Jules Verne Forum

<jvf@Gilead.org.il>

JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec 19961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009

Re: Chronology--Who cares?

From: thomas mccormick <tom_amity~at~hotmail.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 01:04:01 +0000
To: jvf~at~Gilead.org.il

Brian is certainly right about the historical significance of the so-called
Sepoy Mutiny, and also right about the inapprotriateness of that
trivializing monker.

Verne was behaving appropriately in linking the anti-colonialist Nemo with
Indian resistance to British colonialism. Since Hetzel's interference
prevented Verne from giving Nemo the Polish nationality he originally
intended, it was good of Verne to make a virtue of necessity in order to
deliver an effective put-down of colonialism by substituting India for
Poland and Britain for Russia.

Exactly as Brian points out, the "sepoy rebellion" reference also serves as
a critique of the Western positivistic world-view represented both by Smith
and by (British and other) colonialism. Verily, one is reminded of the
Vietnam War, and one is in particular remind of the devastating effect of
the Tet Offensive on the U.S. leaders who embodied the America-ueber-alles
mentality. Clearly, General Sherman's dictum, "In all history there is no
instance of a nation of agriculturists making successful war against a
nation of mechanics" needs some modification.

There remains, however, the question of whether or not Verne was indifferent
to chronological consistency within his tales. I object to the notion that
Verne could not, or would not, endow his imaginary worlds with such
consistency. This notion requires us to believe that he was willing to throw
plausibility to the winds. Such a belief gives Verne's skill as a writer far
too little credit, particularly in light of the two "Editorial Notes" in
Mysterious Island which declare his intention to provide a consistent
chronology.

As I have pointed out, Nemo's autobiographical narrative contains two
timelines, each internally consistent while being inconsistent with the
other, and they are clearly distinguished by the respective phraseologies by
which they date events (i.e. specific dates vs. statements of duration). The
first timeline does indeed describe Nemo as particpating in the "mitiny" of
1857, and the second does describe him as having begun his submarine
existence in 1838, which seems like a discrepancy but which actually is not.
I say "is not" because Verne has told us how to to resolve this
"discrepancy".

In his "Editorial Notes", Verne has specifically instructed us to disregard
the first timeline (same chronology as, or extrapolable from, 20L, and using
dates) in preference to the other (new chronology, using statements of
duration). Since there were other "seopy mutinies", prior as well as
subsequent to 1857, we do have consistency if we simply discard the date
1857. We are supposed to do so in any case, since this date is extrapolable
from the 20TL timeline which Verne is telling us to ignore.

Verne has carefully created, and just as carefully occulted in the passage
dealing with Nemo's autobiography, an utterly consistent chronology for all
the events of Mysterious Island, including those that are narrated by Ayrton
and Nemo (if, that is, we allow for chronological slips,, of which I count
seven). The dates that are "discrepant" are the same dates that Verne has
carefully instructed us to ignore.

Tom


>From: Brian Taves <btav~at~loc.gov>
>Reply-To: Jules Verne Forum <jvf~at~Gilead.org.il>
>To: Jules Verne Forum <jvf~at~Gilead.org.il>
>Subject: Chronology--Who cares?
>Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 17:49:22 -0400 (EDT)
>
>
>Much thinking and time has gone into the chronological discussions.
>
>I'd suggest that one factor weighed more heavily than any other, for which
>Verne felt, "consistency be damned." No event startled European racism
>and colonial complacency than what was then labeled the "Sepoy Mutiny"
>(and we would more appropriately today label the Revolt of 1857). For a
>nation under imperial subjugation to almost overthrow the rule of the most
>powerful nation on Earth, England, was a shock to Europeans.
>
>To link Nemo with that very revolt not only precluded any European
>identity for his character, and the European/American claim to hegemony
>over the power of science, but placed Nemo nationally and ideologically
>with those striving to overcome colonialism. And that was simply more
>important than preserving any internal timelines within the fiction.
>
>
>Brian Taves
>Motion Picture/Broadcasting/Recorded Sound Division
>Library of Congress
>101 Independence Avenue, S.E. Washington, D.C. 20540-4692
>Telephone: 202-707-9930; 202-707-2371 (fax)
>Email: btav~at~loc.gov
>
>
>Disclaimer--All opinions expressed are my own.
>
>

_________________________________________________________________
Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
Received on Thu 15 Jun 2006 - 04:04:13 IDT

JV.Gilead.org.il
Copyright © Zvi Har’El
$Date: 2009/02/01 22:36:11 $$