In the Skin of a Lion: analysis of themes
This writeup will be a little unconventional, since I felt the conversational style was better suited to tossing themes and evidence back and forwards than a simple essay. As a disclaimer, I should note that the fluidity of the conversation is not actually important. I only wanted to make reference to a few significant aspects of the text. Imagine the speakers as accountants, if you like - now, although they fall far short of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, I hope the underlying message will find a warm place in your hearts to lay its eggs in, which I think it ought to if you've read and analysed the text. Let's begin.
"So, what's the verdict?"
"Of the novel? Well, generally speaking I would say that it is a Marxist text, although I'm not sure how successfully it achieves this. I mean, we witness Patrick's transition from a timid, introverted, faceless worker to the self-proclaimed voice of the people. Perhaps it's the abrupt nature of his metamorphosis that I have trouble with, since that represents just how malleable Patrick is - Alice describes Patrick as being "like water," a characteristic which (delightfully recurrent through the novel as it is) fails him utterly when he confronts Commissioner Roland Harris and is defeated by words alone. I suppose, in essence, that my problem is that Patrick makes a poor revolutionary first and therefore a terrible protagonist second."
"That's why I had trouble with accepting it as a Marxist text at all. The point never seems to be the revolution. Here, look at the title and the epigrams. "Never again will any story be told as though it was the only one" and "the joyful will stoop with sorrow for your sake. I will grow my hair long and wander through the wilderness in the skin of a lion." Are you familiar with the Epic of Gilgamesh? No? Well, it's a reference to the demigod builder-King of that name. He befriended the wild man, Enkidu, whose death he later mourned with that declaration. Basically, it means that Gilgamesh intends to adopt Enkidu's characteristics in reverence of his memory. You can see how Patrick adopts his revolutionary stance from Alice out of grief and anger. As for the first epigram, I dare say that what we have on our hands here is a post-colonial narrative. It's a novel about the little people, if you like - the uncounted numbers. Not only that, but it's a rather charming love story to boot."
"Be that as it may, your abrupt dismissal of the Marxist elements is, I think, a little over-hasty. What of the references to people as insects, the construction of the tunnel and the abhorrent working conditions? "The body of the animal no more or less knowledgeable than that of the man," it says. This is the clearest reduction of human labourers to bestial status that I've ever seen. Harris' tweed suit cost more than many workers' salaries combined. That is a criticism of capitalism and not even you could be so ready to refute that. Surely the revolution is the dominant feature in the lives of the Macedonian and Bulgarian migrants who have their language and social identity stripped? The contrast between Patrick - invertebrate saint that he is - and Ambrose - epitome of bare-knuckle capitalism - is carefully designed to highlight the warring ideologies. A statement (by the protagonist to a disadvantaged peripheral character, mind you) like "I used to be a searcher. I can work dynamite" is positively loaded."
"All true, all true, but this is just exactly what I was aiming at. Differing interpretations of the novel are not, by necessity, mutually exclusive or more correct than others. Perhaps the references to subjugated men and women are Marxist in intent, although I would hope that you also see that such analogies also substantiate my case. I'd originally have said that the insect metaphor was designed to stress the transitory nature of people in Patrick's life, but I can appreciate that too. Similarly, it was (and in the main still is) my view that the contrast between Patrick and Ambrose stresses the fact that this is the story of the minority. The minority's lives, loves and conundrums - and that leads me to my next point: what do you make of Clara?"
"She seems to be the most banal element in the book, abandoning Patrick for Ambrose and doing so because she knows money means survival. At the very end, she represents Patrick's abandonment of the proletariat's plight since he crawls back to her in an effort to forge a family structure; a pure cynic and a thoroughly contemptible one at that."
"It might surprise you to know that the name `Clara' means `light'. Names are very important in this novel. She is, I think, the guide of Patrick's life - a beacon, if you will. It is she who initially draws Patrick from his shell, she who leads him to Alice and she who he invariably returns to. "Lights, he said" by way of closing the story. He's discovered a purpose, see? Many concept which you might desire to apply to this book are interchangeable, so I could say that the post-colonial aspect is Marxist or that either of those are a love story. Whatever the case, Patrick becomes a complete character. Caravaggio, the violent thief with a grudge against the wealthy, could be seen as a revolutionary influence on Patrick just as easily as I could say that he is one of those people who has fallen through the cracks of society's interest and now is having his story told."
"If the ideologies are fundamentally the same, what are we debating?"
"I'm as perplexed as you, but I think we're discussing - rather than debating - the author's intentions. "Trust me; there is order here, very faint, very human." However you treat it, it is about people. It doesn't actually matter what Ondaatje intended - perhaps he meant everything we've discussed, perhaps he meant nothing. "The sky in all its zones is mortal... let me now re-emphasise the looseness of the structure of things." It seems - and do correct me if I'm mistaken - that Ondaatje will only concede that he has written a story. Herein you will find that the story invites you to mould it with your opinion."
"Isn't that too vague a conclusion to draw?"
"But that's exactly it! No story exists alone! Intention is immaterial. A good novel, so I've heard it said, ought to mean a lot more than the author meant. It's only what you make it."
"Is that all we can establish?"
"Yes, I'm delighted to say it is." | 
