New Historicism

- Interpreting the book as a product of its time and culture -

Kingsolver wrote The Poisonwood Bible in 1998, but the novel was set in the Congo in the 1960s.

The Congo in the 1960s:
     January 4, 1959 - The Leopoldville riots
     May 1, 1960 - Independence
     July 5, 1960 - U.N. Intervention
     September 4, 1960 - Military Coup

The World in the 1960s:
     Cold War, Vietnam War, Space Exploration, Counterculture Movement, Civil Rights Movement

1998 - the Second Congo War

Kingsolver wrote about the 1960s by looking back on history with a modern perspective. The Second Congo War began in 1998. Although Kingsolver probably was well into the novel by then, knowledge of the troubles in Africa would have influenced her writing.

Kingsolver's modern knowledge about the 1960s also helped her write the book within the context of the 1960s culture. The Cold War affected the story, for example, the mentions of the "Communist Boy Scouts." Throughout the beginning of the book, we have heard mentions of Leopoldville, which could later lead to significance with the Leopoldville riots. Throughout we have also heard mentions of rebellion, leading up to independence, including mention of leader Patrice Lumumba.

The Price family was plopped into the middle of a culture they knew nothing about. They don't fully understand what is occuring and about to occur yet. The time setting will affect their story, and so the historical knowledge of the road to independence in the Congo is very important to the novel.

Also, the culture of how to give aid to Africa affects the book. The Prices may have good intentions, but they are not acting in the proper manner. The context supports the notion aid, but condemns the way in which it comes. The 1998 perspective on both Communism and the Civil Rights movement also greatly affects the portrayal in the novel. In the novel, we see prospects of a self-functioning village, of white intervention, and of prejudice and stereotypes.

Heart of Darkness vs. Apocalypse Now

I guess I hit the PANIC BUTTON on this one.

The most obvious, but I believe also most important, difference between the novel and movie was the change of setting. Heart of Darkness was set in the Congo during the imperialist colonial era. In Apocalypse Now, the story was moved to the Vietnam War. This change shows that the problems in Leopold's Congo can translate to any enterprise of conquer, in any place, for any reason, and with any people. Conquerers inevitably see those whom they conquer as different from them, and usually, therefore, less human than them. In the struggle for power, in the craziness of political conquer, participants can do insane things. A character like Kurtz seemed equally possible in both the Congo and Vietnam, and this shows he could pop up anywhere.

Confusion

I am confused about page 106, when one of the listeners to Marlow's story growls "Try to be civil, Marlow."

I don't understand why this is the first time one of the listeners really says something. Marlow has mentioned  dead people with bullets in their heads, but only after this passage he is asked to be civil. He points out his listeners "respective tight-ropes" and his own "monkey tricks," but this, it seems to me, shouldn't be as response-provoking as the rest of his story has been. Maybe it is because it attacks the actions of Marlow and his peers, while his whole story addresses the problems in the entire colonial enterprise. Maybe the listener doesn't care until Marlow's speech affects him directly.

Juicy Sentence

p.67 "And further west on the upper reaches the place of the monstrous town was still marked ominously on the sky, a brooding gloom in sunshine, a lurid glare under the stars."

I love paradoxes.

In this sentence, the narrator is talking about London. Previously in the passage, London had been mentioned as the greatest town on earth, but now it is filled with ominous paradoxes. The public image of London is generally not so negative. I know London is usually overcast and foggy, having the potential for gloom, but that is not what I think of. Maybe its because the weather was perfect and sunny for the two days I visited London, but when I think of London I think of rich history, glory, and royalty. All those generally have several negative effects, but not without the coverup of the cherished glamour of a major city. In this sentence, the narrator changes our view to help us find gloom underneath the supposed sunshine of a glamorous city. And so the paradoxes, "brooding gloom in sunshine" and "lurid glare under the star" make us second-guess our preconceived notions about the city of London. Furthermore, these paradoxes foretell that the following story will undercover a darkness in the Congo that contradicts the imperialists' coverup stories of humanitarianism.

(Or Not)

This is the first book to show the psychology behind these explorers and conquerers, but it does not change my view of these enterprises. While it makes me understand the motives behind the individual people, it does not justify their actions.
      When people try to escape part of themselves, their vision is clouded. Leopold had a troubled family life and felt a loss of political power in his own country. He turned this into brutal conquer of the Congo. Stanley has been troubled by rejection his entire life. He takes power in physical brutal conquer in the Congo. In the modern world, I think of Wall Street being controlled by a bunch of people who probably feel they need to always be on top, and who knows the stories that lead them to those feelings that cause corruption.
      But when people try to escape part of their external situation, the result is better. Sheppard may have gone to the Congo to escape segregation, and he did the most good in the Congo that we have seen so far in the book. Because he was escaping an external problem, not something part of himself, the results were not a disaster.
      These people problems are being pushed on to colonial exploitation. People who have emotional problems should not be in charge of these exploits. I don't know if people used therapists at this time, but Leopold and Stanley definitely should have talked to some instead of taking it out on the Congo.
      People having problems does not make me change my views of exploitation - it just makes me sad that society allows such people to be in charge.

The Wood That Weeps

Chapter 10

The chapter begins by describing Stanley's marriage to Dorothy Tennant and his psychological struggles with women and intimacy. Hochschild notes how there is sometimes "psychological fuel" behind imperial expansion and says that explorers are many times troubled men in flight of some part of themselves. Stanley flees from intimacy, and Leopold also has put all of his efforts into the Congo as a distraction from his troubles with his family and his gradual loss of power to the elected government in his country.

The story then shifts to black Reverend William Sheppard, who is sent to Africa with white Reverend Samuel Lapsley to build a Southern Presbyterian mission near the Kasai River as part of the American Back to Africa movement. Sheppard and Lapsley encounter Joseph Conrad soon after their arrival in the Congo. Lapsley speaks very highly of Sheppard, and Sheppard acts as the leader, a twist to the supposed roles of whites and blacks in Western society. Lapsley takes trip away from the mission and dies of disease. More whites are sent to take over the mission because they Presbyterians are embarassed to have a black man in control. Nevertheless, when they arrive, they find that Sheppard is very well suited to his environment. His knowledge, personality, and attempts to speak the native language are appreciated by whites and blacks alike.

Sheppard learns to speak the Bakuba language. He is the first foreigner to reach Ifuca, the capital of the Kuba kingdom. The king used threats to keep foreigners from finding his kingdom and planned on beheading any intruders. But since Sheppard was black and partly spoke the native language, the king accepted him as the reincarnation of Bope Mekabe, who was once a king of the Bakuba. Sheppard explores the Kuba culture with a curious and friendly tone unseen by the writings of previous explorers. The Kuba kingdom appears to an extremely civilized kingdom with wonderful art and a possible court system, but Hochschild then states that the Kuba capital will be looted by Leopold eight years later.

We find that the rush for rubber is the facilitator of the looting. When Dunlop tires is founded, a large rubber economy develops. The Congo holds many wild rubber plants. Hochschild notes that Leopold acts like the CEO of a company when he discovers the vast amounts of rubber his lands in the Congo hold. A quota system developed that causes hostages held to force labor, severed hands of those who rebel, and the destroying of many rubber plants to quickly meet quotas. Leopold wants to get the most rubber he can from the wild plants before rubber plantations elsewhere begin to mature.

The French word for rubber, caoutchouc, comes from the meaning "the wood that weeps." This is the physical description of the rubber, which oozes from the trees, but Hochschild's inclusion of the fact has a double meaning for the despair the rubber boom causes. The Congo soon becomes synonymous with severed hands. At the end of the chapter, Hochschild states how the myth about black cannibalism has reversed: blacks now think that the cans of corned beef at whites' houses are made from chopped human hands.

This cartoon, shown in the pictures before page 121 in the book, shows Congo is wrapped and destroyed by the rubber coils of the greed in the rubber boom:

Punch, 1906.



Quiz Questions

1. What is the significance of the title?
2. How does Lapsley treat Sheppard differently than the norm and how is this treatment similar to or different from whites leaving behind their bourgeois mentality as mentioned earlier in the novel?
3. Why is the juxtaposition of Sheppard's efforts and the rubber boom significant?
4. How was Sheppard able to be accepted the people and king of the Bakuba kingdom?
5. Why did Leopold want to harvest rubber so quickly and what types of problems and atrocities did his quotas lead to?

Brutality, Fear, and Conquest

(answer to question #4: Why is brutality a necessary part of conquest?)

Any conquer is brutal; one is forced to submit to another. Any creation of this circumstance cultivates brutality. Brutality is put in place to create fear and to remind those who have been conquered that they must remain compliant.
       Brutality in war is seen as opposite to the peace that comes after. Lyndon B. Johnson said it was in our nature that peace could only come after fighting, stating that "the infirmities of man are such that force must often preceded reason, and the waste of war, the works of peace." Thomas Hobbes believed that it was human nature be in a constant state of war. Some justify war by saying that it is fighting for future peace. But while many pin war down to human nature and peace, war is also about winning. Henri Rousseau said that in international politics, states must be aggressive or they will deteriorate. The rule is to be the most aggressive, and most brutal, or to submit - to conquer or be conquered.
      The peace that follows conquest collides with the fear of another war. And this fear, sometimes terribly, further encourages peace, as well as submission. Fear is the primary reason for brutality in war. In a psychological study of fear, it was said that fear was "anticipation of pain," and that it was created by a circumstance that left a trace of suffering. When one encounters brutality in conquest, the trace of suffering is left behind. This creates a fear of another conquer and convinces one to submit to the current conqueror. FDR stated that the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor to create fear and scare us into changing our military path. This kind of brutality has a purpose to create fear. Fear and conquer, created by brutality, enforce the obedience that conquest desires.