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.

Sample IOC

The Tempest Sample IOC

Act 1 Scene 2,

Lines 310-362

Link:

https://dl-web.dropbox.com/get/sampleIOC.wav?_subject_uid=229562542&w=AAAw7SgpXgOTqHSG23PSOMWC7CaLB_t2w1uYOFGtBSc-MQ

Thanks!

(Update 4/March/2015) 
Possible Guiding Questions:
-How do the Elizabethan sensibilities on colonization influence the depiction of Caliban in the text?
-What does this text reveal about the relationship between Caliban and Prospero?
-What atmosphere does Shakespeare convey and why is this significant in terms of plot?

We Are All Oppressors.

"this is the oppressor's language yet I need it to talk to you"

 



What am I doing writing in English? It is not my heritage. And why do so many of you understand this English that I am writing? Most of you shouldn't. What business does a Chinese have speaking English, the language of oppression?

 

When we consider subaltern people, or the oppressed, we often picture images of slavery and squalor, far removed from ourselves. And yet, at least for myself personally, I have discovered that I am dependent on the language of the colonizer to express myself. My native languages, while strong enough to converse in, are not necessarily the languages I express myself in. English is my academic language, and the one in which people take me seriously. By learning and speaking regularly in English, are we then oppressing ourselves? The definition of subaltern features the word 'colonized', and I don't think many of us are able to identify with this word at this point in our lives. We/our families made the choice to speak English, believing it to be the best choice for ourselves. In this way we forsake the importance that some native tongues have in our lives, because speaking English 'makes sense', a successful Hegemony.

 

It is obvious, then, that English is (still) the colonizing language that has continued to oppress us. Our languages are dying, and yet we are not fighting back. I believe this is because English offers a (false?) sense of security. Just like it's elasticity allows the colonizers to make English stronger, it also allows the colonized a chance to create their own version of English. Like how AAVE was a mixture of English and African dialects, different cultures have formed their own Hybrid languages, which often take the structure of code-switching, combining two languages. There are countless examples of this (Singlish, Konglish...) and they've all been created for the purpose of filling language gaps, or to communicate more effectively.

 

Earlier this year we discussed the links between language and culture, and how the two follow an egg-and-chicken pattern. Which came first? The two are inextricably linked, so the creation of new languages is undoubtedly due to a change in culture. Our native tongue may be rendered useless because of English, so the hybrid rises to take its place. Does this, however, diminish the authenticity of our identities? A large group of people speaking one language is definitely more powerful than a large group of people speaking 20 languages (example: AAVE & slaves). By all speaking the 'language of the oppressors', aren't we thus empowering ourselves? The Linguists stated that losing a language is "losing a way of seeing the world". As one language dies, however, a new (hybrid?) one is born, taking its place more effectively. With it it brings endless avenues of vocabulary, sentence structure and new ways of seeing the world that could be explored.

 

In conclusion, bell hook's text has shifted the way I view my place in language, as I realized that I am one of the oppressed. But it seems like the oppressor's language has become a part of my culture, instead of my being opposed to it. English (the stronger language) and my native languages (the weaker ones) have combined to form a new identity. The prevalence of this happening throughout history reflects the power of any language, whatever it may be, in its determination to create itself despite all odds. Does our language choice then really matter anyway?

 

 

 

Linguistic Imperialism: English

In today's class, we saw that linguistic imperialism can be seen rampantly throughout the Anglophone world. Some examples of places it appears are Migration (where the host country is English speaking); the Economy (where business depends on English); Education; Media and Globalization. These areas are very interesting, and the way our Anglophone linguistic imperialism is exerted can be seen concretely - based on who succeeds and who doesn't. It is a literal effect, where English becomes the most commonly spoken language, impacting individuals and communities who don't speak it by excluding them from the majority of society.

 

Another interesting area where English has affected us, however, is more abstract and appeals to all the areas we mentioned earlier. It is the ideological place of English as the language of modernity and progress. With this idea in place, other languages - especially indigenous or obscure ones - are seen as "primitive" or "uncivilized".

 

This ideology has some very damaging effect on individuals and communities. As English becomes more common, people who don't speak it are seen as more backward by comparison. We associate progress with English, which affects non-English speaking people intent on making progress in the world, because their native tongues aren't viewed as 'good enough' for their pursuit. Even outside of academia, learning English is seen as a skill that cultured and educated people have (like French was in Europe decades ago), not just because one had widened their communication scope, but because English is associated with power and success. When it takes the place of the powerful and dominant language in our minds, other languages become secondary and perhaps even irrelevant. This may lead to language extinction.

 

With English's connotations of power in mind its easy to forget that there is a lot of wisdom embedded in indigenous cultures that we don't recognize, for example the botanic names for two similar plants, distinguished by the language of people who interact with it, and revealing to us two different species we did not previously recognize. All this information is being 'degraded' and placed in the backseat to English, which is seen as being more 'refined' and 'smart'. English teacher Patricia Ryan summed it up best when she said, "when a language dies, you don't know what you lose." If the language we associate with modernity is English, we have no concept of the wisdom that other tongues hold - and do not even realize the knowledge that we are losing when they die.

 

Personally I believe that this, the ideological place of English as the language of progress, is one of the greatest ways linguistic imperialism affects us. It relates back to education, the economy, and even the media. We all want to follow the progress and make ourselves better, no matter how conscious we are of losing our tongues. Not speaking English is now seen as 'old-fashioned', and 'backward' - something your great grandparents (not even grandparents) would have done. If we don't keep the cycle of English's power going, we'll get left behind. And who wants to get left behind?

 

Paper 1 Analysis: Oxfam

On the surface, the article "Food Crisis in Sahel" (2011) from the Oxfam website is an informative piece educating on the Sahel region's potential food crisis. Upon closer inspection, however, it is a merely an advertisement for the Oxfam charity. While some parts are informative, the structure of it closely resembles the "Problem/Benefit" trope that many advertisers use to convince people. This is evident in the headings that the article has, which go from "The situation in Sahel" to "What Oxfam is doing", presenting Oxfam's actions as a direct remedy to the hunger problem. Within this general device, Oxfam has utilized many other persuasive techniques to convince people of it's legitimacy, which we shall explore in terms of audience and purpose, content and theme, tone and mood, and style and structure.

The target audience of this text is the western world, due to the article's language and view of West and Central Africa as places to be helped without personally referring to them. Words like "home" or pronouns like "our" are not used, indicating that the audience is not from the same region and will not identify in this way with these countries. The overall purpose of this text is to persuade the reader to contribute to the Oxfam charity, and this is done through the use of the "Problem/Benefit" device as mentioned earlier. In the first part, "The situation in Sahel", the main purpose is to inform the reader. Logos is used to prove to the reader that the situation is indeed dire, by basing the paragraphs on facts. Later on, in "What Oxfam is doing", the purpose shifts to reminding people of the solution to the problem they introduced. These two combine, working together to support the overarching aim of depicting Oxfam as a helpful, noble organization. 

Having discussed the audience and purpose of the text, we arrive at content and theme. The article begins with a general introduction, followed by a more detailed look at the situation in the region (supported with facts), and concluding with a passage on Oxfam's aims for the coming year. The general theme of this piece is that of urgency. Beginning in the introduction, impactful verbs like "needs", "break" and strong phrases like "emergency", "crisis", "serious", "investing now" all contribute to imbibing the reader with a sense of necessity to help. 

In the next paragraph, we learn that "early warning systems" have predicted occurrences that will create problems. This phrase is used twice, along with compelling adjectives like "dangerously", "dramatically" and "vulnerable". Additionally, the final paragraph uses superlatives like "poorest". All these contribute to convincing the reader to act swiftly to what is depicted as a dire situation. 

Although the content is informative and briefs us as to Oxfam's goals, it only provides one example of what Oxfam has actually done in the region. Aside from the "co-op vegetable gardens program" mentioned in the final part, all other things mentioned are only their goals. As such, the majority of content it provides are "so what?" claims, which do not actually tell us many things they have accomplished. There is no movement/action within the content. 

While the article has a urgent tone to it due to it's theme, it is also didactic. This is seen in the many statistical facts we are presented with, especially in the second section. It also has a very straightforward, assured feeling, which is purported through definite statements. Phrases like "we will be reaching", "the response...needs to tackle" and "vulnerable populations can be protected" make Oxfam seem sure and confident. By making statements like these, the audience is lulled into a sense of security - believing that we can change things albeit the unprovable nature of these statements. 

This urgent tone and mood is also supported by the titles and phrases that the writer has put in bold. Before the article begins, a line from the article is quoted, put in bold, and is the biggest text on the page; this line says that "the humanitarian response must tackle the underlying causes of crises like this to prevent them recurring." Just from this first line, the mood is critical, with words like "must" and "crises". The phrase "to prevent them recurring" and "humanitarian response" are examples of ethos - they appeal with emotions to make us believe that donating would be the humane thing to do, since this tragedy has already happened before. This line is very important, as it sets the tone for the article and gives the audience a brief introduction before actually reading the article. 

The main literary devices this article uses to achieve its goals are ethos, pathos and logos. 

Ethos is persuading with ethics and moral beliefs, and we see that Oxfam does this in the introduction of the article by using words like "humanitarian aid", "vulnerable populations", "protected" etc... All these words suggest that the reader has the power to change something, and to reverse what is happening - i.e. the problem of "12 million people...facing a food crisis". With this sense of urgency, supporting Oxfam is seen as the most proper action to take. The placement of certain phrases also lends to this effect, such as the line "if early and effective action is not taken" strategically before "costly to lives and livelihoods". With these phrases Oxfam attributes to us the responsibility to take action to prevent this from happening, and uses ethos to encourage the reader to do what is right. The majority of the introduction contains ethos in this manner, setting the tone of the article. 

In the paragraph "The Situation in Sahel", the main mode of appeal is logos. Statistics are presented to the audience, e.g. "5.4 million people", making them assured of the accuracy of this article. A number of reasons are also presented for the oncoming crisis, making its arrival seem plausible. Reasons and statistics are from "early warning systems", giving them a logical origin. Although this term is rather vague, it instills urgency in the reader. This passage is very important, as it seals Oxfam's reputation - through these facts we see that they are accurate, and believe everything else they claim. 

Finally, the last passage uses a combination of pathos and logos to convince the reader.The pronoun "we" is littered throughout, emotionally connecting the audience to the solution. The final line, which says that "300,000 children dies from malnutrition-related diseases in a 'non-crisis' year" is also a form of pathos, as children are more likely to incite strong emotions in people. The placement of this sad sentence at the end also makes it lodge itself in the reader's mind, as their final thought. With this image, of children dying, people are more likely to feel obliged to help. Within the last section, logos is also used, with Oxfam providing specific numbers of who and where they plan to help. With these definite goals, audiences will feel like Oxfam is 'actually doing something' and support their cause. 
Aside from pathos, ethos and logos, the article itself has one more interesting characteristic - that is does not say anywhere how the reader is expected to help. This is implied many times, with words like "early response" etc., and knowing that Oxfam is a charity presents us with obvious ways to help. But because these aren't explicitly stated, audiences will likely believe that they are the ones taking the initiative to help, and will be more willing to do so since it's a 'personal decision'. 
In all, these stylistic choices made by the writer all contribute to engage the reader into believing and supporting Oxfam (although how this can be done is unspecified). 

This text has a relatively simple structure. The main graphics appear at the beginning of the article, where there is a picture of a woman on a donkey, probably taken in the Sahel region. From the picture, the setting looks very desolate and dry, and the people are not shown to be very fortunate. The fact that she is moving perhaps implies that she has been displaced - especially since the donkey is carrying many other things as well. This picture is important because it gives a 'face' or an image that readers can identify the problem with, as the text alone may not have made as big of an impact as a visual. Throughout the text, the same simple font is used. Different fonts are used for the headings, which look more like newspaper-type fonts, perhaps to tell the reader that this is an article. As we have mentioned earlier, the words used in the headings have a sense of urgency, like the word "crises" which is used thrice, and the word "serious". 
This variation in fonts provides the text with structure, and tells the audience what parts of the article they should focus on. The article itself does not have a definite date, perhaps to prevent audiences from writing it off as 'outdated' before even beginning to read it. The only date we see is "2012" in the headline. Lastly, the article also makes good use of statistics as a form of logos, as we have earlier discussed in the style section. 

In conclusion, we have analyzed the article "Food Crisis in Sahel" (2011) from the Oxfam website. In the analysis, it is revealed that this in fact an advertisement for Oxfam, as its main aim is presenting their work as the solution to West and Central Africa's problems. Since it is just an article on their website, the target audience would be people who are already interested in helping, and are searching for more information. With this audience in mind, this article works effectively to cement Oxfam's place as a reputable charity as they support their claims with facts and present their goals for a better future. We have thus seen how Oxfam has employed a variety of advertising techniques (i.e. problem/benefit) and literary devices to achieve their goals. 

Word Count: 1,664