May 2009 Archives

The discussion of THINGS FALL APART by Chinua Achebe last night May 11, 2009 in the Houston Central Market community room was attended by nineteen individuals from the Central Market Book Club who for the most part thoroughly enjoyed the book.

The group leader, Jackie led off with a question asking whether Okonkwo, the protagonist was a "good man". There were numerous responses that focused on the fact he was a good man relative to the tribal culture in which he lived. It was mentioned that he was ambitious and revered for his willingness to be violent when violence was needed. Also, his tendency to violence was a result of his being filled with anger as a response to his childhood insecurity because of the weakness of his father, Unoka who humilated Okonkwa because Unoka did not provide for his family very well. Unoka did not work or have money and instead, spent much of his life playing the flute and borrowing money that he could never pay back.

We are told that Okonkwo's father had bad chi and that as a result of his father's bad chi, Okonkwo also had bad chi. And that according to tradition, a member of Umuofia could overcome bad chi only by working very hard, thus the reason why Okonkwo was very ambitious and as described in the book was an extremely hard worker. He also demanded hard work from his children, in some cases, too harshly such as in the case of his oldest son Nwoye.

Also mentioned was Okonkwa's world view which was basically "black and white" with very little gray. Some thought his world was a rigid world especially regarding what constituted being a man and what constituted the proper way women and children should be treated. Though Okonkwa might have been rigid, he was also obedient to the laws, traditions and customs of his tribe. When he did over-reach because of his tendency to violence or anger such as beating his wife during Sacred week, or verbally insulting a neighbor at a tribal meeting when they didn't agree with him, he always apologized when it was appropriate (though not necessarily sincerely) or obediently succumbed to following the punishment as defined for his offense. In one case, when his supplies accidentally fired and killed someone, he was exiled with his family for seven years and he did not try to circumvent the punishment but gracefully heeded the terms of his exile according to custom.

Some of the problems Okonkwo encountered were due to the fact that he didn't communicate very well. One member in the group reminded us that he stammered. The person he was closest to was Ezinma, his favorite child who was the only child of his second wife. As a result of Ezinma being sickly, the reader is given the opportunity of observing Okonkwo as being a nurturing father for the first and only time in the book. Not being one who nurtures was considered a flaw of Okonkwo's by most of us but as described in the book, because he was so tormented, the reader is very sympathetic to him during this incident where he brings his daughter back to health with herbs after leaving his tent at least seven times looking for her in the night

As a result of questions from Jackie, we spent a fair amount of time discussing the paganism of the culture, the tribal nature, what type of government they had, how they ruled themselves, and what their policy was toward punishment when crimes were committed. We all agreed that their way was not the way that western civilization works. We discussed how political actions required collaboration with the elders of the tribe or else there was risk of severe punishment such as exile or being labeled an outcast. This requirement for collaboration with other tribal members was the main reason, we thought Okonkow's violent action against a messenger at the end of the book was so taboo. Not the killing itself but that he did it as a result of his own decision and not one agreed to in collaboration with other tribe members.

The reason I liked the book so much was because I thought the character of Okonkwo was very well developed especially in light of the book being a relatively short book. The seriousness he felt in undertaking his first experience at growing yams, the disappointment he suffered such as the timing of his return from exile causing him not to achieve the status within the tribe that he was seeking, the disappointment he suffered with the killing of his adopted son Ikemefuna, the disappointment he suffered when his oldest son Nwoye converted to Christianity and abandoned Okonkwo and the rest of his family, the fear he felt when his favorite daughter was ill, the joy he felt when he was visited by his best friend Obierika while in exile, the seriousness he felt in carrying out his duties as an egwugwu in the tribal ceremonies all formed a vivid picture of a decent man subject to flaws but doing the best he could trying to adhere to what he valued most in life, that being the customs and traditions of his heritage.

We also discussed at some length (among other things),

• the difference between the evangelical leaders - first Mr. Brown and then the more aggressive Reverend Smith.
• the existence or not of sexism and misogyny in the tribal culture, the phrase "Mother is Supreme" and how it was used
• the problems in the tribal culture in dealing with members with low status that led to the Christians having a base to develop their converts from
• The mistakes such as the tribe allowing the Christians to build in the Evil Forest
• the appeal of some results of the cultural exchange with the evangelicals such as the stores with palm oil for sale
• what was lost by the collonialization of the Nigerian tribes by the Europeans
• the writing style of the author which to several seemed in tune with an oral tradition rather than a written one

Our final comments centered on Okonkwo's death. Why did he have to die? What rings most true to me is that Okonkwo and the traditions of his culture were one and the same. Because the traditions were being destroyed and because other tribal members were not willing to fight as Okonkwo thought necessary as evidenced by the other messengers besides the one that Okonkwo killed being allowed to escape, he saw the end of the tribal traditions and thus because he identified so strongly with these, the end of his own life.

Looking forward to next months discussion on June 8th, 2009 of WATER FOR ELEPHANTS by Sara Gruen. For more info, check out http://www.houstonbookclubs.org/CentralMarket/

It is a bit difficult for me updating this blog with a description of our discussion last night, May 7th, 2009 at Houston Freed-Montrose Library but I'll do my best. The reason for the difficulty is that I was one of only a handful of attendees who didn't like the book very much. Twenty one of us met at our regular time and only about five out of the twenty-one thought the book was not very enjoyable. Normally I try to cover everyone's opinions but since I was in the minority, my opinion here is going to skew my description of the discussion I think. But I will overcome my concern and hope that what I write here will still adequately describe the discussion especially for anyone who would like to have a view of how our discussions work.

To explain why I disliked it, I will say that since we are affiliated with Great Books (http://www.greatbooks.org), I expect to either learn something from the books we read, maybe even truth and wisdom or for the book to have historical significance or for there to be significant beauty presented in some way. Originality is nice if that is included as well.

I thought after finishing reading that this book was pure entertainment. Not something I object to but if that is all it is, it becomes comparable to watching a TV sitcom or a romantic comedy at the movies. Having read the definition of "farce" from wikipedia , I learned that a farce is written to entertain and has a few standard features such as a chase scene at the end or some final scene where a catastrophe threatens. This fits exactly the outline of CONFEDERACY OF DUNCES in my opinion.

When the discussion finished, I had a few more thoughts about themes that might have been present that might have been more subtle and original adding more complexity perhaps than I at first thought. In particular, near the end of our discussion, we talked about the death of the author by suicide and some of the references in the book that were pertinent to that. My opinion was improved after our discussion since I developed more of an appreciation about how dark the humor really was though I don't plan to be reading this again anytime soon. For those not aware, getting more from a book after doing a second reading is a classic way to tell if something is a Great Book (note uppercase "G").

Our discussion was led very capably by Claudia who began by asking us about the first paragraph of the book where Ignatius J. Reilly, the protagonist is described as having a "fleshy balloon of a head", wearing a green hunting cap with green ear flaps that "stuck out on either side like turn signals indicating two directions at once" possibly indicating his mental state. Several gave their opinions of Ignatius by describing him as looking like a "baby Huey", as someone who loves to criticize everything, insecure with insecurity as a defense mechanism, narcisistic, as someone with no morals, and someone who didn't accept any responsibility for any problems in his life.

Claudia followed up her first question with a question about the relationship between Ignatius and his mother. It was mentioned that his mother was someone Ignatius could feel superior to even though she provided a roof over his head. We didn't seem to agree on whether there was love between the two. Some thought his mother really did love him but others thought she too easily arranged for his commitment to the mental hospital when he became an obstacle to her getting married and becoming more financially secure. One interesting comment was that it wasn't impossible to believe that his mother both loved him and was glad to get rid of him because he was such a burden. Claudia asked what the mother got out of the relationship since it seemed all one way. Some in the group thought that she got an identity, that she was very co-dependent. It seemed threatening to Ignatius when she made new friends with Santa and Claude and started moving outside of his control.

Also, one important point someone made regarding whether Ignatius loved his mother was that many of Ignatius actions indicated jealousy such as when his mother formed a relationship with Claude, who was financially stable and a potential candidate for marriage. We were reminded of how Ignatius tried to keep his mother from going out with Claude by expressing fear at getting robbed. How he locked himself in his room until she returned home trying to manipulate her with guilt.

When we were asked "what is Ignatius' world view", a particularly good response in my opinion was a reminder to the rest of us how Ignatius kept invoking the name of Fortuna, i.e. claiming that his bad luck was all due to fate, Fortuna thus being a mechanism for allowing him to take no responsibility for anything. Also, we're not asked to buy into Ignatius' world view, one where he doesn't consider himself a bum but does consider himself an intellectual.

One person said that as readers we don't like him, aren't meant to like him but that we think he's funny, at which time some (just a few) indicated they didn't think he was funny. The plot provides Ignatius the chance to criticize everything by going to places he says he hates but he really likes thus providing him with an unpleasant world that he loves to criticize and feel superior to. I thought that some how, the author was tricking us because the world of stupidity and absurdity that Ignatius criticizes is one that the reader also is critical of (for the most part). So my question was does that make us like Ignatius? Some in the crowd thought no because Ignatius actually liked living in this world and we (most of us anyway) wouldn't.

The character of Jones a black man struggling to avoid being jailed for vagrancy seemed very admirable to most of us. He seemed likable and the opposite of Ignatius. I think it was at this point where I brought up the issue of stereotypes being the primary mode of presenting the characters. We discussed why this was good and why this was bad. Jones was a victim of racial prejudice and a victim of greed by "whitey" here played by Lana, the white merciless, greedy bar owner.

I explained how characters in literature were an important part of my enjoyment and the characters in this book appeared to be like stick-figures. Some challenged me on this. Some indicated that the characters only needed to be developed to the point where the author could use them to give us a laugh. The author definitely wasn't trying to help us be empathetic or sympathetic with the characters, that seemed clear, except maybe for Jones who was being taken advantage by his employer, Lana the bar owner and maybe for Mr Levy who had a wife who was a parasite and a shrew. One perceptive attendee notes that the characters were "stick-figures" because Ignatius did not want to know these characters at any deeper level and this was his world, after all. He only wanted to know enough so that he could formulate his criticisms and formulating criticism seemed to be his "raison d'etre".

Other details of the discussion and/or the book which I won't be writing about here included:

• a patroman named Mancuso who was portrayed as dumb but who was rewarded in the end, in the meantime provided the author yet another opportunity to stereotype or at the very least to provide us a character who was not very interesting except for the humor of his situation.
• a passionate, promiscuous, young jewish woman named Myrna, the driving force that caused Ignatius to get into many of the absurd situations that provided the humor
• Mr Levy, Mrs.Levy, Trixie, Mr. Gonzalez and the events surrounding the pants factory where Ignatius worked until he got fired
• the homosexual character of Dorian Greene and his homosexual friends which allowed the author to portray yet more stereotypical characters
• Mr. Clyde, owner of the hot dog franchise where Ignatius worked and which was basically a plot device to get Ignatius into the French Quarter culture and encounter situations where he could act out yet more absurd behaviour with more absurd characters.
• The ending which caused us to have a lengthy discussion about whether we thought Ignatius changed, grew and became more emotionally mature by the end of the story. And how much hope did we have for his future.

Could this novel have taken place anywhere else in the world besides New Orleans, we were asked? Some thought yes, San Francisco or Houston would have worked. I brought up the theme of "kitsch" which I was very unsure about, it seemed to be ever-present in the novel but yet I couldn't really describe how. A couple of members of the group indicated that New Orleans was a very "kitschy" place.

Now as I look up the definition of "kitsch", I find that what I really think is that the whole novel is kitsch, referring to that definition of kitsch at http://www.wikipedia.org as something which denotes that type of art which is "aethetically deficient", which is "formulated by the needs of the market and given to a passive population"...and "serves its purpose of giving the audience leisure and something to watch" and most importantly in this case, something to laugh at.

Looking forward to our next meeting on June 4, 2009 at 6pm at Houston Freed-Montrose library when we will discuss TOO LOUD A SOLITUDE by Bohumil Hrabal. More details about the work and our group at http://www.houstonbookclubs.org/Montrose/