The Other, Post 6

The last few chapters of novel The Other, written by David Guterson, tell the reader about Neil’s quest to bring closure to his relationship with his late friend John William. Since John William died in his backcountry cave, Neil has had many mixed emotions about John William and Neil’s role in his life. On one hand, Neil knows that he was John William’s only friend. Neil probably did John William lot of good by visiting him frequently, bringing him food and necessities in his cave, and staying in touch with John William even when John William became a social pariah. However, Neil also has a nagging and deep-rooted guilt that he let John William down by allowing him to die in his cave. Neil feels that he should have checked on John William more, encouraged John William to live somewhere safer than a cave, or even turned John William in to park authorities in order to keep him alive. Finally, Neil feels like he has betrayed the ever-private John William by spilling his story across newspaper, magazine and television headlines. Overall, the conflict that John William’s life posed is something that Neil is having a very hard time resolving for himself.

Neil decides to contact John William’s divorced parents, Rand and Ginny, to talk about John William with them. He wants to apologize to them for keeping John William’s life in a cave secret. Also, Neil seems to be looking for more understanding about John William and what caused him to lead such an extreme lifestyle. While talking to Rand, Neil learns a lot about John William’s childhood. Rand, who has been holding in a lot of emotion about his divorce and failed family, divulges quite a bit of information. Rand tells Neil that John William’s mother refused to comfort the baby John William when he cried, and physically abused her son. Rand also emphasizes that John William was a very intense person from childhood. He recollects a time when John William stayed up all night working on a telescope instead of doing his homework, because John William felt that “The stuff they teach you at school is just so they can own you” (242). Rand believes that the bad parenting that John William received caused him to express ideas such as the one in this quote, and insists that John William’s death was not Neil’s responsibility. Ginnie, on the other hand, doesn’t have much to say to Neil because she has become senile with old age. However, Ginnie does express her deep regret and loathing for the way her life turned out. She yells to Neil, “I was born in the wrong place and time! I was trapped!” (253). Clearly, the unhappiness and cruelty of his mother, and the ineffectiveness of his detached father had negative effects on John William. However, it wouldn’t be accurate to say that his parents and childhood were the sole causes of John William’s withdrawal from society. John William was someone who had strong beliefs and refused to budge from them, and these traits were intrinsic to him. They were not caused by his childhood—many children are abused in similar ways to John William, and almost none end up leading a life like John William’s. Neil feels, and I agree, that John William was born with characteristics that caused him to retreat to a cave later in life. Therefore, Neil gains more knowledge about John William from his conversations with Rand and Ginnie, but not more understanding of why John William was the way he was.

As for Neil—he carries on his comparatively average life as a school teacher until he accepts the $440,000,000 that John William left Neil in his will. After receiving this money, Neil quits his job, but continues living in the same way that he did before his windfall. Neil understands that he is a compromiser and a hypocrite—like John William, Neil also has strong beliefs, but unlike John William, Neil bends these beliefs to make them fit into the parameters of his life. Neil explains this decision by telling readers, “When I think about John William now, I think about someone who followed through, and then I’m glad not to have followed through, to still be breathing, to still be here with people, to still be walking in the mountains…I’m a hypocrite, of course, and I live with that, but I live” (254). Neil’s relationship with John William has taught Neil to examine his life and make sure that he is comfortable with the choices that he is making. I think this is an important theme of the book: it is okay to make hypocritical choices if you understand why you are making them and can reconcile yourself with them.

Throughout the book, I really enjoyed the writing. One aspect of the writing that I especially liked was the accuracy to the eras that the author, Guterson, was writing about. For example, when writing about the 1970s and 1980s, Guterson brought up popular music and fads from those periods as he wrote. Additionally, Guterson referenced current events and movements when he was writing about the present time period. The book and characters seemed very life-like when they mentioned George Bush or Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth in their conversations. Another interesting characteristic of Guterson’s writing was that the main character, Neil, seems to have a lot in common with Guterson himself. Although I don’t know much about Guterson, I do know that he lives in Washington, like Neil. Also, Neil is an English teacher and an aspiring writer—two things that could easily be true of Guterson as well. Finally, at the end of the book, Neil tells of his intentions to write a book about his friend John William. Neil’s book would undoubtedly be similar to Guterson’s book, The Other, and it’s easy to imagine that The Other is indeed Neil’s account of John William. While I know that The Other is a work of fiction, these similarities serve to bring Neil and his story to life.

Work Cited:

Guterson, David. The Other. New York: Random House, 2008.

The Other, Post 5

In the latest section of The Other, by David Guterson, John William’s lifestyle in the backcountry of Washington state becomes even more extreme. He insists on staying in his cave through the harsh Washington winters, and only accepts food and other necessities from his friend Neil because he needs them to survive. As he spends more time away from society, John William also begins to seem more incredible and far-fetched in his beliefs. When Neil is visiting him one night, John William tells Neil that he is going to continue living in the woods because “Life’s short. Eternity’s long. I’m going to slip past God—he can’t get me” (159). This pronouncement shows that John William believes he is escaping some kind of curse that society has upon it. John William has always thought that he will be rewarded for following his beliefs instead of society’s ideals. Initially, he thought that living in his cave would be gratifying in and of itself, but this hasn’t proved to be the case. Therefore, he seems to have convinced himself that he will be rewarded in an afterlife. The evolution of John William’s reasoning for living in a cave hints that he is beginning to run out of motivation for his hermit-like lifestyle. This idea is also supported by Neil’s impressions of John William from Neil’s occasional visits to John William’s cave. Increasingly, Neil finds John William in a bad mood, and notes on one visit that John William seemed “just depressed” (173).

Neil is prone to making up excuses for John William’s radical ideas, and says that he hopes that John William is just going through an odd stage. Neil probably tends to justify John William’s strange beliefs because he is still nursing a hope that John William will rejoin society and prove himself to be a normal human. Whether or not John William is normal was a question that Neil grapples with constantly. After finding a story with a character similar to John William in it, Neil discusses this character with his high school English students to try to find insight into John William. Neil says, “I could discuss ‘The Miracle of Purun Bhagat’ with my students as if our discussion was an exercise in literary history, instead of a veiled way for me to ask myself if John William made sense” (167). However, both the readers and Neil know that this story is just one of many things that Neil uses to try to reconcile his friend’s strange behavior. Neil wants to see John William recover from his cave-dwelling phase because he is a loyal friend, and still he likes and respects John William. This is also why Neil continues to bring John William food and to visit him. Furthermore, Neil seems to feel a sense of responsibility to John William, because he knows that John William would die in his cave without Neil’s help. Since Neil is the only person aware of John William’s existence in the forest, Neil considers turning John William in to the park service or to John William’s father. However, Neil feels it would be disloyal to John William to do so, and even convinces himself that John William would rather die in his cave than be forced back into society by the park service or by his father.

The decision to keep John William’s cave-dwelling existence secret is one that Neil questions heavily after John William finally does die in the woods. Neil is heartbroken and distraught when he finds his friend, who probably starved, dead near his cave one day. The burden that John William’s death brings to Neil’s conscience is significant, because Neil was the only person (other than John William) who had the power to save John William from his death. Even after John William dies, however, Neil doesn’t tell anyone that John William used to live in the woods and has now died. I think that Neil’s decision to keep John William’s death secret is in part caused by his guilty conscience, and in part caused by his desire to honor John William’s wish to be completely separate from society. Eventually, however, John William’s cave and remains are discovered in the backcountry. Neil is interviewed by a newspaper, and the story is made into a huge production in the paper. Knowing that he has helped to turn John William into a gripping newspaper headline only adds to Neil’s remorse about the situation.

Work Cited:

Guterson, David. The Other. New York: Random House, 2008.

The Other, Post 4

Upon reading the fourth section of The Other, by David Guterson, I have come to realize that the main topic of the book is compromises. More specifically, the book explores the idea that most people make compromises in their lives in order to assimilate to society. People have to deviate from their ideal vision of how they should live their lives if they want to enter mainstream culture. Neil Countryman is the character in The Other who makes these compromises—he is finding the middle ground between doing what he believes in and doing what is convenient. John William, of course, represents the opposite of this. John William has decided that he is going to avoid compromising his beliefs and ideals at all costs. This choice has led him to live in a cave, isolated from society.

Neil’s decision to let society’s standards overrule his own beliefs may initially make him seem like a hypocrite. For example, when Neil receives the first $70,000 from John William, he is originally repulsed by the idea of having so much money. He realized that, because of the money, his “life was changed, and this understanding was not only poignant, but tinged by…corruption” (135). Even though at first, he hated the idea of being rich and wanted to give all the money to charity, he eventually decided to use some of the money to stay in a fancy hotel with his girlfriend in San Francisco. On one level, this decision reveals a double-standard held by Neil. But on the other hand, who wouldn’t use a fraction of the windfall for enjoyment? Wanting to have fun in life is a natural human desire, and Neil is simply acting the way that almost all other people would act in his situation. Furthermore, Neil split the difference between his idealistic aspirations of giving the money to charity and his greedy desire to use it all for himself. He didn’t move out of his ratty basement apartment and he didn’t take a month-long vacation to Italy—in other words, he didn’t entirely abandon his morals. Therefore, I think it would be a mistake to label Neil as a hypocrite, because of his conscious decision to maintain some of his ideals.

John William, however, refuses to budge from his lofty ideals and criticisms of society. He is fiercely opposed to materialism, to society’s emphasis on money and status, and to almost anything that is celebrated by the bulk of society. He criticizes Neil incessantly for Neil’s assimilation into mainstream culture. For example, at one point Neil asks John William how he plans to survive the winter in his cave, without a source of food or heat. Neil asserts that John William will “go up to Forks for bacon and eggs” instead of sticking to his disciplined life confined to the forest (149). John William fires back that this is only something Neil would do. John William tells Neil, “You’re thinking of yourself. You’re a loyal citizen of hamburger world” (149). John William prides himself on being separate from civilization and its flaws. His goal in life has become to live without stooping to society in any way, and that is what motivated him to retreat into his cave. However, even John William has a certain dependence on civilization because of his reliance on the food and supplies that Neil brings him periodically in his cave. Therefore, not even John William, in his extreme way of life, is free of hypocrisy.

In writing about Neil and John William, author David Guterson seems to draw no conclusions about which character’s way of life is correct. His purpose in writing the book isn’t to persuade readers to adopt John William’s hermit lifestyle, or to follow Neil’s path. He is simply examining the compromises that our society forces us to make, and the way people react to this societal force. An interesting exception to this neutral stance, however, is that Guterson portrays Neil as being happier than John William. Neil has a girlfriend, takes vacations, and enjoys his studies in college; John William leads a lonely existence weaving baskets from bark. The only thing that John William has that Neil lacks is the knowledge that he is doing only what he believes in. As a reader, this difference between the two characters makes me want to lead a life like Neil’s as opposed to one like John William’s.

Work Cited:

Guterson, David. The Other. New York: Random House, 2008.

The Other, Post 3

In the third section of The Other, by David Guterson, a new character is introduced: Cindy Saperstein, who was John William’s girlfriend at Reed college. Cindy enters the story when Guterson fast-forwards to Neil’s adult life as a high school English teacher. Neil had been helping his friend John William survive in an unusual lifestyle of living in a cave in the backcountry of Washington. Eventually, John William had bequeathed Neil $440,000,000. Neil’s unusual story is featured in the newspaper, and it motivates Cindy to introduce herself to Neil. She wants to talk to Neil about John William, but Neil is at first hesitant to do so. I think that Neil is uneager to talk about John William with Cindy because he feels that it would be disloyal to John William. John William was never a very outgoing person, and turned into a recluse when he lived in his cave. Therefore, Neil, who comes across as an honest person, probably feels that gossiping about John William with his former girlfriend is two-faced. Nonetheless, Neil eventually agrees to meet and chat with Cindy.

Cindy tells Neil all about her relationship with John William in college. She describes John William as being very intense in everything he did. This trait was one reason for Cindy’s unhappiness in the relationship and her eventual break-up with John William—Cindy was not as severely passionate about their relationship. For example, John William asked Cindy at one point whether she would be willing to kill herself for him. Cindy explains to Neil that she “said yes, I’d kill myself, but it was strictly an act—…ninety percent [of me] was just this normal college girl who was hanging out and having fun” (72). This discord between the couple was not the only source of trouble for them. Cindy also tells Neil that John William was generally anti-social around other people, but was very clingy around her. Over winter break, he was even calling her three times a day. It seems as though John William was getting all of his social satisfaction from his relationship with Cindy, instead of having many friends and acquaintances.

As she describes John William, Cindy paints a picture of someone whose social habits are decidedly unusual. Although by college, John William hasn’t reached the point of being dysfunctional in society, he seems to be heading in that direction. Undoubtedly, his mother’s mental breakdown and his lack of nurturing care as a child contributed to his unorthodox behavior. However, it seems like John William’s upbringing does not fully account for his bizarre social skills. This is because a lot of the strange social tendencies that John William has stem from his adamant and unwavering beliefs in how one should live. For example, John William believed that bathing “required no more than two quarts of water every forty-eight hours if the bather was wise and responsible, whereas the cultural norm in the modern world was to send gallons down the drain daily for no sanctionable reason” (74). While many people would agree that taking a shower every day when you aren’t really dirty is a waste of water, John William’s life is drastically impacted because of this belief. Being uncompromising in one’s beliefs isn’t necessarily a bad thing, but it can make someone into a social pariah.

Meanwhile, Neil tells us about his relationship with Jamie, a girl he met backpacking in Europe the summer after his senior year in high school. Jamie and Neil are very happy together, and have none of the complicated problems that Cindy and John William encounter. Neil has told the reader that he and Jamie eventually get married, and when he talks about his adult life, he often mentions the adult Jamie. Through these descriptions, it’s clear that, as adults, Neil and Jamie are not nearly as enamored with each other as they were in college. They don’t fight or have violent disagreements, but the passion that was once in their relationship is gone by the time they reach their fifties. It is interesting to compare John William’s relationship—which was short but filled with passion—with Neil’s relationship—which has lost some of its fervor but has lasted a long time. Perhaps the author is suggesting that it is impossible to sustain a passionate relationship.

Work Cited:

Guterson, David. The Other. New York: Random House, 2008.

The Other, Post 2

John William and Neil Countryman become more developed as characters in the latest section of The Other, by David Guterson. Neil tells readers about his mother’s death, which occurred when he was twelve. His mother had brain cancer, and Neil describes her painful and slowly-deteriorating condition. Neil’s mother’s death most acutely affected him in an unusual way: because of her death, Neil was left $5,000 from her funds in life insurance money. This money came to symbolize his mother for Neil, because it was all he had left of her. He wanted to use it in a meaningful way, and do something significant with the funds. Eventually, Neil decides to spend the money on a trip to Europe after his senior year in high school. Even this use for the money didn’t satisfy Neil, however. He felt that he was wasting his mother’s money, because nothing he bought could ever replace his mother or bring her back. Neil describes this by saying, “…I sat by the Herengracht with a packet of frites in my hand, crying, because this is what had become of my mother. She’d been transmuted into an experience I was having…” (45). Though Neil knows his trip can’t replace his mother, he does have big dreams for it. He envisions himself gaining the experiences and worldly knowledge on the trip that he feels he needs to become a good writer. To that end, he spent an incessant amount of time during the trip jotting notes about his time in Europe. In the end, though, Neil’s self-conscious desire to become familiar with exotic scenes and to discover more about himself makes him lonely. He doesn’t have a destination or a purpose on his trip, and he meanders though Europe without much motivation.

John William has chosen to stay in the United States during the summer after his senior year, and spends his time camping and living a nomadic lifestyle in Washington state. John William gets many of his meals out of dumpsters, and is even arrested for being a vagrant at one point. He seems to take a strange delight in living as cheaply as possible. For example, he even “ate a dead carp washed up in a side water and got the runs and a fever” (49). It is ironic that John William, who is much more affluent than Neil, chooses to spend almost no money on even basic necessities such as food. Contrastingly, Neil has less money, and spends a large portion of it in Europe. Perhaps John William’s desire to live on less than bare necessities stems from the overabundance of money and luxuries that were available to him throughout his childhood. It seems likely that John William is searching for a better understanding of himself and of life through his rough lifestyle. Although John William always had enough material goods in his childhood, he never had much love and lacked a coherent family as a child. To me, John William personifies a classic example of someone who has everything that money can buy him, but needs something more to become content with his life.

Guterson continues with his fascinating habit of flashing forward to his current life as an adult throughout the story. From this technique, we have learned that John William eventually becomes a recluse who lives in the backcountry of Washington, and that Neil helps John William survive as he lives in the backcountry. We also know that, sometime in their adult lives, John William bequeaths Neil $440,000,000. Finally, Neil tells us that he meets a woman also traveling in Europe who he will marry, and that he will work as an English teacher. I think these tidbits of information from the future are a successful technique for Guterson to use to keep the story engaging. It makes me wonder what leads the characters to these fates.

Works Cited:

Guterson, David. The Other. New York: Random House, 2008.

The Other, Post 1

I am reading a book titled The Other, written by David Guterson. The basic premise of the story is that two high school boys have formed an unusual friendship. The boys, John William Barry and Neil Countryman, are from very different backgrounds, and the first chapter of the book describes how these differences affect them and their friendship. Neil Countryman is from an average Seattle family. As the narrator of the book, he portrays himself as rather ordinary in the book’s first chapter. Neil describes his role on his high school’s track team by telling readers that he is “someone intimate with the middle of the pack,” and this description seems to fit other areas in his life, too (3). Neil doesn’t seem bitter or unhappy with his commonplace background and life. Instead, he focuses more his friend John William’s atypical life. John Williams is the opposite of Neil in high school: Neil goes to a public school, while John Williams attends an elite prep school in Seattle. Neil’s family is big and traditional, but not college-educated. John William, on the other hand, comes from a family of prosperous and famous Seattle businessmen. John William is the only child in a broken family: his mother has moved away after going insane, and his father is often away on business trips. Neil’s nuclear family, however, seems to be caring towards him and his younger sister.

One thing that these polar opposite boys have in common is a love of adventure. They meet during a track meet, when they race neck-and-neck during their 800 meter run. Although neither Neil and John William have any chance of winning the race, they share a drive to push themselves to their physical limits. Neil explains that half mile runners are “in search of deeper agony than they can find elsewhere (5).” This common search also leads John William and Neil to extended and rugged camping trips in the backcountry areas of the North Cascades. John William and Neil become reckless during this trip and get lost, spending a long time without food and with no knowledge of how to get out of the backcountry. This, combined with their experimental drug use, makes the pair seem like stereotypical rebellious teens. However, the author uses an interesting technique to keep readers from dismissing the book as boring because of this: he writes the story from Neil’s perspective as an adult. This doesn’t make much difference in a lot of the telling of the story, but Neil does add occasional observations from his point of view as an adult. For instance, Neil and John William decide to steal coins from a fountain in a park in Seattle one night while they are high. This scene isn’t very original, but Neil’s bewildered comments on it as an adult make it more unique. Neil says, “But I can’t explain why we were stealing coins at the Seattle Center. It makes no sense to me now, though it must have made sense to me then. I just don’t recall what the logic was…” (12). These observations add depth and interest to the story, and give the reader clues about what kind of a person Neil is as an adult. I am excited to continue reading about the intriguing characters and their adventures in The Other.

Work Cited:

Guterson, David. The Other. New York: Random House, 2008.

Angela's Ashes: Post 6

In the last section of Angela’s Ashes, Frankie is now a teenager, and spends most of his time holding down jobs and saving for his fare to go to America. His extreme determination, discipline, and ethics became more apparent than they were when Frankie was younger.

Frankie’s family continues to be very poor, and Frankie is left to fend for himself as he has had to do his entire life. As he grows older, however, Frankie becomes more assertive in standing up for himself. He gets a job first at the post office delivering telegrams and then as a magazine delivery boy, and he saves up money from these jobs for his trip to America. He also has a job writing letters for an old lady named Mrs. Finucane, and takes the liberty of stealing some of her money for himself. He knows that Mrs. Finucane doesn’t need the money herself, and that she is only going to donate it to the church anyhow, so he justifies his actions to himself with these thoughts. Frankie also reminds himself of the ways that others have kept him from succeeding and getting ahead in life as he takes money from the Mrs. Finucane. He explains, “There will be less money for the priests and their Masses but how many Masses does a soul need and surely I’m entitled to a few pounds after the way the Church slammed doors in my face?” (332). Although by common standards, Frankie’s action would be classified as unethical stealing, I don’t think that it can be dismissed as this quite so easily. Frankie knows that what he is doing is wrong, and he regrets having to do it. However, he has also learned over the years that he will not be able to pay for food or save money for his future if he doesn’t steal. In a way, Frankie is forced to fight fire with fire.

Frankie’s ethics are also demonstrated when he works as a telegram delivery boy. He has been strictly instructed by his bosses not to stop delivering telegrams for any reason, and not to do favors for the people that he delivers telegrams to. However, his conscience forces him to help some of the people he encounters. Frankie tells of coming upon people who receive money orders, but are too sick to get out of bed and cash them, or buy themselves food. In these circumstances, Frankie breaks the rules of the post office and helps out the needy people. Frankie describes his situation by saying, “…and there’s a pile of rags on a bed in a corner the pile saying who is it and you say telegram and the pile of rags tells you would you ever go to the shop for me I’m starving with the hunger…”(316). I think that Frankie’s reaction to people in need demonstrates his strong ethics and his compassion for helping others.

By the end of the book, Frankie has accumulated enough money to take a ship to America. He chooses to do this because he believes that he will find a future in America and will be able to move beyond the way of life in Limerick, Ireland. However, he has mixed feelings about his decision. As much as he hated things about Limerick, he knows that he will miss it, simply for its familiarity. Additionally, he sometimes feels like he should have helped out his mother and brothers more, instead of saving his money only for his future. Frankie perseveres with his plan to go to America because he possesses a very determined will to succeed in his life. He has never let anyone, from the discouraging priests at church to his cruel bosses, convince him that he can’t achieve what he wants to in life. The book ends as his boat is arriving in America, and readers feel assured that he will not let any challenge in America get the better of him.

Works Cited:

McCourt, Frank. Angela’s Ashes. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1996.

Angela's Ashes: Post 5

In the latest section of Angela’s Ashes, many important events happen in the lives of the McCourt family. Frank spends two extended stays at the hospital, first for typhoid fever and then for an infection in his eyes. Mr. McCourt makes a difficult decision to relocate to England, away from his family, and find work in a factory. The plan is that he will send money back to his wife and children in Ireland, but he brings his drinking habits to England with him, and doesn’t send any money to his family. Mrs. McCourt also spends some time in the hospital with pneumonia, and Frank and his three brothers are taken care of by their unpleasant Aunt Aggie. Finally, Frank gets a job helping his neighbor, Mr. Hannon, deliver coal.

Poverty continues to plague the McCourt family. When Mr. McCourt goes to work in England, though, it seems as though this problem might come to an end. The McCourts dare to believe that “surely our troubles will be over” (221). This is because the other poor families in the McCourts’ neighborhood equate a father working in England with boundless happiness. The reader can’t know whether Mrs. McCourt truly believes that Mr. McCourt will be able to hold a steady job in England and earn wages that keep the family satisfied, but perhaps it doesn’t matter if she believes this or not. The mere idea of having enough money raises the McCourts’ spirits and makes them happy for a few days. Mrs. McCourt talks about having “new boots and coats…” (221) and “eggs and rashers on Sunday for breakfast and ham and cabbage and potatoes for dinner” (221) and “electric light” (221). When no money arrives from England, though, the McCourts’ dreams are crushed. Mrs. McCourt is ashamed of her family’s poverty and often laments the fact that other families on their street have more than the McCourts.

However, Frank and his brothers learn that having enough money doesn’t always bring happiness when they stay with Aunt Aggie. Aunt Aggie isn’t rich, but she has a nice house and enough food. When the McCourt boys stay with her, though, she is stingy in sharing with them, and she bullies them constantly. Frank is puzzled over how someone so fortunate could be anything but happy. He says, “I don’t know why she’s always angry. Her flat is warm and dry. She has electric light in the house and her own lavatory in the backyard” (246). The McCourts take actions opposite from Aunt Aggie: though they have less than she, they are generous even to strangers. Mrs. McCourt feeds dinner to women and children who come off the street occasionally, and Frank’s brother Michael brings homeless men to their house to spend the night. On this topic, Frank says that “The bread she gives them always means less for us and if we complain she says there are always people worse off and we can surely spare a little from what we have” (273). The McCourts’ selfless attitude shows that they are compassionate and good-hearted people. They must make an ethical decision between saving their food for themselves and letting others go hungry, or feeding people with greater needs than their own by sacrificing some of their food. Their choice shows their generosity and desire to help others.

Mr. McCourt, however, doesn’t display this generosity with his own family. His failure to send wages to the rest of his family in Ireland causes him to be rejected by his family. Mrs. McCourt learns to cope financially by getting public aid and even by begging. Frankie finds a new father-figure in Mr. Hannon, the man he delivers coal with. In fact, Mr. Hannon is subject to much adoration by Frankie, who is “dying to go around with Mr. Hannon on the great float like a real workingman” (258). When a train conductor gives the McCourts a bit of food as they wait for Mr. McCourt at the train station, Frankie breaks even more ties to his father. He writes, “I wish I had a father like the man in the signal tower who gives you sandwiches and cocoa” (269). When Mr. McCourt visits his family in Ireland, his family is unforgiving about his failure to send them money. Mrs. McCourt and three of the McCourt boys accuse him, saying, “You drank the money, Dad” (270). The tension and anger in the McCourt family creates unhappiness and divides the family.

Frank continues to mature, and is now almost thirteen. He doesn’t have a very positive image of himself for a variety of reasons. First of all, he is made fun of at school by other boys. They tease him by calling at him, “Blinky McCourt beggar woman’s son scabby eyed blubber gob dancing Jap” (262). Frank doesn’t let it bother him too much, though. He does have friends, and he feels good about himself when he works for Mr. Hannon. He is more deeply humiliated when he sees his mother begging at a priest’s home for their dinner. Frankie says that seeing his mother beg is “the worst kind of shame” (250). Something positive in Frankie’s childhood is his love of reading. He enjoys Shakespeare and other books, and teachers at his school have previously noticed his good writing. It is fun to read about him discovering his passion when, in the back of your mind, you know that he grew up to write a book that won the Pulitzer Prize.

Work Cited:

McCourt, Frank. Angela’s Ashes. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1996.

Angela's Ashes: Post 4

As I continue reading Angela’s Ashes, I enjoy watching Frank McCourt grow up. His life in Ireland is still rough and his family remains poor, so it’s comforting to remind myself that he survived his childhood and became a successful writer.

One important event in Frankie’s life that I read about was his First Communion. Frankie comes from an Irish Catholic family, and religion was highly valued in Ireland at the time of his childhood, so adults in his life are constantly reminding him how significant his First Communion is. However, I was struck by the lack of sincerity and genuineness in Frankie’s First Communion. The mechanical attitude toward religion was set by the teachers at Frankie’s Catholic school, who are in charge of teaching the boys how to receive their First Communion. The teachers force the boys to memorize the Ten Commandments and other facts about Catholicism, and threaten to beat them if they don’t remember these facts. The school acts as a factory of sorts for creating Catholics. Frankie describes this phenomenon by saying that the teacher “tells us we’re hopeless, the worst class he ever had for First Communion but as sure as God made little apples he’ll make Catholics of us, he’ll beat the idler out of us and the Sanctifying Grace into us” (118). Faith, God or what it means to be Catholic are never discussed in the preparation for Communion. Students at Frankie’s school respond by mirroring their teachers’ indifference to these aspects of religion. Frankie is mainly excited for First Communion because of a tradition in which kids walk through the streets of their town and collect money from other Catholics as a reward for taking their First Communion. Then, this money is spent on candy and films at the cinema, specifically those with James Cagney in them. Frankie is no exception to this custom. He has been told that First Communion is the “happiest day of his life” (127), and he echoes this sentiment by telling the reader, “First Communion is the happiest day of your life because of The Collection and James Cagney at the Lyric Cinema” (127). Of course, he gets the reason for his supposed happiness wrong, but no one really seems to care.

A recurring concept in this section of Angela’s Ashes is Frankie’s parents’ desire for Frankie to accomplish something. It seems that they want to make something out of him, perhaps to prove that their poverty will not get in the way of Frankie’s achievements in life. In order to do this, Frankie holds a few odd jobs, which include helping his uncle distribute newspapers, delivering a lunch to his grandmother’s tenant, and reading books to an old man. More significantly, Mr. and Mrs. McCourt first sign Frankie up for Irish dancing classes. Frankie, however, hates the dancing, and is afraid that others will think he is a sissy because of it. He describes himself leaving dance classes and “hoping my pals won’t see me with boys who wear kilts and girls with white teeth and fancy dresses from olden times” (142). Frankie is not outgoing by nature, and sometimes works a little harder than other boys to fit into the crowd at his school. Therefore, the embarrassment that dancing brings him, combined with his dislike of it, motivates him to spend the money intended for his dance lesson on candy and going to the cinema. Inevitably, he gets in trouble with his parents when they discover this, and then stops dancing for good.

Another attempt to make Frankie accomplish something comes when his father is determined that Frankie must become an altar boy at their church. Frankie memorizes the Latin that altar boys must repeat during church services, and is bathed and dressed in better-than-average clothes. There is an atmosphere of excitement as he and his father walk down to the church so Frankie can become an altar boy. However, the man at the church rejects Frankie and his father in one quick sentence, saying “We don’t have room for him” (149). This harsh refusal destroys the altar boy dream for the McCourts. Mr. and Mrs. McCourt also become convinced that Frankie couldn’t become an altar boy because of his family’s poverty. Mrs. McCourt spells out this idea quite plainly by saying, “’Tis class distinction. They don’t want boys from lanes on the altar. They don’t want the ones with scabby knees and hair sticking up. Oh, no, they want the nice boys, with hair oil and new shoes that have fathers with suits and ties and steady jobs” (149). This concept is terribly discouraging for Mr. and Mrs. McCourt, and it serves to further persuade them that Frank’s quest for success in his life will be significantly harder because of his social status.

Mr. and Mrs. McCourt themselves continue to struggle because of their poverty. Putting food on the table and buying coal to boil water are hard to do because they have so little money, and the McCourt parents seem to be losing their motivation to do these things. Mr. McCourt has made no progress on fixing his drinking problem. He can’t hold a job for long, because he drinks his way through his salary when he is paid, and misses work the next morning. Additionally, both parents have become somewhat addicted to cigarettes, and spend valuable money on them. However, Frankie discovers that there are people living in poverty that is even worse than his own when he spends a night with a friend from school named Paddy Clohessy. Paddy lives in a part of town called Arthur’s Quay, which is dangerous and has houses that “are old and might fall down at any minute” (163). Paddy’s house is in ruins, his father is very ill, and his siblings don’t get enough to eat for breakfast. In a previous chapter, Frankie had given Paddy a part of his lunch because Paddy looked hungrier than all the other schoolboys, and now Frankie says that he’s “very sorry for the Clohessys and all their troubles…” (169). These situations show that Frankie is a very compassionate person who can be friendly and helpful to those in need. Other boys from school would be more likely to make fun of Paddy, but Frankie makes friends with him instead.

Work Cited:
McCourt, Frank. Angela’s Ashes. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1996.

Traitor Versus Whistle Blower in On The Waterfront

Characters in the film On The Waterfront have a wide range of definitions for traitors and whistle blowers, and their differing opinions on this topic lead to the main conflict of the film.
By the end of the film, Terry Molloy believes that a traitor is someone who acts in their own selfish interests. He thinks that a whistleblower, on the other hand, is someone who wants to benefit a majority of the people involved. Therefore, he believes that a whistleblower would be willing to risk their own lives for the sake of this majority. A traitor would never make such a sacrifice and would rather see others hurt for his sake. Based on this definition, Terry would classify himself as a whistle blower and a crusader for justice on the waterfront. It’s obvious that Terry is not standing up for the workers of the waterfront for selfish reasons, because Terry had opportunities to benefit from not testifying against Johnny Friendly. For example, he could have easily taken the job Charlie offered him in the taxi and chose to stay loyal to the mob—a choice that would undoubtedly have led to an easy life for Terry. However, Terry selflessly placed the futures of the dockworkers above his own future. Additionally, Terry proves himself to be a crusader because he is willing to risk his life for the dockworkers’ sakes. He knows that the mob will want to kill him if he testifies in court, and he does it anyhow. Johnny Friendly and the members of the mob have very different ideas about what a whistle blower is and what a traitor is. In fact, Johnny Friendly doesn’t even see a distinction between the two, because he believes that his mob’s rule should always be followed. Friendly doesn’t believe in justice or truth—if he did he wouldn’t have killed people like Joey and Doogan in the first place. Therefore, according to Friendly, anyone who is disloyal to his mob for any reason—even to restore justice or truth—is a traitor. In Friendly’s eyes, Terry is obviously a traitor, because he wants to turn the mob in to the police. However, Friendly also sees Terry’s brother Charlie as a traitor, not because he was going to testify, but because he disobeyed Friendly’s orders by not killing Terry. This opinion of Friendly’s shows us that Friendly truly felt that everyone must obey his commands or be considered disloyal.

I agree with Terry’s ideas, and I think that a whistle blower is someone who tells the truth when doing so will be good for the largest group of people. On the other hand, a traitor is someone who tells the truth (or a lie) for his own benefit or to deliberately hurt someone else. Therefore, I believe that the difference between the two really lies in the person’s motivation. For example, if a person caught someone stealing and wanted to turn him or her in to help the store and to try to make society more honest, then I think this person would be a whistle blower. However, if a person turned someone in because they would be given a reward from the police or because they wanted to see the criminal get in trouble, then I think this person would be a traitor.

Angela's Ashes: Post 3

Young Frank McCourt’s life has taken more turns for the worse in the most recent section of Angela’s Ashes. His younger twin brothers, Eugene and Oliver, die one after the other, which causes his parents a lot of grief. Frankie and his younger brother Malachy begin to attend Leamy’s National School, and his family moves twice to try to escape the memories of Eugene and Oliver that plague them. Also, Frankie’s mother gives birth to a new brother for Frankie, named Michael.

The McCourts continue to face prejudice in Ireland. Frankie is made fun of at school for being from the United States. Upon discovering that Frankie and his brother Malachy are from America, one boy asks them whether they are cowboys or gangsters. When Frankie gets in a fight with the boy, the headmaster of the school says, “You little hooligan…Is that the kind of behavior you brought from America?” (79). Then he punishes him by forcing him to say, “I’m a bad Yank” (79). Frankie is already a quiet and reserved boy who is often overshadowed by his brother, so this makes him feel even worse and decreases his confidence in school. Mr. McCourt also continues to face prejudice for being from the North of Ireland, and is turned down from job opportunities when employers hear his Northern accent. Mr. McCourt copes with this discrimination much differently from Frankie, though: instead of submitting to others’ opinions and letting others get the better of him, Mr. McCourt maintains his pride in his Northern roots. Mrs. McCourt even suggests that he disguise his accent to get a job, but Mr. McCourt refuses and “says he’ll never sink that low” (94).

Although some degree of pride can help people in the McCourts’ situation maintain their dignity, it seems that Mr. McCourt is taking his pride too far. He is so intent on not disgracing himself that he becomes unreasonable and stubborn. For example, Frankie tells the reader, “Even if Dad came he wouldn’t be much use because he never carries anything, parcels, bags, packages. If you carry such things you lose your dignity. That’s what he says” (98). His pride also hurts his family and their efforts to escape from their poverty, because he believes that the family disgraces themselves when they ask for help from charity or pick coal up from the streets. If Mr. McCourt wasn’t as opposed to getting help, their family might have a better chance of improving their very poor living situation.

Because Frankie is still a young boy, he doesn’t have that many major ethical choices to make in his life. However, one decision that Frankie had to make recently in the book came when his father was out drinking in pubs again. Mrs. McCourt had sent Frankie along with his father in an effort to prevent Mr. McCourt from spending all night drinking at the pub. Once at the pub, Mr. McCourt tells Frankie to go home, but Frankie knows that if he does as his father says, it is very likely that his father will be drinking all night long—just the situation Mrs. McCourt wanted to prevent. Frankie says that his father said, “Don’t be disobedient. Go home to your poor mother. I said, No, and he said I was a bad boy and God would be displeased” (83). Despite opposition from his father, Frankie quietly insists on doing the right thing, and finally succeeds in getting his father home early in the evening. This example shows that Frankie had a very clear sense of right and wrong and wasn’t easily influenced by others’ opinions. Even his father, who he admired a lot, couldn’t get Frankie to do what Frankie believed was the wrong thing. Also, Frankie risks making his father mad by staying in the pub, but he stays anyhow, because he knows that motivating his father to come home early from the pub will benefit the entire family. Letting Mr. McCourt stay in the pub would only benefit Mr. McCourt. Clearly, Frankie is concerned with what he can do to help his entire family, rather than just one person. This idea is also supported with countless examples of Frankie making sacrifices to help his family—he frequently runs errands for his mother, collects coal on the street so they can cook dinner, and takes care of his brothers.

Work Cited: McCourt, Frank. Angela’s Ashes. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1996.

*I wanted to underline all the "Angela's Ashes" titles in this post, but blogspot wouldn't let me.

Society Vs. Family

Characters in Arthur Miller’s play All My Sons are divided into two sides: those who believe actions should benefit family, and those who believe actions should benefit society. Joe and Kate Keller belong to the former group, and base their decisions off what will help their family most. Joe in particular has a strong belief that being able to pass something on to his family justifies hurting society. He acts on this belief when he ships the cracked cylinder heads to the army: he knows that this action will hurt others in society, but he does it anyhow, because it will help his family. When he escapes punishment for this crime by blaming it on his partner, he again sacrifices society for family, because he harms someone else while upholding his own family and business. Joe sum up his belief that his family’s needs trump his society’s needs when he is desperately trying to explain to a furious Chris why he chose to ship the bad parts. Joe says, “Chris, I did it for you, it was a chance and I took it for you. I’m sixty-one years old, when would I have another chance to make something for you?” (70). Kate agrees with Joe on this issue. Additionally, she strongly believes that actions of a family affect only that family and do not matter to the rest of society, and she thus justifies valuing family over society. For example, Kate believes that Larry is still alive, and that because Larry is alive, Joe’s crime is erased and does not matter to anyone else. This is part of the reason that Kate clings so adamantly to her denial of her son’s death—Larry alive means Joe innocent to her. On the other side of the argument are Chris and Annie. Chris’s views are opposite from his father’s, because Chris is deeply ashamed that his father would ship out broken parts for his family’s sake, without regard to his impact on society. This difference between Joe and Chris causes a lot of conflict in the play, because Chris is furious with his father when he discovers Joe’s guilt, feels ashamed to benefit from the business that killed pilots, and wants Joe pay for his crime. Chris summarizes his point of view at the end of the play by telling Kate “You can be better! Once and for all there’s a universe of people outside and you’re responsible to it…” (84). This proclamation clearly shows that Chris feels that society’s needs should be prioritized above those of his family’s. Annie’s opinions are similar to Chris’s on this issue, and she was very ashamed of her father when she still thought that he was guilty. Her shame and anger at her father are so extreme that she doesn’t even write him, and this action shows her placing more importance on society’s needs than on her family bonds. When Ann says about her father, “It’s wrong to pity a man like that. Father or no father, there’s only one way to look at him. He knowingly shipped out parts that would crash an airplane” (31), her severed ties with her father are very apparent.

In my opinion, society should be prioritized over one’s family, because everybody is a member of society. Therefore, if an action benefits the entire society, it benefits the family in that society a bit, too. Society depends on people to give up personal wants or needs so that we can all live together: this is the concept of a social contract. If this idea was not obeyed, everyone would do only what benefited them and those very close to them. Though it seems that this could make people happy, in reality it would destroy everyone, because everyone’s wants would clash and harm each other. For example, if everyone obeyed like Joe Keller does in All My Sons and killed others’ sons for their own sons’ sake, nobody’s sons would survive. For this reason, I agree with Ann and Chris that society is more important than individual families, and I disagree with Joe and Kate.


Work Cited:

Miller, Arthur. All My Sons. New York, New York: Penguin Books, 1947.

*I wanted to underline all the "All My Sons" in the post but couldn't.

Angela's Ashes: Post 2

In the next section of Angela’s Ashes, Frank McCourt’s family hits rock bottom in the United States after Frank’s younger sister, Margaret, dies as an infant. This tragedy nearly drives Frank’s mother insane with grief and causes his father to rely on alcohol more than ever. It is very painful to watch Mr. McCourt revert to his old drinking habits after breaking them while his daughter was alive; his daughter’s life was like a window into the kind of man and father Mr. McCourt could be if he was motivated to stay away from alcohol and work for his family. When Margaret dies, this window is closed. I think that Mrs. McCourt mourns not only for the death of her daughter, but also for the end of the possibility of a good life for her family that disappeared with her daughter’s life.
The family then becomes dysfunctional and lives at the mercy of neighbors, who make meals and take care of the four McCourt children. The McCourt family loses a lot of pride in this period, because of the fact that they are so dependent on the goodwill of others for their survival. Mrs. Leibowitz is one neighbor who helps the McCourt family after Margaret dies. Frankie says that Mrs. Leibowitz “holds my mother in her arms. Shush, now, shush. Babies go like that. It happens, missus” (38). Although Mrs. Leibowitz is very kind to help Mrs. McCourt, having another woman in her house, cooking food for her family and changing her children’s diapers must make Mrs. McCourt feel ashamed and inept.
The McCourts’ loss of pride is only increased by Mrs. McCourt’s cousins, who send the family to Ireland to be taken care of by Mrs. McCourt’s mother. The cousins don’t even bother asking the family if they want to move to Ireland, and pack them onto the ship to Ireland like animals who have become a nuisance. With this action, the cousins made an ethical decision about the McCourt family’s fate. They know that the family is barely surviving on their own, and the cousins decide that the best solution is to send them to Ireland, instead of helping them in New York. While there is nothing wrong with this choice, I think that the way they made decision—without consulting the McCourts at all—was unethical and degrading.
Life in Ireland also treats the family harshly. Mr. McCourt still can’t find a job and the family faces prejudice. The McCourts don’t seem to belong anywhere: in the United States, they were looked down upon for being Irish, and in Ireland, they are discriminated against because they are American. Mr. McCourt in particular is unwelcome almost everywhere he goes, because he is from the infamous north of Ireland. This hinders him in finding a much needed job, because “There is no hope of a laboring man with a North of Ireland accent getting a job in Limerick” (63). This lack of belonging that the McCourts face everywhere they go dampens their morale and takes away their confidence, only exacerbating the shame that they already feel.
In addition to injecting humor into the serious topic of his childhood, Frank McCourt does a fabulous job of telling the story with the innocence that he felt as a six year old. He does not always know what is going on and he is at the mercy of his parents and their economic problems, because he can’t control their decisions or their incomes. Reading about his innocence and helplessness makes me afraid for Frankie and his future.


Work Cited:
McCourt, Frank. Angela’s Ashes. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1996.

*I wanted to underline all the "Angela's Ashes" titles in this post, but blogspot wouldn't let me.

Angela's Ashes: Post 1

For my outside reading book, I am reading Angela’s Ashes, by Frank McCourt. The book is a memoir about the author’s childhood in the United States and in Ireland. Frank’s parents were Irish immigrants to New York. The beginning section that I read this week took place in New York, although his parents will soon move the family back to Ireland. Frank’s family is poor, and his father has a difficult time holding down a job, because he is an alcoholic. This leaves his mother, Angela, in a very difficult place, because she has five children to feed and no source of income. In a way, Angela has to make an ethical decision each week—should she tell the grocer that she needs to get food now, and will pay him back later, even though she does not know when she will next get money? Or should she be more honest financially but let her many young children go hungry? The tough decision makes Angela hopeless and desperate, and it also makes Frank feel sad for her. This is shown through his reaction when Frank looks “out at Mam at the kitchen table, smoking a cigarette, drinking tea, and crying. I want to get up and tell her that I’ll be a man soon and I can get a job in the place with the big gate…” (28). Coming from a four year old, this statement is very moving and shows the reader what desperate straits the family was in.
Frank’s father seems to be the polar opposite of his mother in terms of ethics—he comes home many Friday nights drunk, having spent his entire paycheck on alcohol, and he doesn’t act guilty about it when he is drunk or when he is sober. Angela is obviously unhappy with his irresponsible habits, but his children don’t hold it against him. In fact, Frank seems to like his father as much or more than he likes his mother, which just goes to show that good ethics don’t always reap popularity.
Although it would undoubtedly be easy for McCourt to sound bitter or unhappy about his underprivileged childhood as he writes his memoir, his voice doesn’t come across that way at all. On the contrary, he writes about his family’s situation with a dry sense of humor and even a touch of cynicism. This makes the book worlds more interesting than it would be if he wrote with a woeful tone. For instance, when he is giving the reader a preview of life in Ireland, he describes how everyone is constantly wet, because their houses are not leak proof and their clothes never dry. He then goes on to say that churches’ dryness, not their religion, was what motivated Irish people to be so religious: “Limerick gained a reputation for piety, but we knew it was only the rain” (12). I really enjoy reading this humorous perspective on what was actually a harsh reality.

McCourt, Frank. Angela’s Ashes. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1996.

*I wanted to underline "Angela's Ashes" but blogger wouldn't let me.

“Landslide”

I took my love, I took it down
Climbed a mountain and I turned around
I saw my reflection in the snow-covered hills
Till the landslide brought me down.

Oh, mirror in the sky,
What is love?
Can the child within my heart rise above?
Can I sail through the changing ocean tides?
Can I handle the seasons of my life?

Well, I’ve been afraid of changing
Cause I’ve built my life around you.
But time makes you bolder,
Children get older,
I’m getting older too.

Oh, take my love, take it down.
Climb a mountain and turn around.
If you see my reflection in the snow covered hills,
Well the landslide will bring it down.

If you see my reflection in the snow-covered hills,
Well maybe the landslide will bring it down.

The lyrics of this song tell of someone reflecting on their life thus far, and deciding how to proceed in the future. The narrator is looking back on how they have lived, and at the same time wondering about how to continue in their life. Because of this, I think that the narrator is at a crossroads in their life. The reflective and thoughtful nature of the song is clearest in the lines “Climbed a mountain and I turned around/ I saw my reflection in the snow-covered hills” The narrator has obviously accomplished something big in their life, and is looking back on it and processing it. Then, the line “Till the landslide brought me down” shows the narrator moving on in their life, away from their past. I also think the lines “Can the child within my heart rise above? / Can I sail through the changing ocean tides? / Can I handle the seasons of my life?” show the narrator pondering how to continue in life. The future clearly holds questions that the narrator has been searching for answers to, but the questions can’t be answered easily and simply.
This song brings back a lot of memories for me, because it is a song that is sung at my summer camp. All the girls in the oldest section of camp who will not come back to camp again sing “Landslide” together for the rest of the camp at the end of the summer, I think it is a very appropriate time to sing “Landslide.” This is because most of us have come to camp together for four or five years, and have met friends at camp who we see every summer. After out last year at camp, we often don’t know when we will see each other again, and whether we will ever come back to camp again. This may sound melodramatic, but camp and friends from camp are really special, because of their unique place in one’s childhood and quest for independence. So when we sing this song, we are reflecting on everything we’ve done together at camp. At the same time, we are wondering whether we will come back to camp for a longer trip and how we will bring camp and the things we have learned there into our lives back at home.
This idea of looking to the past and the future in one’s life also connects to our topic of journeys and the books The Iliad, The Odyssey, and Siddhartha in English class. In all three of these books and in the song “Landslide,” the main character is on a journey of some sort, and takes time to contemplate their life and their future.

Fleetwood Mac. “Landslide.” Fleetwood Mac. Rhino/ Wea, 1975.

*I wanted to underling the second "Fleetwood Mac" (the name of the album of the song), but blogger wouldn't let me.