At the start let me state that this is not a review of the book, although some traits of a review may have forced itself in. Plus, if a book encourages a further discussion with one's self, I guess that too is tantamount to the success of the book. Anyway, let's start with a quote from the book:
“I considered the northern white stance against slavery. How much of the desire to end the institution was fueled by a need to quell and subdue white guilt and pain? Was it just too much to watch? Did it offend Christian sensibilities to live in a society that allowed that practice? I knew that whatever the cause of their war, freeing slaves was an incidental premise and would be an incidental result.”
It is the second time in 3-4 months that I came across a similar argument regarding injustices set upon a group of people by another group. The previous instance was in Babel, by R.F. Kuang. In fact it was subtitled "The Necessity of Violence". In James too there is a justification of the necessity of violence, for the victim had no other alternative, and no amount of guilt, confession, or 'righting the wrong' decades or even a hundred years or so past the actual events could bring solace to those who suffered. I am aware of only two books which hold such a stance (these two), and there is in all probability many more.
“I did not look away. I wanted to feel the anger. I was befriending my anger, learning not only how to feel it, but perhaps how to use it.”
In life, after a long time of the actual event, a mental revisit gives time to reflect on how the victims should've reacted to minimize the damage that they endured, if not actually save themselves from death. I see this trait in James, as well as in Babel. Freshly upon reading Babel I felt that it was a book which served little purpose in rebuilding bridges, and said as much. It is not about rebuilding bridges at all - for they have been built decades back thankfully. But rather a personal reflection, a guilt trip for the sake of one's ancestors - those who were severely wronged. Everett uses the ideas of Voltaire's Polygenism, or that of John Locke in discussion with James in his dreams, to further press home, what to me are the main grounds for this book. True, that Everett has used the platform of a classic text to build his alternative narration ( and largely a good one at that). But my reading of the the intent of this novel ( or even novels like this), is to revisit those grave injustices (in which stereotyping of a certain group of people appears to be prevalent ) and ipso facto hint a blame to ones' ancestors for not fighting hard enough, or for not fighting with the necessary skill set (i.e. cleverness, violence, ruthlessness).
One could extend this argument against the eating of meat, I reflect. Although we are unable to read the minds, and hence the fear of animals from their senses, beyond a level which is obvious to humanity - if ever there comes a time that advanced technology offers a chance for us to read their minds (and by that time eating meat is more abhorred than now - similar to a level racism has reached now), maybe we all would be revealed to be as guilty as Judge Thacher in "James" or Letty Price in "Babel". We wouldn't be able to argue that we didn't know enough to counter-argue - we will only be able to accept that we weren't brave enough to revolt, or our love for the meat of other animals was too strong to stand against our sense of compassion, and fairness. I will plead guilty even now.
Maybe as humanity reaches exaltation, it carries with it the collective guilt of many people as the fuel to drive it that far.
No comments:
Post a Comment