Propero’s Daughter reflects the battle of good and evil between the various characters. Nunez depicts the relationship of the natives and the English colonizers which consist of racism and prejudice. The entire novel displays the battle of equality and tolerance for all races as well as the search for happiness in a prejudice society. The story reveals a courageous struggle to gain justice and equality. One of the main characters, Carlos Codrington, challenged the authority of the Mr. Gardner who was considered a man of high stature. Even though Mr. Gardner was considerably wealthy, he was still a foul and evil man. Nunez reveals the conflict of good and evil within Mr. Gardner’s character through his sexual molestation of his daughter and his repeated attempts to beg for her forgiveness.
I definately agree with Taara that Dr. Gardner is a fould and evil man. Although he rebukes Blacks for being uncivilized and ruthless, he himself molests his daughter, Virginia and slave, Ariana. I think that in this way Nunez attempts to examine good and evil. Another example can be made from when the doctor burns Carlos' mother's bed and speaks encantations. When Carlos hears this his is frightened and finds Gardner to resemble the devil at that particular moment. Perhaps Gardner's repeated insults of Black culture is a disguise he uses for the evil that brews inside of him.
I agree with Naakoshie when she mentioned the incident of Gardner burning the bed. His evilness may stem from the previous science experiments he did back home in England. He was experimenting with medicines and he ended up killing some patients. Gardner has treacherous ways and he also seems to be unstable. When he was chanting during the burning of Carlos’s mothers bed, it was very unusual and it seemed as if he possessed some sort of evil inside of him. Naakoshie was also right when she mentioned that Gardner feels he is in a position to judge others when really he sexually molests his own flesh and blood.
I believe that Scanner said a very good thing about the relation of morality with station and class. Dr. Gardner only assumes that Ariana is promiscuous bescause of her race. In the same way he only views Carlos as ignorant simply because of the color of his skin. In this way Nunez brings up the theme of ignorance and how the races relate to each other. While the doctor almost immediately sees Carlos aas stupid and worthless, he is taken aback when he learns that he can read. In fact, Carlos is able to handle education much more easily than his own daughter, who is white.
In many cases ignorance leads to blindness so through Gardner’s ignorance towards other races, he was not able to see that the intelligence that Carlos possessed. It is very surprising, however, to see that Virginia did not possess the same negativity towards non whites as her father did. Usually, parents are responsible for instilling racism and hate into their kids and even though Gardner tried to convince Virginia to believe she was superior to them, she still saw them as equals.
Dr. Gardner is so evil that the character almost seems unreal. He is such an evil man, not just because of what he did to his daughter or because of his racism, but also because there is not a good reason for him to be so evil. His brother's betrayal of him may have driven him mad, but there is no real reason for him to molest his daughter. A lot of his evil comes from his ignorance and racism. He is blind to Carlos' intelligence simply because his skin is not white. He also cannot see how Virginia could love Carlos. The book does not say that all ignorance is evil, but it does say that all evil is ignorance.
I agree with Nicholas’s statement that all ignorance is not necessarily evil but all evil is ignorance. Gardner’s childhood and growing up consisted of him competing with his brother. Many people felt that Gardner was a freak because of his freakish creations and experimental medicines. After some of his experiments failed and his patients died, he fled to keep himself out of trouble. This seems as if it were the beginning of Gardner’s evil because his intentions were not necessarily for the good of the patients, but they were for the good of his own science and work.
I agree with Naakoshie and Taara that Dr. Gardner is an evil man. To me it seemed as though he was the evil in the book. He represented evil in different forms and different ways. Not only was he responsible for the deaths of several patients, and not only did he hold prejudices, like Nicholas said, but he also put harm in the way of his daughter. That to me is the one thing that makes him the most evil. A father's role is to support, protect, and help his daughter. Sure he provided her with a home, but not a good one. Imagine what effects this will have on Virginia well into her life.
I also agree with Taara that Dr.Gardner is truly an evil man, who molested his own daughter. It's one thing to see oneself as superior because of ones race and another to completely deprive others form their innocence and freedom. Although he was supposedly trying to protect Virginia's purity, he in fact was the one who took away her innocence and childhood. He looks down upon the Trinidadians and treats them like slaves. Dr.Gardner is a complicated character, who embodies the conflict between good and evil in the novel. He arms his own daughter, enslaves carlos and Ariana and he also defiles her at the same time. Then as Taara mentioned asks for her forgiveness, whether for yelling at her or molesting her.
Nunez uses Shakespeare's The Tempest to better illustrate the point of man and savage. Who determines who is a man and who is a savage. It is ironic that Mr. Gardner thinks of himself as the civilized man. His cruelty and interests in hybrids (both human and his orchids) reminds me of Hitler. Both are demented, cruel, hypocrites, and most definitely pathetic.
I think it is significant that Nunez shows how there is such a contrast between the locals and the British. Their lifestyle and ease do not flow and harmonize with the island. The local's easy going attitude and the stiff lipped British conflict with each other. Perhaps this represents the greater conflict of the effects of British imperialism.
(a note: i accidentally signed in with the account "scannerprovider...in awesome" before. I have now created a propper account to post with.)
Earlier in the year, we generally came to the conclusion that morality can be defined differently by different people. I think we also concluded that a general morality is, in part, established as the average of all people's ideas. In this light, it is interesting to note the seclusion from society that defined the household on Chacachacare. Dr. Gardner was almost entirely without social peers with which to create a solid societal morality. As time went on, and he went longer and longer without fulfilling certain sexual desires, his morality began to change. At first, it was Arriana, then he went as far as his own daughter. It is also interesting how Gardner claimed that he still had his old morality from his earlier life despite his actions. While many Dr. Gardner's horrible actions were derived from an earlier morality that held racist views and the likes, a new morality had to form before he would go so far as to mollest his own daughter.
Marty brought up a good point, in that people define what is good and evil and abide by it. But there is also a general sense of what is good and evil. Even though Dr.Gardner came from a society that held racist believes, molesting ones daughter has no excuse whether he was deprived and excluded from society. Plus he was ashamed with his sexual relations with Arinia because he would hide it. His actions and behaviors somewhat went along with those of other British people in Trinidad. But 'raping' Arinia and harshly punishing Carlos was in the end looked down upon.
Deviating from the theme of good and evil, I would like to address Carlos' education. I find it very interesting that, while Gardner imposes his own ideas of racism, Carlos is not disturbed by it. He remains to be proud of his Trinidadian culture and does not assimilate to the "Superior" English culture that Gardner teaches him. One would think that through the doctor's blatant racism, that Carlos would feel some type of contempt for his race, but that is hardly the case. For him to take the education from Gardner without the racial biases, shows Carlos' maturity. One could speculate that he was able to gain this sort of pride in himself from his parents. Since his parents regarded each other as equal (being that they were from different races), one can assume that he felt the same way. Judging from this, it is fair to say that his parents' relationship gave him a more worldly view about the equality of races.
It is obvious that Dr.Gardner is an evil man, as eluded to by everyone thus far. Reasons for his evilness has many factors. One could be the feeling of betrayal by his brother, as mentioned by Taara and it could also be because his past. Having to leave ones country and a beloved job, could also fuel hatred or evilness. His life was threatened because of the abnormal experiments he did on his patients. It could also be due to the feeling of lose, since he did lose his one and true love, Virginia's mother. Another factor could be jealousy, Gardner seems to be jealous of his brother, who was popular and was his mothers favorite. Although he was the smarter brother, everyone loved Paul, the brother. All of these factors could have built up Gardners's evil morality.
Like Bianca, I was also thinking about what we learned earlier this year. Good and evil is determined by the person and how what one considers evil others may not. A lot of times when people commit crimes that the community agrees upon as wrong they have their own reasons as to why they did it. Even though other people may not be able to agree with it they do have their reasons. However the part that leaves me stuck, or the thing that I keep thinking about is what Prospero uses as justification in his head for what he does. How can someone justify bringing harm to their own flesh and blood? I am honestly interested in peoples opinions or ideas because I am having trouble coming up with an answer.
Gardner is, of course, an evil man, but let's not forget the other characters. Mumsford, too, shares in Gardner's beliefs in racism. It was Mumsford who, at first, classified Ariana's letter as lies simply because she was black. It was Mumsford who ignored the reality in front of him simply because Gardner, an Englishman, could not be responsible for such evil acts. This is simply because of an issue we are familiar with, skin color. The mindset of Mumsford can be thought of as wrong, evil, and just as bad as Gardner's. The only difference between the two is that Mumsford does not try to change others opinion's. This of course puts him on a higher level morally than Gardner. Gardner, of course, has much to be blamed for as well. He can't get past the color of one's skin if he tried. However, the confusing twist in his mind is that he violated his daughter, who is white, just the same as Arian, who is black. Therefore, I think his prejudice goes beyond skin color and leads into sexism. Gardner views any young woman as a target for sex, and any young black person as a target for torcher. His prejudices never end. I don't think his problems started on the island, either. I think that the trigger for all of his actions is the conflict with his brother. His brother was always superior to him, so when he gets the chance to be superior to someone else, he pounces on it. Therefore, harming those in his way. Gardner needs to have power over someone. He needs to believe that he is worth something, no matter who he harms. If he harms someone, even better. Then it is true proof that he is better than them. Gardner is a simple man, really. He believes he is worth something. He believes he is the answer to everyone's questions. But the truth is that he isn't. The only thing credited to him in his life is his orchids, the killing of multiple patients, torcher of a young black man, and violation of two young women. All of the bad things cancel out his orchids, the little love he had for his daughter, and come together to pronounce him a bad man.
Like everyone has said, Gardner's evil stems from his past. What happened with his brother, mother, and patients influenced the person he became. However the prejudices he held against everyone who did not look like him was an example of his, what I would call, ignorance. I agree with Molly about the fact that Gardner has always been inferior to his brother so he uses the opportunity he has to be superior to someone else.
I agree with Suzi when she said that Gardner's evil stems from his past. However, I would take it one step further to say that in this book, evil creates evil, just as good leads to more good. Gardner’s brother stole his money and cut him off from his family and country. While this obviously does not forgive his horrible treatment of his daughter, Carlos, and Ariana, I do think that he would not have been quite as evil a character had he had a positive influence in his life. He was drawn to Virginia because she is personified as pure good, as was his wife. He begs for Virginia’s forgiveness because, as the ultimate symbol of good, she is the only one who can save him. When she refuses to forgive him, it symbolizes his final fall from grace.
I understand what Emily is saying about how evil breeds evil and good breeds good and I agree. At the same time however, Virginia is subject to the evil of Dr. Gardner, but she still maintains her good faith. It was probably the influence of Carlos that kept her good. Also a lot of times we are able to understand and somewhat forgive people because of what they went through and suffered, but where is the line drawn? The point that Emily made about Gardner being drawn to Virginia because of her goodness is interesting because it shows that Gardner wanted to be good. It’s interesting because he is drawn to her because of her good, and yet he commits evil acts against her.
I do agree with Suzi about drawing the line. And while I do think that Gardner is the personification of evil in the story, perhaps Nunez is saying that nothing is completely evil. After all, in his twisted mind, Gardner saw most of his actions as good. The reason why he did not take his daughter’s virginity and why he tortured Carlos, is because he thought he was protecting Virginia. Also, the reason why he stole Carlos’ house and burned his mother’s bed is because he saw his mother as evil. Therefore by destroying all trace of her, he was purging the area of her sins. I am not defending Gardner’s actions, which I find appalling, however, I am suggesting the idea that good and evil is completely subjective.
I like the way that Emily said that, "Nothing is completely evil". Its true that evil and good is up to the person to decide. However there is, like we talked about a while back in class, an agreed upon set of expectations and it seems as though certain things should be clear are wrong to people. However this is not the case with Gardner, who seems to have reasons for the things that he does that we consider evil. However he knows what he did was wrong and evil which is acknowledged in the book when he apologizes and begs Virginia for forgiveness.
I would like to respond to what Bianca said about Mumsford being evil. I think the true evil in this book is racism. Mumsford was blinded by the fact that all of his life he had been taught that he was superior because of the color of his skin. However, when he realized the kind of person Gardner was, he began to change his view and his behavior. This may be off topic, but I think this goes back to the idea of nature versus nurture. Perhaps evil is giving in to the ignorance you were taught and using it as an excuse, as Gardner did. While, good is at least trying to see that there could be another way of thinking.
I also agree with everyone else in the sense that Dr. Gardner is an evil man. He took advantage of people for his own benefit, neglecting how others thoughts or feelings may or may not have been affected. Although he came to the island as an outsider he evilly made his was to the status he desired, stealing some else’s home and making it his own. He began raping Ariana when she was only eight years old. He had Ariana believing that he was gone to set her free after specified amounts of time, although generally he routinely said a year. He also molested his own daughter which some may have thought he would not have crossed the line but Dr. Gardner did never failing to upset the audience by revealing the evil within himself repeatedly with little remorse.
I thought molly made an interesting comment when she said that Gardner was not only racist, but sexist as well. I had honestly never thought of it that way. However, I think the only category you can safely put him under is selfish. He thinks he is entitled to everything, and will make up a reason, such as his race, if it helps him to establish his goal. When he gave his patients experimental medicine, it was not because of their race or sex, but because he feels he is naturally better than everyone else.
As has been discussed before the evil within or about Dr. Gardner is rooted is his past. Even with his belonging to a religious family as a child still did not make much of a difference. Evil somehow found both him and his brother Paul. Paul promised to help his brother fix what he had done, which he did but he never allowed for his brother to come back to England. Paul threatened the day he ever tried to do. Paul also went back on his word of sending Dr. Gardner what remained after Paul fixed the mess that Dr. Gardner had made and returning the home that was once Dr. Gardner’s to him. The two it seemed were really childish when they were both young and grown. It seemed like after Peter did some evil act to Paul, Paul returned the favor by doing the same. This case at a particular point in the game Paul’s evil, won over Peter’s evil, which left Peter at a disadvantage for the most part.
I can somewhat agree with Marty's ideas that one's understanding of good and evil is an average of all societal beliefs about the two concepts. I, however, believe what is good and what is evil not to be averages, but universal, cultural beliefs. For instance, murder and incest are prohibited in societies around the all world--in Native American, Jewish, Christian, and Muslim circles. I also agree that Dr. Peter "Prospero" Gardener's character is the product of experiences from his environment. The consequence of the loss of his wife manifests itself as an adulterous desire for affection. His brother's betrayal is strikingly parallel to Prospero's acquisition of Carlos' home. An individual's environment, therefore, influences their psyche and morality of what is right from wrong. Perhaps Prospero is so shattered from the loss of his wife and brother's betrayal that he does not realize the harm he inflicts upon Ariana, Virginia, and Carlos is not too unlike the damage done to him.
If it is allowed, I would like to open this discussion up to include the modern significance of Nunez’s story and how it fits in with the social realities today. Speaking personally, a small part of me feels that Nunez is essentially preaching to the choir. The European colonials of old are the bad guys and the blacks and Europeans who sympathize with them are the good guys. The ending is happy as the racist antagonist is defeated and a mixed-race love is allowed to flower. It could be argued that the story does not really have much to add to the world debate on racism as it deals only with a past that has already been widely discussed and dealt with. I am playing the devil’s advocate here as I feel that Nunez has a very strong message that is certainly relevant to the modern social scene but I would like to hear what other people have to say. Is this just a cookie-cutter tale of clearly defined good and bad that ends happily ever after? What might Nunez’s story have to say about morality in the modern day?
I somewhat agree with Marty. It is a story of good and evil, colonialism, racism, and prejudice. Most of us have probably read many stories dealing with these themes. In my opinion, I think perhaps Nunez is probably trying to preach to a much more ignorant choir. By using Shakespeare's The Tempest, she'll probably get her message across much clearer. And I don't necessarily think this issue has already been dealt with. So long as humans exist, one will attempt to dominate others. We live, but at the expense of others. Because of colonialism as well as imperialism, we have essentially drugged these nations on power. Leaving behind nations who have weak governments and social crisis.
First off, I completely agree with the viewpoints of Molly. She brought up a lot of good points, that Prospero was not the only character that traits of evil.I also agree with Emily's point about racism and prejudice being the novel's true evil. Both Mumsford and Prospero are racists and discriminated against the natives. But I would like to respond to Marty's question. Nunez, as linh said is not preaching to the chior. Although the theme and messages are similar to other books we have read, the author is taking a different approach. To me, the book was using The Tempest as a tool to address the racism Trindad faced when it colonized by Great Britian. The ending signfied the truimph of the natives over the British. This might be a stretch, but possible. The issue of the novel, racism and prejudice is always going to be topic. It is something that is unviersal. Nunez is informing the issues of race in Trindad and using the characters as a symbol.
I do not agree that all of Gardner's inclinations towards evil havesurfaced mainly from his dealings with his brother. HIs blatant racism can be attributed to his country of origin. At that time Europeans all over the world had the ideas that they were far superior than any non-whites. They pushed their culture so arrogantly and this is found through Dr. Gardner, Mumsford and The Commissioner. Even though the commissioner is a black man, he, in some ways, conforms and assimilates to the English culture. This I find totally disgusting and appalling. Examples of this can be found when he questions Ariana's letter with Mumsford, just because she is black. This shows the extent of the evils of colonization. It will destroy an entire group of people while imposing a foreign culture. This assimilation is one that I find to be one of the greatest evils in the book.
Linh touched on my perspective with her words, “So long as humans exist, one will attempt to dominate others.” Nunez’s story speaks on a much broader scale than just racism. Gardner does not only molest a black girl but a white one too. While the ending of the story declares that racism is on the run and equality of the races will prevail, the sheer fanaticism that Gardner displays works to tell us that we must always be on the look out for those who seek to oppress. While Gardeners sense of superiority shows through most in his racist actions and ideas, this sense of his is not primarily racist. This feeling of inherent dominance that person may have can be realized into countless forms of oppressive action. Nunez subtly reminds us that, while one incarnation of this evil human tendency, racism, may be a good step closer to being defeated, the fundamental tendency will live one. I also feel that the happy ending that Carlos and Virginia find at the story's conclusion has a subtle, ominous undertone. In the end, the relationship of Carlos and Virginia is in many ways parallel to that of Carlos’ parents. Both relationships include a black man and a white woman and both couples end up living secluded on Chacachacare. The interesting fact is that Carlos’ father ended up killed by other people of society. This parallelism suggests that Virginia and Carlos may not see happiness to the end of their days after all. This intricate set-up should lead the reader to remember that society and the people in it will always face social ills. Victories will be made at points and periods of progress will come but there will always be a new challenge lying in the future and a new fanatic that will make the challenge that much harder to overcome.
I do not completely agree with Naa Koshie. I do agree however that his evilness was not due to his brother. For most things, it is best not to generalize, we all know this is far easier than dealing with problems individually.
Yes, it may have been true Europeans thought they were far superior, but I am sure they also thought that way of American whites (perhaps not compared to non whites). But I do not believe this generalization of Europeans. What I think most people have a problem differing between is government rule, and the people. Just as how there are Americans who do not wish for war in the Middle East despite our government's actions. The government does not always represent the people. And the people do not always comprehend situations if nothing is being made clear to them.
The Commissioner is mixed. He can pass off as white, in that world, who could blame him? If he could live a better life because of this, who could blame him? Yes, he should stand up, but I very much doubt he could have done so without losing his post. I do not find it disgusting nor appalling. Although I can see how it may seem cowardly and a betrayal of his blood. What he does is human.
I do not support colonization. But I do feel it is both a blessing and a curse (in some cases, not all). While it destroys native life as well as enact social prejudice, it does bring certain positives. Diseases have been wiped out, famines become rare, and schools have been built. A good example is India. It has fought British rule and imperialism while its country has advanced. Let me repeat myself, I do not agree with colonization. But you see in India now their people still flourish, their culture still intact, and perhaps more than ever the population has risen. These people have not been destroyed. Yes they have been severely decapitated. Yes the British abused their power and stripped their lands of resources and lives, but had they not have done so, the English language would not be as widely spoken in India as it is today. And had it not been the British, it would have probably been China (assuming there wasn't yet another family trying to start a new dynasty).
And to further my point. Japans colonization of both Korea and some parts of China (during the second world war) is just as comparable to European conquest. Koreans have suffered at the hands of Japan for centuries. They have been slaves, a lower class in their own country. This phenomenon is not exclusive to Europeans. It is a human one.
To put blame on all Europeans and say they are all racist is too big of a generalization. That in itself shows that the understanding of dominance in this "dog eat dog" world is still a bit hazy. That of course isn't to say race isn't a big factor in the world. It always has been. The issue is with ignorance. It is what people are willing to learn, from each other, and from themselves.
"Victories will be made at points and periods of progress will come but there will always be a new challenge lying in the future and a new fanatic that will make the challenge that much harder to overcome." Yep, I agree.
Lastly I would also like to point out as Americans. We've all pretty much assimilated into each other (ie, think about that Chinese carry out so many Americans enjoy) (and if we haven't done so yet it will be inevitable). We are no different, assimilation is not always a bad thing. It is necessary. And I do understand that in the case of Trinidad it was not by their desires. I think a greater concern would be imperialism. Culture would be facing a much greater threat.
I too agree with the majority of my classmates. Dr. Gardner was an extremely "evil" character in Prospero's Daughter. He disliked Carlos for invliad reasons and treated him badly. However, I agree with Hywet and Emily the most about the race and prejudice issues. There were a lot of stereotypes displayed throughout the novel. One of the most common ones that the natives were ignorant and not very knowledgeable. Dr. Gardner viewed Carlos as a "uncivilized" and helpless. Sadly, racism is a problem that will most likely always be an issue. As long as people have ignorant perspectives of people because of the color of their skin, it will remain a problem.
In a way, I do agree with Naakoshie that Mr. Gardner's attitude toward Carlos and Ariana were because of their race. He viewed Carlos as "uncivilized" only because he did not act like what Mr. Gardner believed was civilized. Not only was there an issue with racism, but ignorance and social class played a role too. To Mr. Gardner, not only was Carlos black, but he was wild and uncivil. His ignorance lead to misconceptions about Carlos, which could be a result of unfamiliarity and the way he was raised in Britain.
I agree with Keonia when she said that race and ignorance played a role in Dr. Gardner’s attitude towards Carlos and Ariana. However, I do not really believed that social class played as much of a role. After all, when Dr. Gardner and Virginia first arrived on the island, Carlos was the one who owned the large house and a large inheritance from his mother. Dr. Gardner, as a result of his brother’s trickery, had no money or place to live. Similarly, when detective Mumsford lived in England, he was just another low level police officer. While he was not poor, he certainly did not lead an extravagant life. However, whe he moved to Trinidad, he quickly grew accustomed to his new wealthy lifestyle. He felt entitled to this new life because of the country he came from and the color of his skin. Like Mumsford, Gardner felt entitled to Carlos’ land and money. SO while these men started in a low social class, they were able to force themselves in to higher social standing because of their nationality. This was used as just another excuse to treat the locals poorly, however, at the heart of the matter is still racism.
Prospero's daughter was an interesting book that transcends the emotions and conflicts that were prominent in the Tempest. However, the comp temporary twist to the tempest has led me to understand clearly the ignorance of white people among other cultures. According to Dr. Gardner, the white race is pure and the only race fit to represent humanity. The combination between evil and ignorance created a monster that endangered himself and people around him.
Personally, when DR. Gardner raped his daughter, I was shocked and embarrassed for the male species. If the mans urges were so strong and his demented mind could think about harming his only daughter, then that man deserved to die. Another subject that intrigued me was the hypocrisy of Dr. Gardner, his views and beliefs were kept under wrap until he had more power. Once he had the upper hand, he changed his ways and began treating Miranda, Carlos, and eventually his daughter, Virginia, any way he wanted. I believe Dr. Gardner represents the many cases of people from a “dominant” race who believes they can do whatever they want. These people exist today and whenever they can get something from you, they are friendly and nice; however, once someone cannot offer anything, they backstab you.
I agree with Michael when he said that Dr. Gardner kept his beliefs under wraps until he got more power. His thirst for supremacy was so strong, that he was willing to violate his own child in order to feel it. Personally, I think it made him less of a man to do such a thing. It was obvious that the man was power hungry, and that he would do anything to get it. To the reader, Dr. Gardner seems very cynical, when in fact he is very clever. He acted as though he was a great person who never did anything wrong, when in fact, his entire life was a transgression. Also, it is apparent that he took his yearn for power a lot farther than race. He would do anything to get what he wanted, and if race was a minor factor that would get him closer to what he wanted, he would take it.
I agree with Naa Koshie that one of the greatest evils in Nunez's novel is assimilation or a lack of cultural pride of the commissioner in his Trinidadian heritage. Judging by the importance that high school and college admissions offices put on community service and giving back to one's own community, I can be concluded that giving back is not only good, but also along the lines of Nietzsche's master morality. Since fellow-feeling is a valued virtue in schools around the country, one can also argue that it is a standard of conduct that is accepted as right or proper (i.e. moral). The commissioner's distant attitude towards fellow Trinidadians, such as Ariana, indeed appear to be wrong because it deviates from social significance placed on cultural pride. How is the commissioner helping out his community when he decides not to trust Ariana’s note that Carlos and Virginia have a shared bond of love to be true? His doubts seem to suggest the contrary, that he cannot trust something produced by other Trinidadians. It may be the case that he would not want to be accused to favoring his own Trinidadian heritage over that of his English heritage. One reason for this, as Naa Koshie stated, could be colonialism, or the official ruling over another nation for its own benefit. As the Europeans that invaded Trinidad and claimed it as their territory did so for their benefit, the commissioner appears to be allying with those in power. Even though it is considered right to be thankful for the improvements one has received, it is also important to give back to one’s community and the commissioner could do this best if he sided with the rebels in the Trinidadian revolution that Nunez introduces towards the beginning of the story.
Carlos represents the many cases of people who have been discriminated or put down by another race. Colonization made it possible for Europeans to relocate themselves any where and abuse the rights of the people through racism and hatred. However, he demonstrates the ignorance of the colonists, Dr. Gardner, who want to make believe that they are the dominant race. Dr. Gardner argued that dark skinned or people outside of the English race were inferior and incapable of achieving intelligence. An example would be when Dr. Gardner taught Carlos and began telling Carlos he was more intelligent then his mother. The praise did not do anything positive to Carlos, but it gave him a sense of strength in terms of creating another argument in his favor. He used the information learned to prove Dr. Gardner, that he was intelligent and that the doctor could not define what a man is. Carlos depicted the common characters of human beings and because of his behavior; he was able to achieve the return of his house and the relationship with Virginia.
When Mr. Gardner arrived in Trinidad, it was a new experience entirely, and he was sure to make the most of his stay there. In Trinidad, he felt that he had a great potential to "be somebody"; more than who he was in Britain. This is where assimilation came into play. Mr. Gardner notices that the locals do not act anything like the British, so he takes it into his own hands to show them "the right way" to act. With this new opportunity in front of him, Mr. Gardner takes the initiative to make himself a superior. He treated the situation almost like how a human would train a dog. With his new found power, Mr. Gardner becomes addicted and craves for more; So much more, that he would destroy anything in his path to get it. His evil ways are fueled by power and his hunger for superiority.
I agree with Marcus and Naa Koshie on the issue of the biased commissioner, but I believe that since his mission was to find out everyone’s point of view, he had to ask many questions and interview everyone involved. Assimilation into a culture is easily done through the influences of the environment; therefore, the commissioner would help out the people who basically gave him his job. Those people were English and ran Trinidad after they colonized the Island. The commissioner naturally sided with the people in power and his conscience, which derives from his heritage, was ignored. In many cases, cultural pride diminishes over generations in a macro-culture, but the commissioner was placed in a situation where in order to live a comfortable life, he was obligated to follow his superiors.
I agree with Keonia, in saying that Dr. Gardner was power hungry although he tried to keep it under wraps for a while. In the beginning when he first arrived on the island he had nothing, no status, no wealth, nothing. He was forced to try and gain power from the ground up, whereas if he was back in England money could have got him what he wanted easily because truly money talks in this world. Status also gets people things easily in this world, I mean look at celebrities they get lots of free items and services just for being stars. I order to reach either you have to start from the bottom and work their way up unless you know someone or just have the money. Neither of which Dr. Gardner possessed, therefore he had to work to gain what he wanted. By keeping his greed for power under wraps it allowed him to tests the waters and get a feel for what he was actually up against in order to gain power.
I agree with Keonia on the issue of Dr. Gardner taking the opportunity in assimilating the people around him. However, I believed that Dr. Gardner was a coward, who fled his country in order to escape punishment, but the hatred among his peers in Britain was visible when his brother backstabbed him. Dr. Gardner was left without any options; therefore, he created an imaginary world where his daughter would grow up pure and English without any outside cultural influences. When forceful assimilation is present, it is almost inevitable that forceful rebellion is going to occur. Eventually, Dr. Gardner became everyone’s enemy and his ideology about white being pure and black being evil, became a distant reminder of the hatred created by ignorance and pride.
I believe that Dr. Gardner's arrogance and ignorance blinded him. He did not think that Carlos had any intelligence, and that he could use him as a puppet to manipulate him into doing whatever he wanted. To his dismay, he was completely wrong about Carlos and in fact, he was a lot more clever than Mr. Gardner gave him credit for. This goes to show that one should not prejudge anyone in this world. Going along with stereotypes shows ignorance and lack of cultural identity. In Mr. Gardner's case, he misjudged Carlos' intelligence and tried to manipulate him. He was shocked and appalled by this finding. This lead him into a state of denial and anxiety which ended his life.
Both Keonia and Tiana brought up a valid point when they stated that Dr. Garner wanted power. This is evident throughout the majority of the novel. Perhaps the most vivid example would be him raping his daughter. This is true because rape is about power and dominance, not sex. Dr. Gardner raped his daughter to feel in control and superior. Another example of his need for authority could be him mistreating Carlos. He had no legitimate reason for treating him badly; I believe that he wanted to sense supremacy. However, in reality Carlos was a lot more powerful than he was.
I agree with Michael’s statement about Dr. Gardner being a coward who fled his country and was backstabbed by many including his brother because of hatred. Dr. Gardner got what was coming for him and that is why he ended up on the island in the first place, because karma comes back around. I also agree with the assimilation idea. I mean in history how many times have we seen Europeans, Caucasians, or white people come over to a country filled with people of color and try to take over. By take over, I mean when people try to call themselves helping ‘the people’ when all their doing is spreading their own customs and beliefs for their own benefit. Such is the case for Dr. Gardner, who came over and was at first friends with the natives then turned on them in order to gain power. Doesn’t the case previously mentioned sound familiar as in what the settlers in America did with the Native Americans?
Naa Koshie, you make good points. But your views seem to be quite extremist.
My point was that governments do not always reflect the whole people. My example was of the Iraq war. I'm sure that was understandable. You yourself recognize not all Europeans are not aware of the evils. Ignorance breeds racism. Who knows if the government didn't affect them with propaganda.
Perhaps I should have been more clear. But I do not solely attribute the idea of racism with government. I was merely pointing out there is a difference. Take for example China and Germany. Think of how their governments were able to manipulate these people.
I do not think one should say that "just because a government is racist, the people will not be". I agree with you, because I also never said that.
Its not disgusting or appalling. What would you have done? His actions are human. Survival of the fittest. I also wonder if he ever even identified himself as black in anyway. Did he ever? If he did, do you think he would feel the guilt and betrayal? Yes, its disappointing, but these kind of people have always been around. I pity him and people like him. What would you have the Commissioner do? Start a one man rebellion and hope the British police don't kill him before that?
Yes, these countries do have their own right to govern. But you didn't reply to the other facts I pointed out (schools, medicine, technology, etc). And you're right, Africa is in turmoil, but I wasn't speaking specifically about that continent.
I also wonder, if Africans or some other non-white people had been in the European's position what would they have done after discovering the Europeans.
I also did not say that in order to advance in the world ones country must be inferior. Think of China and South Korea. These two countries have been ravaged by colonization and now they are rising on the world stage in terms of wealth, power, as well as respect. They are no long inferior. But I do think the British government should take a bigger step in order to try and compensate for what they have done.
So what if English is spoken in India? You're right, so what? But at least you and I both know and agree their culture is still intact. Well how about this, now Chinese is becoming more spoken and learned in the US. A curse and a blessing, Carlos probably would not have had the opportunity to learn what he did from Gardner.
I most definately agree with Tiana and Michael in saying the Dr. Gardner was a coward. He almost never owned up to anything he did and did not want to take resonsibility. I think he did what he did to Carlos because he was actually threatened by him; he was very much intimidated. I do not think he could handle the fact that Carlos and Virginia were in love and had a thing without him knowing. Dr. Garner was also very protective of his daughter. He acted this way so that no "other" man would be attracted to her, but in the end like Tiana said, "he got a slap in the face." This was good because it showed him the reality of the situation.
Prospero's Daughter is an extremely unique novel in that it is very well written. The author, Elizabeth Nunez is a native of Trinidad and inserts her home country into the book. Altough I do not think she uses any of her personal experiences, she does however use the setting. This to me is important because even though she now lives in the United States, she has not lost her culture like many emigrants do. Nunez also discusses adaptation and assimilation in the book. She does this to show the negative effects of how both natives and emigrants are treated. I presume that she did not present any biases and adequately represented both sides. This is imperative because often times people are biased in stating their opinion.
I, moreover, disagree with Linh’s statement that Dr. Gardner’s “evilness” was not influenced by his brother’s behavior. Nunez writes that Gardner reads his brother’s last letter to him a multitude of times. This occurrence suggests that the letter is of great significance to him, the connection to his evil behavior is yet inconclusive at best. In order to create a causal relationship between his brother’s betrayal and his betrayal to Carlos, one must analyze the similarities. Gardner’s brother was once struggling for survival as was Gardner after he handed over the inheritance to their family’s wealth. Gardner, like his brother, found themselves in the midst of new wealth when their possessions are taken away from them—the brother after he is no longer able to pay back his gambling debts and Gardner after he kills the wife of an esteemed politician. Gardner, furthermore, feels no guilt for his behavior towards the victim, Gardner’s brother towards Gardner and Gardner to Carlos. Both individuals, furthermore, see the victim of their betrayal as inhuman; Gardner’s brother sees his brother as inhuman because he “plays God” and tries to create life without much regard for the lives of the subjects at stake and Gardner, due to his racial superiority complex, fails to see Carlos as human being. These similarities are too strikingly comparable to overlook, therefore, the effect of Gardner’s brother upon Gardner’s behavior may indeed be linked.
Prospero's Daughter is a oovel that I found found very interesting. Considering that this is a novel based on Shakepeare's "The Tempest" it takes on its own identity as a creative and piece of work. Touching on the issues of racism and colonialism, it is an interesting interpretation of a classic play.
In the novel Dr. Gardner represents colonialism and the ignorance of Europeans. His entire life he it has been understood that White Europeans where far more superior than any other race, especially any other African race. He then takes this attitude towards dark skinned people and abuses them as their slaves and uses them for his sexual desires or his lab experiments
Recently I read the book Catcher in the Rye. This is about a boy, Holden who gets kicked out of his elite boarding school. He has been expelled from many other schools, and he doesn’t know what he wants to do with himself. Holden spends a few days in New York City, because he doesn’t want to go home. He’s afraid to face his father, so he gives him a few days to cool down. This whole book is about his adventures in the city. While I really liked how J.D. Salinger wrote the book in a way that made you feel like you knew Holden, I thought that Holden seemed really spoiled. However, I would recommend The Catcher in the Rye to anyone, any day.
53 comments:
Propero’s Daughter reflects the battle of good and evil between the various characters. Nunez depicts the relationship of the natives and the English colonizers which consist of racism and prejudice. The entire novel displays the battle of equality and tolerance for all races as well as the search for happiness in a prejudice society. The story reveals a courageous struggle to gain justice and equality. One of the main characters, Carlos Codrington, challenged the authority of the Mr. Gardner who was considered a man of high stature. Even though Mr. Gardner was considerably wealthy, he was still a foul and evil man. Nunez reveals the conflict of good and evil within Mr. Gardner’s character through his sexual molestation of his daughter and his repeated attempts to beg for her forgiveness.
I definately agree with Taara that Dr. Gardner is a fould and evil man. Although he rebukes Blacks for being uncivilized and ruthless, he himself molests his daughter, Virginia and slave, Ariana. I think that in this way Nunez attempts to examine good and evil. Another example can be made from when the doctor burns Carlos' mother's bed and speaks encantations. When Carlos hears this his is frightened and finds Gardner to resemble the devil at that particular moment. Perhaps Gardner's repeated insults of Black culture is a disguise he uses for the evil that brews inside of him.
I agree with Naakoshie when she mentioned the incident of Gardner burning the bed. His evilness may stem from the previous science experiments he did back home in England. He was experimenting with medicines and he ended up killing some patients. Gardner has treacherous ways and he also seems to be unstable. When he was chanting during the burning of Carlos’s mothers bed, it was very unusual and it seemed as if he possessed some sort of evil inside of him. Naakoshie was also right when she mentioned that Gardner feels he is in a position to judge others when really he sexually molests his own flesh and blood.
I believe that Scanner said a very good thing about the relation of morality with station and class. Dr. Gardner only assumes that Ariana is promiscuous bescause of her race. In the same way he only views Carlos as ignorant simply because of the color of his skin. In this way Nunez brings up the theme of ignorance and how the races relate to each other. While the doctor almost immediately sees Carlos aas stupid and worthless, he is taken aback when he learns that he can read. In fact, Carlos is able to handle education much more easily than his own daughter, who is white.
In many cases ignorance leads to blindness so through Gardner’s ignorance towards other races, he was not able to see that the intelligence that Carlos possessed. It is very surprising, however, to see that Virginia did not possess the same negativity towards non whites as her father did. Usually, parents are responsible for instilling racism and hate into their kids and even though Gardner tried to convince Virginia to believe she was superior to them, she still saw them as equals.
Dr. Gardner is so evil that the character almost seems unreal. He is such an evil man, not just because of what he did to his daughter or because of his racism, but also because there is not a good reason for him to be so evil. His brother's betrayal of him may have driven him mad, but there is no real reason for him to molest his daughter.
A lot of his evil comes from his ignorance and racism. He is blind to Carlos' intelligence simply because his skin is not white. He also cannot see how Virginia could love Carlos. The book does not say that all ignorance is evil, but it does say that all evil is ignorance.
I agree with Nicholas’s statement that all ignorance is not necessarily evil but all evil is ignorance. Gardner’s childhood and growing up consisted of him competing with his brother. Many people felt that Gardner was a freak because of his freakish creations and experimental medicines. After some of his experiments failed and his patients died, he fled to keep himself out of trouble. This seems as if it were the beginning of Gardner’s evil because his intentions were not necessarily for the good of the patients, but they were for the good of his own science and work.
I agree with Naakoshie and Taara that Dr. Gardner is an evil man. To me it seemed as though he was the evil in the book. He represented evil in different forms and different ways. Not only was he responsible for the deaths of several patients, and not only did he hold prejudices, like Nicholas said, but he also put harm in the way of his daughter. That to me is the one thing that makes him the most evil. A father's role is to support, protect, and help his daughter. Sure he provided her with a home, but not a good one. Imagine what effects this will have on Virginia well into her life.
I also agree with Taara that Dr.Gardner is truly an evil man, who molested his own daughter. It's one thing to see oneself as superior because of ones race and another to completely deprive others form their innocence and freedom. Although he was supposedly trying to protect Virginia's purity, he in fact was the one who took away her innocence and childhood. He looks down upon the Trinidadians and treats them like slaves. Dr.Gardner is a complicated character, who embodies the conflict between good and evil in the novel. He arms his own daughter, enslaves carlos and Ariana and he also defiles her at the same time. Then as Taara mentioned asks for her forgiveness, whether for yelling at her or molesting her.
Nunez uses Shakespeare's The Tempest to better illustrate the point of man and savage. Who determines who is a man and who is a savage. It is ironic that Mr. Gardner thinks of himself as the civilized man. His cruelty and interests in hybrids (both human and his orchids) reminds me of Hitler. Both are demented, cruel, hypocrites, and most definitely pathetic.
I think it is significant that Nunez shows how there is such a contrast between the locals and the British. Their lifestyle and ease do not flow and harmonize with the island. The local's easy going attitude and the stiff lipped British conflict with each other. Perhaps this represents the greater conflict of the effects of British imperialism.
(a note: i accidentally signed in with the account "scannerprovider...in awesome" before. I have now created a propper account to post with.)
Earlier in the year, we generally came to the conclusion that morality can be defined differently by different people. I think we also concluded that a general morality is, in part, established as the average of all people's ideas. In this light, it is interesting to note the seclusion from society that defined the household on Chacachacare. Dr. Gardner was almost entirely without social peers with which to create a solid societal morality. As time went on, and he went longer and longer without fulfilling certain sexual desires, his morality began to change. At first, it was Arriana, then he went as far as his own daughter. It is also interesting how Gardner claimed that he still had his old morality from his earlier life despite his actions. While many Dr. Gardner's horrible actions were derived from an earlier morality that held racist views and the likes, a new morality had to form before he would go so far as to mollest his own daughter.
Marty brought up a good point, in that people define what is good and evil and abide by it. But there is also a general sense of what is good and evil. Even though Dr.Gardner came from a society that held racist believes, molesting ones daughter has no excuse whether he was deprived and excluded from society. Plus he was ashamed with his sexual relations with Arinia because he would hide it. His actions and behaviors somewhat went along with those of other British people in Trinidad. But 'raping' Arinia and harshly punishing Carlos was in the end looked down upon.
Deviating from the theme of good and evil, I would like to address Carlos' education. I find it very interesting that, while Gardner imposes his own ideas of racism, Carlos is not disturbed by it. He remains to be proud of his Trinidadian culture and does not assimilate to the "Superior" English culture that Gardner teaches him. One would think that through the doctor's blatant racism, that Carlos would feel some type of contempt for his race, but that is hardly the case. For him to take the education from Gardner without the racial biases, shows Carlos' maturity. One could speculate that he was able to gain this sort of pride in himself from his parents. Since his parents regarded each other as equal (being that they were from different races), one can assume that he felt the same way. Judging from this, it is fair to say that his parents' relationship gave him a more worldly view about the equality of races.
It is obvious that Dr.Gardner is an evil man, as eluded to by everyone thus far. Reasons for his evilness has many factors. One could be the feeling of betrayal by his brother, as mentioned by Taara and it could also be because his past. Having to leave ones country and a beloved job, could also fuel hatred or evilness. His life was threatened because of the abnormal experiments he did on his patients. It could also be due to the feeling of lose, since he did lose his one and true love, Virginia's mother. Another factor could be jealousy, Gardner seems to be jealous of his brother, who was popular and was his mothers favorite. Although he was the smarter brother, everyone loved Paul, the brother. All of these factors could have built up Gardners's evil morality.
Like Bianca, I was also thinking about what we learned earlier this year. Good and evil is determined by the person and how what one considers evil others may not. A lot of times when people commit crimes that the community agrees upon as wrong they have their own reasons as to why they did it. Even though other people may not be able to agree with it they do have their reasons. However the part that leaves me stuck, or the thing that I keep thinking about is what Prospero uses as justification in his head for what he does. How can someone justify bringing harm to their own flesh and blood? I am honestly interested in peoples opinions or ideas because I am having trouble coming up with an answer.
Gardner is, of course, an evil man, but let's not forget the other characters. Mumsford, too, shares in Gardner's beliefs in racism. It was Mumsford who, at first, classified Ariana's letter as lies simply because she was black. It was Mumsford who ignored the reality in front of him simply because Gardner, an Englishman, could not be responsible for such evil acts. This is simply because of an issue we are familiar with, skin color.
The mindset of Mumsford can be thought of as wrong, evil, and just as bad as Gardner's. The only difference between the two is that Mumsford does not try to change others opinion's. This of course puts him on a higher level morally than Gardner.
Gardner, of course, has much to be blamed for as well. He can't get past the color of one's skin if he tried. However, the confusing twist in his mind is that he violated his daughter, who is white, just the same as Arian, who is black. Therefore, I think his prejudice goes beyond skin color and leads into sexism. Gardner views any young woman as a target for sex, and any young black person as a target for torcher. His prejudices never end.
I don't think his problems started on the island, either. I think that the trigger for all of his actions is the conflict with his brother. His brother was always superior to him, so when he gets the chance to be superior to someone else, he pounces on it. Therefore, harming those in his way. Gardner needs to have power over someone. He needs to believe that he is worth something, no matter who he harms. If he harms someone, even better. Then it is true proof that he is better than them. Gardner is a simple man, really. He believes he is worth something. He believes he is the answer to everyone's questions. But the truth is that he isn't. The only thing credited to him in his life is his orchids, the killing of multiple patients, torcher of a young black man, and violation of two young women. All of the bad things cancel out his orchids, the little love he had for his daughter, and come together to pronounce him a bad man.
Like everyone has said, Gardner's evil stems from his past. What happened with his brother, mother, and patients influenced the person he became. However the prejudices he held against everyone who did not look like him was an example of his, what I would call, ignorance. I agree with Molly about the fact that Gardner has always been inferior to his brother so he uses the opportunity he has to be superior to someone else.
I agree with Suzi when she said that Gardner's evil stems from his past. However, I would take it one step further to say that in this book, evil creates evil, just as good leads to more good. Gardner’s brother stole his money and cut him off from his family and country. While this obviously does not forgive his horrible treatment of his daughter, Carlos, and Ariana, I do think that he would not have been quite as evil a character had he had a positive influence in his life. He was drawn to Virginia because she is personified as pure good, as was his wife. He begs for Virginia’s forgiveness because, as the ultimate symbol of good, she is the only one who can save him. When she refuses to forgive him, it symbolizes his final fall from grace.
I understand what Emily is saying about how evil breeds evil and good breeds good and I agree. At the same time however, Virginia is subject to the evil of Dr. Gardner, but she still maintains her good faith. It was probably the influence of Carlos that kept her good.
Also a lot of times we are able to understand and somewhat forgive people because of what they went through and suffered, but where is the line drawn?
The point that Emily made about Gardner being drawn to Virginia because of her goodness is interesting because it shows that Gardner wanted to be good. It’s interesting because he is drawn to her because of her good, and yet he commits evil acts against her.
I do agree with Suzi about drawing the line. And while I do think that Gardner is the personification of evil in the story, perhaps Nunez is saying that nothing is completely evil. After all, in his twisted mind, Gardner saw most of his actions as good. The reason why he did not take his daughter’s virginity and why he tortured Carlos, is because he thought he was protecting Virginia. Also, the reason why he stole Carlos’ house and burned his mother’s bed is because he saw his mother as evil. Therefore by destroying all trace of her, he was purging the area of her sins. I am not defending Gardner’s actions, which I find appalling, however, I am suggesting the idea that good and evil is completely subjective.
I like the way that Emily said that, "Nothing is completely evil". Its true that evil and good is up to the person to decide. However there is, like we talked about a while back in class, an agreed upon set of expectations and it seems as though certain things should be clear are wrong to people. However this is not the case with Gardner, who seems to have reasons for the things that he does that we consider evil. However he knows what he did was wrong and evil which is acknowledged in the book when he apologizes and begs Virginia for forgiveness.
I would like to respond to what Bianca said about Mumsford being evil. I think the true evil in this book is racism. Mumsford was blinded by the fact that all of his life he had been taught that he was superior because of the color of his skin. However, when he realized the kind of person Gardner was, he began to change his view and his behavior. This may be off topic, but I think this goes back to the idea of nature versus nurture. Perhaps evil is giving in to the ignorance you were taught and using it as an excuse, as Gardner did. While, good is at least trying to see that there could be another way of thinking.
I also agree with everyone else in the sense that Dr. Gardner is an evil man. He took advantage of people for his own benefit, neglecting how others thoughts or feelings may or may not have been affected. Although he came to the island as an outsider he evilly made his was to the status he desired, stealing some else’s home and making it his own. He began raping Ariana when she was only eight years old. He had Ariana believing that he was gone to set her free after specified amounts of time, although generally he routinely said a year. He also molested his own daughter which some may have thought he would not have crossed the line but Dr. Gardner did never failing to upset the audience by revealing the evil within himself repeatedly with little remorse.
I thought molly made an interesting comment when she said that Gardner was not only racist, but sexist as well. I had honestly never thought of it that way. However, I think the only category you can safely put him under is selfish. He thinks he is entitled to everything, and will make up a reason, such as his race, if it helps him to establish his goal. When he gave his patients experimental medicine, it was not because of their race or sex, but because he feels he is naturally better than everyone else.
As has been discussed before the evil within or about Dr. Gardner is rooted is his past. Even with his belonging to a religious family as a child still did not make much of a difference. Evil somehow found both him and his brother Paul. Paul promised to help his brother fix what he had done, which he did but he never allowed for his brother to come back to England. Paul threatened the day he ever tried to do. Paul also went back on his word of sending Dr. Gardner what remained after Paul fixed the mess that Dr. Gardner had made and returning the home that was once Dr. Gardner’s to him. The two it seemed were really childish when they were both young and grown. It seemed like after Peter did some evil act to Paul, Paul returned the favor by doing the same. This case at a particular point in the game Paul’s evil, won over Peter’s evil, which left Peter at a disadvantage for the most part.
I can somewhat agree with Marty's ideas that one's understanding of good and evil is an average of all societal beliefs about the two concepts. I, however, believe what is good and what is evil not to be averages, but universal, cultural beliefs. For instance, murder and incest are prohibited in societies around the all world--in Native American, Jewish, Christian, and Muslim circles. I also agree that Dr. Peter "Prospero" Gardener's character is the product of experiences from his environment. The consequence of the loss of his wife manifests itself as an adulterous desire for affection. His brother's betrayal is strikingly parallel to Prospero's acquisition of Carlos' home. An individual's environment, therefore, influences their psyche and morality of what is right from wrong. Perhaps Prospero is so shattered from the loss of his wife and brother's betrayal that he does not realize the harm he inflicts upon Ariana, Virginia, and Carlos is not too unlike the damage done to him.
If it is allowed, I would like to open this discussion up to include the modern significance of Nunez’s story and how it fits in with the social realities today. Speaking personally, a small part of me feels that Nunez is essentially preaching to the choir. The European colonials of old are the bad guys and the blacks and Europeans who sympathize with them are the good guys. The ending is happy as the racist antagonist is defeated and a mixed-race love is allowed to flower. It could be argued that the story does not really have much to add to the world debate on racism as it deals only with a past that has already been widely discussed and dealt with. I am playing the devil’s advocate here as I feel that Nunez has a very strong message that is certainly relevant to the modern social scene but I would like to hear what other people have to say. Is this just a cookie-cutter tale of clearly defined good and bad that ends happily ever after? What might Nunez’s story have to say about morality in the modern day?
I somewhat agree with Marty. It is a story of good and evil, colonialism, racism, and prejudice. Most of us have probably read many stories dealing with these themes. In my opinion, I think perhaps Nunez is probably trying to preach to a much more ignorant choir. By using Shakespeare's The Tempest, she'll probably get her message across much clearer. And I don't necessarily think this issue has already been dealt with. So long as humans exist, one will attempt to dominate others. We live, but at the expense of others. Because of colonialism as well as imperialism, we have essentially drugged these nations on power. Leaving behind nations who have weak governments and social crisis.
First off, I completely agree with the viewpoints of Molly. She brought up a lot of good points, that Prospero was not the only character that traits of evil.I also agree with Emily's point about racism and prejudice being the novel's true evil. Both Mumsford and Prospero are racists and discriminated against the natives.
But I would like to respond to Marty's question. Nunez, as linh said is not preaching to the chior. Although the theme and messages are similar to other books we have read, the author is taking a different approach. To me, the book was using The Tempest as a tool to address the racism Trindad faced when it colonized by Great Britian. The ending signfied the truimph of the natives over the British. This might be a stretch, but possible. The issue of the novel, racism and prejudice is always going to be topic. It is something that is unviersal. Nunez is informing the issues of race in Trindad and using the characters as a symbol.
I do not agree that all of Gardner's inclinations towards evil havesurfaced mainly from his dealings with his brother. HIs blatant racism can be attributed to his country of origin. At that time Europeans all over the world had the ideas that they were far superior than any non-whites. They pushed their culture so arrogantly and this is found through Dr. Gardner, Mumsford and The Commissioner. Even though the commissioner is a black man, he, in some ways, conforms and assimilates to the English culture. This I find totally disgusting and appalling. Examples of this can be found when he questions Ariana's letter with Mumsford, just because she is black. This shows the extent of the evils of colonization. It will destroy an entire group of people while imposing a foreign culture. This assimilation is one that I find to be one of the greatest evils in the book.
Linh touched on my perspective with her words, “So long as humans exist, one will attempt to dominate others.” Nunez’s story speaks on a much broader scale than just racism. Gardner does not only molest a black girl but a white one too. While the ending of the story declares that racism is on the run and equality of the races will prevail, the sheer fanaticism that Gardner displays works to tell us that we must always be on the look out for those who seek to oppress. While Gardeners sense of superiority shows through most in his racist actions and ideas, this sense of his is not primarily racist. This feeling of inherent dominance that person may have can be realized into countless forms of oppressive action. Nunez subtly reminds us that, while one incarnation of this evil human tendency, racism, may be a good step closer to being defeated, the fundamental tendency will live one.
I also feel that the happy ending that Carlos and Virginia find at the story's conclusion has a subtle, ominous undertone. In the end, the relationship of Carlos and Virginia is in many ways parallel to that of Carlos’ parents. Both relationships include a black man and a white woman and both couples end up living secluded on Chacachacare. The interesting fact is that Carlos’ father ended up killed by other people of society. This parallelism suggests that Virginia and Carlos may not see happiness to the end of their days after all. This intricate set-up should lead the reader to remember that society and the people in it will always face social ills. Victories will be made at points and periods of progress will come but there will always be a new challenge lying in the future and a new fanatic that will make the challenge that much harder to overcome.
I do not completely agree with Naa Koshie. I do agree however that his evilness was not due to his brother. For most things, it is best not to generalize, we all know this is far easier than dealing with problems individually.
Yes, it may have been true Europeans thought they were far superior, but I am sure they also thought that way of American whites (perhaps not compared to non whites). But I do not believe this generalization of Europeans. What I think most people have a problem differing between is government rule, and the people. Just as how there are Americans who do not wish for war in the Middle East despite our government's actions. The government does not always represent the people. And the people do not always comprehend situations if nothing is being made clear to them.
The Commissioner is mixed. He can pass off as white, in that world, who could blame him? If he could live a better life because of this, who could blame him? Yes, he should stand up, but I very much doubt he could have done so without losing his post. I do not find it disgusting nor appalling. Although I can see how it may seem cowardly and a betrayal of his blood. What he does is human.
I do not support colonization. But I do feel it is both a blessing and a curse (in some cases, not all). While it destroys native life as well as enact social prejudice, it does bring certain positives. Diseases have been wiped out, famines become rare, and schools have been built. A good example is India. It has fought British rule and imperialism while its country has advanced. Let me repeat myself, I do not agree with colonization. But you see in India now their people still flourish, their culture still intact, and perhaps more than ever the population has risen. These people have not been destroyed. Yes they have been severely decapitated. Yes the British abused their power and stripped their lands of resources and lives, but had they not have done so, the English language would not be as widely spoken in India as it is today. And had it not been the British, it would have probably been China (assuming there wasn't yet another family trying to start a new dynasty).
And to further my point. Japans colonization of both Korea and some parts of China (during the second world war) is just as comparable to European conquest. Koreans have suffered at the hands of Japan for centuries. They have been slaves, a lower class in their own country. This phenomenon is not exclusive to Europeans. It is a human one.
To put blame on all Europeans and say they are all racist is too big of a generalization. That in itself shows that the understanding of dominance in this "dog eat dog" world is still a bit hazy. That of course isn't to say race isn't a big factor in the world. It always has been. The issue is with ignorance. It is what people are willing to learn, from each other, and from themselves.
"Victories will be made at points and periods of progress will come but there will always be a new challenge lying in the future and a new fanatic that will make the challenge that much harder to overcome." Yep, I agree.
Lastly I would also like to point out as Americans. We've all pretty much assimilated into each other (ie, think about that Chinese carry out so many Americans enjoy) (and if we haven't done so yet it will be inevitable). We are no different, assimilation is not always a bad thing. It is necessary. And I do understand that in the case of Trinidad it was not by their desires. I think a greater concern would be imperialism. Culture would be facing a much greater threat.
I too agree with the majority of my classmates. Dr. Gardner was an extremely "evil" character in Prospero's Daughter. He disliked Carlos for invliad reasons and treated him badly. However, I agree with Hywet and Emily the most about the race and prejudice issues. There were a lot of stereotypes displayed throughout the novel. One of the most common ones that the natives were ignorant and not very knowledgeable. Dr. Gardner viewed Carlos as a "uncivilized" and helpless. Sadly, racism is a problem that will most likely always be an issue. As long as people have ignorant perspectives of people because of the color of their skin, it will remain a problem.
In a way, I do agree with Naakoshie that Mr. Gardner's attitude toward Carlos and Ariana were because of their race. He viewed Carlos as "uncivilized" only because he did not act like what Mr. Gardner believed was civilized. Not only was there an issue with racism, but ignorance and social class played a role too. To Mr. Gardner, not only was Carlos black, but he was wild and uncivil.
His ignorance lead to misconceptions about Carlos, which could be a result of unfamiliarity and the way he was raised in Britain.
I agree with Keonia when she said that race and ignorance played a role in Dr. Gardner’s attitude towards Carlos and Ariana. However, I do not really believed that social class played as much of a role. After all, when Dr. Gardner and Virginia first arrived on the island, Carlos was the one who owned the large house and a large inheritance from his mother. Dr. Gardner, as a result of his brother’s trickery, had no money or place to live. Similarly, when detective Mumsford lived in England, he was just another low level police officer. While he was not poor, he certainly did not lead an extravagant life. However, whe he moved to Trinidad, he quickly grew accustomed to his new wealthy lifestyle. He felt entitled to this new life because of the country he came from and the color of his skin. Like Mumsford, Gardner felt entitled to Carlos’ land and money. SO while these men started in a low social class, they were able to force themselves in to higher social standing because of their nationality. This was used as just another excuse to treat the locals poorly, however, at the heart of the matter is still racism.
Prospero's daughter was an interesting book that transcends the emotions and conflicts that were prominent in the Tempest. However, the comp temporary twist to the tempest has led me to understand clearly the ignorance of white people among other cultures. According to Dr. Gardner, the white race is pure and the only race fit to represent humanity. The combination between evil and ignorance created a monster that endangered himself and people around him.
Personally, when DR. Gardner raped his daughter, I was shocked and embarrassed for the male species. If the mans urges were so strong and his demented mind could think about harming his only daughter, then that man deserved to die. Another subject that intrigued me was the hypocrisy of Dr. Gardner, his views and beliefs were kept under wrap until he had more power. Once he had the upper hand, he changed his ways and began treating Miranda, Carlos, and eventually his daughter, Virginia, any way he wanted. I believe Dr. Gardner represents the many cases of people from a “dominant” race who believes they can do whatever they want. These people exist today and whenever they can get something from you, they are friendly and nice; however, once someone cannot offer anything, they backstab you.
I agree with Michael when he said that Dr. Gardner kept his beliefs under wraps until he got more power. His thirst for supremacy was so strong, that he was willing to violate his own child in order to feel it. Personally, I think it made him less of a man to do such a thing. It was obvious that the man was power hungry, and that he would do anything to get it. To the reader, Dr. Gardner seems very cynical, when in fact he is very clever.
He acted as though he was a great person who never did anything wrong, when in fact, his entire life was a transgression. Also, it is apparent that he took his yearn for power a lot farther than race. He would do anything to get what he wanted, and if race was a minor factor that would get him closer to what he wanted, he would take it.
I agree with Naa Koshie that one of the greatest evils in Nunez's novel is assimilation or a lack of cultural pride of the commissioner in his Trinidadian heritage. Judging by the importance that high school and college admissions offices put on community service and giving back to one's own community, I can be concluded that giving back is not only good, but also along the lines of Nietzsche's master morality. Since fellow-feeling is a valued virtue in schools around the country, one can also argue that it is a standard of conduct that is accepted as right or proper (i.e. moral). The commissioner's distant attitude towards fellow Trinidadians, such as Ariana, indeed appear to be wrong because it deviates from social significance placed on cultural pride. How is the commissioner helping out his community when he decides not to trust Ariana’s note that Carlos and Virginia have a shared bond of love to be true? His doubts seem to suggest the contrary, that he cannot trust something produced by other Trinidadians. It may be the case that he would not want to be accused to favoring his own Trinidadian heritage over that of his English heritage. One reason for this, as Naa Koshie stated, could be colonialism, or the official ruling over another nation for its own benefit. As the Europeans that invaded Trinidad and claimed it as their territory did so for their benefit, the commissioner appears to be allying with those in power. Even though it is considered right to be thankful for the improvements one has received, it is also important to give back to one’s community and the commissioner could do this best if he sided with the rebels in the Trinidadian revolution that Nunez introduces towards the beginning of the story.
Carlos represents the many cases of people who have been discriminated or put down by another race. Colonization made it possible for Europeans to relocate themselves any where and abuse the rights of the people through racism and hatred. However, he demonstrates the ignorance of the colonists, Dr. Gardner, who want to make believe that they are the dominant race. Dr. Gardner argued that dark skinned or people outside of the English race were inferior and incapable of achieving intelligence. An example would be when Dr. Gardner taught Carlos and began telling Carlos he was more intelligent then his mother. The praise did not do anything positive to Carlos, but it gave him a sense of strength in terms of creating another argument in his favor. He used the information learned to prove Dr. Gardner, that he was intelligent and that the doctor could not define what a man is.
Carlos depicted the common characters of human beings and because of his behavior; he was able to achieve the return of his house and the relationship with Virginia.
When Mr. Gardner arrived in Trinidad, it was a new experience entirely, and he was sure to make the most of his stay there. In Trinidad, he felt that he had a great potential to "be somebody"; more than who he was in Britain. This is where assimilation came into play. Mr. Gardner notices that the locals do not act anything like the British, so he takes it into his own hands to show them "the right way" to act. With this new opportunity in front of him, Mr. Gardner takes the initiative to make himself a superior. He treated the situation almost like how a human would train a dog.
With his new found power, Mr. Gardner becomes addicted and craves for more; So much more, that he would destroy anything in his path to get it. His evil ways are fueled by power and his hunger for superiority.
I agree with Marcus and Naa Koshie on the issue of the biased commissioner, but I believe that since his mission was to find out everyone’s point of view, he had to ask many questions and interview everyone involved. Assimilation into a culture is easily done through the influences of the environment; therefore, the commissioner would help out the people who basically gave him his job. Those people were English and ran Trinidad after they colonized the Island. The commissioner naturally sided with the people in power and his conscience, which derives from his heritage, was ignored. In many cases, cultural pride diminishes over generations in a macro-culture, but the commissioner was placed in a situation where in order to live a comfortable life, he was obligated to follow his superiors.
I agree with Keonia, in saying that Dr. Gardner was power hungry although he tried to keep it under wraps for a while. In the beginning when he first arrived on the island he had nothing, no status, no wealth, nothing. He was forced to try and gain power from the ground up, whereas if he was back in England money could have got him what he wanted easily because truly money talks in this world. Status also gets people things easily in this world, I mean look at celebrities they get lots of free items and services just for being stars. I order to reach either you have to start from the bottom and work their way up unless you know someone or just have the money. Neither of which Dr. Gardner possessed, therefore he had to work to gain what he wanted. By keeping his greed for power under wraps it allowed him to tests the waters and get a feel for what he was actually up against in order to gain power.
I agree with Keonia on the issue of Dr. Gardner taking the opportunity in assimilating the people around him. However, I believed that Dr. Gardner was a coward, who fled his country in order to escape punishment, but the hatred among his peers in Britain was visible when his brother backstabbed him. Dr. Gardner was left without any options; therefore, he created an imaginary world where his daughter would grow up pure and English without any outside cultural influences. When forceful assimilation is present, it is almost inevitable that forceful rebellion is going to occur. Eventually, Dr. Gardner became everyone’s enemy and his ideology about white being pure and black being evil, became a distant reminder of the hatred created by ignorance and pride.
I believe that Dr. Gardner's arrogance and ignorance blinded him. He did not think that Carlos had any intelligence, and that he could use him as a puppet to manipulate him into doing whatever he wanted. To his dismay, he was completely wrong about Carlos and in fact, he was a lot more clever than Mr. Gardner gave him credit for. This goes to show that one should not prejudge anyone in this world. Going along with stereotypes shows ignorance and lack of cultural identity. In Mr. Gardner's case, he misjudged Carlos' intelligence and tried to manipulate him. He was shocked and appalled by this finding. This lead him into a state of denial and anxiety which ended his life.
Both Keonia and Tiana brought up a valid point when they stated that Dr. Garner wanted power. This is evident throughout the majority of the novel. Perhaps the most vivid example would be him raping his daughter. This is true because rape is about power and dominance, not sex. Dr. Gardner raped his daughter to feel in control and superior. Another example of his need for authority could be him mistreating Carlos. He had no legitimate reason for treating him badly; I believe that he wanted to sense supremacy. However, in reality Carlos was a lot more powerful than he was.
I agree with Michael’s statement about Dr. Gardner being a coward who fled his country and was backstabbed by many including his brother because of hatred. Dr. Gardner got what was coming for him and that is why he ended up on the island in the first place, because karma comes back around. I also agree with the assimilation idea. I mean in history how many times have we seen Europeans, Caucasians, or white people come over to a country filled with people of color and try to take over. By take over, I mean when people try to call themselves helping ‘the people’ when all their doing is spreading their own customs and beliefs for their own benefit. Such is the case for Dr. Gardner, who came over and was at first friends with the natives then turned on them in order to gain power. Doesn’t the case previously mentioned sound familiar as in what the settlers in America did with the Native Americans?
Naa Koshie, you make good points. But your views seem to be quite extremist.
My point was that governments do not always reflect the whole people. My example was of the Iraq war. I'm sure that was understandable. You yourself recognize not all Europeans are not aware of the evils. Ignorance breeds racism. Who knows if the government didn't affect them with propaganda.
Perhaps I should have been more clear. But I do not solely attribute the idea of racism with government. I was merely pointing out there is a difference. Take for example China and Germany. Think of how their governments were able to manipulate these people.
I do not think one should say that "just because a government is racist, the people will not be". I agree with you, because I also never said that.
Its not disgusting or appalling. What would you have done? His actions are human. Survival of the fittest. I also wonder if he ever even identified himself as black in anyway. Did he ever? If he did, do you think he would feel the guilt and betrayal? Yes, its disappointing, but these kind of people have always been around. I pity him and people like him. What would you have the Commissioner do? Start a one man rebellion and hope the British police don't kill him before that?
Yes, these countries do have their own right to govern. But you didn't reply to the other facts I pointed out (schools, medicine, technology, etc). And you're right, Africa is in turmoil, but I wasn't speaking specifically about that continent.
I also wonder, if Africans or some other non-white people had been in the European's position what would they have done after discovering the Europeans.
I also did not say that in order to advance in the world ones country must be inferior. Think of China and South Korea. These two countries have been ravaged by colonization and now they are rising on the world stage in terms of wealth, power, as well as respect. They are no long inferior. But I do think the British government should take a bigger step in order to try and compensate for what they have done.
So what if English is spoken in India? You're right, so what? But at least you and I both know and agree their culture is still intact. Well how about this, now Chinese is becoming more spoken and learned in the US. A curse and a blessing, Carlos probably would not have had the opportunity to learn what he did from Gardner.
I most definately agree with Tiana and Michael in saying the Dr. Gardner was a coward. He almost never owned up to anything he did and did not want to take resonsibility. I think he did what he did to Carlos because he was actually threatened by him; he was very much intimidated. I do not think he could handle the fact that Carlos and Virginia were in love and had a thing without him knowing. Dr. Garner was also very protective of his daughter. He acted this way so that no "other" man would be attracted to her, but in the end like Tiana said, "he got a slap in the face." This was good because it showed him the reality of the situation.
Prospero's Daughter is an extremely unique novel in that it is very well written. The author, Elizabeth Nunez is a native of Trinidad and inserts her home country into the book. Altough I do not think she uses any of her personal experiences, she does however use the setting. This to me is important because even though she now lives in the United States, she has not lost her culture like many emigrants do. Nunez also discusses adaptation and assimilation in the book. She does this to show the negative effects of how both natives and emigrants are treated. I presume that she did not present any biases and adequately represented both sides. This is imperative because often times people are biased in stating their opinion.
I, moreover, disagree with Linh’s statement that Dr. Gardner’s “evilness” was not influenced by his brother’s behavior. Nunez writes that Gardner reads his brother’s last letter to him a multitude of times. This occurrence suggests that the letter is of great significance to him, the connection to his evil behavior is yet inconclusive at best. In order to create a causal relationship between his brother’s betrayal and his betrayal to Carlos, one must analyze the similarities. Gardner’s brother was once struggling for survival as was Gardner after he handed over the inheritance to their family’s wealth. Gardner, like his brother, found themselves in the midst of new wealth when their possessions are taken away from them—the brother after he is no longer able to pay back his gambling debts and Gardner after he kills the wife of an esteemed politician. Gardner, furthermore, feels no guilt for his behavior towards the victim, Gardner’s brother towards Gardner and Gardner to Carlos. Both individuals, furthermore, see the victim of their betrayal as inhuman; Gardner’s brother sees his brother as inhuman because he “plays God” and tries to create life without much regard for the lives of the subjects at stake and Gardner, due to his racial superiority complex, fails to see Carlos as human being. These similarities are too strikingly comparable to overlook, therefore, the effect of Gardner’s brother upon Gardner’s behavior may indeed be linked.
Prospero's Daughter is a oovel that I found found very interesting. Considering that this is a novel based on Shakepeare's "The Tempest" it takes on its own identity as a creative and piece of work. Touching on the issues of racism and colonialism, it is an interesting interpretation of a classic play.
In the novel Dr. Gardner represents colonialism and the ignorance of Europeans. His entire life he it has been understood that White Europeans where far more superior than any other race, especially any other African race. He then takes this attitude towards dark skinned people and abuses them as their slaves and uses them for his sexual desires or his lab experiments
Recently I read the book Catcher in the Rye. This is about a boy, Holden who gets kicked out of his elite boarding school. He has been expelled from many other schools, and he doesn’t know what he wants to do with himself. Holden spends a few days in New York City, because he doesn’t want to go home. He’s afraid to face his father, so he gives him a few days to cool down. This whole book is about his adventures in the city. While I really liked how J.D. Salinger wrote the book in a way that made you feel like you knew Holden, I thought that Holden seemed really spoiled. However, I would recommend The Catcher in the Rye to anyone, any day.
Post a Comment