In class we touched on the development of the conflicts facing Ned; in some senses conflicts at the beginning of the novel were possibly more trivial (i.e. Ned's fight at school) but perhaps more significantly the shift in conflict has also transitioned from good vs. bad to more (as we suggested in class) "adult" conflicts of bad vs. a little less bad or good vs. a little more good.
In one form of adult conflict Ned is torn between upholding his loyalties to his gang, Mary and his daughter, his mother, and his own moral code. Physically speaking it is impossible for Ned to assist all of these outlets of people, and this physical conflict, as one can imagine, creates at least some level of internal conflict, though it may be under the surface of the text. On one hand Ned's sense of honor (or arrogance) drives his unrealistic desire to help everyone. However, he seems to disregard the fact that each group or person he wants to assist needs much more than just his help; his mother, Mary, and the boys are all looking to him to be a continual source of stability and support, not just a a temporary helping hand. Perhaps Ned doesn't seem to recognize that his attempts to keep a foot in every door so that he can come to everyone's rescue may create a situation in which he cannot in the end help anyone, including himself.
These ideas seem almost paradoxical: honor and loyalty are functioning as the basis for conflict. I think this irony sort of presents an interesting thought and parallels one of the central themes of the book, a theme which is in some ways counter to a lot of adventure stories. Again and again the book seems to emphasize the grey area between right and wrong, not only in the debate of hero vs. criminal but also in these internal conflicts Ned faces: "Who deserves my loyalty most?" and "How will I uphold my moral duty?" I think this is a really interesting concept since we often think of adventure stories, cowboy and Indian tales, as having a good guy and a bad guy (the Disney structure). I think it's really notable that a novel heavy with action and adventure (which generally provides for heavy external conflict) is able to very poetically unmask characters' internal conflicts and perhaps even more significantly emphasize that the line between right and wrong may not always be as marked as many traditional adventure stories much suggest.
Abby,
ReplyDeleteI think you did a really great job of taking this concept of grey areas and relating it to the big picture of how it lends to the curious nature of the story itself (especially in comparison to other novels of this genre). I don't know if it's paradoxical that honor and loyalty drive conflict; it seems almost inevitable that desires for honor and to uphold loyalty would stir conflict (as they are often the basis of conflict in adventure stories). However, what makes this story unique is that this conflict falls within the realm of the “good side,” instead of clearly directed toward an external enemy.
To add to your post, I think the reason that Carey decided to present the novel with these grey areas was not only to provoke discussion but to perhaps help the reader to see the infamous Ned Kelly in a different light. In many ways, the reader can identify with Ned, as his internal conflicts make him seem more human. Unlike the typical superhero, Ned, like us, simply can’t do it all. However, because he does try his best to stretch himself to honor all of his loyalties, I think Ned can be argued to be a “pragmatic hero.” Reminiscent of Huckleberry Finn, Ned Kelly is the ruffian that is at times hard to love, but somehow wins you over in the end. I think it was Mark who said in class discussion one day, “I don’t know, I just like him.” I think this may be how a lot of us feel. At times it may be hard to articulate exactly why we like Ned’s character, keeping in mind all of the crimes he has committed. I think it all comes back to Carey’s (in my opinion, effective) use of internal conflict to humanize Ned Kelly.