The excerpt we read from Captain John Smith's work discusses his encounter with the Powhatans.
1) Why do you think John Smith writes his narrative in third person? How does this point of view affect the representation of events or the perspective of the reader?
2) On page 29 Smith writes, "As for the danger of our enemies...for your riches we have no use...for we have a rule to finde beyond your knowledge." Why doesn't Smith just rage war against the Powhatans instead of discoursing back and forth?
3) Who are Powhatan's Dutch-men?
Diego Rivera, Pan-American Unity
Diego Rivera, Pan-American Unity
1) The third-person perspective gives Smith a "holier than thou" persona. By distancing himself from his own account, he becomes an omniscient, untouchable (and almost godlike) narrator. Like God, he knows and sees all events, present and future. The natives, whom he constantly refers to as "Salvages" and "naked Divels," automatically fall beneath him. Additionally, the narrative almost reads like a heroic tale of feat and valor. Though in the beginning Smith is held captive, there is no sense of fear or trepidation from him. The third-person narrative, in this sense, takes away from the personal account and transforms it into something that seems "fictional." Smith becomes his own character, an invention. I found myself questioning some of the things Smith mentions, and I wondered to what extent he could be trusted.
ReplyDelete2) This seems to me like a battle of wits (a war of words?) as each side sizes up the other. Smith initially presents himself as a reasonable negotiator: he mentions that he loves Powhatan "like a father" and views him as a friend. On the contrary, it is Powhatan who plans to attack, and would have had Smith's head if it weren't for Pocahontas' warning. There is a sense that each side is simply biding its time before waging war, which adds tension to the narrative: "Smith seeing this Salvage but trifle the time to cut his throat... and gave order for more men to come on shore, to surprise the King" (p. 29).
ReplyDelete3) I thought that the Dutch-men (a name for the Germans?) were settlers who had taken Powhatan's side or were employed by him. They, being European, probably advised Powhatan on how best to deal with Smith and ostensibly foiled Smith's plans to kill Powhatan.
(I thought this was an interesting site: http://www.germanheritage.com/Publications/Jamestown/accusations.html)
1) In the introduction, John Smith states that the difference between his work and other historical works is that he does not base his writing on "hearsay," but by "being an actor." This leads me to believe that John Smith referred to himself in the third person because he wanted to dramatize his story. By being an "actor," he makes his story into a play where we can read about his heroic acts.
ReplyDelete3) Further research on Powhatan’s Dutch-men provides some interesting information. The source is a book titled Jamestown Colony: A Political, Social and Cultural History by Frank E. Grizzard and D. Boyd Smith (page 83). It reveals the following:
ReplyDeleteThe Dutch-men, on December 29, 1608 went to Werowocomoco, an Indian village on the York River about fifteen miles from Jamestown. Their purpose was to build a house for Chief Powhatan. While they lived with Powhatan they planned to steal arms and powder from the settlers. Along with others, they planned to “lie in Ambuscadoe” for Captain John Smith. Obviously, their plan failed. Over the winter of 1609-1610, Powhatan decided to no longer trust these Dutch-men and “caused his men to beat out their braines.” This information clearly labels the Dutch-men as traitors and spells out their fate.
2) Smith choses not to wage war because it would be too expensive for him. He is on a new land with hardly any provisions and in that wage really at the mercy of the natives. If he were to wage war on them, he would not have the upper hand.
ReplyDeleteAs discussed, I believe Smith writes in 3rd person to establish his credibility as an honest author. By writing in first person one assumes the risk of turning every word into a personal opinion, while 3rd person suggests an exact account of the events that took place, seemingly factually.
ReplyDeleteHowever, like we all said, this seems to have the opposite effect on a reader. By altering the perspective of the story, Smith makes me skeptical as to what else he may have altered in his writing.
To go a little further, Armando mentioned that Smith introduces his writing by saying he is trustworthy because he doesn't base his work on "hearsay". To me, this is further reason to doubt Smith's neutrality in his writing; it seems like a disclaimer. Kind of like when someone says "no offense" before saying something offensive.