Dear Mr.Carpentier,
I have been reading your novel, "The Kingdom of this World." I have thoroughly enjoyed your writing! I have a question for you though. The second to last page of your boo has a beautiful revelation about people, what they want and their potential. Is the narrator implying in that section that no human will ever find complete satisfaction? It seems as if the narrator is saying, earth is the only place to measure greatness because on earth there is failure. At the beginning of the paragraph the narrator says, "man seeks happiness far beyond that which is meted out to him."Which I interpret as no complete satisfaction can be met on earth. The Kingdom of Heaven is described as a place of, "all rest and all joy,"nothing can be acomplished. Does this mean satisfaction can not be won in heaven? It seems as if the narrator separates joy and satisfaction. Joy is a feeling while satisfaction is both something that can be done and something that one can gain. Throughout the novel Ti Noel searches for satisfaction and never really finds it. Is that a comment on all humans?
Thank you for your time!
Sincerely,
Danielle Vogel
Thursday, April 5, 2012
Thursday, March 22, 2012
Dear Mr.Carpentier,
I have just recently read your novel, The Kingdom of This World. It was a very interesting story and i also had the privileged of looking into the story further with our group project. I have really enjoyed your story and there is a few minor things that i wanted to ask you about it. In the story there is a part where Ti Noel comes back to Cap and is wondering around the old plantation. Then he is soon captured by his own people and is treated as an outsider. Why in the story is there always a oppression issue towards Ti Noel? I feel like he is constantly being the victim of every situation. Especially at the end of the story when he tries to join the geese and ends up transforming into a vulture. The geese do not let him join them because he is not one of them and is not equal to them. It seems like the good people in this story are constantly being treated bad by others. Another thing that i want to ask you is voodoo really that powerful of a religion? In the story it seems voodoo gives the slaves a whole new since of power. They feel like they are unstoppable and are extremely motivated to rebel against the plantation owners. I really didn't know that voodoo worked in such ways and it made the story a lot more interesting to follow. What I mean by that is wondering what transformation or sacrifice was going to occur next.
I have just recently read your novel, The Kingdom of This World. It was a very interesting story and i also had the privileged of looking into the story further with our group project. I have really enjoyed your story and there is a few minor things that i wanted to ask you about it. In the story there is a part where Ti Noel comes back to Cap and is wondering around the old plantation. Then he is soon captured by his own people and is treated as an outsider. Why in the story is there always a oppression issue towards Ti Noel? I feel like he is constantly being the victim of every situation. Especially at the end of the story when he tries to join the geese and ends up transforming into a vulture. The geese do not let him join them because he is not one of them and is not equal to them. It seems like the good people in this story are constantly being treated bad by others. Another thing that i want to ask you is voodoo really that powerful of a religion? In the story it seems voodoo gives the slaves a whole new since of power. They feel like they are unstoppable and are extremely motivated to rebel against the plantation owners. I really didn't know that voodoo worked in such ways and it made the story a lot more interesting to follow. What I mean by that is wondering what transformation or sacrifice was going to occur next.
Sincerely,
Michael Polascik
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
Civilized versus Savage
Dear Mr. Carpentier,
I have had the privilege of reading your book "The Kingdom of This World" for a world literature class and would like to ask you some questions. If you don't mind of course. My first question is derived from a quote out of your book. It reads, "Should a civilized person be expected to concern himself with the savage beliefs of people who worship a snake?". I do not know the page that this quote is derived from, but it still holds a lot of uncertain meaning nonetheless. Are you asking this question while you have a particular answer in mind or is it more of a rhetorical question? This is how I interpreted it. I believe that civilized people should not be expected to learn about savage groups of people, but it is definitely interesting and helpful to learn about people from different cultures. Learning about other groups of people has greatly influenced me, and I would recommend it to everyone. Hopefully I will hear back from you soon, because I would really like to know how you feel about this subject matter. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Yours truly,
Hunter Davis
I have had the privilege of reading your book "The Kingdom of This World" for a world literature class and would like to ask you some questions. If you don't mind of course. My first question is derived from a quote out of your book. It reads, "Should a civilized person be expected to concern himself with the savage beliefs of people who worship a snake?". I do not know the page that this quote is derived from, but it still holds a lot of uncertain meaning nonetheless. Are you asking this question while you have a particular answer in mind or is it more of a rhetorical question? This is how I interpreted it. I believe that civilized people should not be expected to learn about savage groups of people, but it is definitely interesting and helpful to learn about people from different cultures. Learning about other groups of people has greatly influenced me, and I would recommend it to everyone. Hopefully I will hear back from you soon, because I would really like to know how you feel about this subject matter. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Yours truly,
Hunter Davis
Sunday, March 18, 2012
Dear Mr. Carpentier,
I recently ready your book "The Kingdom of this World," and I have one main question about the novel. I was wondering who the vulture at the end of the story represents. I believe that it may represent Ti Noel due to the fact that the vulture could be present to signify death, and the fact that Ti Noel has died. However, for various other reasons the vulture may represent Macandle, and he may have been the last one to see Ti Noel. I am not quite sure about the answer to my question, but if you could send me a letter in return to help me understand the representation a little bit better that would be greatly appreciated.
Thank You,
Bennett Chaney
I recently ready your book "The Kingdom of this World," and I have one main question about the novel. I was wondering who the vulture at the end of the story represents. I believe that it may represent Ti Noel due to the fact that the vulture could be present to signify death, and the fact that Ti Noel has died. However, for various other reasons the vulture may represent Macandle, and he may have been the last one to see Ti Noel. I am not quite sure about the answer to my question, but if you could send me a letter in return to help me understand the representation a little bit better that would be greatly appreciated.
Thank You,
Bennett Chaney
Thursday, March 15, 2012
March 15, 2012
Dear Alejo,
I just finished reading your book, The Kingdom of this World, for my World Literature class. I wanted to ask you about something from the very last page of the book, when you write about the vulture. “From that moment Ti Noel was never seen again, nor his green cat with the salmon lace cuffs, except perhaps by that wet vulture who turns every death to his own benefit and who sat without spread wings, drying himself in the sun, a cross of feathers which finally folded itself up and flew off into the thick shade of Bois Caiman.” Who is the vulture? What I’ve been thinking is that the vulture is Macandel. I think this because from the very beginning Macandel has the magical ability to metamorphose into other animals and beings. Also it is never actually clear that Macandel dies. When he is thrown in the fire, the slaves believe that he has been saved by the African gods. It is possible that he has transformed into the vulture. Macandel was a Mandigue whom you described as something devilish, and those characteristics can be seen in a creature like the vulture. Because Macandel was also responsible for the poisoning of Frenchman and others on the plantations this would account for the line, “who turns every death to his own benefit.” What does the vulture represent and why was it important for you to include this at the very end?
Sincerely,
Mackenzie Throne
March 13, 2012
Dear Mr. Carpentier,
Upon reading your book The Kingdom of This World, I was curious about your intentions with Ti Noel as the lead character. At first, he is simply observing the people around him, discovering who is considered good or evil, but at times he acts like a god-like character identifying what is the point of life, hence appearing to be a Jesus-like character for the audience. Is this intentional?
In my opinion, I definitely see this as a definite possibility, even if it was not your intent. Ti Noel, as a member of a lower class, is put down and ignored. Even when he is considered a free man, others pretend he does not exist: "When Ti Noel saw these suspicious characters going and coming on his domain, he spoke severely to them. But the Surveyors paid no attention to him" (169). This reminds me of the way many people ignored Jesus when He began preaching; they saw Him as a crazy man who had no real message. Also, at the end of the book, Ti Noel seems to come to an epiphany where he suddenly comes to an understanding about the meaning of life. The narrator, appearing to speak aloud what Ti Noel is thinking, says,
I mean no offense if this was not your purpose for Ti Noel at the end of the novel, but I personally can see a double meaning in your beautiful words.
Sincerely and respectfully,
Jamie Ferreira
Dear Mr. Carpentier,
Upon reading your book The Kingdom of This World, I was curious about your intentions with Ti Noel as the lead character. At first, he is simply observing the people around him, discovering who is considered good or evil, but at times he acts like a god-like character identifying what is the point of life, hence appearing to be a Jesus-like character for the audience. Is this intentional?
In my opinion, I definitely see this as a definite possibility, even if it was not your intent. Ti Noel, as a member of a lower class, is put down and ignored. Even when he is considered a free man, others pretend he does not exist: "When Ti Noel saw these suspicious characters going and coming on his domain, he spoke severely to them. But the Surveyors paid no attention to him" (169). This reminds me of the way many people ignored Jesus when He began preaching; they saw Him as a crazy man who had no real message. Also, at the end of the book, Ti Noel seems to come to an epiphany where he suddenly comes to an understanding about the meaning of life. The narrator, appearing to speak aloud what Ti Noel is thinking, says,
"In the Kingdom of Heaven... there is no possibility of sacrifice, all is rest and joy. For this reason, bowed down by suffering and duties, beautiful in the midst of his misery, capable of loving in the face of afflictions and trials, man finds his greatness, his fullest measure, only in the Kingdof [sic] of This World" (179).It is reminiscent of Jesus delivering a final message before being crucified, then risen. Because I believe that the vulture at the end of the novel is Ti Noel in his final form, I can see the similarity between him and Jesus. It is as if Ti Noel has given his final word-to-the-wise, then risen into a mightier creature, one "who sat with outspread wings, drying himself in the sun, a cross of feathers" (180).
I mean no offense if this was not your purpose for Ti Noel at the end of the novel, but I personally can see a double meaning in your beautiful words.
Sincerely and respectfully,
Jamie Ferreira
Letter to Carpentier
March 15, 2012
Dear Carpentier,
I was wondering aboutyour last passage in “The Kingdom of This World.” “From that moment Ti Noel wasnever seen again, nor his green cat with the salmon lace cuffs, except perhapsby that wet vulture who turns every death to his own benefit and who sat withoutspread wings, drying himself in the sun, a cross of feathers which finallyfolded itself up and flew off into the thick shade of Bois Caiman.” (180). Whois the vulture? I have a couple guesses, but mostly I think the vulturerepresents death. Death takes the life of everyone, including Ti Noel and“turns every death to his own benefit.” Death turns every death to his ownbenefit because that is his job. Or the Vulture could be the dead king who onceruled over France. I honestly do not know because the novel does not have anyreal evidence on who the vultures identity.
Thank you,
Iris Cochran
Dear Carpentier,
I was wondering aboutyour last passage in “The Kingdom of This World.” “From that moment Ti Noel wasnever seen again, nor his green cat with the salmon lace cuffs, except perhapsby that wet vulture who turns every death to his own benefit and who sat withoutspread wings, drying himself in the sun, a cross of feathers which finallyfolded itself up and flew off into the thick shade of Bois Caiman.” (180). Whois the vulture? I have a couple guesses, but mostly I think the vulturerepresents death. Death takes the life of everyone, including Ti Noel and“turns every death to his own benefit.” Death turns every death to his ownbenefit because that is his job. Or the Vulture could be the dead king who onceruled over France. I honestly do not know because the novel does not have anyreal evidence on who the vultures identity.
Thank you,
Iris Cochran
Dear Alejo,
March 15, 2012
I wanted to ask you, why do bad things happen? Our unsationable appetite "in living, seeking, for pleasure they could find."(pg 83) For every action comes a reaction but what actions cause harm? Death and destruction! You wait for that one moment in life when all of a sudden you wish you could stop time. As if everything stops existing and the moment lasts for an eternity. Meanwhile 7 billion others are still meandering around looking for their one moment. It would seem obvious that destruction is an essential part of all processes of life. Entropy exist in all mater and that goes the same for humans. Conflicting and resolve. Each man on a sacred quest not letting any dangers or peril obstruct his vision no matter what things or what man my get in his way.
You can imagine that all male conflict begins with a woman. A mans one biological goal is to create more little men. Conflict between men are a direct result to their desire and needs opposed to all other men. A social natural selection. At the same time man has always been at the whim and will of a woman from birth to death. Being oppressed for a subconscious eternity, the desire and selfish need to become the oppressor results in the destruction and damage of all that impedes regaining power. The oppressed becomes the oppressor deducing abuse as revenge to to personal ego damage. Gender roles reduce to this. T noel "made to keep to the edge of the pasture, and the indifferent females were surrounded by a wall of white feathers."(176) relating the intricate social workings of a so called class of individuals to the reasons for both pride and prejudice. As a final gesture he becomes a vulture, a feeder on death and a part of mother nature a being seen to control all life on this planet the ultimate giver of life and bringer of death.
Sincerely Joe Latour!!!
March 15, 2012
I wanted to ask you, why do bad things happen? Our unsationable appetite "in living, seeking, for pleasure they could find."(pg 83) For every action comes a reaction but what actions cause harm? Death and destruction! You wait for that one moment in life when all of a sudden you wish you could stop time. As if everything stops existing and the moment lasts for an eternity. Meanwhile 7 billion others are still meandering around looking for their one moment. It would seem obvious that destruction is an essential part of all processes of life. Entropy exist in all mater and that goes the same for humans. Conflicting and resolve. Each man on a sacred quest not letting any dangers or peril obstruct his vision no matter what things or what man my get in his way.
You can imagine that all male conflict begins with a woman. A mans one biological goal is to create more little men. Conflict between men are a direct result to their desire and needs opposed to all other men. A social natural selection. At the same time man has always been at the whim and will of a woman from birth to death. Being oppressed for a subconscious eternity, the desire and selfish need to become the oppressor results in the destruction and damage of all that impedes regaining power. The oppressed becomes the oppressor deducing abuse as revenge to to personal ego damage. Gender roles reduce to this. T noel "made to keep to the edge of the pasture, and the indifferent females were surrounded by a wall of white feathers."(176) relating the intricate social workings of a so called class of individuals to the reasons for both pride and prejudice. As a final gesture he becomes a vulture, a feeder on death and a part of mother nature a being seen to control all life on this planet the ultimate giver of life and bringer of death.
Sincerely Joe Latour!!!
March 13, 2012
Dear Alejo,
I wanted to ask you about the relationship between Ti Noel and Mackandal. The reason I ask this is because even though Mackandal leaves early in the book he is brought back up constantly in the end of the book. What I think is happening is that by bringing back the idea of Mackandal it gives the reader a sense of fulfillment because we thought that Mackandal was going to be a major role player throughout the book, but then you made him leave! Why would you do that???
The next thing I wanted to ask you is why was the story so violent in some places. I think you were just trying to portray exactly what was going on at the time of this revolution. I feel like you portrayed it pretty accurately and made an excellent use of the theme sexuality---> violence because there definitely were some pretty gruesome parts within this book.
Sincerely,
Clarence E. Hollins
Dear Alejo,
I wanted to ask you about the relationship between Ti Noel and Mackandal. The reason I ask this is because even though Mackandal leaves early in the book he is brought back up constantly in the end of the book. What I think is happening is that by bringing back the idea of Mackandal it gives the reader a sense of fulfillment because we thought that Mackandal was going to be a major role player throughout the book, but then you made him leave! Why would you do that???
The next thing I wanted to ask you is why was the story so violent in some places. I think you were just trying to portray exactly what was going on at the time of this revolution. I feel like you portrayed it pretty accurately and made an excellent use of the theme sexuality---> violence because there definitely were some pretty gruesome parts within this book.
Sincerely,
Clarence E. Hollins
March 13, 2012
Dear Alejo,
I wanted to address my troubles with understanding the different narrative perspectives in your novel The Kingdom of this World. I consistently found myself re-reading over the sections in an attempt to fully understand what was being discussed. Specifically, seen on pages 178 and 179, I am confused as to who is speaking about T’ Noel?
What I see happening is a possible higher being speaking, separate from T’ Noel physically or mentally. I believe this paragraph searches beyond the obvious third person narrative and beyond simply another, human, narrator speaking. For example, towards the end of the paragraph the narrator reveals, “In the Kingdom of Heaven there is no grandeur to be won, inasmuch as there all is an established hierarchy, the unknown is revealed, existence is infinite, there is no possibility of sacrifice, all is rest and joy”. This statement affirms a possible higher being or entity discussing matters that goes beyond the minds of humans. This entity also states that man finds his greatness, his fullest measure, in this “Kingdom”. These statements lead me to believe, the narrator discussing T’ Noel, is actually T’ Noel’s soul.
I fully and whole heartedly enjoyed reading and struggling with your novel, The Kingdom of this World. Although the material was difficult to comprehend, I enjoyed the challenge. This was my first experience with a novel so heavily influenced by magical realism, but I enjoyed it non the less.
Sincere Regards,
Connor P. Maund
Letter to Alejo Carpentier: Alex Dorner
March 13, 2012
Dear
Alejo Carpentier,
Hello there I have recently been reading your
book A Kingdom of this World. Within
the book I see there is a heavy emphasis on being the oppressor rather than the
oppressed. When there is revolution in your book the ones who were before
suppressed and ruled in some way take power, and in the cyclical manner that
appears in the book, the ruler becomes corrupted. They start out with maybe less
than pure ideals, but none the less they are setting out to try and make things
a better. The ideas of the revolution and the next ruled become twisted and the
oppressed continue to be oppressed.
Take for example the original ruling class
within the book. The French, who were there under the ideas of imperialism,
which means they came along with the idea and the notion that they must “save
the savages” that by being there they would somehow be benefitting those poor
people.”…M. Lenormand de Mezy in his nightcap commented with his devout wife on
the Negroes’ lack of feelings at the torture of one of their own—drawing therefrom
a number of philosophical considerations on the inequality of the human races”,
de Mezy is clearly within the same school of thought, thinking of them as
lesser and therefore creatures in need, as a “good christian” would. They
thought that by bringing them what they considered civilization they were
helping them. And all they asked for in return was all of their land, their
labor, and their resources. Because within the ideas of imperialism, the idea
of colonization there was the need to have more than other countries, in the
book you even state that the Spanish would be willing to help a revolution because
of their fierce rivalry with that of the French.
Henri Christophe has the same thing happen to
him as the others who ruled. He was
before the oppressed being nothing more than a cook to the French when they
ruled the island and the people, but somewhere along the way he became a king.
And as a king, as a ruler he fell into the same trap that those before him did.
Ti Noel was in awe of his palace and the equality of black men in the church, of
black men as the overseers. But he realized, too late, that it was worse than
it was before. That there was still no equality and now even less care taken
for those who worked. Ti Noel when he is freed from having to work sings a song
to insult a king “That was the important thing: to a king.” It is that idea that no matter who is ruling and how
they got there, that nothing will change. That there is just a cycle, an as
long as there are those who are vying for power so that they can be the
oppressor before they can get oppressed well, then nothing will ever change. At least that was something that I took note of within your book.
Sincerely, Alex Dorner
March 13, 2010
Dear Carpentier,
I’ve been reading your book, The Kingdom of this World, recently in my college English class,
and I’ve been curious about something in you book and was hoping you could
answer it for me. In your novel, in part two, chapter three, the Negroes revolt
against their owners and take control of the house. Their “signal” for this
revolt was the sound of a “conch-shell trumpet.” I was wondering, why use the
conch shell as their battle instrument? Was there a purpose for using this
specific item from the sea, or was it just a decision of coincidence? Were the conches
chosen to symbolize something ancient, tribal, or barbaric about the Negroes
culture as seen by their communication? “It was as though all the shell
trumpets of the coast, [all the Indian limbis],
all the purple conchs that served as doorstops, all the shells that lay alone
and petrified on the summits of the hills, had begun to sing in chorus” (66). I
may be looking too much into something of little importance, but throughout the
book there are obvious mentions about the difference in the human hierarchy. I
believe that through the use of this natural item that was being used as a
doorstop places the Negroes on a way more “barbaric” and even less evolved
mentally than their owners. Sure, what else could they have used – they have
nothing to begin with. I just see the specific use of a “conch-shell” as trying
to explain even more the differences between the owners and the owned. I hope
to hear back from you with the truth behind this possibly meaningless detail!
Curious,
Vaughn
Elkourie
Garrett Rountree
Dear Alejo Carpientier,
As I was reading your book there were a few things that perplexed me. The use of magic sometimes overshadowed what was real. In the second half of the book when Ti Noel transforms into animals with his magical powers, I feel like he may actually be transforming into animals, but is that included purely as a story of Ti Noel being a shape shifter or are you comparing animals to people to teach us a lesson about human nature? I feel like that is included to show how people have animalistic instincts whether we realize it or not.
Secondly, I want to say the story was beautiful. As I read it, there were at first a few loose ends for me, but as time progressed all of the events in Europe and Haiti tied together with perfection. The way that you danced on lines between races and interracial relationships was controversial, but very true of the time and humans. From Leonard De Mezy, to the Henri Christophe, to the mullatos there always seemed to be some oppressor. There was never peace and always some reason to rebel and with good cause. What I gathered from this is that there is always a struggle for equality and even the strongest eventually break. The imagery of the emperor’s fall was legendary. From your descriptions of the starved priest and his perching on the rafters, I had a movie in my head, but what did you really mean by the phantom priest? Was he just a creative story for entertainment or did he have a deeper meaning What I gathered from it was that justice will prevail and that no matter what eventually the oppressed will rise even if it is from their grave.
Moving to other things from your incredible book, let’s actually backtrack a bit. I want to talk about Ti Noel and Macendol. They had a lot in common. It was almost as if you intended for Macendol to be a predecessor to Ti Noel, much like John the Baptist and Jesus. Macendol began the fight and earned the respect of Ti Noel with his famous last fight and strife towards freedom just before being burned at the stake. Ti Noel somehow found his magic of transforming into animals later in life just like Macendol, and Ti Noel was among the leaders of the rebellion against the emperor and his palace. By putting these two together what did you hope to accomplish? Was it your intention to have these two as to reflect one off of the other or some other reason?
Also, just a note here, when Ti Noel raped Mille Floridor what did you mean by that. “Ti Noel had dreamed of raping her for a while now.” That was very vivid and startling. I gathered that Ti Noel was a rapist. Was there perhaps hatred between races or some other thing that you meant to imprint on us?
Lastly, my overall question is did you mean for this book to teach us more about the Haitian revolution or about human nature? After reading the book I feel like I probably learned more about human nature. I know your book is one of the only written accounts of the Haitian revolution, but it still follows characters and shows their thoughts. I could understand the story and trace the beginnings of a revolution, but the historical value of it was unclear to me. I feel that it would be wrong to ask you to compare each event with a historical reference, but what I would like to ask you what was your goal? After reading the text did you want me to know more about social injustices, magical traditions, or the lives of people intertwined in the revolution? Each was touched on very delicately and precisely.
Thank You,
Future Man
Letter
Dear Alejo,
I was reading your novel The Kindom of This World, and had a question about it. What was your reasoning behind making sexual encounters so vulgar and open? For example, in the begining of the novel Ti Noel states that he has dreamed of raping Mlle Floridor for a while (68)? This was a common motif within the novel and I was wondering if it was neccessary to include it? However, I do understand that you were trying to remain true to the settingand the mindset of the slaves and other citizens that lived there. In your opinion, do you think that without the brash sexuality within the novel that the book would have been different or carried a different meaning? Just a thought.
Best,
Catherine
I was reading your novel The Kindom of This World, and had a question about it. What was your reasoning behind making sexual encounters so vulgar and open? For example, in the begining of the novel Ti Noel states that he has dreamed of raping Mlle Floridor for a while (68)? This was a common motif within the novel and I was wondering if it was neccessary to include it? However, I do understand that you were trying to remain true to the settingand the mindset of the slaves and other citizens that lived there. In your opinion, do you think that without the brash sexuality within the novel that the book would have been different or carried a different meaning? Just a thought.
Best,
Catherine
Letter To Alejo
Dear Alejo,
My name is Raymond Trice and I have
read your book, The Kingdom of This World. I wanted to ask you about the
scene when the two men turn into a centaur. On page 104, “Then the blood, the
gunpowder, the wheat flour, and the powdered coffee had been kneaded together
to make the leaven that was created that turned men’s heads toward the
ancestors while the sacred drums throbbed and across a fire the swords of the
initiate clashed.” I was wondering what the scene represents in the book and
what the different aspects stand for on a deeper level. What I see happening
here is that each of the ingredients that make up the leaven represents a
specific characteristic of the book. The blood may represent the violence and fierce
mentality of the book. Then the
gunpowder may represent the fighting that is involved. The wheat flour could
possibly represent the good in the book because of the color white and the
coffee could be the evil because of the color black. All of these ideas and
thoughts have been very interesting to me and I would really enjoy knowing what
your intentions and thoughts were. Thank you for your time and I am eagerly
looking forward to your response.
Sincerely,
Raymond Trice
Letter
Dear Alejo Carpentier,
I have just completed reading your book, "The Kingdom of the World", and I thoroughly enjoyed it. I was wondering if you could take some time out of your day to possibly answer a question or two. Ti Noel plays a major role in this book, and I was wondering if he could possibly even represent being the main character at fault for the cyclical oppression. In the last pages of the book it states that "try as he would, Ti noel could think of no way to help his subjects bowed once again beneath the whiplash. The old man began to lose heart at this endless return of chains, this rebirth of shackles..." I view Ti Noel as a paternal figure, especially in this moment. When you where writing this book, did you make Ti Noel the metaphorical father of his subjects, and therefore the father of oppression? If so, is he the root for the continuous problems of his people? Thank you for taking time out of your day to read this.
Best regards,
Charlotte Gwynn
I have just completed reading your book, "The Kingdom of the World", and I thoroughly enjoyed it. I was wondering if you could take some time out of your day to possibly answer a question or two. Ti Noel plays a major role in this book, and I was wondering if he could possibly even represent being the main character at fault for the cyclical oppression. In the last pages of the book it states that "try as he would, Ti noel could think of no way to help his subjects bowed once again beneath the whiplash. The old man began to lose heart at this endless return of chains, this rebirth of shackles..." I view Ti Noel as a paternal figure, especially in this moment. When you where writing this book, did you make Ti Noel the metaphorical father of his subjects, and therefore the father of oppression? If so, is he the root for the continuous problems of his people? Thank you for taking time out of your day to read this.
Best regards,
Charlotte Gwynn
Nick Day's Letter
March 15, 2012
Dear Mr. Alejo,
I just recently finished reading your novel The Kingdom of This World, and I have a question regarding the narrator's omniscient view on humanity at the end of the book. I disagree with what you say on page 179. How is it that a "man finds his greatness, his fullest measure, only in the Kingdom of this World?" Can it not be said that a man can only find his true greatness and fullest measure when he is in a perfect state of grace in Heaven. Yes, I agree that in Heaven "there is no grandeur to be won... the unknown is revealed, existence is infinite, there is no possibility of sacrifice, all is rest and joy" (179). But if the unknown is revealed in Heaven, then one will come to understand their greatest measure and be in a perfect state of mind and form. I believe that a person is incapable of reaching true greatness on earth because they are tarnished with sin and failures that have existed throughout one's life. It is not until Heaven that a man can truly understand their potential greatness. This is true in my eyes because a person's potential is at its max when they are made perfect in the eyes of God. I do agree with you that a person can reach their humanly greatness on earth, but "true greatness to the fullest measure" is met only through an omniscient understanding of the world in The Kingdom of Heaven. I truly enjoyed your novel and I learned a deeper understanding of life through it.
Sincerely,
Nicholas Day
Dear Mr. Alejo,
I just recently finished reading your novel The Kingdom of This World, and I have a question regarding the narrator's omniscient view on humanity at the end of the book. I disagree with what you say on page 179. How is it that a "man finds his greatness, his fullest measure, only in the Kingdom of this World?" Can it not be said that a man can only find his true greatness and fullest measure when he is in a perfect state of grace in Heaven. Yes, I agree that in Heaven "there is no grandeur to be won... the unknown is revealed, existence is infinite, there is no possibility of sacrifice, all is rest and joy" (179). But if the unknown is revealed in Heaven, then one will come to understand their greatest measure and be in a perfect state of mind and form. I believe that a person is incapable of reaching true greatness on earth because they are tarnished with sin and failures that have existed throughout one's life. It is not until Heaven that a man can truly understand their potential greatness. This is true in my eyes because a person's potential is at its max when they are made perfect in the eyes of God. I do agree with you that a person can reach their humanly greatness on earth, but "true greatness to the fullest measure" is met only through an omniscient understanding of the world in The Kingdom of Heaven. I truly enjoyed your novel and I learned a deeper understanding of life through it.
Sincerely,
Nicholas Day
Ashley's Letter
14 March 2012
Dear Mr. Carpentier,
As
a class, we have been reading your novel, The Kingdom of this World. As
I was pondering some of the ideas presented, a question came to me. In regards
to the scene in which Soliman finds the body of Pauline Bonaparte, why did
Soliman have to be the person who found her and why did he fail to recognize
that she was deceased?
My
assumption here is that the Piedmontese girl led Soliman to Pauline, but I
cannot decipher the reasoning behind it. The book says, “the chambermaid, with
a provocative gesture, opened a small door and lowered the lantern” (158). She
led him into this room, but I do not know if it was of her own volition or if
she was sent on someone else’s instruction. Admittedly, Soliman was in a
drunken state, but there is not a guarantee that he would have found Pauline’s
body without her leading. He was meant to find her body for some reason, and I
am abundantly curious as to what that reason was.
I
am also curious about why it took Soliman so long to recognize that she was not made of marble – that she was a corpse. The authorial
consciousness tells us that “he touched the marble with eager hands, his sense
of smell and sight in his fingers” (159). He was giving her a massage, but did
not realize that she was a corpse. I think that there are two possible
explanations for this: firstly, that he was in such a drunken stupor that he
did not recognize the softness of her body, or that he chooses not to feel the softness of her body. When he realizes that
it is indeed a corpse he has been massaging, he describes her as a “corpse
newly stiffened, recently stripped of breath and sight, which perhaps there was
still time to being back to life” (160). She was newly dead, her death recent
enough that there was a chance that she could be resuscitated. Why did Soliman
fail to realize this?
I thank you for
your time in reading my letter and I hope to receive an answer from you soon.
With
Best Regards,
Ashley
Gordon
Letter to Alejo
Dear Alejo,
I have been reading your book and would love to be enlightened by your inspiration behind this novel. My heart was torn and my mind was opened to the horrors of th reality of hybridism and mystical realism in "The Kingdom of This World." I would like to know your view of humanity in relation to the authorial conscious, in relation to a higher being than self. In your last sectionm you titled it with the latin translation of "Lamb of God." You say that Ti Noel was a "body of flesh to which things had happened." The undertone that I percieve is that of our life is not our own and that we are controlled by another. Do you believe that we are merely puppets acting out a dramatic episode, or that we have the freedom of choice and therefore action?
"Man only find his greatness in the kingdom of this world." To me, I interpret your thoughts as though humanity is a vapor in the wind. That this life is but a stepping stone to a greater glory, and therefore, to a God much bigger than we could imagine. Voodoo intertwines itself through the pages of your novel. I view this an an earthly kingdom of darkness only to be trampled by the life of greatness that we will walk into. I would love to hear your wisdom.
With Admiration, Hailee
I have been reading your book and would love to be enlightened by your inspiration behind this novel. My heart was torn and my mind was opened to the horrors of th reality of hybridism and mystical realism in "The Kingdom of This World." I would like to know your view of humanity in relation to the authorial conscious, in relation to a higher being than self. In your last sectionm you titled it with the latin translation of "Lamb of God." You say that Ti Noel was a "body of flesh to which things had happened." The undertone that I percieve is that of our life is not our own and that we are controlled by another. Do you believe that we are merely puppets acting out a dramatic episode, or that we have the freedom of choice and therefore action?
"Man only find his greatness in the kingdom of this world." To me, I interpret your thoughts as though humanity is a vapor in the wind. That this life is but a stepping stone to a greater glory, and therefore, to a God much bigger than we could imagine. Voodoo intertwines itself through the pages of your novel. I view this an an earthly kingdom of darkness only to be trampled by the life of greatness that we will walk into. I would love to hear your wisdom.
With Admiration, Hailee
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
Letter from Noah
Dear Alejo Carpentier,
I have been reading your book The Kingdom of This World and have a few questions for you regarding it’s intended meanings. Firstly, when Ti Noël returns to the old plantation of Lenormand de Mézy he remembers how the plantation used to be, where the warehouses, chapel and a mansion were. While most of the book talks about figurative cycles of politics and life, what significance is there to discuss about Ti Noël’s cycle of movement? When Ti Noël returns to the plantation the narrator that he “sat down on one of the cornerstones of the old mansion, now a stone like any other stone for those who did not remember” (106). This part seems to say that Ti Noël is in a cycle of thinking about his home rather than in a cycle of returning to home. He does, of course, return home, but because he thinks about it, not just because he happens to end up there. I feel like this is a critical point in your book; it is half way through and it explains that everything that happens is because people think about the same things, that they do not come up with new ideas. This leads to the cycles of politics and life that allow one group of people to control another group of people, such as Lenormand de Mézy controlling the slaves on his plantation.
My second question takes place at the Citadel La Ferrière when “every day in the middle of the parade square several bulls had their throats cut so that their blood could be added to the mortar to make the fortress impregnable” (114). The bulls here seem to represent the people that are oppressed and, while they may not be getting slaughtered, always have their well being sacrificed to make someone else more powerful. Why is it that one person must suffer in order for another to grow; why can the two peoples not live in unison to help one another? After Ti Noël lays a brick down almost at midnight the narrator says that “Nevertheless, construction was going on” (115). So the book wants us to believe that forcing people into work is an efficient way to build the world. It wants me to expand my views beyond the politics that I grew up with and beyond the politics I believe in. Thank you for considering my questions and I hope you will reply.
With gratitude,
Noah Hill
Bobbi's letter
Dear Alejo Carpentier,
I have been reading your work The Kingdom of This World. I’ve found it to be an interested read and have enjoyed your take on magical realism. I see that you focus a lot on cyclical oppression, violence and slavery. I was wondering why you decided to focus so much on those topics within your work?
From what I can tell from reading, a reference to violence, slavery or oppression occurs on almost every page. One of the most poignant examples I have come across happens in Part Four “The Surveyors.” It says, “The old man began to lose heart at this endless return of chains, this rebirth of shackles, this proliferation of suffering, which the more resigned began to accept as proof of uselessness of all revolt.”
I understand this to be, in essence, the summation of the idea presented throughout the book. The oppressed are tired of it, and rightfully so. Another instance I found interesting occurred in Part Two and Section II. “Ti Noel managed to grasp that something had happened in France, and that some very powerful gentlemen had declared that the rich landowners of the cap, who are all monarchist sons of bitches, had refused to obey them.”
This furthers my opinion that this work asserts the oppressed wanted freedom and would become violent to see the cycle of slavery suppressed. I feel these specific examples lead back to my original question of why did you decide to focus so much on cyclical oppression, violence and slavery?
I look forward to hearing back from you soon.
Best,
Bobbi Otis
I have been reading your work The Kingdom of This World. I’ve found it to be an interested read and have enjoyed your take on magical realism. I see that you focus a lot on cyclical oppression, violence and slavery. I was wondering why you decided to focus so much on those topics within your work?
From what I can tell from reading, a reference to violence, slavery or oppression occurs on almost every page. One of the most poignant examples I have come across happens in Part Four “The Surveyors.” It says, “The old man began to lose heart at this endless return of chains, this rebirth of shackles, this proliferation of suffering, which the more resigned began to accept as proof of uselessness of all revolt.”
I understand this to be, in essence, the summation of the idea presented throughout the book. The oppressed are tired of it, and rightfully so. Another instance I found interesting occurred in Part Two and Section II. “Ti Noel managed to grasp that something had happened in France, and that some very powerful gentlemen had declared that the rich landowners of the cap, who are all monarchist sons of bitches, had refused to obey them.”
This furthers my opinion that this work asserts the oppressed wanted freedom and would become violent to see the cycle of slavery suppressed. I feel these specific examples lead back to my original question of why did you decide to focus so much on cyclical oppression, violence and slavery?
I look forward to hearing back from you soon.
Best,
Bobbi Otis
March 13, 2012
Dear Alejo,
I wanted to ask you about a statement you made discussing the "Kingdom of Heaven" and the "Kingdom of This World". When discussing the Kingdom of Heaven you said, "In the Kingdom of Heaven there is no grandeur to be won, inasmuch as there all is an established hierarchy, the unknown is revealed, existence is infinite, there is no possibility of sacrifice, all is rest and joy" (185). When i look at this passage I immediately envision a literal Kingdom of Heaven where the Lord Jesus Christ rules over the Heavens and earth and sits upon His throne governing all creation. I see a place that has golden arches at its entrance with His angels guarding the gate so that not just anyone can enter. I also envision a beautiful town with the prettiest buildings that are covered in gold and silver that are filled with multitudes of God's people within it. As I walk through the town I see those who have followed the ways of the Lord that are filled with a sense of joy and peace that abounds no end. As I get towards the end of the town I see endless plains of golden wheat that is ready to be harvested with a man standing in the middle of field. The man is dressed in white robes with golden tassels and is calling me over to tell me that I do not have to suffer anymore because I am in a place of eternal peace and never ending satisfaction with my Creator. Although this may be my vision of this specific statement, I was not quite sure this is what you had in mind when you wrote it. As I read the context of this specific area in the book I feel quite confident that this is the vision you hope that your readers see. Being a believer myself, I applied this quote to the point I felt you were trying to get across to your readers. Although I felt somewhat comfortable in understanding the beginning of this quote, I could not say the same thing for the rest of the quote. "For this reason, bowed down by suffering and duties, beautiful in the midst of his misery, capable of loving in the face of afflictions and trials, man finds his greatness, his fullest measure, only in the Kingdom of This World" (185). I find this to be very confusing and even somewhat inaccurate. Are you saying that man is only capable to find his greatest accomplishments in this world? I feel as if you are saying that our only way of finding success is in this lifetime alone. When I read this quote I immediately think of the complete opposite in that we don't find success in this lifetime, but we find it in the next life if we accept Jesus as our Lord and Savior. Success to me isn't determined on what is important in this lifetime such as money or fame, but success is how you bring glory and honor to the Kingdom of Heaven. I heavily disagree that we find our "fullest measure" in this life but instead we should find this earthly life worth nothing compared to the life ahead. Although this is my personal view on the quote, I still am able to vision what you are trying to get across to the reader and the point you are trying to make. Even though I may disagree with your personal view of these topics, I still believe that you are a great writer and that your work demands respect from those who take the time to read it.
Sincerely,
Paul Son
Dear Alejo,
I wanted to ask you about a statement you made discussing the "Kingdom of Heaven" and the "Kingdom of This World". When discussing the Kingdom of Heaven you said, "In the Kingdom of Heaven there is no grandeur to be won, inasmuch as there all is an established hierarchy, the unknown is revealed, existence is infinite, there is no possibility of sacrifice, all is rest and joy" (185). When i look at this passage I immediately envision a literal Kingdom of Heaven where the Lord Jesus Christ rules over the Heavens and earth and sits upon His throne governing all creation. I see a place that has golden arches at its entrance with His angels guarding the gate so that not just anyone can enter. I also envision a beautiful town with the prettiest buildings that are covered in gold and silver that are filled with multitudes of God's people within it. As I walk through the town I see those who have followed the ways of the Lord that are filled with a sense of joy and peace that abounds no end. As I get towards the end of the town I see endless plains of golden wheat that is ready to be harvested with a man standing in the middle of field. The man is dressed in white robes with golden tassels and is calling me over to tell me that I do not have to suffer anymore because I am in a place of eternal peace and never ending satisfaction with my Creator. Although this may be my vision of this specific statement, I was not quite sure this is what you had in mind when you wrote it. As I read the context of this specific area in the book I feel quite confident that this is the vision you hope that your readers see. Being a believer myself, I applied this quote to the point I felt you were trying to get across to your readers. Although I felt somewhat comfortable in understanding the beginning of this quote, I could not say the same thing for the rest of the quote. "For this reason, bowed down by suffering and duties, beautiful in the midst of his misery, capable of loving in the face of afflictions and trials, man finds his greatness, his fullest measure, only in the Kingdom of This World" (185). I find this to be very confusing and even somewhat inaccurate. Are you saying that man is only capable to find his greatest accomplishments in this world? I feel as if you are saying that our only way of finding success is in this lifetime alone. When I read this quote I immediately think of the complete opposite in that we don't find success in this lifetime, but we find it in the next life if we accept Jesus as our Lord and Savior. Success to me isn't determined on what is important in this lifetime such as money or fame, but success is how you bring glory and honor to the Kingdom of Heaven. I heavily disagree that we find our "fullest measure" in this life but instead we should find this earthly life worth nothing compared to the life ahead. Although this is my personal view on the quote, I still am able to vision what you are trying to get across to the reader and the point you are trying to make. Even though I may disagree with your personal view of these topics, I still believe that you are a great writer and that your work demands respect from those who take the time to read it.
Sincerely,
Paul Son
Letter to Carpentier
13 Mar 2012
Dear Alejo Carpentier,
I
recently read Kingdom of this World
and had a question concerning the fourth chapter of part three. The narrator
says, “For this reason, bowed down by suffering and duties, beautiful in the
midst of his misery, capable of loving in the face of afflictions and trials,
man finds his greatness, his fullest measure, only in the [Kingdom] of This
World (179). I wanted to ask – how does the narrator know this? Is it just the
belief held in terms of the book? Alternatively, does the speaker come to this conclusion
based on fact? I understand the creolization of Ti Noël (mainly the Catholic
bit) has much to do with this aspect, what with the beliefs of the Catholic Church
and all. However, does the speaker say this as fact with reputable proof, or
does he say it as a belief?
“…man’s
greatness consists in the very fact of wanting to be better than he is,” (179).
Along the same lines as those above, this lesson also seems based on belief more
so than fact. Was that the intention, a belief taken as fact, or at face value?
Many people out in this world believe they are the best they can be or many
that do not care. By stating “man's greatness,” is this to mean that man can
only be great by these standards? Are there other standards in which man can be
considered great and this is just one of them? Again with fact and belief: is
this statement based on belief of the narrator, or on something more?
What
should I, as the reader, take away from this revelation, from this idea that
man is great according to the things he isn’t?
Regards,
Allyson
Kipfer
Letter to Alejo
Dear Alejo,
I have been reading The Kingdom of
this World and have come up with a question. I wanted to ask you about your
personal interpretation of the “Lamb of God.” Does the reference of this relate
to the metamorphosis of Ti Noel into the authorial consciousness? What I see
happening is the internal and external change of Ti Noel’s thoughts and actions
into a different omniscient being. The Lamb of God could refer to several
things. I think of Jesus, God’s only son sent to earth as a sacrifice for the
people He cares for. He was sent from the Kingdom of Heaven to the Kingdom of
this humanly world to deliver the message of salvation to the imperfect beings
that walk this earth. This reference could indirectly relate to the rebirth of
Ti Noel into the all-knowing speaker that has been leading the reader
throughout this novel. On page 178, Ti Noel “now understood that a man never
knows for whom he suffers and hopes. He suffers and hopes and toils for people
he will never know…for man always seeks a happiness far beyond that which is
meted out to him.” He has come to the realization that the metamorphosis of his
being is not only for himself but of others as well, for men look for greatness
beyond what they can give. His thoughts have transformed from an internal
struggle to a struggle that all men face as a whole. So, by referencing the
Lamb of God, Ti Noel takes on the role of a being outside of the world in which
he resides. He rebirths his previous thoughts into those thoughts of the
authorial conscious. These thoughts, in turn, resemble the thoughts of Christ
Himself. So, Ti Noel now takes on the omniscient voice due to the fact that he
plays the role of the “Lamb of God” towards the end of the novel. Is this the
metamorphosis that you intended to happen within your text?
Best
regards,
Meredith
Letter to Alejo Carpentier
March 14, 2012
Letter to Alejo Carpentier
Dear Mr. Carpentier,
Hey Mr. Carpentier, recently I have read your book The Kingdom of This World, and I noticed you put in some hidden messages. I have my own interpretations about them, but I wanted to hear from you to see if I am close to the meaning of the message. So I made a few questions so I can hear from your perspective.
On page 44, Ti Noel is describing one of Mackandal’s metamorphoses into an insect. In transformation, why do the characters turn into some kind of animal? Why don’t they transform spiritually and stay in their human state? My interpretation for them turning into animals is they value animal’s freedom and lifestyle more than their own. What I mean by lifestyle is the animals do not live under an oppressive government so they just live life. They do not worry about things humans have to worry about and the characters feel animals have a better way of life; so they transform into animals so they can live that life too. I guess people transforming into animals goes into the magical realism theme.
Sincerely,
Keri Pompey
Dear Alejo Carpentier
Dear Alejo Carpentier,
My name is Will Ticknor and I wanted to present you with a question pertaining to your book The Kingdom of This World. In Part One in the last paragraph of the chapter titled "The metamorphoses" we see the long waited return of Macandal:
"The anxious wait lasted four years, and the alert ears never despaired of hearing, at any moment, the voice of the great conch shell which would bellow through the hills to announce to all that Macandal had completed the cycle o his metamorphoses, and stood poised once more, sinewy and hard, with testicles like rocks, on his own human legs"(37).
As previously stated in the book Macandal does posses magical voodoo powers allowing him to change into animals and creatures alike. Is his metamorphoses simply turning back into a human to finally lead the Haitian slaves in revolution or is it to show that by waiting four whole years the Haitian slaves were not on the verge of revolution but instead a cyclical reactionary path leading to little or no freedom for themselves?
I believe the latter seems to be the case for three reasons. First the main quest of Macandal was to "...wipe out the whites and create a great empire of free Negroes in Santo Domingo" (30). However this only results in the death of one oppressor in exchange for King Henri Christophe who is no better and maybe worse. My second reason is simply questioning Macandal's followers. Why did they wait four years? Even without Macandal they could have still continued their revolt in the city square. However once Macandal was thrust into the fire "There was no longer anything more to see. That afternoon the slaves returned to their plantations laughing all the way" (46). This seems more like an act of defeat than victory.
To conclude I propose my third and final reason why there was no revolution. Ti Noel is successful in his own metamorphoses but only transforms out of cowardice. It is claimed that "man's greatness consists in the very fact of wanting to be better than he is" (179). However Ti Noel, our protagonist, aims to be like Macandal who is dead. Simply put there is no revolution nor metamorphoses to be seen. There is only imitations of previous powers. Mr. Carpentier I would be honored to have your insight on my opinion.
With deep respect,
Will Ticknor
My name is Will Ticknor and I wanted to present you with a question pertaining to your book The Kingdom of This World. In Part One in the last paragraph of the chapter titled "The metamorphoses" we see the long waited return of Macandal:
"The anxious wait lasted four years, and the alert ears never despaired of hearing, at any moment, the voice of the great conch shell which would bellow through the hills to announce to all that Macandal had completed the cycle o his metamorphoses, and stood poised once more, sinewy and hard, with testicles like rocks, on his own human legs"(37).
As previously stated in the book Macandal does posses magical voodoo powers allowing him to change into animals and creatures alike. Is his metamorphoses simply turning back into a human to finally lead the Haitian slaves in revolution or is it to show that by waiting four whole years the Haitian slaves were not on the verge of revolution but instead a cyclical reactionary path leading to little or no freedom for themselves?
I believe the latter seems to be the case for three reasons. First the main quest of Macandal was to "...wipe out the whites and create a great empire of free Negroes in Santo Domingo" (30). However this only results in the death of one oppressor in exchange for King Henri Christophe who is no better and maybe worse. My second reason is simply questioning Macandal's followers. Why did they wait four years? Even without Macandal they could have still continued their revolt in the city square. However once Macandal was thrust into the fire "There was no longer anything more to see. That afternoon the slaves returned to their plantations laughing all the way" (46). This seems more like an act of defeat than victory.
To conclude I propose my third and final reason why there was no revolution. Ti Noel is successful in his own metamorphoses but only transforms out of cowardice. It is claimed that "man's greatness consists in the very fact of wanting to be better than he is" (179). However Ti Noel, our protagonist, aims to be like Macandal who is dead. Simply put there is no revolution nor metamorphoses to be seen. There is only imitations of previous powers. Mr. Carpentier I would be honored to have your insight on my opinion.
With deep respect,
Will Ticknor
Mr. Alejo Letter
Dear Mr. Alejo,
I have been reading your novel, The Kingdom of this World, in one of my college classes. The constant macabre essence through the book really caught my eye however, a few questions have arose whilst reading. On the very last page in the final paragraph a vulture is mentioned. At first when I read this I though of a literal vulture only late to find out in class this "vulture" insinuated a deeper meaning. What is this vulture? Also, on page 102 Ti Noel acquires "the art of talking with chairs, pots, a guitar, a cow and even his own shadow". Does this mean that Ti Noel's going crazy and loosing his sense with reality or possibly acquiring the ability to speak with inanimate objects and personally relate to the magical world? Through out this novel we have seen how Ti Noel went from observing magic until finally a the end he actually metamorphoses into a goose. I was wondering if this signified his personal growth and his connection with his roots per say of voodooism.
These were just a could of questions that popped up. Lastly, Thank you for your time.
With regards,
Jaclyn Linville
Letter to Carpentier
March 14, 2012
Dear Alejo,
Hello, my name is Carleigh Rogers. I have read your book, The Kingdom of this World and I have some questions that I wanted to ask you about. I was wondering if Ti Noel was trying to imply that humans and geese were very similar creaters when he said, "Geese were very orderly bings, with principles and systems, whose existence denied all superiority of individual over individual of the same species" on page 182, before he transformed into a goose. He refers to them as individual's but I was not sure if he realized how much they truly were like humans until he transformed. Did he know that they might reject him or did he think he would be able to easily blend in?
Another thing I was wanting to ask you about was Pauline's corpse. What was the purpose of Soliman wandering out and finding her corpse? The narrator says she was "recently stripped of breath and sight, which perhaps there was still time to bring back to life" on page 166. Was Soliman supposed to find her and help her?
If you could anser these question, I would greatly appreciate it. I thouroughly enjoyed your book.
Thank you,
Carleigh Rogers
Dear Alejo,
Hello, my name is Carleigh Rogers. I have read your book, The Kingdom of this World and I have some questions that I wanted to ask you about. I was wondering if Ti Noel was trying to imply that humans and geese were very similar creaters when he said, "Geese were very orderly bings, with principles and systems, whose existence denied all superiority of individual over individual of the same species" on page 182, before he transformed into a goose. He refers to them as individual's but I was not sure if he realized how much they truly were like humans until he transformed. Did he know that they might reject him or did he think he would be able to easily blend in?
Another thing I was wanting to ask you about was Pauline's corpse. What was the purpose of Soliman wandering out and finding her corpse? The narrator says she was "recently stripped of breath and sight, which perhaps there was still time to bring back to life" on page 166. Was Soliman supposed to find her and help her?
If you could anser these question, I would greatly appreciate it. I thouroughly enjoyed your book.
Thank you,
Carleigh Rogers
Letter to Carpentier - Caroline Janiszewski
March 13, 2012
Dear Alejo Carpentier,
My
name is Caroline Janiszewski. I
have just finished reading your book A
Kingdom of this World. I have
a question about one of the images in Part 4, in the section entitled The Night of the Statues. On page 158, Soliman comes across a
statue of a woman in a chamber of an empty palace. “It was a naked woman lying on a bed and holding out an
apple.” We learn that it is a
statue of Pauline Bonaparte, but I think there is a deeper meaning. I was wondering if the statue is meant
to be an allegory to Adam and Eve.
Original sin was introduced to the human race when Eve offered Adam an
apple from the tree of knowledge.
I was wondering if the statue is meant to remind Soliman of his sins
because she is holding out an apple.
I was wondering this because, as Pauling Bonaparte, he knows he. If he can relate her to the biblical
Eve, it would give a deeper meaning to the way he felt when he touched her. Please let me know.
Sincere regards,
Caroline
Janiszewski
Caroline Janiszewski
Letter to Alejo by Megan Barnes
March 14, 2012
Dear Alejo,
I recently read your novel, The Kingdom of This World, and wanted to
ask you about, what I find is one of the most interesting endings I have ever
read. On the final page of the novel the narrator says, “From that moment Ti
Noel was never seen again, nor his green coat with the salmon lace cuffs,
except perhaps by that wet vulture…” which can be taken to mean two very
different things. One perspective of the ending is that Ti Noel dies; this is
hinted at by the possibility that the last thing to see him was the vulture.
However,
this is not my personal belief which is that Ti Noel transformed himself into
the vulture. One reason I believe this to be the real meaning behind the quote
above is because Ti Noel is familiar with the art of voodoo and by the end of
the novel has transformed himself into an ant, a stallion, and a goose. Each
animal represented a different lesson on the different aspects of human culture
and society. The ant taught Ti Noel what it was to lose your sense of
individuality, which at the time was reflected as a negative thing in a culture
segregated. The stallion represented life as he knew it, a slave while the
goose showed him that even animals are not above a caste system. These three
animals were key to his development because it taught him that history is
always bound to repeat itself, regardless of who is king. This became ever more
apparent as the French were booted out to be replaced by Henry Christophe, a
former cook who should have treated his fellow Haitians fairly but treated the
slaves even worse than the French. The
reason this is important to my theory is due to Ti Noel’s rising disgust with
the human race in general. I believe he turned himself into a vulture because
as a solitary creature who feeds off of others useless forms he is able to keep
to himself and fly away from the life of hurt he previously endured.
This
idea is supported on the first page of the last section, pg 151, with the quote
from Calderon, “I had fear of these visions But since seeing these others, My
fear is grown greater”. I took this quote to represent Ti Noel’s changing
opinion of humanity. It is no secret that certain members of the human race
will always be despicable; this represents the first part of the quote talking about
the original visions that caused him fear. The other visions mentioned
represent Ti Noel’s change in views as he looks upon the world in each of the
animal forms. The fact that even the natural world was not free from
repression, segregation and enslavement pushed Ti Noel to his brink.
In
order to escape his reality Ti Noel used his gift of metamorphosis to transform
himself into a vulture. I believe he chose a vulture because of their ability
to fly away from danger and the fear they instill on the living as scavengers.
Ti Noel decided that after a life of repression he would finally break free,
and lived out the rest of his life as a vulture. Maybe he truly did die, but
the magical reality that surrounds and infiltrates the rest of this novel leads
me to believe otherwise.
With
sincerest regards,
Megan Barnes
Dear Alejo...
Dear Alejo,
Hello. I recently read your novel, Kingdom of this World. My favorite aspect of your book was your discussion of the cyclical nature of time, and how you used elements of magical realism to communicate your meaning. Because these were my favorite aspects of your novel, I have a few questions pertaining to them. Firstly, I was wandering if magical realism is a generally more positive or negative force in this book. I noticed the connections you drew between sexual desire and grotesque violence, and I was wondering if magical realism and madness are tied in the same way. For example, when Soliman decides to venture drunkenly from the slaves quarters into the bowels of the mansion: "It was a cold, white, motionless world, but its shadows took on life and grew under the light of the lantern, as though those beings with unseeing eyes, who looked without looking, were moving about their midnight visitors" (158). In this scene, it seems as though you foreshadow Soliman's downfall in the hardened white bodies of the statues. Is magical realism supposed to serve as a sort of warning to Soliman? Or is it too late? In Ti Noel's case, it seems to be. When he returns to De Mezy's old plantation, he falls prey to the cyclical nature of time: "Ti Noel sat down on one of the cornerstones of the old mansion, now a stone like any other stone for those who did not remember" (106). Right after this realization, "He was talking to the ants"(106). The way you slid this sentence in right after this mention of cyclical time leads me to believe that you intended the cyclical nature of time to be Ti Noel's undoing, and his descent into the magically realistic side of the book. This leads me to my other question: Is Ti Noel's madness meant to be a metamorphoses into sanity, or is he just loosing his grip on reality? I do not usually associate madness with the godlike powers he attains. At the end of the book, you blend his madness into the brilliant statements of authorial consciousness: "He was leaving with the same inheritance he had received: a body of flesh to which things had been done. Now he understood that a man never knows for whom he suffers and hopes... for man always seeks a happiness far beyond that which is meted out to him" (179). Are you suggesting that Ti Noel has become the sanest person in this book, simply by realizing the patterns we are all subjected to? What good is realizing this if you cannot transcend it, even through other species? I enjoyed gaining the perspective I did from reading your book, and I wish you were still alive enough to answer these questions.
Your dutiful reader,
Erin Gregory
Hello. I recently read your novel, Kingdom of this World. My favorite aspect of your book was your discussion of the cyclical nature of time, and how you used elements of magical realism to communicate your meaning. Because these were my favorite aspects of your novel, I have a few questions pertaining to them. Firstly, I was wandering if magical realism is a generally more positive or negative force in this book. I noticed the connections you drew between sexual desire and grotesque violence, and I was wondering if magical realism and madness are tied in the same way. For example, when Soliman decides to venture drunkenly from the slaves quarters into the bowels of the mansion: "It was a cold, white, motionless world, but its shadows took on life and grew under the light of the lantern, as though those beings with unseeing eyes, who looked without looking, were moving about their midnight visitors" (158). In this scene, it seems as though you foreshadow Soliman's downfall in the hardened white bodies of the statues. Is magical realism supposed to serve as a sort of warning to Soliman? Or is it too late? In Ti Noel's case, it seems to be. When he returns to De Mezy's old plantation, he falls prey to the cyclical nature of time: "Ti Noel sat down on one of the cornerstones of the old mansion, now a stone like any other stone for those who did not remember" (106). Right after this realization, "He was talking to the ants"(106). The way you slid this sentence in right after this mention of cyclical time leads me to believe that you intended the cyclical nature of time to be Ti Noel's undoing, and his descent into the magically realistic side of the book. This leads me to my other question: Is Ti Noel's madness meant to be a metamorphoses into sanity, or is he just loosing his grip on reality? I do not usually associate madness with the godlike powers he attains. At the end of the book, you blend his madness into the brilliant statements of authorial consciousness: "He was leaving with the same inheritance he had received: a body of flesh to which things had been done. Now he understood that a man never knows for whom he suffers and hopes... for man always seeks a happiness far beyond that which is meted out to him" (179). Are you suggesting that Ti Noel has become the sanest person in this book, simply by realizing the patterns we are all subjected to? What good is realizing this if you cannot transcend it, even through other species? I enjoyed gaining the perspective I did from reading your book, and I wish you were still alive enough to answer these questions.
Your dutiful reader,
Erin Gregory
Letter to Carpentier
Dear Alejo,
Hi. I have been reading your novel
The Kingdom of This World and I have noticed a couple of messages, and from
them I have formed a couple of questions for you.
First, you mention on page 179 a
deep realization through Ti Noel's eyes that man is at his greatest when he is
bettering himself and being capable of loving despite cyclical affliction and
trials. With this statement you are getting across that despite all the
hellish, chaotic suffering going on in the world, man is still capable of being
good, love, and improving. Although the cycle in this book seems hopeless, you
are claiming there is still hope because man can better himself. So do you
believe this constant sacrifice is worth the kingdom on this earth? Is all this
human suffering we cause for the world worth it due to the love we can still
create?
Also, on page 180, Ti Noel mentions
a standoffish, wet vulture. "Ti Noel was never seen again...except perhaps
by that wet vulture who turns every death to his own benefit and who sat with
outspread wings, drying himself in the sun, a cross of feathers which finally
folded itself up and flew off in the thick shade..." In this conclusion I
take this symbol to portray some kind of god, or God himself. A figure that
watches from a distance as hell burns away on earth, and then flies off,
turning away from it. Ti Noel mentions earlier that he does not consider himself
a part of the earthly species (173). Yet at the same time, cannot have complete
understanding of the vulture or higher spirit, and because of this
disconnection from the higher power he is constantly trying to transform and
understand those things which he cannot. Since this chapter is called Agnus
Dei, Latin for "Lamb of God," are you referring to Ti Noel as some
kind of mediator between the kingdoms, that of heaven and of earth? He seems to
me as if he is stuck between them, almost like a prophet sent to connect the
two or at least interpret them.
Thank you very much for your time and consideration.Sincerely,
Leah Avitabile
letter to carpentier
Dear Alejo
Hello, my name is Matt Chamlee i have been reading you book Kingdom Of This World. I wanted to ask you a question about something in your novel. I was wondering if you could clarify Ti Noel's metamorphesis threw out the book. Did Ti Noel's metamorphesis from normal man to heightened senses and eventually different animals symbolize anything deeper, and relate back to events in the book, or were they just random acts of magic with no deeper meaning?
My personal thoughts on the matter are that when he turns into the goose, it symboizes his innocense at that point of the book. When he turns into the vulture at the end , I thought it symbolizes the death and destruction that had occured since the metamorphesis begain. "From that moment Ti Noel was never seen again, nor his green coat with the salmon lace cuffs except perhaps by that wet vulture who turns every death to his own benfit and who sat with outspread wings, drying himself in the sun, a cross of feathers which finally folded itself up and flew off into the thick shade of Bois Caiman." This quote about when Ti Noel morphs into the vulture is thought also was a metaphore for how Ti Noel uses the death and destruction at the end of the book for his own advantage, and either escaped or litterally became a vulture. But the vulture also could symbolize a clensing. Vulture clean up the dead, and use it for their own nourishment, so maybe the vulture symbolized the end of the old and the beginning of the new like the pheonix mentioned earlier in the book.
All of this is just my speculation, but i really appriciate you reading my letter and considering my thoughts on these matters. I would love to hear back from you even though your dead.
Roll Tide
Matt Chamlee
Hello, my name is Matt Chamlee i have been reading you book Kingdom Of This World. I wanted to ask you a question about something in your novel. I was wondering if you could clarify Ti Noel's metamorphesis threw out the book. Did Ti Noel's metamorphesis from normal man to heightened senses and eventually different animals symbolize anything deeper, and relate back to events in the book, or were they just random acts of magic with no deeper meaning?
My personal thoughts on the matter are that when he turns into the goose, it symboizes his innocense at that point of the book. When he turns into the vulture at the end , I thought it symbolizes the death and destruction that had occured since the metamorphesis begain. "From that moment Ti Noel was never seen again, nor his green coat with the salmon lace cuffs except perhaps by that wet vulture who turns every death to his own benfit and who sat with outspread wings, drying himself in the sun, a cross of feathers which finally folded itself up and flew off into the thick shade of Bois Caiman." This quote about when Ti Noel morphs into the vulture is thought also was a metaphore for how Ti Noel uses the death and destruction at the end of the book for his own advantage, and either escaped or litterally became a vulture. But the vulture also could symbolize a clensing. Vulture clean up the dead, and use it for their own nourishment, so maybe the vulture symbolized the end of the old and the beginning of the new like the pheonix mentioned earlier in the book.
All of this is just my speculation, but i really appriciate you reading my letter and considering my thoughts on these matters. I would love to hear back from you even though your dead.
Roll Tide
Matt Chamlee
Dear Alejo
Carpentier,
I have recently
read your novel, The Kingdom of This World,
and I have run across a few questions regarding certain images in the
novel. I have interpreted the image of the pheonix to hold important symbolic meaning, however the image could be
representative of multiple ideas which are conflicting. The pheonix as a symbol
could either be referring to the cycle of oppression or to breaking
the cycle of oppression through metamorphosis.
The
pheonix that is described on Henri Christophe's coat of arms has a
meaning whose origins is intertwined with the mythological pheonix
and its association in the novel with the oppressor Henri Christophe.
Traditionally, the pheonix is a symbol of the cycle of life, death,
and rebirth. However, when the pheonix is associated with Henri
Christophe, the meaning of the pheonix could be the cycle of
oppression. Like the never ending cycle of life and death, the
pheonix as a symbol could be stating that oppression is a never
ending cycle. As the pheonix can also never truly leave this world,
neither can oppression.
However, the coat of arms could also hold the
opposite meaning, that it is possible to break the cycle of
oppression through transformation, just as the pheonix undergoes
transformations. The coat of arms reads “I rise from my ashes”
(140), which not only refers to the pheonix but could refer to man's
ability to transform into something more or better than what he once
was. Thus "I rise from my ashes" (140) could be referring to the metamorphosis that Macandel and Ti Noel undergo in the novel. Even in association with Henri Christophe, the pheonix could represent the changes that he has undergone, as he has risen from a cook to a king. Thus in these terms, the pheonix could be representative of spiritual and social change, breaking a person's personal cycle of oppression.
I hope that you are well and I thank you for taking the time to read my letter and consider the question.
With regards,
Alina Venick
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
SREV Letter
SREVMar 13, 2012 07:02 PM
March 13th, 2012
Dear Alejo,
I recently read your book for a class on world literature. I found your chapters on historical events very interesting. I wanted to ask you why you took some time periods years apart and meshed them together? I know some places in the book are further apart on a historical standpoint than many historians would like them to be. I also found the chapters on animal guises (Metamorphoses) followed by the human guises (p 46) remarkable. Why did you make it as to where a human guise can be taken along with the animal guises? Are we truely all just spirits that live in human/animal/other forms? This makes me see all creations begin with a spirit that can shape-shift in the cycle of life. Lastly, Dagon (p 76) was a part of the read I enjoyed the most. I wanted to know though, why did you mean by "the Negroes were like the Philistines adoring Dagon inside the ark"? I see it as an historical point where the Philistines were worshipping this false God similar to your other depiction of Legba (p 168) that is prayed to. I hope that you may be of some help.
Sincerely,
Sara R. E. Vassey
Dear Alejo,
I recently read your book for a class on world literature. I found your chapters on historical events very interesting. I wanted to ask you why you took some time periods years apart and meshed them together? I know some places in the book are further apart on a historical standpoint than many historians would like them to be. I also found the chapters on animal guises (Metamorphoses) followed by the human guises (p 46) remarkable. Why did you make it as to where a human guise can be taken along with the animal guises? Are we truely all just spirits that live in human/animal/other forms? This makes me see all creations begin with a spirit that can shape-shift in the cycle of life. Lastly, Dagon (p 76) was a part of the read I enjoyed the most. I wanted to know though, why did you mean by "the Negroes were like the Philistines adoring Dagon inside the ark"? I see it as an historical point where the Philistines were worshipping this false God similar to your other depiction of Legba (p 168) that is prayed to. I hope that you may be of some help.
Sincerely,
Sara R. E. Vassey
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)