Classics and the Western Canon discussion
Conrad, Nostromo
>
Week 2 — Part 1, Chapters 6 -7
date
newest »
newest »
During the colonial period, European powers extracted resources while telling the natives that they were doing so based on fair agreements worked out with their governments. Of course, the native governments during colonialism were just a fig leaf to the concept of fair trade and were usually corrupt. They couldn’t be anything else since they were bought and paid for specifically to say that it’s legal to make ridiculously generous deals with Europeans (of which they got their piece). European ventures were almost pure profit.It seems like Gould Sr. was on the receiving end of a lesson about turnabout being fair play after his mine was nationalized and then sold by the government back to him numerous times by coercion. The senior Gould warns his young son against ever going there, because he can now see the game has been rigged against people like him now instead of for. Though the people still suffer under both systems.
To me, it seems like Gould is telling his son to let go of colonial claims to superiority in the sense of the so-called “civilizing mission” and their family’s ill-gotten gains in the mine, which are now detrimental since the independent governments are using the Europeans' own coercive quasi-legal tricks against them.
Junior is even warned off after he arrives saying that he’s on his own if things go bad with the concession, but he won’t renounce his inheritance and still thinks it’s vaguely being done for the people. Either way, it’s certainly being set up as a tragic flaw that he ignores.
Aiden wrote: "During the colonial period, European powers extracted resources while telling the natives that they were doing so based on fair agreements worked out with their governments. Of course, the native g..."Conrad’s description of the San Tome mine under colonialism is both damning and chilling imo: Whole tribes of Indians had perished in the exploitation, and then the mine was abandoned, since with this primitive method it had ceased to make a profitable return, no matter how many corpses were thrown into its maw.”. In other words, had it been profitable to do so, more native workers would have been sacrificed to the mine.
The Gould family, however, has only been in Costaguana for three generations, and they were not part of the original colonial power structure. Their founding father “had fought in the cause of independence under Bolivar, in that famous English legion which on the battle-field of Carabobo had been saluted by the great Liberator as Saviors of his country.” (The battle took place June 24, 1821). I don’t think Conrad says how he came to end up in Costaguana, but we know his son and his grandson (the current Charles Gould) were born there.
I don’t see where Conrad has said how the family made their money either, although the father of Charles Gould is described as “one of the wealthiest merchants of Costaguana.” But as far as I can see, the father’s involvement with the mine starts when the government makes him an offer he can’t refuse. “Mr Gould, senior, defended himself from this fatal favour with many arguments and entreaties, but without success. He knew nothing of mining…”
Mr Gould Senior’s reaction is explained by Conrad in some depth. The kernel may be “But to be robbed under the forms of legality and business was intolerable to his imagination. Mr Gould, the father, had one fault in his sagacious and honorable character: he attached too much importance to form.”.
But I’m still puzzling over Charles Gould’s decision to take over the mine concession, especially his statement that “What is wanted here is law, good faith, order, security. Any one can declaim about these things, but I pin my faith to material interests. Only let the material interests once get a firm footing, and they are bound to impose the conditions on which alone they can continue to exist. That’s how your money-making is justified here in the face of lawlessness and disorder. It is justified because the security which it demands must be shared with an oppressed people. A better justice will come afterwards. That’s your ray of hope.”. What does he mean by “material interests” exactly?
I admit to being somewhat baffled. I think it's because I expect a novel entitled Nostromo to be about Nostromo. But we've had very little about Nostromo so far. He is mentioned as just one among a plethora of characters and not more or less prominent than anyone else. This week's reading was focused on the Goulds--father, son, and the courtship and marriage of Charles and Emilia with ne'er a mention of Nostromo. Where is he in all of this? Perhaps the novel should have been called Costaguana since it is about a place, its resources, and it's motley crew of inhabitants.
Maybe Nostromo will show up later. But for now, I'm going to pretend the novel is called Costaguana. So far, I've enjoyed the detailed description of its topography, its history, its natural resources, its population. I suspect trouble is brewing between the indigenous population, the government officials who are lining their pockets, and the Europeans who are there to exploit its natural resources.
I will no longer work myself up into a tizzy by trying to figure out where the heck Nostromo is in all this or what any of this has to do with him. Searching for him is a bit like searching for Waldo. If Nostromo shows up later in the novel, I will welcome him with open arms and ask him if he took a wrong turn somewhere along the way and got lost.
So excuse me while I sit back, relax, and enjoy a novel entitled Costaguana.
Aiden wrote: "During the colonial period.... To me, it seems like Gould is telling his son to let go of colonial claims to superiority in the sense of the so-called “civilizing mission” and their family’s ill-gotten gains in the mine, which are now detrimental since the independent governments are using the Europeans' own coercive quasi-legal tricks against them...."My take is a little less cynical(?)....for some reason it seems that Conrad (and the Goulds) believe in the justice of the "civilizing mission". The Elder wants to save his son from the many challenges he has faced to that mission, however, seems like his son still believes that by reopening the mine he is doing good-- at the outset. The difference for the younger is that he now has a foreign investor, specifically an American for whom the Monroe Doctorine is a driving imperative. Imperialism becomes multinational, so will Gould continue to believe in the traditional ideals of justice and mutual benefit as he operates his enterprise or will he be transformed by the challenges, as Aiden seems to anticipate?
Great worldbuilding and descriptive writing, but everything seems so static. It's like I'm looking at a picture of Costaguana. Ten years ago , I stopped reading Nostromo after 6 chapters. Looks like I'm a little bit more patient now, there must be a reason for this being a classic, right?
Susan wrote: .....When Mrs Gould comments on public affairs, her husband “would decline to discuss them at all. Once, however, he observed to her very gently—-My dear, you seem to forget that I was born here.’”Yes, but "Carlos" seems to be the ideal English type--as Avellanos says, "Carlos had all the English qualities of character with a truly patriotic heart". Gould emphasizes this familial English character.."in Costaguana we Goulds are no adventurers. ...[Uncle Harry} was of the country, and he loved it, but he remained essentially an Englishman in his ideas." Gould has traveled, gotten some perspective on Costaguana, but taken an English wife to bolster his essential Englishness. He features himself an insider, but seems like it's the "essentially English" qualities--pragmatism, idealism, maybe--that lead him to defy his father's wishes and reopen the Consession.
In a discussion of "Trust" by Hernan Diaz, about an American financier in the early 20th century, the comment was made that the the wealthy elite were merchants, industrialist, and then financiers. That same sequence might be evident in Nostromo. The narrator (I think) comments "there was something indelible in all these ancestral Goulds--liberators, explorers, coffee planters, merchants, revolutionists--....that he, the only representative of the third generation in a coninent possessing its own style of horsemanship, went on looking thoroughly English even on horseback." So, "Carlos", from a line of merchants, is now funding the industrialization of Costaguana, with the help of a distant financier. Despite charges of exploitation, revolution, and corruption, the through-line is clear and the Englishman on horseback is committed to that direction.
“What is wanted here is law, good faith, order, security. Any one can declaim about these things, but I pin my faith to material interests. Only let the material interests once get a firm footing, and they are bound to impose the conditions on which alone they can continue to exist. That’s how your money-making is justified here in the face of lawlessness and disorder. It is justified because the security which it demands must be shared with an oppressed people. A better justice will come afterwards. That’s your ray of hope.”Gould seems to mean that in order to make big money in Costaguana you need rule of law, honest government, and peace--things Costaguana has notably lacked. And those things, once in place, will benefit everyone.
Roger wrote: "Gould seems to mean that in order to make big money in Costaguana you need rule of law, honest government, and peace--things Costaguana hast notably lacked. And those things, once in place, will benefit everyone.."Yes, that is how I took it as well.
But there might be a little twist here in the delay implied in "A better justice will come afterwards. That’s your ray of hope." Is he implying that the business or material interests won't necessarily do as much good for the total population at first? That true justice will be delayed. Even though increased security and stability will provide some benefits, it's only over time as industrialization proceeds that standards of living will begin to improve and education will be advanced to the point that a less corrupt government can be supported.
It's an interesting argument. The country needs security and it lacks it. But clearly the old colonial administration didn't do much good for the indians despite all of the infrastructure it built under forced labor, and there must have been "material interests" and plenty of foreign business going on then too?
I guess it all depends on the attitude of the "material interests" that hold sway, whether they see themselves as external forces or as Costaguanans - one will extract and export as much as possible; the other will try to build a future.
I really enjoyed the conversation between Mrs and Mr Gould about Mr Holroyd's purely materialistic "religion of silver and iron". There's an important distinction between the Goulds and Mr. Holroyd and the way they see the mine.
Susan wrote: "But I’m still puzzling over Charles Gould’s decision to take over the mine concession"Conrad says that for the Goulds, the mine isn't primarily about money.
"If the idea of wealth was present to them it was only so far as it was bound with that other success."
The money they can extract from it is secondary. What's primary is that "other success", which earlier in the paragraph is described as the "rehabilitation" of the mine. That sounds a lot like redemption.
In some obscure spiritual sense, I wonder if he wants to make that sacrifice of his father's worth it by carrying on the work his father wasn't able to complete. In his mind, the mine was never worthless as his father thought; he believes that his father was too blinded by the injustice of having had the mine forced upon him to ever make use of it as he should have.
After his father's death, when speaking to Emilia about his father and the mine, Charles Gould says:
"'But if he had only grappled with it in a proper way!'"
By making use of the mine now, he can correct that error of his father's and in some spiritual sense, undo it. The mine has cost his father his life, and he does not want that to stand as the last word. Maybe he wants to take that thing that was the cause of such evil and turn into something good. Then his father would have given his life for something worthwhile rather than for something completely senseless.
The sentiment makes me think of the Wild West in the United States in which "civilization" and its improvements are inevitably dragged along later in the wake of the exploitive conquests and empire building that initially opened areas up and created opportunities.
Tamara wrote: "I admit to being somewhat baffled. I think it's because I expect a novel entitled Nostromo to be about Nostromo. … I suspect trouble is brewing between the indigenous population, the government officials who are lining their pockets, and the Europeans who are there to exploit its natural resources. ."Lol. Nostromo does seem to pop in and out of the narrative instead of being the main focus as one might expect. In fact, there’s so much detail and so many characters that sometimes I wonder where I should be focusing .
I suspect you’re right about the coming social conflict. There also seem to be at least two political groups: the Blancos (formerly the Sulaco Oligarchs) and the Colorados (formerly the Unionists) in the mix.
Suzann wrote: "Imperialism becomes multinational, so will Gould continue to believe in the traditional ideals of justice and mutual benefit as he operates his enterprise or will he be transformed by the challenges, as Aiden seems to anticipate?”Great question! And will the corrupting influence of potential wealth from the San Tome silver mine play a part in the story as we might suspect from the foreshadowing of those ill-fated treasure seekers of Azuera?
Emil wrote: "Great worldbuilding and descriptive writing, but everything seems so static. It's like I'm looking at a picture of Costaguana. Ten years ago , I stopped reading Nostromo after 6 chapters. Looks like I'm a little bit more patient now, there must be a reason for this being a classic, right?"Let’s hope so ;). The blurb on my copy calls it “one of the greatest political novels in any language” and states “Conrad’s evocation of the great Latin-American landscapes, the ferocity of its politics, and individuals swept up in imperial ambitions has never been bettered.”.
I think “world building” is a great description for these initial chapters. We’ll have to see if once the stage is set, the story will take off.
I guess it's a matter of false expectations, I was anticipating a sort of western with pirates, gauchos, treasures, and knife fights - not a political novel.I will follow Tamara's example and enjoy a fine novel called Costaguana.
... maybe the pirates and gauchos will appear eventually
Agree that the novel is not turning out as I expected, but I did enjoy chapters 6-7 quite a lot. I enjoyed that it settled in for a bit and became less panoramic in focus, even though it focused on the Goulds rather than Nostromo. The portrait of the Goulds was beautifully done I thought.
Suzann wrote: ".. Gould has traveled, gotten some perspective on Costaguana, but taken an English wife to bolster his essential Englishness. He features himself an insider, but seems like it's the "essentially English" qualities--pragmatism, idealism, maybe--that lead him to defy his father's wishes and reopen the Consession. ."
He definitely seems to have a foot in both worlds and to be perceived that way in Sulaco. “…but with a relative martyred in the cause of aristocracy, the Sulaco Oligarchs (…now they were called Blancos…), which meant the families of pure Spanish descent, considered Charles one of themselves. With such a family record, no one could be more of a Costaguanero than Don Carlos Gould; but his aspect was so characteristic that in the talk of common people he was just the Inglez — the Englishman of Sulaco.”
I think you’re right that his “double identity” plays a role in his decision.
Roger wrote: "Gould seems to mean that in order to make big money in Costaguana you need rule of law, honest government, and peace--things Costaguana has notably lacked. And those things, once in place, will benefit everyone.” I agree all that’s implied in his statement, but he also seems to be saying/implying that if one can work within the current corrupt system to get “material interests” on “a firm footing,” then rule of law, honest government, and peace will follow as well as wealth. And that seems to be at least part of his hope/intention in getting the San Tome mine working and profitable. He wants to make money but with a goal of eventually reforming the country via economic prosperity.
Suzann wrote: "In a discussion of "Trust" by Hernan Diaz, about an American financier in the early 20th century, the comment was made that the the wealthy elite were merchants, industrialist, and then financiers.. That same sequence might be evident in Nostromo. The narrator (I think) comments "there was something indelible in all these ancestral Goulds--liberators, explorers, coffee planters, merchants, revolutionists--....that he, the only representative of the third generation in a coninent possessing its own style of horsemanship, went on looking thoroughly English even on horseback." So, "Carlos", from a line of merchants, is now funding the industrialization of Costaguana, with the help of a distant financier. Despite charges of exploitation, revolution, and corruption, the through-line is clear and the Englishman on horseback is committed to that direction..."Interesting comparison! In a way, it reminds me of John Adams writing “The science of government it is my duty to study, more than all other sciences; the arts of legislation and administration and negotiation ought to take the place of, indeed exclude, in a manner, all other arts. I must study politics and war, that our sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy. Our sons ought to study mathematics and philosophy, geography, natural history and naval architecture, navigation, commerce and agriculture in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry and porcelain.” Although I think John Gould would say it is his duty to study industry (and maybe politics), like John Adams, he seems to have a hope of social progression and expansion
Greg wrote: “It's an interesting argument. The country needs security and it lacks it. But clearly the old colonial administration didn't do much good for the indians despite all of the infrastructure it built under forced labor, and there must have been "material interests" and plenty of foreign business going on then too? I guess it all depends on the attitude of the "material interests" that hold sway, whether they see themselves as external forces or as Costaguanans - one will extract and export as much as possible; the other will try to build a future.."
I think you’ve put your finger on the difference between the English and American financiers and companies — the steamships, the railroad, the backing for the mine — and the Goulds. What I keep wondering is if anything good can come out of the bloody history of the mine and if there is some weakness in Gould’s plan — either his own character flaws as Aiden and Suzann discussed or an over optimistic assessment of his ability to make a difference.
Greg wrote: "... The money they can extract from it is secondary. What's primary is that "other success", which earlier in the paragraph is described as the "rehabilitation" of the mine. That sounds a lot like redemption. In some obscure spiritual sense, I wonder if he wants to make that sacrifice of his father's worth it by carrying on the work his father wasn't able to complete. In his mind, the mine was never worthless as his father thought; he believes that his father was too blinded by the injustice of having had the mine forced upon him to ever make use of it as he should have. "
Gould may be looking to redeem his father’s mistakes and sacrifices with regard to the mine. In his own mind, he may also be “correcting” his father’s mistakes in how he approached the situation.
David wrote: "The sentiment makes me think of the Wild West in the United States in which "civilization" and its improvements are inevitably dragged along later in the wake of the exploitive conquests and empire..."These comments of Holroyd the American financier may reflect his theory of Manifest Destiny: “Time itself has got to wait on the greatest country in the whole of God’s universe. We shall be giving the word for everything; industry, trade, law, journalism, art, politics, and religion, from Cape Horn clear over to Smith’s Sound, and beyond, too…We shall run the world’s business whether the world likes it or not.”. Maybe this is a longer term threat to Charles Gould’s goals for Costaguana and to the independence of the country itself.
Emil wrote: “I will follow Tamara's example and enjoy a fine novel called Costaguana.... maybe the pirates and gauchos will appear eventually "
As the parrot says, “Viva Costaguana!”
Mr Gould, Senior, left his son ten thousand pounds in England, the Sulaco house, some tentative forestry rights, and the mine concession. To get some perspective on the amount involved, I tried one of those internet value calculators. The Oxford edition editors give the year of 1884 as the date of Mr Gould’s death. It turns out those ten thousand pounds would be worth about 1.6 million pounds today.
Susan wrote: "These comments of Holroyd the American financier may reflect his theory of Manifest Destiny: “Time itself has got to wait on the greatest country in the whole of God’s universe. . ."The mention of manifest destiny combined with the calls to rename the work "Costaguana", just makes me think we should treat Costaguana as a character, and not just the setting. How will the initial descriptions of the land color the decisions and actions to come mesh with and change Costaguana from that original description? Will Costaguana evolve into something great as manifest destiny predicts, or will it resist that change and remain the same or change into something else, and why?
David wrote: ". How will the initial descriptions of the land color the decisions and actions to come mesh with and change Costaguana from that original description? Will Costaguana evolve into something great as manifest destiny predicts, or will it resist that change and remain the same or change into something else, and why?”..."
Good questions and areas to keep an eye on as we read on!
Why won’t Mr Gould discuss public affairs with his wife? He may feel his wife’s situation as a non-native prevents her full understanding of the politics of Costaguana. But the need to send messages secretly to Sta Marta vía the muleteer made me wonder if in part he prefers not to discuss them publicly.
Susan wrote: "Why won’t Mr Gould discuss public affairs with his wife? He may feel his wife’s situation as a non-native prevents her full understanding of the politics of Costaguana. But the need to send message..."It may have something to do with the difference between the public sphere and the private sphere. The public/political sphere was considered the exclusive domain of men. The private/domestic sphere was the exclusive domain of women. Women were intentionally excluded from the political realm ostensibly for their own protection. The public/political sphere was considered too "dirty" for their delicate, frail sensibilities. But the reality was it denied women access to power and ensured their subordination.
Susan wrote: "Why won’t Mr Gould discuss public affairs with his wife? He may feel his wife’s situation as a non-native prevents her full understanding of the politics of Costaguana. But the need to send message..."He's like Michael Corleone: "Never ask me about business!"
Tamara wrote: "It may have something to do with the difference between the public sphere and the private sphere. The public/political sphere was considered the exclusive domain of men. The private/domestic sphere was the exclusive domain of women. Women were intentionally excluded from the political realm ostensibly for their own protection. The public/political sphere was considered too "dirty" for their delicate, frail sensibilities. But the reality was it denied women access to power and ensured their subordination."This sounds right to me Tamara.
It fits with other passages in the novel that have old fashioned notions about the genders, such as this one in chapter 6:
"A woman with a masculine mind is not a being of superior efficiency; she is simply a phenomenon of imperfect differentiation - interestingly barren and without importance . . . . A woman's true tenderness, like the true virility of man, is expressed in action of a conquering kind."
Apologies for not quoting properly, but Emil said something six days ago that I think was important. Specifically, “there must be some reason for this being a classic.” It jumped out at me because I’m rereading a book about interpreting fictive literature and it mentions how that exact question is often asked by students.The answer is not necessarily satisfying, and might not justify it as “classic” to you, but when people ask that question, it’s usually because they are not seeing subtle allusions and deeper meanings. Conrad, with his river of time and cruelty in Heart of Darkness, seems like a very deep writer, who uses historical, cultural and literary allusions to hint at the layers of meaning beneath the surface story.
I’m not saying that I see what Conrad’s trying to say yet. It’s way too early. Just that I’m noticing a lot of allusions that I’ve lodged in my mind for later connection. If that’s not the type of reading you enjoy, the novel won’t necessarily seem like a classic to you.
Tamara wrote: ". Women were intentionally excluded from the political realm ostensibly for their own protection. The public/political sphere was considered too "dirty" for their delicate, frail sensibilities. But the reality was it denied women access to power and ensured their subordination. "Tamara, I’m sure you and others are right that this was part of why Mr Gould wouldn’t discuss public affairs with his wife, but I wonder if there’s more to it. The words he uses to explain his refusal seem as though they could be significant: “[he] would decline to discuss them at all. Once, however, he observed to her very gently—-My dear, you seem to forget that I was born here.’. The implication is that it’s not (just) because she’s a woman, but because she is English and not a native. Why does that make a difference?
Susan wrote: “The implication is that it’s not (just) because she’s a woman, but because she is English and not a native. Why does that make a difference?”After thinking about it some more, I wonder if living in Costaguana most of one’s life skews one’s views of the way society and government should/can be. Is Emilia Gould more outraged and distressed by what she witnesses in Costaguana than her husband because she comes from a country with a relatively stable government and political system? Does he see some of the violence and injustice as normal? If so, this could be a fundamental difference in how husband and wife see the political situation.
Susan wrote: "Does he see some of the violence and injustice as normal? If so, this could be a fundamental difference in how husband and wife see the political situation."This seems likely Susan.
When I originally read that passage, I thought that remark about being born there was just a tactful way of him shutting down the conversation since she was intruding upon areas of conversation that he didn't consider womanly. He makes his observations "very gently," and clearly he does not want to debate with her on these topics, regardless of whether he agrees or disagrees.
But what you say makes sense in that he also might think that she can't fundamentally understand how a country like Costaguana works. She might expect a certain level of transparency, fairness, and lack of graft that one will never get from the governing structures in Costaguana.
If she had been a man, I don't think he would try to curtail the conversation in the exact way that he does. But there is more than one dimension to what is happening here.
Funny. I saw the “not a native” comment through the historical lens of colonialism. Specifically, how Europeans born in colonies tended to have a much more ruthless view of dealing with the “natives”, while telling themselves the forced labor, dictatorship and abuse were “civilizing.” It was an especially important distinction when colonialism started to end and Europeans who had been colonialists for generations didn’t consider themselves foreigners, so they shouldn’t have to leave. They wanted the liberal Europeans to leave them and their fiefdoms intact, regardless of what the actual natives thought.
In that context, the distinction between colonial European and European-born became more acute and touchy.
Aiden wrote: "The answer is not necessarily satisfying, and might not justify it as “classic” to you, but when people ask that question, it’s usually because they are not seeing subtle allusions and deeper meanings. [...]
If that’s not the type of reading you enjoy, the novel won’t necessarily seem like a classic to you...."
Nicely put. Reading a classic is not necessarily an enjoyable experience, but I do expect "subtle allusions and deeper meanings."
The first chapters were like an oversized Encyclopedia Britannica article about Paraguay, but I do notice themes like colonialism, exploitation, and national identity.
My first impression is that Conrad started to write a novel about Nostromo, but the country he created for the hero became more and more complex and took over the novel.
In the end, Conrad saw everything that he had made, and, behold, it was very good.
Greg wrote: ".. But there is more than one dimension to what is happening here."Truer words were never typed ;). Nostromo seems to be a book of many dimensions and layers of meaning.
Aiden wrote: "Funny. I saw the “not a native” comment through the historical lens of colonialism. Specifically, how Europeans born in colonies tended to have a much more ruthless view of dealing with the “native..."As with other aspects of Nostromo, there appear to be multiple aspects of how “the historical lens of colonialism” applies to the characters. Conrad carefully delineates the backgrounds of the Violas and the Goulds; both families were involved in the liberation of the South American colonies and immigrated from Europe during that time, so they aren’t colonialists in the usual sense. But the Goulds’ activities in the silver mine seem in sync with other economic development by the English steamboat and railroad companies. While those developments may benefit the country, they have a price and could be seen as exploitive.
The mine concession was forced on the senior Gould by the Costaguanan dictator. The latter was the exploiter, it seems to me.
Emil wrote: "Reading a classic is not necessarily an enjoyable experience, but I do expect "subtle allusions and deeper meanings." ”
Well said, Aiden and Emil. For me, these challenging books are the ones I most benefit from reading with others and getting their thoughts and perspectives.
Roger wrote: "The mine concession was forced on the senior Gould by the Costaguanan dictator. The latter was the exploiter, it seems to me."Señor Gould Senior would agree with you. Charles Gould seems to see the mine concession differently. These differing points of view seem as pervasive in Nostromo as they are in real life ;)
Time passes, and a new regime remembers the San Tome mine and how it might benefit them. The concession of the mine is offered to Mr Gould, Senior, one of the wealthiest merchants in Costaguana, in settlement of previous loans he was forced to make to the government. The terms of the concession are extremely unfavorable to Mr Gould, but the political situation and personal animosities involved make it impossible for him to get out of accepting the deal. Far from making his fortune, it almost ruins him. He sends his son to Europe to keep him away from Costaguana and the mine. But his son, Charles Gould, sees the situation very differently, and he and his wife Emilia returned to Sulaco after his father’s death to take over the operation of the San Tome mine with the backing of an American financier.
These two chapters also provide an introduction to the Gould family and some new characters from the American financier to the Gould family friend Don Jose Avellanos who comes for tea every day but doesn’t like to drink it to the muleteer with the big hat to the parrot. Conrad paints a picture of the interior of the Province and its residents. And we hear about Guzman Bento, who was a “barbarous Unionist General” and a “Perpetual President” and “a tyrant” whose body mysteriously disappeared from its tomb.
Here are a couple questions to start the discussion.
1) Given the political situation in Costaguana, why did Charles Gould decide to take over operation of the San Tome mine despite his father’s counsel? Do you agree with his decision? And what do you think of the way Conrad portrays the relationship between Charles and Emilia Gould?
2). In the background, Conrad paints a picture of a violent and corrupt government. “Before, it was everything for the Padres, nothing for the people; and now it is everything for those great politicos in Sta. Marta…”. When Mrs Gould comments on public affairs, her husband “would decline to discuss them at all. Once, however, he observed to her very gently—-My dear, you seem to forget that I was born here.’” As readers, we are newcomers to Costaguana, too, but what is your take on the political situation? And why do you think Mr Gould declines to discuss public affairs with his wife?