Answer TWO of the following:
Q1: What
is the Narrator’s role in the story? At first she seems merely to be an
eyewitness to these events, but as the narrative continues, she not only
instructs Oroonoko and Imoinda in Western culture, but actually becomes his close
companion and “Great Mistress.” Why does she insert herself into the ‘romance’
part of the story so intimately? You might also consider why she leaves so abruptly at the end, even though she claims "indeed my Word wou'd go a great way with him" (41).
Q2: How
are we supposed to read Oroonoko’s grand speech on pages 52-53, where he proclaims,
“we are Bought and Sold like Apes, or Monkeys, to be the Sport of Women, Fools,
and Cowards, and the Support of Rogues, Runagades, that have abandon’d their
own Countries for Rapin, Murders, Thefts, and Villanies” (52). Who is speaking
here—Oroonoko or Aphra Behn? Also, does this speech seem at odds with his
earlier occupations—going tiger hunting with the narrator, and listening to her
read stories of Roman kings to him, etc.?
Q3: The
17th century loved to re-write the classics, and especially
Shakepseare, which they found too violent and irrational. Behn was also a
playwright, so she would know his works intimately, and perhaps even acted in
some of them. Considering this, how might Behn have consciously re-written Othello in a colonial light? Is the
connection skin deep (merely two moors who both
kill their wives), or are there other thematic connections between the
two works?
Q4: What
do you think Behn’s ultimate purpose in
writing Oroonoko was (besides simply
writing a thrilling story)? Is this truly the first abolitionist novel? Or was
Oroonoko’s race a secondary consideration in the novel? Is she more interested in
the natives and former colony in Surinam? Why does she provide so much cultural
detail about the area when none of it is strictly important to Oroonoko’s fate?
ReplyDeleteQ2- Oronooko seems to be outraged that these men would take people as slaves without noble cause. Judging by Oronooko's speech, the fact that a money value can be placed on them is appalling. It sounds like Oronooko would be a bit more understanding if they had been defeated in honorable combat. As bad as it sounds, defeat by combat is a more definite way of asserting visible dominance over people. In other words, servitude should be earned, not bought.
Q3- I feel like Behn's version of "Othello" would have been much grittier. The original ""Othello" revolves around fairly mild issues in comparison. (Adultery + murder < Slavery + murder) However, we should keep in mind that the issues and the characters used in "Oroonoko" are very location specific. I feel like Behn would have added a touch more moral/ethical depth (?) to her version of "Othello". On the other hand, Shakespeare's version of "Oroonoko" may have been more formal sounding.
ReplyDelete1. Based on what I have got from the piece, it appears that the narrating voice doesn't contribute into their lives until it is found out that they are going to have a child. If this is indeed the case, then it appear that the voice is concerned with how the baby will grow up. Behn talks about how she was "teaching her (Clemene) all the pretty Works that I was a Mistress of" (Behn, pg. 41). This story then goes further by discussing how she talked with "Caesar" about the faith and he didn’t believe in the Trinity. My theory as to why she left so could be because she was trying to teach them things that she thought to be important for raising their child. While this couple respects Behn, they are not adhere to her advice. I think she also wants to help them get out of their situation too, so she starts investing in their lives.
2. This passage of the text is an interesting one that has much political motives underneath it. I think that while the author is having the Oroonoko say it to fire up the individuals listening, I also think this is how she feels too. Behn understands that for a woman to be writing in this time was a rare thing, but to have a woman defend slavery? This was an absurd idea to many people (thank the Lord it is still not like this today). The author understands this is one of the few times she can mask her opinion and get away with it, so she seize the moment. I don’t feel as though this speech is completely against earlier events and dialogue. Oroonoko told the narrator that he was tried of the situation, to which she told him to have patience.
(I only read up to the first part of the reading to point of answering these two questions and will finish the reading out by Monday.)
Great responses! (and no problem, you did well with what you did read)
Delete3.) Although Behn and Shakespeare's views were similar, they had completely different writing styles. Shakespeare's views were more formal and weren't as specific as Behn's. I feel like if Behn were to write Oroonoko, it would be a little more brutal (Considering how devastating Oroonoko and Imoinda die). It was also totally surprising to me that she wrote Oroonoko as this devine character, who was also African, who was okay with enslavement; to an extent, anyways. Even that little detail was shocking to me. And although Shakespeare liked writing tragedies, I feel like his have nothing on Behn's. I'm not saying Shakespeare wrote bad plays, I'm just saying that his took more of a moral standing, and Behn's took more of an ethical, emotional standing. Much like Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet, the deaths in her story were thought out by the characters, and it was a mutual want of death.
ReplyDelete4.) Behn's purpose could have focus on abolition. However, she did focus a lot on the natives, and had a different stand point of other races than most people in this time. It could be argued that this was the first abolitionist novel, but I think it goes deeper than just slavery. I think she just didn't like racism, even though she wrote a couple of racist things in her story. She was one, of very few, that still viewed other races differently, but she didn't like that people didn't like them just because of their skin color. I think she wanted her readers do understand that, even though their skin color isn't the same, they shouldn't be treated so unfairly.
Great responses!
DeleteQ3A). Behn could have re-written Othello by describing who he is and where he is from to great length. I am sure Behn would have kept the location simple and I feel as though she might have agreed with Desdemona’s outcome, surely, and the idea that books are simply about moors killing their wives is not a good one to follow. Behn clearly rose her Oroonoko up to a high pedestal and we can assume that that is because she either a. has little hatred for the blacks or b. simply did this to show how even a good moor is ‘useless’, as did Shakespeare in Othello.
ReplyDeleteQ4A). Behn’s ultimate purpose, in my mind, is to describe how no black man was safe, that the blacks understood the slave trade was wrong yet the whites are the evil ones here, and that there is no heroism to be found in that day. As interested as she was in the natives, Oroonoko’s race was an important and intelligently selected occurrence. She gives us plenty of cultural details to allow us the knowledge that we did not have at that time – true knowledge of what Surinam was like, not the twisted up mess the white men would bring back. Either that, or she felt it prudent for the story’s “twist”.
Great responses!
DeleteQ3: I feel like there are even more connections than just the basic premise of a moor who kills his wife. There is even a connection between the characters of Banister (who is a major) and the captain that captures Oroonoko in Oroonoko and Iago from Othello. The only difference is that her version of Iago is split into two and one does the befriending and betraying of Oroonoko to get him into slavery; while Banister takes the matter of punishing and torturing Oroonoko into his own hands. Only Banisters punishment is more physical and violent, while Iago's was a psychological torture to make Othello do the killing. Also, I see a resemblance in Oroonoko's grandfather (the king) trying and using law to keep Imoinda for himself from Oroonoko, which is similar to the father of Desdemona trying to use law to keep Desdemona and rid himself of Othello.
ReplyDeleteQ4: I feel like it was to show that while they, the slave traders and owners, see their differences in language and skin color, there is still some similarities between the natives and conquerors. Because she shows Oroonoko giving off his prisoners of war off to the traders even though they are the same ethnicity. Even when she mentions the warriors who would mutilate themselves, I see a reflection in the end (SPOILERS) where Banister mutilates and dismembers Oroonoko as torture and punishment. She seems to use the cultural background to show that while they seem barbaric, they do it for a reason and maybe don't see the barbarianism in their actions, but the captors and traders don't seem to see their own barbarianism in the treatment of these other humans and have really no reason to harm them as they do.
Great responses!
DeleteDana Welch
ReplyDeleteQ1.
I feel that the reason Behn put herself in the story was to try to make her story appeal to readers in the sense that she is a white woman who is educated and intelligent and she thinks she will gain some recognition in this way if she appeals to abolitionists.
Q2. We may be expected to read the speech as the author's way of showing how to deal with race and racism. I think it may be a way to show whites how horrible they have treated blacks and foreigners.just the things Oroonoko says about how they are mistreated and abused and the way a gentle man can become so savage in this way before his feelings shows how horrible things are.
Good responses, though remember, that many argue that this is the first abolitionist novel (maybe), so there were few abolitionists at this time. So she wouldn't try to primarily appeal to them...but maybe to male readers in general?
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete1. The novel is both a history and a romance, but Behn seems to have a hard time keeping the two fused. She places herself in the story to make herself credible despite her natural disposition of being a woman. She proves by being in the story that she knew Oroonoko intimately and has the means to give an optimal account of the events that took place – it is something of a ploy to build herself up in the eyes of her readers. The situations in which she makes herself out to be intimately connected Oroonoko are likely made up as Behn does nothing to intervene when Oroonoko is outraged and on a mission of revenge. She doesn’t intervene because her made-up romance is in the midst of a history, and you can’t tamper with history, which her intervening would have.
ReplyDelete2. I think we are to take Oroonoko’s speech at face value. After all, this is a history. Oroonoko is obviously the one speaking as Aphra Behn did indeed place herself in the story by making up experiences when Oroonoko hunts tigers for her and goes on outings with her to other villages, causing the audience to assume Oroonoko has a respect for white, European women such as Behn. That is why it is slightly off when Oroonoko bashes white women in his speech on page 52. We don’t see Behn take his speech into account at all as she makes no attempt to change history by interceding and making exceptions for herself in his speech which was likely something widely known and talked about.
Great responses!
Delete1) I think the narrator puts herself in the story for her own sake. She wants to be recognized in her own story. Not only is he writing this story but why not let her be in it to give her more publicity as well. I think she wants to prove something because she is a white woman who wrote the story and this was not common in this time period. She also wanted people who were reading the story to realize that by putting her in the book she knew Oroonoko.
ReplyDelete2)I think this speech is powerful and that is exactly how we are suppose to take it. It talks about how unfair the world is when it comes to race and how badly the black people have been treated.Oroonoko is the one who is speaking and bashes on many people he is surrounded by. I think that some people were shocked by the narrator leaving the part in where he bad mouthed white women. I really enjoyed the speech because I think it added something extra to the novel.
Good responses (by 'some people,' do you mean people in class or the original readers? Make this clear--and speculate as to why? Would would this be shocking?)
DeleteQuestion 1) Behn pushed her relationship so strongly with Oroonoko to show the reader not only was I present during all of this but I was personally involved. By saying she had a romantic relationship with the main character of her book, she basically becomes a main character herself. And who wouldn’t want to be a main contributor to a historical event. It is the ultimate way to promote envy and curiosity, perfect for book sales. Of course, as we discussed none of this was true, and Behn could not rewrite history; therefore, Oroonoko’s speech and her sudden departure were simply unfortunate coincidences that needed some form of justification or explanation.
ReplyDeleteQuestion 4) Before discussing the book in class, I previously believe Behn had multiple motives for writing Oroonoko – personal promotion, racial issues, and to prove she, as a woman in the 1700’s was able to write a book. Now I believe Behn wrote this book strictly as a sales pitch. Maybe, race wasn’t even one of her agendas. She had to paint the picture of the natives being “noble savages” for a sales benefit. She make Oroonoko seem so European so other Europeans would not be turned off from possibly buying the land. This could also explain the reason Behn discussed the natives more than actually slavery itself. It was all about the sale.
Great responses!
Delete