Classics and the Western Canon discussion
Conrad, Nostromo
>
Week 4 — Part 2, Chapters 3-5
date
newest »
newest »
It seems like the novel has taken a ninety-degree turn and is now about a new set of characters. What the hell is going on?
Martin Decoud is a particularly good addition I think, as he adds a voice of open cynicism that would definitely be one of the natural reactions to the situation there.Side question: I'm a little confused by the dynamite business at the end of chapter 5. What is Charles Gould implying? I can think of several possibilities, but none fully satisfy me:
1. He has dug so "deep" that it requires dynamite to get out the silver? But no, this wouldn't be a "extraordinary trump card."
2. If the worst happens, he can dyamite the gorge to destroy the mine? That would be a sort of "weapon" that's only played "at the end of the game," a "last card to play."
I guess it's #2? How did everyone else take it?
I love the quote by Simon Bolívar: "America is ungovernable. Those who worked for her independence have plowed the sea." Such a wonderfully evocative way to express his despair. Sometimes I feel that way about the USA lately, ha ha.
It reminds me of the haunting poem by Pablo Neruda, "The Builder," a lovely extended metaphor that has a different answer to despair of political conditions. It ends with the lines:
"I saw the beginning of the ship,
I touched it, smooth as the sacred fish--
it quivered like the harp of heaven,
the woodwork was clean,
it had the scent of honey.
And when it did not come back,
the ship did not come back,
everyone drowned in his own tears
while I went back to the wood
with an ax naked as a star.
My faith lay in those ships.
I have no recourse but to live."
I was intrigued by the symbolism in the last paragraph of Chapter IV showing us "the material train returning from the campo" in charged, military terms. It gives us a premonition of a coming conflict, while tying the conflict to one of its underlying material causes: the silver of the mine. It's got me wondering about other examples of symbolism that I might have missed in my rather hasty reading.
Greg wrote: "I love the quote by Simon Bolívar: "America is ungovernable. Those who worked for her independence have plowed the sea." Such a wonderfully evocative way to express his despair. Sometimes I feel that way about the USA lately, ha ha..."So, what exactly does "plowed the sea" mean? Taken on a huge task in spite of, or maybe fully aware of, the impossibility of success? Or maybe the revolutionaries have done the impossible--achieving independence, and now the prospect of governance looms. Where's the sense of hope that inspired the revolution? Nostromo demonstrates the rabble of competing interests and the tenuous peace that Gould envisions for the success of his interests. No one is "plowing the sea" for the greater good. Sizing the vision is critical. But, can there be a hero without the outsized goal of "plowing the sea"?
Suzann wrote: "So, what exactly does "plowed the sea" mean?."To me, ploughed the sea means something completely fruitless and nonsensical to do.
The prow of a ship pushes the sea apart as though by a plow, but a second after it passes, the sea flows right back in. To run a ship back and forth across an ocean, hoping to form a lasting divot in which seeds can be sown is a silly thing to try; it will never happen. Seeds can't be sown there in that way, and the ocean can't be prepared in that manner for a crop. That's what Bolivar meant by the statement in his despair, I assume. That fits with his calling the country "ungovernable." It's also something that the most cynical character, Decoud, repeats - and the quote fits his world view. He sees the whole enterprise as pointless
That doesn't mean it's true that the enterprise is completely fruitless. Clearly, that is not the Goulds' perspective at all! And also clearly, Bolivar's wonderfully evocative image is not strictly true either. What is being done there is having many effects, for good and ill, even if one might despair of forming something good and lasting because of the great difficulty.
Roger wrote: "It seems like the novel has taken a ninety-degree turn and is now about a new set of characters. What the hell is going on?"There is an element of surprise in the introduction of Martin Decoud and Padre Corbelan, isn’t there? I almost felt as if Conrad had been holding out on the reader in not revealing them sooner.
Greg wrote: ". Side question: I'm a little confused by the dynamite business at the end of chapter 5. What is Charles Gould implying?”Under the glitter and ceremony of the soldiers’ embarcation, the cold fact is the pending military action is a high risk gambit for the Goulds and the Avellanos and their side.
Mrs Gould listening to Martin Decoud reacts “with a sort of exasperation. Nobody ought to have known better than himself that the first cast of dice had been already thrown long ago in a most desperate game…Something like a slight faintness came over her, and she looked blankly at Antonia’s still face, wondering what would happen to Charley if that absurd man [Barrios] failed.” And there are several references in these chapters to the strain and apprehension Don Jose is under.
Based on that, I take Señor Gould’s remarks about his store of dynamite as a serious threat. “The Gould concession has struck such deep roots in this country, in this province, in that gorge of the mountains, that nothing but dynamite shall be allowed to dislodge it from there. It is my choice. It’s my last card to play.”.
What do others think?
Jacob wrote: "I was intrigued by the symbolism in the last paragraph of Chapter IV showing us "the material train returning from the campo" in charged, military terms. It gives us a premonition of a coming confl..."The image of the train is quite striking. I don’t usually think of a train running on its track as “warlike”. But apparently, the “new loan connected with railway development, and the colonization of vast tracts of land in one great financial scheme” are seen by the opposing political side as the Blancos plotting “with foreigners for the surrender of the lands and the slavery of the people.”. So even the railway is involved in the revolution. And the symbolism you point out gives a deeper layer of meaning.
Jacob wrote: "It's got me wondering about other examples of symbolism that I might have missed in my rather hasty reading. “
I’m reading each section two-three times and am sure I’m still missing some of the richness of the text. It gives me some sympathy for the characters in this week’s reading who don’t understand quite what’s going on like Martin Decoud and Mr Scarfe.
The image that struck me this week was the contrast between General Montero’s previous appearance in his glittering dress uniform and the description of General Barrios who assumes a disdain of military trappings because his uniforms are always pawned to pay his debts (or some of them). The one could be seen as a traitor to his uniform, and the other is described as faithful to his side. “But the faction Barrios joined needed to fear no political betrayal. He was too much of a real soldier for the ignoble business of buying and selling victories.”. Appearances are deceiving, or are they?
One “benefit” of Conrad’s method here of circling back to the same events in greater depth and detail is that we know the Ribiera administration is going to lose eventually. We also have a good idea what happens to the losing side in Costaguana. But we don’t know how or what characters/details Conrad may still be holding back. There’s at least one new twist coming up in the next reading ;).
Greg wrote: ".. It reminds me of the haunting poem by Pablo Neruda, "The Builder," a lovely extended metaphor that has a different answer to despair of political conditions. It ends with the lines:."This is lovely, Greg. Thanks for sharing Neruda’s words with us. As a South American writer/citizen, he certainly knew the political world of Nostromo, but his words provide a counterpoint.
Suzann wrote: “Where's the sense of hope that inspired the revolution? Nostromo demonstrates the rabble of competing interests and the tenuous peace that Gould envisions for the success of his interests. No one is "plowing the sea" for the greater good. Sizing the vision is critical. But, can there be a hero without the outsized goal of "plowing the sea"? Great question. And are there heroes/heroines in this book at all? I don’t think the verdict is in yet.
I tried to join in the discussion at first but got a little? delayed by being hospitalized with a brain aneurysm rupture. Finally got round to reading the novel and Susan's list of characters and a spanish-english dictionary is a lot of help to guide me through the complicated plot, and I'm catching up.
I think that Conrad is trying to hide the main characters motives at the beginning so that it will unveil as the plot reaches the climax.
I'm looking forward to how Nostromo will play into this process and how he meets his fate hinted by Captain Mitchell. I'm also waiting to see how Decoud, although trying so hard to stand aloof and cynical of the various people's motives (whether political, religious, ideological or material), gets more and more tangled up in the affairs by another motive that he can't make fun of: love. I'm more confused as to how Mr Gould's motive might turn out to be. His 'argument' may be a last resort defense against both the capitalist enslavement or the corrupt government.
What I'm confused about is how the Engineer-in-Chief plays into this.
Borum wrote: "I tried to join in the discussion at first but got a little? delayed by being hospitalized with a brain aneurysm rupture. Finally got round to reading the novel and Susan's list of characters and ..."
Sorry to hear about your illness, Borum. Hope you are recovering well.
Borum wrote: "I tried to join in the discussion at first but got a little? delayed by being hospitalized with a brain aneurysm rupture. Finally got round to reading the novel and Susan's list of characters and ..."
Sorry. I've been a bit behind in catching up on comments.
I, too, am very sorry to hear about your recent hospitalization, Borum. I hope you have a full and speedy recovery. I wish you well.
Borum wrote: "I tried to join in the discussion at first but got a little? delayed by being hospitalized with a brain aneurysm rupture. Finally got round to reading the novel and Susan's list of characters and ..."
Welcome back, Borum. I'm so sorry to hear you've been ill and am glad to hear you are feeling better and joining us for Nostromo.
That's an interesting suggestion that Conrad is deliberately holding back on character's motivations. He certainly keeps us guessing re the title character in particular.
The Engineer-in-Chief is unique in being the only significant character known only by his title. At least so far, we don't even know his first name. To me, this implies that perhaps he matters more to the story in his official role than as an individual, but I wonder if anyone else has other thoughts?
Susan wrote: "Borum wrote: "I tried to join in the discussion at first but got a little? delayed by being hospitalized with a brain aneurysm rupture. Finally got round to reading the novel and Susan's list of c..."
It gave me an impression of a more practical, business-like attitude or a more neutral stance in the political matters from a foreigner's point of view without any personal interest.
Borum wrote: "It gave me an impression of a more practical, business-like attitude or a more neutral stance in the political matters from a foreigner's point of view without any personal interest. " It's interesting that it's the head of the railway who remains nameless. The steamship company and the mine are very much headed by human individuals.
Susan wrote: "It's interesting that it's the head of the railway who remains nameless. The steamship company and the mine are very much headed by human individuals."I think you're right. Or at least I don't remember the railway being headed by anyone; not even a company or a country. I would assume it was built and is run by European colonists, since that was how it worked back then, but I don't think that's made clear in the text one way or the other.
I wonder if Conrad leaving it open is significant.
Aiden wrote: "Susan wrote: "It's interesting that it's the head of the railway who remains nameless. The steamship company and the mine are very much headed by human individuals."I think you're right. Or at le..."
I believe the railway company is English, and we get names for some of the minor characters like Mr Scarfe, but not for the Engineer-in-Chief. I’ve been interested in how Conrad uses names and titles for his characters. Particularly for politicos, the titles keep changing, mirroring the changing political situation in the country. For the Engineer-in-chief, perhaps use of the title reflects the stability of that particular material interest?
Susan wrote: "Aiden wrote: "Susan wrote: "It's interesting that it's the head of the railway who remains nameless. The steamship company and the mine are very much headed by human individuals."I think you're r..."
The titles not only reflects the instability of the political situation but also seem to be a tongue-in-cheek reference to how the politicians seem to exaggerate their importance and mock their grandiose aspirations.
The first to appear is Martin Decoud, Don Jose’s godson. Ostensibly, he’s returned to Costaguana from France as an executive member of a patriotic small-arms committee, but the real attraction is Antonia. Now, Don Jose has persuaded him to produce a pro-Ribiera newspaper, The Porvenir (The Future), and the paper provides an excuse for him to stay in Sulaco, at least temporarily. Decoud has an ironic attitude about Costaguana politics and a lot to say about the state of affairs.
The second character is Don Jose’s brother-in-law and Antonia’s uncle, Padre Corbelan. He has been a missionary to the Indians, but is now Vicar-General of the Sulaco cathedral and advocating strongly for the claims of the church. “His injudicious zeal for the temporal welfare of the Church was damaging the Ribierist cause. It was common knowledge that he had refused to be made titular bishop of the Occidental diocese till justice was done to a despoiled Church.” He appears to have great certainty in the righteousness of his positions.
These two characters immediately step to the forefront in this week’s reading and introduce two new perspectives on Costaguana politics. (All the new characters are included in the updated character list in the Schedule and Background section.)
Your thoughts/observations/questions?