Nomad and Viper by Amos Oz Analysis - Book Report/Review Example

Nomad and Viper by Amos Oz There are several reasons why the Nomad and Viper by Amos Oz appeals to me. Firstly the core basis on which the literatureis grounded on is that of deep rooted prejudice, injustice and the fundamentals of human nature. This is shown in the way a tribe of nomad refugees suffered as they were forced to leave their homes and move into Kibbutz, a neighboring area. However I feel even though what conditions these people had to face are mentioned in dramatic detail there seems to be the key aspect of not knowing what these exact hardships were. "A persistent stream pressed northward, circling the scattered settlements, staring wide-eyed at the sights of the settled land" (78). This phrase depicts the people yearning for what they didn’t have now but perhaps at one point in time did have. You can clearly feel the desperation that surrounds the nomad’s as Oz has artfully depicted their lack of options and the clear undeniable message that they were not welcome. "If you passed them on a noisy tractor and set billows of dust loose on them, they would courteously gather their scattered flocks and give you a wide passage, wider by far then was necessary. They stared at you from a distance, frozen like statues."It is the descriptive power that the writer so gracefully unfolds that brings to one’s mind not just the scene in astonishing clarity but also the ability to get absorbed in the narrative. With the air so thick with unwelcome it is only when you really invest yourself in the narrative do you understand the message and placement that these unwelcome nomad’s served for the Israeli’s. They were blamed for every negative incident that took place regardless of whether the accusation made sense of not. The fact that there were no witnesses or solid evidence that backed up the accusations was of little value. Disease, theft and even crop damage were blamed on the new neighbors. The unfairness of it all I find ludicrous but at the same time it fascinates me as it seems to be a mere reflection of human nature – Our ability to blame others only to admitting fault within ourselves. Another interesting observation that I would like to mention is that the role of the narrator though showed considerable effort to seem fair and impartial as far as any mention of the nomads was concerned, there were considerable amount of cracks in his demeanor. This was seen in the way racism was evident in several phrases that he had used. Such as , ‘We are no believers in forbearance or vegetarianism. This is especially true of our men. Decency constrains me not to dwell in detail on certain isolated and exceptional acts of reprisal conducted by some of the youngsters whose patience had expired, such as cattle rustling, stoning a nomad, or beating one of the shepherds senseless." It is hilarious that after admitting the behavior that they had indulged in a poor he makes excuses for it by stating that the shepherd in question "had an infuriatingly sly face. He was blind in one eye, broken nosed, drooling, and his mouth was set with long, curved fangs like a foxes"(80). Once again I marvel at the tactics adopted by the author to inject interest and a note of realism in his narrative by drawing attention to the intolerable nature that human beings have the ability to exhibit. It is almost a minute reminder of the segregation conducted by the Nazi’s in Germany in the way the behavior of the Israeli’s towards the nomads unfolds. Moving forwards we notice how the author shows the gradual onset towards a more cordial relationship between the nomads and the Israeli’s as the secretariat holds and audience with the elders of the nomad tribe to try to mitigate the hostilities. The nomads are seen to admit somewhat of the responsibility for the thievery and return the stolen gods. This seemed to be a promising start of a ‘mutual understanding’ between the two nations however I sense undercurrents of lessons learnt from history in which lavish and extensive promises between two nations are always in the beginning seemly heartfelt but never last in the longer term. A similar situation between the Indians and Whites transpired in the subcontinent where the initial reassurance to ‘sign on a dotted line’ was seemingly a genuine gesture to finding a solution for their problems. Little did they know? Although the Nomad and Viper is a fictional tale it is laden with lessons of history and subtle wisdom of incidents that have passed. Moving on to the character of Geulah, a resident of Kibbutz who was responsible for bringing coffee for the Nomads, who is by far the most complicated and profound personality in the narrative. She upon having a short conversation with a Nomad, who she apparently was attracted to, frightened him so that he ran away. After which she parted and went home and fantasized that the nomad had raped her. She raised the alarm and publicized the accusation widely until the hostility between the two groups arose to a peak once more. If you stop here and take a step back to review how the narrative has unfolded you realize that the “Nomad and Viper” is about how the worlds or a countrys polarities may have underlying connections, which if grasped may facilitate communication and communion and if not grasped may lead to miscommunication and hostility. Many polarities are revealed in the story: Arab versus Israeli, herder versus farmer, nomad versus settler, foreign language versus native language, poetic versus prosaic, wild versus domestic, old versus young, ancient versus modern, humanitarianism versus vengeance, male versus female, good traits versus bad traits in human nature, desert versus orchard, and nature versus technology. Geulah herself, both within and without, exemplifies many of these polarities, which need to be, but are not, harmonized. Her sharp and acerbic intelligence contrasts with her love and writing of poetry. She feels the poetic lure of the Bedouins but also finds them repellent. She yearns for romance but rejects it. She loves the orchard—a symbol of creation—but nevertheless feels a need to break a discarded bottle into smithereens—a symbol of destruction. Her very name, “Geulah,” comes from a Hebrew word that means both “redeemer” and “avenger.” In contrast to the storys narrator, a writer whose fictional works Geulah criticizes as being polarized into black and white sides, Amos Oz suggests that the whole must be comprehended, that both Arabs and Israelis have their strong and weak points. Just in the way that stealing was not a justifiable action for the nomads, the false accusation by Geulah was definitely a step too far. Biblical allusion is pervasive in the story and underlies many ironic contrasts. In a reference to the kibbutzs trouble with the Bedouins, Etkin alludes to the conflict between Cain and Abel in the Old Testament. The venomous snake that approaches Geulah in or near the orchard—the latter a recurrent symbol—recalls the Adam and Eve story of Genesis, in reference to Geulah generally and to her encounter with the Bedouin shepherd in particular. Ironically, however, the nomads in Ozs story would be equated with the innocent Abel, a keeper of flocks, while the kibbutzniks would be equated with Cain, a worker of the soil, and the murderer of Abel. In an ironic reversal, the initial tempter in the orchard is the Bedouin shepherd, who offers Geulah a cigarette. This incident itself is a reversal of an example at the storys beginning, when a kibbutznik offers an Arab a cigarette. Further biblical symbolism is conveyed in the obscure motif of Geulahs need to smash the discarded bottle, which has overtones of Psalm 2 and its prayer to God of dashing Israels enemies to pieces like a shattered potters vessel. However, just as Geulah is cut by the bottle, this allusion suggests that the violence against a supposed foe may have rebound with disastrous consequences. Her regret in death symbolizes remorse and a longing to change the past, a predominant aspect of human nature, and one that we are helpless against. Read More