So, as it turns out, Gould may have taken up painting fish despite this occupation being against his wishes. On page 127, we begin to see that he feels that painting fish has completely taken over his life. Not only does Gould not desire to always be an artist of fish, but he is convinced that he is nowhere near adequately equipped to take on such a task (128). This beleif gives us insight into the fact that Gould is quite lacking in self-esteem and confidence. As the narrative progresses, he makes it known that he would much rather be the witness to the wonders of nature than be confined to representing their images through art (132).
What does all this tell us? I think the insight Flanagan gives into Gould's feelings about being a painter can be connected back to Sid Hammet. In the opening pages of the book (pages 4 and 5, in particular), Sid speaks of his occupation much in the same disdainful way. He seems to only engage in forging antiques in order to obtain money, much in the same way that Gould paints only to keep from being tortured while in jail. This parallel caused me to speculate that Hammet might be taking liberties with the Book of Fish. I think that his re-scripting of Gould's lost book might be biased towards his own experiences and a method of "venting" rather than an accurate reproduction. Taking into the account that Sid is also a con-man by trade, I don't think we should rule this possibility out.
No comments:
Post a Comment