The Protagonist - Antagonist Dynamic in Fiela's Child and So Long a Letter

The protagonist/antagonist dynamic in Fiela’s Child and So Long a Letter

Women’s struggle for equality is about as common in society as the belief in their inferiority; it is no stretch of the imagination to figure why. The novels Fiela’s Child and So Long a Letter chronicle a woman’s fight for freedom and in so doing maneuver to criticize the patriarchal societies that elicit this struggle. This indictment is communicated by no shortage of means. One method applies the protagonist/antagonist dynamic; it is the scope of this essay to compare the author’s similar techniques of employing this relationship.

In both novels the intentional characterization of the antagonist provides commentary.

The characterization of the antagonist is used to criticize tradition because the antagonist is an extension of tradition and is thereby given the capacity in the novel to interact with the protagonist. In So Long a Letter the assumption of a co-wife is not what is being criticized it is the assumption of Nabou and Benitou as Co-wives. Because Nabou represents the bestiality of gratification antithetical to love, Ba is criticizing the Mawdo for marrying her and betraying his first wife. Because Ramatoulaye believes that women, “draw from the passing years the force of her devotion” where as men, with his,

“egoistic eye,” “compares what he had with what he no longer has, what he has with what he could have.” She is in effect describing two different institutions of marriage, one of the bestiality of gratification and another of true love. Nabou does not fit this characterization of woman; she represents the tradition of marriage that has no real substantiation. Her character type sates the, “egoistic eye” she is but a plaything. Thusly she cannot be a real woman because she facilitates a shallow marriage. This is further

emphasized when Mowdo absolves himself of blame for taking a co-wife; “instincts dominate man, regardless of his level of intelligence.” But later in the novel Ramatoulaye tells her daughters that, “It is through his self-control, his ability to reason, to choose, his power of attachment that the individual distinguishes himself from the animal.” So for taking Nabou as a co-wife Mawdo is just an animal and Nabou is just the meat he eats. Thus Nabou acts as the antagonist. And when the protagonist denounces the antagonist she is thereby denouncing tradition because Nabou is derivative of that tradition. The protagonist condemns the antagonist which acts as tradition.

Likewise in Fiela’s child, Matthe criticizes tradition via Elias. When the magistrate grants guardianship to the antagonist, Ba criticizes the ideology behind the

judgment. The magistrate is based on this judgment, and therefore so is tradition; magistrate is an extension of tradition. The antagonist, Elias van Rooyen, is depicted throughout the novel as scheming and evil. He beats his children. He starves a baby elephant to death for personal gain. He is concerned not with the heart of Benjamin but rather the strength of his back, often strapping him into hours of labor; “it was no good having sons if they went and got married, and worked for a wife and in-laws.” So when in the end of the novel Barta confesses to Benjamin that the magistrate told her that he was, “the one wearing the blue shirt,” thus betraying the hand the magistrate played in fixing the decision it is Elias’s characterization that provides the criticism. The magistrate acts as an extension of the tradition that Fiela is fighting against, because it is on behalf of the magistrate that Fiela is contending with tradition at all. So because the magistrate represents tradition, it is traditions decision that places the guardianship of Benjamin in Elias’s hands and because Elias is the antagonist, tradition is criticized for making a bad decision; it is Elias’s characterization as the antagonist that provides the criticism.

Just as it is Elias’s characterization as the antagonist that judges the magistrate’s decision as a bad one it is Nabou’s characterization as the antagonist that judges Mawdo’s decision as a bad one. Elias’s characterization criticizes the ideology of the magistrate and thus tradition. Nabou’s characterization allows for Mawdo’s decision to be

condemned in like manner. So in each novel the protagonist’s relationship with antagonist is the same and proves to the same ends.

The antagonist in both novels denotes criticism because in both novels the antagonist is the source of inequality. When the Protagonist rejects the antagonist the shortcomings of tradition are highlighted and condemned.

Matthe’s protagonist, Fiela, rejects tradition in her assumption as the head of the house. This is the same idea of tradition that the magistrate represents, so Fiela is in affect rejecting the magistrate. Fiela’s rejection of the patriarchy is realized in her relationship to Selling, the traditional head of the house. Fiela is developed as the dominant figure in the house hold whereas Selling is weak and submissive to her. “There was not much left of selling,” and even though, “his health had been poor for years,” “his hands could still work even if there were days when it took her a lot of talking to get them going.” Fiela is the only one who can hold a conversation. Selling doesn’t