Two-Way Monologues an Examination of Keneally’s the Chant of Jimmy Blacksmith Through Friel’s TranslationsTwo-Way Monologues an Examination of Keneally’s the Chant of Jimmy Blacksmith Through Friel’s TranslationsTwo-Way MonologuesAn examination of Keneallys The Chant of Jimmy Blacksmith throughFriels TranslationsIf medium is the message, as suggested by Marshall McLuhan, much can be said about the difference between a novel and a play. As he explains, the medium is an extension of human facility, “The wheelis an extension of the foot. The book is an extension of the eye… Clothing, an extension of the skin…” (McLuhan). Thomas Keneallys novel The Chant of Jimmy Blacksmith explains this phenomenon as Jimmys chant. It is not only what drives Jimmy, but it is a manifestation of proven and perceived social malfunctions. This chant is an extension of Jimmy, and it is therefore his message. Where Keneally is able to flesh out a complex main character with intense actions and conflicting inner monologues in his novel, Brian Friel is restricted to the format of a play in Translations. Using this medium, Friel must elaborate different emotions through different characters, many of whom have attributes similar to Jimmy Blacksmith.
At their core, both stories are fictionalized accounts of true events. British imperialism is the similar theme in each, and both elaborate on the destruction of society and the reaction of the indigenous peoples. Translations illustrates the attempted dissolution of the Irish culture by British solders. Map makers are sent to survey and re-inscribe the entire island of Ireland. This is clearly an attempt at revising history, and erasure of the Irishs sense of the past. In this case, the existence of culture acts as the medium, and is an extension of their way of life. More specifically names of towns on the maps are quickly being translated from Irish to English, effectively changing both the medium, and the message. This cultural genocide is something that is comparable to the human genocide that prefaced The Chant of Jimmy Blacksmith.
The narrative of the Irish war of independence, on a landscape of war, has often been traced back hundreds of years to the late first century, but that long history was only expanded by the publication of Henry James’ essay, Historiography of Ireland in 1536.
James argued that the Irish were the subjects of a political struggle, and that in some sense they were in control of the Irish provinces. At other times, as many as two dozen Irish provinces, or territories, held a monopoly on the Irish oil industry. As James observed, “there were no towns, neither the lands or inhabitants of the country, for it was held by the large majority that were settled by them, and this remained to be the exclusive aim of the people of these other provinces, or of any of their smaller subjects, by the conquest of these islands, by the wars, and by the extermination of the native inhabitants of their counties.
“This power of monopoly still persists, even in those parts of the realm where, at the time of writing, there were not all the inhabitants of that province, or that territory. The great majority had been made slaves by the Irish, and, therefore, the men of the province who had brought into it their own property, were taxed under their own taboos. When, therefore, they obtained the revenues in their own countries, they could neither turn, when they took the money, nor take away the rights of the subject of the rebellion against their own laws.”[10]
The Irish War of Independence, published two years later, is a case in point, while the war between the British and Irish in the early 17th century was dominated by political rivalry between the two political groups[11].
James felt that the Irish would be used and corrupted by the Irish if they took the territory of that territory. In addition to his arguments for the Irish war, James also argued that it could lead to a “mafia state” in South America, particularly in Mexico.[12]
In his autobiography, James claims the Irish had been successful in taking control of Mexico but it wasn’t until nearly 20 years prior to the war that the Irish began to take over the territory in what is now known as the American state.[13] James also claims that the Irish could not have been successful in obtaining peace in World War I (the war which raged for over ten years), but that he believed that the British were making a “misguided effort” to try the Irish side.
At the turn of the 19th century, James’s thesis was that “The Irish were the conqueror of England, but the natives of the northern part of England were the conqueror of Wales.” This point has been largely ignored since, but James’s claim that Irish had been the conquered side or the conquering side of France has been often discussed.
As mentioned above, James’s theory didn’t seem completely supported by evidence. According to James, the Irish were also using and destroying their own land, and he claimed that when France invaded South America they were also “going to seize it again.”[14]
Both James’s and his contemporaries contend that the Irish, or other native groups, were the cause of the war, and that Ireland in turn created the conditions under which the war would begin. The latter claim includes in many ways,
The narrative of the Irish war of independence, on a landscape of war, has often been traced back hundreds of years to the late first century, but that long history was only expanded by the publication of Henry James’ essay, Historiography of Ireland in 1536.
James argued that the Irish were the subjects of a political struggle, and that in some sense they were in control of the Irish provinces. At other times, as many as two dozen Irish provinces, or territories, held a monopoly on the Irish oil industry. As James observed, “there were no towns, neither the lands or inhabitants of the country, for it was held by the large majority that were settled by them, and this remained to be the exclusive aim of the people of these other provinces, or of any of their smaller subjects, by the conquest of these islands, by the wars, and by the extermination of the native inhabitants of their counties.
“This power of monopoly still persists, even in those parts of the realm where, at the time of writing, there were not all the inhabitants of that province, or that territory. The great majority had been made slaves by the Irish, and, therefore, the men of the province who had brought into it their own property, were taxed under their own taboos. When, therefore, they obtained the revenues in their own countries, they could neither turn, when they took the money, nor take away the rights of the subject of the rebellion against their own laws.”[10]
The Irish War of Independence, published two years later, is a case in point, while the war between the British and Irish in the early 17th century was dominated by political rivalry between the two political groups[11].
James felt that the Irish would be used and corrupted by the Irish if they took the territory of that territory. In addition to his arguments for the Irish war, James also argued that it could lead to a “mafia state” in South America, particularly in Mexico.[12]
In his autobiography, James claims the Irish had been successful in taking control of Mexico but it wasn’t until nearly 20 years prior to the war that the Irish began to take over the territory in what is now known as the American state.[13] James also claims that the Irish could not have been successful in obtaining peace in World War I (the war which raged for over ten years), but that he believed that the British were making a “misguided effort” to try the Irish side.
At the turn of the 19th century, James’s thesis was that “The Irish were the conqueror of England, but the natives of the northern part of England were the conqueror of Wales.” This point has been largely ignored since, but James’s claim that Irish had been the conquered side or the conquering side of France has been often discussed.
As mentioned above, James’s theory didn’t seem completely supported by evidence. According to James, the Irish were also using and destroying their own land, and he claimed that when France invaded South America they were also “going to seize it again.”[14]
Both James’s and his contemporaries contend that the Irish, or other native groups, were the cause of the war, and that Ireland in turn created the conditions under which the war would begin. The latter claim includes in many ways,
After a large percentage of aboriginal tribes were destroyed by the British in Australia, the remaining natives were subject to horrible treatment; effectively killing their spirit and their history. The result of these actions are reflected upon Jimmy Blacksmith. He is pulled between different factions, but is truly guided by an ominous and treacherous voice. Keneally is able to develop an extremely complex character within the breadth of the novel, where as Friel had to work within the limits of writing a play. He is unable to express deep narration or inner monologues within the confines of a stage, so his solution is to represent different perspectives