When Zadie Smith says “There’s no quicker way to insult an expat Scotsman in London than to tell him he’s lost his accent. We feel that our voices are who we are, and that to have more than one, or to use different versions of a voice for different occasions, represents, at best, a Janus-faced duplicity, and at worst, the loss of our very souls,” (180) she never branches out to speak of a different culture. Does she suggest that this applies to strictly European values, or does it apply to all cultures?
“In Dream City, everything is doubled, everything is various. You have no choice but to cross borders and speak in tongues” (184). When Smith refers to “Dream City,” why is it given that name? Can this kind of city only occur within black and white families?
I agree with Smith when she states that “the idea that one should speak one’s cultural allegiance first and the truth second (and that this is a sign of authenticity) is precisely such a deformation” (186). However, why does Smith seem to suggest that the truth and one’s cultural allegiance should oppose each other?
“For reasons that are obscure to me, those qualities we cherish in our artists, we condemn in our politicians” (189). I question why Smith thinks it’s obscure to desire different characteristics in people who do jobs that require such characteristics.
“But to live vicariously cannot simply be a gift, endowed by an accident of birth; it has to be a continual effort, continually renewed” (193). Does Smith mean here that one cannot simply project a different voice or understanding, and then move on? Is the only way for projection of a different voice to be affective is if it is consistent?
“He seems just the man to demonstrate that between those two voices, there exists no contradiction and no equivocation but rather a proper and decent human harmony” (194). Does Smith try to contradict some of her previous accusations saying that there is no way to rest peacefully in between one’s culture and the truth here?
No comments:
Post a Comment