they think they are doing the right thing)and this puts the spirit world at odds with the human world. Does this suggest that the gods are misleading them?In both texts individuals are warned about a potential death (that eventually occurs) and given a warning to interfere and stop, or at least to play no part. In both texts there is a lot of foreshadowing for what is to come. For instance, Ezeudu says, "A cold shiver ran down Okonkwo's back as he remembered the last time the old man had visited him. That boy calls you father," he had said. "Bear no hand in his death"(121). But the narrator in CDF says, "A death for which we all could have been to blame." This is very interesting because the narrator chooses to place blame on themselves for their actions instead of blaming the sole perpetrator. In TFA we have the exact opposite response. Okonkwo is blamed for the deaths that he cause and the culture and community are not held directly responsible. In both cases though there is little or no remorse for killing other people based on their own nonviolent behavior.

Another interesting comparison between these two texts is that they both share similiarites in basing judgements on an individual's reputation. In CDF it says "Their reputation as good people was so well founded that no one paid any attention to them (52)." Reputation plays a big role in both texts. But reputation seems to undermine both the fate of Santiago and the success of Okonkwo. Since everyone thought the twins had a good reputation they didn't believe they would do something bad, so they overlooked that he was going to be murdered. In Okonkwo's case, he spent his whole life trying to clear a new trail away from his father's footsteps and he ended up like his father in a way- by meeting despair by being kicked out of his community.

A Fractured Society

In “Things Fall Apart” I was intrigued by how it distributed the blame of the Ibo colonization by the Europeans. Instead of presenting the colonists as the oppressor and the villagers as the victims, Achebe’s world is much more nuanced. “Things Fall Apart” breaks the mold by introducing white men who epitomize ignorance, greed and injustice as well as sympathetic and peaceful missionaries who spread Christian principles while still respecting the Ibo culture. Nor are the Ibo innocent victims; indeed, Ibo social values lead directly to the alienation of tribe members who were the first to convert to Christianity. The tribe is wrought with physical and verbal violence, especially towards the weak and defenseless – women, children and those deemed “not man enough.” The poster-child for this brutality is Okonkwo, a character who routinely beats his family members because he is too terrified of being seen as weak. It is therefore significant that the biggest opponent of the colonists, Okonkwo, is also the novel’s least admirable character due in part to his role as a bully.
It would be disingenuous to go so far as to say that the Ibo “had it coming.” But it would also be wrong to overlook the consequences of creating a society that alienated so many. In this case the welcoming, accepting, not to mention largely peaceful attitude of the missionaries was an irresistible attraction to the outcasts of the Ibo tribes. These converts provided the colonists with a foothold to create an entire government seemingly overnight. The summary on the back of my book promises the “destruction of Okonkwo’s world with the arrival of aggressive European missionaries,” but ultimately both sides had significant roles to play in its destruction.

Death Foretold, Memento, and Name Interpretations

Ok, so I'm going to post another blog since I've been kind of blog-lazy recently.

So, I just finished my first Garcia Marquez book, Chronicle of Death Foretold, which is kind of embarassing being that I am half Colombian. But anyway, I am kind of unsure about how I feel about the book. As a whole, I can say I liked it, but when critiquing it page by page, it does seem kind of like a person's rambles. There were parts that just dragged on and seemed somewhat irrelevant to the plot, but then again, this was my first time reading it and I probably missed some of the the novel's motifs.

What I did like about, though, is how Garcia Marquez took one event (the murder of Santiago Nasar), which lasted only a few hours, and stretched it out to 120 pages. When I read the very first line in the book about how Santiago Nasar was to die, I naturally assumed that his death would come either a) eventually as the climax of the novel, or b) quickly in the introduction with the remainder of the story being void of death. But no, what Garcia Marquez accomplished is something I'm used to seeing in very well directed and though-out movies. He took a single event, and stretched into a whole story by showing it from multiple perspectives. He showed it from Santiago's, Bayardo's, Divina's, Pablo's/Pedro's, Cristo's, and Angela's viewpoints. All the meanwhile, Garcia Marquez utilizes an unnammed narrator to weave all the stories together.

In a way, this somewhat reminded me of the movie Memento, in which a man with no short term memory tries to puzzle his life together and in order to do so, he tattoos facts about his life on himself so that he doesn't forget. The movie moves non-chronologically through a single event - one full day. The beginning of the movie starts off with a death and the rest of the movie takes the reader through a series of pieced together events in order to understand the murder.

On a last, irrelevant note, I would like to point out the significance of certain names in Garcia Marquez's novel. Divina Flor, Cristo Bedoya, and Pedro and Pablo Vicario all have very interpretable names. Divina Flor, literally meaning Divine Flower in Spanish, could represent the innocence of the young women who were married off to older, promiscuous men in those times. Cristo, a shortened version of Cristobal, means Christ in Spanish. He is Santiago's true friend in the story and does everything in his power to stop the murder. The Vicario family's surname could be derived from the word vicarious, which means experiencing something through others. This makes sense because the twins had to defend their sister's honor and go to jail for her.

A Common Thread....

While I have read each book for this course one thing in particular keeps standing out to me. Maybe it is because it is so true in our daily lives and cultures that it is such a constant theme in literature. The idea that keeps presenting itself to me is this-if someone is different, an individual does not act, dress, or think the way the rest of society, the collective does, they are either cast out, frowned upon or locked up, or...some combination of those three. The collective seemingly cannot comprehend the individual. In the Overcoat, Akaky is viewed as an outcast because he is perfectly content to do his work, not advance, and live a mundane repetitive life. Michael Kohlhaas takes it upon himself to find justice in his story by Kleist. Nora, in A Doll's House makes her husband furious and risks punishment by society by stepping outside the accepted norms for women and what is considered to be womanly behavior. Kafka's ill fated protagonist is shunned and attacked even by his own family, when Gregor becomes a cockroach. He is seen as a disgusting monster, they cannot see the fact that he is inside still human because he is so very different from them. In The Stranger Mersault is locked up not because he killed the Arab but because he was an emotionless and odd individual. And the Arabs in the same book are viewed as less than human or less than the French colonists because they are different-they look different, they have different beliefs, different customs. In Things Fall Apart, and indeed with colonialism in general, missionaries come in claiming to know the path to salvation and writing off centuries old traditions because they are unfamiliar to them. Even as I write this, the adjectives I use to convey the way that these "outcasts" are viewed, come to me because society teaches the lessons of these works of literature. What if they author's themselves are simply outcasts trying to point out the wrongs that society commits every day? What if they are simply looking for someone to understand them, through their main characters, because they have been misunderstood their whole lives?

Separating Religion from Views

Before writing this blog, I have to be honest and preface that for the past few years, I have been slowly “losing my religion.” I was raised Catholic-Christian, but not very strictly. As a child, my parents took to Mass and Protestant services every week or so. For them, it wasn’t so much that they took me to a Catholic church or a Protestant church, but rather just to any type of church in general. I never understood at the time, but I now think that they did this because they didn’t want to shove religion down my throat and make me blindly believe in something without actually putting any thought behind it.

Coming from a very cultural Latin American family, I have always felt almost obligated to be Catholic, cause that’s just what “we do.” Now that I’ve grown older, I believe that the reason that religion on Earth varies as much as it does is because nobody truly knows what happens after we die and people fear that. And from fear arises opinion and from opinion arises faith.

Just like in the case of Okonkwo and his clansmen of Umuofia, religion is so deeply rooted in a society that people can’t separate it from reality or even comprehend what life would be like without it. Unfortunately, all societies in this world are like this; they can’t separate things that they grown up with from their beliefs and look at new situations objectively.

When I was reading Things Fall Apart by Chinua Achebe, I subconsciously scoffed at the idea of there being Earth gods, rain gods, yam gods, etc. And even though I’m in the midst of questioning Christianity as a whole, I still saw this from a Christian monotheistic perspective. And why wouldn’t I? I have been exposed to it my whole life and everyone around me believes in it. In reality, the concept of multiple gods that control nature is quite logical. And if you don’t think so, then ask yourself if it is logical for men to arise from the dead, part oceans, or spawn a woman from a rib bone.

One of my favorite parts of Achebe’s novel and perfect example of this in the Ibo culture appears on page 146. A convert asks the missionary how he can protect himself from the neglected gods once he begins worshipping Jesus. It clearly shows two things: the blind faith that people will have in things due to fear, and the inability to separate their lives from long-held customs.

So in conclusion, I don’t want to bash on any religion or put anyone’s religion down. I just want to say that I believe that everyone has the right to believe whatever they want because nobody truly knows why we are here, who or what created us, and where, or, if we are going somewhere after we die.

When Two Cultures Collide

This may seem a bit random, but there is currently a great controversy going on in the Korean Pop world. It was recently announced that Jaebeom Park, the leader of popular boy band 2PM, has been permanently removed from the group for unspecified personal reasons. Jaebeom is an American-born Korean, who has spent the last five years of his life in Korea as a celebrity. Due to his American upbringing, he has faced some difficulty in adjusting to Korean culture and language. This difficulty has caused him serious problems: leading to his flying home to Seattle after a conversation—in which he called Korea “gay”— held with an American friend via MySpace in 2005, sparked anger in many Koreans. Such an offense is hardly noteworthy in American culture, and Jaebeom, who was just a frustrated teenager at the time, would not have thought to think that such a statement would later cause him so much trouble. It was rather used as a way to release the tension he felt mounting upon him as he struggled to learn a new language, eat new food, and understand new social norms.

When two cultures collide both amazing and terrible things can happen. While reading Things Fall Apart, I felt like I was supposed to see evil in everything that happened once the Europeans come. From a historical perspective I know that it is unlikely that things turn out well for any of the Igbo people. However, one of Chinua Achebe’s goals in this novel was to show that some failing in the Igbo aided in the destruction of their own society. Under the guise of religion the Europeans come to Africa to civilize the savage. What the “white man” encounters is a culture with a set of beliefs foreign to it’s own, yet no less complex. In Igbo culture violence is a part of everyday life, a way to punish everyday grievances, get retribution, and adhere to spiritual beliefs. On a smaller scale, in American culture, doing such a thing as calling someone gay or committing some “serious personal problem” (this problem must have been legal, or not too illegal, as no authorities were called in) would not be enough to make the entertainment company feel like they must terminate his contract. In fact, it is more likely that the whole situation would be used as a publicity ploy. When Jaebeom releases his anger, or just does what he feels, like in the mysterious situation that led to his termination, he is just doing what is natural in his culture. This is the same for the Igbo’s ruining of the church to appease the spirits; it is what is natural in their culture.

Unfortunately for the Igbo and Jaebeom, it seems they cannot win. The Igbo lose believers one-by-one and their very presence in the village seems to drain their violent nature, at least that is how Okonkwo perceives it. In Jaebeom’s case he is thrown to the wayside as rumors spread about what he could have possibly done to cause his contract to be cancelled. The other members of the group seem eager to continue on without their leader, just as Okonkwo’s opinion has come to matter much less than it did before his banishment and the arrival of the Christians. Jaebeom’s story has yet to unfold completely, however a favorable solution seems incredibly unlikely, perhaps even impossible, as doubts are now being raised about the characters’ of the remaining members who seem so willing to do without the one who led them to fame. Umuofia’s story, as told by history, is destined for further entrenchment with the Europeans, that they remain unable to escape until 1960.

These two cases of brotherhood’s that are unable to withstand the various trials and tribulations that come with existence seem to show that when two cultures collide, someone’s got to lose.

Everything Happens for a Reason

“Everything happens for a reason”. This quote brings forth many questions that are often brought back to religion. Its various interpretations separate religions yet at some point bring them back together.

The Igbo religion consists of worshiping numerous gods. Each god represents a different aspect of Igbo life such as the sun, sky and earth. The Igbo people believe that if they do something to upset the one of the gods, then that god will punish him or her as necessary. For example, “we live in peace with our fellows to honor our great goddess of the earth without whose blessing our crops will not grow” (30). The Igbo people believe that if they fail to receive her blessing, then they were not meant to have a good harvest. This directly relates to the notion that “everything happens for a reason”. It is used as a means of explaining something that could not otherwise be explained. If one does wrong to the gods, then he or she will be punished with the ultimate punishment being death.

The missionaries, on the other hand, worship a single god that is not relevant to their everyday activities. “All the gods you have named are not gods at all. They are gods of deceit who tell you to kill your fellows and destroy innocent children. There is only one true God and He has the earth, the sky, you and me and all of us” (146). In Rom. 8:28, Paul explains, “And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are according to His purpose”. Thus it is not necessary to worship every physical aspect of the earth because God has a plan. In other words, everything happens for a reason, and if you are a believer, that reason will end up being a good one. While death is the ultimate punishment for the Igbo people, the missionaries hold that punishment will ensue after death, when one reaches the Day of Judgment determining if he or she will spend his or her eternal life in heaven or in hell.

While these two religions have major differences in respect to who is being worshiped, they are far more similar than different. Religion offers hope to aspects of life that are unexplainable. When something goes wrong, both groups turn to their god(s) for an answer and welcome the belief that any culprit will be punished, whether it be during his or her lifetime or afterwards. In essence, everything—whether it is good or bad, or breeds ignorance rather than intelligence—happens for a reason. Within religion, man cannot escape the influence of higher powers.

Different cultures, similar familial hierarchies

The white men in the "Things fall apart" view the so called "barbarians" as totally different from themselves, but they actually have many similarities. One similarity I noticed was the way that they treat their women. In "Things fall apart", Okonkwo treats his wife like a child. He beats her when she disobeys him, and he rules over her. She brings him food, and basically does whatever he asks of her. His relationship with his wife is certainly more controlling than a modern relationship. When she does something wrong, he beats her up, and this is viewed as acceptable in his culture. The man of the house is the conquerer, and his wife and children must submit to him. This is similar to Torvald's relationship with Nora, though to a less extreme state. Torvald is also the controller of household. Though he doesn't physically abuse Nora, he treats her like a child by talking down to her and withholding money from her. Torvald rules the house, and Nora is basically just another one of the children. It is interesting to me that such different cultures from such different places with no contact with each other have the same familial hierarchy, where the husband is the absolute controller, and the wife takes the role of a child. This makes me wonder, in most cultures, what traits does man have that lead him to assume the role of leader in the family?

Prove by Contrast

I think Achebe uses contrasts more than any other literary device to bring his points home. He draws parallels between Christianity and the tribe's religion, and insodoing he makes their differences clear. He draws parallels between justices and government, and thereby emphasizes differences in leadership and ties in gender issues (by bringing up the queen in contrast to the tribe leaders.

In part 2, Achebe troubles the customs of the tribe by contrasting Okonkwo's father's tribe with his mother's. On page 165, during the feast hosted by Okonkwo at the end of his exile, the following prayer is delivered by Uchendu:

"We do not ask for wealth because he that has health and children will also have wealth. We do not pray to have more money but to have more kinsmen. We are better than animals because we have kinsmen. An animal rubs its itching flank against a tree, a man asks his kinsman to scratch him."

I was struck by this quote because immediately it did not seem to me like it was a prayer Okonkwo would endorse or agree with, but he had no objection. I considered why I thought this prayer was in contrast with Okonkwo's lifestyle, and I saw that I had previously thought of Okonkwo as someone who would never ask his kinsman for help. Upon considering this I realized that in fact Okonkwo had already asked for help several times in the novel by asking for donations of seed yam. Here is where I found the real contrast. Where I had initially interpreted this prayer as a means of contrasting Okonkwo's father's tribe with his mother's, I discovered that this prayer actually serves as a greater contrast between this native value scheme and the values of the colonizer. In America, immense emphasis is placed on independence. It could be said that manliness is defined by the ability to fend for oneself in all aspects of life. In Okonkwo's mind, success and strength is paramount, but despite this his sense of manliness does not demand that he never ask for help. I found that to be a really striking and different way of thinking.

gender differences

In "Chronicle of a Death Foretold" the role of women and how they are treated can be compared to gender roles in "Things Fall Apart."  With regards to the Vicario family in "Chronicle of a Death Foretold" the narrator states, "The brothers were brought up to be men. The girls had been reared to get married" (31). From this quote I can sense that women are brought up to be just wives and be under the rule of their husband. While males are to grow up into men. Women are dehumanized to live for their husbands. Men become the head and center of all life. In "Things Fall Apart," Okonkwo embodies that masculine, powerful man who has control and power over everyone else. He beats his wives and will not allow himself to be seen as weak or sensitive. He believes he could only be respectful by acting manly, aggressive and powerful.  In "Chronicle of a Death Foretold" Bayardo San Roman is like the paradigm of the perfect man. He is rich, powerful, and handsome.  All he has to do is pick any woman and that woman must become his wife. In both books the male gender is higher than the female and the female is clearly seen as subordinate. Both Okonkwo and Bayardo San Roman treat their wives violently as violence becomes the symbol of their masculinity and power.

Masculinity

I've been thinking a lot about Okonkwo's masculinity and how he was influenced by his father. One quote that stuck out to me was towards the beginning of the book. "No matter how prosperous a man was, if he was unable to rule his women and his children (and especially his women) he was not really a man." I've heard this idea before in other books; men talking about the need to control women in order to feel powerful and strong and masculine. It's a terrifying idea, but it's very prominent. I just finished reading a book about the true story of an Austrian man who kept his daughter as a sex slave in a basement for 24 years and she bore seven of his children. I know it seems like a bit of a stretch to compare these books, but the men both has strong issues with masculinity. This Austrian man was also raised to see women as lower and to be overtly masculine. He always felt like he needed control over something, and women was the easiest way to get that. Men that are raised to be super masculine can definitely cause problems later in life because that often comes with a need for power. And the search for power can have dangerous results.

The Center Cannot Hold

"For war consisteth not in battle only, or the act of fighting, but in the known disposition thereto during all the time there is no assurance to the contrary." (Hobbes, The Leviathan)

In Hobbes' The Leviathan, the idea that men are inherently violent by nature is presented. Hobbes argues that men need a Commonwealth (or Leviathan) to keep people "in awe," and the nature of men at bay. A strong Commonwealth is needed to keep society thriving forward and in a state of peace. Because the nature of men is disorderly and violent, structure in society is needed to control people's natural dispositions.

In reading Achebes' Things Fall Apart, I found the the Ibo village's structure to act similarily to the same Commonwealth described. In the village, Okonkwo's character is the most pressing example of a man dominated by his violent nature and tendancy to act out of anger. Okonkwo has this fire within him, and "desire to conquer and subdue" that is constantly expressed throughout the novel. Okonkwo is known as the best fighter in the land, and can be seen threatening and beating his wifes until "his anger [is] satisfied." He is the prime example for what Hobbes describes, because of his violent nature that at times even disrupts the order of his village. Okonkwo disturbs the Week of Peace and crosses over societal boundaries/regulations by beating his wife harshly; he even commits violence upon himself towards the end of the novel. Though the Ibo village contains many rituals and rules that at times bringforth and create violence, the institution aims keeps the nature of men at bay most of the time. Okonkwo's character is seen as more violent than the majority of people in the village, even admidst the cultural violence present. It seems as if their culture is naturally violent, because perhaps they are less civilized in instuition and doctrine than what people in the Western culture experience. Hobbes believed the primitive and earliest humans were violent in nature and tamed only through a strong societal instituion such as that of a Commonwealth. Okonkwo is somewhat controlled only through his village's regulation.

In the short quote from "The Second Coming," W.B. Yeats (at beginning of Things Fall Apart) writes "Things fall apart, the center cannot hold; Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world." I interpreted this quote to reflect upon the idea of entropy- that things naturally move towards disorder, and perhaps towards a more violent state of nature. In reading Things Fall Apart, we see the culture and customs of the Ibo village fall apart admist violence in resistance to the British colonizers, bringing up the idea that we cannot escape disorder because it is the very center of everything. The inevitability of disorder in society parallels the violent state of nature present in humans.

In reading Chronicles of a Death Foretold, I noticed that the details and the circumstances of the murder were similar to the murder in The Stranger. Aside from the fact that both victims were Arabs, both murders seemed a bit inexplicable although there were possible motives behind each. In Garcia Marquez’s novella, the twins’ motives for killing Santiago Nasar were reasons of honor. In Camus’, one could say that Meursault’s underlying motive was to defend Raymond. In both instances, however, the victims did not really understand what was occurring. Neither the Arab nor Santiago Nasar did anything to warrant death. Although they both felt threatened, there was no clear reason for them to expect to be killed. Each death was a result of many “fatal coincidences.” Although there was a collective knowledge of Santiago Nasar’s imminent death but absolutely none of the Arab’s, both situations are comparable. The twins had announced their intent to the whole town, but as the narrator mentions numerous times, they were waiting for someone to intervene. They had no real intention of actually killing Santiago Nasar just as Meursault had no intentions of killing anyone when he went for that walk. Both acts of murders were messy and confusing. Meursaults began with a single gunshot followed by a few inexplicable gunshots; the twins’ attempts to kill Santiago Nasar included various slashes and stabs. Just as the subsequent gunshots were questioned in the Stranger, the messy butchering of Santiago Nasar seems ridiculously excessive. After committing the murders, though, neither the twins nor Meursault saw fault in their actions. In both cases, we see society piecing together an opinion of each of the convicted men. In the twins’ case, society declared them to be good people because they were acting on behalf of honor and whatnot. Meursault was viewed as despicable for his nonconforming / unacceptable behavior. Both murders were grotesque and horrid, but what differentiated them were society’s reactions and perspectives. Both instances represent the absurd nature of life and how man lacks any control. Both stories suggest that there is no fate or destiny or any higher power controlling mankind’s actions. There is only a series of fatal coincidences that shape the circumstances of our lives and actions.

The Opposite of Love Is Not Hate

Holocaust survivor and author Elie Wiesel says, “The opposite of love is not hate; it’s indifference.”

This quote reminds me of Achebe’s Things Fall Apart and Marquez’s Chronicle of a Death Foretold. The common theme between the two is that death is primarily the result inaction rather than violent action itself.

In Things Fall Apart, the Igbo tribe and culture dies when colonists enter Niger, bringing Christianity and European culture. Believing the missionaries to be humorously harmless, the Mbata tribe does not respond violently. When the white men first arrive in Mbata and challenge their religious beliefs, for example, the tribe “[breaks] into derisive laughter” (Achebe 146). Even Okonkwo, a violent man by nature, “shrugs his shoulders” at the presence of the missionaries, thinking them to be mad but unthreatening. The tribe even allots a plot of land for them, essentially granting them passage into their lives. Through the tribe’s pacification, the missionaries effectively penetrate the Igbo culture through religious conversions. These conversions, including Okonwo’s son’s conversion, undermine Igbo beliefs. The entrance of the missionaries can be blamed on the inaction of many, and the tribe’s subsequent demise can be called a collective suicide.

Conversely, violence is used to preserve culture in Igbo culture. For example, Okonkwo beats his wives and his children if they step out of traditional gender roles. Even Okonwo’s suicide, a violent reflection of the tribe’s own suicide, can be interpreted as a last ditch effort to protect Igbo culture from European culture.

Just as the Igbo tribe’s death is collectively caused, so is Santiago Nasar’s in Chronicle of a Death Foretold. Though Santiago Nasar is brutally killed by the Vicario brothers, his death can be interpreted as a result of his town’s communal inaction. Various members of the town ignore the potential crime, often dismissing the Vicario brother’s blatant death threats as drunken talk. In fact, “there had never been a death more foretold”(50) that could have been--on multiple occasions--prevented. Although some of the townspeople might feel fearful, the majority of the town acts indifferently by not warning Santiago Nasar. His death, therefore, is a collective murder.

Similarities between Greek Mythology and Things Fall Apart

I've noticed a lot of similarities between Things Fall Apart and the Greek Mythology including the return and the death of a king, dislike of twins, and the existence of oracles.

1. The return and the death of a king:
In The Oresteia by Aeschylus, Agamemnon returns from war and is welcomed by his wife, Clytaemnestra. However, Clytaemnestra welcomes him with a crimson red carpet which is too much of a God-like or womanly welcome. Like Okonkwo, Agamemnon has been gone for so long that their home has changed. Umuofia has become soft in allowing the white people to establish their church, religion, and government in their land, and Clytaemnestra has become a strong, manly ruler of Agamemnon's throne. Both Agamemnon and Okonkwo seek a warm welcome, but each marked their impending deaths. Agamemnon subdued to Clytaemnestra's overly grand welcome that could be punishable by the Gods and walked on the crimson red carpet into his home and killed him. Okonkwo fails achieve his goals (to initiate his sons into the ozo and build his rank when he returned) and also fails to lead his people into war against the whites. I think since Okonkwo could not take such failures- the ultimate failure of his his great "to become one of the lords of the clan (131), he hung himself.

2. Twins:
Similar to Greek culture, twins are thrown away in the Umuofia tribe. Traditionally, in Greek culture, the twins (both sons) would compete for their father's throne and inheritance, thus only leading to bloodshed. This is probably why Umuofia and the Greeks are similar because they have traditions and the Western culture branched from Britain and Europeans. They weren't exactly around when violence was a part of their culture.

3. Oracles:
Even though the oracles demand a sacrifice of an innocent child, the people must obey or else the God's wrath will harm their soil. The oracles usually prophesize the killing of an innocent to appease the Gods, but Okonkwo slowly realizes that their prophecies aren't exactly justified. For instance, he had to murder Ikemefuna, an innocent boy who Okonkwon had taken in as a son and came to like. Also, the elders of the Abame tribe consulted their oracle and "it told them that the strange man would break their clan spread destruction among them" (138). So they decided to kill him and tie his iron horse to the sacred tree. Ironically, if they hadn't killed him, Abame probably wouldn't have been wiped out.

Also in the Euripidies' Bacchae, the idea of only the initiates can see the God, Dionysos. Only the initiates were allowed to know what goes on during the festival gatherings of the initiates and till this day we don't know their actions because they've been sworn to secrecy. We also see in Things Fall Apart, "one of the greates crimes a man could commit was to unmask an egwugwu in public, or to say or do anything which might reduce its immortal prestige in the eyes of the unitiated" (186). The glory, or kleos, of the Gods is represented in costumes and masks worn by mortals, but hidden from the unitiated, who don't believe in the God.

Again, the question of whether or not a man can overcome his destiny as fated by the Gods reappears in this text. At the beginning of the novel, we learn that if a man says yes, then his chi says yes also, portraying the idea that a man has his own will and makes his own destiny. However, Okonkwo discovers for himself that " a man could not rise beyond the destiny of his chi" (131). This means that his destiny his predetermined and his actions nor will cannot change it. For example, Oedipus tried to avoid the prophecy's warnings against his murder of his father and sex with his mother. Then he becomes king of Thebes and exacts revenge on the previous king that was murdered... but the king was his father and he already went to bed with the queen who was his mother. Also, in my previous post, I mentioned in The Stranger, the idea of chance versus fate- again the will of the Gods.

Misinterpreting Mersault?

The idea that The Stranger is written in a form resembling a diary or journal got me thinking that maybe, we have misinterpreted Mersault. If The Stranger is read as Mersault's personal journal, maybe some of our interpretation that he is unfeeling is simply due to the fact that Mersault omitted the emotions he knew he was feeling, from his chronology of events. It seems very much to me that the story is one that dictates events, and while it appears Mersault is removed from emotion, maybe he has just removed his emotions from the story. For example, the first lines of the book "Maman died today. Or yesterday, maybe. I don't know" are viewed as shockingly unfeeling, but maybe Mersault is in shock. When he speaks of it being a waste of his Sundays to go visit his mother, maybe he is justifying to himself why he didn't go, since now he cannot go visit her.

As the story continues, Mersault is always dictating events from his point of view. Maybe he simply wants to remember the actions and realities on paper because he can remember his emotions himself. I cannot believe that Marie would want to be with an unfeeling monster.

The courtroom scene is presented as an attack on his character because he did not show emotion- but maybe just as the reader misunderstands Mersault, the courtroom could not interpret his expression of emotions because it was different than they might expect. Because Mersault is misunderstood he is locked up by society. If Mersault does not behave the same way as everyone else in society, society will not tolerate him.

Possible Foreshadowing

This is actually my second time reading this book. Rereading it has made me realize key aspects that I did not catch my first time around. The scene where Okonkwo kills Ikemefuna is one that I found very interesting. It reminded me of the Biblical tale of Abraham and Isaac. In Things Fall Apart, the gods order the death/sacrifice of Ikemefuna. Ikemefuna is not Okonkwo’s biological son; he comes to live with Okonkwo’s family from a different town. Although not blood related, Okonkwo grows close with this young man and considers him a son. Therefore, when the Oracle demands that Ikemefuna should be sacrificed, Okonkwo is devastated. However, when Ikemefuna calls out to him for help saying, “My father, they have killed me!”, Okonkwo, in fear of being regarded as weak, cuts him down with a machete, ultimately being the one to end Ikemefuna’ life.

Although the outcome of the story in Things Fall Apart is very different from that of Abraham and Isaac, I think the set up is similar. In the story of Abraham and Isaac, Abraham is commanded by God to sacrifice Isaac, his only son. God does this to test Abraham’s faith. Thus, both father figures are called upon by divine powers to demonstrate loyalty and faithfulness by sacrificing their beloved ones. In addition, both embark on long journeys to go to a specific place to carry out the act; Abraham climbs the mountain in the land of Moriah and Okonkwo goes deep into the forest.

I don't know if this has anything more to do with the comparison but I found it ironic that Nwoye, Okonkwo’s actual first-born son changes his name to Isaac when he converts to Christianity. Perhaps the relationship with Okonkwo and Ikemefuna foreshadows the changes that Umuofia undergoes later on.

Ch-ch-ch-changes

I've read Part One of Achebe's Things Fall Apart and so far, there's been a persistent motif of challenging tradition. More specifically, the story deals with questioning the legitimacy of accepted social practices, hinting at the possibility of change and modernization within the village.

Here's a list of evidence:

-Okonkwo's father Unoka was meek and powerless within society, conforming more to a perceived woman's role than a man's. For this reason, Okonkwo hyper-conforms to social norms for males, acting ruthlessly toward subordinates and providing well for his family. He fears that challenging this traditional role will undermine his life as he knows it.

-During the Week of Peace, Okonkwo breaks the peace by beating and nearly gunning down his second wife Ekwefi. Punishment for this, which has become much less severe, also conforms to the theme of breaking with tradition.

-Okonkwo's son Nwoye would rather listen to women's stories than perform manly activities, like sitting and conversing with his father at night.

-The descending of locusts is out of the ordinary. Though it has happened before, the event has not happened in a very long time. It is a break from the customs of daily life.

-Okonkwo kills his adopted son Ikemefuna, who called Okonkwo "father" despite counsel against this. Obierika later tells him, "What you have done will not please the Earth."

-It is "strange" that a man and his wife die on the same day. Women and men are never equals; they are not to be linked even in death.

-Ezinma defies custom when she follows the priestess Chielo, who is carrying her only daughter. She does this despite being explicitly told to stay behind and wait for her daughter's return.

-When Okonkwo kills a man and is expelled from the village, Obierika asks, "Why should a man suffer so grievously for an offense he had committed inadvertently?" and wonders why he had to abandon his twin babies in the Evil Forest.

Though I haven't yet finished the book, perhaps these events foreshadow a great change in the tribe's way of life.

Metamorphosis

As I was re-reading these texts for tomarrow’s essay I noticed in the beginning of Metamorphosis there is a lot of irony and foreshadowing. For instance, when Gregor refused to let the chief clerk in and questions why his sister is worried, the narrator says “Surely these were things one didn’t need to worry about for the present. Gregor was still at home and not in the least thinking of deserting the family (76).”  The passage in the texts hints at what will actually happen in the future.

Reading Argina’s post got me thinking about if Gregor lived in the present.  Initially, right after his transformation, he is not very worried, although he is in denial.  As in the quote above, when Gregor hears his family pleading with him to open the door he tries to stay calm but this quickly changes.  It says “Yet Gregor had this foresight.  The chief clerk must be detained, soothed, persuaded, and finally won over! If only his sister had been there!” Immediately before this it says how his parents had convinced themselves that Gregor was settled for life in the firm.  It seems as though Gregor’s family has been caught up in delusion for a long time, acting like kids that rely on Gregor for all of their monetary support.  However, as soon as he is transformed he also becomes stuck in his mind and delusioned with fear. It seems as though his limitations of dependency on others is the driving force that keeps him out of the present and forced into a state of fear.