Although I have found many Graham Greene characters to be interesting, I can easily say that Fowler (from The Quiet American) stuck with me the most. He is an incredibly dynamic character, and the development throughout the novel is astounding. However, I believe that he best exemplifies someone who changes for the better.
At the beginning of the novel, Fowler characterizes himself as utterly devoid of emotion; completely removed from every situation. Granted, there are periods in which he does appear to deviate from his norm, but he fits his own mold fairly well. One of the best examples is his description of Phuong to Pyle. He describes her as childish and even primal: she will “love” any person who can provide for her best. It is a blatantly unfair and callous portrayal of the woman he loves.
Yet as the novel progresses, and he is exposed to his literary foil, Pyle, we can see a clear change. In fact, by the end, he is a completely different man. First, this is apparent in his outlook on life. Pyle mentions how he admires Fowler’s “not being involved” (Greene 171). Old Fowler would have expressed appreciation for the comment. But our new, evolved Fowler says instead: “There is always a point of change... some moment of emotion” (171). He has recognized that it is impossible to maintain the facade, and in the proceeding lines, he identifies that it is morally important to do so. Pyle keep pressing, saying that Fowler hasn’t changed, and still won’t. Fowler’s response about being able to change: “Not even with this morning? Mightn’t that change a man’s views?” He clearly implies that a horrific event can change a man’s “view,” but implicit in this argument is that it should change the man’s views. After all, his actions indicate so (his killing of Pyle).
Even after he initially made the plans, Fowler is hesitant about going through with killing Pyle. However, Pyle makes the critical mistake of identifying the deaths as “only war casualties,” saying that the people “died for democracy” (171). Fowler identifies that this man is not only disillusioned, he is dangerous to society. He makes the conscious decision of reversing his position, and going through with killing Pyle to save further lives. He gives up his viewpoint that is important to him for this (remaining uninvolved), recognizing the importance of sometimes remaining partial.
This is the precise reason why Fowler has become my favorite Graham Greene character. He is simply interesting - I have never seen character development this drastic, yet this realistic, in any other novel. But through Fowler, Greene has given a great example of selflessness and of the benefits of refining oneself. Fowler is an excellent, dynamic character in an excellent, dynamic novel. Both he and The Quiet American as a whole have made this class more than worthwhile.
2 comments:
Like Tom, my favorite Graham Greene character is Fowler. Greene manages to tie into the novel, which already serves as a (prophetic) political commentary on the Vietnam War and a warning against the dangers of cynicism and idealism, the general path of maturation for many people. As Tom noted, Fowler points to a "point of change...some moment of emotion" as the catalyst behind a change of views. The bombing in the square, coupled with Fowler's gradually increasing levels of engagement, lead to an evolved Fowler. I think that Greene used the Fowler character as a representation of what many people go through: slow, small changes in attitude that alter actions, followed by some sort of traumatizing event.
Fowler really embodies the theme that we have discussed most in this class: he certainly represents a huge contradiction. His whole character embodies the choice of joining into a conflict or simply sitting on the sidelines. Fowler's mantra through the book is just that he cannot get engaged; he even mentions that Pyle is a fool for getting too engaged. However, at first in his internal monologue, and then through his actions, we see Fowler throwing his own advice to the wind. Admittedly, Fowler tries to live by his ideals for his long as possible, but as was said in the novel, taking sides makes us human. One cannot see the kind of death and devastation that Fowler saw and simply say, "Well, it's not my problem." Fowler's sudden urge to become engagé is only a manifestation of his humanity and his compassion which, ironically, puts him a similar level as Pyle, if from the opposite viewpoint. Fowler tries to avoid the conflict, but when he sees something that is truly unforgivable, he throws himself into the problem in order to resolve the atrocity.
Post a Comment