A Satisfying Short Story

This course has been my first experience with short stories, and it has definitely been a great ride. We read such a variety of short stories, and I was exposed to so many different narrative voices, writing styles, and a huge variety of subject matter. For many of the stories that we read in this course, I wished that it had been a whole book rather than just a short story. I wanted to know more, and I didn’t want to accept the fact that this was the end of the story. Oftentimes the small glimpse we get into characters’ lives wasn’t enough for me. But for the short story “Adams” in our latest book, I was completely satisfied with it just the way it was. It was the definition of “short and sweet”, and it might have been the first time I was content with only seeing a glimpse of this character’s life. Although it was one of the shortest stories we read this semester, it might have also been the most hilarious story.

            There are a few major reasons why this story amused me so much. One reason why this story was so entertaining was because of its narrative voice. The narrative voice, the way Roger talked and explained things to us in itself, was very comical yet real. Through this story George Saunders continues to use unusual yet appealing narrative voices that we first experienced in “Jon”. The way Roger talks makes you feel as if you are watching his whole thought process. He basically says everything he thinks, and so you can see the different connections between his thoughts and why he came to a conclusion. Roger doesn’t try to clean his story up, he just leaves it the way it is and writes down whatever comes to him. I especially liked the part in the text where Roger said “So I wonked him again, as Lynn came in, saying, Hey, Roger, hey. With Roger being me.” (102). This passage in particular gave me this feeling that Roger was telling this story instead of writing it, and I could almost hear his voice in my head narrating this whole situation.

            Two other reasons why this was one of the most entertaining stories so far was because of its hypocrisy and absurdity. Roger throughout this story is obviously the one doing all of the wrong, “wonking” Adams (or at least attempts to) every chance he gets, barging into his neighbor’s house and knocking over his wife and children, and even stealing knives and guns and chemicals from Adams. Yet throughout the story Roger is planning ahead and preparing to react to the bad things that he predicts Adams to do. He even puts himself in Adam’s place and prepares to react to the revenge that he would take upon himself if he were in Adam’s shoes (What?). Overall the whole hypocritical and absurd situation taking place in this narrative was wildly entertaining for me. Did the rest of you enjoy "Adams" just as much as I did?

Perspective Matters

            I have found that each book that we read this semester had its own unique reason for why it was enjoyable. One reason why I enjoyed Junot Diaz’s Drown was because of the various perspectives it had on the same events and circumstances. Although most stories were from Yunior’s viewpoint, quite a few of them were from the perspective of other characters, which definitely spiced things up. One story that I particularly enjoyed was “No Face”, because seeing things from Ysrael’s perspective changed how I viewed the other stories and characters. I learned how biased I had become simply because I only saw things through one person’s perspective. But seeing things through Ysrael’s eyes opened me up to the fact that the same circumstances and events can look very different depending on the point of view.   

            “Ysrael” was written from the perspective of Yunior, and so I had a very limited view of Ysrael. The only information I had about him was biased information gained from Yunior’s point of view. After I read this story, I had several impressions of Ysrael. First, I saw him as a victim, the helpless kid that everyone picked on. I felt bad for him both because such an unfortunate thing happened to him and because he seemed to have no friends. To me, Ysrael seemed defenseless and even innocent. He didn’t seem to be a bad kid, just a sort of outcast. I got the impression that he was always lonely, with his family members being the only people he can talk to without being ridiculed. Overall I imagined him as a sad, lonely kid who really had nothing to do. But my impressions of Ysrael changed drastically after having read “No Face”.

            “No Face” was written from the perspective of Ysrael himself. This story shows us a glimpse inside Ysrael’s own world. The ways that he sees things turned out to be totally different from what I had expected. We learn that Ysrael is actually an extremely strong young man who is very gifted physically. Instead of being the sad, lonely boy I imagined him to be, he was actually energetic and exciting. He was a kind of superhero, and this “me against the world” mentality depicted in the story wasn’t negative from his point of view. Rather than being a victim, Ysrael thinks and talks as if his “enemies” are on equal ground with him. He turns his bad circumstances into a game in order to cope with it. I found that the way Ysrael saw his situation wasn’t nearly as depressing as the way that I saw it through Yunior’s eyes.

            Both Yunior and Ysrael’s perspective give us interesting information, but I don’t think that either point of view is necessarily “right”. I think that by taking information from both perspectives we can get a better idea on what reality is. It is not true that Ysrael is just this sad, little victimized boy who doesn’t do anything except get bullied. However it is also not true that Ysrael is a mighty superhero who is constantly fighting his enemies valiantly. The truth is somewhere in the middle, and I think it is up to the reader to decide on what is really going on. How did others of you see Ysrael? Did you also like that we got different perspectives on him?

The Difference Between 3 and 2

From the beginning of the book, Self-Help by Lorrie Moore clearly displayed a very unique and interesting writing style. Many of Moore’s stories in this collection were written in second person, which for me was an unusual point of view to write a narrative from. As I was reading these stories, I noticed that sometimes I would read a story and not even realize that it was written in second person. One example of this was when I read the short story “Amahl and the Night Visitors: A Guide to the Tenor of Love”. This story is clearly written in the second person, as the reader is the main character in the story. But somehow I managed to read the entire story feeling as if I was a spectator, watching these events play out before me. I read the story seeing this conflict between Trudy and Moss, not even realizing that I was Trudy in the story. I think the reason why I was able to read the whole story like a third person narrative was because of how often Trudy’s name appeared. The character that I was supposed to be had a name and was referred to as Trudy often, which confused me into thinking that this was not a second person narrative. However once I found out that this indeed was a second person narrative, my perspective on the story changed completely.

After realizing that this story was written in second person, I was shocked and I went back to reread the story keeping this in mind. I found that the experience was entirely different the second time around when I read the story as it should have been read in the first place. I learned that the second person narrative made the story itself much more engaging. When I read the story as if I were a spectator, I didn’t feel very invested in the characters, as I had nothing to do with them at all. Trudy’s problems and doubts about her husband were her problems, not mine. I was watching someone struggling with their own difficulties, and my only job was to hear out her story. But when I read the story keeping in mind that I was Trudy, Trudy’s problems and doubts became my own, and I felt responsible for the different choices that I made in the story. Reading this story with me in Trudy’s shoes provided a much more immersive experience. I was able to sympathize more with the thoughts that Trudy had and choices that she made, as I realized that I might not act very differently under such circumstances.

Overall, I learned a lot about the second person narrative through “Amahl and the Night Visitors” and the collection as a whole. I realized how much more interesting a story can be just by changing the point of view. I never knew that you could write such great stories using the second person. The immersive and engaging experience that a second person narrative provides truly makes it a special style of writing. Did others really enjoy the way that Lorrie Moore used the second person? Do you agree that it was much more engaging than if the story had been written in third person?

Did Teddy Really Die?

From what I have heard and read in class discussions and on the blogs, I think most of us agree that Teddy did in fact die at the end of the story. Obviously there is a lot of evidence that points to this conclusion within the story. However I think that it is possible to make an argument using Teddy’s own ideas that Teddy did not die. I’m not trying to say that I believe this, but rather I bring this up merely as an interesting debate topic. I (like everyone else) agree that Teddy did die. But if Teddy himself were to read this story, I think that he might come to a different conclusion than what most of us did.

Recall Teddy talking about the orange peels early on in the story. Teddy was very intrigued by the orange peels and the fact that if he hadn’t seen them, he wouldn’t know about them, which means he wouldn’t be able to say that they even exist. He also says later on that when he leaves this room, he may only exist in the minds of his acquaintances. The idea that Teddy brings up here is similar to that of the falling tree in the forest: If a tree falls in a forest and there's no one there to hear it, does it still make a sound? This philosophical question essentially strikes at whether or not reality requires perception. If no one was able to witness an event, did it actually, in fact, occur? Let’s go back to Teddy’s “death” scene. We never see Teddy die and neither does Bob Nicholson. The only person that we know of that could have seen Teddy die was the owner of the screaming voice. But we can’t say that for sure either. So the question is this: If reality is dependent on perception, then since nobody witnessed Teddy’s death, did Teddy really die? Or even if someone else perceived Teddy’s death, is his death then only real in the sense that the one who sees this perceives it to be real? Remember Teddy’s story of Sven and his dog. Teddy said that if Sven dreams that his dog died, then the death would not be real when he woke up. But if Sven’s dog died in real life, then it would only be real to Sven until he dies. Sven’s dog’s death is only reality while Sven, living, thinks that it is real. If this is true, then even if Booper or other spectators perceived Teddy’s death, it would only be real as long as any living witnesses thought it to be real.

I’m not sure if my argument made sense to you guys, but what I was trying to convey was this: Maybe Salinger was trying to get us to draw a connection between Teddy’s death and the orange peels that were mentioned earlier. Perhaps Salinger purposefully prevented his audience from perceiving Teddy’s death so that no matter how much evidence they had of Teddy’s death, it may still be left in ambiguity. If you believe that reality is dependent on perception, then Teddy’s death would not be true for you, since you as the audience never perceived his death. However if you believe that reality is independent of perception, then you could safely conclude, based on the evidence from the story, that Teddy did, in fact, die.  

Arthur: A Caring Friend or another Deceiver?

            When I read the short story Pretty Mouth and Green My Eyes, I pretty quickly concluded that the girl spending the evening with Lee was Arthur’s wife Joanie. From the discussion I heard in class, most people seemed to agree, as there is a lot of evidence in the text that points to this conclusion. However there was a divide in the class as to whether Arthur was aware of this or not. Some people seemed to think that Arthur suspected Lee of being with Joanie, and others thought that Arthur didn’t suspect Lee at all. There is more room for debate with this topic than whether Joanie was with Lee or not, as Salinger never gave enough evidence to make it obvious which one is true. I don’t think there is clear-cut evidence to prove either side completely, but I am of the opinion that Arthur didn’t suspect Lee at all.

            The first impression I got of Lee was a backstabbing friend, and I honestly didn’t like him much. 

He seemed caring and thoughtful from the way he “comforted” Arthur, but knowing that he was cheating with Arthur’s wife made me dislike him. I disliked him because no matter what he said or looked like on the outside, just the fact that he was cheating revealed to me an unforgivable characteristic. In my mind he became a sort of antagonist, and so Arthur, as the victim, became the character that I rooted for. I started supporting Arthur as I read the story, and I didn’t want Arthur to be deceptive like Lee was. So in a way I hoped that Arthur never knew about Lee being with Joanie and therefore wouldn’t do things that would make him into an antagonist as well.

When Arthur called Lee back, some people thought Arthur lied to Lee about Joanie returning because he wanted to test Lee and deceive him. When I read this part, I thought that Arthur lied to Lee because he was thankful that Lee comforted him, and didn’t want his friend to keep worrying about him. I had the idea that Arthur was actually a caring friend. This is because when Arthur first called Lee, Arthur asked Lee three times whether he woke him up. I took this as evidence that Arthur wanted to make sure he wasn’t bothering Lee in any way, even though his own situation was a much bigger deal than Lee getting enough sleep. In the midst of his own troubles, Arthur seemed to still look after his friend’s interests above his own.

            This is the way I interpreted the story, but I do realize that it is a perfectly legitimate claim that Arthur did in fact suspect Lee of cheating with his wife. What do others of you think? Do you think Arthur knew of this or not? Did you like Arthur and root for him in the story as I did?

Reading Between the Stories

         While reading Hemingway’s In Our Time, the one thing that constantly bothered me were the chapters in between the stories. What are these? This topic was brought up in class once or twice, but we never came to a satisfying conclusion on how these chapters contributed to the book as a whole. In my opinion, these “chapters” are too short to be actual chapters or to carry any significant plot, and I struggled with understanding their purpose. At first I just read them without thinking too much, considering them irrelevant to the actual stories. But the fact that In Our Time was written and put together by Hemingway himself meant that there was a specific purpose and motive behind the way he organized the chapters and stories. Not a single chapter was put in the book without a reason. I am still not completely sure on why each chapter was put in the book, but as I thought about these stories, I found that many of them connect a piece of Hemingway himself to the book.

         I think that the first 7 chapters of In Our Time directly correlate with Hemingway’s personal life experience. If you look at the first 7 chapters, they are all related to war one way or another. Hemingway was actually a volunteer ambulance driver for the Italian army in World War I. When I read chapter 3, I immediately thought of World War I as they shot Germans. Hemingway was also injured during the war and spent a lot of time in hospitals. We see that in chapter 6 Nick was hit in the spine and carried to the side out of the war zone. Nick was lying there waiting for a stretcher to come and take him to the hospital. This is a very interesting connection, as it seems Hemingway is being connected to the one character we see consistently throughout the book: Nick. This brings up many thought-provoking questions. Is this connection perhaps more significant than we realize? Why would Hemingway draw such a close link between him and Nick? Could Nick possibly represent Hemingway?

         The first 7 chapters were all related to war, which makes sense when we understand Hemingway’s connection to war. But what was really intriguing for me is that 6 whole chapters, 9-14, were dedicated to bullfighting. Bullfighting? What does this have anything to do with Hemingway or even the stories themselves? Well, we know that Hemingway was a great sportsman, as we read stories of him describing horse racing (My Old Man) and fishing (Big Two-Hearted River). Hemingway obviously enjoys sports. But there was another trend that constantly reappeared throughout the book: masculinity. Hemingway seemed to glorify masculinity and the tough stoic attitude that came along with it. When I think of bullfighting, I think of it as a very “manly” sport. I believe that bullfighting represents the masculine theme that we constantly see throughout the book.

         These are the few ideas and thoughts I’ve come up with for the chapters in In Our Time. However, I still have so many questions regarding these chapters, and feel as though I missed many important connections within them. What are your thoughts? Why did Hemingway put these chapters in between the stories? 

The Things They Carry

               The Things They Carried has a very appropriate beginning as Tim O’Brien starts the book by telling us just that―the things that Jimmy Cross and his men carried. As I read the first two chapters of The Things They Carried, a curious thought crossed my mind: What happened to the things they carried? The phrase “the things they carried” assumes that these were things carried back in the past. However, in the second chapter titled “Love”, I saw evidence that points to show that the things they carried weren’t just left behind in Vietnam. Through the character of Jimmy Cross, I came to realize that they still very much carry the things they carried back during the war. They still carry the ghosts. They still carry their regrets. And in the case of Jimmy Cross, he still carries his fantasies.

              Jimmy Cross carries letters from Martha as the item that characterizes him during the war. I interpreted the letters as a physical representation of what Jimmy Cross really carried: his fantasies. In the first chapter of The Things They Carried, Jimmy was constantly daydreaming about his fantastical love life with Martha, which eventually led to Ted Lavender’s death (or so he believes). Out of grief, Jimmy burns the letters and photos of Martha. Although it may seem as if Jimmy has left behind his fantasies, he has only gotten rid of their physical manifestation. I would argue to say that not only does he continue to carry his fantasies of Martha, but he actually adds another fantasy that he has to carry. Near the end of the first chapter, Jimmy thinks to himself about how he will be a proper leader from now on. How he will discipline himself and his men, making them into the ideal platoon. If you read carefully though, you will notice that this is actually Jimmy Cross daydreaming about what he wants to do, but not actually doing it. The passage never suggests that Jimmy Cross ever fulfilled or accomplished the things he described, but only tells us the plans and thoughts he had in his mind. This is simply another fantasy that Jimmy Cross has added to the load that he already carries.

              But how do we know that he carries these fantasies throughout the war and even afterwards? There is enough evidence in “Love” to confirm that this is true. First off, Jimmy Cross says openly to Tim O’Brien that he loves Martha still, many years after the war. He even encourages Tim to write the stories, hoping that one day Martha would come back for him. Through this, it is clear that Jimmy is continuing to cling onto his fantasy of a love life with Martha. Jimmy also asks Tim to make him out to be the best platoon leader ever. Jimmy is only asking this because he wasn’t the things that he wanted to be. If Jimmy truly was the best platoon leader ever, if he really was brave and handsome and all that, he wouldn’t have had to ask Tim to depict him as such. On top of that, Jimmy asks Tim to not mention something that we don’t know about….or do we? That is a totally different topic though. Anyway, Jimmy asks Tim to leave something out that he doesn’t want others to know about him. Jimmy is trying to get Tim to recreate (through his stories) the fantastical and ideal image of himself that he had carried throughout the years. We can clearly see through this evidence that Jimmy still carries his fantasies of Martha and of himself being the best platoon leader ever.

               What does this show us? Why does it even matter that Jimmy Cross still carries his fantasies with him after the war? All of this is significant because we can understand the life of war veterans through the character of Jimmy Cross. Life doesn’t just return to normal after the war. We have all seen heartwarming and glorious videos of soldiers returning home, and these videos often show soldiers happily reunited with their families. We are often deceived into thinking that all is well and the troubles are over and forgotten after the soldiers return home. However, the truth is that everything isn’t left behind in the war zone. To the contrary, veterans often carry the same things that they carried during the war back to their homes. Veterans still carry their heavy burden of painful memories, disturbing traumas, and searing losses. Through the first two chapters of The Things They Carried, I learned that the things they carried weren’t just left behind in the past, but rather they continue to live on as the things they carry.