The Protagonist/Antagonist Dynamic in Fiela’s Child and so Long a Letter
The protagonist/antagonist dynamic in Fiela’s Child and So Long a Letter
Women’s struggle for equality is about as common in society as the belief in their inferiority; it is no stretch of the imagination to figure why. The novels Fiela’s Child and So Long a Letter chronicle a woman’s fight for freedom and in so doing maneuver to criticize the patriarchal societies that elicit this struggle. This indictment is communicated by no shortage of means. One method applies the protagonist/antagonist dynamic; it is the scope of this essay to compare the author’s similar techniques of employing this relationship.
In both novels the intentional characterization of the antagonist provides commentary.
The characterization of the antagonist is used to criticize tradition because the antagonist is an extension of tradition and is thereby given the capacity in the novel to interact with the protagonist. In So Long a Letter the assumption of a co-wife is not what is being criticized it is the assumption of Nabou and Benitou as Co-wives. Because Nabou represents the bestiality of gratification antithetical to love, Ba is criticizing the Mawdo for marrying her and betraying his first wife. Because Ramatoulaye believes that women, “draw from the passing years the force of her devotion” where as men, with his,
“egoistic eye,” “compares what he had with what he no longer has, what he has with what he could have.” She is in effect describing two different institutions of marriage, one of the bestiality of gratification and another of true love. Nabou does not fit this characterization of woman; she represents the tradition of marriage that has no real substantiation. Her character type sates the, “egoistic eye” she is but a plaything. Thusly she cannot be a real woman because she facilitates a shallow marriage. This is further
emphasized when Mowdo absolves himself of blame for taking a co-wife; “instincts dominate man, regardless of his level of intelligence.” But
Women’s struggle for equality is about as common in society as the belief in their inferiority; it is no stretch of the imagination to figure why. The novels Fiela’s Child and So Long a Letter chronicle a woman’s fight for freedom and in so doing maneuver to criticize the patriarchal societies that elicit this struggle. This indictment is communicated by no shortage of means. One method applies the protagonist/antagonist dynamic; it is the scope of this essay to compare the author’s similar techniques of employing this relationship.
In both novels the intentional characterization of the antagonist provides commentary.
The characterization of the antagonist is used to criticize tradition because the antagonist is an extension of tradition and is thereby given the capacity in the novel to interact with the protagonist. In So Long a Letter the assumption of a co-wife is not what is being criticized it is the assumption of Nabou and Benitou as Co-wives. Because Nabou represents the bestiality of gratification antithetical to love, Ba is criticizing the Mawdo for marrying her and betraying his first wife. Because Ramatoulaye believes that women, “draw from the passing years the force of her devotion” where as men, with his,
“egoistic eye,” “compares what he had with what he no longer has, what he has with what he could have.” She is in effect describing two different institutions of marriage, one of the bestiality of gratification and another of true love. Nabou does not fit this characterization of woman; she represents the tradition of marriage that has no real substantiation. Her character type sates the, “egoistic eye” she is but a plaything. Thusly she cannot be a real woman because she facilitates a shallow marriage. This is further
emphasized when Mowdo absolves himself of blame for taking a co-wife; “instincts dominate man, regardless of his level of intelligence.” But