Fielding and Flory

I’m 9 chapters into Burmese Days(oops?) and I couldn’t help noticing how this novel evokes (Levine, Fanon and Chatterjee naturally but, particularly) Forster’s novel. Discussion about imperialism/colonialism undeniably entails looking at the dialogue between the white man and the native and the juxtaposition of these groups can be found in both these novels. But I found the dialogue and generally, relationships in BD to be more complex than they were in PI. I say so largely because I drew parallels between Aziz & Fielding and, Veraswami & Flory. In retrospect, A & F’s relationship seems so…cliché. White man inherently good, will withstand whole community for his principles, native collapses under white prejudice, native now got ‘once bitten, twice shy’ syndrome so relationship with white man affected. The native still comes out looking like the weak link in the relationship, as the one who couldn’t understand the white man’s generosity.

That’s what I found refreshing about Orwell’s novel and Flory. Flory is anti- imperialist, his best friend is a native and he doesn’t like the fools at the Club. But he is restricted by his own inaction, by his utter refusal to take any sides/responsibility or to voice his genuine opinion. He is his own enemy in a sense. And with Fielding, a reader can almost predict that Fielding is going to vouch for Aziz but at this point, considering the conversation between Flory and Veraswami in chap 3 and Flory’s honest explanation that he wants to avoid “rows”, I can’t predict what he is going to do. Forster seems to still make use of the traditional white hero figure to represent the so-called unconventional Anglo-Indian Fielding while Forster complicates that figure by depicting inner struggle and showing what it really means to be that unconventional.

(295 words)