The Poisonwood Bible by Barbara Kingsolver is an interesting novel about a Baptist family that moves to the Congo just before its struggle for independence. I’m not sure if I really liked the book or not, but I’ll get to that later.
The book was made up of seven parts, each named after a part of the bible. Each of these parts begins with a chapter narrated by the mother in “present day”, then goes back in time to be narrated by the four daughters. When reading, I felt the effect of this style was beneficial in a couple ways. It allowed for foreshadowing- obviously they must survive the Congo, even if we’re told one of the daughters dies. It also allows for explanations of what was going on politically. Even though the family was in the middle of the struggle, they had no idea what was going on at the time. I liked it because it gave us an understanding of the mother that was never translated by the daughters. She was smart, independent, and unforgiving. Another format that only made sense when I finished the last page, everything was first person. Typically, in books from multiple perspectives, there is either all perspectives written in third person, one main character is first person but the others third person, or there’s an omniscient narrator. Since Orleanna, the mother, was presented as the main character I expected the daughters to be third person. They weren’t, though. Even the daughter that died was first person. This confused me because typically when books are third person, it’s supposed to appear as a sort of diary, like they’re recounting the story or want to get a message across. How can a dead girl tell a story? Well, the last chapter -while initially appearing to be from the perspective of an omniscient narrator- is actually first person. It’s from the perspective of the dead daughter, fifty years later and just as matured as the rest of her sisters despite the fact that she died when she was five. This through me for a loop. I’m not really a fan of these kinds of twists.
The story of the Congo was so detailed, I wasn’t really surprised that the author lived there in a similar manner as her characters as a child. I feel she did the Congo justice in representing both the good and bad of the culture, but I don’t know much about the Congo so I can’t say if it’s truly accurate. I do want to learn more about the Congo’s fight for independence. I don’t know enough about how colonialism still affects modern day Africa, and should find a way to brush up on it.
There are two things I don’t like about the story. Rachel’s character, and the way racism was handled. Rachel was the pretty older sister. She was entitled and racist before going to the Congo, and she remained that way until the end. I wish her character had evolved, and that her racism wasn’t so tied to her femininity. From the start, she was described as a natural bleach blonde that took pride in her looks and was the typical materialistic girl with internalized sexism and racism. She was growing so much after getting to the Congo but it seemed like as soon as she was in South Africa, she was back to her old self. That seems like poor character development. She had been getting along with the neighbors that didn’t obsess over her hair. Rachel had some really interesting insights, and making her the dumb blonde diminished their value. Having her not know some basic (if long)vocabulary also seemed really insulting. I think I knew what morse code was when I was five, and it was outdated by then. I’m especially annoyed because the character closest to being Rachel’s foil, Leah, is supposed to grow up to be the least racist of the bunch, staying in the Congo and marrying Anatole, and Congo teacher and activist. Leah was racist. She wasn’t blatant about it, but every chapter from her perspective after leaving Kalinga mentioned how much it sucked to be white (and how it wouldn’t stop her from being with Anatole). She talked about how awful it was to have people assume she was racist, how knowledgeable of the culture she is (comparing herself to a native). This seems just as entitled as Rachel. I feel that all three surviving sisters are stereotypes that don’t grow enough, though at least Adah admits she was a pretentious child. They had possibility but didn’t move past their original character. Leah seems the most likely character to be a self-insert, and while that’s not necessarily a bad thing, in this case I found her to be uninteresting and held back by this fact.
The way racism was handled also didn’t feel complete. Again, Rachel’s racism seemed tied to her femininity, and Leah’s wasn’t even meant to be there. But she wound up making some unintentionally racist comments anyway, so I will continue to see her as self-centered and still ignorant after all that time she had to learn. I liked Ruth May’s chapters because they gave some insight into what growing up in the segregated south will do to you and your values. But after that, segregation was never mentioned. The girls history in a famously racist state is only really mentioned once and only when in relation to a church. The white supremacy and systematic racism would have still had its effects even after Congo’s independence from Belgium, but it wasn’t really mentioned. Well, America’s hypocrisy and Racism was talked about, and that was really interesting.
I want to learn more about the Congo, and the other African Countries that dealt with colonialism, revolution, apartheid, and occupation. My curiosity is peaked, and because of this book I want to learn more about everything.
No comments:
Post a Comment