Try the Leopard's Mouth by Charles Moberly; Dull Colorless Protagonist Weighs Down African Historical Fiction
By Julie Sara Porter
Bookworm Reviews
Spoilers: Charles Moberly’s Try the Leopard's Mouth commits one of the worst literary sins. He tells what could be an interesting history of a traumatic time in a country's history from the point of view of a newcomer who is dull, shallow, and only mildly transforms and evolves despite the stressful time surrounding him. It's a tale of the Armchair Protagonist, a protagonist who only serves as an observer reporting what they see around them while the Readers receive more interesting stories second hand.
Tom Etheridge decides to leave his drab English life behind for adventure and excitement in Africa. He became a farm manager in Rhodesia (later known as Zimbabwe Rhodesia) in the 1960’s right as the Rhodesian Bush War began. He becomes disenchanted by the farm in which he works and his tyrannical employer. He has dreams of buying a farm of his own. He is attracted to Briony, a local woman with her own ambitious drive, and they end up working together on a farm of their own. They discover a rare drug that Tom eventually grows and Briony markets. The duo then finds their love tested by war, racism, ambition, greed, and a colonial system in which the black natives are exploited and the white government is in control.
Try the Leopard's Mouth has the potential to be a great novel, but falls hard. The Rhodesian Bush War was a very traumatic time in Zimbabwe Rhodesian history and deserves to be explored in every capacity possible. The history of colonialism in general and British colonialism in particular left a dark mark within many countries that is still being felt around the world. Unfortunately, this book does not convey that. It suggests some things about how colonialism was bad for the country. How black and white people were segregated, How a system in which the ruling elites eventually collapsed in on itself. There are various points where Tom, Briony, and others realize that even with their good intentions they still perpetuate and allow a racist system to thrive.
Unfortunately, these glimpses are used sporadically because of Moberly's decision to tell the book solely from Tom's point of view. It cannot be stressed enough what a flawed point of view it is. Tom is merely a reporter, an observer of all that is going on. He is a privileged white man who arrives in Rhodesia for excitement. In the beginning, he says that he has no opinion either way about the Rhodesian government and their policies and exhibits very little change through the book aside from his status and romantic relationships. Because of his background, Tom only has a limited view of the events that surround him. He looks at the situation in Rhodesia through this narrow limited lens so when he exhibits some personal change, it seems hollow and unearned.
Despite a plot trajectory that involves war, racism, sexual assault, criminal activity, death and many things that would cause great change in character, it really doesn't transform Tom. In fact, the final pages suggest that he has learned nothing from his experience and in fact regresses. This makes him a very boring character. A potentially exciting plot that covers years of struggles, conflict, and great metamorphosis requires much more dynamic characters to narrate it.
What is particularly egregious is that the book has better options for protagonists, one right in front of Tom: Briony. She would make a much more compelling narrator as she is familiar with the land and the government. She has plenty of ideals and is involved in dangerous and potentially rebellious activities against the government. She could reveal her struggles of being a farmer and businesswoman surrounded by misogyny. Her realization of what she allowed the government to do would be much more traumatic coming from her because she is someone who lived in the country for years, has family there, and felt acceptance around her. Her discovery that the acceptance came at the cost of diminishing and dehumanizing the black population, many of whom were long time friends, would be a legitimate cry of pain.
There are several chapters where Briony tells her life story or another character updates Tom on her status. Her story is one that is colorful, dangerous, exciting, vibrant, and stressful. She had to deal with abuse, sexism, misogyny, assault, abandonment, violence, corruption, and unhappy relationships. She took many risks and was involved in various adventures that required her to use great skill, intellect, attractiveness, and sexuality to survive. She steals every moment and every time that one of these chapters in which her story is summarized to Tom, I think, “Why aren't we reading about this? Why are we hearing about it secondhand?” Tom’s first person narration becomes a barrier to Briony’s much more interesting story.
There is also an elephant in the review that must be discussed. Even more egregious than leaving out the perspective from the far more interesting Briony over her bland and colorless love interest is this, why is a book set in Rhodesia and deals with the racism inflicted on the black population from the white government told from the point of view of a white character? Why isn't it told from the point of view of a native Rhodesian? This is a story that involves that country and its people. The people of Zimbabwe Rhodesia are more than capable of telling it themselves by revealing the impact colonialism and racism had on the country and its residents.
Alternatively, why is it solely told from Tom's point of view? Another option could be to widen the narrative. Why can't it be third person omniscient or first person told by several characters from different backgrounds, status, races, and experiences showing the Rhodesian Bush Wars from multiple encompassing viewpoints? Ironically, in a book in which white characters discover that they are pawns in a racist government determined to maintain their grip and deprive the people of their own voices, the book does the same. Tom ends up being the spokesperson depriving Rhodesian characters a voice of their own.
Try the Leopard's Mouth could be so much better with stronger narrators and a more intimate focus on the situations that the book dances around. The Rhodesian Bush Wars was a time that should be explored and dissected but in a better book than this.
