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.
Wow. The introduction to your metaphor caught me off guard! But you've supported your claims quite well, Isaac. I agree that the story is one of initial conflict/attack, and consequent retaliation. Just like much of the conflict between the middle east and the US, things escalate as soon as a response is made on behalf of the victim. The response is necessary, in a sense, for protection and safety. But there reaches a point where that response becomes more than a mere reaction. By distributing papers around the neighborhood and publicly expressing his disgust with Adams, Rodgers effectively launches an attack right back at his neighbor. His invasion of Adams' home parallels the one at the beginning of the story, but only worsens the dispute between them. Fortunately, this conflict is relatively contained--despite its obvious bizzarrity--and doesn't involve putting the lives of thousands at risk. I do however, think your comparison makes sense.
ReplyDeleteThis is really interesting. I never thought about this before but all the connections are there, at least on the surface level. With this allegory, it makes it seem like the US is more of an aggressor than merely just fighting in self defense to protect something. Thanks for thinking about this, it'll be interesting to discuss in class!
ReplyDeleteI think the only key part that this story is missing from your metaphor is the initial act of aggression concerning which Adams is disrespecting Roger. However, in the context of a short story it makes sense to cut down the time frame. Then again, this could as easily represent an outsider's view of the conflict between Bush and Hussein, to whom it is not evident why the conflict began. In both cases, the initial event would make things much clearer and would help to clear up who the one at fault really is.
ReplyDeleteWow, I never really thought of the story "Adams" this way. Though I don't like it, I must admit that you have made really nice connections between these two events (didn't like it because it tied a very serious issue to a rather funny story, so it makes me feel guilty if I were to laugh at the story from now on). This is a great post though! Keep up the great work (oh wait nevermind this is your last blog post! I'll see you after break)!
ReplyDelete