It’s interesting that these two books about abolitionists—white
abolitionists driven by religious motives, denying themselves earthly luxuries
for the sake of their convictions—are narrated by characters who support the
abolitionists, more or less, but are leagues more self-centered and more
interested in self-preservation (and self-love in one case) than in political
and social causes. In THE SIGNATURE OF ALL THINGS, Alma respects her sister’s
belief, the way her sister denies herself things like lace, a large house, good
food, that Alma herself would never think to give up for the sake of others. And
yet Alma doesn’t seem to give slavery more than ten minutes of thought in the
entire novel. Her concern with her sister’s cause is whether it will put her in
danger from people who don’t agree with her practices of educating and raising
black and white children together. She doesn’t really think about whether,
morally or philosophically or rationally, what her sister is doing is right.
She just wants to know that she won’t be in danger.
And really, Onion feels much the same. He doesn’t want to be
put in danger, and stays with John Brown mostly for expediency and for lack of
better options; away from John Brown he could easily be thrown back into
slavery, and at least with him he has the promise of excitement. He feels deep
down that slavery is wrong, but he also mentions twice that he never went
hungry as a slave, and didn’t give much thought to his own bondage before John
Brown violently removed him from it. He gives a lot of thought to the social
structure of black people in his society—the mulatto prostitute, the
muscle-bound yard enforcer, the free black people in the North who support them
or forget their cause, the noble rebellion-leaders who die for the freedom they
can never have—and this makes him more worthy a protagonist than Alma, who
gives a lot of thought to moss societies but doesn’t seem too concerned with
the society of Tahitians she encounters. How have the Tahitians accepted
Christianity and the presence of missionaries within their society full-time?
What does it mean that the Tahitians don’t have a strong concept of personal
property? How do they treat animals? What is the role of children in this
society, who never work but also seem to be some of the most resourceful? All
of these issues are touched upon by description of events but never explored
intellectually by Alma. Alma observes, and records, and learns to operate
within this society with some effort, but doesn’t consider what it means that
this society exists in the same world as her own, with its very different
strictures and mores. And right when the Tahitians seem about to accept her,
drawing her into their rugby game and roughhousing with her as they would one
of their own, she has a personal epiphany and leaves, without giving another
thought to the people she leaves behind. I touched on this in my last review,
but I really don’t think that Elizabeth Gilbert thought about the inner lives
and motivations and desires of the Tahitians she describes. I’m sure she did a
lot of research, but the only Tahitian who comes alive off the page is Tomorrow
Morning. And I think that’s a flaw in an author, using this island interlude to
advance the development of only one character. Compare it to the deeply
enlivened Ivu’ivu in THE PEOPLE IN THE TREES. Good lord.
I agree with the judge, here. My winner: THE GOOD LORD BIRD.
Read the official Tournament judgment here.
No comments:
Post a Comment