What factors can determine a person’s safety and security? In John Wyndham’s The Chrysalids, a common theme of the novel appears to be the amount of knowledge one has and the resulting danger it can have on their life and the lives of others. This statement is indisputable, firstly because David’s upbringing raised him to follow Nicholson’s Repentances thoughtlessly and have no concern for the land beyond Waknuk, which stopped him from acting upon any second thoughts and potentially putting himself in danger. The lack of the Inspector’s knowledge is shown as he grants the thought-shapers their normalcy certificates without investigating them beyond their physical appearance. Had the Inspector possessed the knowledge that it is possible for …show more content…
people to be deviated in a way that is not physical, he would have been even more dangerous by likely banishing all the thought-shapers to the mysterious Fringes and putting all of the group at risk. Sally and Katherine demonstrate this statement once again when they request that the group refrain from communicating with them through thought-shapes in order to maximize their chances of convincing the Inspector that they are innocent. With these points in mind, the answer is obvious: a person’s safety is influenced by the amount of knowledge they, and the people around them, hold. As far as the children of Waknuk are concerned, nothing lies beyond the security of the community aside from the mysterious Fringes, which are to be avoided at all costs. David’s understanding of the society is that he should not be concerned with his dreams of another land, and he and the other children are raised with Nicholson’s Repentances being preached to them daily. This restricts the degree of the children’s curiosity, and causes them to continue following the Repentances thoughtlessly and be kept within the “safe” borders of the Waknuk community. David confirms this fact about his upbringing, describing “...the affirmation which I had heard almost every Sunday of my life. ‘And God created man in His own image’” (Wyndham 10). Until meeting Sophie, David has no reason to believe anything more than the rules that are preached; he has no reason to question anything beyond what is laid out for him. This demonstrates how David’s lack of knowledge prohibits him from even considering a land beyond Waknuk; until he is faced with the knowledge that deviants are not as bad as he was raised to believe, he feels no reason to act upon second thoughts and stray from any order that comes from his father or the Inspector. This presumably keeps him out of the dangerous lands of The Fringes. David’s lack of education about the lands beyond Waknuk prove that one’s knowledge, or lack thereof, can drastically place them in the line of danger. The Inspector spends his life examining the children of Waknuk, such as David and Sophie. Seemingly, the Inspector lives in the city of his dreams; the population consists of citizens who live by The Norm, and those who may not do so are eradicated almost immediately. However, as we are able to see time and time again through the novel, the Inspector’s knowledge regarding the different forms of deviants in Waknuk is very evidently lacking. Until it is revealed to the rest of the community that it is possible for people to be deviated in a way that is not visible, the Inspector is not aware of it either. His lack of knowledge is put into perspective when he “[takes] a form from his pouch, and in a slow, deliberate hand [writes] that he officially [finds] [Petra Strorm] to be a true female human being, free from any form of detectable deviation” (Wyndham 68). Despite the fact that Petra is indeed a deviated child, the Inspector allows her a certificate of normalcy and does not further investigate the matter. Had the Inspector been aware of the possibility that Petra could be a child who strayed from the Norm, he would have taken greater measures to detect it and the process of inspection altogether would obviously be made more intense. Not only would this put Petra in danger, but the safety of present and future would be at stake; by having a more extreme process of investigation, the children would be maltreated, thought-shaper or not. The Inspector’s lack of knowledge, and consequently his lack of action only makes it more clear that one’s knowledge can directly affect their actions. Later in the story, the Inspector would take part in the gruelling interrogation of Sally and Katherine. The two are apprehended for inspection, and the group as a collective decides that the girls should act as though they are innocent and clueless as to why they have been taken in. Sally demonstrates the severity of their situation when she suggests that she and Katherine “ought to shut our minds to you. It will make it easier for us to act as normals if we really don’t know what’s happening” (Wyndham 124). By wholeheartedly agreeing to this proposition, the group shows that they also believe it will benefit Sally and Katherine to refrain from communicating with them through thought-shapes. Evidently, having the knowledge of the things happening back with the group would maximize the chance that the Inspector would be suspicious: if either one of the girls were to appear too concentrated or zoned out, the Inspector would question them as a result of his suspicion. Not only would this put Sally and Katherine in danger, but the rest of the thought-shapers as well: the Inspector proved later on that he was not afraid to resort to torture in order to get the identities of the others from them. The grave situation of Sally and Katherine is only one of many illustrations of the fact that one’s knowledge can put them, and others, in the line of danger. Sally and Katherine are one demonstration of the effect that one’s knowledge can have on their life.
This is evident throughout the novel, beginning with David’s upbringing in Waknuk, which urged him to push aside any thoughts or curiosities of a land beyond Waknuk; thoughts in which would put him in the line of danger. Many people are granted safety as a result of the Inspector’s lack of knowledge of those whose minds are deviated, the thought-shapers being one example of people who have been spared from punishment. When Sally and Katherine are initially captured, they demonstrate the statement once more by requesting for the group to refrain from communicating with them in order to not have the knowledge of the happenings back at Waknuk to put them in less risk. These examples adequately prove that the amount of knowledge one obtains can be the determining factor of whether they are safe or in danger. When looking at this statement beyond the context of the novel, there are many ways it can be connected to different aspects of the real world. For one, I am able to connect it back to my own life by relating it to the occasion when I learned about sleepwalking at a young age. This sparked a fear in me, and as a younger child I felt more afraid to fall asleep. By having the knowledge of sleepwalking, I put myself at even more risk by refusing to sleep in order to avoid it. As for a text-to-text connection, this thesis reminded me of a book entitled Throne of Glass by Sarah J. Maas. The protagonist supports the statement by saying “sometimes, the wicked will tell us things just to confuse us – to haunt our thoughts long after we've faced them” (Maas 96). In context, this line is referring to the dark force in the novel that imprints the protagonist's mind with evil thoughts. By doing so, they put the main characters in a much more compliant position, should the force make an effort to persuade them. Finally, I can connect this to the world using various issues among
society. For example, if a person were to confide in a close friend with the expectation that the information would stay between the two of them, the person would have to be sure to maintain the secret and would be in danger potentially losing a friend if they did not do so. Especially if the secret were to concern someone else; what would be the right thing for the person to do? Should they keep their promise to the person or tell the person who was involved? As can be authenticated through the numerous examples above, one’s state of safety or danger and be determined by the knowledge they hold. It is these connections that truly prove that perhaps we should keep our own knowledge to ourselves. Perhaps one is better off not knowing.
Despair is evident throughout the book, more so from Waknuk citizens oppressing those who are different. “Katherine, a girl from a neighboring farm who could produce thought shapes similar to David’s was found out and taken to the inspector, where, she was ”broken”. Sally, who was also taken with Katherine to the inspector, said to the rest of the thought shapers, “They’ve broken Katherine…Oh Katherine darling… [t]hey’re torturing her…She’s all clouded now. She can’t hear us.” Her thoughts dissolved into shapeless distress.” (Wyndham 130). Clearly Katherine had been severely hurt enough to reveal her ability of producing thought shapes which would put all the thought shapers in danger and tortured enough that Sally sends distress showing how hopeless they indeed are. Furthermore when David found out his father was apart of the party coming to battle the Fringe people he is in sheer distress. He states, “ ‘Purity…’I said. ‘The will of the Lord. Honor thy father…Am I supposed to forgive him! Or try to kill him?’” (182). David is conflicted and rather flustered between his respect and love for his father yet as a deviant they are fighting for different sides and he knows either he or his father will die in the end. Additionally, during the battle itself, one of David’s most loyal friends parishes before his eyes. D...
“The Chrysalids” by John Wyndham is an entertaining yet plausible story. It compels the reader to think about human nature and our attitude to the world around us that we often take for granted.
The lines are, “Assent- and you are sane- Demur- you’re straightway dangerous.” This means that if you go along with what majority of people say, you are looked at as sane but, if you raise doubts, you are the by far the most dangerous person. There are two great examples that are shown in the story. The first one would be when Les Goodman’s, a neighbor and friend for a long time, car suddenly starts up when he isn’t even near it. This raised suspicion and, all of sudden nobody trusted him. The second example was when Steve refused to treat Les poorly because of what happened. He thought it was ridiculous to do so and, that made everyone think he was secretly bad as
it is seen that knowledge can hurt. It is also shown that sometimes one can know
“Knowledge is power. Power to do evil...or power to do good. Power itself is not evil. So knowledge itself is not evil.” - Veronica Roth, Allegiant
These two societies are ignorant because they do not know a lot about the world. The Sealand society was unaware of how huge the world really was when they came for David, Rosalind and Petra. They think that the “true image” should be able to send thought-shapes. The Waknuk society was unaware of what the world really looked like. They were afraid of what was beyond the Badlands, so therefore they did not know much about the rest of the world. The people of Waknuk did not know that the people of the Fringes believed in God. An example of this is when David is talking to a Fringes man, “God’s little game of patience I reckon it is, but He certainly takes His time over it.’ ‘God?’ I said doubtfully. ‘They’ve always taught us that it’s the Devil that rules in the Fringes.’” pg. 153. Although the Sealand society and Waknuk society seem similar, they are also different.
Now, we can’t do that - but you and Rosalind can. Just think that over Davie. You two may be nearer to the image than we are” (64). David has always been doubtful about his thought-shaping powers because of the Waknuk community’s stance on mutants and deviations. When someone like Uncle Axel says that he believes David is closer to the image than norms are, David feels more confident in himself and his place in Waknuk’s twisted society. Uncle Axel is a fatherly figure and role model to David, so David confides in Uncle Axel and trusts his instincts and his knowledge. Therefore, David is getting closer to accepting himself as a unique individual, with the help of Uncle Axel’s suggestions. In addition, Uncle Axel clarifies what makes a man, man. David thought it was their soul but Uncle Axel states: “Well, then, what makes a man a man is something inside him… No, what makes man man is mind. It’s not a thing, it’s a quality, and minds aren’t all the same value; they’re better or worse” (79,80). Uncle Axel is a firm believer that the Definition of Man is nonsense and now he expresses his beliefs to David. David is conflicted between Waknuk’s
Many fatal consequences, caused by illogical reactions to problematic situations, can be avoided through a few easy, simple and “common sense” steps. In the essay “Deadly Mind Traps” author Jeff Wise writes to the everyday man and woman. Mr. Wise in his essay explains how the average person can make deadly mistakes even though logically they make little sense. Wise, offers multiple key terms to help the reader better understand his reasoning for his thesis. As well as, Wise produces multiple examples for the reader to connect the key terms to real life situations. Moreover, Wise not only gives key terms and examples to support his thesis he also gives examples of how to stay out of those situations. Wise from his essay demonstrates that his reader is an everyday person by using words such as we, us, you and our. And he uses everyday simplified words and terms which suggest inclusion instead of exclusion.
Mary Shelley brings about both the positive and negative aspects of knowledge through her characters in Frankenstein. The use of knowledge usually has many benefits, but here Shelley illustrates how seeking knowledge beyond its limits takes away from the natural pleasures of known knowledge. She suggests that knowledge without mortality and uncontrolled passions will lead to destruction. Victor and his monster experience this destruction following their desires and losing self control. Walton, on the other hand, becomes of aware of the consequences and is able to turn back before it’s too late. Shelley also suggests that without enjoying the natural pleasures of life, pursuing knowledge is limited, but how can knowledge be limited if it is infinite?
One should learn from the situations present in the novel because life comes with an enormous amount of knowledge; going after the unknown is an act of rebellion against God. Works Cited knowledge of the aforesaid. " Merriam-Webster.com -. Merriam-Webster, n.d. -. Web.
The pursuit of knowledge can lead to a humans destruction and awareness. The pursuit of
Change, the essential of life, it can be tranquility or turbulence, change has no set goal, it occurs all around us without us knowing. In the novel, The Chrysalids, by John Wyndham, change is the major problem in the society even though it is hidden in different aspects of life. To the society, change is their enemy, but it is themselves who are their enemies without knowing it. A society that fails to realize the inevitability of change will indubitably agonize.
The theme of ignorance is vital for this story. It is woven throughout and evident in all the characters. It is first displayed through the protagonist, John Harker. It is his innate lack of knowing that puts him in a deadly situation: “Do you know that to-night, when the clock strikes midnight, all the evil in the world will have full sway? Do you know where you are going, and what you are doing?'; (5) This was the protagonist, Jonathan Harker’s second encounter with strangers, in a strange land, in which he was confronted in this manner. He had three such encounters, all of which he nonchalantly dismissed. During his first encounter, the people simply refused to answer any of his questions. In his third encounter, strangers made the sign of a cross and pointed at him. During all of this, Jonathan had no clue why these people were acting in this strange way, nor did he have a notion to question why. Even though he is oblivious to the reasons for their behavior, he blindly continues on the path the strangers warned him not to go on. Another depiction of this ignorance is shown through Dr. Seward and Dr. Van Helsing as they work on a patient, Lucy Westerna. After the doctors diagnosed Lucy as being “somewhat'; bloodless and the pricks on neck were discovered, they immediately dismissed the idea of the pricks being the cause of this loss of blood. “It at once occurred to me that this wound, or whatever it was might be the means for this manifest loss of blood; but I abandoned the idea as soon as formed, for such a thing could not be.'; (131) These doctors had knowledge, but their own ignorance interfered even though all the signs of what was going on were clear.
The free dictionary online defines knowledge as “an awareness, consciousness, or familiarity gained by experience or learning”. Power, on the other hand, means “the ability or official capacity of a person, group or nation to exercise great influence or control and authority over others”. In Voltaire’s “Candide”, Goethe’s “Faust”, and Shelley’s Frankenstein, the quest for more knowledge and power sets the stage for the story yet the characters, Candide, Frankenstein, and Faust remain unhappy after acquiring the much desired knowledge and power. It can be said, therefore, that knowledge, and even money, often times twists and corrupts the mind because of the control (power) it gives people over others.
Complete free exercise of will inhibits individual and societal freedom. According to Mill, one may act as one chooses unless one is inflicting harm onto others. He argues that one is free to behave “according to his own inclination and judgment in things which concern himself” as long as “he refrains from molesting” (64). The problem arises in the freedom allowed to the individual performing the potentially dangerous act. People are often blinded by the situation in which they are in and by their personal motives which drive them to act. Humans, by nature, have faults and vices that are potentially harmful. It is the responsibility of society to anticipate harm, whether to oneself or to others. Once dangerous patterns and habits are recognized it is imperative to anticipate and prevent injury from reoccurring. To allow any individual to be inflicted harm forces citizens to lose tr...