The Dream: The Personification of Imperialism?

While reading the first few sections, many emerging themes became clearer as the novel progressed, yet one small question that arose in the first section never seemed to be answered. After our unnamed narrator discusses how he longs for a simple life, he has a convoluted and dark dream. In his dream he describes mass amount of snow fall lit by an "aura" of ubiquitous light. He finds himself in the same surroundings of his outpost, yet the walls, trees, and houses have "dwindled" (pg. 9). Children building snow castles topped with little red flags surround him. All the children seem to melt away as he moves past them except one hooded figure that continues building her wall. This description is so vague that I felt like it could be interpreted a number of ways, but as I read it a few times I developed my own take on our nameless narrator's bedtime thoughts.
Could these children possible be the future generation of imperialists? Is the fading of the surrounding trees and houses and foreshadowing of imperialistic doom? Truly, I am not sure, but as I read this passage, I could not help but sense an ominous tone. The haunting image of young children planting red flags into their pure white snow castles was one reason for my hunch. The figures seem to fade away as the narrator passes them, perhaps suggesting he is not like them. Throughout the novel thus far, I have noticed a great disconnect between the brutal Colonel and the compassionate narrator. Perhaps the figures' disappearance signals a disconnect between their world of imperialistic aspirations and his desire for a peaceful, quiet life. The final encounter the narrator has with the figure that does not dissappear raised a few ideas in my mind. First, this could be foreshadowing for some immovable and irreversible imperialistic force; second, as I continued to read the novel I thought this girl may represent the narrator's "barbarian" lover. This dream continues to perplex me, but that is precisely why it interests me so much.

Modernism and Vietnam

- Apocalypse Now and Heart of Darkness have many scenes that have surrealistic qualities that forcefully convey the war's/situation in Africa's incomprehensibility. The "moral darkness" (uses demonic doubles to show this) is evident through the criminal colonization, nationalism, class hatred, racism, and misogyny. Conrad and Coppola use both narration and their narrative structure to create a "textual performance" of moral implication that ultimately proves a point to the reader/viewer.

- The idea of winning the "hearts and minds" of the Vietnamese and "improving" the Africans vs. the cold killing of each. What were their true intentions? Both stories are trying to express the main idea of the imposition of one culture on top of another culture. Colonialism is a "movable horror" that is prone to repetition.

- The quest for adventure is not exactly what Marlow/Willard had hoped for.
" Everyone gets everything he wants. I wanted a mission, and for my sins, they gave me one. It was a real choice mission, and when it was over, I never wanted another." - Willard

- Jungle "fever" connection
Emotional and mental breakdowns - Heart of Darkness: Doctor
Apocalypse Now: Playboy Bunny scene (cowboys and Indians)
- Juxtapose British/America values to their current surroundings. The British/American ideals are absurd in Africa/Vietnam. (ex: Accountant and his ridiculously clean outfit, Kilgore's passion for surfing)
French man-of-war firing into the invisible and unresponsive jungle, the daily reconstruction of the Do Lung Bridge "Every night the bridge is rebuilt, an the Vietcong blow it up again."

- Both share main idea that colonial adventurism is "senseless brutality, waste, destructiveness of enterprises" with misguided and hypocritical goals and badly planned strategies.

The End.

215

At first I did not understand the meaning of the last pages of The Sound and the Fury, but after discussion in class it grew on me. How could a book bent on the past and the deterioration of the present and future end in any other way? The lack of an obvious climax works because the entire novel describes the constant decaying of the Compson family. A grander ending would not have been fitting. There was closure in the predictability of the scene. Benji cries and is comforted only by a return to the same. Jason takes charge and gets the carriage going the right way, slaps Luster, showcasing his short tempered nature and cynicism. There are no surprises or shocks. Yet, that is the beauty of the ending. The conclusion (if you can call it that), just illustrates exactly how everything is and how it will be. It provides some sort of closure in a novel that is uncontrollably spiraling downward. Faulkner intentionally ended the story this way and I believe it was good that there truly was no real conclusion to all of the seperate events. Dilsey's dominance and ability to keep the family together to some degree offers some hope, but Benji's inability to mature stagnates any progression in his character. I believe Faulkner is trying to prove that some people and some situations simply never change.