We're in the present (the flashbacks have been confusing so I thought I'd clarify that) and Mike gets the call from Miles. Miles pays for Mike to go to London and they visit Patty Ellis' speech. Back in the day, Patty was part of Mike's revolution group. Although she wasn't a main part of the group, she was helpful because she was a lawyer. Mike recalls, "She's not someone I can trust" ( Kunzru 166). Patty is now working with the government and Mike suspects Miles took him to her speech to jog is memory, which it does.
We're in a flashback and we see how Chris' revolutionary group is changing. They've always had the same goal, which is making the government see how they were wrong and that there was a need for social change. The difference is that his group is tired of waiting around for change and they are resorting to violence to get noticed. Mike says, "The night after that, we drove to Chelmsford, then Colchester, setting fire to a recruitment office and a Territorial Army storage depot" (Kunzru 174). They heard of a group of Facists that were meeting at a club and CHris' group resorted to violence again to prove their point. "We aimed bricks and dugup cobbles at the windows. Soon orange smoke was billowing out of the pub and chocking men were staggering out to be met by a rain of blows", Chris explains (Kunzru 155).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I'm not exactly sure what your book is about, but from what I can tell it seems to revolve around revolutionary actions. It has always seemed unfortunate to me that so often people feel they need to resort to violence just so that their voice is hear. Why is it that humans tend to ignore problems that are right in front of them until they are actually threatened by them?
I'm a type of person that likes flashbacks because I need evidence to support why things happened. This book sounds interesting and I agree with Callan that it surrounds revolutionary actions that are violent. It's upsetting to see that violence is a way of getting noticed.
I agree with the other comments that violence is not the best way to bring around change. It tends to generally turn people off of the idea of change if it comes with death and other cruel actions. I have found that people are more prone to listen and consider your idea if you respectfully present it and don't force it on others. I haven't read all of your other posts on this book so I am not quite sure who all of the characters are and things like that, but I do gather that Mike worked with some sort of government reform group. I am also not sure where Mike lives or what government he wanted to change. I think that would make a big difference in the book. For example, if it was the United States' government, they could change the government by getting new people elected. But if it was with some sort of monarchy or dictatorship it would be more difficult.
I agree with Callan. It's really ufortunate when people feel that the only thing they can do is to resort to violence. I would hope that i th future our society can change an try and solve our problems in other ways. great job!
The revolutionary aspect of this book is very interesting to me bacause I enjoy those kinds of novels. I think Callan brings up an excellent point. Why violence? I think there are bettre ways to get your point across but we are humans and there is no use in explaining that. Violence is a natural human action/reaction and a lot of people find it the only way to convey a message. I also think Calllan asks a very improtant question; why do we ignore problems until we are threatened? I think it is becaue until that point we can dillude ourselves into believing that the problem will leave on its own.
Post a Comment