A minor detail...
I noticed something when Behn was telling the story of how Oroonoko/Caesar killed the supposedly difficult to kill tiger (pg 125). Behn starts by referring to the tiger as "she" and "her," and then refers to the tiger as "he" and "him." This change actually takes place mid-sentence: "When [Caesar] going softly to one side of her... made her caper... he fell dead upon the prey." In the next sentence, Behn continues to refer to the tiger as male: "Caesar cut him open with a knife...." Behn later on the same page switches back to calling the tiger female: "...she lived with the bullets a great while...."
Now, the first gender change "...he fell dead upon the prey," can be read another way, where "he" in this case refers to Oroonoko, and "prey" refers to the tiger, but I read that "he" refers to the tiger and "prey" refers to the sheep it had killed.
Maybe it's just the grammar nazi in me that finds this odd, but I figured it was a valid point of discussion. Anyone have any idea of why she may have done this? It could be that this bit of the story never actually happened, and was pieced together from other stories where the genders of the tigers killed were different. Maybe it's Behn's way of giving us another wink about this being a factual story.
Now, the first gender change "...he fell dead upon the prey," can be read another way, where "he" in this case refers to Oroonoko, and "prey" refers to the tiger, but I read that "he" refers to the tiger and "prey" refers to the sheep it had killed.
Maybe it's just the grammar nazi in me that finds this odd, but I figured it was a valid point of discussion. Anyone have any idea of why she may have done this? It could be that this bit of the story never actually happened, and was pieced together from other stories where the genders of the tigers killed were different. Maybe it's Behn's way of giving us another wink about this being a factual story.
posted by Trey at 11:13 PM
1 Comments:
Trey, I think that gender switch you noticed in the naming of the tiger is very interesting, indeed! I wonder if anyone else has remarked on it? If you're curious, you might have a look at Janet Todd's biography of Behn. Many possible readings of the error suggest themselves: does Behn's error express some unconscious sexual conflict; is it 'simply' an error; is it perhaps an editing mistake that's crept in over the years...etc. In any case, it's great that you noticed such a seemingly minor, but possibly significant detail.
Post a Comment
<< Home