The Ant

Wind sways the lines of green,
soft specks of soil are wrapped

in its arms.
A black circle with six protruding legs
and two bright white eyes
scuttles towards the falling mountain

he calls home.
The rays of sun become hidden
by an ominous shadow;
the ground trembles in its arrival.

He scurries, urging himself
to beat encroaching Death
to stay with uplifting Life.

The waves of dirt swallow him whole,
he hits the bottom
of his newly formed tunnels, seeing
Life’s joyful eye peering down,

peering down.


Notes:
This is the poem that I wrote in class on Friday. I decided to write a Mary Oliver poem because I like her poems more than Billy Collins’s. I wrote my poem about something in nature, and I used enjambment, because those are both elements that are present in many of Oliver’s poems.

Beauty from Pain

“He has sent me to […] provide for those who grieve in Zion—to bestow on them a crown of beauty instead of ashes” (Isaiah 61:3 in the NIV Bible). Beauty and hope are found among the sorrows and loss in Mary Oliver’s poem “In Blackwater Woods,” a poem which inspires the reader to value life, and to confront the continuous pain of losing someone.

Blackwater Woods is a secluded shelter where the speaker and the reader are surrounded by trees “turning / their own bodies / into pillars of light” and “giving off the rich / fragrance of cinnamon / and fulfillment” (82). Oliver’s description and personification help the reader be comforted by the atmosphere of the poem. The tone of the poem is reassuring as well, supported by the presentation of the speaker as a mentor giving advice to the reader. The reader feels like he or she is being spoken to because the speaker says things like, “To live in this world / you must be able to do three things” (83). Mary Oliver wants the reader to take in the lessons about life, not just enjoy reading them.

Oliver continuously uses enjambment, making the themes of her poem everlasting; she wants to show that loss is something people deal with infinitely. The enjambment also shows that not everything has an end; just because someone is gone from you does not mean the memory vanishes. Loss and recovery from it are re-occurring parts of the cycle of life. That is also what the speaker means by saying the reader must do three things “[t]o live in this world” (83). Loss is something everyone on Earth has to deal with.

Yet loss’s “other side is salvation, whose meaning none of us will ever know” (83). Oliver is making us aware of the two sides of loss—losing someone, and being the one lost. We cannot understand what it is like to be the one lost to others because then we wouldn’t be here anymore. “In Blackwater Woods” reminds us of our mortality. When the speaker notes how “every pond, / no matter what its / name is, is / nameless now,” (82) he or she means that names are mortal. People are the ones who give names to things like ponds, but it was there without a name, and it will continue without one; ponds, like losses, are everlasting.

Since loss, and the pain from it, lasts forever, it is difficult to simplify it for our comprehension. That is why losses can be “fires and black rivers” (82). While it seems impossible for something to be both fire and water, what Oliver is saying is that loss covers all ranges of emotion and power. Fire and water are two of the most destructive elements on Earth, but they also cleanse and purify. When we move past the way loss damages the spirit, we can see the beauty around us. The speaker urges the reader “to love what is mortal; / to hold it […] knowing / your own life depends on it; / and, when the time comes to let it go, / let it go” (83). Mary Oliver wants us to appreciate life; while loss is an ever-present struggle, we should not always dwell on it. It’s by cherishing the moments with those we love that we can get through the losses.

Maybe that is why “Every year” (82) the speaker has the same revelation about life. After everything the speaker has experienced, it is what he or she learned about life, love, and los that is the most important. The poem ends by repeating the line “to let it go” (83). The speaker does this not only to emphasize the point to the reader, but to remind himself or herself the true value, and the true beauty, of his or her words.

Primitive Picnic

I am torn between which poetry book I like better since Ms. Mork said that most people usually prefer one to the other. Billy Collins’s Picnic, Lightning is more straight-forward and has a more comical air to it, while Mary Oliver’s American Primitive has more description and seems more poetic to me. However, I do not read poetry often so I shouldn’t label poems as more poetic than any others; I’m not even sure if there can be any boundaries on the style of poetry. Still, what appealed to me about Mary Oliver was her topic choice—the symbolism of nature, and lessons about love, life, and death.

The theme of death is prevalent in both books. In Mary Oliver’s “The Lost Children,” she says, “death has no country” (14). In “Vultures,” she notes, “however ultimately sweet / the huddle of death to fuel / those powerful wings” (38). Death affects everyone, from every color, class, and gender, and I think that is why both authors chose to write about it. But just because death is ever-present does not mean it is frightening; it can be beautiful and powerful.

Billy Collins seems to take a little different point of view. In his poem “Picnic, Lightning,” he describes “the instant hand of Death / always ready to burst forth / from the sleeve of his voluminous cloak” (25). Here death is depicted as an ominous creature. In “Passengers” he appears to be afraid of dying, immediately stating, “I sit […] with the possible company of my death,” though he could just be afraid of flying. Collins does poke fun at death too, highlighted in “Reincarnation and You” where he says, “Once around is enough for me / though whenever you ask / I come up with something, […] trying to make death appear as easy / as you make it sound” (89). Death is a complicated matter.

Complicated is not a word I would use to describe Collins’s writing style. His outspoken descriptions make him a likeable author, as in “the classic crazy-man-crazy face” and how “even the ghosts of ourselves / had to break up their party” (72, 43). His frank speech make him relatable, like when he says, “Go, little poem” or yells at a bee, “’Don’t mess with me / and I won’t mess with you, you little punk’” (71, 92). Collins made me laugh, and I applaud him for trying to discover “Victoria’s Secret” (55). But he didn’t make me contemplate the wonders of life like Mary Oliver did.

Oliver wrote in a style I was more familiar with, using imagery and more of a nostalgic tone. I also liked how some of the poems were arranged in numbered or bulleted sections, or in shapely patterns. A poem I enjoy that uses that pattern is “The Bobcat:” “those lightning eyes! / that dappled jaw! / those plush paws” (16)! Nature was prevalent throughout Oliver’s poems, as well as descriptions of love, and I think that is why she chose to title her book American Primitive.

My favorite poem by Oliver is “In Blackwater Woods” because it teaches me about love, loss, and life. "Every year / everything / I have ever learned / in my lifetime / leads back to this: the fires / and the black river of loss / whose other side / is salvation, / whose meaning / none of us will ever know” (82-23).

While poetry is not one of my favorite things to read, I’m glad that I read both of these books. I didn’t think I would enjoy them as much as I did. Billy Collins’s “Paradelle for Susan” even inspired me to write my own paradelle for my extended journal of Atonement. I am excited to see how discussion turns out and to discover what poem I get to analyze.

Heat of Truth

The vase shattering, an instant eternally frozen in time
The vase shattering, an instant eternally frozen in time
Who could imagine our lives would be combined with this splash?
Who could imagine our lives would be combined with this splash?
Time; imagine the lives eternally combined with-in this vase
An instant shattering, our splash frozen, who could-be, would

Wet clothes fall off in the heat, turning friends to strangers to lovers
Wet clothes fall off in the heat, turning friends to strangers to lovers
Fountain water creeps, a letter revealing truth forms in his mind
Fountain water creeps, a letter revealing truth forms in his mind
Heat clothes the strangers, water forms, revealing lovers to friends
A wet letter in his fountain, truth creeps, to fall off in mind

The young girl watches at a nursery window, eyes wide open
The young girl watches at a nursery window, eyes wide open
Sunshine vanishes a puddle, life, to punish or atone?
Sunshine vanishes a puddle, life, to punish or atone?
Eyes to sunshine, young vanishes, punish a nursery.
Or open a window wide, atone, puddle watches the girl at life

Letter revealing truth to atone, or shattering lives, to be combined
The vase watches our sunshine lovers, wet with heat
Who could his young eyes eternally splash, a girl in the nursery?
Would a window in time fall to strangers, punish friends?
Imagine. At the fountain creeps off clothes, this mind forms a wide puddle
Life vanishes in an instant, open, frozen water.



Notes
I was inspired after reading Billy Collins’s “Paradelle for Susan” so I decided would write a paradelle about Atonement for my extended journal. This poem is based off a scene from the book in which a young man and woman, Robbie and Cecilia, have an argument on a hot summer day, and break a valuable vase. Cecilia strips and plunges into the fountain to receive the broken pieces, while Robbie stares and realizes that he loves her. Meanwhile, Briony, Cecilia’s little sister, is watching the scene from the nursery window and thinks that Robbie is ordering Cecilia around. After Robbie and Cecilia depart, Robbie goes home and writes Cecilia a love letter while Briony begins to formulate the idea that Robbie is a malicious man, an idea that gets her in trouble when she wrongly accuses him of a crime he didn’t commit, a crime that Briony spends the rest of her life trying to atone for.

Ancient Annihilation

“This is the kingdom I hold, from the Scythians who are beyond Sogdiana, thence into Kush, from India thence unto Sardis, which Ahura Mazda, the greatest of gods, bestowed upon me” –inscription of statue of Darius the Great found in Persepolis. In 530 B.C. Persia was strong under the rule of Darius I, later known as Darius the Great. Darius wanted to build a capital of high esteem for all the word to see Persia’s greatness; thus came Persepolis.

Persepolis, Parsa to the Persians, was constructed in the center of the colossal Persian dominion, which was composed of 23 nations. “In laying out Persepolis, architects had worked with the natural environment to create an imposing complex that would impress visitors” (Hussein). Free men from all across Persia came to build the city, making sure the king of Persia was honored by it, and that people from all over the world would know Persia’s might. The most extensive building under Darius’s reign was the audience hall, or the Apadana, built to welcome and impress all who entered; grand staircases were constructed to display the king’s power.

Darius wanted his capital to awe Persia, and was always modifying it. Even when his son, Xerxes, and later his grandson, Artaxerxes, were in charge, buildings were added or renovated. Xerxes and Artaxerxes together fabricated the new largest building in Persepolis, the Hundred Column Hall. Meant to embrace and receive gifts from various royal authorities, the Hundred Column Hall, as its name implies, had 100 towering pillars inside accompanied by carvings of soldiers. “This theme was chosen so that the tribute bearers would be reminded that the military kept the empire under the king’s control” (Hussein). Each detail of this building, as well as of the other regal edifices in Persepolis, was designed to show Persia’s prominence.

While Persepolis proclaimed the Persian kings’ power, it was also the center for celebrating the New Year, or the Noruz. The Noruz was a religious ceremony honoring Ahura Mazda, the predominant Persia god. The festivities also acknowledged the Persian king, who would lavishly celebrate in Perseplis each year. The Noruz united the empire under its ruler.

In Greek, Persepolis means “city of ruins,” and tragically this immense city of wonder collapsed. In around 330 B.C., 200 years after Daruis I built the city, the Greek leader Alexander the Great came to conquer Persia, and defeated over 40,000 men at the Persian Gates. Still, having suffered too many losses for Alexander to handle, including having 800 prisoners of war returned with severed limbs, Alexander wanted Persepolis destroyed. For several days the Greek soldiers pillaged and plundered the capital, though Alexander decided to spare the royal buildings; “Persian leaders, dressed in their finest robes, threw themselves off the tops of their walls or burned themselves alive in their houses rather than fall into the hands of their enemies” (Doxuan). Finally, drunk and seduced by a young maiden, Alexander and his men were led one night to Xerxes’ palace, where they burned everything in sight. What flames started, time finished, and Persepolis was demolished.

Today only glimpses of the once-grand empire remain: column bases, abandoned doorways, and sunken stairwells. Archeologists have excavated parts of the city, and have found artifacts, like stone tablets and statues, that have enlightened our world today about what Persia was like. In 1979 the remains of Persepolis were named a world heritage site to commemorate the grandeur of the ancient capital.

Bibliography:

Darius I, the Great (550 B.C.-486 B.C.)." UXL Biographies. Online ed. Detroit: UXL, 2003. Discovering Collection. Thomson Gale. Anoka Hennepin ISD 11. 1 May. 2007 .

Doxuan, Charles-Emmanuel. "The mystery of Persepolis. (Persian city destroyed in 330 B.C.)(includes related article)(UNESCO in Action: Heritage)." UNESCO Courier (May 1995): 40(4). Student Edition. Thomson Gale. Anoka Hennepin ISD 11. 1 May. 2007 .

Hussein, Angela Murock. "Magnificent persepolis." Calliope 17.3 (Nov 2006): 24(4). Junior Edition. Thomson Gale. Anoka Hennepin ISD 11. 1 May. 2007 .


Notes:

I started looking at the University of Minnesota library, but I couldn’t find any articles I wanted, so I used the Champlin Park Gale database like Ms. Evans just taught us to do. After printing the content of the articles I wanted, I read through them a few times and highlighted the things I thought were important. I then put my notes aside and wrote my journal, only referring back to the text a few times for the quotes I used. I’m glad that I did research on Persepolis because I wanted to know why Marjanne Satrapi decided to give her book that title; now I better understand how the lost ancient city relates to Marji’s childhood.

Atonement

Atonement by Ian McEwan was a satisfying choice novel. I really like Part One (the first half of the book) with the set-up of the crime Briony commits. The second half was harder to get through, especially Part Two when Robbie was a soldier.

One major theme of this book, as the title suggests, is atonement. Briony commits a crime that destroys her family, mostly her sister, and feels like she must make up for it through her writing. Yet when she tells the story to a magazine she keeps her crime out; when she gets it back from the publisher who wants more depth she asks herself, “might she obscure the fact by concocting a slight, barely clever fiction and satisfy her vanity by sending it off to a magazine” (302)? When she approaches Cecilia to try to make things right, Cecilia says, “I won’t ever forgive you” (318). It is at the age of 77 when Briony realizes the reality of compensating for her crime, and the relation to her writing. “How can a novelist achieve atonement when, with her absolute power of deciding outcomes, she is also God” (350)?

Throughout the book the thing Briony devotes her life to, before she needs to make amends with her sister, is writing. “At the age of eleven she wrote her first story,” and at thirteen she writes her first play where she conveys her apprehensions saying, “the reader was bound to speculate that she was describing herself” (6). What Briony loves about her writing, however, is that “everyone would adore her” (11). At 77, when she is waiting for her novel to be published and sees her first play acted out, she concludes that her writing “was always an impossible task, and that was precisely the point. The attempt was all” (351).

I feel like Ian McEwan, as an author, is trying to reveal his own feelings about writing. Through Briony’s eyes, McEwan is showing the process he goes through to complete his own works. If this is true, McEwan is comparable to Tim O’Brien in the fact that he “heats up the truth.” Briony uses people from her real life and changes the details to make it fit in her story. “Who would want to believe them, except in the service of the bleakest realism? I’m too old, too frightened, too much in love with the shred of life I have remaining…But what really happened? The answer is simple: the lovers survive and flourish” (350). I can relate to altering information in my writing from writing my personal narrative.

McEwan’s writing style also remined me of O’Brien’s because of the way he set up the chapters. Each of the chapters gives different characters’ perspectives on what is going on, mentioning events that get explained later on. For example, Briony walks in on Cecilia and Robbie having sex, and “her immediate understanding was that she had interrupted an attack, a hand-to-hand fight” (116). Yet later on, Cecilia describes the details of her sexual encounter with Robbie. This is similar to O’Brien’s writing style when he mentions an event, like Kiowa’s death, and then explains it with more data in a later chapter. This technique builds suspense for the reader; it helped me stay involved in the book.

Another major theme of Atonement is maturity. Lola, Briony’s 15-year-old cousin, “had come to the nursery that morning in the guise of the adult she considered herself at heart to be” (32). Yet Lola is still a girl; after being beaten by her brothers, Lola sought out Briony to console her. While Lola is weakened by this experience, Briony is strengthened. “That a girl so brittle and domineering should be brought this low by a couple of nine-year-old boys seemed wondrous to Briony, and it gave her a sense of her own power” (110). Briony, as only a thirteen-year-old, doesn’t really grasp the power she has. She destroys her family by telling them what she thinks she sees (Robbie raping Lola), but she doesn’t foresee the repercussions of her actions. When Briony apologizes to her sister, she explains that what made her change her mind about Lola’s rapist was “Growing up” (323).

Atonement helped me see a cultural view of upper-class British life. It also helped me look through a feminine lens at a marriage that most would consider failing, but keeps the couple strong. Mainly Atonement reminded me that while a relationship can be destroyed with a single sentence, it may never be restored, even after a lifetime of feeling sorry.

Lost Youth

Thesis: In Persepolis and The Things They Carried, war wrecks young lives and needs to be coped with, but a childhood can be recovered.

Claims:

1. In Persepolis, Marji, a victim of war in her country, is forced to grow up too quickly.
- The images of torture, such as the iron, that Marji hears about are too shocking for a ten-year-old. “I never imagined that you could use that appliance for torture” (51).
- Marji goes to the basement to escape the destruction of war around her. “It was awful. But this was not the moment to give in. With this first cigarette, I kissed childhood goodbye” (117).
- At age 14, Marji left her family to escape the war and live alone in Vienna. “what I had feared was true…we’d never live together again” (152).

2. In The Things They Carried, the soldiers are boys forced to become men too early.
- “The average age in our platoon, I’d guess, was nineteen or twenty, and as a consequence things often took on a curiously playful atmosphere…Like when Azar blew up Ted Lavender’s puppy. ‘What’s everybody so upset about?’ Azar said. ‘I mean, Christ, I’m just a boy’” (37).
- “The whole platoon stood there watching, feeling all kinds of things, but there wasn’t a great deal of pity for the baby water buffalo. Curt Lemon was dead. Rat Kiley had lost his best friend in the world….Rat Kiley was crying (79).
- “He grabbed Kiowa by the boot and tried to pull him out. He pulled hard but Kiowa was gone, and suddenly he felt himself going, too” (149). “[Norman] three years later hanged himself in the locker room of a YMCA in his hometown” (155).

3. By not always taking matters like torture and death seriously, victims of war can seriously cope with them.
- “No one took the torture sessions seriously anymore. As for me, I immediately started making fun of them” (Satrapi 97).
- “Dave Jensen went over and shook the [dead] old man’s hand. ‘How-dee-doo,’ he said. One by one the others did it too” (O’Brien 226).
- “By slighting death, by acting, we pretended it was not the terrible thing it was” (O’Brien 238).

4. Marji in Persepolis and Tim O’Brien in The Things They Carried are trying to hold on to their innocence.
- The night before Marji leaves for Vienna, her grandmother comes to stay with her. “Can I sleep with you?” asked Marji (150). “That’s why I’m here!” her grandmother replied (150). “I smelled my grandma’s bosom. It smelled good. I’ll never forget that smell” (150).
- “I’m skimming across the surface of my own history, moving fast, riding the melt beneath the blades, doing loops and spins, and when I take a high leap into the dark and come down thirty years later, I realize it is as Tim trying to save Timmy’s life with a story.”

So What: O’Brien and Satrapi are saying that while war damages young lives and needs to be coped with, the innocence of youth can be preserved. They are both trying to distill hope into their readers despite the cruelties of war.

Double Vision

Persepolis is my favorite book that we have read so far. It made me laugh, but most of all it made me think. I still don’t really understand why the book is titled Persepolis. There is a chapter with the same name, but it didn’t explain the meaning. Maybe it is a historical Iranian figure. Or maybe I wasn’t paying enough attention, and Satrapi did give an explanation.

One thing I liked about this book was Marji’s relationship with God. She says, “At the age of six I was already sure I was the last prophet” (6). And God holds her in his arms as he tells her, “you are my choice, my last and best choice” (8). Yet while she is able to talk to God, that doesn’t mean she is devoted to, or even proud of, him; that is what I like about their relationship—it’s honest. After her beloved uncle dies, Marji screams at God to “Get out of my life!!! I never want to see you again! […] And so I was lost, without any bearings…what could be worse than that” (69-70)? Satrapi does an excellent job of revealing an honest struggle with religion without being overdramatic.

Another struggle with religion Satrapi depicts is Marji’s feelings about the Iranian government trying to use religion to gain power. The universities were shut down “to ensure that our children are not led astray from the true path of Islam” (73), and Marji’s mom told her, “If anyone ever asks you what you do during the day, say you pray” (75). Marji obeyed her mother, but her family was not devout to Islam, and neither was the government, who only used it to take control of the people. Satrapi’s portrayal of the tension between staying true to one’s beliefs and doing what the law requires for survival is astounding. After reading what her family went through, her mom being raped and her uncle dying in prison, even if it is a fiction book, makes me value what I have in my own life.

Something I am blessed with that I share with Marji is a loving family. Even though Marji desperately wants to protest as a child, her parents protect her by not letting her. When Marji’s mom allows her to demonstrate a year layer, her family quickly leaves the site, and then the country for a trip. Marji argues with her parents, telling her mom, “You are the guardian of the revolution of this house” (113)! But her parents send her to Vienna because they want what’s best for her: “We love you so much that we want you to go,” and Marji realized it at last: “I couldn’t bear looking at them there […] Nothing’s worse than saying goodbye” (153). Marji’s honest emotions make her a character I can relate to.

What I couldn’t relate to throughout the book were the historical references. Although they were somewhat explained, it was hard for me to keep the leaders of Iran straight, especially what they were doing (or not doing) for the country. I think what would help me out is if I did some research about the 1979 Revolution and Iran’s leaders. Though I do think the pictures with the text helped me keep track of the different people better.

The drawings really added depth to Persepolis. I had never read a graphic novel before, and I enjoyed it. There are many things that can be said without using words, like when Marji’s parents say, “Let’s enjoy our new freedom! Now that the devil has left,” (43) and there is a serpent slinking in the background. The pictures help the reader see beyond the text, though, like Ms. Mork said, it is basically like reading two texts at once.

I look forward to discussing Persepolis in class, especially using the different lenses. I think it may be a challenge because of the “two texts,” but I want to get a better understanding of the message Satrapi was trying to send, past what she said in her introduction. One thing I want to ask the group is what people think happens after the end of the book, because the ending left me curious; maybe I should go buy Persepolis 2.

Male Models

“So [Sula] watched her mother’s face and the face of the men when they opened the pantry door and made up her own mind” (44). In Toni Morrison’s book Sula, Sula is a girl without any men in her life except the ones her mother has sex with in the pantry. She has no idea how a normal woman in society is supposed to treat men. Because she has no male role models, Sula grows up thinking men are just for sex.

Sula grows up without any men to look up to. Hannah, Sula’s mom, “married…Rekus who died when…Sula was about three” (41). Without a father around, Sula lives with “a constant stream of boarders” (30). The only man that sticks around at the Peace house is Tar Baby. And while he is “a beautiful, slight, quiet man,” (39) he is “intent solely on drinking himself to death” (40). Sula has no examples of what a good man is, or how she should behave around them.

The only relationships Sula sees are the sexual ones between Hannah and her lovers. “Hannah simply refused to live without the attention of a man, and after Rekus’ death had a steady sequence of lovers, mostly the husbands of her friends and neighbors” (42). Yet Hannah’s reputation is not damaged. On the contrary, “The men…never gossiped about her” (44) and the women felt like “she was complimenting [them]…by wanting their husbands” (115). Sula gets the idea that it’s okay to have sex with anyone, even married people, from watching her mother and the Bottom’s reaction to her.

Sula uses the ideas she learns in her childhood and translates them into adult actions. Just as her mother did, “[Sula] went to bed with men as frequently as she could. It was the only place where she could find what she was looking for” (122). Sula uses sex for her own pleasure without caring about the men she sleeps with. The one man she does feel something for, Ajax, turns out to someone she doesn’t know and even makes her question everything in her life. “I have known nothing ever at all since the one thing I wanted was to know his name so how could he help but leave me since he was making love to a woman who didn’t even know his name…It’s just as well he left” (136). Sula stops caring about Jude just like she doesn’t mind what the people of the Bottom think. Unlike her mother, “the men gave her the final label…said she was guilty of the unforgivable thing…Sula slept with white men” (112). And “the fury she created in the women of the town was incredible…Sula was trying [their husbands] out and discarding them” (115). Most of these views come after Sula has sex with an important man in Nel’s life.

When Sula comes back to the Bottom after leaving for college she visits her best friend Nel who is now married. Not long after her initial return, Sula sleeps with Nel’s husband Jude. While this action damages Nel and Sula’s relationship, Sula “had no thought at all of Nel pain…They had always shared the affection of other people” (119). Because of the roles she sees both genders play during her childhood, she doesn’t understand the roles society expects from her. How could she, “having had no intimate knowledge of marriage, having lived in a house with women who thought all men available” (119)? Sula’s views on men in her adult life are that they are good for sex because that is all she knows.

Sula, like any child, follows the example of the adults in her life. Because of this, Sula does not know that men, even ones married to her friends, are there for anything but sex. While her friendship with Nel is harmed, Sula stays true to herself and her childhood beliefs. Toni Morrison wants to show the reader that having a man or not in a girl’s childhood affects her entire life.

Chicken Little

Chicken Little was walking down the streets of Medallion, near Eva Peace’s house. It was a huge house with people constantly going in and out. As the little boy stuck his dirty finger up his even dirtier nose, he looked up and then scurried away so the scary woman with one leg wouldn’t see him. Right then one of the deweys through one of Tar Baby’s empty bottles at the little boy and hit him right on the head.

“Gosh darnit!” Chicken Little thought. “We’re so close to Heaven, it’s rainin’ on us.”

“Heaven is fallin’! Heaven’s a fallin’!” Chicken shouted. He practically toppled over Mrs. Jackson.

“Child, what are you screaming ‘bout?” the old lady asked, chewing on a piece of ice.

“Heaven’s fallin’. It knocked me o’er the head. Bottom’s gonna turn into Heaven.”

“Well, I’ll be” Mrs. Jackson murmured. She shook her head and began to walk away. “We could probably do with a bit more Heaven down here anyway.”

Heartened that Mrs. Jackson seemed to somewhat get what he was saying, Chicken Little began running towards the riverbank. His bare feet tossed up more dirt with each step as he increased speed. Not watching where he was going, he tripped on a rock and fell flat on his face. As he slowly picked himself off the ground, his eyes traveled all the way up to meet those of his older brother.

“Where ya headed brother?” Albert asked.

“Nowhere…” Chicken Little muttered. “I hafta tell everyone Heaven’s fallin’.”

“What did you say?”

“Heaven’s falling! It hit me in the noggin!”

“You an idiot! Heaven ain’t fallin’ down on nobody. Now git outta here ‘fore I tell Mama ‘bout your crazy talk. Or maybe I’ll just knock ya into Heaven right now,” Albert threatened, picking up a stone from the ground.

Heeding his brother’s warning, Chicken continued on his path toward the river. He ventured down to the lower bank to play in the water. After unbuttoning his knickers to go for a swim, he heard voices from above. He buttoned back up and started up the riverbank. There he spotted Nel and Sula gazing over the water. He stopped when they saw him and picked his nose. Nel yelled at him, but Sula quieted her.

Sula. Despite the strange fox over her eye, she was always kind and helpful to little Chicken. She even let him climb a tree.

“Hey, Sula. I think I can reach Heaven. It’s fallin’ down ya know.”

“How do you know that?”

“Well it hit me smack on the head.”

Sula flashed her big white teeth. “Alright Chicken, Heaven’s falling.” Looking into Sula’s eyes, Chicken knew he everything was going to be okay.

Back on the ground, Sula “picked [Chicken] up by his hands and swung him outward then around and around” (Morrison 60). Chicken laughed and laughed. He felt the release of Sula’s grip, but he kept on laughing. His fingertips grasped Heaven as he flew over the water. Once his body hit the sandy bottom he was face to face with Heaven’s gate. Chicken smiled with confidence as he walked on in and whispered in amazement. “I knew it was falling.”

* * * * *

The name Chicken Little was used in the book for a reason and I wanted to capitalize on that. I was just going to use a version of “The Sky is Falling” fable and use Chicken Little from the book instead of the chicken in the story, but it sounded funny for a boy to be walking around with a bunch of birds. So I decided to take the Chicken Little from Sula’s perspective on what happened to him, while still keeping some of the fabric of “The Sky is Falling” story. It took me a long time to figure out what to name Chicken’s brother but I chose Albert after I researched Sula’s name online and found out that in Icelandic it meant “the sun.” I found a website, http://www.halfdan.is/vestur/nofn.htm, with meanings of Icelandic names and found one that mean high-born. I figured Chicken’s brother would be older since he was so intent on telling him how high he was in the tree. The actual Icelandic name is Aðalbjörg, so I turned it into a more manageable name, hence Albert. I made Chicken see Sula’s birthmark as a fox because in the version of Chicken Little that I read, Chicken is eaten (killed) by a fox and Sula (accidentally) kills Chicken.

Sula

This book surprised me. I was warned that there were some explicit scenes, which I found to be truer than I expected. Not just the sexual parts, but the deaths, especially burning. Toni Morrison is a very detailed author. From the beginning I was struck by her descriptions, like of what Shadrack sees after getting out of the hospital. “There were many people…they were thin slips, like paper dolls floating down the walks…A good high wind would pull them up and away and they would land perhaps among the tops of the trees” (11). Throughout the book Morrison’s language makes me feels like I am a part of the scene.

She is also good at making me feel what the characters are feeling. When Eva is explaining to Hannah why she killed her own child, I want to cry along with her. “I just thought of a way he could die like a man…But I held him close first…My baby boy” (72). Eva is a mother who only wants to do what she thinks is best for her son, even if that means murdering him.

The relationships between children and their parents was a strong topic in this novel, and a disheartening one. This subject is mainly exemplified with mothers and their daughters. A daughter seeks loves from her mother, but does not receive it, and the pattern gets repeated down the generations. This is evident with the Peace women: Eva, Hannah, and Sula. Hannah asks Eve if she loved her when she was little and Eva says “No. I don’t reckon I did” (67). Then when Hannah is talking to her friends, Sula hears her tell them “I love Sula. I just don’t like her” (57). Sula is crushed, as any child would be.

Yet what I took from these relationships is the way the characters define and express love. Hannah says she loves Sula, but basically only because she’s her mother. Nel too “had looked at her children and knew…That they were all she would ever know of love. But it was a love that…had cooked out” (165). Eva interprets love as her motherly duty as well. She yells at Hannah saying “what you talkin’ ‘bout did I love you girl I stayed alive for you” (69). In Sula, being a mother is an act of love in itself.

Sex is a common act in the book, and one usually thought to be of love. However, the characters in Sula challenge that belief. After Sula sleeps with Nel’s husband Jude, Nel is devastated. A few years later when Sula is sick in bed, Nel comes to visit and asks Sula why she did it. “[Sula] looked bored…‛Well, there was this space in front of me, behind me, in my head…And Jude filled it up. That’s all’”(144). Sula doesn’t see sex as a very big deal, a lesson she probably learned from her mother. “[Hannah] would f--- practically anything” which “taught Sula that sex was pleasant and frequent, but otherwise unremarkable” (43,44). Sula adopts her attitudes about men from her mother, but her way of life affects many people.

It really surprised me that the whole town is affected by Sula’s actions. Being a tight-knit community, it makes sense that people gossip about Sula, but I didn’t expect that they would act differently because of her. Sula is named a devil after sending Eva to an old folks home, sleeping with Jude, and doing “the unforgivable thing…[sleeping] with white men” (112). Yet the town, rather than be stirred up and angry as I would anticipate, unites with love. “They began to cherish their husbands and wives, protect their children, repair their homes and in general band together against the devil in their midst” (117). Sula’s corrupt behaviors cause the people of the Bottom to be kind.

Just the opposite happens when Sula dies. While “The death of Sula Peace was the best news folks up in the Bottom had,” the community does not react happily (150). “Hard on the heels of the general relief that Sula’s death brought a restless irritability took hold….The tension was gone and so was the reason for the effort they had made” (153). Sula, however disliked, is a powerful woman who has a strong hold on the town. She is persistent with what she did. And although she may make the wrong choices, at least in the eyes of others, one thing is very true—she is herself.

Sula always knows what she wants, and she goes out and gets it. Her confidence makes her a good friend for Nel, who even with her “new found me-ness” lives under a mother who “drove her daughter’s imagination underground” (29,18). Nel and Sula are opposites, but that is no hindrance to their friendship. “[Sula] made [Nel] laugh…made her see old things with new eyes, in [her] presence [Nel] felt clever, gentle and a little raunchy” (95). Nel needs Sula and Sula needs Nel. “[Sula] had clung to Nel as the closest thing to both an other and a self...Nel was the one person who wanted nothing from her, who had accepted all aspects of her” (119). Even though it takes Nel a long while to realize it, she needs Sula more than anyone. At the end of the books Nel discovers that she was grieving the loss of Sula, not Jude.

A major lesson I got out of Sula was the value of a great friendship. Nel and Sula have a strong bond, and while they never regained that bond after Sula slept with Jude, both women were changed by their companionship. This book makes me value my own friends even more.

Some things I want to talk about in discussion are the characters of Shadrack and Eva, and what it means to be part of the Bottom. I also want to discuss what happened when everyone joined Shadrack in the National Suicide Day march. Actually, I just need some clarification on everything relating to Shadrack because his character confused me, especially at the beginning of the book. I don’t know why he was in the hospital or what was going on when he first got out of the hospital.

Fort Marion

I made a poster about Fort Marion and to answer the question of what happened to the prisoners kept there.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Goldman, Marlene. "Mapping and dreaming: Native resistance in Green Grass, Running Water." Canadian Literature. 1999. 18. eLibrary. Proquest. 03 Mar 2007. Available: http://elibrary.bigchalk.com.

Kirkwood, Scott. "Drawing on Experience." National Parks. 01 Apr 2006. 20. eLibrary. Proquest. 03 Mar 2007. Available: http://elibrary.bigchalk.com.

Werner, Louis. "Captive warriors' eloquent sketches.(ledger drawings by Plains Indians)." Americas (English Edition). 01 Jun 1998. 28(8). eLibrary. Proquest. 03 Mar 2007. Available: http://elibrary.bigchalk.com.

PROCESS

I went to the Champlin Park website and found a list of online resources to use for research. I ended up using all of my sources from Elibrary because they had the most scholarly articles that had beneficial information. I then read through the articles and typed the summarizing notes to use as points on my poster.

Story-truth

Truth is a hard term to define. According to the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, truth is “sincerity in action, character, and utterance.” Yet how can one know what is sincere? Truth has to be a relative term then, where each individual has his own beliefs about what is true. In both the novels The Things They Carried by Tim O’Brien and Green Grass, Running Water by Thomas King the reader has to discover what the truth is. Both books rely on the truth of stories to reveal each author’s truth about life.

The Things They Carried is a series of stories that teach the reader the truth about war. One of the characters, Rat Kiley, was a medic who, after spending nights out on watch, would “stare at guys who were still okay, the alive guys, and…start to picture how they’d look dead” (222). For the sake of his troop, he ends up bravely shooting himself in the foot to go home. His story shows the reader the hard things soldiers went through, especially doctors. Another character in the book named Tim O’Brien gets his draft notice and has to make the decision of whether to go to Vietnam or flee to Canada. He ends up on a boat yards from the Canadian border and “All [he] could do was cry” (57). The decision weighed on his shoulders, and he had to give in to going to war. Although this didn’t really happen, the reader can understand that soldiers had a hard choice to make. Through stories, O’Brien conveys his own truth about war to his readers.

Similarly, Green Grass, Running Water is a mixture of stories that teach the reader the truth about Indian Life. Throughout the book, “I” tells a creation story about a woman in four different ways. Each of these stories ends with the woman being taken away to Fort Marion. “First Woman…[is] on that train and there are a bunch of Indians on that train with chains on…Everybody is going to Florida” (105). Fort Marion was a prison in Flordia where Indians who fought against the US government were kept. These stories make it evident to the reader that the events at Fort Marion are a horrible part of Native American history. In the book there are four Indians out to save the world as well. One way they do this is by “fixing” a John Wayne movie so that “none of the Indians fell….the rest of the Indians began to shoot…and soldiers began falling over” (358). John Wayne and his white men usually defeat the Indians, but the story is changed. King uses this story to show his readers the truth of how Native Americans have struggled under the white culture, but also his personal truth that they can rise above it.

Both O’Brien and King’s use of stories provides the reader with each author’s view of truth. Tim O’Brien says that “story-truth is truer sometimes than happening-truth” (179). That is because stories are universal. The Archetypal lens sees stories as a way to reveal a theme, like truth, to any sort of culture, whether that is war veterans or Native Americans. In Green Grass, Running Water “I” says that “There are no truths…Only stories” (432). Truth is hard to define, but stories have shape and solidity.

The use of stories in both books helps readers relate the author’s truth to their own version. Truth does not have to be the exact events that happened or have a precise definition, but it must teach the reader something. Stories engage the readers of both novels, and they show what truth really is. Transcending cultures, time, and places, stories reveal to us the truth we miss in our own experiences.

Who is "I"?

When I began reading this book I was very confused. I didn’t know what was going on with Coyote and his dream, G O D, nor Ishmael, Hawkeye, the Lone Ranger, and Robinson Crusoe. A question I still have is who is “I”? Is it the character telling the story, so the Lone Ranger in the first chapter? Or is it like The Yellow Wallpaper where the reader is supposed to put herself into the character’s role? Or is it just a character named “I”? I hope to get an answer to that during discussion.

As I read further, I was able to get a somewhat better picture of what was going on, at least as far as the characters who weren’t telling the story. Alberta was one of these people, and a very interesting one. She has some strong views, especially when it comes to the men in her life.

Alberta is dating two men, Lionel and Charlie, at the same time. Both of the men know this and are therefore competing for Alberta’s love, and maybe her hand in marriage. Yet marriage is something Alberta does not want; what she does want is a baby. “And as she saw it, she had several options” (69). Among Alberta’s options are just using Lionel and Charlie to get her pregnant and not pursuing a deeper relationship, having a one-night-stand, and being artificially inseminated. She actually sought out artificial insemination, but since she wasn’t married she wasn’t seen as an acceptable recipient. Therefore Alberta was forced to consider her other options, including marriage.

After Alberta got rejected for insemination, she began thinking about the men in her life, views that were probably the result of watching her drunken father Amos. “Lionel wasn’t pushy and slick like Charlie. He was sincere and dull. And when she thought about it, Alberta wasn’t sure that there was anything in between. Maybe all men were like that, Charlies and Lionels. Or worse. Maybe, in the end, they all turned into Amoses, standing in the dark, angry, their pants down around their ankles” (201). Obviously Alberta has some issues, which don’t seem to be resolved very well in the end. Alberta will get what she really wants, a baby, but she is confused because Coyote impregnated her. She’s also staying at the reservation with Lionel, Norma, and Latisha so I am not sure that her baby is coming without a relationship since Lionel is still around.

Lionel too is a character with some questionable outcomes to his goals. After turning 40 and being sung “Happy Birthday” by a quartet of old Indians quite a few times, Lionel “had divided the remainder of his life into a series of manageable goals” (306). These goals include quitting his job, going back to school, talking to Alberta about children, and spending more time with his parents. Lionel begins his journey to accomplish these ambitions by heading to Bill Bursum’s shop, his workplace, where the four Indians, Coyote, Charlie, and Eli were. After seeing the Indians beat the cowboys in a western “something told [Lionel] that whatever mistakes he had made in the past, his real problems might just be beginning” (359). Lionel leaves the store with Eli, and drives to Lionel’s parents’ home on the reservation. At the Sun Dance, Lionel spends time with all of his relatives and with Alberta. He even sticks around after the dam is destroyed to help rebuild Eli’s cabin for Norma to live in.

Lionel’s story ends indecisively, which makes his premonition from Bursum’s shop have some value. It is hard to tell if Lionel really achieved anything. He did see his parents and spend more time with his family so I suppose that is an accomplishment. Yet he didn’t talk to Alberta, although he does know of her pregnancy, nor did he officially quit his job. His last line of the book is “I should probably go back to school…Maybe that’s what I’ll do” (464). That definitely leaves me with some unanswered questions, and with the conclusion that Lionel is a pathetic man who can’t solve his own problems.

Some people who seem to know and accomplish what they want are the four Indian narrators: Hawkeye, Ishmael, the Lone Ranger, and Robinson Crusoe. They tell Lionel and Norma that they are “trying to fix up the world” (133). To make this a more endurable task they will “start small” then “move on to bigger jobs” (137). The Indians decide that they will help Lionel and they give him a new jacket, which is actually George’s, for his birthday. On that same day they change the western that everyone was watching so that the Indians beat the cowboys. Then they join up with Coyote and meet Lionel and his family at the reservation right after George arrives. George was taking pictures, which is strictly forbidden, and the four Indians make sure his camera is taken, though they do give him his jacket back. After this the Indians tell Lionel “that’s about as much as [they] can do for [him]” (428). It’s hard to say that they actually made a difference since Lionel replies with “This is how you help me fix up my life” (428)?

Done with Lionel, the Indians and Coyote visit Eli on his lake. There they all witness three cars floating towards the dam during an earthquake. Finally “the dam gave way, and the water and the cars tumbled over the edge of the world” (454). The Indians then wind up in Fort Marion and soon end up back at the hospital with Babo. Here Coyote apologizes “In case [they] hurt anyone’s feelings” (468). Then Coyote and “I” bring the story in a circle by telling how the world began, which was what they were doing in the beginning.

Throughout the book Coyote and “I” tell a number of stories with a large number of allusions, especially Biblical ones. These stories and references demonstrate Thomas king’s satirical style. I think that King is mad at Christianity because of his numerous biblical insinuations including Adam and Eve, Noah, Mary, and Jesus. King's constant mentions of Christian rules convince me the most that he is angry with Christian beliefs. First Woman and Ahdamn are eating fried chicken when G O D reminds them that “There are rules…Christian rules” (73). Changing Woman meets Noah who tells her “The first rule is Thou Shalt Have Big Breasts;” when Changing Woman won’t obey he says “if you can’t follow our Christian rules, then you’re not wanted on this ship” (162-163). Old Woman bumps into Young Man Walking on Water who explains his “Christian rules” (388). The women in all of these stories have a hard time accepting these rules, and the ones making the rules have a hard time accepting the women.

Thomas King uses light satire to make his point about Christianity, which I believe is that there are many foolish rules. King’s exaggerations and sarcasm make the stories light-hearted, and work to expose his opinion as well. I am a Christian and I think the stories based off the Bible are funny, especially when Thought Woman/Mary has to sign a “Virgin verification form” for “A.A. Gabriel” (299). I think I can laugh at this because I am very familiar with these stories and I am confident in my Christian faith.

Christians are not the only group Thomas King has a problem with. I conclude that he is upset with the white race as well. It was white people who wanted to build the dam, white people who ruined Amos’s dancing outfits, and white people who beat Indians in westerns.

After Nasty Bumppo explains the differences between white and Indian gifts to Old Woman, she realizes that “Whites are superior, and Indians are inferior” (435). Nasty then renames Old Woman as Hawkeye which, according to “I”, “sounds like a name for a white person who wants to be an Indian” (437). Both Coyote and “I” agree that no one would want to be an Indian. With the name of Hawkeye, Old Woman is sent to Fort Marion, an Indian prison, “For trying to impersonate a white man” (439). Actually each of the women in the different stories are arrested and taken there.

This reoccurring situation makes me believe that Thomas King has had a bad experience with Fort Marion. Even if that isn’t so, he is evidently upset with what went on there. Unlike the satire associated with the biblical allusions, King uses a more serious tone when discussing the problems with whites and Indians. King uses understatements to exemplify what a big problem there is. I did not laugh at this satire, but rather I felt sad to be part of the white race that treated Indians unfairly throughout history.

McCarthy's Mind

1968 was a year of turmoil in America. The assassinations of Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr. only added to the political chaos that was the Vietnam War. 1968 was also the first year a majority of Americans spoke out against the war. Being an election year, the war was an important topic for the candidates for the presidential nomination. One of the candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination was Minnesota Senator Eugene McCarthy. His anti-war views changed not only American politics, but America itself.

Eugene, more commonly called Gene, McCarthy believed that the government should be held to a set of moral standards, and that fighting in Vietnam was not a morally sound decision. He was also convicted to speak out against the war for that majority of Americans who opposed it as well. On August 17, 1967, McCarthy walked out of a Senate Foreign Relations Committee “after hearing Undersecretary of State Nicholas Katzenbach declare that Congress was ‘compelled’ to support President Lyndon B. Johnson’s Vietnam Policy” (Eisele). McCarthy’s anti-war ideas remained strong throughout 1968.

Prompted by other politicians opposed to Vietnam, McCarthy started a campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination. He focused on encouraging Americans to speak up, and appealed to mostly young adults. However, his campaign was financed by a small number of older anti-war politicians who gave large donations. He spent a considerable sum of money on television ads for the New Hampshire primary. In fact, in 1971 Congress passed a law limiting campaign spending on television largely based on McCarthy’s New Hampshire campaign.

Although he did not win the nomination, or even the New Hampshire primary, McCarthy was able to transform American society. He was able to hold President Johnson under 50% of the vote by receiving 42% himself. Soon after McCarthy’s accomplishment, and the addition to the candidacy of Robert Kennedy, President Johnson decided not to run for re-election, thus turning the focus of the Democratic Party to getting out of Vietnam.

Gene McCarthy challenged the 1968 government. He spoke for the larger part of Americans, those that opposed the path our country was taking. And he was heard. In 1972, the U.S. pulled out of Vietnam. Albert Eisele, former press secretary to vice president Walter Mondale and Washington correspondent for Minnesota newspapers, knew McCarthy well. He covered his Senate Career as well as his 1968 campaign. Eisele conveys that “Eugene McCarthy showed that it is possible for one man to make a difference…and that not even the immense power of the presidency can withstand the opposition from a public aroused by a man who speaks out against what he sees as an immoral action by government” (Eisele). McCarthy achieved his goal because he stood firm in both his political and moral beliefs.

Gene McCarthy was a powerful man and his message reached much of America, including Tim O’Brien. In The Things They Carried, Tim states that he “had taken a modest stand against the war….just ringing a few doorbells for Gene McCarthy” (41). Tim O’Brien had campaigned for Gene McCarthy, therefore a stop to the war in Vietnam, not knowing that soon he would be over there as a soldier. After the war, however, Tim passionately felt that the war was wrong. He had supported Gene McCarthy previously, but it took the Vietnam War for him to really understand McCarthy’s point of view. Like Tim, it took time for America to see McCarthy’s vision, but once they did, American life was different: the soldiers were finally coming home. Eugene McCarthy played a large role in making that dream come true.

Bibliography:

Clausen, Christopher. "The Year That Changed Its Mind." New Leader. 01 Nov 2003. 12. eLibrary. Proquest. 20 Feb 2007. Available: http://elibrary.bigchalk.com.

Eisele, Albert. "Eugene McCarthy." Commonweal. 21 Apr 2006. 10. eLibrary. Proquest. 20 Feb 2007. Available: http://elibrary.bigchalk.com.

McGovern, George. "Gene McCarthy." Nation. 02 Jan 2006. 6. eLibrary. Proquest. 20 Feb 2007. Available: http://elibrary.bigchalk.com.

Samples, John. “A Gene McCarthy Kind of Thing.” Spectator.org 15 Dec. 2005. Available: http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=5331

Notes:
I searched the Internet for scholarly articles relating to Eugene McCarthy. First I searched under Google Scholar, but I did not find much. I went to the Brooklyn Center Library to see if they had any useful information, but all of the books relating to McCarthy were not available at that library. I then went to the Champlin Park IMC homepage and looked in their databases. Elibrary was the database had the most useful articles, and that is where I got a majority of mine. After printing the content of the articles I wanted, I read through them a few times and highlighted the things I thought were important. I then put my notes aside and wrote my journal, only referring back to the text a few times for the quotes I used. I also looked back over The Things They Carried to pull out the quote from there.

The Horror of Humiliation

“You’re at the bow of a boat on the Rainy River….the wind coming off the river, the waves, the silence, the wooded frontier….You’re twenty-one years old, you’re scared, and there’s a hard squeezing pressure in your chest. What would you do” (56)? Tim O’Brien is so wrought with fear that he wants the reader of The Things They Carried to feel exactly what he is feeling. The Things They Carried is a work of fiction by Tim O’Brien depicting the lives of soldiers, one of them being Tim O’Brien, during the Vietnam War. War is a terrible place, yet the greatest fear shown in the book is the fear of embarrassment. The ability to overcome this fear or not changes the lives of the soldiers tremendously.

Norman Bowker is one of those soldiers. Norman is afraid his father will think less of him because of what he did in Vietnam. He envisions himself explaining to his father about “the seven medals he did win… then he would have talked about the medal he did not win and why he did not win it” (141). Norman and the soldiers had to spend a rainy night in a “shit field” (146). “Everything was black and wet” when the “field just exploded. Rain and slop and shrapnel…all they could do was worm down into the slime and cover up and wait” (148). Norman was in the midst of battle when he heard his friend Kiowa screaming. “[Norman] grabbed Kiowa by the boot and tried to pull him out….and then suddenly he felt himself going…The shit was in his nose and eyes….He released Kiowa’s boot and watched it slide away” (149).

Norman is telling this story in his head after the war as he drives around a seven-mile loop in his hometown in Iowa. He imagines telling it to his father, but he never articulates it. He is afraid his father will disapprove of him since he “almost won the Silver Star” and did not actually win it (141). Norman expresses his worries about his father to Tim one night. “I’ll tell you something, O’Brien. If I could have one wish, anything, I’d wish for my dad to write me a letter and say it’s okay if I don’t win any medals. That’s all my old man talks about…he can’t wait to see my goddamn medals” (36). According to Kohlberg’s Theory of Moral Reasoning, Norman is operating at a stage three because he wants his father to approve of him. Norman is unable to move beyond his fear of disappointing his father and in 1978 “hanged himself in…his hometown in central Iowa” (155). Norman’s life ended because of his inability to overcome his fear.

Tim O’Brien was afraid of being shamed as well, although he wishes that he was not. At the beginning of the chapter “On the Rainy River,” Tim talks about what he wishes courage was like. He hopes that it “comes to us in finite quantities, like an inheritance, and by being frugal and stashing it away and letting it earn interest, we steadily increase our moral capital in preparation for that day when the account must be drawn down” (40). Yet the day comes when Tim receives his draft notice, the day he needs to draw on his “account,” and he can not. He flees to the Rainy River, which separates Minnesota from Canada, and eventually gets out on the river in a boat staring Canada in the face. “All [he] could do was cry…That old image of [himself] as a hero, as a man of conscience and courage, all that was just a …dream” (57). He then sees images of his family, his hometown, and many other people “whooping and chanting and urging [him] toward one shore or the other” (59). And with “All those eyes on [him]…right then [he] submitted….[He] would go to the war—[he] would kill and maybe die—because [he] was embarrassed not to” (59). Tim makes one of the biggest decisions of his life based on the fact that he is too embarrassed to go to Canada. Like Norman, Tim is acting at a stage three of Kohlberg’s moral stages because he acts based on what others will think of him. He is afraid that others will think less of him if he decides to go to Canada instead of Vietnam. And submitting to his fear, Tim heads to war.

In contrast, Rat Kiley conquers the fear of embarrassment to get out of war. This fear is one that weighs heavily on all of the soldiers’ minds. “[The soldiers] carried the…greatest fear, which was the fear of blushing” (21). For Rat, this fear considerably strained him because he was the medic. He had to look after everyone else’s health and safety before his own; but if he wasn’t okay then no one would be. During a period of about two weeks, the soldiers only moved around at night. “[I]t was a tense time for everybody…[but] the strain was too much for [Rat]” (218). “Sometimes he’d stare at guys who were still okay, the alive guys, and he’d start to picture how they’d look dead…[and] he couldn’t shut off the pictures” (222). Rat was not alright, and it was obvious to everyone. Finally Rat could not take it and “took off his boots and socks, laid out his medical kit, doped himself up, and put a round through his foot” (223). He did this in front of everyone, therefore facing public humiliation. Normally, “[the soldiers] spoke bitterly about guys who had found release by shooting off their own toes or fingers,” but “Nobody blamed him….Lieutenant Cross went over and said he’d vouch that it was an accident….Everybody stood in a little circle, feeling bad about it, trying to cheer him up” (22, 223-224). Rat Kiley was acting at a stage 6 because he rose above the “soldier’s greatest fear” and shot himself for everyone’s sake.

By overcoming his personal fear, Rat Kiley progressed to the highest stage of moral reasoning. While facing all of the dangers of war, it was the overwhelming fear of humiliation that drove at least one of the major decisions made by each of the characters. Rat Kiley was able to overpower this fear; Norman and Tim were not. Tim O’Brien is showing the reader that it is difficult, but still possible, to achieve the highest level of moral reasoning, even within the context of war.

The Burden of Being Human

As I started to read The Things They Carried, I was captivated by Tim O’Brien’s writing style. I like how he would reveal an event and then slowly but surely describe the details of it. For example, in the first chapter O’Brien talks about “Ted Lavender, who was…shot in the head” (2). He mentions Lavender’s death more as the chapter continues with comments like “Lavender…was shot and killed” or “until he was shot, Ted Lavender carried the starlight scope” (6, 9). This heightened my interest in the book because I wanted to know how and why Lavender died. The answer comes when the scene is set and then “Ted Lavender was shot in the head on his way back from peeing” (12). However, the story isn’t completely over because throughout the rest of the chapter Lieutenant Jimmy Cross’s feelings about Lavender’s death are shown. Similarly, later in the book, Kiowa’s death is mentioned and looked at from different perspectives, but the reader doesn’t know all of the details nor feelings until later on. I really enjoyed that set-up because it helped me know the characters better by knowing their different viewpoints on the same event.

There were many characters in this book, which could get confusing since there wasn’t a distinct main character. Of course this book was written by O’Brien so there are more stories about him and from his point of view, but there are plenty about other characters. I started keeping a character list and I tried to jot down some notes about each character, but I didn’t start until about one fourth of the way through and I didn’t write as much as I should have. I am still glad that I did make a list though because I think now I have the characters straight; although I don’t know much about Eddie Diamond. I’m not sure if that’s because I didn’t read close enough or if he wasn’t in the book very much. After I looked over my character list I discovered I had only written down Diamond’s name and after scanning the book rather quickly, I didn’t find much about him.

A character that was prevalent in the book and the one I like the best is Kiowa. First of all I like him because he is “a devout Baptist” and “carried an illustrated New Testament” with him (3). My Christian faith is important to me so I feel connected with Kiowa in that aspect. Another thing I like about Kiowa is how he describes Lavender’s death. He “said it was like watching a rock fall…just boom, then down” (6). I especially like how he describes it to Norman Bowker: “Like cement…boom, down….Zapped while zipping” (17). Kiowa isn’t afraid neither to tell what he sees and how he sees it nor to find irony in a grave situation, even if no one else wants to hear. I admire Kiowa for this because I have a hard time voicing my opinions sometimes. He also isn’t afraid to feel what he feels, even if he doesn’t like feeling that way. After Lavender died “[Kiowa] wished he could find some great sadness, or even anger, but the emotion wasn’t there and he couldn’t make it happen. Mostly he felt pleased to be alive” (18). Kiowa’s reaction mirrors the basic human instinct to care about one’s self first. I feel like I can relate to Kiowa because there are quite a few times when I think of myself before others or think about things I shouldn’t when I am aware of and feel bad about it, but like Kiowa, I can’t make any feeling “happen”.

The whole story of Kiowa’s death was the most interesting to me. I hated and loved it at the same times. I was upset when Kiowa’s death was first mentioned because I really liked Kiowa. Then I was absolutely disgusted by the way Kiowa died. The description of the “shit field,” especially how Norman Bowker could feel it “inside him, in his lungs” and “then he lay still and tasted the shit in his mouth…and listened to the rain and explosions and bubbling sounds” was so vivid that I wanted to cry and vomit at the same time (149). But I was in orchestra and I restrained myself. Still, this was about the worst possible situation I could ever think of. It grieved me that Norman Bowker killed himself later on as well.

Yet what I enjoyed about this story was how everyone cared deeply about Kiowa. Norman Bowker felt like it was his fault that Kiowa died since he was right there. Tim O’Brien blamed himself for Kiowa’s death since he turned on his flashlight “And as a result his friend Kiowa was dead” (170). Guilt rose up from everywhere, and each person had a different way to deal with the pain. Azar joked about Kiowa being “Wasted in the waste” (165). I have to admit that at first I was outraged at this disrespect for Kiowa, but then I realized that these comments reflected Kiowa’s comments about Ted Lavender’s death. By finding the irony in the situation, Azar was honoring Kiowa’s personality.

That’s what this book meant to me: honor. Not because these men went to war and fought for our country, which is honorable, but because they were human beings surviving in tough situations. One of my absolute favorite quotes in The Things They Carried was in the first chapter when O’Brien was describing the things the soldiers carried. “They carried the common secret of cowardice barely restrained, the instinct to run or freeze or hide, and in many respects this was the heaviest burden of all, for it could never be put down, it required perfect balance and posture” (21). Each character was united by this weary load, the charge of being an ordinary human in anything but ordinary circumstances.

John's Love Revised

John is a kind husband and his love for his wife is evident to her throughout The Yellow Wallpaper. John does what he thinks is best for his wife and brings her out to the country to rest. Even though the narrator dislikes her room, she stays where John tells her to since he “is very caring and loving” (12). The narrator would not have said those things about her husband if she didn't believe they were true. Even as the narrator begins her descent into insanity, her belief that John adores her stays the same. She says that John “loves [her] dearly, and hates to have [her] sick” (21). John not only cherishes his wife the way she is, but he wants her to get better. Although “it is so hard [for the narrator] to talk to John about [her] case” it is only “because he is so wise, and because he loves [her] so” (23). It can be difficult for any person to talk to someone she loves about her problems, and that is the same for the narrator and John. It is obvious to the narrator that John loves her, and that is vital to any marriage.

John's Love

John is a kind, loving husband and his love is very evident to the narrator throughout her story. He chose to bring his wife out to the country so that she could get well and he is doing what he believes is best for his wife. Even though the narrator does not like her room very much, she stays where John tells her to since he “is very caring and loving” (12). If his wife did not think that John was good to her she would not have chosen to say those things about him. As the story goes on and the narrator begins her descent into insanity, her feelings that John adores her do not change. She says that John “loves [her] dearly, and hates to have [her] sick” (21). John not only cherishes his wife the way she is, but wants her to get better. Although “it is so hard to talk to John about [her] case” it is only “because he is so wise, and because he loves [her] so” (23). It can be difficult for any person to talk to someone he or she loves about his or her problems, and this is the same for the narrator and John. It is obvious to the narrator that John loves her, and that is vital to any healthy marriage.

John in the Moonlight

A major thread in this story is the moonlight. The moonlight brings out a new side to the wallpaper and its mysteries. The light “creeps so slowly” and makes the narrator feel creepy” (23). Then the wallpaper changes: “the faint figure behind seemed to shake the pattern, just as if she wanted to get out” (23). It is the moonlight that brings out the woman trapped in the wallpaper. “I didn’t realize for a long time…but now I am quite sure that is a woman. By daylight she is subdued, quiet” (26).

These passages also tie in with the theme of imprisonment throughout the book. The narrator feels trapped in her house and her mind. She is forced to live in the nursery with barred windows, even though she doesn’t want to (12). As she studies the wallpaper more it becomes a “faint figure” and then later a woman (23, 26). The woman then tries to escape from her entrapment, she “shakes it [the wallpaper]” and “she is all the time trying to climb through (30). The woman is finally able to escape. The narrator knows this because she has “seen her” and knows “it is the same woman…for she is always creeping, and most women do not creep by daylight” (30). By the end of the story, the narrator identifies herself as the woman by a question to herself about the women she sees in the wallpaper. “I wonder if they all come out of that wallpaper as I did?” (35). The woman was able to escape, which is what the narrator wants to be able to do herself. Therefore, the woman in the wallpaper is the personification of the narrator’s deepest desire.

The repeated use of the word creepy was interesting to me. The moonlight creeps to make the narrator feel creepy, and the woman creeps as well. The definition of the word creep by the Random House Dictionary is "to approach slowly, imperceptibly, or stealthily" which is how the author seems to approach the themes in the book. Still, the moonlight was the part of the book that really intrigued me. I liked how the wallpaper changed in the night, especially how the woman came out then. It seemed to contradict the narrator’s life, since she is only free during the day when John is not there.

John is a very confusing character to me. I’m not sure what to think about him. The first things the narrator says about John is that he “laughs at me [her], of course, but one expects that in marriage” (9). From this description of John, the narrator is exhibiting a feminist viewpoint where it is okay for men to laugh at women. John also does not believe that the narrator is sick, but rather that she has a “nervous depression” (10). The narrator disagrees with this diagnosis, yet she succumbs to whatever John tells her is best for her. This is especially evident in the way that the narrator lives in the nursery, when she would rather live in “one [a room] downstairs that opened on the piazza and had roses all over the window, and such pretty old-fashioned chintz hangings” (12). Still, there is a way that the narrator is able to defy John, and that is by writing. “There comes John, and I must put this away, —he hates me write a word” (13). However defiant she may try to be, the narrator does admit that John “loves me [her] dearly, and hates to have me [her] sick…And dear John gathered me up in his arms, and just carried me upstairs and laid me on the bed…He said I was his darling and comfort and all he had…” (21-22).

Yet in the next line John “says…I [the narrator] must use my [her] will and self-control and not let any silly fancies run away from me [her]” (22). A major question I had while reading this book is why does John keep bringing up her “fancies”? John “says that with my [the narrator’s] imaginative power and habit of story-making, a nervous weakness like mine [hers] is sure to lead to all manner of excited fancies” (15-16). This made me think at first that John actually cared about the narrator and wanted her to be well. However, what I found on page 24 made me rethink that analysis. The narrator is trying to tell John that her mind is unwell when she is “stopped short for he sat up straight and looked at me [her] with such a stern reproachful look that I could not say another word" (24). Then John says that "there is nothing so dangerous, so fascinating, to a temperament like yours. It is a false and foolish fancy. Can you not trust me as a physician…?” (24). This outburst by John made me think that perhaps John is pacifying the narrator and maybe even using her. It made me believe that John invented the idea of a “nervous condition” and that he tried to keep his wife “sick”.

I’m still not exactly sure what to make of John, and I think that he would be a good character to have a class discussion about. I would like to think that he is a kind husband looking after his wife, taking her to the country to rest and get well. But why does John obsess about his wife’s “fancies” and forbid her from the things she wants like writing or sleeping in a different room?

Part of the reason I’m not sure of how to interpret the character of John is that the narrator is going crazy during the story. I’m not sure if I can take anything she says as true. The narrator does mention that she is sick right away in the story (10), and the back cover says that the book is about “one woman’s descent into insanity.” Therefore, can I trust an insane woman’s view of the world? That is a question I would like to be able to discuss further with other members of the class.