Bamsi Beyrek’s story is both
interesting and really crazy. Several times throughout the story, Bamsi proves
himself to be relatively observant but does not say anything about his observations
– he keeps his head down and his mouth shut. In exchange for saving some
merchants, he asks for the horse, club, and bow that they are supposed to bring
back to his father as gifts for him. While they are willing to do so, if unhappy
about it, Bamsi allows them to bring the items to him so that they will not get
in trouble for losing them and so that his father can give them to him. Instead
of claiming what they technically owe him and earning his name now that he has
killed men, he allows himself to remain nameless instead of shaming the merchants.
Bamsi
also later conceals his encounter from his father when asked what kind of woman
he wishes to marry. Rather than say that he met his betrothed in the woods or use
her name when describing her, he allows his father to interpret his description
into Banu Chichek. While marrying her certainly has its own repercussions (her
brother’s overprotectiveness, specifically), I am focusing more specifically on
the potential repercussions of Bamsi’s manipulation of his father. Are Bamsi’s
omissions to his father more likely to have beneficial or damaging consequences,
and why?
I think that the repercussions would have been more so damaging than beneficial because the fact that Bamsi killed the merchants that were sent by his father, I think it made him feel guilty. I think Bamsi was afraid to upset his father by mentioning the killings first since it was men that were sent out by his own father instead of some random men on the streets.
ReplyDeleteI was a little confused on answering this but I'm pretty sure that I'm wrong on this.
In fact, you ARE wrong on this Cali! (Uncharacteristically, I might add...) The men Bamsi kills are the random robbers (not sent by his dad) who attacked the merchants (who WERE sent out by his dad). In their gratitude for saving their lives, the merchants ask him to choose some gifts. They are dismayed when he asks for those very special things they were bringing back to Bamsi's father. When they explain who the gifts are really for, Bamsi understands their plight and, disguising his identity, relinquishes his claim on the items--partly to spare the merchants from embarrassment, partly because he decides it would be more meaningful to receive the gifts from the hands of his own father...
DeleteI think that bamsi's omission of not telling his father will have more beneficial affects than damaging. By not telling his father, he allows him to still feel like he rewarding him with the bow, horse, and club. The same situation happens with Chichek, Bamsi gives her a ring making her his, but lets his father get her for him. This is Bamsi, allowing his father to play out his role of providing for his son. Therefore, I see things working out for the better for Bamsi.
ReplyDeleteThat's a tough call because the intentions behind Bamsi's omissions aren't entirely clear, but I would have to agree with James. Evidently, in this culture the father's duties to his children, but particularly his sons, are greatly emphasized and valued. This is made evident in his father's declaration that "[w]hoever had a son gets him married. Whoever had a daughter gives her away." This phrasing gives the impression that the proper establishment of his children is the direct responsibility of the father, as he explained that the father gets the child married, rather than the child having the responsibility/freedom to find his or her own spouse. If the father fails to carry out his role, then perhaps he is seen as weak or inadequate. Hence, Bamsi had to let his marriage to Chickek be "his father's idea," with just a little bit of well-put manipulation to guide the way. In order to fully consider this question, it would likely help to look into the cultural norms and standards predominant in the historical context of the work.
ReplyDeleteI agree completly with James, Bamsi makes these decisions to protect his fathers honor as a father, and to allow him t o continue to cary out his fatherly duties, protecting him from the shame of not being able to do so.
ReplyDeleteNice characterization of Bamsi! I too found his tendency to keep his
ReplyDelete"head down and his mouth shut" interesting. During the part where he runs into Chichek's tent while hunting, he discovers that it is hers. Then, when the maids ask him if he will share his deer, he readily agrees and asks whose tent it is (although he already knows the answer). When they say it is Chichek's, his blood boils. But, although he is angry (about what I am not sure), he quietly walks away. Perhaps he is angry about Chichek's rude attitude toward him. It is interesting, though, that he responds quietly and without argument. He is patient and lets her see the deer and come to meet him. This seems like a good idea in the long-run. They met on slightly bad terms, but he doesn't get frustrated with Chichek directly; he just leaves until they can meet again. Bamsi's patience and quiet demeanor strike me as much different from the other male characters we often come across.
I think the same goes for his interactions with his father. Bamsi doesn't seem to be deceitful or manipulative in failing to tell his father about Chichek and the gifts. He seems rather patient, waiting for a more appropriate time (even if his first instinct isn't to wait).
My guess here is that the heat is not anger but passion--a different metaphor, but still quite common. An poorly chosen idiomatic translation, perhaps, that implies something other than what is meant...
Delete