April '12 / Orange Prize Winners Reading: Bel Canto

[Dark Muse]

I think the author simply didn’t want the novel muddled with actual events. The setup is loosely based on the Japanese Embassy Hostage Crisis in Lima in 1997. The Marxist terrorist group Tupac Amaru held a number of high-level officials hostage in the Japanese Embassy for 4 months. The crisis was resolved by then Peruvian President Fujimori (a Peruvian of Japanese ancestry), and I don’t want to say what happened in Peru because it’s real similar to what happens in the novel. Recall in the book how the terrorists were suspicious that Mr. Hosokawa was the president. I’m not sure if Pres. Fujimori watched Latino Soap Operas, though.

A few years back, I read a relatively favorable article about Fujimori in Smithsonian Magazine. He was (and is still) popular with the people of the small villages in Peru. They had a nickname for him: El Chinito (Little Chinaman). I suppose if you’re scratching out a living in the high Andes, the finer distinctions between Japanese ancestry and Chinese ancestry don’t matter much. He’s in jail now.

That is interesting!

[Dark Muse]

I hear what you are saying and, to a certain degree, I agree with your take on it. However, I also think that we are offered this character rich group that manage to gel together very quickly to survive in an astonishingly harmonious way very quickly.

At the outset they seem like a very unlikely group... Who would have thought that the Vice President would turn into Martha Stewart? Chess, music, sports, cookery, all areas covered.

I like the way in which there are not really bad guys and good guys. At least that is the way I feel about it. But rather it seems as if the author treats both sides, hostages and terrorists without any biased or judgement. She simply portrays the human experience of the event, and shows both points of view.

One of the things which struck me was when Hosokawa decided to try and learn the names of the fellow guests. Though I am sure that is common in the professional world having these sort of formal birthday parties where everyone is there for their own motives and interests, but it also struck me as an almost surreal moment, to think that he does not even now these people who are here to celebrate his birthday.

[Charles Darnay]

The point about historical context is really interesting: I had no idea. It does make sense not to be bogged down with reality if you are going to smear a President and show sympathy to a nation's terrorist group. Real names would have drawn all the wrong attention to the book.

[Scheherazade]

But rather it seems as if the author treats both sides, hostages and terrorists without any biased or judgement. She simply portrays the human experience of the event, and shows both points of view.

Yes, the author does treat everyone equally; she is very eager to make us see them as individuals rather than generic titles such as translator, rich man, politician, singer, terrorists. She works very hard at this for 300 pages, feeding us their individual stories bit by bit.

It is all very ironic that all this comes to nothing as in less than two pages, she brings it back to earth by reminding us who is who: terrorists are terrorists, regardless of their stories and talents, who needs to be got rid of.


Since no one seemed to offer any opinions on Messner, I will go ahead and share my own very far-fetched ideas

Messner = Messenger?

He is the messenger, the only connection with the outside world... To the powers that hold the key to everything. We never see them but we are assured and persuaded that they are there. And the hostages within the house do not dispute their existence either. He comes from a neutral country; not supposed to take sides but he is under the orders of the powers outsides. He keeps saying that whatever the terrorists and hostages demand will be ignored by the outside and they will do whatever they want to do; it is only a matter of time. And at the end, he is the one who delivers the warning just before the calamity occurs. They are all treated the same, regardless of their goods or bads.

So, what I am wondering is whether Bel Canto is a sketch of human condition in this world? Three generals (prophets of major religions?) come to the scene with the promise of fairness and freedom but they are also trapped here and can only communicate with the powers-that-be through a messenger. They bring along their hand-picked followers with them... And they are all talented and special in their own ways.

As I said this is a half-baked idea, with so many holes in them but I just wanted to share them with you guys.

[Dark Muse]

Messner = Messenger?

He is the messenger, the only connection with the outside world... To the powers that hold the key to everything. We never see them but we are assured and persuaded that they are there. And the hostages within the house do not dispute their existence either. He comes from a neutral country; not supposed to take sides but he is under the orders of the powers outsides. He keeps saying that whatever the terrorists and hostages demand will be ignored by the outside and they will do whatever they want to do; it is only a matter of time. And at the end, he is the one who delivers the warning just before the calamity occurs. They are all treated the same, regardless of their goods or bads.

So, what I am wondering is whether Bel Canto is a sketch of human condition in this world? Three generals (prophets of major religions?) come to the scene with the promise of fairness and freedom but they are also trapped here and can only communicate with the powers-that-be through a messenger. They bring along their hand-picked followers with them... And they are all talented and special in their own ways.

As I said this is a half-baked idea, with so many holes in them but I just wanted to share them with you guys.

I think it is an interesting idea. I had not considered it before but now on reflection, there is perhaps something rather symbolic and metaphorical in the fact that Messner does happen to come from a country which is known for its neutrality.

When I finish the book I will try to come and addresses the ideas more thoroughly .

[Charles Darnay]

Messner = Messenger?

He is that: I think there must be some intention in stressing him as a Swiss and as a neutral and reluctant party.

So, what I am wondering is whether Bel Canto is a sketch of human condition in this world? Three generals (prophets of major religions?) come to the scene with the promise of fairness and freedom but they are also trapped here and can only communicate with the powers-that-be through a messenger. They bring along their hand-picked followers with them... And they are all talented and special in their own ways.

As I said this is a half-baked idea, with so many holes in them but I just wanted to share them with you guys.

I don't really get the religious prophets idea. It is more a clash of political ideals in my view. The general represent Marxism - or communism, while the absent President represents a failed democracy. As the book progresses, we tend to sympathize more with the communist "paradise(?)" that the hostages are living in. There is that scene where Father Arguedas is on the phone with the musician and ends up defending the terrorists when they are falsely portrayed by the media - this is where you start to see the world flipped upside down.

Now, I'm not suggesting the book is promoting communism or has some Red Agenda - but we do begin to see a Utopian society forming....for a little while.

[Sancho]

I’d like to run with Scher’s idea for a moment, and it reminds that good literature involves the reader; it excites ideas in us.

If Messner is a messenger and the generals are prophets, then what is Gen? I suppose he could be a sort of primordial Genesis figure. He’s someone who transcends the dogma of the generals or gov’t officials outside. He can move easily between a Rabi, a Priest, an Imam, or a Yogi. And he’s the only one with a pre-Tower-of-Babel ability to communicate.

I like the detail in the book where Gen commits translator heresy by translating the general’s demands as, “They want…” instead of literally as, “We want...”

[Scheherazade]

He is that: I think there must be some intention in stressing him as a Swiss and as a neutral and reluctant party.

And he is not even on duty... It was supposed to be his holiday.

Now, I'm not suggesting the book is promoting communism or has some Red Agenda - but we do begin to see a Utopian society forming....for a little while.

How I see is that... When left on our own, we are likely to find out a way to work together - making use of whatever limited resources we are given under less-than-ideal circumstances. However, power-that-be still do not let us alone and interfere with the order we have created.

I like the detail in the book where Gen commits translator heresy by translating the general’s demands as, “They want…” instead of literally as, “We want...”

I noticed that too. He is very particular not to get involved personally. It is also significant that he is the one who teaches how to read and write.

I really wish I knew more about Christian literature to delve more into this as the more I think about it, the more I feel persuaded that there is some kind of allegory hidden in there.

[Sancho]

I noticed that too. He is very particular not to get involved personally. It is also significant that he is the one who teaches how to read and write.

Good point. It also comes to mind that if Gen is only one who can speak to everyone in their own language, but then the lingua franca of the book is the music.

I really wish I knew more about Christian literature to delve more into this as the more I think about it, the more I feel persuaded that there is some kind of allegory hidden in there.

I was thinking more along the lines of the stories in the Hebrew Bible, which, unless I’m mistaken, are shared by all of the Abrahamic religions.

[OrphanPip]

I still have 2 more chapters to finish, but in general I think the main theme of the book is something like Forster's Howards End: "only connect." Except, instead of the vague humanistic mysticism of Forster, Pratchett is using art as a metaphor of lingua franca (to borrow from Sheh's post) that connects people.

There is obvious significance to the constant attention placed on translation, the common language of music, the subjectivity of perception (often Pratchett gives us juxtaposed impressions by different characters towards the same events), and the role of the garua as obstruction.

I don't have a fully articulated thesis, but I feel that the point is rather simple, that people can connect if they just try, that the barriers of class, gender, education, politics and language that keep us apart are not really so solid and insurmountable as they seem. However, I feel the ending might problematize this interpretation.

I'd add other observations building on what has been said. Gen is not the only teacher in the text. Roxanne teaches Hosaka how to play the piano. Thibault teaches Ishmael how to cut the eggplant. General Benjamin offers to teach Gen how to improve at chess. And the characters are constantly learning about each other, which mirrors the reader's experience of the text, and seems to suggest something significant about the role of sharing information.

Edit: In terms of my enjoyment of the book, I think it's a fun read that is perhaps a bit sentimental in points, but I'm not sure that sentimentalism is taken entirely seriously by Pratchett either.

[Charles Darnay]

I agree that the book can be sentimental at times, but I don't think this is a bad thing necessarily, particularly in relation to the end.

[Scheherazade]

It is more a clash of political ideals in my view. The general represent Marxism - or communism, while the absent President represents a failed democracy.

How do you explain that Marxism is dependent upon the Democracy? Ie, outside world?

I'd add other observations building on what has been said. Gen is not the only teacher in the text.

No, Gen is not the only teacher but he is the only one who teaches how to communicate (languages, reading and writing).

Edit: In terms of my enjoyment of the book, I think it's a fun read that is perhaps a bit sentimental in points, but I'm not sure that sentimentalism is taken entirely seriously by Pratchett either.

I think the whole story is absurd and the author means it that way too.

Re. music. It does play a very important role in the story. It is treated with such seriousness, almost philosophically. Under normal circumstances, I am not sure people who are kept hostages would not forget all their worries as soon as an aria is sung. However, it is true that it is one thing that connects them all openly and deeply, regardless of their backgrounds and identities.

Re. ending. It comes too suddenly just as the characters build a haven for themselves and wish that they should be left alone and make plans for the future.

I don't want to ruin it for those who are still reading but who gets out is very important, I believe.

[OrphanPip]

No, Gen is not the only teacher but he is the only one who teaches how to communicate (languages, reading and writing).I think the whole story is absurd and the author means it that way too.

I wonder if the text doesn't put pressure on the idea that language is the primary means of communication. Often characters communicate emotions and even ideas through their bodies. Are chess, cooking, and music not means of communication in some way?

I'd agree that Gen is the most important body of communication in the text, and he's the first one to appear, the other examples (apart from body language) appear later as people settle in to the situation. This itself might be significant if we think about the way the novel models a breakdown of barriers gradually, the more they learn to communicate and understand each other, the more options for communication appear.

[Dark Muse]

In a way in which the terrorists themselves have become trapped. They have found themselves in a situation in which there really is no way out for them. They did not anticipate finding themselves with a room full of hostages, and now there is really no way out for them, they are just as much stuck there as the hostages are.

It is interesting how in the same way in which we see the hostages become more and more comfortable with their situation, going from having to be forced to lay down on the floor and progressing to making demands of the terrorists, with Roxanne Cross giving them ultimatums in order to get her music, the readers themselves start to identify more and more with them.

When General Alfredo is struggling with the fact that because the terrorists have become too accommodating it has disrupted the terrorist-hostage hierarchy and he feels as if that proper authority is not being obeyed and respected, I almost feel sympathetic with his situation. Yeah he is the bad guy and what he is doing is wrong, but he himself did not anticipate or want to end up in this predicament and now things are degrading into chaos with hostages taking advantage of the terrorists attempting to be reasonable and accommodating to them.

Perhaps in the way, as the hostages themselves steadily beginning to loose their own fear, and forget the danger of the situation they are in and grow steadily more comfortable, the reader is also being lulled into a false since of security.

[Charles Darnay]

I wonder if the text doesn't put pressure on the idea that language is the primary means of communication. Often characters communicate emotions and even ideas through their bodies. Are chess, cooking, and music not means of communication in some way?

We see the relationship of Mr. Hosokawa and Roxane form outside of Gen's knowledge, sans language, but through music mostly.

But the need to communicate is still essential and there are only a few characters who can break through the barrier.