I found the observations you've offered and the questions you raised really useful for prompting me to think further about these two stories.
I agree that Lu Hsun's story focuses more on, and makes more explicit, the narrator's introspection. In Babel's story, even though the narrator has made a conscious and considered deci…
I found the observations you've offered and the questions you raised really useful for prompting me to think further about these two stories.
I agree that Lu Hsun's story focuses more on, and makes more explicit, the narrator's introspection. In Babel's story, even though the narrator has made a conscious and considered decision to take certain action (in contrast to the narrator's behaviour in "The Incident", which seemed to me more impulsive/habitual/not fully conscious), we don't obtain much insight at all in "My First Goose" about the narrator's internal deliberations and feelings that lead to him deciding to kill the goose (except that he is "lonely" and tiring of being hassled by the cossacks – and (we surmise) he has calculated that it is simply necessary in order to enable him to get on/survive with this group). Perhaps that absence causes us to "lean in" more in order to divine what is going on in the narrator's mind (and thus consider ourselves how we might act in similar circumstances). One other observation I'd make in this regard is that it seemed to me that, in "My First Goose", the narrator's more objective description of events (in contrast to those of the narrator in "The Incident") might have a similar purpose/effect (i.e., causing us to lean in more).
I like your observations about the effect of framing (or its absence). For me, the first paragraphs of both "The Incident" and "My First Goose" seem to serve similar functions, insofar as they establish the respective character of the stories' narrators. Then the main events follow and, in the final paragraph of both stories, the narrators describe their reactions to their conduct. Like you, it seems to me that there is little ambivalence in Lu Hsun's narrator's evaluation of the moral value of his (and the driver's) actions. In Babel's story, the narrator's emotional reaction is clear, but Babel leaves us to consider (as you pointed out) whether the narrator's actions were "good" or "bad", and whether we would, in similar circumstances, act in the same way the narrator did. My take-away (which I think is similar to yours?) was that the absence of an end-frame in "My First Goose" best serves this particular story because of that ambivalence. On my reading, there is also potentially some cross-talk between that ambivalence/absence of explicit moral judgment and the narrator's reporting of Surovkov's comment about Lenin's ability to pull the truth "out of the pile" .. "like a hen pecking at a grain". I am sure Surovkov's comment has other layers of meaning, but it seemed to me that, in describing one of the cossacks offering a powerful simile/image in this way (i.e., like an intellectual?), Babel is showing us the capabilities that lie within different "types" (and thus each of us) – a soldier is capable of offering a powerful simile, which we would typically consider an "intellectual" activity, and the narrator, an intellectual, has shown himself capable of killing in order to survive in the particular environment that he is in. In this way Babel could be said to be highlighting a commonality/potential that exists in all of us.
One further thought I had regarding framing: if Babel's story included an introduction like the one in "The Incident" (i.e., establishing the narrator's character), it seems to me that we would lose the (effective, and highly entertaining) initial illustration of Savitsky's and the narrator's respective character (because the narrator's character would at least be partially established in that intro), including the contrast between them, which also serves to set up the dynamic that's to follow between the narrator and the cossacks.
Anyway, I really appreciated and found useful your comments – thank you for sharing.
Geoff, I loved your comments! You're right - the lack of framing in Babel's story almost mirrors the mysterious curve of Lenin's straight line! Having thought about it more, the lack of framing also nicely echoes his admonishment to the old woman "I didn't come here to reason with you" (or, in another translation "I'm in no mood to start debating with you!") - there is no dwelling on this moral quandry for our narrator, no rationalisation can be achieved, no justification made. It is, simply, what it is.
And yes, there would be no wonderful Savitsky introduction with a tightly framed story. Or it would be less impactful. It is as if the framing puts the first person perspective more in focus with Lu's 'An Incident', but in Babel's 'My First Goose', its absence allows us to slide a little into other perspectives - Savitsky, the Quartermaster, the Old Woman, the Cossacks.
Thanks again for your reply - I really enjoyed it and it pushed to venture down the rabbit hole (or along that mysterious curve) a little further...
Just re-reading this and appreciate what you say about the absence of a frame allowing us to slide a little easier into other perspectives - that totally makes sense to me.
Hi Mikhaeyla,
I found the observations you've offered and the questions you raised really useful for prompting me to think further about these two stories.
I agree that Lu Hsun's story focuses more on, and makes more explicit, the narrator's introspection. In Babel's story, even though the narrator has made a conscious and considered decision to take certain action (in contrast to the narrator's behaviour in "The Incident", which seemed to me more impulsive/habitual/not fully conscious), we don't obtain much insight at all in "My First Goose" about the narrator's internal deliberations and feelings that lead to him deciding to kill the goose (except that he is "lonely" and tiring of being hassled by the cossacks – and (we surmise) he has calculated that it is simply necessary in order to enable him to get on/survive with this group). Perhaps that absence causes us to "lean in" more in order to divine what is going on in the narrator's mind (and thus consider ourselves how we might act in similar circumstances). One other observation I'd make in this regard is that it seemed to me that, in "My First Goose", the narrator's more objective description of events (in contrast to those of the narrator in "The Incident") might have a similar purpose/effect (i.e., causing us to lean in more).
I like your observations about the effect of framing (or its absence). For me, the first paragraphs of both "The Incident" and "My First Goose" seem to serve similar functions, insofar as they establish the respective character of the stories' narrators. Then the main events follow and, in the final paragraph of both stories, the narrators describe their reactions to their conduct. Like you, it seems to me that there is little ambivalence in Lu Hsun's narrator's evaluation of the moral value of his (and the driver's) actions. In Babel's story, the narrator's emotional reaction is clear, but Babel leaves us to consider (as you pointed out) whether the narrator's actions were "good" or "bad", and whether we would, in similar circumstances, act in the same way the narrator did. My take-away (which I think is similar to yours?) was that the absence of an end-frame in "My First Goose" best serves this particular story because of that ambivalence. On my reading, there is also potentially some cross-talk between that ambivalence/absence of explicit moral judgment and the narrator's reporting of Surovkov's comment about Lenin's ability to pull the truth "out of the pile" .. "like a hen pecking at a grain". I am sure Surovkov's comment has other layers of meaning, but it seemed to me that, in describing one of the cossacks offering a powerful simile/image in this way (i.e., like an intellectual?), Babel is showing us the capabilities that lie within different "types" (and thus each of us) – a soldier is capable of offering a powerful simile, which we would typically consider an "intellectual" activity, and the narrator, an intellectual, has shown himself capable of killing in order to survive in the particular environment that he is in. In this way Babel could be said to be highlighting a commonality/potential that exists in all of us.
One further thought I had regarding framing: if Babel's story included an introduction like the one in "The Incident" (i.e., establishing the narrator's character), it seems to me that we would lose the (effective, and highly entertaining) initial illustration of Savitsky's and the narrator's respective character (because the narrator's character would at least be partially established in that intro), including the contrast between them, which also serves to set up the dynamic that's to follow between the narrator and the cossacks.
Anyway, I really appreciated and found useful your comments – thank you for sharing.
Geoff
Geoff, I loved your comments! You're right - the lack of framing in Babel's story almost mirrors the mysterious curve of Lenin's straight line! Having thought about it more, the lack of framing also nicely echoes his admonishment to the old woman "I didn't come here to reason with you" (or, in another translation "I'm in no mood to start debating with you!") - there is no dwelling on this moral quandry for our narrator, no rationalisation can be achieved, no justification made. It is, simply, what it is.
And yes, there would be no wonderful Savitsky introduction with a tightly framed story. Or it would be less impactful. It is as if the framing puts the first person perspective more in focus with Lu's 'An Incident', but in Babel's 'My First Goose', its absence allows us to slide a little into other perspectives - Savitsky, the Quartermaster, the Old Woman, the Cossacks.
Thanks again for your reply - I really enjoyed it and it pushed to venture down the rabbit hole (or along that mysterious curve) a little further...
Just re-reading this and appreciate what you say about the absence of a frame allowing us to slide a little easier into other perspectives - that totally makes sense to me.