An Analysis of Oroonoko's Blackness Essay
1011 Words5 Pages
An Analysis of Oroonoko's Blackness
In her essay "Oroonoko's Blackness," Katherine Gallagher argues that there are three layers to "Oroonoko." These layers are Oroonoko's kingship, the relationship between Oroonoko's blackness and the black ink, and the commodofication of Oroonoko. Gallagher argues that Oroonoko's blackness not only illuminates the text itself but also the author's presence as well. She writes that, "…the gleaming blackness of the eponymous hero corresponds to the narrator's heightened presence."(DeMaria, BL Critical Reader, 88). Therefore, Oroonoko and Behn step into the light because of the black print and the jet-black skin of Behn's hero. In her essay Gallagher makes many assumptions regarding the audience who…show more content…
Secondly, Gallagher assumes that her reader knows biographical information regarding Aphra Behn. In her essay, Katherine Gallagher states that Behn did in fact travel to Surinam. She writes: "Like him, she arrives a stranger in Surinam, but is immediately recognized as superior to the local inhabitants."(BL Critical Reader, 89). Knowing this information about Behn's life gives her more authority as a writer, thus allowing her to write more knowledgeably about the slave trade. This additional knowledge and authority about slave trading also serves to enrich the text itself and, again, adds more stability to Gallagher's argument in "Oroonoko's Blackness."
Next, Gallagher presumes that the reader possesses knowledge regarding literary techniques. According to Gallagher, Oroonoko is "a perfectly conventional European tragic hero."(DeMaria, 90). In order for the reader to understand and believe her statement, he or she must know what a European tragic hero is.
Katherine Gallagher's final assumption concerns the slave trade. The reader must know what the slave trade is and how it functioned. In order to understand why Oroonoko's jet-black skin makes him a more important being than those "brown-blacks" who are sold as slaves and are somehow beneath Oroonoko, the reader must know that slaves were often sold after being taken captive in a war. Oroonoko is able to remain free and even somewhat free
Some Possible Paper Topics in Behn's Oroonoko (2nd Half) For another attempt to address this same set of issues, click here.
1) Social Paradox I: What binaries anchor this book's cultural values? Behn writes confidently of Oroonoko as a hero of the European sort, but then she uses him to distinguish a different kind of value system (not lying, not torturing or abusing slaves, etc.) from the "Christian" and "European" cultural norms in Surinam. Is Oroonoko really "one of us," Behn's readers back in London, or some other "them" as Behn sees him, or as we now see him using 21st century mores? This topic implies a Structuralist method if you are looking for the underlying structural rules that enable people to operate the "normal" value system, or a Deconstructionist method if you want to see how the text (and the adept reader) can subvert the "normal" value system.
2) What should we make of Behn's intentional ironies [e.g., "the captain (his friend)," 2191]? How far is she going when she has her hero bid farewell to the treacherous captain with thanks for introducing him to the Christian god by which he swore (2192). What about the clear implication, by Oroonoko to Trefrey, that Trefrey ordinarily ought to have raped a female slave he found attractive (2195). Remember, O is talking, unknowingly, about Imoinda! Behn tells us, "The company laughed at [Trefry's] civility to a slave" (2195). Does Behn expect "us," her readers, to laugh, too? Paradox and irony are tools that New Critics sometimes say an artist uses to resolve tensions in the text so that the work can express some more profound meaning.
3) Social Paradox II: Trefrey, "a man of wit and learning" and a slave master (2192). Think about Oroonoko's maxim, "A man of wit could not be a knave and villain" (2193). That's our hero talking (see Paradox I). Consider the evidence of the text as it supports or subverts his maxim. Then there is "Behn," the character, as she describes her own role in subjecting Oroonoko to continued slavery. She distracts him from rebellion once Imoinda's pregnancy has made him determined to flee or rebel. She tells him tales of Romans (including Hannibal?) and "nuns" (saints' lives?) as part of a deliberate strategy to encourage him to tolerate his servitude. What is that but betrayal of her hero? Is that ironic? (See #2 and the critical methods suggested in 1 and 2, above.)
4) Slaves in Love: When Romance again intrudes upon the historical narrative, Oroonoko and Imoinda are reunited by chance/destiny/fate and they fall passionately into each other's arms, pledging to live happily (as slaves!) in their love for each other. Think about John Donne ("To the Sun Rising," "Canonization," etc. etc.) and the conceit that love will make all horrors seem delightful. Think about Satan and his rebel angels in Hell. Think about Mary Astell on the folly of marrying only for love. What is Behn saying about love? (See #2 above.)
5) Behn's Fictions and Fantasies: Between 2198 and 2205, she suddenly shifts narrative modes from historical fiction or autobiography (closely modeled on facts one can confirm by other means) to outright Romance. That jams together claims that are simultaneously historically verifiable (Trefrey, and "Lord ________ [Willoughby] of Parham," the trade of the colony to the Dutch in 1667 [for Manhattan!], the electric eel!) and the most unlikely flights of fancy (that she was the daughter of a man destined to be governor of thirty-six islands and the colony of Surinam, though we cannot find a trace of her birth origins, the "tigers" [OK, call them jaguars!] Oroonoko kills so handily including the one with seven bullets in its heart). What is she doing to our sense of historicity, of human identity, of cultural values? (See #1, 2, 3, 4, above.)
6) Social Paradox III: Are we the spectators upon wonders, or are we the marvels others gaze upon? When they visit the Indians, the nearly naked Indians (in Central American heat and humidity) cry out upon seeing their heavily embroidered clothing and heavily piled hairdressing, "Tepeeme," which is helpfully translated as "Numberless wonders!" (2202). From the "normal," Behn and her brother and maid have been transformed into marvels (See #5 above). Which are "we" and which are "they"? (See #1 above.) What are the fads of English fashion (2202) compared with the "gabble" of Indian observers (2203)? (What the heck, see all of the above.) This connects to Post-Colonial literary theory and Post-Structuralist analyses that challenge the priority granted to the point of view of the European Colonialist (often male) vs. the African/Amerindian/etc. Colonized (often female) point of view. Hmmm...what about Imoinda's "point of view"? Feminist critics would ask, "where is the woman?"