Wollstonecraft's take on The Cellist of Sarajevo:
I want to pick up with Shelley’s questions about how the characters maintain their sanity and how they prevent themselves from breaking down. It was this theme that intrigued me those most: the idea that almost anything can become “normal.” I do think that these characters are strong and brave, but I wonder if we think that because the world of war-torn Sarajevo is so unbelievable and removed from our own. It is important to note that these characters do not feel strong. They constantly question their own resolve, and a few do not remain in Sarajevo out of choice. Many remain in the city because they have no where to go. Others realized the reality of the war too late, and by that time, the gates to the city had been closed.
I am not by any means dismissing their strength to survive; in fact, I think that this book is about how people survive: not out of bravery or any heroic impulse other than the basic need to survive and to survive with their humanity intact. What I found fascinating was the idea that humans can survive so much pain, and we can convince ourselves of normalcy no matter how awful the reality. The ability to adapt and to change one’s perception in order to keep living is at the heart of the characters’ struggles.
This is represented by the Cellist and his desire to play despite the obvious dangers he faces by being out in the open. He wanted to create hope by convincing himself that there is humanity in his art and music that can still be touched.
I think this story is more about trying to remain “human” while at the same time deeply concerned with what that even means. Life is made up of thousands of tiny moments that don’t seem to represent anything important other than the importance we want to give it.
In Arrow, the young girl soldier, we see this the most: “This is how she now believes life happens. One small thing at a time. A series of inconsequential junctions, any or none of which can lead to salvation or disaster. There are no grand moments where a person does or does not perform the act that defines their humanity. There are only moments that appear, briefly, to be this way.”
I don’t think these characters want to be examples or heroes. They second guess their accepting attitudes. While I do think they have hope that there is a future for their city, and they are attached to the lives they used to live, they wonder why they can’t do more, or even if there is something they should be doing besides trying to survive. And, they wonder what it means to be right or wrong, good or evil. What is happening to them seems so evil, but the people fighting in Sarajevo are just as corrupt as those attacking the city. These questions about survival and humanity transcend war because they are questions that we all struggle with, yet only become truly obvious in the worst moments. And, we are then left asking ourselves what we believe in.
I agree with you when you say "that these characters do not feel strong"; Arrow is predominantly angry and frustrated, while Kenan and Dragan feel more fearful, and focused on mere survival (crossing the street safely, fetching enough water safely, etc.). Despite this fear, anger, and frustration, these characters continue to survive, to live, in a more "normal" fashion. Because they keep it together (not sobbing, not screaming, not crazy, etc.), I feel their actions, regardless of how they feel, are brave; they are determined to survive in their beloved city (even if it's transforming into a more violent, hostile place) despite this fear and anger. The two men risk their lives by entering the city, and yet, they do so anyways. Arrow obviously controls her anger (as much as she can) by focusing her emotions into being a precise sniper--doing her part to help out or fight, or attempting to regain some control in her life and situation. So, despite the turbulence these characters may be feeling underneath the surface, they compose themself outwardly in the way they behave; doing so is perhaps their means of survival (as I discuss in my post). I'm not really sure, though I know they all have so much pride and love for their home, for their Sarajevo, that they do not give up; on the contrary, they decide to live, and within that choice, exhibit much determination.
ReplyDeleteI had some difficulty discerning whether the main three characters ever wanted to leave Sarajevo, which is why I dicussed the importance of their cultural identity/ties to Sarajevo itself; I'm sure most wanted to leave (as evidenced by Dragan's wife and son), and I'm sure most couldn't once the city became blockaded, but I'm more interested in those who chose to stay when they could've left, even without the knowledge that the city would soon become blockaded. For example, take Dragan. There are several instances where he questions his own motives to stay in the city, often wondering why he didn't leave with his family. I don't think he ever comes to a clear conclusion; maybe it's a more personal thing that has to do with the relationships within his family, but I ultimately think his presence in the city is rooted in his hope for a revived Sarajevo, however unreachable or nostalgic such a notion may be. He himself comes to this realization when he decides not to run across the street in order to avoid snipers, which would exemplify a lack of control and immense fear. Instead, he chooses to walk in his city--his home--because doing so makes him "alive again. The Sarajevo he wants to live in is alive again." Now, this Sarajevo just exists in his head at this point, but it is this hope and desire that prompts his more reserved action of walking instead of frantically running. Maybe, then, Dragan stays in Sarajevo without his family because he wants his city to be alive again amidst all the horror and corruption. Instead of being run out of his home (even though doing so would obviously be the much smarter and safer thing to do), Dragan chooses to "live" in Sarajevo.
(continued)
ReplyDeleteLike Dragan, Arrow wrestles with why she remains in Sarajevo when she has the power to leave, or at least, to "disappear": “Is there a difference between disappearing and going into a grave…There is, of course, the question of survival. She doesn’t want to die…But the young girl who was overcome by what it means to be alive…doesn’t want to die either. That girl may be gone for now, may have no place in the city of today, but Arrow believes it’s possible that someday she might return. And if Arrow disappears, she knows she’s killing that girl” (173). She knows that using her means to "disappear" will better her chances of physical "survival," but she also equates "disappearing" from Sarajevo as a sort of death--of "going into a grave," and killing her identity as a "young girl" who knows what it feels like to be alive. So, she's obviously conflicted, but she ultimately decides to be present in the city--not to physically disappear--in the hope that her home will somehow return to a place where her former self--the girl--can reemerge. Clearly, this place doesn't return in Arrow's lifetime, but Arrow has some sort of control when she decides NOT to disappear, and instead, decides to live in Sarajevo when death (b/c of her role as a sniper) seems imminent. Foolish, perhaps, but b/c it's rooted in her desire to maintain some semblence of her cultural identity, I feel it's more courageous. That being said, I don't think Dragan or Arrow are consciously trying to be heroic, examples, or courageous; they just are b/c of the behavior they exhibit in spite of their feelings. They are "heroic" in their strength not only to survive, but in their conscious decisions to "live" in Sarajevo and maintain hope for its future when they could have easily given up on themselves and their home.
I think that was my point though: That they become heroic in our eyes because of our perspective over here in the free west. I wasn't trying to discount their ability to survive and I did see that they were trying to hold onto their culture, but I did think the author wanted to make sure we knew they weren't perfect. And, that war messes you up and messes with your morals. I was not really saying that I disagree with you. I was just trying to see it from another angle, the more messy aspect of what does it even mean to hold onto our humanity? I think that that is a valid question in the book too. Is it possible to define humanity?
ReplyDeleteI'm glad that we have similar points about this text, though I also love and appreciate how we all have varying viewpoints [hence, the point of a roundblog :)]. I think such different interpretations allow for deeper understanding and learning, so they are heartily welcomed! In an effort to avoid misinterpretation, my comments are more designed to clarify my initial post, which I fear was not as clearly explained as it could have been (a limitation of writing sometimes). That being said, I definitely think this novel explores how individuals "hold onto [their] humanity"; correct me if I'm misinterpreting this point, but when I discuss how Dragan and Arrow decide to "live" in their war-torn Sarajevo (as opposed to "dying" by disappearing or staying out of Sarajevo altogether), I am essentially exploring their humanity--what does it take to survive? What motivates us to survive, and like you say, how do our morals (perhaps tied to our identity?) play a role in how we decide to survive? In this way, I think it's "possible to define" aspects of our "humanity," particularly because we are humans ourselves, and can identify with stories and profiles of individual characters, even if such characters' experiences are pretty different from our own, miles away from us (universal truths "that we all struggle with"). I think this novel works because Galloway personalizes a conflict that is hugely complex--a conflict that is the result of years of ethnic, national, and religious division (among others). He exposes us to a culture and place that is so different from ours, but he also connects us with an individual's human desire to survive and to live--the goal of any serious storyteller/writer!
ReplyDelete