The Sympathizer written by Viet Thanh Nguyen reveals
a side of the Vietnam War unfamiliar to the average American. Nguyen narrates through
the nameless character of a spy who struggles between the merciless duties of his
job and the sympathy that he carries within. As the reoccurring theme of
sympathy appears throughout the novel, I am left debating with whom I should
sympathize. After finishing the book, I realize that I sympathize with the narrator,
the refugees, and even the narrator’s victims.
In The
Sympathizer the narrator carries out tasks to keep his identity of a spy unrevealed
while also remaining close to people of power so that he can gather
intelligence. One task that really stuck with me was that of the crapulent major.
One night the general, a work associate of the narrator, orders that the major
be killed on the grounds that he is a spy. Although the narrator knows that the
major is not a spy, he is forced to assassinate him or risk suspicion from the
general. In a conversation the narrator has with his blood brother, Bon, the
night before the assassination, he asks Bon, “What if he’s not a spy? We’ll be
killing the wrong man. Then it would be murder” (Nguyen 97). The narrator
knowing that his victim is not a spy has sympathy for him, but can do nothing
to save him. Throughout the rest of the story the narrator tries to reason with
what he had done and tries to bring himself to terms by acknowledging, “[the
major’s family] were innocents to whom wrong had been done, as I had once been
an innocent child to whom wrong was done” (Nguyen 140). It seems that the
narrator never comes to terms with the atrocities that he commits. I also think
that Nguyen wants the reader to sympathize for the refugees of Vietnam. When the
narrator arrives in the United States after fleeing Vietnam, he states that he,
“longed to tell someone that [he] was one of them, a sympathizer with the Left,
a revolutionary fighting for peace, equality, democracy, freedom, and
independence” (Nguyen 61). The narrator, along with all of the other refugees,
feel out of place in the United States. All of them having very different lives
in Vietnam, most of them filled with meaning, now reduced to a meaningless life
of low wages. The general, once a renowned soldier and organizer, now a liquor store
owner. The major, once a successful man in Vietnam, lands a job at a gas
station only to be wrongfully murdered. Many other refugees finding themselves
with the same dilemma.
Overall, I
really enjoyed The Sympathizer and even found myself sympathizing for
the narrator which is what I believe the author wanted. The narrator admits, “My
weakness for sympathizing with others has much to do with my status as a
bastard” (Nguyen 36). The narrator never truly escaping his inner predicament
of sympathy versus his job, hence the title The Sympathizer.
I agree that the narrator’s relationship with sympathy in The Sympathizer could be why it is titled the way it is, I would like to offer an alternative interpretation. Sympathizer, according to Marion Webster, is “a person who agrees with or supports a sentiment or opinion”. By this definition I think the conflict the title is referring to is the narrator’s ability to see and sympathize with both sides of the conflict. He is a communist, or so he believes, but as he spends more and more time undercover, he becomes “a communist only in name” (318). Even the first line of the book says “I am a spy, a sleeper, a spook, a man of two faces”(1). As you said, he is conflicted between his sympathy for the communist cause, and the reality that he doesn’t believe in harming innocents. I also believe this conflict of being a Sympathizer runs in parallel to his conflict about his mixed raced heritage. He is asked to choose between being Oriental and Occidental even though they are both parts of his life and he cannot just remove one half of his DNA. While your interpretation gave me another understanding of the book, this was my personal interpretation.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteNguyen most definitely wants readers to sympathize with the narrator, which represents on a greater scale the two sides of the Vietnam War. But perhaps even more than just sympathizing, Nguyen attempts to make readers support, or at least understand, each side of the conflict and become “a man of two minds” (Nguyen 1) themselves. Near the novel’s conclusion, the narrator reaches an important realization about his identity: the pronoun “I” just does not accurately represent him. The narrator begins referring to himself in the plural tense, stating “we had been through so much, me and myself” (Nguyen 376). Seemingly contradictory, he and himself create two persons, yet one collective “we.” Through this transformation, Nguyen emphasizes his statement about sympathizing. Understanding and agreeing with both sides of the Vietnam War is completely possible. Despite how the narrator suffered through “everyone...that had wanted to drive [them] apart from each other” (Nguyen 376), he (or they) hold steadfast in their decision to remain on both sides. However, in the United States, it is often the opposite; it is us against them. You’re either with us or with them, paraphrased from former President Bush. Nguyen refutes this belief with his sympathetic narrator who believes in both sides. Or perhaps, he refutes this belief by suggesting that one is able to take neither side, for “nothing is also more important than independence and freedom” (Nguyen 375).
ReplyDeleteTo add to your comments, I definitely found one of the themes of the book to be understanding and respecting all sides of a potential disagreement. That being said, I also think the end of the book provides an example of why one also has to be careful what they believe in. By the end of the book the narrator begins to refer to himself in the plural, saying things like "as we waited for our departure, we continued working on our manuscript" (380). I personally interpreted this as the narrator going insane and fracturing his sense of self. Obviously this isn't exactly a desirable outcome which means as readers we should probably attempt to find the cause of this. If we trace the book back to when the narrator begins to refer to himself in the plural, we find that the narrator goes insane not during his torture and not while writing his manuscript of said tortures, but only once he realizes that only the only person who could get the irony of the statement "nothing is more valuable than independence and freedom." This is certainly an interesting point. In my opinion, this seems to suggest that the weight of not definitively choosing a side eventually fractures the narrator's mind into two parts each of which chose a different side. To me, this suggests that Nguyen is even examining both sides of his own theme. To me, the author is saying that it is important to understand all sides of a disagreement but not necessarily support all sides.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the narrator’s ability to see both sides of every issue is why the book is titled The Sympathizer. He spends the entirety of the book fighting for both the North and the South. He never fully chooses a side, and his sympathy with both sides creates a lack of action, which is what causes his demise. Man makes him remember his inaction. “I was not being punished or reeducated for the things I had done, but for the things I had not done” (pg. 357). As Chithra argued, the narrator understands that he has to play his role to work for the North, but he doesn’t want to harm anyone. He is haunted by the major and Sonny and, in his darkest moments, he cannot escape them. “Remorse over the crapulent major’s death was ringing me up a few times a day, tenacious as a debt collector” (pg. 140). Later on, in his confession, the narrator admits that he gave much of his money earned on the film to the major’s widow, but the guilt doesn’t go away. The “ghosts” of the major and Sonny are with him until his breaking point. At that time his mind splits in to two. The duality of the mind fits how Nguyen describes the narrator – a man belonging to, and believing in nothing. Nguyen ends up presenting us with an argument that a lack of action is just as important as action, and that both define who we are.
ReplyDelete