Violence and the Constitution of the Novel

For every story, there are always multiple sides. Whether that story be as small as a feud between siblings, or the representation of an entire country, no side ever tells the clear truth, but rather the truth that will put themselves in the light. However, I feel that in analyzing both dispositions it is possible that, at the very least, a foundation for one solid truth, the real truth, will be put in place. In this case the stereotype of a violent Ireland which is portrayed throughout many novels versus a more peaceful Ireland that is misrepresented. While this reading was particularly difficult for me, I came across a few points which help re-sculpt my idea of Ireland.

To begin, my original ideology of Ireland was that people from Ireland like to eat, drink, be merry, and have an occasional scuffle outside of the Pub every now and then. I admit, this is awfully stereotypical of me, however, when "The Boondock Saints" is the only imagery of Ireland I know, please forgive me. When I began to read this reading, I did not feel so bad for my stereotyping since it appeared that a large majority feel the way I did about the Irish. Nonetheless, the more I read, the more I found that to be not so much the case.

"Certainly it is a striking fact that while traditional accounts of Irish history, historical as well as literary, constantly stress the endemic and excessive violence of the culture, the more detailed studies of agrarian disturbances tend to suggest that actual levels of violence were far lower than such representations imply," (Lloyd 141). Here Lloyd explains that through studying disturbances, Ireland may have had far less levels of violence than originally expected. To that the question rises, "How come, if there is proof of less violence, then Ireland is still portrayed as such?" On page 131 Lloyd gives us just one possible explanation to this question. He states, "The Irish novelists of the first half of the nineteenth century and their critics by and large assume that Irish conditions ought to English ones in order for the novel to thrive," (132). Therefore, it is a definite possibility that Irish writers portrayed Ireland and the Irish people the way they thought they needed to in order for their novels to succeed. I myself am a culprit of this, as in high school, I used to write what I thought my teacher's would grade well and to me this is the same concept. I could understand if this was the slant that the early nineteenth century Irish novelists took.

One thing I've learned about and will never forget is Heroification. Heroification is the act of leaving out details to make someone or something look better than it really is. This lead me to think that if textbooks and the media can take out bad things to make something look better, than perhaps bad things can be added or good things not talked about to make something seem worse. After a short amount of research, vilification is the very act of assassinating one's character. Lloyd gives an example of vilification on page 141 as he mentions, "in his important essay 'An End to Moral Economy', Tom Bartlett calculates that the virtually continual disturbances from 1760 to 1790 involved only fifty deaths, considerably fewer even than the 300 that resulted from the Gordon Riots of 1780. Other historians bear out this finding." Here both vilification and heroification are present in the same few sentences. Since the 300 deaths were a result of "state-sanctioned violence," (142) through the military of the Kingdom of Great Britain to prevent an uprising in the Catholic church, it is seen as orderly rather than violent. Thus, heroification is used to slant six times as many deaths as orderly, and vilification is used to make Ireland appear violent for deaths by public hand.

From all this, I feel that Ireland is no more violent than any other country, but rather is portrayed as such either from unhappy novelists, or unfair judgment cast down by governments who take care of the violence rather than the people.