This book, and the excellent essays within, were the first to take Robert E. Howard and his work seriously and to consider Robert E. Howard a major literary figure. The essay, "The Dark Barbarian," sprung into existence as a continuation of an argument first begun by Don Herron in "Conan vs Conantics" Two-Gun Raconteur 3, where he argues that there is an intrinsic, and unfortunate, difference between the conception of Howard's original Conan character and the conception of the character as portrayed in the imitations.
At whatever level we study it--relationships between individuals, new names for sports clubs, the human admixture at cocktail parties, in the police, on the directing boards of national or private banks--decolonization is quite simply the replacing of a certain "species" of men by another "species" of men.
Without any period of transition, there is a total, complete, and absolute substitution. It is true that we could equally well stress the rise of a new nation, the setting up of a new state, its diplomatic relations, and its economic and political trends.
But we have precisely chosen to speak of that kind of tabula rasa which characterizes at the outset all decolonization. Its unusual importance is that it constitutes, from the very first day, the minimum demands of the colonized.
To tell the truth, the proof of success lies in a whole social structure being changed from the bottom up. The extraordinary importance of this change is that it is willed, called for, demanded.
The need for this change exists in its crude state, impetuous and compelling, in the consciousness and in the lives of the men and women who are colonized.
But the possibility of this change is equally experienced in the form of a terrifying future in the consciousness of another "species" of men and women: Decolonization, which sets out to change the order of the world, is, obviously, a program of complete disorder.
But it cannot come as a result of magical practices, nor of a natural shock, nor of a friendly understanding. Decolonization, as we know, is a historical process: Decolonization is the meeting of two forces, opposed to each other by their very nature, which in fact owe their originality to that sort of substantification which results from and is nourished by the situation in the colonies.
Their first encounter was marked by violence and their existence together--that is to say the exploitation of the native by the settler--was carried on by dint of a great array of bayonets and cannons. The settler and the native are old acquaintances. In fact, the settler is right when he speaks of knowing "them" well.
For it is the settler who has brought the native into existence and who perpetuates his existence. The settler owes the fact of his very existence, that is to say, his property, to the colonial system.
Decolonization never takes place unnoticed, for it influences individuals and modifies them fundamentally. It transforms spectators crushed with their inessentiality into privileged actors, with the grandiose glare of history's floodlights upon them.
It brings a natural rhythm into existence, introduced by new men, and with it a new language and a new humanity. Decolonization is the veritable creation of new men.
But this creation owes nothing of its legitimacy to any supernatural power; the "thing" which has been colonized becomes man during the same process by which it frees itself.
In decolonization, there is therefore the need of a complete calling in question of the colonial situation. If we wish to describe it precisely, we might find it in the wellknown words: That is why, if we try to describe it, all decolonization is successful.
The naked truth of decolonization evokes for us the searing bullets and bloodstained knives which emanate from it. For if the last shall be first, this will only come to pass after a murderous and decisive struggle between the two protagonists.
That affirmed intention to place the last at the head of things, and to make them climb at a pace too quickly, some say the well-known steps which characterize an organized society, can only triumph if we use all means to turn the scale, including, of course, that of violence.
You do not turn any society, however primitive it may be, upside down with such a program if you have not decided from the very beginning, that is to say from the actual formulation of that program, to overcome all the obstacles that you will come across in so doing. The native who decides to put the program into practice, and to become its moving force, is ready for violence at all times.
From birth it is clear to him that this narrow world, strewn with prohibitions, can only be called in question by absolute violence. The colonial world is a world divided into compartments.More of a minor point and perhaps off topic in this discussion, but concerned with the general topic of this blog: I'm having my qualms with the example in point 9.
Irony in Things Fall Apart Irony is put to use by Achebe in this book to highlight his beliefs, or important themes in the book, in some cases showing that change can be a good thing, even as it is the ultimate bringer of Okonkwo's death, the fall of Igbo society, and the source of conflict in the book.
On the uses of a liberal education: 1. as lite entertainment for bored college students. September 1, Harper's Magazine. Mark Edmundson. A college student getting a liberal arts education ponders filling out a questionnaire that includes an opportunity for him to evaluate his instructor.
Mar 12, · SOURCE: “Culture and History in Things Fall Apart,” in Critique: Studies in Modern Fiction, Vol. 11, No.
1, , pp. 25– [In the following essay, Meyers discusses Achebe's presentation.
The key phrase of the poems reads, "Things fall apart; the center cannot hold." Underlying the aforementioned cultural themes is a theme of fate, or destiny. This theme is also played at the individual and societal levels.
A friend of a friend told me that he tried to set the price of his game to some figure or other but that Valve vetoed it and set it to something else.