Fiction -- History and criticism; Political fiction -- History and criticism; Politics in literature
Perhaps Edward’s insight into this aspect of politics has been
sharpened by the fact that, despite his immediate denial, he has been
hit by just such a bullet himself. But the impact must have been so
great that it sent him into a state of shock which made him unable to
see that the novel had done just what he said it hadn’t. The muddle and
confusion are there, and so are the men who rise above it as well as
those who are sucked under and lost.
=Motivation=
It is hard to draw the line between individual and group political
behavior. A man may be a mirror or conductor of political forces as
well as a discrete individual. His motivation is perhaps the most
individual aspect of his political experience. Most of the leading
characters in these political novels are strongly motivated. In only
a few cases, such as that of Willis Markham in _Revelry_, does the
individual drift into politics. The ones who, in Wilcher’s words,
“want to defend something, to get some reform,” are very common. The
“something” that Robert Jordan wants to defend is liberty in Spain, so
that “there should be no more danger and so that the country should be
a good place to live in.” Lanny Budd feels exaltation that in his role
of Presidential Agent he is helping to defend democracy. The reform
that brings Millard Carroll to Washington is expressed in the aims of
the New Deal, and a similar response on a more emotional level is made
by Glenn Spotswood. Passing the shacks of the Mexican workers they have
tried to help, he exclaims, “By God, Jed, we’ve got to do something to
stop this kind of thing.”
A powerful motivating force which operates on a less conscious level
derives from a man’s being a bastard. Hamer Shawcross in _Fame Is
the Spur_, like Hyacinth Robinson in _The Princess Casamassima_, is
illegitimate. Both men are raised by people who try to give them the
emotional security of which their birth deprives them, but their
attempts to change the society into which they were born seem in part
due to the feeling that they are among its second-class citizens.
Razumov in _Under Western Eyes_ has been raised, as far as the reader
knows, without any family life at all. Yet he is motivated in exactly
the opposite direction from Shawcross and Robinson. His assumption of
a counter-revolutionary role is a direct result of his feeling that
his nation and its existing social fabric are all he has. He tells the
well-born revolutionary Haldin:
I have no domestic tradition. I have nothing to think against.
My tradition is historical. What have I to look back to but that
national past from which you gentlemen want to wrench away your
future?... You come from your province, but all this land is
mine--or I have nothing.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account