Poisonwood Postmodernism?

          Apparently, the world was "modern" up until the end of World War II. Until this point, everything regarding literature was well defined and rounded out, with not too much leeway for crazy structural exploits or styles of writing the plot of a novel.

It was as if we got back from the war and were like: "Man, this novel should have an ending"

                                                                           "Nah...it doesn't need one..."

So, postmodernism essentially just allows people to do weird stuff with books that hasn't really been done before (at least in the era when that book was written, as I'm going to assume the definition of postmodernism changes depending on it's precursor (modernism).

The Poisonwood Bible exhibits more than a few of these characteristics. For one, it is written after the war, and the time period it is reflecting on is the area around 1960, with the Congo's independence being a big deal.

But, postmodernism really is seen in this novel mainly by the use of narrators (and how there aren't numbers to the "chapters," but I' don't think that is nearly as significant). Kingsolver uses multiple narrators in this novel, which adds a form of insight and depth to this particular story, which is not seen very often in the other great literary works from the time period when it was written. While most novels that we cover in our English language/literature and composition classes during school focus on a main character, this book, with it's narrators, doesn't seem to focus on any one person, but rather the sincerity of the family as a whole, which allows the story to gather insight from many more sources than what most novels are capable of. A good example is how multiple people mention the poisonwood tree, and how the novel is able to gain insight from each child and their experiences with the tree, either personal or watching their father handle it like a dumb American.

Heart of Darkness vs. Apocalypse Now

          Of course there are lots of differences between Heart of Darkness and Apocalypse Now. Lots. Well, one can always just say that the stories differ in settings, main character, plot (only to an extent), and all around "skin".

          "Skin" is a word that I would like to describe the difference with, before I talk about my single difference that I thought was most prominent (mostly because I'm sure someone else will write the same thing, and this first part might be somewhat original). When I say that the stories are the same, but the skin is different, I mean that the superficial details have been changed, but the overall meaning and story are nearly identical. Like two guitars that are identical, sound the same, and are made of the same components, but one has a clear-coat finish that allows you to see the flame of the maple wood that it is made of, while the other has a thicker, white lacquer that fades into grey, and then black around the edges. Or, perhaps a West Point lanyard and a UCSC lanyard; they both accomplish the same job, but look entirely different, and could even possibly carry a different meaning to them (I say this because I'm not sure if Apocalypse Now could be used as anti-Vietnam War type propaganda). For what it's worth, these are nearly identical stories told in two different mediums, and the war aspect of Apocalypse Now lends itself to more of a movie medium.

          The difference I selected was the effect on the native population. In Heart of Darkness, Conrad portrays the natives as objects and they die from overwork and guns and other things by a conquering people. In the movie, the natives seem to be viewed as more of a people, than objects. Although they still are slaughtered by guns and trigger-happy folks high on LSD, because the setting is much more modern. Comparing the Belgian Congo over a hundred years ago to a war zone in Vietnam that is still in recent memory for some living people will present major differences, simply because the technology available to the men at the time is so much greater. No native killed in Apocalypse Now died because of overwork, no, they all died because of a gun, or a sword, or a bomb, or an explosion. I believe it is the seriousness of the novel that forces the movie to portray the vicious deaths in this manner.