In the exposition of Exit West, the omniscient narrator introduces the setting by stating: “It might seem odd that in cities teetering at the edge of the abyss young people still go to class” (Hamid 3). What about this might seem odd? Is it the action itself? Or the circumstances in which the actions are still being performed? Why and to whom might this seem odd?
More so than establishing the peculiarity of the circumstances, this sentence identifies who Hamid’s audience is: readers living in a position of removed from these circumstances, who would not know what it is like to live in a city “teetering at the edge of the abyss,” where going to school is optional after a certain age and seen as a time-consuming expectation. The act of going to school in these circumstances seems odd because for this audience, living in these circumstances— I mean actually living and having to go through day to day actions to find comfort, not the snapshot of life in these circumstances presented in mass media of survival— doesn’t exist. There is only the suffering, war, and general unwellness in these presentations. There is no individual. There is no struggle to establish a lifestyle between survival and comfort. By this, I mean, individuals in these circumstances, like the audience, do not merely want to exist, they want to experience, interact and find a sense of comfort regardless of these circumstances. Perhaps this is why Hamid states that “it might seem odd,” not “it is odd.”
However, the use of the subjunctive in itself is odd coming from an omniscient narrator. A narrator who knows what is happening in the dark bedroom in Australia when the wife’s husband is away and inside the mind of an old maid outside Marrakesh, while his primary characters are far removed and disconnected from these scenes. However, for an omniscient narrator, the knowledge, emotions, and reactions of the audience is denied and unobtainable to their knowledge. The narrator may infer at information about the audience and how they might react accordingly, but ultimately this is speculation. The subjunctive is one of the few— if not the only place— places where the narrator does not employ the indicative to compensate for he cannot know. He can know that likely those who will read this narrative, given the mode which costs almost $20 US dollars, lives where the book can be shipped without regulations on what information can be accessed. With this, the narrator can assume that many of us have not lived in circumstances like Nadia or Saeed, an assumption that would be uncomfortably accurate for readers like myself. However, even if this assumption is true, he cannot absolutely know that we will find this detail odd, but can expect that we might. By using the subjunctive to reflect the audience reactions to the work and the indicative regarding the narrative, the narrator does not lose ethos by making a conclusion which is likely odd to much of his audience, but not necessarily all.
Going back to my first, initial question: What about this might seem odd? I don’t think that specifically what might seem odd is that young person— such as Saeed and Nadia— “go to class” in circumstances like this, but that they establish a routine with actions similar to those performed by the audience with more luxurious circumstances. They go to class, they have sex, they get coffee on dates, they smoke weed together, they work, they desire hot showers at the end of the day. None of these actions or preferences are necessarily strange in their own right, in fact, what is possibly most strange is how incredibly normal they are for young, unmarried individuals.
What would seem odd then is that these actions are conducted even in circumstances of increased risk. The culture in this city is devoutly religious both in public through mandatory garb and in private through expected prayer and the ongoing war which bombards through the city at all times of the day. Individuals, with these actions, would be aware of the threat they cause to the expectations of the society and danger of the times.
From an outside perspective, these actions might seem like an illogical risk, not worth the possible reward. However, the dangers of the war, specifically, threaten even those within whatever comfort their home provides as bombs drop through rooftops and bullets crash through bedroom windows. Perhaps what would be odder is if these individuals— especially young people— stopped seeking comfort beyond what walls and religion provide and instead waited to become part of the collateral damage; to sit and wait in fear without any attempt to relieve oneself from these circumstances.
These small normalities of life— school, sex, hot showers, etc.— provide comforts of human interaction, expression, intimacy, and in a sense of escape. To the audiences, these actions are simple, unimportant, and somewhat rudimentary aspects of the daily life. If they have always been expected and continue to be expected after a brief intermission, then maybe yes, they would not be worth the risk.
However, that is not the case in this city or the individuals within it. The war is ongoing and without a definitive end. This city is “teetering at the edge of the abyss,” gently rocking in and away from the dangerous slip over the edge. This risk is constant, but outside the control of any single individual. Would these actions not be even more necessary then for the individual who is seemingly trapped by their circumstances? Do they not need expression and intimacy, even more, to comfort the fears of the possible fall? Are these actions odd at all in these circumstances, that individuals like Saeed and Nadia would continue everyday actions as if the city might not slip into the abyss? Why then must the narrator maintain his ethos by stopping mid-exposition to comment on this possible perspective, to propose it in the subjunctive, before continuing the exposition, rather than just continuing with the indicative?
No comments:
Post a Comment