I saw a beetle on it, blue-black and oval; when the camera whirred it burrowed in under the feathers. Carrion beetle, death beetle. Why had they strung it up like a lynch victim, why didn’t they just throw it away like trash? To prove they had the power to kill. Otherwise it was valueless; beautiful from a distance but it couldn’t be tamed or cooked or trained to talk, the only relation they could have to a thing like that was to destroy it. Food, slave or corpse, limited choices; horned and fanged heads sawed off and mounted on the billiard room wall, stuffed fish, trophies. It must have been the Americans; they were in there now, we would meet them. (Atwood 117)
In this passage the narrator really exposes the interaction of humans and animals. She describes us, the citizens, as people who like to show case power in some manner. The narrator suggests that the only relation to an animal is by killing it, almost a reflection on the civilization. That we are destroying ourselves, relating more back to when blacks were being lynched. She almost saying that civilization has a tendency to destroy something to assert some form of power, and killing animals is probably the easiest way of doing that. Because we do have this tendency for destruction its the reason why civilization limits an animal’s option, as she describes them as food, slave or corpse. She is referring to the fact that we use animals as a source of food, as a house pet, or in this case, just to kill them.
However, I also get a sense of contradiction from this paragraph, by the use of diction. She acts like she cares for these animals but here choice of words will say different. For example, when the narrator says, “why didn’t they just throw it away like trash?” She is comparing a living thing to a piece of garbage that needs to be thrown out. Another example is when she says, “…the only relation they could have to a thing like that…” She describes the animal as a thing and not by its proper name, like a piece of trash. She also goes on and uses the word “valueless” when also describing an animal. I feel that if someone who truly cares about animals would of have a better choices of words.
Is the narrator’s use of words a reflection of her own independently thinks or of the civilization?
I think that the narrator is disgusted at the scene of the dead heron hanging from the tree branch, so she uses words to portray her horror and distaste for the actions of people who do such things. I believe that she is expressing the ideas of civilization. For example, she talks about how they have to "prove they had the power to kill". She is starting to realize that violence, and the need for power and conquest over others is very important to the people of the word, especially Americans. I don't think she agrees that it's alright to kill for power, conquest, or just to kill, especially considering she felt sick after killing the fish when she was fishing with the group earlier in the book.
ReplyDeleteYeah, I definitely agree with you on the narrator's language reflecting her as a source of power. I think this passage is to set the audience up for what happens later, when she reveals she's had an abortion and her boyfriend compared the child to an animal.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the narrator isn't expressing her own independent thinking as much as civilization. The narrator sees violence happening, and not that she is partaking in it, but that everyone around her, civilization, is expressing power and the narrator is only trying to find her way, try to find what's lost in her world, and I don't believe that it is the power to kill.
ReplyDeleteI think that she is definitely showing how this is the mindset of civilization, but I also think that it is her own independent thoughts as well. She is admitting and subtly recognizing that even she contains these violent tendencies and superior attitude toward nature.
ReplyDeleteI would mainly agree with Ashley on this one - I think, as you pointed out, the main theme of this passage is the narrator's disgust and horror with the tendency of civilized people (especially men) to take pleasure in the destruction of those they perceive to lack power. I think the narrator's seemingly conflicted language (such as "trash" and "valueless") is more a bitter extension of those thoughts. She's using the callous language of the people she's critiquing to show the depth of their cruelty.
ReplyDeleteMainly this sentence: "Otherwise it was valueless; beautiful from a distance but it couldn’t be tamed or cooked or trained to talk, the only relation they could have to a thing like that was to destroy it. "
She's saying THEY find it valueless - as in, if it can't be eaten, domesticated, or made into amusement, what else is there to do but destroy it?
In reading this passage, I have noticed how her relationship with civilization (specifically with Americans)has given her this impression that destruction. It is ironic that it is easier to destroy than it is to build especially when considering Americans who ultimately found a virgin continent and stretched themselves from sea to sea using basically every resource that was available to them. Margaret Atwood had a lot to say in this novel, its just decoding her language thats a problem.
ReplyDeleteAs for your second paragraph, I think the diction is used to mirror the feelings of the so called "Americans" rather than her own personal feelings on the dead heron. This choice in diction is specific to the way "Americans" treat nature. Hence why she is so perplexed that they didn't just throw out the "trash" rather than hang it like a lynching victim. Therefore I agree with Vince on this interpretation of her language. As for the image of the lynched victim, I think a parallel can be drawn between this image, and her description of animals as sacrificial people (things that we can kill, so we don't have to kill each other). I think this image plays off the idea that animals are largely connected to humans (almost to the point where they are humans), and therefore this can be seen as a pure destruction: the destruction of a sacrificial human for no other good than sport.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your assessment that human being live to destroy things. Even in our greatest accomplishments such as constructing cities and acts of globalization we destroy nature and parts of the earth with it. I find her statement that the only way we can have a relationship with an animal is to eat it, enslave it, or kill it very interesting. The more telling part about humans is that we feel we must have some relationship with the animal instead of just letting it be. We see the world and and the living things in it and think about ways in which it would be advantageous for us to use them. As for your point about her language, I do find her word choice a bit strange, however I think this is because she is describing the way typical humans and/or Americans think about animals, not her specifically.
ReplyDeleteI think that when the narrator uses words such as "valueless" to describe animals the author is demonstrating that civilization has also effected her. Her corruption is shown when she kills animals and abuses nature, however she is displayed as being above the "americans" because she feels remorse. I also agree that there are conflicting views shown in this passage. These seem to parallel the struggle that the narrator is having with civilization and the natural world.
ReplyDelete