From: nall@sun8.scri.fsu.edu (John Nall)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
Subject: Re: The Books I Just Read [ Paul Theroux etc .. ]
Keywords: n
Date: 14 Aug 92 13:51:50 GMT
Reply-To: nall@sun8.scri.fsu.edu (John Nall)
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <1992Aug14.084727.9895@colorado.edu> paulchem@tigger.cs.Colorado.EDU (Icarus) writes:

  [ ... talking about Theroux's "Mosquito Coast" ...  assertion that
   family goes to Honduras ... formal call for proof made ... ]

>1] The book mentions that the ship that left baltimore was headed
>   to the honduras and further, the fellow passengers manage to get
>   the information out of the father of the family during the voyage.
>   Whether or not the author meant this to be taken literally as the
>   british honduras is another thing, and I think is beside the point.

    Sounds pretty good.  Guess I missed that.  Also an interesting
    turn that it could be "British Honduras" (aka Belize) as opposed
    to "Honduras".  
>
>2] Correct me here if I am wrong but I thought the book was never meant
>   to be a travelogue in any sense. Paul Theroux used the imagery of 
>   the Mesquita Coast to convey the remoteness from civilisation and the
>   extreme nature of the escape that the antagonist was indulging in.
>
    No, I agree.  I don't think it was meant as a traveloge in any
    sense, either.  Although it is hard to escape the feeling that
    Theroux's uses his Central American experience as background.
    If you read that part of "The Old Patagonian Express" which deals
    with C.A. and then read "The Mosquito Coast" it looks as if he
    used some of the same notes :-)

>3] What I found to be much more interesting was the careful developement
>   of the character of the antagonist. The author manages to assert through
>   almost three fourths of the book that the eccentric genius always does the
>   right thing. He is shown to be a real hero for the rest of the family.
>   It is only in the last few pages that the extent of his madness is 
>   revealed and the reader is made to feel no regret at his death.

    I think it has to do with the conflicts which are found in *all* of
    Theroux's writings.  In his travel books, he occasionally seems to
    feel that perhaps he is too nice a guy, so does something to let us
    see that he really is a SOB after all :-)  So with the character in
    M.Q.  He is too good - making ice for all those indians, making a
    little paradise in the jungle, puncturing the pomposity of the
    missionary - so Theroux decides to let him complete the slide into
    insanity.
 
>   I thought the ending was a bit contrived though.
>   Especially the crawling on all fours with his eyes gone etc.

    Yes.  I thought it was kind of a jab at Tennessee Williams :-)

    And, of course, the real question: did his wife go back home?  Or
    did she stay with the good/contriving native??

John

--
John W. Nall              | Supercomputer Computations Research Institute
nall@mailer.scri.fsu.edu  | Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32306
  "If Longstreet didn't blow it, and Lee didn't blow it, and given
    that Meade was incompetent, why the hell did we lose Gettysburg?"
Xref: sparky rec.arts.books:14667 rec.humor:26147 alt.folklore.urban:21470 rec.arts.sf.misc:2589