|
OK - I've finished.
Firstly, I really enjoyed the book. I too was frustrated by the italicised speech. I probably could agree that the London aspect wasn't as well told as the later sections of the book. I didn't notice quite as much as some because I thought at the time, that it was probably important to the rest of the story. In the end, I thought it was vital to get a better understanding of what happened later, and I appreciated its presence, even if I found it a bit less interesting at the time.
I loved the conflict in Thornhill over what was going on. I almost felt at times that I could see the author in his character for some reason. But this was mainly because I didn't expect to see any shred of compassion or guilt from people of that time. Bookpossum's quotes from historical pieces earlier in the thread seem to indicate that these kinds of attitudes did exist. I'm pleasantly surprised. When the media here decides to wield the whip of collective guilt, it usually does so in a much more uniform way.
Australia's heritage is a fascinating one and I think Grenville captured that for me to an extent. That these first pockets of civilisation were occupied mainly by convicts, those that had come from a completely harsh environment in London, where you had to fight for every inch, where you were ground down and always reminded of what you didn't have. And then to open up a whole new country and say - take what you want and by your hard work you will make it yours. How can such a people even begin to understand the indigenous people.
I felt this similarly from the other point of view. The indigenous people were used to having a fairly large territory which they occupied. There was no doubt a kind of ownership with areas divided among different tribes. However, it was less defined in many ways and collective in nature. From my read, I could sense that the aborigines were ill-equipped and unwilling to adjust and resorted themselves to brazen acts that helped to bring on their slaughter. Their own thefts, a statement of ownership in some way that was likely to bring harsh retaliation.
The gulf between the two seemed to play out (at least from the point of view of the colonist) in Thornhill's interactions with the tribe. You could sense that he had an intuitive understanding even though the author demonstrated the significant failure in communication. Some have quoted a few choice thoughts that gives evidence to that. But overall, he wasn't able to reconcile these feelings enough to find a way to bridge the gap. He had to own and it had to be exclusive. The tribe had to continue the way it was before with or without the colonists.
It all became like an inevitable event. You could see it approaching and you wanted, with your 21st century sensibilities, to fight that event. But it was already history and you could no more fight it than the people of that time could see or fight the situation with our understanding.
Great selection Bookpossum. I really enjoyed it. As a result of this book club read, I've lined up a bunch of books for next year to explore Australian writers. I'm not convinced that I would want to continue with this trilogy though as it almost seemed that the part of the story I valued most was resolved - in its way. Do I want to continue reading about the Thornhill dynasty? I'm not so sure.
|