Nguyen thi Minh Ngoc’s “The Madagascar Plum” is about an officer in the Sai Gon army. Shortly into the story, the reader realizes that the narrator, the officer of the unit, is unreliable for three distinct reasons, his paranoia, his PTSD and his dependence on alcohol.
The story starts with the officer refusing to eat or look at a Madagascar plum, “It’s just that the plum’s brownish hue is so similar to the tones in the complexion of that impudent child”. This shows the officer’s PTSD because of his memories of the child being blown apart by the explosives in which he tied on her. Another example of the officer’s PTSD is that he beat his eldest son, “almost to death when he crushed a Madagascar plum between his thumb and first finger.” This shows that the narrator simply cannot escape his memories of what he did in the war, and it interferes with his life and family.
When the cook, Mr. Bay, finds the child, the officer is extremely suspicious that she is an enemy, even though she is a small child. The officer shows his paranoia when stating “You’re so careless… For all I know, she’s a Viet Cong in camouflage,” to Mr. Bay. When the officer gets word that the child is sneaking off in the middle of the night with a small portion of the unit’s food and beverages and not coming back until the morning, he becomes paranoid once again. At first, he found it amusing, but her continual disappearances made the officer anxious and he declared that, “I couldn’t allow this tiny child to play a continual trick on us.” The officer became so consumed with the war, that he actually convinced himself that a small child would be an enemy who was trying to kill them all. This is when I, as a reader, started to interpret the story differently than the narrator’s point of view. I knew that the child was not trying to cause harm to the officer’s unit, and therefore I no longer took what the narrator said seriously, and as a fact.
The officer’s alcohol dependence is what brings him to his downfall at the end of the story. He calls the night in which changed his life, “The night that if I hadn’t been under the devilish influence of alcohol wouldn’t have turned out the way it did.” The officer further explains that night, which he became convinced that the small child had killed two men in his unit, Phong and Nam. She remained silent, just as she had been throughout the story. The officer explains, “I tightened the knots, muttering: Speak up Kid. If you don’t, I promise you’ll die and not in one piece.” He eventually lights the explosives and kills the young child because he is so intoxicated. His alcoholism is also depicted by his statement, “My wife nags me that I’m an alcoholic…how can they not understand their husbands’ moral suffering?” He defends his alcohol substance abuse with, “…if I don’t have liquor, how can I bear the ache in my stump leg…” because he had mutilated himself due to his guilt of killing the child who was only giving the food supplies to a nearby village in which the people were starving to death. The officer’s experiences in the war forced him to try to mentally escape through dependence on alcohol. The narrator harms himself and others due to the alcohol he consumes, and this is all caused by the war.
Nguyen thi Minh Ngoc’s “The Madagascar Plum” is about an officer in the Sai Gon army. Shortly into the story, the reader realizes that the narrator, the officer of the unit, is unreliable for two distinct reasons, his PTSD and his dependence on alcohol.
ReplyDeleteThe story starts with the officer refusing to eat or look at a Madagascar plum, “It’s just that the plum’s brownish hue is so similar to the tones in the complexion of that impudent child”. The plum is also a symbol of the war itself- tart and bitter. This shows the officer’s PTSD because of his memories of the child being blown apart by the explosives in which he tied on her. Another example of the officer’s PTSD is that he beat his eldest son, “almost to death when he crushed a Madagascar plum between his thumb and first finger” (9). This shows that the narrator simply cannot escape his memories of what he did in the war, and it interferes with his life and family.
When the cook, Mr. Bay, finds the child, the officer is extremely suspicious that she is an enemy, even though she is a small child. The officer shows his paranoia due to his developing PTSD when stating “You’re so careless… For all I know, she’s a Viet Cong in camouflage,” (3) to Mr. Bay. When the officer gets word that the child is sneaking off in the middle of the night with a small portion of the unit’s food and beverages and not coming back until the morning, he becomes paranoid once again. At first, he found it amusing, but her continual disappearances made the officer anxious and he declared that, “I couldn’t allow this tiny child to play a continual trick on us” (5). The officer became so consumed with the war, that he actually convinced himself that a small child would be an enemy who was trying to kill them all. This is when I, as a reader, started to interpret the story differently than the narrator’s point of view. I knew that the child was not trying to cause harm to the officer’s unit, and therefore I no longer took what the narrator said seriously, and as a fact.
The officer’s alcohol dependence is what brings him to his downfall at the end of the story. He calls the night in which changed his life, “The night that if I hadn’t been under the devilish influence of alcohol wouldn’t have turned out the way it did.” The officer further explains that night, which he was convinced that the small child had killed two men in his unit, Phong and Nam. She remained silent, just as she had been throughout the story; at the end of the story, it is revealed that the child is mute, and represents that all Vietnamese people cannot speak for themselves. The officer explains, “I tightened the knots, muttering: Speak up Kid. If you don’t, I promise you’ll die and not in one piece” (6). The narrator eventually lights the explosives and kills the young child because he is so intoxicated. His alcoholism is also depicted by his statement, “My wife nags me that I’m an alcoholic…how can they not understand their husbands’ moral suffering?” (8). He defends his alcohol substance abuse with, “…if I don’t have liquor, how can I bear the ache in my stump leg…” (8) because he had mutilated himself due to his guilt of killing the child who was only giving the food supplies to a nearby village in which the people were starving to death. The officer’s experiences in the war forced him to try to mentally escape through dependence on alcohol. The narrator harms himself and others due to the alcohol he consumes, and this is all caused by the war.
Because of the unreliability of the narrator, it leaves the reader to wonder if the story is even true, or if he just needs this story for personal reasons. If the story isn’t true, he must need it for an excuse for his alcoholism or his loneliness.