Poisonwood Bible Blog post #6
Why do you suppose that Reverend Nathan Price is not given a voice of his own? Do we learn from his wife and daughters enough information to formulate an adequate explanation for his beliefs and behavior? Does such an explanation matter?
The main character Nathan Price is the only family member to not have chapters from his perspective, but also, thought his journey he does not really change his religious and social views of the Congo and it’s people. He does not really evolve, but rather drives the plot with his continued efforts to convert the Congolese. His character is essential to the character development and progression of his family, especially Leah. By giving them his own perspective, the author risks taking away some of the voice that the girls develop while living under the conditions of the Price household. Nathan is a man, and the head of the family. Therefore, he is free to voice his every thought and opinion out loud, so there is really no need to build his inner monologue in reaction to external conflict. Perhaps his perspective would have been important if Nathan was meant to represent a personal transition or inner conflict with his actions, but this isn’t so. Most of the time, Nathan is the conflict because of his opinions or actions. His perspective would either be redundant, as he reiterates his ideas that readers already experience, or they would risk taking away the voice of the females around him. Based on the authors prerogative, Nathan could potentially be humanized when reading his perspective. While this humanization is touched on when we learn of his background in the war, it is also not meant to excuse his actions. Unlike in the war, in the Congo Nathan has assumed the role of the tormentors. It is addressed very far into the reading in order to give character background and historical relevancy, but not necessarily to change the way we see Nathan Price. I don’t believe that his perspective would have changed his character’s role in the novel, or add any analysis to the subject matter.
The main character Nathan Price is the only family member to not have chapters from his perspective, but also, thought his journey he does not really change his religious and social views of the Congo and it’s people. He does not really evolve, but rather drives the plot with his continued efforts to convert the Congolese. His character is essential to the character development and progression of his family, especially Leah. By giving them his own perspective, the author risks taking away some of the voice that the girls develop while living under the conditions of the Price household. Nathan is a man, and the head of the family. Therefore, he is free to voice his every thought and opinion out loud, so there is really no need to build his inner monologue in reaction to external conflict. Perhaps his perspective would have been important if Nathan was meant to represent a personal transition or inner conflict with his actions, but this isn’t so. Most of the time, Nathan is the conflict because of his opinions or actions. His perspective would either be redundant, as he reiterates his ideas that readers already experience, or they would risk taking away the voice of the females around him. Based on the authors prerogative, Nathan could potentially be humanized when reading his perspective. While this humanization is touched on when we learn of his background in the war, it is also not meant to excuse his actions. Unlike in the war, in the Congo Nathan has assumed the role of the tormentors. It is addressed very far into the reading in order to give character background and historical relevancy, but not necessarily to change the way we see Nathan Price. I don’t believe that his perspective would have changed his character’s role in the novel, or add any analysis to the subject matter.
Comments
Post a Comment