From: paulchem@anchor.cs.colorado.edu (Paul C. Chemmanoor  )
Subject: Re: MOSQUITO COAST (minor spoilers)
Keywords: n
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 03:54:18 GMT

In article <1992Aug20.151019.18076@sco.COM> maureenw@sco.COM (Maureen Wilkes) writes:
[...]

>>   You see, as the reader starts the book at the first chapter,
>>   the reader has no idea whether apocalypse is really around the
>>   corner or not. The reader has no way of knowing the insanity 
>>   that is driving the man.
>
>But it seemed obvious to me that there was no apocalypse around the 
>corner.  The man was just plain antisocial!  His belief that modern
>society was apocalyptic was no more sane and believable than the 
>similar beliefs of evangelists.  (Disclaimer To Protect My Soul:
>I'm saying these beliefs aren't believable to ME.  Not that they
>should be discounted by everyone.  Please don't sentence my soul
>to the Agnostic vs. Atheist thread!) 

1] I can see what you are saying here, but :

   You say it was obvious that there was no apocalypse in the making.
   But how would an impending apocalypse manifest itself ?
   In the light of his inventions, I would have presumed that any
   special knowledge that Father had would have been scientific in
   nature and not obvious.

>
>>   If the world as we know it was ending
>>   in two weeks time, and we had positive proof for it, I would
>>   for one, have no hesitation in teaching my family basic survival
>>   skills instead of learning in a school or socializing.
>>   At that point in the novel, the reader can make no assumptions.
>>
>
>Yes, IF there was positive proof.  But Father's idea of proof was
>that K-Mart only sold tents made in Korea and fruit prices were
>inflated.  This reader made the assumption that Father was full 
>of hooey.

2] Eccentricity is no refutation of genius.
   Isaac Newton spent most of his later life trying to prove
   God was one as opposed to a trinity and in trying to convert
   baser metals into gold.
   Can we then say that the man was "full of hooey" ? :-)

   A scientist who has found proof would be unable to explain it
   to his young children in any form they would understand.
   Paul Theroux could have been using this fact to hold the
   proof back from us.

   Again Fathers proof was not related to tents and fruit 
   prices. He just says thats what was wrong with America society.

   But most importantly Paul Theroux from a story telling point of
   view can perfectly well do without any proof, and still bring
   the story to apocalypse.

>
>>   I admit I might have been influenced by Gore Vidal's Kalki
>>   and its handling of apocalypse.
>
>I'll have to read that and see how it affects my view.

3] Yes, see if The Mosquito Coast makes you assume the wrong things 
   in that story. :-)

>I guess my reaction to Father was based on similar characters I have 
>suffered in "real" life.  I have known others who, unable to participate
>as members of our society but too intelligent to recede into la-la
>land, invented all sorts of fantasies and mad theories to justify their
>refusal to integrate.  Interestingly (though not a basis for drawing
>conclusions), they were all scientifically gifted.  

4] Not trying to make any personal statement here, but
   is refusal to integrate a Bad Thing per se ?

[...]
>I so desperately wanted Father to die by then that I was cheering the
>birds on.  I'd make a good rugby fan, wouldn't I?

5] :-)
   Stay Cool.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.    ~ ~                                                                       .
.    o o                                       paul chemmanoor.                .
.     |      i sign therefore i am.            Computer Science department.    .
.     =                                        Univ. of Colorado, Boulder.     .
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books