The idea of truth, or lack there of, is one of the central themes I encountered while reading. There are so many ways in which Hagedorn eludes giving the truth, the whole truth. First of all, the way she narrates the novel seems schizophrenic because she is constantly changing narrators as well as point of view. Not only do the characters change, but they switch from first to third person. This made it hard for me to be able to trust my judgment of each character because I was constantly getting different opinions and facts from many different sources. At times I couldn’t stand Legazpi (which I think was the point). He was an arrogant, perverted pedophile who was almost crazy at times. But when I would get his point of view it was easier to see his passion for his work and his struggle to be a good man. I had the same problem with Moody and even Fritz. I think the problem is that Hagedorn doesn’t leave them as flat villains, but instead creates an entire world for them. Maybe we (Westerners?) are supposed to relate to him yet be disgusted by him (and ourselves?) at the same time?
There were also many truths left unsolved within the plot. Was the Taobo tribe really “discovered” by Legazpi or was it all a hoax set up by the government? The name of the tribe itself is unclear. Is it “Taobo” or “Tao Po”? This part where we see Legazpi has purposely changed the name is juxtaposed with an excerpt from Magellan’s expedition where they change the names of the islands they visit. What is the truth of these names? Is the name its original title or the one Westerners have imposed upon it? The story within a story about Vietnam also adds to the lack of truth. Pierce himself says that there are so many sides to the war and that’s why he wanted to make it into a film. It was unclear who was “right” and who was “wrong.” Is it a coincidence that a book written in 2004 depicts both ancient explorers and Vietnam? Is she saying something about power and control?
I like Kira’s post about the distancing of ourselves from our ancestors. The fact that the narrative was also intertwined with excerpts from Magellan’s expedition seems to point to the fact that we cannot escape this cultural barbarism. That, in fact, our entire existence in Western culture is based upon these sorts of expeditions and taking advantage of native peoples around the globe. Look at the way the rich (Legazpi, Fritz, Pierce, and even Moody) treat the poor natives. Those in power got there by exploiting the native and tribal communities. Legazpi is a Spaniard and is not a native of the Phillipines—yet he is like a king in their society. The Himal people are subordinates in his house and he even keeps a “wild” Taobo boy as his pet. Pierce, a typical rich American, drives around in limos and leaves a sick Phillipino stranded in the jungle. Fritz, not totally Phillipino, makes money off of the Taobo tribe in the guise of help. It doesn’t seem like just an ugly past. Perhaps Hagedorn is pointing out that what we subsist on is people like Rizalina and that we shouldn’t ignore it or try to escape from it.
Comments are closed.