Davis 1

Ann Davis 15 February 2012 English 1302 P. McCann Can We Be Truly Free? When questioned about their freedom, most Americans declare their country as the freest place on Earth. As true as this may be, the actual meaning of this word leaves many people wondering whether we truly are free to make our own judgments, or are we all subject to our parents morals, the beliefs of those praised around us, and the dramatic progression of technology. Published in 2002, Carol Emshwillers novel, The Mount, explores the notion that genuine freedom cannot be found under any kind of structured government. Emshwiller uses the formal elements of allegory, characterization and symbolism to explore the false sense of true freedom that is implied under any political or social structure and instead, she concludes that freedom can be defined as a compromise between rigid structures and lawless individualism. Through the use of allegory, the events displayed in The Mount have obvious parallels with the European colonization of the New World. In both cases, the invaders landed on an unknown country and immediately assumed their superiority over the native people. Europeans conquered the native Indians with disease, superior weapons and in the name of God, while the Hoots dominated the Mounts with deadly high pitch noises, forced labor with electric poles, and in the name of kindness. The first chapter of the book begins with the voice of an unknown Hoot, who attempts to explain his reasoning for the use of physical discipline, There are reasons for all thistheres the fact that were more superior in every way (3). Instead of adapting to living among the natives, both invaders took over total control, forcing them to live under their rules and structure. Like the Europeans did with religion, the Hoots convince themselves and the Mounts that their hierarchal structure was rooted in kindness and is used to better the Mounts

Davis 2

way of life. It is through this slave-master allegory that Emshwiller begins to define the lack of freedom found under any social structure. Emshwillers deliberate use of characterization allows the reader to make deeper connections to her characters. The story is told from the point of view of a young mount, Charley. As the leading character, Charley disappoints the expectations of the readers due to his unwillingness to want to rebel against the hierarchy, in which the Hoots prevail. Emshwillers portrayal of Charley is not that of a perfect hero. One of Charleys flaws is that he enjoyed the comforts found under the power of the Hoots, as he says, I want to go back thereI like our old stalls with hot-and-cold running water and fancy kitchens(42). Throughout his entire journey, Charley longs to be back under the hierarchy of the Hoot control, in which winning games and becoming the best mount for his master is valued. In contrast to his father, Charley connects democracy with hard manual labor and arguments. He distrust the fairness a democratic system allows, Sams and Suesbelieve the same thing, and all the mounts believe a different thing Which proves a lot about democracythe mounts lose every time (148). Instead of being responsible for his own decisions, Charleys comfort lies in the hierarchy of the Hoots, who governed his every move. Emshwiller further uses characterization by connecting the characters of Charley and his Hoot master, His Excellent Excellency, Future-Ruler-Of-Us-All. Both characters are considered the best of their kind, which creates similar traits of ignorance found in them. Charley is the strongest, fastest, and most attractive mount, while His Excellent Excellency, FutureRuler-Of-Us-All is heir to the Hoot power. These traits create a sense of dominance throughout both characters, which later creates a power struggle between them. When arguing commences between His Excellent Excellency and a stranded Hoot, Charley cuts in, Ive been keeping my mouth shut like a good Sam should, but then I say, Im in charge around here. (111). Although

Davis 3

struggling to maintain a sense of power over each other, it is this pairing of superior characters at a young age that allows a bond to be created between them, in which each fights for fairness and freedom to be bestowed upon the other. Emshwiller leaves the Hoots as relatively flat characters, in order to characterize their species as shallow and self serving creatures. The understanding and likeability of these characters comes from Emshwiller use of their young age and inexperience to make the reader feel sympathetic toward them. It is not until the end of the book, when parted from his host, does Charley realize that revolution against the Hoots is not the answer. Instead a peaceful compromise will allow the Hoots and Mounts to live together in a society where freedom is valued for both species. Throughout her novel, Emshwillers calculated use of symbolism becomes apparent in the contrast between the Mounts and the Hoots. The Hoots, who have taken control over the humans, symbolize a kind of hierarchical structure, in which the Hoots are always superior to their Mounts. Using their power to control the Mounts, the Hoots attempt to create a false sense of freedom by creating games and competition, allowing the Mounts to display their strength. Charleys longing to become a champion runner and live within the civility the Hoots live under is evident throughout the entire novel as he says, Im going to have a stall with pictures but as soon as I get to race in real races Ill have [real silks]). Everything beautifulincluding me (83). In contrast to the Hoots, the human rebel Heron values a pure democratic system where majority rule, determined by votes, is used to determine the plan of action taken during all situations. When first meeting with his son, Herons broken voice becomes evident to the readers, Look at me. Lookhow alike. The raidpartlypartly I wanted to rescue (37). As the novel progresses, Herons cracked voice signifies that although he may be the head of the group, his opinion will not rule over his fellow Mounts. Emshwiller further symbolizes the characters values through their names. The leader of the Hoots, who is called Magnificent,

Davis 4

Munificent Head Ruler of Us All, represents a type of king, whereas Heron, derived from the word hero, implies someone who is sent to save the masses. Both of these characters display the positive and negative aspects of monarchy and democracy, and although a sense of freedom is felt in each, absolute freedom cannot be found in either. The fascism found under the Hoot control is compelling in its sense of symmetry, knowledge of where one belongs in society, and in its singular voice. Within this extreme order, no one has the basic freedoms to choose their own career or their own spouse. In contrast, democracy has a sense of beauty in its spirit of opinion and equality, but lacks the structural bonds needed to create a functioning and stable society. During a discussion on how to invade the Hoots base, chaos begins to break out and eventually leads to the chanting of the Mounts to Kill them. So kill [the Hoots] (149). This lax structure sets the stage for violence and even murder. On the other hand, Charley, who represents neither of these structures, displays an essence of compromise. He does not want to control nor be controlled, but instead wants peace throughout both colonies. Charleys character symbolizes a resolution between both sides and instead of working against each other, Charley wants to see the Hoots and Mounts work in unison. In the end, Bob, a human rebel who worked closely with Heron, comes to an agreement with the Hoots, stating, We will live contended as long as these two [Charley and His Excellent Excellency] are, both of them, Munificent (229). The relationship Emshwiller forms between Charley and his Hoot master symbolizes the peace created between the two sides. Emshwiller uses the elements of allegory, characterization, and symbolism to explore the many facets of these two contrasting societies. Using Charley and His Excellent Excellency, whose races come from two opposing governmental structures, she defines freedom as a compromise. In her novel, Emshwiller shows the complexities of defining such freedoms. The Hoots, who are bound to the Mounts by their immobile disadvantages, are not free, but enjoy an

Davis 5

easy yet unfulfilled lifestyle. In contrast, the Mounts, who have the privilege of voting, are free but typically have arguments and minority upsets. Emshwiller explores the notion of freedom that protects individual freedom from overregulation and majority rule with the cooperation of the two races. In the end, she comes to the conclusion that although absolute freedom cannot be obtained in any structural society, it is through compromise that true and reasonable freedom can be established.

Davis 6

Work Cited Emshwiller, Carol. The Mount. Brooklyn, New York: Small Beer Press. 2002. Print. 15 January 2012.