Thursday, February 23, 2012

"The chief told us the Angkor would take care of us and would provide us with everything we need. I guess the Angkor doesn't understand that we need to eat."


So I don’t know if this is a book of literary merit, it’s a national bestseller…
The book is sort of combination of an autobiography and an account of a historical event, so you get to learn more about the history of a country while still reading a story, with characters and a plot etc. – basically my perfect idea of a novel. 

It is basically nonfiction, but embellished into a kind of storytelling, so the events are real but all the dialogue and details have most likely been embellished and added on to, since I doubt the author could remember every word of every conversation from when she was five. But I really like the way it was written. It is written from the point of view of the author as a young girl, limited in the sense of not knowing what will happen next, even though the author does know since all this has happened in her life. What’s interesting is that it partly sounds like a five year old speaking at times, disconnected and confused and in-the-dark about complex issues, but it also uses “big words”, more sophisticated than a five-year-old’s vocabulary would be, like “permeate” and “concave”. Though this could be seen as errors in continuity, I find it interesting. It would probably be difficult to describe all the scenes using such a limited vocabulary, and the combination of the simple and the advanced give the story this unique tone, that makes it all the more frightening and heart-wrenching to read. A five year old’s perspective on serious adult problems told with both “children” and “grown-up” words, creates this crudely mature tone of the story. It reflects in a way the stunted physical growth of the girl contrasted with her forced rapid mental maturity, having to grow up way too quickly. 

            This one scene stood out to me because it related to what I was learning in Death and Dying at the time. The author, the girl Loung, being too sick from starvation to work in the fields, occupies her time by watching the villagers bury the dead. Whole families are dying because of starvation, and the rest of the village is too weak to bury them all quickly. Loung watches as they dump whole families into mass graves under the huts of the dead, as maggots and flies and the “stench of death” fill the village. Loung admits that a disturbing scene like this would have “terrified” her, but that now, she has seen it all so often, she feels “nothing”. This is sort of like what is happening today, as I learnt in Death and Dying. People are becoming desensitized with death, because they see it so often in media, in wars, etc. Loung, having lived a privileged life, had hardly ever even seen poor people before the change in government, let alone a dead or dying person. They now surround her on all sides, and in such a short time she has had to adjust to accept this as part of her life now, and deal with it. Death can no longer be ignored, especially since she herself is so close to it. But while she is numb to the dead in a way, it still consciously follows her every thought. Being close to death, she both has had to accept it as a normal part of every day life, and be aware of its impending doom every second to strive to stay alive. It is a concept almost impossible to understand to one who has never had to experience it. Death threatens her from many sources, starvation, diseases, and every neighbor, who would sell her family out and murder them all if they knew who they really were. So while being around the dead constantly has desensitized Loung, it has also heightened her awareness, knowing she could very well be next. 

            Another scene that stood out to me related to Hamlet, in a few ways. Lacking food, Loung and her family, and the rest of the village, continually search for new sources of food, from leaves to bugs. Chong, a widowed neighbour, discovers that earthworms are safely edible and abundant. Loung, who has eaten crickets, raw rabbit, blood soup, and worse, is horrified at the idea of eating earthworms. What horrifies her is the thought that earthworms eat corpses, and so eating an earthworm would be like eating the flesh of a dead body. At six years old, you wouldn’t expect her to know this, but unfortunately, she has seen enough maggot-infested dead bodies to be able to clearly visualize just what the earthworm, and by extension she, would be eating. This is just like in Hamlet, when the circle of life is explained in that a fish eats a maggot, a human eats the fish, and then a maggot eats the human. Loung, who watched as corpses of men, women, and children were tossed into graves, could not overcome this idea, which is really the heart of life. It also relates to Hamlet in that the neighbor, Chong, after the death of her husband and children, goes insane, similar to Hamlet and Ophelia at the deaths of their fathers. She is distraught, going through cycles of hysteria at the thought of her children, and periods when she talks to them as though they are still there. Hamlet does the same with his father’s death, believing he is seeing his ghost. 

I haven’t finished the book yet, though it is difficult to put down, so I will only write about a few key scenes that stood out to me, though really every scene is significant enough to write about. I cannot wait to finish it, so I can put all the different threads of thought and ideas together. 


Monday, February 13, 2012

I finished The Old Man and the Sea a while ago but never had the chance to write about it. The ending was sad, but realistic. As soon as the old man caught the fish, I immediately thought of all the blood spreading in the water, and knew the sharks would come just as surely as he knew. But I guess I always assume the worst, because I thought he would surely die coming back, and when he survived, even though the fish was destroyed, it was sort of a successful trip. But the definition of what was a successful trip changed during the journey. In the beginning the man let the fish pull him out without much worry, having plenty food and water and assuming the fish would soon tire and be caught. But as his water supply runs low and the fish stays strong, he begins to worry, but he never doubts his decision, and never thinks about going back. Turning back was all I could think about. From the moment he let the fish pull him out to sea, I was worried, but as he was an experienced fisherman, and I did not even know how big Cuba was, I trusted his judgment. I understand how once you start on something, and you’ve spent much time and energy on it, it would seem like such a waste of time and effort to stop when you have not finished. But in a case like this, alone in a small boat being pulled out to sea, old and weak, I would have cut my losses and turned back long before that thought even crossed the old man’s mind. But that is his nature as a fisherman, it is his living and he was determined, but also more than a little desperate to not come back empty-handed. I would have been more worried about coming back alive. But that is the nature of a fisherman; it is his whole life and purpose to catch fish. 
He overestimated his opponent, but even though the fish started out so much stronger, the old man was able to outlast it. It would seem as though the fish’s will to live was weaker than the man’s will to catch it, but that is basically his life. I think he felt that if he didn’t catch the fish he would not be able to survive, maybe not in the physical sense, but in some personal emotional sense. So his will was also to live, catching the fish is a crucial component to his life, and he felt that he could not live if he lost to the fish. The man’s will to live was more complex than pure survival, supposedly unlike the fish’s will, and his failure would lead to not only a physical death but also a worse emotional one. The man thinks a lot about wills, and who is stronger and more determined, and the man himself is not sure of the answer. Even after he has caught the fish, he wonders if it was all a dream, because the fish is so magnificent and enormous, and how did this weak old man bring him down. He wishes it had been a dream when the sharks come, and by the time he makes it back to the dock, it might as well have been. The fish is gone, only its skeleton remains, the only evidence of its magnificence, along with the old man’s injuries. 
At the end, the old man is in a state of defeat. His great accomplishment has been desecrated by the sharks, and both have destroyed him, physically and emotionally. But though he says he has run out of luck, as he lies on his mat, unable to get up, his very next sentence is planning the next outing with the boy, listing the new equipment he will need, and wanting the newspapers, presumably to discover the outcome on the baseball game. This is a fisherman. The old man has been out at sea for a week, battling the elements, an eighteen-foot fish, multiple sharks, and his own body’s failings, yet this does not set him back more than three days, and he is already preparing his next outing, because that is what a fisherman does. Just as the old man persevered on while the fish was pulling him at sea, so he perseveres through the repercussions of that act and continues on with his life, that is, with fishing. Another thing that stood out to me at the end of the novel was the sentence when the old man is explaining his injuries, and he says that he “felt something in my chest was broken”. This struck me as being metaphorical for his heart, and how it broke after he lost to the sharks, and lost his luckiness. 
Also at the very end, there are a couple of tourists looking down at the skeleton of the fish from a cafĂ©, and think it is a shark. They remark that they didn’t realize how beautiful sharks were, when they misunderstand the waiter’s explanation of the type of fish. Their misunderstanding and ignorance angered me, because it was the sharks’ faults that this beautiful fish was floating in the ocean as “garbage”. Now I love sharks, but in this novel they are the obvious antagonists, destroying the fish and the old man. The old man loves the sharks as well, as he does all creatures of the sea, but that doesn’t mean he liked what they did to his fish, even if he understands why they did it. That the tourists would think that the beautiful thing was a shark, and not know that the sharks were actually what destroyed the beautiful thing, expresses their ignorance of such things, much like the ignorance of the reader at the beginning of the novel, not understanding the unique and intimate way of the fisherman. I feel like I still have so much that I could say about this novel, one idea can just go on forever, which I take as a sign of a great novel, so I might do another post later…