Freedom of speech. We all have it, don’t we? However imagine if that was taken away from you. This is precisely what happened to the migrants in Toronto during the early 20th centuries. The voice of the migrants are often forgotten within the pages of the past due to the lack of power and as the individual evolves through certain events, their story may be revealed to the audience, overwriting the recorded history.
Michael Ondaatje’s novel “In the Skin of A Lion” was written during the 1980s, set from the World War I through to the late 1930s the time of capitalism and depicts the toil and torment of earlier immigrant laborers who sacrificed their live to make Canada what it is today. However a common disadvantages for the migrants working there is the limitation of language.
As a migrant at that time without a voice you have no power.
The power that you may gain through freedom of speech is demonstrated through Michael Ondaatje’s skillful portrayal of characterization such as Nicolas Temelcoff.
It is through language that enables Temelcoff to see how he has been sewn into history and begin to tell his story, this can be seen through the magical illusion “but it was a spell of language that brought Nicholas here,” which further demonstrates control that language has on the migrants, and finally it is the power of language that eventually …show more content…
Ondaatje uses the characters such as the wealthy couple to emphasize the loss of power when speech is taken away from those who once had such status, seen in “he brings it to her face and chloroforms him…Patrick’s hand comes round the large face… and chloroforms the husband” symbolizing their deprivation of speech, which is ironic as their power of language was taken away by those who once was deprived of a voice
Michael Ondaatje’s novel “In the Skin of A Lion” was written during the 1980s, set from the World War I through to the late 1930s the time of capitalism and depicts the toil and torment of earlier immigrant laborers who sacrificed their live to make Canada what it is today. However a common disadvantages for the migrants working there is the limitation of language.
As a migrant at that time without a voice you have no power.
The power that you may gain through freedom of speech is demonstrated through Michael Ondaatje’s skillful portrayal of characterization such as Nicolas Temelcoff.
It is through language that enables Temelcoff to see how he has been sewn into history and begin to tell his story, this can be seen through the magical illusion “but it was a spell of language that brought Nicholas here,” which further demonstrates control that language has on the migrants, and finally it is the power of language that eventually …show more content…
Ondaatje uses the characters such as the wealthy couple to emphasize the loss of power when speech is taken away from those who once had such status, seen in “he brings it to her face and chloroforms him…Patrick’s hand comes round the large face… and chloroforms the husband” symbolizing their deprivation of speech, which is ironic as their power of language was taken away by those who once was deprived of a voice