Saturday, 30 June 2012

The Art of Flaying

Most of you were probably quite disgusted when reading the passage about Yamamoto being flayed alive by Mongol bandits; I was disgusted as well, to say the least. However, I was rather curious to see whether this aside was just a repulsive figment of Murakami’s creative imagination- I would not have been surprised, judging by the slightly demented tone/atmosphere of the book- or whether it was actually something that had been practiced frequently by Mongols...
When I investigated further, I found out that this act of barbarism was not only used by Mongols, but also by Europeans, Africans, and Middle Easterners. It was especially used by Europeans in the Middle Ages to torture and execute criminals and witches, but the technique dates back to much earlier (the apostle Bartholomew was supposedly flayed to death then crucified). 
The Mongols used this technique frequently (they highly enjoyed torturing others, as Murakami pointed out so well in the flaying scene) with civilians after conquering their territories. In the 13th century, after conquering the Russian city of Riazan, the Mongol soldiers forced the Russian captives to watch as they raped the young women and nuns, then impaled and flayed them alive until they bled to death or lost consciousness. Flaying was also frequently used by Mongol rebels as a form of torture to the Japanese during the Manchurian War; Yamamoto was only one of several to suffer that fate during the years preceding WWII. 
http://listverse.com/2007/09/12/top-10-gruesome-methods-of-execution/http://home.arcor.de/mustangace/sca_class_mongols.htmhttp://www.medievality.com/flaying-torture.html


Was the inclusion of the “flaying scene” in Lieutenant Mamiya’s narrative necessary? If so, how come, and what did it bring to the story?



Mongol Carpet of a Flayed Man- the "art" of flaying was also embedded in their culture.
http://centuriespast.tumblr.com/page/553

1 comment:

  1. Thanks for looking into this rather gruesome topic, Alia! I had no idea flaying was so extensively practiced throughout history. (Although a village near where I grew up has the name, Tomkin' supposedly short for 'Tom's skin', because the skin of a soldier was left floating in a pond there during the English civil war.) There have however, been different 'civilizations' who have made a spectacle, even an art form, out of torture and death. In some ways it might be a weapon of terror to deter traitors, criminals and rebels, for others it was mostly an entertainment. Think of the Romans feeding Christians to the lions in an arena, or the Chinese who gave their victims opium so they would die slowly and calmly under torture while everyone watched. Human beings in all cultures have been ingenious in devising methods of execution, and I think the question Murakami implicitly asks is WHY? What ARE we that we can enjoy the prolonged suffering of other human beings? OK - I don't enjoy this - am sure I would not, and nor would any of you - but might we enjoy the artificial replication of it - in a horror film for example? We want to see the perpetrators caught and punished at the end of the movie, but we also want to watch them inflicting pain and fear throughout?

    In response to your question - was it necessary? I think part of Murakami's purpose is to expose the shameful atrocities of Japan's military past, the sacrifice of its young men to hopeless campaigns. Like many veterans Mr Mamiya and Mr Honda do not speak of the terrors they endured, or of those who never came back. Like Toru we may be unaware of what lies buried in the recent past. Also, though we have had nothing to do with it directly, we might find ourselves living in a culture - and a world - where such things do happen and might happen again. Sergeant Mamiya's story - like all narratives - is one version of reality that paradoxically seems unreal. Dig a little beneath the ordinary surface of life, and things can become very strange indeed. p.s. I'm not sure what you mean by saying parts of the book are 'demented'... Is this an aesthetic or moral judgement, or do you think the novel is irrational?

    ReplyDelete