Classics and the Western Canon discussion
Conrad, Nostromo
>
Week 3 — Part 1, Chapter 8 + Part 2, Chapters 1-2
date
newest »
newest »
There are so many characters that it is hard for me to keep track of who is who or what is what. I'm probably wrong about this and will eat my words depending on how the novel develops, but it seems to me that Conrad is setting Emilia Gould up as some sort of moral center. She comes across as observant and as having sensitivity and compassion. She uses her influence to help others. She obtains a promise from Sir John that Giorgio Viola could keep his home.
Another promising character is Antonia Avellanos. It will be interesting to see what Conrad does with her.
Tamara wrote: "There are so many characters that it is hard for me to keep track of who is who or what is what."Yes, there are a lot of characters, and some of them have multiple names to keep track of. I’ve been keeping a list to help keep them straight and would be glad to share it if that would be helpful.
What I am finding confusing is not the characters so much, but the way the narrative moves back and forth in time. For example, we hear about events like the rescue of Don Ribiera first in Chapter 2, Part I but don’t get the full story until Chapter 8 (if we get it then). The same is true for the Sulaco celebration of the coming of the railroad and other events. It makes me think of the old joke where a comedian tells a long story then announces it’s just background for another story. Perhaps this practice creates a sense that the events all weave together into the history of the country?
Tamara writes: “I'm probably wrong about this and will eat my words depending on how the novel develops, but it seems to me that Conrad is setting Emilia Gould up as some sort of moral center. She comes across as observant and as having sensitivity and compassion. She uses her influence to help others. She obtains a promise from Sir John that Giorgio Viola could keep his home.."Good point. I’m a little worried that things may not pan out for the Violas despite Emilia Gould’s intervention. I’ve no specific reason, just the general instability in Costaguana.
I posted a list of the characters as of Week 3 in the Schedule and Background section. I’ll keep it updated as we go on. I find it helpful, because the same character may be referred to by their proper name, a nickname, or title.
So far, I’d say the only stability is the outflow of natural resources from Sulaco to Gould’s bank account. Conrad mentions that the wars and revolutions never stop the flow of silver. Readers of European colonial history will know that the way the powers kept resources flowing is through ruthless suppression and forced labor. Kind of like Gould is happy to support dictators as long as his mine keeps working. But what of his stated desire to help the people, who are being forced to work extracting the resources while staying poor and being repressed by dictators propped up by European capital? That’s what the “civilizing mission” looks like to me.The episode with the silver buttons and Nostromo’s “generosity” make me suspect that he’s not exactly a hero. He seems to be “our man” as in, the man who will represent the interests of the mine owners. Conrad mentions that Nostromo is positively decked out with silver everything. Seems like he’s doing pretty well for himself. But if he’s helping foreigners exploit the land, while ignoring the native poverty and war, is this a good guy?
There is another famous figure known for taking silver for selling out. Not sure if the allusion is intentional, but it brought Judas Iscariot to my mind. And, in the end, he didn’t keep his silver, either.
“Imperium in imperio,” seems to be the watchword for the mine. Looking the phrase up online, I found two definitions: “an order within an order,” and “a government, power, or sovereignty within a government, power, or sovereignty.”. This seems to describe how the San Tome mine fits into Sulaco and Costaguana, at least at first. But I get the sense that as time passes, the mine is becoming more of a competing power than a subordinate one.
The word"vaquero" has been used several times. At the end of P2, General Montero is moustachioed and dressed in a uniform glittering with gold embroidery. " (H)e looked like a disguised and sinister vaquero." Information on history.com suggests that Spanish immigrant landowners in South America trained the local horsemen in roping and riding skills critical to cattle ranching. They were adept at rope braiding, lassoing, and provided security when ranching and local interests conflicted. They are pictured with silver buttons down the pant legs. They were more skilled and trusted than the llaneros or other horsemen--fixers, of a sort, for wealthy landowners. I haven't noticed Nostromo called a vaquero, but he has the skill set.
I’ve now gone back to the beginning and reread the first three weeks’ chapters to construct a timeline of events so far. I’ll share it for anyone who is interested, once I finish filling it out.I also noticed several references to Captain Mitchell’s perspective. Back in Chapter 2, Part 1, we hear Captain Mitchell say about the steamboat company: “‘We never make mistakes.’ To the Company’s officers it took the form of a severe injunction: ‘We must make no mistakes. I’ll have no mistakes here…’
In Chapter 8, we see Captain Mitchell in the drawing-room of the Casa Gould with El Señor Administrador aka Charles Gould, Don Pepe, Señor Avellanos, and Doña Emilia. Captain Mitchell is “a little disregarded and unconscious of it; utterly in the dark, and imagining himself to be in the thick of things….Almost every event out of the usual daily course ‘marked an epoch’ for him or else was ‘history’; unless with his pomposity struggling with a discomfited droop of his rubicund, rather handsome face, set off by snow-white close hair and short whiskers, he would mutter—‘Ah, that! That, sir, was a mistake.’”
And in the closing section of Part I with its teaser reference to an unidentified event, Captain Mitchell gets the last word. “‘Sir,’ he used to say afterwards, ‘that was no mistake. It was a fatality. A misfortune, plain and simple…’”
Of course, careful as one might be, mistakes happen as do misfortunes. I’m not quite sure what he means by “history,” but in Costaguana, history does not seem over and done with.
Interesting observation, Suzann. I’ll be looking out for that word now.I read Imperium in Imperio as a “state within a state” in the sense that the dictator agreed to leave affairs at the mine strictly to Gould. Essentially, it’s a fiefdom in the medieval sense where as long as the guy at the top gets paid, you can do whatever you want to people without consequence in you’re own private state.
Of course, history also shows that fiefdoms can be taken back by the leader during times of troubles, such as the civil wars of Gould Sr.’s time. In modern times, that’s known as nationalization.
Countless dictators reigned and failed their countries since Conrad wrote Nostromo. It's remarkable how Don Jose Avellanos words could describe the vast majority of them:“Yet this monster, imbrued in the blood of his countrymen, must not be held unreservedly to the execration of future years. It appears to be true that he, too, loved his country. He had given it twelve years of peace; and, absolute master of lives and fortunes as he was, he died poor. His worst fault, perhaps, was not his ferocity, but his ignorance;”
Suzann wrote: "The word"vaquero" has been used several times. At the end of P2, General Montero is moustachioed and dressed in a uniform glittering with gold embroidery. " (H)e looked like a disguised and sinister vaquero.".."Thanks for this. I wondered what the difference was between a “vaquero” and a “llanero,” which my edition defines only as “a plains-dweller” so this was helpful.
I wonder if there’s a suggestion that General Montero in his glittery finery is more appearance than substance since we learn a little later on that his brother is believed to be the driving force of the rebellion.
In this week’s reading, we get some clues how the Goulds’ idea of using the San Tome mine concession to bring stability to Costaguana is playing out. In the one hand, “…the San Tome mine was to become an institution, a rallying point for everything in the province that needed order and stability to live. Security seemed to flow upon this land from the mountain gorge. The authorities of Sulaco had learned that the San Tome mine could make it worth their while to leave things and people alone.”. So when the miners go to town in their distinctive green and white outfits, they are usually left alone by the police and the army recruiting parties. But on the other hand, there are rumors that the San Tome Administration “financed the last revolution, which had brought into a five-year dictatorship Don Vincente Ribiera, a man of culture and of unblemished character, invested with a mandate of reform by the best elements of the State.” And, the Ribiera regime which began with a revolution to overthrow the last government now faces a new revolution to overthrow it. Not exactly the peace and stability that everyone says they want.
Aiden wrote: “ The episode with the silver buttons and Nostromo’s “generosity” make me suspect that he’s not exactly a hero…Conrad mentions that Nostromo is positively decked out with silver everything. Seems like he’s doing pretty well for himself.."“Decked out with silver everything” is a good description of Nostromo in the button scene. In addition to “the enormous silver buttons on the embroidered leather jacket,” there are “the row of tiny silver buttons down the seam of the trousers”, “a silver cord and tassels”on his hat, and “silver plates” on his horse’s bridle and saddle. Even Nostromo’s horse is described here as “silver grey”. Add in the grey sombrero, colorful serape, white linen, and embroidered silk sash, and he must make quite a picture.
From this, Nostromo seems like someone who takes pride in his appearance and in his splendid outfit glittering with silver. I took the tone of the encounter between Nostromo and Paquita to be teasing banter. Is he as serious as she is about their relationship? I would have said no, but his gesture of giving her the silver buttons from his coat seems personal if a little comic. He’s giving up some of his dignity, too, since now he will be riding around with his coat flapping open.
I found this little scene particularly interesting as here we see a more private side of Nostromo, although even this scene plays out in front of an audience.
Aiden wrote: “Of course, history also shows that fiefdoms can be taken back by the leader during times of troubles, such as the civil wars of Gould Sr.’s time. In modern times, that’s known as nationalization."Technically, the San Tome mine was nationalized in the revolts/coups following the death of the dictator Guzman Bento. Although the Goulds have a “perpetual concession”, granted to Mr Gould Senior “and his descendents for ever,” I’m skeptical of the concession’s longevity, given the inherent instability of the government. Also, at least so far, Charles and Emilia have no children to inherit the concession.
Susan wrote: "I posted a list of the characters as of Week 3 in the Schedule and Background section. I’ll keep it updated as we go on. I find it helpful, because the same character may be referred to by their pr..."I was definitely having that problem too, mostly because of the nicknames. I had been writing them down, but it's indeed a lot to keep track of because some characters have several nicknames, like Nostromo = "Capataz" = "Capataz de Cargadores" = "Gian Batista."
Was anyone else uncomfortable with the casual and even brutal way that Nostromo forces the striking miners to work? Yes, with all the corruption in the area, it's possible (and even likely) that there was some corruption in the decision to strike. But the amount of power that Gould's men have would be very easy to abuse, and it seems that the miners have no recourse whatsoever if they have any legitimate complaints about wages or treatment or anything else.In these chapters we get a further answer as to why Charles Gould doesn't want to talk to his wife about the politics in the area. It seems that he has some compunction and embarrassment about the means he has to use to get things done. He has to engage in some injustice in order to get the mine to work given the rampant corruption in the area, and he doesn't want to dwell on that fact because it is at odds with his personal idea of honor.
"At the beginning he had had to accommodate himself to existing circumstances of corruption so naively brazen as to disarm the hatred of a man courageous enough not to be afraid of its irresponsible potency to ruin everything it touched. It seemed to him too contemptible for hot anger even. . . At bottom, perhaps, he suffered from it, for he was not a man of cowardly illusions, but he refused to discuss the ethical view with his wife."
One thing I am wondering as I progress in the book:
The honorable and unselfish character of both of the Goulds seems fairly remarkable to me - they are agents of a large money-making enterprise who happen to care more about doing good for the country rather than enriching themselves. That's a rather lucky coincidence! It's not impossible by any means as there are good people in every walk of life, but not all people in that position would be so unselfishly motivated.
That makes me worry about the vast power the Goulds possess as "the political Jefe, the chief of the police, the chief of the customs, the general, all, all, are the officials of that Gould". What if the Goulds were different sorts of people, and in many similar cases, wouldn't the people operating in the Goulds' position be much more selfishly motivated? Would it really then have been such a good thing that Nostromo could stroll around and beat up strikers to force them back to work?
And Don Pepe, he works with the Goulds - as a former soldier, he comments on the people being suddenly lassoed and forced into army service at the whim of officials, "What would you! Poor people! . . . But the State must have its soldiers." And now that the Goulds have used their influence, it benefits the miners that they can't be forced into service at a whim like this. But it's also another reason that people might feel forced to work at the mine, whether they like it or not. Otherwise, they will be among the rapidly shrinking number of people who are still up for grabs to be kidnapped.
I feel a great deal of uneasiness with the whole political economy and political reality being described. Of course, it can't be worse than the horrors of Guzman! But there are so many possibilities for rampant abuse in this romanticizing of the curative properties of "material interests" that don't apply only because the Goulds happen to be the unusual sorts of people that they are.
Greg wrote: "Was anyone else uncomfortable with the casual and even brutal way that Nostromo forces the striking miners to work? Yes, with all the corruption in the area, it's possible (and even likely) that th..."You raise some great questions, but I’m confused by the reference to Nostromo forcing striking miners back to work. Do you mean the scene in Chapter 8 involving the cargadores/longshoremen?
I had to read this sentence a couple times to understand it: “They [the cargadores] went on strike regularly (every bull-fight day), a form of trouble that even Nostromo at the height of his prestige could never cope with efficiently; but the morning after each fiesta…the appearance of a phantom-like horseman mounted on a silver-grey mare solved the problem of labor without fail.”
I understood the sentence this way: “The cargadores would not come to work on days when there was a bull-fight, and even Nostromo couldn’t do anything much about it. But the morning after a festival, he got them back to work” followed by the description of how he did it. I took it that the cargadores were oversleeping/hungover after the celebrations of the day before.
Is Nostromo brutal in how he rouses them up? From Conrad’s description, the cargadores are a rough bunch: “an unruly brotherhood of all sorts of scum…”. Nostromo rides through the slums, knocking on the cargadores’ doors with a revolver butt and calling their names “menacingly.” That’s usually enough to get them up. But if need be, he will throw them out of bed into the street. I agree that is rough behavior. They sound like a rough crowd.
Greg wrote: “I had been writing them down, but it's indeed a lot to keep track of because some characters have several nicknames, like Nostromo = "Capataz" = "Capataz de Cargadores" = "Gian Batista." Yes, it gets confusing, I’m sure someone has written a paper on nicknames in Nostromo. I was going to say the more important a character, the more nicknames they have, but that isn’t always true. So far, though, I think Charles Gould has the most.
Susan wrote: "I understood the sentence this way: “The cargadores would not come to work on days when there was a bull-fight, and even Nostromo couldn’t do anything much about it. But the morning after a festival, he got them back to work” followed by the description of how he did it. I took it that the cargadores were oversleeping/hungover after the celebrations of the day before."Ah, you are completely right Susan! Thank you! The "labor struggles" in the earlier sentence and the "went on strike" are not meant literally. Obviously since it happens the days after festivals, it's not a labor thing; he just means they're not going to work . . . just laziness and hangovers.
Not sure how I misread that! It looks obvious now as I go back to the passage and re-read it, but sometimes with all the characters and details, I guess my brain does glaze over a bit. :)
Also, I sense a great deal of irony, or at least as-yet unrealized significance, in the repeated phrase “material interests.” I don’t yet have a well-developed sense of Conrad’s attitude toward the political economy he represents, but from what I’ve read so far I anticipate increasing ambivalence and unresolved moral tension. Nostromo and the Goulds are the most obvious recipients of our sympathies, but I have mixed feelings toward them and I expect that to only increase with time.
Greg wrote: "I feel a great deal of uneasiness with the whole political economy and political reality being described. Of course, it can't be worse than the horrors of Guzman! But there are so many possibilities for rampant abuse in this romanticizing of the curative properties of "material interests" that don't apply only because the Goulds happen to be the unusual sorts of people that they are. ”As Greg points out, a great deal rests on the Goulds, and there are a number of unanswered questions around the safe space they’ve been able to establish around the mine.
To add a few more questions, will the Goulds continue to be as altruistically motivated as they were when they started out? Will dealing with a corrupt society affect them and their operation over time? Has it already?
Jacob wrote: "Also, I sense a great deal of irony, or at least as-yet unrealized significance, in the repeated phrase “material interests.” I don’t yet have a well-developed sense of Conrad’s attitude toward the..."“Material interests” seems to be a key phrase, especially for the Goulds (and therefore for the novel). Charles Gould in particular seems committed to them. As he told his wife in Chapter 6 of Part 1, “What should be perfectly clear to us…is the fact that there is no going back. Where could we begin life afresh? We are in now for all that there is in us.”.
New characters are introduced: Don Pepe, Father Roman, Paquita, and Miss Antonia Avellanos. And let’s not forget Hernandez and the bandits, who are not without honor.
Nostromo reappears several times, always with some drama. And Captain Mitchell hints at more to come.
A celebration of the coming of the railway is joined by the whole town of Sulaco. Mrs Gould gets a promise to exempt the Violas’ house/inn from the railway land takeover.
The Goulds’ development of the San Tome mine is retraced from jungle to a fully operational mine, including the excitement and danger of the first silver convoy to the port for shipment to San Francisco.
The back story of the “five-year” dictatorship of Don Vincente Ribiera is revealed, a story which holds at least part of the answer to why Nostromo and Captain Mitchell rescued him.
There is more background on the previous dictator Guzman Bento who left his mark on Costaguana and on Don Jose Avellanos.
And more political upheaval — war and revolution.
Discussion starters:
1) How is Charles Gould’s plan to bring stability to Costaguana working out?
2) How is the dictator Guzman Bento (who died before the mine concession was given to Charles Gould’s father) important to the story?
3) Silver buttons! What does this scene reveal about Nostromo?