On Paths Unknown discussion

Thread for discussion of Blind Assassin Parts VI - X
From:
VI. The Blind Assassin: The houndstooth suit; to: X. The Blind Assassin: Union Station


Note: I made the scope for this discussion thread a bit longer, so that really end spoilers can go into the last thread. :)

home now and on my fone, and using data here I see that there have been quite a few comments since I left the library. and this new thread. well, sorry to muck things up but I need to say this now: I am procrastinating of course but I feel sick, in fact I have put on my pajamas put off dinner and gotten in bed to read the last 20 pages.
okay, I feel a bit calmer now, I guess this is what a group reading is really good for.
very interested in the Hittites, a bloodthirsty bunch with human sacrifice the alterpiece of their ethics. Travelers list, him, you do know your bible. Did God really do that? I have issues with Its methodology. Personally, I tend to deplore organized murder whoever is doing the killing. Not just the people who died or were assimilated but the lost cultures that dies with them.

Magdelanye wrote: " Not just the people who died or were assimilated but the lost cultures that dies with them. ..."

Yes, that is the part that I really find disturbing, actually. Other peoples like the Romans or the Egyptians would be happy to just conquer and subjugate a people, but what the OT Jews seem to have had in common with the People of Desolation/Joy, is an obsession with purity, and the concept of something being tainted just by proximity.

Note that in some cases, they put to death not only every single member of a peoples, including the old and mothers and babies, but even their livestock and their pets - every living thing in their vicinity would be slaughtered... I find such a killing zeal frightening, and the rationale behind it just as chilling.
Take, for example, the rationale behind the flood that involved Noah's ark. Every single living thing was supposed to be destroyed except for one pair of each. But why? Is the concept of sin supposed to stretch to deer and butterflies and bees and puppies as well?

Oh, and Derek - granted, the Jews were often on the receiving end too, but they were never completely obliterated. Mind you, I myself would not have been here if they had been back then, because I apparently have some Jewish lady in my maternal ancestry, so yeah.

Traveller wrote: "Magdelanye wrote: " Not just the people who died or were assimilated but the lost cultures that dies with them. ..."

Yes, that is the part that I really find disturbing, actually. Other peoples l..."

Ironic that people can be less blood thirsty than the god in their various scriptures. Consider that with the fact that the majority of terrorism in the US issues from religion-inspired motivation, and you have to wonder about the inherent goodness that suppose to be present in religious teaching.

On the other hand, I remember an observation by a philosopher concerning judgements of 'good' and 'bad' things: To a population, a gallows can be considered evil, yet to a king, the gallows is useful in the management of his kingdom so it is good.

I try to think all around the edges of the box, but have little tolerance for religious fanaticism as motivation for murder.

By the way, I'm reading part VII now, and the storyline is kicking up. How did Iris's daughter die, and what happened to cause such a huge break from Richard. Intriguing....!

Warning: About 100 pages from the end and you might find yourself unable to stop reading. I burned the midnight oil and I'll be tired today, but damn, that was a good story and Atwood's prose is excellent.

Ohboy, let me make a thread for the last section, then?

Final thread for discussion of the ending here: https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

Traveller wrote: "Oh, and Derek - granted, the Jews were often on the receiving end too,"

That wasn't me... I'm 100% in agreement that the genocides of the Bible are on the Israelites' part.

Chance wrote: "and what happened to cause such a huge break from Richard. Intriguing....! "

Well, let's see… Withholding the telegrams about her father's death, on her honeymoon? I'm the least sentimental person anywhere about death. I thought my wife was, but then we preplanned our funerals (or, rather, lack of them), and my wife said something that made me realize that I care far less than she does. Dead is dead. But someone once said in my hearing that "funerals are for the living", and I completely agree. It's completely true that Iris couldn't have got back to Ontario in time for her father's funeral, but she could at least have sent a telegram to Laura, and been home for her as soon as possible.

I'm having a little trouble with Atwood's characterization of the mid-30s. One of us doesn't know our history as well as we think we do! When Iris first arrives back in Toronto, Laura phones and it's treated as a matter of insignificance, when long distance phone calls in Ontario were a major piece of work when I arrived there in 1969.

Then, when they immediately go to Port Ticonderoga, she says it takes four hours for a trip that would take two today. Not so long ago, I read an account by a doctor who moved to take up a practice where I now live at about that time. For what is a two-hour journey today, it took him two DAYS! Now, I live in Nova Scotia and in those days none of the roads were paved, where Iris makes the point that some of the roads they travelled were. But even for rich people, tires were poorer, engines were terrible, gas stations few and far between, and roads more poorly maintained (though modern Canadians will tend to doubt that last). I've lived in all the towns Atwood used to make Port Ticonderoga, I know the roads they'd have to take, and I just don't believe it was a four hour journey.

Derek (Guilty of thoughtcrime) wrote: "Traveller wrote: "Oh, and Derek - granted, the Jews were often on the receiving end too,"

That wasn't me... I'm 100% in agreement that the genocides of the Bible are on the Israelites part.

Chan..."

I can understand Richard's justification for not telling Iris about her father---it wasn't right, but I see how he might rationalize it. Still, Iris puts up with everything, until she learns of the final betrayal. All the rotten things about Richard leave no doubt when he is finally exposed as a monster.

Oh, I understand his rationalization. I can just see that, from the very beginning of their marriage, he's betraying her. To me it's not "what caused such a huge break?" so much as "how did she put up with him as long as she did?"

Derek (Guilty of thoughtcrime) wrote: "Oh, I understand his rationalization. I can just see that, from the very beginning of their marriage, he's betraying her. To me it's not "what caused such a huge break?" so much as "how did she put..."

I suppose the narrator may not be completely honest. She may have liked the grand clothes and travel, etc, especially after experiencing financial troubles. Frankly, she didn't seem to have a lot of prospects. She used her position, for example, at Laura's school. It was a guided cage, and many people agreed to live in them. I was pleased she had her limits. By then, she may have grown more confident that she could live on her own. Up to her maturity, I think Iris was simply afraid and did much to maintain financial security, for her and Laura.

Chance wrote: "Up to her maturity, I think Iris was simply afraid and did much to maintain financial security, for her and Laura."

There's a whole essay or discussion topic on the relationship between the two sisters, but it would be spoiler-heavy, and I'm not sure quite what the question would be. Suggestions?

Derek (Guilty of thoughtcrime) wrote: "I'm having a little trouble with Atwood's characterization of the mid-30s. One of us doesn't know our history as well as we think we do! [....] I know the roads they'd have to take, and I just don't believe it was a four hour journey.
"

Well-argued points there, Derek - I believe you got her on those points.

Margaret.... Who hasn't done her homework well?

Let's put all the spoilers regarding the ending in this thread END SPOILERS

Chance wrote: "She may have liked the grand clothes and travel, etc, especially after experiencing financial troubles. Frankly, she didn't seem to have a lot of prospects. "

Possibly, but it didn't feel like she actually "wanted" anything right up to the marriage. She drifted.

Iris was the least interesting character, for that reason. Laura was intriguing. Iris provided the lens through which to view her sister. (view spoiler)[ As the older sister, I was surprised how often Iris failed to act when Laura needed her. This lack of drive was consistent. Her only action was the affair with Alex, which, interestingly enough, was in opposition to both Richard and Laura. (hide spoiler)]

Eek, guys, is that not an ending spoiler, Chance? You could always use spoiler tags if you want to post it in this thread...

Traveller wrote: "Eek, guys, is that not an ending spoiler, Chance? You could always use spoiler tags if you want to post it in this thread..."

Sorry. Edited, and spoiler-free.

Sorry, Chance, you know me and spoilers. :P
Thanks... I myself am not at the ending yet, but I'm going to push a bit tonight and we'll see how far I get. :)

Traveller wrote: "Sorry, Chance, you know me and spoilers. :P
Thanks... I myself am not at the ending yet, but I'm going to push a bit tonight and we'll see how far I get. :)"

I pushed tonight. Did I beat you?

I also finished around midnight.

I got busy again with, this time, some urgent home repairs. :P
Almost there....

In fact, I am only just past the part where you realize there's a weird sort of ménage à trois going on, and that the hand in the picture could have been either of them. The plot thickens!

Hmm, I think what was done to Iris (view spoiler)[ in being forced to marry Richard (hide spoiler)] was very cruel.

Very cruel, but not so unusual. It happens in many cultures. Also, what were her alternatives?

Cecily wrote: "Very cruel, but not so unusual. It happens in many cultures. Also, what were her alternatives?"

Yes, I was thinking that. It seemed quite typical of traditional arranged marriages. Still, it happened very quickly...

Oh, and of course, one gradually realizes that Alex is talking about himself in his Blind Assassin story....

Traveller wrote: "Cecily wrote: "Very cruel, but not so unusual. It happens in many cultures. Also, what were her alternatives?"

Yes, I was thinking that. It seemed quite typical of traditional arranged marriages...."

But, Iris is the one (view spoiler)[ whose actions indirectly caused the death of Richard and Laura. She is an assassin, of a kind. (hide spoiler)]

Cecily wrote: "Very cruel, but not so unusual. It happens in many cultures. Also, what were her alternatives?"

Not even deliberately cruel, I think. Her father knew he was not going to be able to look after both his children, so he found a way that Iris would be taken care of (with that blindness men have, that Iris would be content with his arrangement), and left what little he had left to Laura, who he knew would never be able to make an advantageous marriage.

And, in fact, even though Iris rebelled, she did manage to make an apparently satisfactory life for herself, minus the ability to have a good relationship with her daughter or any relationship at all with her granddaughter.

So, I agree it was cruel, but only in light of our current mores.

Chance wrote: "But, Iris is the one..."

ooh... no. I'll take my response to the final thread!

Derek, I see what your saying, but I think you're being a little generous to the father. Yes, he realised he needed to find a way to provide for his daughters, but couldn't he have tried to find someone a little better than Richard (and Winifred)? Maybe not. But the fact that's who he chose is part of what makes it more cruel than a more generic arranged marriage, imo.

Cecily wrote: "Derek, I see what your saying, but I think you're being a little generous to the father. Yes, he realised he needed to find a way to provide for his daughters, but couldn't he have tried to find so..."

Yes, Richard feels to me to be one of those villians whom you want to take by the neck and squeeze until he goes purple. >:C
...and in the end, their father's decision to consolidate with (and sell his daughter to) Richard bit him in the back. Richard stabbed him in the back just like the typical tycoon who steps over the bodies of people to claw themselves to the top...

I could have accused MA of painting a caricature of the heartless capitalist with Richard, but then at least there's Iris's father and grandfather, who mitigate the portrait of the heartless capitalist by having a conscience in contrast to Richard.

Derek (Guilty of thoughtcrime) wrote: "Chance wrote: "But, Iris is the one..."

ooh... no. I'll take my response to the final thread!"

Thanks, Derek! :) :) :)

Cecily wrote: "Yes, he realised he needed to find a way to provide for his daughters, but couldn't he have tried to find someone a little better than Richard (and Winifred)?"

Definitely. He could have found a good match for Iris who wouldn't have been such a dirtbag, but he also thought he could save his factories (or at least, Iris thought he thought that, and I think she's right) and so the livelihood of hundreds of his employees. He admits he's sacrificing her for the business, but Iris thinks that he and Richard have a firm agreement about that, and thinks it's fair. (view spoiler)[It's only when Iris finds that her father has committed suicide over the factory closures that she realizes what Richard has done. (hide spoiler)]

I need to say more about this on the final thread.

Don't forget, the father had a lot of loyalty to his workers. In large part, he was trying to save the factory(ies) for them, not for the money or the family, or so I saw it. I didn't think he intentionally sought out an awful partner for Iris, or even that he knew what Richard was in any clear sense. His fault at this point was the decision to put the loyalty to the workers over that to his daughters, and of course the interesting ethical decisions are when it's not simply a choice between good, on one hand, and evil. Of course, too, his brain was likely half pickled by that point.

That's a good point, Jan. And his error here was compounded by the fact he'd never really understood or been close to his daughters. But even if you assume the necessity of effectively selling one daughter to save the other and his employees, he ought to have had enough nous and consideration to have been more certain of his choice. Maybe if he'd been healthy and sober, that would have been so.

Re Norval vs Richard:
I know it's easy when you're on the outside looking in, but to me Richard's utterances in his speeches that were cited in the newspapers should have spoken volumes about the Arch-capitalist that he was; I mean, he was pro-Hitler (therefore had a facist streak) and he was quite openly anti-communist; though granted, I think the "Reds phobia" that became so strong later on in the US had already started by then.

...but maybe it was Richard's success in business that Norval had stared himself blind against? I suppose he saw in Richard a potential saviour, maybe he thought Richard would get all his own factories up and running again,- that it was just an injection of capital that was needed.

I suspect he may have been blind to the fact that the factories died because of the state of the economy, and not through an inherent fault of his own - perhaps his only "business-sense" fault had been that he was not callous and calculating enough in his business decisions - most tycoons don't get rich through compassion but through being calculating, and often, ruthless as well.

On a completely different note, I had been wanting to comment on one of the post-modern characteristics of the novel, being the "pastiche" that she does on "pulp fiction" and the pop-culture that was prevalent in the period she writes about. I have always had a soft spot for those old comics and the type of 'literature' that Alex keeps churning out as potboilers.

But also, I love the way how the characters in the novel (Alex, and ... Iris?) show their own feelings and philosophies in the way that they tell the sci-fi story.

I wanted to like the pulp fiction pastiche, but I tended to rush through it a bit (not skip or skim, but not give it great attention either) because I wanted to get back to what felt like the main story - even though I realised that in some ways, this is.

Jan wrote: "Of course, too, his brain was likely half pickled by that point. "

Yes, you can see where Iris got her passivity and detachment (she did say she took after him, while Laura was like their mother). When faced with a difficult decision, instead of trying to find a solution with a clear mind, he retreats to drink: and so did Iris after Richard's death (possibly before). I can totally understand that.

Cecily wrote: "I wanted to like the pulp fiction pastiche, but I tended to rush through it a bit (not skip or skim, but not give it great attention either) because I wanted to get back to what felt like the main ..."

To me the bits with Iris as an old woman is boring, and I wish I could just skip through those bits in the blink of an eye, whereas for me the story of the blind Assassin and the mute girl is the most interesting for various reasons, and yes, partly because it is a sort of parallel to their own lives.

Derek (Guilty of thoughtcrime) wrote: "
Yes, you can see where Iris got her passivity and detachment (she did say she took after him, while Laura was like th..."

I've been wanting to comment on Iris's incredible passivity, but I've been waiting for a suitable moment, wondering if I was not being unfair because the girls grew up in such a secluded manner - they were pretty much neglected, if you think about it...

Traveller wrote: "Re Norval vs Richard:
I know it's easy when you're on the outside looking in, but to me Richard's utterances in his speeches that were cited in the newspapers should have spoken volumes about the..."

We have the benefit of hindsight. Back then many people had those sympathies. It's like today--noise and confusion without any handwriting on the wall that was accepted by all, not even by all good people. We saw Richard having to scuttle for cover eventually, after the war started.

Derek (Guilty of thoughtcrime) wrote: "...Not even deliberately cruel, I think. Her father knew he was not going to be able to look after both his children, so he found a way that Iris would be taken care of (with that blindness men have, that Iris would be content with his arrangement), and left wh.... ...So, I agree it was cruel, but only in light of our current mores."

Derek's thinking is along the same lines as mine, here.

Jan wrote: " We have the benefit of hindsight. Back then many people had those sympathies..."

That's true, I guess. Many people didn't realize the full extent of what Hitler was up to, for starters, and many, many people supported nationalism and fascism, and even do to this day, so yeah, I guess...¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Also, Norval had been deeply influenced by WW1 in ways that is hard to gauge for a person (like myself) who is so far removed from the event chronologically speaking.

Traveller wrote: "Cecily wrote: "I wanted to like the pulp fiction pastiche, but I tended to rush through it a bit (not skip or skim, but not give it great attention either) because I wanted to get back to what felt..."

That's really interesting, Trav. I had pretty much the opposite reaction. To me it's a historical novel, narrated by the old Iris, with other threads thrown in, in Atwood's superlative way. I was most interested in what the story had to say about this part of Canada in the early years of that now-departed century

Extraneous comment:

Traveller wrote: "... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ ..."

Very nice emoticon, Traveller. With what character did you make the sidewise smile? ...And the thrown-upward hands?

I was wondering the same. ") I obviously couldn't do it. Is it a tiny photo?

There are some characters not on one's keyboard one can make with the alt key and numbers on the right side of the keyboard. I was looking but didn't spot those.

These deep intellectual concerns must not be neglected, lol.

Oh, the smiley - well, it's made by using Japanese characters, so what I've done, is I have saved a copy of it on my "notes", a desktop gadget that I keep open all the time, and I just copy and paste it from there when I get an excuse to use it. :)

Ted wrote: "I was most interested in what the story had to say about this part of Canada in the early years of that now-departed century ..."

Oh, I am very interested in Iris's story that deals with the past, and with the bits of history; I meant solely the bits that deal with Iris's present are less interesting to me.

In fact, I see the comments reflecting on the pulp sci-fi pop literature of the time as part of history as well - a part of cultural history.

Traveller wrote: "Oh, the smiley - well, it's made by using Japanese characters, so what I've done, is I have saved a copy of it on my "notes", a desktop gadget that I keep open all the time, and I just copy and pas..."

...Ah.... I do that, too. :)

I thought my keyboard might be able to "compose" the ") as Ted did, but I think I'm only set up for European characters.

Traveller wrote: "Iris's incredible passivity… wondering if I was not being unfair because the girls grew up in such a secluded manner - they were pretty much neglected, if you think about it."

They were, which is why I keep making allowances for Iris.