"Adams" as an Allegory

Adams is a very odd story, about conflict between two neighbors who both seem a little crazy. On the surface level it makes very little sense, but with one assumption, most things fit into place. Take the narrator, Rodgers, to represent George W. Bush. Instantly, it makes much more sense. Adams is then Saddam Hussein (move the s to the front of Adams and it becomes Sadam). The opening of the story is symbolic of 9/11, the infamous terrorist attack on the United States by Islamic terrorists. Saddam Hussein initially praised 9/11 saying, "the American cowboys are reaping the fruit of their crimes against humanity." With this premise, the rest of the short story is then a commentary on the reaction of the United States, led by President George W. Bush.

The narrator's reaction to seeing Adams standing in his underwear, facing his children's room, is to "wonk" him a bit, beating him up and kicking him out. Then, Rodgers takes the fight to Adams' house and goes over that evening to beat him up again. This is symbolic of the reaction of President Bush to 9/11, using it to eventually start a war against Saddam Hussein and Iraq.

Later, Rodgers distributes notes around the neighborhood as well as to his neighbor's children explaining how he found Adams standing in his underwear, facing the bedroom of Rodgers's kids. This is referring to how Bush used 9/11 to gather lots of international support for military action.

When Rodgers breaks into Adams' house and steals all of his weapons, this refers to Iraq's violations of international law regarding development of weapons of mass destruction. Likewise, his subsequent break in to steal all the chemicals in the house refers to one of the ways Bush justified invading Iraq: he claimed Iraq had chemical weapons including anthrax. However, Rodgers had much more success finding chemical weapons than Bush did.

Perhaps this was not truly Saunders' intention for this story, but I think it makes sense for the most part. If this story is read as an allegory for 9/11 and the Iraq war, what sort of commentary is Saunders making? I do realize that this allegory does not fit perfectly, but I think it fits well enough to be worth discussing.

The Superior Ysrael

In the short story "Ysrael" by Junot Díaz, I think that the boys in the Dominican Republic bully Ysrael because he is simply better than them and they can't stand it.  That is, apart from the physical appearance of his face.  The seize on his mutilated face and mock him for it, despite his superiority in nearly every other way.  They all admit that he by far a better runner than they are.  For example, on page seven, Yunior  describes his first encounter with Ysrael.

He picked up the bundle and ran down the alley.  Some other boys saw him an wheeled around, howling but, coño, could he run.

It is obvious that the boys, or Yunior at least, have a certain amount of respect for Ysrael's physical prowess.  Díaz also makes us respect him as readers for his strength and perseverance in his training in the second story focused on him, "No Face."

He goes to the guanábana tree and does his pull-ups, nearly fifty now, and then picks up the café dehuller and holds it to his chest for a forty count.  His arms, chest, and neck bulge and the skin around his temple grows tight, about to split.  But no! He's unbeatable and drops the dehuller with a fat Yes. (153)

I found this passage to be very impressive and it certianly made me impressed by Ysrael's commitment to his training.  However, is this training self-imposed, or is it forced on him by the rest of the people of the island who are constantly fighting against him?  I think that it was forced on him as it was necessary for his survival, but then he grew proud of his strength and now strives to better himself in that regard.

When Rafa and Yunior find him towards the end of the first story, Yunior asks if Ysrael is still interested in wrestling.  Ysrael says that yes he is.  This seems to make Rafa uncomfortable as he does not want to actually wrestle Ysrael but also does not want to lose face.  He instead finds a way out of a fight, saying "You wanna try it pendejo?"  Here, Rafa is relying on the fact that Ysrael is tired of fighting everyone he meets and would rather back down than wrestle Rafa.  The first time I read this story, before I read "No Face," I did not realize this subtlety since I thought that Rafa really was the stronger wrestler.  However, in the second story it is made clear that Ysrael would have won, since he beat four boys at once who jumped him.  This means that Rafa must have know he could not possibly win a fair fight with Ysrael.  Therefore, he takes after the rest of the bullies in that country and starts an unfair one.  Rafa suddenly smashes a bottle on Ysrael's head and Ysrael falls.  Despite his superiority, he is still defeated by Rafa who can't stand the fact that the disfigured Ysrael is superior to him, and uses trickery to make himself feel better.

A Suicide Note

I think "Go Like This" by Lorrie Moore is really a suicide note in the guise of the last story of a writer with cancer.  This suicide note is written by Elizabeth, the narrator of the story.  This story is made up of fragments spanning many days leading up to the suicide itself.  Elizabeth writes about having cancer, her beliefs regarding her planned suicide, and her interactions with her family and friends.

Towards the end of the story, Elizabeth writes about telling her daughter, Blaine, of her plans for suicide.  She writes "I got a chance, after all, to say you're young and probably don't understand" (78).  To me this shows that Elizabeth realizes that it would be impossible for her young daughter to understand all the issues surrounding the planned suicide.  Also, she realizes how if she let others explain to her daughter when she is older, Blaine would not get her mother's true beliefs, just a second hand interpretation from her father or other family.

Elizabeth feels very strongly about her beliefs, strongly enough to kill herself.  Furthermore, she plans this in spite of the fact that she says "well maybe I'm not going to heaven" (80)  A person with such strong beliefs would not want her daughter to live a life not understanding why her mother killed herself, and what her mother really believed in that made her do such a thing.

In parts of the story, it seems as if Elizabeth is justifying her decision and her reason to her reader.  "I say I have chosen suicide as the most rational and humane alternative to my cancer, an act no so much of self sacrifice as of beauty, of sparing" (71).  This is written in the context of announcing her plans to a gathering of family and friends.  However, I think she also means to justify herself to the reader in this passage.  The point of the story generally seems more focused on her thought process as she chooses suicide than just a history of events.  She clearly presents her beliefs and logical reasons for suicide.  For these reasons, I think the real purpose of this story is to explain to her daughter, and also to serve as a permanent record of why she killed herself so that no one twists her ideas in to something she didn't truly believe.

A Reaction to Racism

Twice in "Previous Condition" by James Baldwin, Peter, the narrator, has sudden violent urges. These seem totally out of character for him, as he has an average temperament except for these moments.   Each of these urges is directed at a white person and each is a reaction to racism. The first time this occurs is when the landlady kicks Peter out of the room Jules rented for him, and he has a sudden urge to kill her.

I started to close the door again but she moved and stuck her foot in the way.  I wanted to kill her, I watched her stupid, wrinkled frightened white face and I wanted to take a club, a hatchet, and bring it down with all my might, splitting her skull down the middle where she parted her iron-grey hair.  (91)

The thoughts running through Peter's head at this moment are very violent and graphic.  I think it is out of the ordinary to have sudden urges to kill.  However, I am not in Peter's position, so I cannot be a perfect judge.  By this I mean that Peter is under stresses that I will never experience since he is black and I am not.  It is completely understandable, in my opinion, that the frustration that racism causes could lead to such initially surprising, violent thoughts.  Interestingly, in having such thoughts Peter is becoming exactly what racist people expect him to be: violent and inhuman.  The second time he is taken by this strange urge is on the subway towards the end of the story.  A young, white couple has just gotten on the subway.

He said something I didn't catch and she looked at him and at me and the smile died.  She stood so that she faced him and had her back to me.  I looked back at the ads.  Then I hated them.  I wanted to do something to make them hurt, something that would crack the pink-cheeked mask. (99)

This time Peter's thought is not as violent, but is its also less provoked by the white people.   Is it normal for him to have such thoughts?  Is it ok?  He certainly has good reason to be angry, he is the subject of racism which gives him every right to be angry.  Would this justify his actions if he carried through with these thoughts?  Baldwin hits on something essential to understanding racism here and I think it is important to grasp this idea.

Salinger's ideas on Humanity

In "Teddy," Salinger explores what makes us human.  I was very intrigued by the ideas brought up in Teddy's conversation with Nicholson.  I think that many of these ideas are Salinger's, voiced through Teddy.  Nicholson is used to make a conversation and draw out ideas from Teddy.  I think that Teddy represents Salinger's views since he presents many ideas and Nicholson only brings up ideas as reactions to Teddy's.  For example, the discussion of humanity begins with Teddy's comment on emotion.  This comment comes right after Nicholson has asked a direct question which Teddy completely ignores, showing who Salinger put in control.

"I wish I knew why people think its so important to be emotional," Teddy said.  "My mother and father don't think a person's human unless he thinks a lot of things are very sad or very annoying or very—very unjust sort of.  My father gets very emotional even when he reads the newspaper.  He thinks I'm inhuman." (186)

Here, Salinger uses Teddy to present a definition of humanity: we are human because we have emotion.  However, this is not the definition that Teddy (or Salinger) believes, as shortly after this he says, "I don't see what [emotions are] good for." (186)  This indicates a dismissal of the notion that humans are defined by the fact that they can feel emotions, since emotions are good for nothing especially not something as important as differentiating humans from the rest of life on earth.  However, this is complicated by the fact that Teddy's father called him "inhuman."  Teddy does not feel emotions because he sees no reason to.   This could mean that Salinger is agreeing with the definition of humans by emotion, and is excluding Teddy from this definition.  But, as we find out on the next page Teddy does feel emotion, he loves God, though even this basic emotion is felt in a strange way.

"Yes, sure, I love Him.  But I don't love Him sentimentally.  He never said anybody had to love him sentimentally," Teddy said.  "If I were God, I certainly wouldn't want people to love me sentimentally.  It's too unreliable." (187)

Essentially, what Teddy said here is "I do love God, but I don't love him with emotion."  This makes no sense to me since love itself is an emotion.  Teddy describes his love for his parents as an affinity as opposed to how Nicholson thinks of love.  The word affinity lacks emotion.  It is more a statement of relation than a statement of feeling.  This also suggests that Teddy is not human.  At the end of this story, it is still unclear whether Salinger has portrayed Teddy as human.  Is Teddy human, or is he some cold, emotionless alien?

Uni Students are too Stressed to Read Hemingway

Uni students are too stressed to appreciate stories such as "Big Two-Hearted River" parts I and II.  I think the point of the story itself is very similar to why Nick takes pleasure in tasks such as setting up a tent and doing all the small things that contribute to a good camp.  Nick loses himself in the work and ceases to think about other things besides the job at hand.  Reading this story can have a similar affect, if it is approached with the right mindset.  Hemingway's meticulous description of Nick's time in the woods cannot be appreciated if the reader only wants to finish the story so they get credit on a quiz.  One must relax and lose track of time while reading slowly to feel the same pleasure that Nick feels setting up his tent or fishing the river or hiking through the woods.  Just like reading this story, all of these things Nick does are technically work, but when Nick does them, he does them out of choice making them not work but relaxing pastimes.  We need to read this story with a similar mindset, not reading to prepare for the quiz but to relax and enjoy some good writing.

I believe that this idea is most applicable to stories such as "Big Two-Hearted River" but it should help the enjoyment of any story to read it with such a mindset and not just for the grade.  This is easier to do with stories such as Tim O'Brien's since they are generally more engaging and easily accessible to the casual reader.  Most Uni students have relatively full schedules, and finding the time to relax and read slowly is hard, especially when they don't appreciate the book because they cannot slow down enough to really understand stories like "Big Two-Hearted River."  This is like one of Mr. Butler's vicious feedback cycles, resulting in our class disliking In Our Time.  Hopefully I will remember these thoughts as we continue reading new authors this semester.  It will help me enjoy their writing for what it is instead of comparing it to authors I like more such as O'Brien.

Why I Love The Things They Carried

The Things They Carried by Tim O'Brien is the most powerful short story collection I have read.  I think that it has such power not because O'Brien's war stories are more exciting/emotional than everyone else's, but rather it is O'Brien's method of storytelling that captivates the reader.  He starts with a relatively ordinary wartime fabula, for example a death of a soldier.   He then masterfully weaves a sjuzet that draws out all of the emotion, all of the irony, and all of the truth of this fabula.  He is not afraid to bend the truth or entirely make up things to enhance the story.  In fact, he even tells us he is doing exactly that several times throughout the book.  But, when he tells us this we have no guarantee that he is telling the truth, since on the cover page it clearly says "A work of fiction by Tim O'Brien."  He does more than any other author I have read to blur the line between truth and fact, leaving the reader frustrated with uncertainty.  But, this serves to tease the reader into reading more deeply, and in the end we as readers realize that the facts do not matter so much as the narrative that O'Brien has created.

People generally think that they find stories more powerful if the stories "actually happened."  However, to back a story up with sources and real life evidence takes much of the emotion out of it.  And despite an abundance of evidence, even a  "nonfiction" book is still biased by the author's views and cannot be considered an accurate rendition of the fabula.  O'Brien clearly sees this and does not try to stay completely true to the fabula.  He even tells us in "How to Tell a True War Story" that part of the narrative must be made up to help readers to believe the unbelievable.  O'Brien clearly focuses not on the actual facts but on the message he wants to tell and how he wants to make the reader feel.  His sjuzet may be far from the facts of the fabula, but it is still true, at least by the Tim O'Brien definition.

"It comes down to gut instinct.  A true war story, if truly told, makes the stomach believe."

O'Brien's stories have this gut instinct, this feeling stronger than evidence that what he tells us is true.  Surprisingly this feeling remains despite the evidence calling into question everything this book presents as fact. I could not imagine reading the stories in this book out of the context established by such stories as "How to Tell a True War Story" or "Good Form" and getting the same effect.  I think that is what makes O'Brien's writing so alluring, the uncertainty about the facts combined with the gut instinct that these stories are true.