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.
Sunday, February 25, 2007
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
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.
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.
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
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.
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.
Sunday, February 11, 2007
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.
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.
Friday, February 9, 2007
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.
Thursday, February 8, 2007
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.
Wednesday, February 7, 2007
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)