I've written too much!

I really enjoyed this book. Grenville's writing is simple but very evocative and the place that she created stayed with me vividly. I think this story was interesting and challenging because she chose not to write from the point of view of the original inhabitants but from that of the settlers. It would have been easy and perhaps, dull, to write of the horrors of colonialism from the point of view of the Indigenous people (who in dominant Left discourse, are the 'oppressed' in Australian history). But instead she explored the notion of 'oppressed' in multiple sites- the 'natives' oppressed by the colonialists but also the convicts oppressed by the British class system and then the ex-convicts subjugation of the newly arrived convicts. Thornhill realised very early on, in his quest to establish a home in this foreign country, that in in order to have money, power and status, someone has to be below you. And the 'natives' did not count. So we see him embark upon a master and servant relationship with his two lads with little empathy for their loss of freedom.

Thornhill was no doubt a product of his time- the dominant view being that Aboriginal people belonged to the animal kingdom. And even though we get glimpses that he observes things which may in fact challenge this common view (ie their survival skills in the Australian context are far superior), he doesn't allow himself to explore these ideas fully as it would then force him to admit that perhaps his greatest dreams of carving out a home are actually illegitimate. This made me wonder what dominant view we all currently buy into because it is convenient and suits our purposes, but that history will not look kindly on us for. Or even some popular 'truth' that we believe because everyone else does but that future generations will see it as proof of our backwardness. This isn't meant to excuse Thornhill and the rest, but the power of a dominant discourse, such as Aboriginal people= flora and fauna , is something that is hard to fully fathom 200 years later. It's like at the moment we are fully of the belief that apes are not human beings and do not deserve rights at the expense of humans- but what if this was found to be untrue at a later date? Does that mean that everyone who complicitly supported animal testing is in fact a murderer and/or a violator of human rights? If the powers that be, are assuring us that apes aren't humans then doesn't that remove some of our culpability? Complex and controversial questions I know....

Later in the story, Thornhill continues to turn a blind eye to a growing level of atrocities as he has nothing to gain and quite alot to lose by making a stand. Eerily, there was alot in Thornhill that I could relate to- his desire to better himself and his family's station in life. And maybe that is the quiet horror in this story, the fact that very ordinary people with very ordinary desires will be part of evil if they stand to benefit. Grenville painted a very human picture of Thornhill- unremarkable in many ways yet as Paul said, sympathetic. Ultimately, Thornhill was a 'success', he got his land and his wealth and in the background remained the dispossessed Aboriginal people. And I suppose this is Australia's history, that we all have so much only because it has come at others' expense.