KING Solomon\'S Mines - Lecture notes ALL PDF

Preview

Summary

Lecture and Seminar Notes...

Description

How does the novel represent preserved meat as a vital ingredient to imperial expansion?

Nanci: I think that when the men first embark upon their adventure, neither the Brits or the Zulu’s see meat as a means of imperial expansion. Instead, the hunting of meat is simply a means of entertainment, and later a matter of life or death. KH: True but afterwards meat eating becomes more primal because it is connected with the awakening of the inner savage within the three white men. Animal hunting becomes a means of dominating over the natural world and its resources which is what underlines imperialist expansion. Florence: Preserved meat is presented as a vital supply when entering the colonial unknown. The characters are constantly conducting an inventory of their preserved meat or ‘biltong’ and expressing anxiety about the possibility of its running out. 'We had still some biltong left, but our stomachs turned from biltong, and besides, we were obliged to be very sparing of it, for we could not say when we should find more food' p. 59 These anxieties raise the potential collapse of fantasies of plenitude. The characters fear being left in a desolate colonial landscape that offers no resources for them, in which their supplies may run out and leave them exposed to a horrible death of starvation. KH: Another good point here about anxiety surrounding food scarcity. On the one hand, there is anxiety about the damaging impact of preserved meat on the male body; on the other hand, there is fear that not long from now the exploitation of the planet’s natural resources will result to starvation. Consuming preserved meat becomes a necessity but it has consequences; it makes the heroes feel weak, with no energy and hardly any pulse running through their veins. How does the novel address questions of power through the ways in which the protagonists tried to control and consume fauna on the imperial frontier? Florence: The novel justifies exploitation through ideas of plenitude - suggesting that resources will be wasted if not taken advantage of by white colonialists: ‘Good jumped at the idea, for he was longing to have a go at those elephants; and so, to speak the truth, did I, for it went against my conscience to let such a herd as that escape without having a pull at them' Chapter 4, p. 38 However, the anxieties that emerge about decimation of resources reveal this concept to be a way of legitimising imperialism: 'the violent entry of Western men who legitimate their rapine acts with presumptions about the "immorality" of leaving natural resources to be left to waste unless put to use by invaders' Oxford World Classics introduction, p. xxii KH: Good point, Florence. I like the point you make about plenitude but what about scarcity? When they are hunting for food does the justification of the empire change? As you point out in the previous question the fantasy of plenitude collapses. The colonial expansion and capitalist exploitation becomes a means of imagining an apocalyptic future in the novel where human beings are dying from cold and starvation and are on the brink of defiling what they see as the sanctity of the human body; becoming more animals than animals as they are contemplating to feast on human flesh.

Ella: It is interesting that they kill for survival and profit with no remorse - they rather have feelings of triumph or satisfaction - but once they come across the dead body of Silvestre it is a very different reaction. They are instead ‘shocked beyond measure’ - admitting how ‘strange the horror we all have of the companionship of a dead body’ - ‘the sight proved too much for our shattered nerves’ (62) - they appear to impose a certain sanctity to life to human life only - thereby suggesting humanity ought to have such power. The supposed ‘civilised’ nature of western society. Their ‘intelligence’/developments [the glass eye piece and false teeth] means they are able to trick the people of the land they are colonising and possess power over them. They almost seem to mock their intelligence - portray them as inferior. KH: What causes the horror, Ella? Quatermain talks about the dread of death and how it reveals the futility of life as well as the fact that we become part of the food chain in the ecosystem. On the one hand, Silvestre’s corpse horrifies them because they can imagine a future where they have the same fate; on the other hand, they are relieved that the cold has preserved his body from being eaten by other animals. It seems that the distinction between the human and non-human animals collapses in the narrative through death. That is when the natural world protects the human body like it does with the antelopes. This is because in death Silvestre’s body becomes a natural resource. Quatermain seems to be anticipating the horro r that the implied reader may feel and tries to manage these feelings in advance through trigger warnings. The narrative is full of trigger warnings to the reader and it would be worth thinking of how they shape the reading experience (‘It sounds horrible enough, but honestly, I never tasted anything so good as that raw meat.’) Interestingly, the trigger warnings are about carnivore eating habits. This reveals that meat eating was a sensitivity subject amongst Haggard’s readers in the 1870s because of concerns about food adulteration and the impact of meat eating on the body and the environment. ‘Deep time’ - human fragility JP: The idea of power explored in the novel reflects the power dynamic illustrated within the colonialism of the Empire. Britain tries to control the countries within the empire, as is illustrated through the novel with the protagonists trying to control and consume fauna. The atmosphere tries to protect this ‘wreathing billows of morning mist’ p.64, however the men are still able to obstruct this and exploit the nature that is trying to be protected. They kill and have little remorse, as it is purely for their own benefit with little regard for anything else. This reflects the same methods within the British Empire. Colonial expansion and an apocalyptic future - where does this leave Britain and humanity? On the verge of extinction? Idea of whether they have true power - yes, they exploit nature, but what is the cost? Humanity believes they have power over nature, but without nature, humanity would be nothing. In addition, the colonies would ship meat to Britain, something that Britain relied on them for - is this true power? What does meat do to the bodies of Britain - “blood went coursing through our veins”. Goodness going into their body, but it is not necessarily all goodness (nutritional value). EAD: “Tusks of the great bull that killed poor Khiva have been put up in the hall here, over a pair of buffalo horns you gave me, and they look magnificent” (p. 198). The idea of animal

parts being used not only as food, clothing and weaponry but also as ornaments to adorn Western houses (ivory etc.) is explored throughout the novel. It is reminiscent of modern hunters who demonstrate the power they possess by hanging the heads or horns of animals they have killed (often from foreign lands) on their walls. Following on from the idea of humanity having power over non-human animals; both the travellers and the Kukuana people seem to believe that the human power over animals is not only a moral one but also a physical one. When demonstrating to the Kakuana people that they have the ability to kill sing the gun (or ‘magic’ stick) the Kakuana people respond by stating that although it can kill an animal surely it cannot kill a human. Similarly, when asked to demonstrate these powers by killing a human, the three travellers will not do it and will only kill a non-human animal. Later on of course during the battle however, many human lives are taken, but perhaps with an idea of it being the ‘greater good’ due to how many die in the witch hunts.

How does the novel cast the exploitation of non-European lands with heroism? EAD: “Brave white men […] I make a decree, and it shall be published, from the mountains to the mountains your names Incubu, Macumazahn and Bougwan, shall be as the names of dead kings […] So shall your memory be preserved in the land forever” (p. 190) although Ignosi declares that no other white man shall cross the mountains, he not only makes an exception for the three travellers, but appears to class them as heroes. Although they have intruded on the land and taken diamonds from the mine, they are not seen (for Ignosi anyway) as exploiters of the land but as heroes akin to kings whose fond memory will remain in the land for all eternity. KH: Good point, Emily. I like the parallelism between preserved meat and preserved memories. Both of them are frozen in time. It is worth thinking about the impact that the preservation of their memory? To join the legends of dead kings, these adventurers need to leave Kukuana land and live on as ideasl. What are the tangible ways through which the geography of Kukuana land and the memory of their adventure becomes part of its intangible values? Is Ignosi suggesting here that the three while men will be assimilated into the culture and appropriated accordingly? King Solomon’s Mines may be a means of preserving memory. It is interesting to think of novel writing (the genre of the boy’s own story) as a technology of preserving the bodies of these heroes in narrative and import them in every boy’s home in the same way that mutton is refrigerated and imported from New Zealand to Britain.

Florence: The genre of the imperial romance presumes a distant and unknowledgeable reader who is interested in finding out about ‘exotic’ and far-away places to alleviate the boredom of metropolitan life. The narrator, Quatermain, constantly emphasises how his suffering as he ventures into the colonial ‘unknown’ cannot be understood by comfortable readers in their sitting rooms at home: 'What this meant to us, enervated as we were by hardship, want of food, and the great heat of the desert, my reader can imagine better than I can describe. Suffice it to say that it was something as near death from exposure as I have ever felt' p. 62

Therefore, Haggard constructs his narrator as a ‘heroic’ figure who endures hardships in order to bring African wealth back to the imperial centre and enable British people to enjoy luxuries such as diamonds and ivory. However, this heroism is undermined by the sense that wealthy inhabitants of imperial centres such as London are weakened and emasculated by the ease of their lives. With Quatermain’s return to London, will he maintain his heroism or succumb to the same effects? Think about the representation of meat eating in this novel. Find a passage from the novel and be prepared to share it with the class. SG: -

-

“Oh joy! A great buck lying on its back and kicking furiously in its death agony. We gave a yell of triumph – we were saved, and we shall not starve” (Chapter 7, p.65). The juxtaposition between the animal in pain vs the joy of the protagonists. They revel in their triumph at the expense of another species or person. This is prevalent throughout the text - they thrive upon return to London due to their newly obtained riches, at the expense of the Kukuana.

KH: Chapter 7 is interesting because it both creates hierarchies between human and nonhuman animals and makes them collapse. The particular quotation shows how the protagonists reconnect with their primal instincts and they hunt like predators in the name of the survival of the human species. Can you find an example from chapter 7 that makes the opposition between the human and the non-human collapse? ‘If only the air is cold enough flesh and blood will keep as fresh as New Zealand mutton for ever, and Heaven knows it is cold enough here’ (Chapter 7). -

‘These savages grew their scanty supply of grain… herds of smaller games were wandering’, Chapter 5. I find the use of the term “savage” here really interesting, particularly as they are referencing their diet of grains and small game. To call them savage following the brutal poaching of elephants seen previously seems quite rich but again, anything that is not “civilised’ societies norm is supposedly savage. - “The best of the meat was then cut off for us’ Chapter 8. The idealisation and privileging of the white man's needs over their own is very interesting. They willingly give up their best resources to their guests - perhaps this is just good hospitality but to the white men this seems to be an invitation for them to take whatever resources they please. JJ: Throughout the novel, ‘biltong’ comes up, the first instance being: ‘Twenty-five pounds’ weight of biltong (sun-dried game flesh).’ (p. 47, Ch5) Whenever biltong comes up again, it is quite frequently repeated that it is ‘dried game flesh’. This does not let us forget what this food is and where it comes from, reminding us of the requirement of an animal’s death for food. A similar idea comes across in the last chapter when brother George is found: ‘As for food, however, they had got on pretty well, for they had a good supply of ammunition’ (p. 195, Ch20). The connection is not explicitly made, implying that it is obvious that ammunition=food. We are not allowed to forget that eating meat & killing are linked.

LB- “In a quarter of an hour we were changed men. Our life and vigour came back to us, our feeble pulses grew strong again, and the blood went coursing through our veins” (p. 66, chapter 7) - It’s a very visionary response, as if life has come back to them by eating another. - due to the fresh meat. Rejuvenating aspect. - Very masculine thing to do, gives off some vibes that this is what men have done since the caveman days and it’s them going back to their roots. - Gives us a sort of patriarchal view of men written by a man- Strong man needs meat to survive- we see this argument throughout debates about vegetarianism and veganism, and how we can’t grow if we don’t consume meat. - The effect is very dramatic- probably could have found some plants to eat by sensationally the image of killing for food is typically thought of as a “man’s role” as hunter.

RN: ‘But Good...could not resist’ ‘Lifting his gun, he let drive at the last, a young cow. By some extraordinary chance the ball struck it full on the back of the neck, shattering the spinal column, and that giraffe went rolling head over heels just like a rabbit. I never saw a more curious thing’ ‘Having set some of the “boys” to cut off the best of the giraffe’s meat’ Chapter IV, An Elephant hunt, page 36-37 The men don’t have to kill these animals, their deaths aren’t necessary, the men aren’t starving at this point in the novel. Killing for sport somewhat? Good then seems to feel bad for killing the Giraffe ‘Curse it! I’ve killed him’ Possibly raises the idea of which animals deserve to die and which don’t? But why did he shoot if he didn’t want to kill? The syntax denotes a sense of anger at himself. The animal technically does not go to waste however, some positive. These breathtaking, giant and strong animals can be taken down so easily with man’s creation, man's corruption. Linking the Giraffe to a ‘rabbit’ - trying to justify somehow? Linking it to the usual type of meat? Humans today don’t like to associate animals with meat. A desensitisation. Is this what's happening here to a degree? ‘Never saw a more curious thing’ seems rather calm, curious denoting an intrigue contrasting with the disgust most likely felt by the reader. ‘Young cow’ means that the Giraffe shot was a young female Giraffe. Possibly raising ideas

of extinction as well? Are rabbits morally okay to kill because there are more of them compared to Giraffes.

Nell: Describing the Elephants being hunted: ‘Filling the air with their screams, they pushed one another aside in their selfish panic, just like so many human beings’ p.41. The animals here are reacting just as the narrator would expect humans to react. This implies the animal’s awareness of being hunted and accentuates the cruelty of hunting in such a manner. Using the phrase ‘selfish panic’ reminds the reader that the human race is both animalistic and imperfect. Despite this, the intensifier ‘so many’ could mean either ‘as many as’ or ‘not all’, suggesting the narrator does not believe all humans are comparable to the animals.

CT: Connection between Empire and Racism most explicit in Rhodes’ will, dated September 19, 1877. “Rhodes underscores not only the economic advantages of empire, but he racial ideology implicit in that economy… he explains that upon his death, all of his money should go... [into] The extension of the British Empire, which Rhodes reasoned could be accomplished with a “Secret Society”” which would highlight English Superiority over all other people. (Kaufman, Heidi. “‘King Solomon’s Mines?:” African Jewry, British Imperialism, and H. Rider Haggard’s Diamonds.” Victorian Literature and Culture, vol. 33, no.2, 2005, pp.517-539. JSTOR, WWW.JSTOR.ORG/STABLE25058726. Accessed 5th Nov. 2020 HB: “Starving men must not be fanciful… we must eat raw meat” “I never tasted anything so good as that raw meat. In a quarter of an hour we were changed men. Our life and our vigour came back to us” (pg.66, chapter 7). Their strength returns after eating because they are feeding their starving selves, but can also gather that the power hungry side of them was also fed and their dominance and power over animals results in them returning to their normal, savage selves. “Liver” and “heart” almost humanises this encounter and cannibalises their actions, denoting the savage nature of man This idea of cannibalism only heightens their savage nature “And what is there to prevent him from lasting for three thousand years in this, I should like to know? Asked Good. ‘If only the temperature is sufficiently low, flesh and blood will keep as fresh as New Zealand mutton for ever, and Heaven knows it is cold enough here.” (pg. 63, chapter 7) FE: Critique of the distance of imperial power from the sources of the luxuries it consumes E.g. aesthetic use of ivory as ornamentation vs the raw, immediate experience of slaughter and consumption KH: How does this critique take place, Florence? 'I know no greater luxury than giraffe marrow, unless it is elephant's heart, and we had that on the morrow' p. 37 'the Kafirs had cut out the hearts of two of the dead elephants for supper' p. 41 Situating reader as distant and unknowing in the luxuries of the metropolitan centre:

‘You, Harry, my boy, who have only to turn on a couple of taps to summon “hot” and “cold” from an unseen, vasty cistern, can have little idea of the luxury of that muddy wallow in brackish tepid water.’ ‘And curious as it may seem to you, my reader, sitting at home at ease and reflecting on the vast, indeed the immeasurable, wealth which we were thus abandoning,’ ‘Reader, you may have lain awake at night and thought the quiet oppressive, but I say with confidence that you can have no idea what a vivid, tangible thing is perfect stillness.’

Chapter 4: pg 37 - one of the first introductions to the representation of meat eating in the novel. ‘Having set some of the ‘boys’ to cut off the best of the giraffe meat, we went to work to build a ‘scherm.’ (A hut or shelter constructed from branches or canvas.) Near one of the pools about a hundred yards to the right of it.’ ‘Our dinner of giraffe steaks and roasted marrow bones was ready. How we enjoyed those marrow bones, though it was rather a job to crack them!’ ‘..Pausing at times to thank Good for his wonderful shot, by the light of the full moon.’ KH: The consumption of meat is not represented in the same way in the novel. The impact of eating meat from different animals on the human body is described differently; for example, the giraffe steaks are enjoyable but the lion meat rejuvenates the male body. EAD: Futility of it when in great supply – “We ate that pauw; nothing was left of him but his bones and his beak, and felt not a little the better afterwards” (page. 59). “melons are not very satisfying” (page 59) becomes about what tastes nice and satisfies rather than sustaining life. The protagonist is a hunter an...