|
Post by MegaDude on Jul 21, 2010 16:47:42 GMT -5
In another post matov makes mention of the way that class issues are handled in British PA, and the fact that the working class is often portrayed in a negative light.
So what did Wyndham intend with the character of Coker? He was “low born” but then self-educated right?
So is he supposed to be “ok” because of the fact of his education, even though he wasn’t born into the right station?
In other words, does Wyndham value education over an accident of birth?
|
|
matov
Wasteland Warlord
Posts: 448
|
Post by matov on Jul 22, 2010 4:48:53 GMT -5
I think that Coker has to be seen in light of the fact that the novel was written in 1951. This was a time when socialism was seen as being the logical successor to captialism, when the Soviet Union was still held in high regard amongst many people, of all classes, due to its sacrifice in World War 2 and a host of other political and socio-economic conditions that just dont exist now.
Its also a very British novel and this was a Britain that was still living on a wave of idealism created at the end of World War 2 and the creation of what we call the Welfare State with our national health service at the very heart of that. For us the idea of the strong (the sighted) being forced to help the weak (the blind) was something very much at the heart of a political battle of wills that was being fought out in all mediums.
Coker could be seen as being the idealist, the man who wanted to do the 'right' thing and was willing to take direct action to achieve it. I actually think that one of the strengths of the book is the way in which Coker is shown as somebody who accepts that he was actually wrong but whose motives are admirable if misplaced at that time. His ideal of the strong helping the weak is the right one, but just not at that time.
The ending of the book is about the idea that a person has to choose a community to belong to.
Neither was ideal and neither was what the person perhaps really wanted for themselves but a choice had to be made. That essentially it is the collective that matters, not the will of the individual and that this has to come to the front eventually, no matter the catastrophe and that what matters most is a persons ability to compromise, not their ability to stand alone. That this is the ultimate test of a survivor.
|
|