Pet First Half Reflection

Seeing vs. Knowing

    Akwaeke Ezemi paints pictures of the differences between angels and monsters in the world of her book entitled Pet in more ways than one. Not only are both characterizations given brief descriptive physical representations, but what follows from those descriptions are varieties of interpretations pertaining to the truth behind what makes an angel and angel and a monster a monster. In doing so, I believe that she is trying to add meaningful commentary to the idea that our senses can often deceive us and what lays deep within the soul of an entity or being is what is truly telling of their character - to simply see is not to know, rather to understand is to know. 

    The images of angels from the past are kept hidden away, and when Jam finds them in the library, they are horrific looking creatures and look more like entities that would better be classified as monsters. It is likely that Pet, the creature that emerged from Bitter's painting, is an angel as well, with its uncanny anatomy and absolutely sublime presence. These angels, despite their daunting and horrifying physicality's, are remembered with the utmost respect and gratitude. Humans are often hesitant to trust what they do not know; they cannot understand things that go beyond human reasoning and so, they are afraid. Even when those creatures did them well, they only chose to remember them through words and keep the other parts of them hidden away. While storytelling certainly holds great merit and ability to keep memories alive, their active shunning of what angels look like is more telling of how humans see the world. In this way, they are keeping them in the past, hidden, at risk of having exactly who they are be distorted. Furthermore, once their full identity is revealed, humans are skeptical and confused. They get the wrong impression. Angels are who they are based on their actions, their physicality does not define their morality. When one grows more concerned over their biases and predispositions towards certain physical characteristics, they are doing great harm to themselves and the entirety of humanity in the sense that they can trust the wrong beings if they let their prejudice warp their understanding. 

    A greater explanation of this thought is observed through the ways in which monsters are described in this piece so far. When having a discussion with Redemption about what angels and monsters look like, Jam notes that, "Bitter said monsters don't look like anything," (Emezi 99). This point of description is telling in the way that it allows monsters to take many forms. They may look friendly, but that visual pleasure can be deceiving. Additionally, you can never truly know if they are gone since it's not based on a visual determinant. Monsters can be deceiving in their looks and in their words. Sometimes, people make assumptions about another person being approachable and loving based on the demeanor that exudes from their presence. In other words, how one's sense of sight registers another being can often altar how an individual's brain perceives another to be threatening or not. Once again, one's physicality does not define nor determine their morality, although many individuals seem to behave as though the opposite is true. It is interesting to see here, however, that some characters in this book seem to recognize that real monsters don't have a certain look to them that defines their actions and who they are. Still, the younger characters, like Jam and Redemption, somewhat rely on visuals to characterize entities. The physicality of a being is just one part of who they are - to make judgements on or create skepticism over someone, or something, simply based on how they present themselves is unfair and often misleading.