Okonkwo, Tragic Heroes and Storytelling

Blog Prompts:

-Why does Achebe use a tragic hero for his protagonist in his colonial counter narrative?

-How does Achebe use Okonkwo to develop specific things in TFA?

In Chinua Achebe's novel Things Fall Apart, the protagonist Okonkwo is a tragic hero. With his choice of a main character, Achebe deviates from the traditional aim of the colonial counter narrative (which is to write against the colonizers), and instead fulfills his aim of making us understand and identify with this culture. 

The classic trope of the tragic hero is one that was (and still is) very common in literature, with a host of European examples including Antigone, Oedipus, Hamlet etc. Most western audiences already know the basic story of a tragic hero, and I believe this is one of the reasons why Achebe 'chose' this role for Okonkwo. By structuring the novel in a way that 'fit' the minds of consumers of western media, Achebe established a stronger connection with them. This is because the general "scaffolding" is the same - except a different culture has been applied. In this sense it balances the 'culture-shock' that the audience might experience with a predictable (to a certain extent) plot line, making them more receptive to the novel. This may even have been instrumental in making Things Fall Apart stand out as a colonial counter narrative. 

Another question that crops up when considering Okonkwo's role as a tragic hero is whether that placement really was Achebe's choice to make. The author has been quoted saying "When you're an African the world is upside down". In his observation that the world is not the same for people of his culture, the role as the tragic hero may have been the only one available to a protagonist in this context.  This is especially significant when considering the view that Okonkwo is symbolic of his Igbo culture. Just like the cultures, belief systems and methods of government of many tribes were destroyed by the colonizers, so will any African character whose life tells a counter colonial narrative have to be characterized by the ending of a tragic hero. 

For example, we know that Obierika is known to challenge the belief systems of his own faith (Chapter 13, last passage), albeit only internally. If one character consciously questions Igbo society, how can we be sure that others are not doing the same? After all, Obierika still respects the customs of their society, so outwardly things seem fine - as is the case with most of the other tribe members. This doubt of Igbo customs can be translated into peripeteia - an error in judgment on behalf of the clan. While the individual flaws and reversal of fortunes may be different, the concluding fate of all tribe members was the same - being resigned to submission by the colonizing forces. 

It seems that almost any character within this context (of colonization) could fit into the tragic hero mold - especially when the focus is telling the story of the subaltern people. Supporting this were the contradictory Igbo values of the individual and the community, which provided the perfect grounds for their culture to falter (since it wasn't well defined). The tragic hero seems to become almost default to telling this story truthfully. 

Okonkwo's role as a mirror to the fate of his culture was one of the major themes he was used to develop. His internal struggle also develops a 'real' character, and an identification within any audiences with Okonkwo. His struggles do not outwardly seem like things we will identify with (e.g. following the advice of an Oracle), but the umbrella of 'individual vs. society' under which they occur allow us to relate. I personally believe this is the most significant thing Okonkwo was used to develop - a genuine desire to hear someone else's story. Even someone not from our culture or time period. Achebe devotes half the book to doing this, and it could be argued that even without the arrival of the colonizers, Okonkwo's narrative alone would still have made a fascinating read. 

Shared Inquiry Discussion: An African Voice

Discussion Questions to Get us Started.

(Interpretive questions are marked with an 'I', Evaluative an 'E' and Factual an 'F')

• I: Why do you think Achebe wasn't aware of the resonance that 'Things Fall Apart' would have on other cultures while he was writing it? 

• F:According to Achebe, when does literature perform its wonders?

• E: Is it necessary to "allow yourself" to identify with people in a story in order for us to do so? Is it possible to avoid identifying? 

• I: Based on the third question, why did Achebe title the novel "Things Fall Apart"? 

• E: In the context of a nation, do the "rules of independence" really have to be learnt? Why or why not? 

• F: What was the European portrayal of Africans in literature during colonial times? Why was this so? 

• I: What does storytelling have to do with power? Explain. 

• E: Do you know any examples of stories that have created a "shift in power"? 

• I: Why do some African writers choose to tell their stories in English? 

• I/E: Have the opinions held by Europeans on Africans in colonial literature been eradicated? Are there any examples? 

• I: Does the place where a story is written have an effect on a story? What?

Most Meaningful Takeaway.

In today's discussion on the cultural and literary contexts of Achebe's work, the main idea that interested me was that of identification. 

We discussed this from a variety of perspectives, looking at who Achebe identified with, which cultures were able to identify with the book, and even who amongst ourselves could personally identify with his story. 

One of the interesting points that came up was whether or not Achebe could really identify with Nigeria. We argued that this 'bond' to his country may not be as strong -  especially keeping in mind the historical context of the country's unification, which was a product of British colonization. This, we felt, might explain why he emphasized the "great diversity of vibrant peoples" when speaking about Nigeria in his interview. 

With this in mind, our view of the text changes. I realized anew how important the relationships within a village were - because in the context of those people 'Nigeria' does not exist. Our modern affiliation and patriotism to our countries can be applied to how the characters felt about their clan - perhaps giving us a better idea of how strong and important these bonds were. I believe that drawing these comparisons (e.g. ozo = political figure?) helps us to better understand how the characters thought and acted. It also gives an added severity to Okonkwo's exile. 

When discussing whether we personally identified, it was also very interesting to see varied answers depending on different cultural backgrounds. Another point that was raised was that identifying with these characters does not necessarily always feel good, for what if it is oppression that we are identifying with? For example, in the book Okonkwo hangs himself in the end - a depressing conclusion if readers could relate to his struggle against society. I also thought that perhaps Achebe intended this as a taunt, daring readers who also felt oppressed to change their ending and warning them of what would happen if they remained inert against the oppressive forces. 

333 Words

The Speech: A Practice Paper One Commentary

Practice Paper 1 Commentary

Before Beginning:

The speech we will be analyzing today is General George Patton's speech to the Third Army on the 5th of June 1944, the eve of the Allied invasion of France (Normandy Landings/D-Day). This analysis is different to the one I completed for my FOA, which used the format found here. I chose to analyze this speech again, because of it's obvious success. It's direct aims were achieved since D-Day was successful, which is not something many speeches can boast. A version of the speech can be found here.

Commentary:

General George Patton's address to the third army can be identified as a speech. When reading it we see that it contains elements which are designed to be spoken, such as direct orders to the audience - 'be seated'. The text convention is also evident in his direct appeals to the audience with 'you'; 'we' and 'you men' recurring. Throughout Patton's speech, his main goal is to incite patriotic feelings in the soldiers and instill in them faith in the army. He accomplishes this using multiple literary devices, which we will now explore in detail.

Even out of context and without a title, we can assume that this speech is addressing an army unit. Phrases like 'through your army career' and 'each man must...think...of his buddy fighting beside him' also lead us to that conclusion. We can also conclude that the soldiers are American, as seen from Patton's usage of pathos in 'Americans love to fight'. These soldiers are also men, as the General repeatedly refers to them as 'you men'. Without a context these clues can thus lead us to guess that the speech was given at a traditional time when it was still solely men in the military.

The purpose of this speech, as we stated earlier, is to incite patriotic feelings in the soldiers and make them believe in the army. Patton's purpose is obvious through his opening statements, where he convinces the men that real Americans would fight. Later on, his repeated references to the army 'as a team' and the cohesive bravery of the men working as a whole, also serve to instill faith in the soldiers.

The recurring themes throughout the text are those of aggression and bravery, and they are  reinforced through the content of the speech. The text opens with a description of the American love of fighting, which rouses the soldiers. This appeal through patriotism is especially effective in the context of this speech - a world war. Patton follows this with a passage on death, which again is relevant as that was likely the greatest fear on the soldiers' minds then. After this, he tells short stories of soldiers who have died (German) and extremely strong soldiers ('the lieutenant in Libya') that reinforce the severity of what Patton is asking of these men. He continues his speech by emphasizing on the importance of every single man in the army, not just the combat soldiers. This is another clue on his audience, which broadens it to include more than just the troops. Patton carries on with two more stories of outstanding bravery that he has witnessed, and finally ends off with military strategy and a memorable ending (a punchline?).

The minimal emphasis on actual military strategy reinforces the thesis, as it proves that the speech is designed to mentally prepare the soldiers, by making them believe in the army and in their country. This is supported by the many real life examples given by Patton. These allowed the soldiers to interact with the emotions aroused in a more direct way (they know exactly how to fulfill his orders, i.e. what constitutes a 'brave' man).

Apart from the content of the speech, the themes of aggression and bravery are also enforced through the repeated swearing that punctuates Patton's speech. According to linguist Steven Pinker, one of the reasons swearing may be used for is to create a light-hearted atmosphere, and this is what Patton has done here. By using words that the soldiers themselves are more likely to use, the General established himself as 'one of them' - thereby lending authenticity to everything he says. By quoting statements from his troops, e.g. 'chickensh*t drilling', Patton again establishes the friendly mood.

When combining this trusting, familiar mood with the aggressive, definite tone, one gets an interesting effect - allowing Patton's high modality statements, like 'when you get home', to be made believable. When recounting his experiences however, the aggressive tone allows Patton to underline his position as the authority. He also makes statements like 'drilling and discipline must be maintained in any army', which makes sure the men don't get too chummy, and still take his word seriously. Aggressiveness is also shown in how strongly the General speaks against the weak. He says 'kill off the goddamn cowards' even when speaking of his own men. The profanity's importance in creating a friendly mood comes in making Patton seem like a part of the team - which directly supports his purpose of instilling faith in the men for the army. The aggressive tone of the speech, on the other hand, is instrumental in rousing the soldiers to be patriotic to their country.

Throughout this speech, Patton employs literary devices very frequently, most for the purpose of drawing attention to his cause: getting the soldiers to fight fearlessly. One of the most common ones is ethos, where Patton says 'All real Americans love the sting and clash of battle'. This affects the men emotionally by stating that if they did not act, they would not be real Americans.  The later sentence 'That's why Americans have never lost, nor ever will lose a war, for the very thought of losing is hateful to an American' is an example of conduplicatio, and draws attention to how much the soldiers must not lose.

Later on, the hyperbole 'every man is frightened at first in battle' also creates a more inclusive environment, encouraging even the fearful soldiers to fight. Patton also says 'Some men are cowards, yes! but they fight just the same', using the literary device of expletive to emphasize on the fact that the men continue to fight despite being scared. The later sentences 'some get over their fright in a minute...some take an hour...for some it takes days' are examples of anaphora, and they draw attention not to themselves (since they are all the same), but to the fact (again) that real army troops will battle no matter what they are feeling. Further down, there is also amplification in 'instant obedience to orders and to create constant alertness'.

Patton also uses asyndeton to draw attention to the unity of an army in 'lives, sleeps, eats, fights as a team'. When he mentions 'I actually pity those poor sons of b*tches we are going up against. By God, I do!', faith is instilled in the men through the fact that Patton, a figure who has established himself as having a lot of experience (by recounting stories), believes they are worthy. Patton also uses hypophora, in his questioning the audience 'Where in the hell would we be now?' without every member of the army. This sentiment is reinforced with his metaphor 'All the links in the chain pulled together and that chain became unbreakable'.

Finally, Patton says his last paragraph with very high modality, even saying 'with your grandson on your knees', implying that the men will go home and they will have grandsons. This is an uplifting note to end on - reminding the soldiers of the personal things they are fighting for, which may be more direct than patriotism and faith in the army.

The main structure of the speech is in its opening and closing statements. Apart from this, the body flows smoothly but not with coherent movement from idea to idea. This jumbled up mix of repeated ideas and stories made the speech more organic, and perhaps more 'friendly' - in line with Patton's aims as we mentioned earlier. The very brief introduction also sets the tone from the opening as straightforward and 'no nonsense'.

In conclusion, we have shown how General George Patton has employed literary devices and appropriate content to instill patriotic feelings in the soldiers and imbibe them with faith in the army. We can reason, from the result of the D-day invasion, that Patton's speech was a successful one.