Insanity

It is irrefutable that Jean Rhys created a post-colonial master piece. Her ability to capture the truth of the West Indies through both the eyes of the oppressor and oppressed is astonishing, giving a real and deep emotional connection with the place. But she does so much more. She also engages with social injustice and economic issues. Most effectively she deals with the role of women in society, and the role of the colonized. And her most effective instants of this occurs through insanity. Through the use of character interactions, and personal development throughout the novel, Jean Rhys portrays Insanity as a fully justifiable and reasonable reaction as a way to highlight the oppressive nature of both the patriarchy and the colonizer.
Rhys characterizes insanity is a product of the various forms of oppression and seclusion Antoinette faces throughout her life. The first instances of such oppression occurs at Anette’s ad Mr. Mason wedding. Specifically through the gossip of the proper English women present at the wedding. She clearly does not fit in with these women, and is present to some nasty commentary on her mother and herself. This is the first instance of her struggle to keep her identity as a Creole. Her fortitude of mind comes from the familiarity of the setting, especially as it is a reflection of the identity she is attempting to inhabit. Thus, the next instance of her struggle for identity is present when the estate is “cleaned up”. She took refuge and found solace in the place she knew best, this is also true of her perception of herself as a native, but is challenged when the estate is made tidy and proper again. This is also reflective of her own attempts to be the perfect English women. Her conversion is unsuccessful. She is rejected by the black community, specifically when Tia throws a rock at her. This, though certainly not the first time she is rejected, it is the most meaningful rejection as she is has finally chosen who she wants to be. This leads to the seeds of insanity being placed in her head. This insanity is furthered by the “conventional” convent school. This is a version of indoctrination reduces Antoinette to little more than a drone. This starts her for her blow up. Her insanity happens in response to being locked up in the basement by Mr. Rochester, a man she was forced to marry by her brother. Who, after the passing of the only other man in the family, Mr. Mason Sr., is in control of all of her finance. So she marries Rochester, he for the money, and her because she has to. He then sleeps with another women, and when she is enraged and screams and attempts to hurt him, she is locked up. Now her “insanity” is not even that. It is, in more honest terms, a legitimate and appropriate reaction to the circumstance she is in. But because she begins to assert herself, by fully expressing her opinion and acting on it, she is insane, acting like a man, or someone with power. Because as a creole women, she is the literal bottom of the totem pole. But this is not the solitary example.
Rhys demonstrates the idea of insanity as a product of oppression and seclusion in Anette as well, not only to reinforce the idea, but to lend it a certain universality. The first example of this, is again, Annette’s marriage to Mr. Mason. After the ceremony is complete, she assumes a passive role in every sphere. Though it is unclear what role she held earlier, it is clear that she is now subjected to a dual oppressor. She does this out of necessity to provide for her family, but loses all identity and power. She becomes the English wife, as opposed to the strong creole women. She is then further derived of power as her husband has final say in all family decisions. As opposed to listening for to her and leaving he insists upon staying. No only stepping on her opinion, but spitting in the face of her local knowledge. The implications that she is inferior due to sex and a poor education from a backwards country occurs throughout the novel. This ultimately leads to the destruction of Coulibri and the deaths of Coco and Pierre. This finally drives her over the edge. She begins to rave and threaten and bite. She yells that she repeatedly told him to leave. And that in his arrogance he refused her. That her killed her child and ruined her life. She is put away, out of the sight of the public as a lunatic. But yet again, we see that her reaction is totally justified. Her screaming and crying, and yes even actual insanity is normal. But before she truly snaps, she acts out. She finally reasserts herself as dominating. And again, we see this classified as insanity. Her efforts, ignored until then, are to reflective of a role she can’t play. One of the colonizer or the man. Her insanity gives light to the cruel and relentless system that controlled her life. Effectively producing both a post-colonial and feminist text.
Possibly the most important point of this novel is not in the novel itself, it is instead the context of creation that lends this book all of its power and legitimacy. Jean Rhys herself is the power behind the book. She is able to bring the obvious flaws to light because she has lived the life Antoinette is in. She was a creole women who moved to Europe, and never belonged anywhere. She tried to be an actor, but was refuted for her accent. When asked she even said she had no sense of home. Couple that with failed marriages and a lot of drinking and the inspiration for the novels message and plot become obvious. And most of all, she is able to take this to bounds unknown by making the story the explanation for the classic Jane Eyre. To which, Antoinette plays counter-part. The dark reflection of both Jane Eyre and Jean Rhys.
In conclusion, Jean Rhys is able to effectively create a post-colonial and feminist text. She does this through her own life as well as characterization, conflict, and inter character interactions. The mental illness that befalls Annette and Antoinette is reflective of their circumstance, and of the tyrannical rule of the patriarchy itself. She is able to craft a beautiful world that the audience can engage with, then shatter it to emphasis the insanity only brought to light in this era of post colonialism.

WWS Outline

Prompt B
How is prejudice in its various forms evident in Wide Sargasso Sea? How does it contribute to the novel’s tragic outcomes?
Thesis Statement: The prejudices against women, Creoles, and people of color greatly influence the tragic outcome of the novel, and thus give it all of its value as a new voice.

Topic Statement 1: The prejudices against women and womanhood are highlighted through the patriarchal narration of Mr. Rochester.
• Sly, Intelligent, and Malignant Creature.
• I wanted her, but I did not love her
• [Amélie's] expression was so full of delighted malice, so intelligent, above all so intimate that I felt ashamed and looked away

Topic Statement 2: The superior attitude of the English to the Creole Results in the Primary conflict of the story, as revealed by the actions of Mr. Rochester.
• Her Dark, sad, long alien eyes.
• She was part of the mystery and magic
• I hated her
• Bertha
• "Her coffee is delicious but her language is horrible and she might hold her dress up. It must get very dirty, yards of it trailing on the floor."

"When they don't hold their dress up it's for respect," said Antoinette. "Or for feast days or going to Mass."

"And is this a feast day?"

"She wanted it to be a feast day."

"Whatever the reason it is not a clean habit […] And she looks so lazy. She dawdles about."

"Again, you are mistaken. She seems slow, but every move she makes is right so it's quick in the end."
• For a moment Antoinette looked very much like Amélie. Perhaps they are related, I thought. It's possible, it's even probably in this damned place.

Topic Statement 3: The prejudices against the Blacks is the ideal that sets the whole story in motion.
• You can vacation, but there is no point in leaving.
• "They invent stories about you, and lies about me. They try to find out what we eat every day."

"They are curious. It's natural enough. You have lived alone far too long, Annette. You imagine enmity which doesn't exist. Always one extreme or the other. Didn't you fly at me like a little wild cat when I said nigger. Not nigger, nor even negro. Black people I must say."

"You don't like, or even recognize the good in them," she said, "and you won't believe in the other side."

"They're too damn lazy to be dangerous," said Mr. Mason. "I know that."

"They are more alive than you are, lazy or not, and they can be dangerous and cruel for reasons you wouldn't understand."
• But how can she know the best thing for me to do, this ignorant, obstinate, old negro woman, who is not certain if there is such a place as England?

Antoinette

Wide Sargasso Sea's Antoinette is undoubtedly made an outsider. Caught between the traditional Englishmen and the Jamaican Natives, she exists without a culture of her own at the beginning of the emancipation act. This is done from the start, the very first sentence is “They say when trouble comes close ranks, and so the white people did. The Jamaican ladies had never approved of my mother, ‘Because she pretty like pretty self’”. So immediately the entire family are made into freaks, and odd half-breed that is worse than either half that comprises it. It goes on to state “She was my father’s second wife, far too young for him they thought, and, worse still, a Martinique girl.” This begins to give a cultural and historical context to their isolation. Bringing to bare not only the hatred of the oppressed, but also that of the nation. It begins to involve the bloody history of the islands, incorporating the battles fought over possession of these. This is the external medium of isolation, and it goes on with phrases like “White cockroach” and actions like the burning of Coulibri Estate and “I will live with Tia and I will be like her. Not leave Coulibri. Not to go. Not. When I was close I saw the jagged stone in her hand but I did not see her throw it. I did not feel it either, only something wet, running down my face. I looked at her and saw her face crumple as she began to cry. We stared at each other, blood on my face, tears on hers. It was as if I saw myself. Like in a looking-glass.”

But there is an internal aspect to her isolation as well. Her own fear and indecisive action make her a wholly independent being. One without culture or purpose. “Our garden was large and beautiful as that of the bible- the tree of life grew there. But it had gown wild. The paths were overgrown and the smell of dead flowers mixed with the fresh living smell.” Is used as parallel to her mental state. One in which she cannot reach one cultural purity. I was certain that hidden within the room (behind the big black press) there was a dead man’s dried hand, white chicken feathers, a cock with its throat cut, dying slowly, slowly.” Contextualizes her as an outsider even in the culture she choose to identify with later in the story.

Now the key question is why? Why make this confused little girl a victim of her circumstance? The answer is rather simple and comes from what the character becomes, not what she is. That little girl becomes the depraved and manic Bertha Mason of Jane Eyre. In doing this, Jean Phys gives a voice to the voiceless creole who fell into disrepute after the emancipation act. And to further this, she writes herself into Antoinette. The lack of identity, failed marriages, and the absence of a true home all stem from her own life. This is highly relevant to context as it is a similar context to Things Fall Apart. This solidly places it as the postcolonial literature, meant to shed light on the forgotten past. Bring to the world the injustice formerly painted as an uplifting from savagery and hardship. Thus the theme, revealed by the lack of the characters own ability to realize this, is the necessity of a personal identity. It does not matter where you come from, what matters is who you are. Allowing where you come from to dictate who you are leads only to hardships and strife, be it internal or external.

The Sheik

The Sheik is one of the most relevant characters of The thief and the Dogs. He is a symbol of redemption, as religious figures tend to be. And no he is not directly related to the church, but he is religious. The light that reveals Said character, dispute what Said thinks there is a rift between thoughts and interactions. And finally, ritualistic failing of the internal struggle between his perceived fate and free will.
His symbolism as redemption is clear from the start. Religion is traditionally painted as the great redeemer. Brothers and sisters repent your sins and have the evil washed off you in their acceptance and forgiveness of god, or ala, or Buda, or what have you. Halt your sins and ask for redemption, and the past is forgotten. It seems, that in a world where friend, mentor, and love all betray, redemption and acceptance are the one thing he needs. The Sheik offers nothing but wisdom and guidance to our hero lead astray. Well that as well as a bite to eat, and a roof to sleep under. But the abstract way he offered his advice and his forgiveness was beyond Said ability to see.
The Sheik, as mentioned before, brings some light into the question of Said Mahran. The Sheik, on numerous occasions, assists characterize Said in a more reliable way then Said does himself. From Said, we learn that he is the embodiment of the fair, the righteous, the vengeful, the great, and the infallible hero of the masses. By any definition a great man. Of course, we also learn from his untimely demise that he is delusional. So what do we make for our great hero? How do we know who he really is? The answer lies in characters like the Sheik. He as well as Nur, Illish, and Rauf give us our knowledge of Said, or that is the only knowledge to be trusted.  The Sheik gave wisdom and sympathy. Said seemed to acknowledge either. This allows us to see he is hot-headed and just a little thick. He is also stubborn and insensitive. This is revealed through his intolerance for things like prayer, even out of respect for the man who houses him, he refuses these things that seem unnecessary to him. He is of course progressive, wanted something more just, but his is cold and confrontational, not a comforting figure. All of this is revealed through the interactions Said has with the Sheik. And his mannerisms give us our insight into the theme of fate versus free will.
The fate versus free will is one theme thoroughly seen throughout. Now I readily admit to bias, I honestly believe the words spoken by Ben Franklin are true. He said “There are only two things that are certain, death and taxes”. So my thoughts on fate are skewed. But I believe that there is always a choice. Always an alternative for every decision. And each one creates even more alternatives, and the resulting chaos is the thing we call life. That is to say, every man women and child does have control over their destiny, their fate. Whatever they want to achieve is achievable, as long as they are willing to bid their time and be smart about it. In this way, a person can act in a singular way, to a singular goal. And this is where Said fails. His mind is made up from the moment he walks out of prison. Not only on his end goals but on his methods. Acting upon this, he led himself to the gallows. So my view is, there was never any set fate for the Egyptian Robin Hood. He decided his path and his goals and died by them. His fate was to follow his will to the letter. As was the fate of the other characters he fought with. And so he sealed his fate and lost the chance be live and die happy.

Significant Passage, Chapter 5

Nur is one of the most important characters in The Thief and the Dogs. Her necessity is twofold, presenting both a symbol and a humanizing factor. Thus the passage I choose is the one where Nur and Sa’id first see each other again in Mr. Tarzans café. She then agrees to assist Said in stealing a car from the young gentleman she has accompanied. And then later, goes onto vent her disgust and outrage with the former wife of Sa’id.

"How are you, Nur?" he asked.

               "As you can see," Tarzan said for her with a smile, "She's all light, like her name."

               "I'm fine," she said. "And you? You look very healthy. Only what's wrong with your eyes? They remind me of how you used to look when you were angry."

               "What do you mean?" he said with a grin.

               "I don't know, it's hard to describe. Your eyes turn a sort of red and your lips start twitching!"

               Said laughed. Then, with a touch of sadness, he said, "I suppose your friend will be coming soon to take you back?"

               "Oh, he's dead drunk," she said, shaking her head, tossing the hair from her eyes.

               "In any case, you're tied to him."

               "Would you like me," she said with a sly smile, "to bury him in the sand?"

               "No, not tonight. We'll meet again later. I'm told he's a real catch," he added, with a look of interest that did not escape her.

               "He sure is. We'll go in his car to the Martyr's Tomb. He likes open spaces."

               So he likes open spaces. Over near the Martyr's Tomb.

               Her eyelashes fluttered, showing a pretty confusion that increased as her gaze met his. "You see," she said with a pout, "You never think of me."

               "It's not true," he said, "You're very dear to me."

               "You're only thinking about that poor fish."

               Said smiled, "He forms a part of my thinking of you."

Though it may seem it at first, it becomes clear rather quickly that it is more than polite conversation. It is made clear that Nur understands Sa’id more than even we do, as people with access to his mind. When she mentions he looks mad, and is right, based on a twitching lip and prior experience from 4 years ago at the least. He is made genuinely sad when he thinks she has to go back and talk to the man she arrived with, whom she promptly brushes off. She then offers to ditch him in favor for Sa’id. Even from here, it is very clear she loves Sa’id, without even hearing the rant to come, or the comfort he finds in her later in the tale. She even flirts with him after he insists she has to stay with the person she arrived with. This seems rather forward, even for very old friends.

She furthers Sa’id humanity. To clarify, it is possible to say that Nur is a representation of Said happiness and trust, as he losses both with her later in the story. Without Nur, we would Said as nothing more than an animal, anger, vicious, driven, and blood hungry. Nur provides the good that is present in humans, emphasizing that we are at our best in small groups which we trust. With specific focus on Sa’id, Nur represents the light that died in him when he was put into jail. She also represent the future he cannot have, after his actions, but wants desperately. This connection is made very clear later, but is more than subtly hinted at in the fifth and sixth chapter. The manner of their interaction is indicative of at least a long term friendship, if not an actual physical attraction.

She is also useful as a symbol in the greater story arch. In the ideal of the whole, she represents the powerless. She is the manifestation of the public who suffers greatly in the senseless violence. And, those who continue to suffer after the reality of revolution and its dehumanizing products come about. This is better represented in near the end of the story, when she speaks to Said in her home. However, her turn to manipulation and survival in any manner possible, such as with the young rich man, is similar to the way the working classes were treated under Nasser, or so the story goes. She is hopeful but resigned later on, again as a reflection of the hopes of the people, and their subsequent disillusionment with the government that rose to “protect them”.

Stream of Consciousness

The Thief and the dogs is a work of beauty. The complexities in meaning, coupled with the dynamic and life like characters is truly astonishing. And the stream of consciousness technique employed on the novel server to augment that greatly.
Firstly it is necessary to outline the underlying allegory of the book. It is a tale of civil unrest and a failed revolution. That is not to say the revolution did not occur. In fact, as a result of this revolution Nasser took power in Egypt. However, it was held by the common folk that their ideals had been betrayed by exploitative intellectuals, who betrayed the ideals of the revolution in the face of censorship. These intellectuals are represented by Rauf. He was Said, the main characters former mentor. Said finds his teacher has become an ‘intellectual’ who sold his former communist, Robin Hood mix of values for a posh life style. Said is a thief, the Robin Hood and a revolutionary. He is rejected by the system he created, and, as a symbol, his daughter. Said who life after escaping prison is a pass of the government Mahfouz disagreed with as a revolutionary.
The narration of the novel was unique in Arabic literature at the time of its creation. It uses the stream of consciousness technique. This is highly relevant as we switch from third person, direct and indirect mental narration, and soliloquy. Each of these are reflect of differing levels of Said’s mind. The direct and indirect narration are his thoughts. They are eloquent and relatively stable, not making too many impossible or unexplained leaps to different issues. The third person narration is plainly put, and completely factual, with no instability represented. The soliloquy is very extravagant, and highly unstable, fliting from idea to unrelated idea. And is reflective of his sub and unconscious mind. Said is not only a revolutionary, he is the embodiment of the revolutions ideals. And his eventual insanity, as represented by increased use of soliloquy, is a representation of the failed ideals of the revolution. He begins seemingly stable, however it is quickly revealed that he is spiteful and vengeful. And at first he is rational and highly aware. However as the story progresses, we see more indirect and direct narration, then as mentioned before, the madness of the soliloquy. Though this crookedness is mentioned from the beginning, when his thoughts turn to his daughter on the very first page of the book. It is a representation of the slow descent of the public, at the hands of Nasser.
Though it provides a unique perspective, as seen above, it’s limited in several areas. Firstly, we only see one event. Our knowledge of the life Said held before is tainted by his own rage. The traditional character, the hero archetype, is dead in Said. And the traditional characterization, that which leaves no doubt, is not present. Normally, the characters of a book are well defined. Through traditional writing, the traits of a character are revealed by the other characters, or directly by the author. This produces a sort of certainty, and security in what is said of the characters. Through this, there is no such thing. It becomes clear that Said thoughts and actions are desperate, so as a character, we really know nothing about him, except that he is insane. And the traditional story died. The hero often seek to rid the world of some great injustice, and we see his or her life from its humble beginnings, to the extravagant end of relevance after lessons have been learned and everyone has grown. Again, this is not represented. But the most important point is, in this story neither of these things are relevant. Both the nontraditional characterization and the inconclusive plot are reflections of real life. There is no certainty how the failed revolution will affect the affairs of Egypt and maybe the world. There is no way of really forming an authentic opinion of Nasser and his revolution now, with the past as biased as it is.
The final thing to look at is the relation to Things Fall Apart. There are two main points for this relation. Both are a counter to and existing social norm, and both are told in the same way. Things Fall Apart is a counter narrative to the demonization of colonized lands that occurred until several years before colonial powers retreated. The Thief and the Dogs is a counter revolutionary tale. It speaks of the failings of its past, much as the counter narrative brings to light the failing of others to recognized basic human rights, as the revolution did. And both are told as if one with the former culture. Things fall apart is styled as a traditional Igbo tale, on why things are the way they are. It language and unusual plot progression reflect on of the many tales told in the story. And Thief is similar to the stories told by bards in Arabic culture.

Culture

Culture. The only way to sum up any entire peoples thoughts, feelings, actions, history, and customs in one word. The beauty and extravagance held by just one of these beacons of light is indescribable. And it can only really be described and understood through direct experience. But in order to be compassionate beings, we need to see and understand the cultures that may not be our own. This is done through things like documentaries and stories. Most importantly in the stories category are books. But are they accurate? Can one really take some much and put it between two covers? The answer, in short, is no. At least not completely. It is undisputedly valuable to learn and understand the customs and meanings behind other culture. What better way than to hear the tales of tragedy and awe that exist in the world? What better way than to see the politics and intrigue behind every story? But there are two major issues. First, everything is subject to the interpreter’s interpretation. As is evident from the issues raised by Feng Tang in 2014. He retranslated “Stray Birds” a collection of 300 poems by Tangore. He did not except this to be his most controversial work, as his previous works were known to be blunt to say the least. However, this work was called vulgar on multiple occasions by multiple people. All that done on the basis of three slightly, what is the word, sensual poems. He received multiple death threats and media heat from both hi native China and India as well. Though not necessarily a bad thing, it does remind us that the translator has the ultimate power overt the hidden meanings and inflections in the work. The second, and far more dangerous problem, is the loss meaning. It is often said that there are words that cannot be directly translated. For example, in German there is a word for the feeling of being lost in the woods. This word cannot be directly translated as it also implies all of the emotions that can occur in that situation. Another example is the use, in context, of Igbo words in Things Fall Apart. This is done as there was not suitable substitute in English. This furthers the previously made point. This is not to say it is not valuable to study other cultures and translated works. As was said in the earlier, there is much to be learned, but the reader must be aware of the possible loss or distortion of meaning before studying such works.