An Update… The Chrysalids

This is just a quick post to explain a bit about this blog. Honestly, I forgot that it even existed until I got a notification that someone commented on one of my posts. This blog was done 2 years ago as a grade 12 project, not because we decided one day that we were going to write about a novel just for fun, but because we were assigned topics to write about and graded on them. Since we have now graduated high school and moved on to university, we will not be adding any more posts, but feel free to read what we have written. Even comment if you feel like it. It made me laugh to find out that this thing is still going, and that other people have actually read it. If it helps you with an assignment, or even makes you think about the novel from a different perspective, then awesome! Just remember that it was written by grade 12 students, and none of us are claiming to be an expert on the novel.

Anyway, Happy Reading!

~Rachel

A Clockwork Orange – The Chrysalids

When attempting to figure out the links between A Clockwork Orange and The Chrysalids, I could not really think of many similarities.  I found many differences, but even by reaching for abstract ideas and even after reading my partner’s blogs, I still didn’t really see any connection.  The sole connection I truly saw was the prevalent theme of sex and violence mentioned by Rachel, although I don’t quite agree with her opinions.  Although A Clockwork Orange did in fact have more violent tendancies towards sex which DO relate to the Spider-Man coveting Rosaline, if you were to read the end of the book, you would find that Alex, after reverting back to his violent tendancies, finally matures as he realizes he wants to be a dad.  This would link to The Chrysalids through how Rosaline and David loved each other and were making love, as opposed to the violent sex associated with the Spider-Man.  I also agree with Rachel’s view of violence being a predominant theme in both, however I think in both novels violence is used to oppress as opposed to in just The Chrysalids.  While David is beaten by his father to instill the religious beliefs upon him, and the Spider-Man attempts to brutally rape Rosaline, in A Clockwork Orange the violence is used at the beginning as a manner of oppressing those normal society people, and in the end turns into something used to force Alex into submission.  By causing the violence to make Alex physically ill, we are in fact just exacerbating a situation that could’ve been avoided through the actual reform of criminal minds as opposed to removing their choice between what is morally right and wrong.

I believe that there is a large difference between the two controlling parties in the novels.  In The Chrysalids, the society is ruled by the church and therefore the ruling power is rather abstract and all-knowing.  In A Clockwork Orange, the ruling party is the government who is not all-knowing and doesn’t even aid but rather make a situation worse for the people they are in charge of.  While in both cases the ruling party is in the wrong, they both have different ways of ruling, one through officials who act upon their beliefs and the other through officials who act as a result of the rules set in place by society.  Society does not decide a religion’s rules they only mold them to conform with that specific society.  While, in the two stories the two protagonists both rebel, the only difference I believe that seperates their rebellion is the catalyst.  For David, the catalyst in my opinion was Sophie and Petra.  In the case of Alex, my only assumption could be his family life, or the dreariness of the society boring him to a point where he thinks he must act out.  As a result of this, both rebel against their homes and people, but they do so in different ways that reflected the societies they lived in.

Journal #10! The Inevitability of Change

The inevitability of change is a theme that is often alluded to in The Chrysalids. Wyndham comments on people who believe that they can control the world and everything in it by portraying the people of Waknuk as being naive and ignorant.

The rules set out by the religion in Waknuk are archaic because they are not appropriate for the situation Waknuk is in. Also, the rules do not allow for any changes at all. How does anyone know whether a “mutation” is not, in fact, natural evolution? The community regarded David’s gift of telepathy as a deviation, but if so many people were becoming telepathic, especially in New Zealand, doesn’t it make sense to say that this shift is occurring naturally? David’s father continually tries to oppress the changes that are occurring, but the mutations showed no sign of becoming less frequent, and his strict rules made them seem to happen more often. I am surprised that by being so religious, he felt that he had the authority to act as God and decide what defined a mutation. Although he did everything possible to rid the society of “deviants,” he could never truly be successful.

Although change in a physical sense was the main source of animosity in Waknuk, technology was also slowly coming back. This is another thing that Mr. Strorom was powerless against. Especially with influences from outside of the town, people were breaking the mould of the pioneer town. The children were shocked when they found out about the mass of technology in New Zealand because they were never exposed to anything like it in their small, puritanical town. Eventually the information of such technology would become public, and people would want to make their lives easier by adopting the different ways. In their technological advances, their beliefs would also change. In our society where technology rules and religion is barely practised anymore, it is easy to see what Wyndham was referring to in his novel.

Although people do not like to admit it, everyone is nervous about change and things that are “different.” I think Wyndham was commenting on our society and its wariness of things that defy what people are used to. Especially after seeing what Hitler did to thousands of innocent people in the war, I think he was warning us that we cannot control divergence from occurring. Change and evolution are natural, and they can’t be stopped by anyone or anything, no matter what.

Journal #10: Comparison of Clockwork Orange and The Chrysalids

Both of the following stories described are dystopic, and that is where I find that the similarities basically end.  In the Clockwork Orange, the main character Alex and his gang of droogs find fun in the raping of women, and destruction of their lifestyle and homes.  This is unlike the protagonist in The Chrysalids who tries to protect people, live by the rules for the most part and isn’t destructive. 

There is a common thread between the two characters, and that is that they rebel, but it is for different reasons.  Alex rebels because of a mulittude of things, but a large cause seems that he is rebelling against his parents and a lifestyle that he finds boring.  He does not see the value in human life and unlike David he chooses to rebel for fun.  He ruins life while David tries to save them.  David’s rebellion is for the salvation of his own life along with others, and like most of the main characters in The Chrysalids, it is to try to find a new society which he will be accepted in.  Alex is out of control and arguably, mentally insane.  David on the other hand is quite sane and just wants the world to be a better place for people like himself. 

Similarily once again, both stories end on a more positive note for the main characters as they achieve new beginnings, but Alex unlike David, is accepted back into the society he initially started to ruin.  David the one who has done nothing to harm his initial community is never accepted back and the only way to continue his life is to move on, and live in Sealand. 

I find both societies to be twisted and cruel in different ways.  I really didn’t feel pathos for Alex like I did for David because he deserved what he got.  Both stories were interesting studies in human nature, but I didn’t really find them all that similar, because even the similarities are for different reasons, or present different outcomes.

Journal 10: Free Topic

In all dystopic novels there is an element of extreme government control. In The Chrysalids the control is different but there is control non the less. The type of control that is depicted in The Chrysalids is extreme religious control; is the control shown ever possible? Could such a society ever exist? There are, unfortunately, societies which deem the occurrence of a physical mutation or a mental illness as a blasphemy, however, the individuals are not cast out of society, they are instead institutionalized until they die (not much better, I know). There have been societies which took the same course of action as Waknuk when dealing with mutations.

The only way I could ever see the control being possible is if societies became isolated. There is a great deal of ignorance mentioned in the novel. Everyone believed that their society was the true image. There was no diversity in the society, anything different must be evil. There have been examples of this throughout history, take slavery for example, different skin colour made a person inferior, just like in The Chrysalids it made a person a deviation. The society depicted in The Chrysalids was not totally impossible to exist or to have existed.

The extreme control boils down to ignorance. If everyone was educated equally to have open minds such societies would not occur. People are happy living in their own little perfect society where the government takes care of everything. Change is frightening for people and they will do anything to prevent it; in a government case change could threaten their power and so they would resolve to snuff it out just like in The Chrysalids. Fear is a powerful motivator, people will follow any leader if they will deliver them from fear, no matter how deranged they are. In the case of The Chyrsalids a nuclear war is what destroyed and divided the world, fear of another disaster could be the cause of people following such a society. War is caused because of differences that people cannot overcome so they resort to violence; it happens all through life, children fight with each other when they don’t get along and adults are not different, their violence is just more large scale.

A society where people find mutations offensive and therefore evil could certainly occur, and yes they would be easily lead by a freakish set of beliefs enforced by a lunatic government. It is possible that such a society could exist again someday. People will allow themselves to be lead due to their own ignorance, if they don’t ever think that there is a better existence to be had they will not seek to better themselves.

okay so that is the best I can come up with for another free topic.

Steph

Anti-Hero

The modern anti-hero is, in my opinion, not represented well within The Chrysalids.  The antihero is described as “a protagonist whose character and goals are antithetical to traditional heroism.”  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antihero)  This means that an antihero is someone whose goals are opposed or the complete opposite to what is normally considered heroism.  The main protagonists in the Chrysalids can be considered as Rosaline, Petra, David, and Sophie.  The reason I do not believe any of these characters embody the true spirit of the antihero is because they are all good people.  They oppose the society within which they were placed, however they all have valid reasons and never wished to revolt against their people.  They all did their best to be integrated within their societies and although they questioned the norm, this questioning never evolved into outright revolt.  Only Sophie fought when the war begun after the other three were sent out to live on their own and that was the only antithetical event to really take place in the book, open revolt against the antagonists.  All the protagonists really demonstrate characteristics of a hero.  According to Wikipedia, a hero is described as “characters (fictional or historical) that, in the face of danger and adversity or from a position of weakness, display courage and the will for self sacrifice – that is, heroism – for some greater good, originally of martial courage or excellence but extended to more general moral excellence.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hero).   David and Rosaline both display courage and the will for self sacrifice by attempting to save Petra and bring her to the Zealanders.  They are both saving Sophie for the greater good and they both reach moral excellence by never revolting against their own people.  Sophie displays courage when she is thrown into the fringes and then sacrifices herself to save the “spider man” in the novel.  She was working towards the grater good of the fringe people as well as attempting to do what was right in the situation she was placed in.  Another example of Sophie’s courage and self-sacrifice is when she saved David, Rosaline and Petra from the fringe people who meant to do them harm.  Petra, is but a child but she works towards the greater good to the best of her abilities.  She works hard to understand the “thought-speak” and even manages to keep it secret from others for the greater good.  So, as you can see, in my opinion there is no true representation of the antihero as the other characters who could be considered as antiheros were not the true protagonists of the story and would therefore make my point mute.

Journal #9: Modern Anti-Hero

Like my peers, I agree that David is not really the main modern anti-hero.  Although he initiates heroic actions of others, he does nothing himself to really classify him as heroic.  I would argue that Sophie is the biggest example of this within the book.  Michael, Rosalind and Petra also provide examples within the novel.

Sophie starts off as an innocent little girl and because of her mutation she is banished.  Growing up in the Fringes it explains that she has had nothing for years.  She appears to feel insecure and almost guilty about the way her body looks, and her reason for being there.  What makes her a hero is her immediate reaction to save David when she sees that he has been hurt.  At this point she has no motive for her kindness, except to repay him for what he did for her family years ago.  She cares for him and talks to him as an old friend, but what differentiates herself from the tragic hero is the fact that she saves his sister and friend for a selfish reason.  And this method is through murder.  The fact that she is not perfect is what allows her to be classified as a modern anti-hero.  She does die a tragic death, but it is not for a noble cause, mostly to to join her community in their battle against the rules that seperated her from where she lived and people she loved.

Michael’s attempt to distract the search parties on a false trail is noble, and his guidance through the war is appreciated, but the fact that he is willing to fight with Waknuk and not stand up for his friends publicly is a weakness.  It is understandable because even if he did not admit his own state, he would also be banished for thinking that mutants should be accepted.  The fault I find unforgivable is that he should not be killing Fringes people.  Rosalind is also an anti-hero in the sense that she is doing what she needs to, to protect those that she loves, but it does mean that she murders one man and injures another.  Petra is the most innocent of all because she understands the least and does as much as she can to help, but her stubborn attitude and powerful thoughts disable her peers sometimes.  It is the flaws within these characters that make them relatable to the reader, and not pompous and fluffy as the tragic hero generally appears.

Journal 9: Modern Anit-hero

It is hard to see David as being an antihero as he doesn’t really display any qualities of an antihero. Others characters in the story were depict as more of the antihero type, Petra and Sophie were the two main one’s I noticed.

Petra was characterized as an innocent, helpless little girl, not someone capable of being a hero. It was because of Petra that the group was able to escape the society. If not for Petra’s telepathic abilities the group would have been caught with no place to go, they would have never of learned about Sealand and have been able to escape, and even if they had learned of Sealand, without Petra no one would have come to rescue them. The whole reason the group was rescued by the Sealanders was because Petra had such strong telepathic powers, they wanted to learn more about Petra.

Sophie is definitely an antihero; she too was depicted as a sweet little girl. Sophie was the reason that the group made it through the Fringes alive. She helped Rosalind and Petra escape David’s uncle and let them all hide in her home until the Sealanders came to rescue them.

I noticed that the majority of the characters who could be seen as antiheros were female. Wyndham wrote The Chrysalids based on his experience of the war, in away his depiction of the females in his novels as being antiheros is similar to the women during the war. The women during the war were not soldiers who went of to die for the country they did a great amount for the society. The women were nurses on the battle field and worked in the factories that made the weapons and tools used by the men. The women had to be heroic in order to keep society from falling apart. Wyndham showed the heroes as being the sweet innocent little girls to show what he knew women are capable of.

Steph

Journal #9: Modern Anti-Hero?

In The Chrysalids, the main character David doesn’t really display the traits of a tragic hero or a modern anti-hero. However, his younger sister Petra, his friend Sophie, and his Uncle Axel all have qualities of a modern anti-hero.

Petra is the main reason that the children got away from Waknuk safely because she was the only child who could communicate telepathically with the distant Sealand woman who told them what to do. Although she is a hero in the story, she is definitely not a regular hero. Just by being a female child she defies the stereotype of a hero. She is not the big strong man who comes to save the day, and she is scared easily like any other little kid in her situation would be. Also, she pursues her motives by breaking the law and running away into the Fringes. This is a common occurrence when an anti-hero is involved. Although her means of dealing with her situation are not considered to be noble, her intentions are.

Another character who is an anti-hero is Sophie. In the beginning of the story she is a young girl who is shunned by society. This turns her into a bitter woman who lives in the Fringes like an animal. Although she doesn’t really sympathise with David, Rosalind and Petra, she still helps them for her own benefit. She feels threatened by Rosalind because the man she loves sees Rosalind as a possible mother for his children. So, like Petra, Sophie’s motives are not pure, but the result benefits the greater good. This is a common characteristic of the modern anti-hero. Sophie also has some traits of the classic tragic hero. At the end of the novel, her fatal flaw (her devotion to the spider-man) results in her being killed. She knew that she faced the possibility of death, but she accepted her fate. This is one of the most recognised events in a tragic hero’s life.

A character that I believe exemplifies an anti-hero is Uncle Axel. He is a man who had travelled the world and was very wise, but he was not brave enough to openly rebel against the society he had come to live in. However, while he did not rebel, he helped the children escape in all possible ways. He kept their secrets, provided them with counsel, and even killed a man who threatened to expose them. Like Sophie, Axel was also a man who was resentful of his society. Although he was accepted by the society, he did not agree with the rules set out. No one would listen to his ideas and most people saw him as worthless because he couldn’t work. This is another thing that kept Axel from being a hero; he was a cripple. He was an outcast in his society, so he had no problem with breaking the law to help the children who could change the face of society for the better.

In this novel, the anti-heroes are definitely showed in a good light. Wyndham effectively had me feeling extreme pathos towards all three of these characters, even when they were obviously breaking the law. This made the rules of Waknuk seem even more awful because I felt that the characters mentioned above were correct in breaking them. I thought that is was interesting how Wyndham often combined the tragic hero and the anti-hero rather than have the person as a specific type. This made the characters seem more dynamic and interesting.

Rebellion

In The Chrysalids there was essentially only small scale rebellion, the catalyst of which in my opinion was a combination of Petra and Sophie.  The first act of rebellion was committed by David when he refused to help people find Sophie, as well as not revealing her as the “mutant” that she was.  Another act of rebellion in the story was the group of telepaths acknowledgement of their gifts and using them.  Then, when Ann married Allen and they both knowingly hid the information concerning the other telepaths this was an act of rebellion.  When Uncle Axel kills Allen, and David, Petra and Rosaline run away, this was the final small act of rebellion in the novel.  The Fringe people fighting off the men of Waknuk is the only real large act of rebellion in the novel, and that act was really forced upon them, they didn’t really have a choice in the matter.

The reason I consider the catalysts to be a combination of Petra and Sophie is because Sophie is the original person who persuades David that mutants are okay.  He decides this even before he finds out he is also a mutation.  Petra is a catalyst as everyone does everything in their power to save her from destruction, even the Zealanders.  Petra is the main reason behind the escaping, and the reason that they are all originally discovered.

David is a typical protagonist of a dystopic novel.  He questions the society he is placed in, even before he finds out he is in fact different.  This is quite similar to Winston’s predicament in 1984 where Winston begins to question his society, even before he interacts with any of the others who feel the same.   David begins questioning early in the novel, and even dreams of a different, better society that he has never heard of before.  Later, were it not for the persuasion from some females in the novels, both of them probably would not have begun the rebellion against their own government.

The females seem to be an influencing factor in all the dystopic novels the class is currently reading.  Whether it be Julia in 1984, Clarisse in Farenheit 451, or Rosaline and Petra in The Chrysalids, the female is one of the main reasons that the rebellion takes place or the questioning of their society begins.  The female is the nurturing mother, and what the authors could be insinuating is that the woman is a nurturing, evil entity bent on changing the world to suit their will.  Especially in The Chrysalids where the majority of mutations mentioned are female.