|
|
Post by Tricia on Mar 28, 2006 23:19:42 GMT -6
All--
I found this quote from Wilhelmsen's The Curse of Destiny: The Betrayal Of General George Armstrong Custer and am wondering what you all might think of it. To set the scene, we are in Inkpaduta's head, i.e., his point of view:
"With a sly grin, he took his place inside the circle, and began his usual harangue about the whites. Then followed a recital of the atrocities he and his followers had committed on the Fetterman command (pg. 43) ..."
My question is this: would the Native Americans commonly refer to their post-battle treatment of Anglo corpses (or not quite corpses) as true "atrocities?" Or is this an example where an author is making a value judgment upon a different culture's actions? This is a very pro-Custer book (though in many ways Wilhelmsen presents GAC as a faulted individual), granted, but this part of the narrative confounded me.
Regards,
Leyton McLean
|
|
|
|
Post by El Crab on Mar 30, 2006 0:13:03 GMT -6
Its been awhile since I took any sort of writing/English classes, but it doesn't seem like we're in Inkpaduta's head. We're watching from nearby, and apparently from a white's point of view.
|
|
|
|
Post by markland on Mar 30, 2006 23:20:29 GMT -6
The word "atrocities" gives it away, i.e., that a Anglo is wriiting the story.
Billy
|
|
|
|
Post by Tricia on Mar 31, 2006 9:10:01 GMT -6
Obviously, an Anglo has crafted the tale. That wasn't my point. However, one of the first priorities of writing a novel that endevours to portray a point of view or a character beyond that of the Author-God is that the writer must become invisible--despite what they think of whatever practice their character is talking about. It simply adds credence to the narrative. My suggestion would have been--had the author wanted to write as an *observer* to and judge said scene, then add an Anglo character who witnessed it or an Indian who might question after-battle "tactics." What we have in this example is that a Native American is regarding his behaviour as "atrocities," when most likely, they thought no such thing. Was that the reality? Wilhelmsen also gets inside of the heads of a prostitute, all the men of the Seventh, Crazy Horse, and so on. Very, very brave stuff, indeed!
Writing Point: The problem with omniscient (which Wilhelmsen employs) portrayals is that all the points of view can become watered down and less genuine. The Wilhelmsen's history is dead on--but it's hurt by the wandering camera angles. Third person limited is probably more effective ... unless you're Robert Altman or written the screenplay to Crash.
Regards,
Leyton McLean
|
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Mar 31, 2006 10:33:33 GMT -6
More than likely the author did not do much research on Native Americans and judged them by white culture . . . like CSS . . . who would have not taken any sides or pointed out any "atrocties" . . . just being objective.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tricia on Mar 31, 2006 13:35:16 GMT -6
Crzhrs--
You got the point! Bingo! I'm not going to say that Wilhelmsen didn't do enough research--because he seems to really know his stuff in the narrative--in regards to the Native Americans, but if his opinion could not help but enter Inkpudata's thought process, he should have stuck to another point of view over hurting the authenticity of the story.
Regards,
Leyton McLean
|
|
|
|
Post by El Crab on Mar 31, 2006 16:51:55 GMT -6
Crzhrs-- You got the point! Bingo! I'm not going to say that Wilhelmsen didn't do enough research--because he seems to really know his stuff in the narrative--in regards to the Native Americans, but if his opinion could not help but enter Inkpudata's thought process, he should have stuck to another point of view over hurting the authenticity of the story. Regards, Leyton McLean But we're not in his head. That's my point. |
|
|
|
Post by Tricia on Mar 31, 2006 17:39:34 GMT -6
Crab--
In the context of the chapter, we--the readers--are supposed to be in Inkpudata's head. It is the author's writing that makes you think you aren't and that is problematic.
LMC
|
|
|
|
Post by El Crab on Apr 2, 2006 2:58:55 GMT -6
Crab-- In the context of the chapter, we--the readers--are supposed to be in Inkpudata's head. It is the author's writing that makes you think you aren't and that is problematic. LMC Then say "we are supposed to be in Inkpaduta's head. The context of your post doesn't make any sense. The issue is not that the point of view isn't correct to the ethnicity of person who provides the POV, its that the writer didn't even put us there in the first place. Its not that Inkpaduta's POV seems incorrect. The problem is its not his POV. Its not a poorly written and incorrect POV, its a non-existent one. We're looking into his actions, not into his head. Its just surprising that a writer, such as yourself, managed to bollocks up this thread's point so badly. Its neither through his eyes, nor even from the native perspective. But eve POV and perspective are two separate things. |
|
|
|
Post by Tricia on Apr 2, 2006 11:24:55 GMT -6
There are several good websites that explain POV in fiction. I'd suggest you look there.
|
|
|
|
Post by custerstillstands on Apr 3, 2006 13:49:31 GMT -6
More than likely the author did not do much research on Native Americans and judged them by white culture . . . like CSS . . . who would have not taken any sides or pointed out any "atrocties" . . . just being objective. Oh yes... Cutting genitals is normal. Torturing people is normal. Just a cultural divide ! 9/11 is also normal in Arab point of view... Are you ready to accept it ? |
|
|
|
Post by markland on Apr 3, 2006 14:22:23 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by Tricia on Apr 3, 2006 14:54:32 GMT -6
More than likely the author did not do much research on Native Americans and judged them by white culture . . . like CSS . . . who would have not taken any sides or pointed out any "atrocties" . . . just being objective. Oh yes... Cutting genitals is normal. Torturing people is normal. Just a cultural divide ! 9/11 is also normal in Arab point of view... Are you ready to accept it ? CSS-- Nobody is asking you to accept anything, morally. What we are TRYING to explain is the incongruities in a scene that purports itself to be from Inkpudata's POV (which can show a person's perspective on life and other issues). Most likely, an Indian would not look at their post-battle performances as atrocities ... and it is that use of the term that makes the author fail at portraying a Native American's point of view. In fiction, like film, there is a supposition of a "suspension of disbelief," and if there is a reason to drop it, then the author/filmmaker hasn't done their job. It would have been best had the author not bothered to attempt it, whether or not you agree with his feelings on the matter. Regards, Leyton McLean |
|
|
|
Post by weir on Apr 4, 2006 10:33:25 GMT -6
The author should have described the facts, just the facts.
People are digusted anyway and don't need lessons nor explanations for such behaviors.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tricia on Apr 4, 2006 10:44:55 GMT -6
West--
You're not understanding the point of this conversation. This is in regards to FICTION, and "facts"--as you call them--can be represented, interpreted, or even ignored in different manners when it comes to a specific character's point of view. This is not a discussion where you are welcome to trash it with your ideas regarding any ethnic groups' behaviours; it IS one to see how an author--who does present a good plot--has dangerously weakened his narrative.
Regards,
Leyton McLean
|
|
