I agree with the review written by William Boyd from the New York Times. Because I think everything the boy did it was not his fault. He became a “product” of the environment he was living. He had to do drugs and kill other persons without mercy otherwise he would be killed. It was a survival instinct, we cannot blame the boy.
After reading the review, my perception of the story remains the same. I keep feeling pity for the boy because of everything he lost: family, friends, village. I try to put myself in the boy’s shoes in order to understand all the sufferings he had been through. I don’t think I would be able to keep my hope and fight for my life as the boy did after everything he faced.
Another point I agree with William, is the cruelty Ishamael gives us with such richness of details. He tells us the way they used to kill prisoners and even detail the day he cut a man’s throat and the blood that squirted. We can figure the images on our minds. It must have been very hard for a young boy such as Ishmael to witness all those ongoings. I can’t even imagine the blame he might feels nowadays. Even though he was treated and passed with success through rehabilitation, he probably thinks sometimes about what he did. It must have left scars on him.
The summary in the review is very good. William highlighted the main events of the book and transmitted them wisely.
I agree with Jose. Ishmael had absolutely no choice. In order for him to survive, he had to do unthinkable things. There's conflict with that though, because his life was saved by the sacrifice of many others, but then again I suppose in that kind of situation its an every man for himself type conflict.
ReplyDeleteliam ^
ReplyDelete