Brain Pain discussion
This topic is about
Argall
Argall - TVP 2014
>
Discussion - Week Three - Argall - Part I, p. 237 - 363
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Jim
(new)
-
rated it 3 stars
Apr 07, 2014 01:53AM
Mod
reply
|
flag
Actually a note from the material for Week Two, but I'll pretend I'm caught up with the week three material. This may be suitable for future discussion:The narrative so far isn't very difficult to follow, at least up until the time when skirmishing begins and the Colony begins to come under siege, but I noted to myself "at times it seems linear narrative is abandoned amidst looking forward, looking back, looking from different perspectives, all while switching arbitrarily between spellings and dialects and alternative character names."
Additional note: The challenges of communication between the colonists and Indians is surprisingly glossed over. It's not even mentioned as an issue. The different nations speak to one another, and I wonder how. It seemed natural to assume that John's exchange of words with a few captive warriors in England would not have actually helped him learn the language at all, and that those natives may not have even spoken a language related to Powhatan's, and generally I couldn't have expected great efforts or great success in language learning on either side in the first year. At the same time, I know that different nations frequently do communicate with one another all the time in times of war, at first contact, and in trade, but it really leaves one curious as to how they do it. When do pidgin languages spring up, and how much of what is essential can be achieved through pointing, gesturing, grunting, exchanging objects, and depending on context clues.This book avoids the topic entirely (so far), and I assume it's because Smith's own accounts, and those of his contemporaries also mysteriously omit to talk about it. Yet this book, beyond being a novel, is also to some extent a linguistic exercise.
As an extension of this topic, I'd ask other readers to react to the author's decisions regarding what to tell and what not to tell. I think these had be more-than-usually difficult questions for the author to confront in composing this book.
By the way, it was only a day after the above message when I came across some communication via obvious gestures plus a few memorized words and phrases, and later there is more indication of the degree to which they can and cannot comprehend one another.Still worthy of discussion: the degree to which historical accounts are fragmentary and leave big questions unanswered, and the degree to which this novel reflect this. Also, the degree to which the novel invents details to give a more complete picture. One need not read the history to respond to this question, but just ponder the resultant novel and its effect.
Of further note: the savagery of the savages. The detailed picture of cultural differences that only partially obscure the fact that both parties (English and Indian) are in desperate straits and have been acculturated to the brutalization of others, strangers, enemies, and are also predisposed to internal strife, power struggles, arbitrary use and abuse of authority, etc.
I'm attached to the characters now, and don't want bad things to happen to them. Which is too bad, considering...And Vollmann reminds us occasionally (all right, constantly) that things can't turn out well... just look around.
I even feel a bit of sympathy for Wingfield and Opechancanough. Not for Radcliff or Archer and that crew though... Newport either.
God, what idiots we humans are.
-------------------------------
And, while I'm throwing conversation topics out there into the air, future visitors to this thread are invited to discuss why the Indians may have been so accommodating to the strangers in terms of sex with the women, what kinds of social roles these women may have had, and what constituted sexual mores in their society. What are the defining characteristics of family as well, and what is taboo? If you've researched it, pipe up!
I did find this snippet: "Many conclusions can be drawn concerning the role of sexuality in the conquest of America, as interpreted through these selective records. It must be taken into account that the chroniclers cited here were all males, and that each brought with him a cultural bias which made objective observation of Native American sexuality almost impossible."
And I found this interesting article on the Powhatan Indian World: http://www.nps.gov/jame/historycultur...
...but then I didn't read the article completely because I realized that I want Vollmann's presentation, based on his research, without getting too bogged down in historical or sociological approaches to these questions, so it's something to return to maybe in discussion of the the book as a whole.
I haven't yet come to "Changes of the Moon," though I am rapidly approaching it. Meanwhile, I thought I'd toss out a few more random observations and notes that I've made along the way:-Vollmann's language use in this book will probably be worthy of plenty of discussion. I still enjoy it greatly. I've noted that he coins some interesting words and usages of his own. On the other hand, it's sometimes hard to distinguish when he may be making unintentional diction errors, versus the times when he may be consciously redefining words. I've noted, for instance, that he has used "whence" in a place where "whither" seems more apt (referring to Powhatan's supposed return "whence" Werowocomoco). Similarly, he used "instanter" to mean "more quickly," whereas correct usage has it as "instantly," i.e., it's not a comparative. These points, of course, are trivia, and anything can slip between the cracks, but I wonder whether we should think that Vollmann's punning, anachronisms, and obviously intentional "misuses" (e.g. salvage vs. savage) give him some license to not worry about "proper" anything.
-Interesting possible intentional redefinitions: "Opechancanough demeaned himself fish-expressionless towards ye English." Here Vollmann appears to use "demean" as "adopt a particular demeanor." "Unlike unto your daily fishwater." Though "Like unto" is a common phrase, I've not encountered the negative "unlike unto," but this may not be Vollman's innovation. (In fact, I think an intro or appendix claimed that he doesn't coin new usages, and that he's encountered them in other sources, but I can't take that as literally and completely true--can I?)... and well, I guess there's a whole lot more...
-More Kenning! "we know not which thought-flowers bloomed in the bone-room beneath her lustrous scalp."
-When John was a captive, this passage was interesting: "...certain stout Salvages (which he now knew were call’d Cronoccoes) were for putting him to death, to revenge the murthers there committed by a previous English Captaine , but Sweet John being shorter than that violent Countreyman of his, they kept him yet alive." It's not clear who this "previous English Captaine" is, and nothing more is made of it, but it certainly made me wonder whether it was Sweet John himself! If so, it's an interesting bit of psychology, suggesting John seems bigger when raiding, and smaller when captive, and ironic in that he's spared by the inability of his captors to recognize him. This same idea is echoed when Smith leads some of his English companions to Werowocomoco for his second visit, and he finds that Powhatan's palace seems to have gotten smaller due to change of context. (This idea also reminded me of Calvino's Baron in the Trees because a famous bandit in that book doesn't resemble his own popular image, and he may even have been credited with the deeds of other men because his reputation attracts new credit for feats of Bravado).
-And speaking of psychology, Vollmann does show quite a capacity for it. Witness "the absence of fellow human cattle barred him from resignation, which is a stench that doth exhale from slaughter-herds." (Re: how slaves held on a chain together by Turks resigned themselves, whereas the sole captive of the Indians did not...). Also witness the psychology of Opechancanough's humiliation.
-A note from earlier in the book. Vollmann's anachronisms and comparisons made between eras is sometimes overt, sometimes more subtle (or at least not overtly remarked upon). E.g. with regards to English tobacco smokers: "These coistrels cared not that the leaf came from Spanish America, so that the sum they frittered upon their vice did but swell our enemies’ coffers." Which strongly reflects a more 20th-21st century conceit that using drugs is like financing terrorism.
-The author made his biggest philosophical pronouncement on the art of narrative (and the nature of human life) in "So there is no moment. Inevitability’s a fiction." Even while he reverses himself. And this little aside actually highlights the urgency of the moment at the same time it purports to undermine it.
-I was somewhat surprised to ponder that Indian communities seem to be devoid of intoxicants... unless Walnut milk is alcoholic?... I knew that it has been suggested that Europeans corrupted Indian communities by introducing distilled liquors (like the rum which corrupts Jamestown's informant... whatsisname, Keats?). But I'd still have expected some kind of fermented beverage. But I guess tobacco is to Indians what mead is to medieval Nordics... or something.
Well, that's all for now, and onward with the adventures.
Mod
Sometime in the early 16th century (or so) there was a kind of congress of English language. Scholars got together to try and normalize usage, as well as to expand the language by adding a considerable number of new words. The result of this effort is part of why today there are so many more English words than French words, for example. I don't remember the exact name of this effort, but I studied the docs back in a course on Early English at Rutgers. During the time period of this book, "made-up" words, spelling and usage variants, and so on, would have been fairly common, even within the same text, so I think what you're seeing is just Vollmann matching the style of the times he's chronicling. Plus, it's fun!
I agree that it's fun. It's also a bizarre phenomenon when scholars, authorities, editors, even individuals take on the task of language reform and revision. In theory, it shouldn't work, but I guess sometimes it does exert its influence, or at least appears to based on the documents produced.I would probably like to launch just such a quixotic movement, but it would have to be expansive (as the one you've described, and as Vollmann illustrates) rather than restrictive. For instance, I'm no opponent to the val-speak usagage of "like" to mean pretty much everything, and I believe it's time for English grammarians to recognize the most recently introduced, widely used modal verb: gotta.
Mod
Sidebar topic: (view spoiler)
It's like, interesting that Vollmann plays with language like this, 'cause this book is about the olden days and stuff, and like Americans totally like change the language to fit the moment. Gotta go....
