Pet Peeve: Wide Sargasso

I noticed in Wide Sargasso Sea and later on in Midnights Children the term poisonous snakes being used.  As a person who collects and study reptiles as a hobby I fine the use of this term ignorant.  I first call into question if the authors know the difference between poisons and venoms and choose for their characters not to or if they themselves are unaware of the differences.  Since I am unable to attain this information I will assume it is only the characters who do not understand.  First, there is no such thing as a poisonous snake as poison must be ingested or passively enters the body (most poisons can also survive the process of digestion and heat, while venoms cannot).  Venoms are actively injected into the body threw a wound inflicted upon the victim by the assailant.  Venom and poison are both toxics and will attack the body in very much the same way, but venom is always an organic compound, while poison can be both organic and inorganic (that is why they can survive the process of digestion and still cause their intended damage).  So, in essence one could consume snake venom and feel no ill effects (unless they have open sores, or cuts in the upper digestive tract).  An example of a poisonous animal is poison dart frogs and they must be handled directly or indirectly for the poison to be effected.  The frogs do not bite, but rather the toxins enter through the pores or an already opened wound or sore.  The idea of poisonous snakes almost makes seem that they cannot be touch, handled, or consumed.  That instead these creatures are to be killed or left alone completely.  Venomous snakes being described as “poisonous” seem to make them far more dangerous than they really are that they can kill a person by more than just biting them.  In Midnight’s Children, snake poison is used for medicinal purposes, though venom should still be applied regardless as all snake venoms are nothing more than specialized saliva.  As evil creature that they are portrayed, there are cases as used in Midnight’s Children where they can be life savers and not the demons that most people take them for (Wide Sargasso Sea for instance).       

Reality

     

During the first section of Wide Sargasso, Antoinette believes that looks don't matter that one should look at what is underneath, but her stepfather (Mr. Mason) believes quite differently.  It’s quite interesting to note this perception to reality.  Is either one more right than the other?  I would argue it depends on what one is looking for as we all see what we want.  Many years ago I had a boot camp instructor tell me something that has always stuck with me; "It doesn't matter what you do or say, as one's perception is one's reality."  Mr. Mason saw that the former slaves were lazy and would not dare revolt, but eventually was proven wrong.  What if he was right, but his wife always argued with him about them plotting?  Would we argue then that she is paranoid?  I would argue yes because up to the night of the former slaves burning down the house there was no evidence (at least the novel doesn't present any strong evidence) of them revolting except the words of Annette.  She perceived what she wanted too.  She happened to be right as she understood the area better than her husband.  That being said, had Mr. Mason actually investigated what Annette was arguing he might have discovered a plot that was threatening his family, but whether or not he would have taken it seriously is another debate entirely.  In fact one could claim there was no plot to destroy the family, as it could have been a spur of the moment event caused by a bunch of drunks.  Another thing I noticed and was discussed in class was all the dresses that she was adorned with, now adding the extreme events in Antoinette's life its almost like the people in her life (mainly the men) were trying to conceal the traumatic events in her life with clothing.  Having her appeal desirable to a future husband by being all "dolled up" but underneath containing far more baggage than most would want to deal with.  As this is shown in Jane Eyre as she is kept in the attic for several years by Mr. Rochester and she is never known by anyone except a few select individuals at Thornfield.  These dresses were there to change her "reality" or at the very least present a reality (however flawed it maybe) to unsuspecting persons.  Example of this would be; if a person met Antoinette briefly and she was dressed beautifully would one think that she contains such baggage?  Probably not, in fact one may think she is a very beautiful, stable, and desirable woman!  Now on closer inspection that same person would more than likely change this thought, but until that happens their reality is to think highly of her.  Why wouldn't they?  Mr. Rochester is proof of my argument that he did think highly of her or at least to marry her, but upon closer inspection realized her flaws and considered her an embarrassment.