Wonderful stuff, as always. I immediately opened a story I was struggling with, asking: what does this other character think about these events - truly. And I'm off and running. Might come to naught, but it was a question I hadn't asked that suddenly seems important. Hope I can make it to the Bay Area for "Home." It is my favorite story!
Wonderful stuff, as always. I immediately opened a story I was struggling with, asking: what does this other character think about these events - truly. And I'm off and running. Might come to naught, but it was a question I hadn't asked that suddenly seems important. Hope I can make it to the Bay Area for "Home." It is my favorite story!
For me, it has everything - the dystopia of war, the fuck-up of family, rage, the failure of our culture. And finally - the only solution: Find some way to bring me back, you fuckers, or you are the sorriest bunch of bastards the world has ever known.
It makes me laugh and cry (so messy!) all at the same time.
"Home" seems to provide an example of a writer not giving the reader a major piece of information, namely the war act that damaged the psyche of the main character and got him a court martial. But as it turns out, that piece of information isn't necessary to the story. We are okay not knowing (and perhaps it's even better not to know...?). So it's a kind of writer-imposed-blur, but one that works. (Maybe that means it's NOT a WIB...) Anyway, it's an interesting choice on George's part--to leave out that basic fact from the story.
For me, the basic fact was not left out. It was - framed. Unspoken but powerfully - in the reactions of others, and the narrator himself. There's the scene with the other returnee(s), in which it is pretty plain what happened. And we know the narrator got through his "court martial" without being charged with a crime. The way it plays, for me, shows the real tragedy of our "little wars." The narrator is deeply distressed by being in the position of having had to perform acts that appall and craze him, to the point he cannot speak of them. His family is brutal with him - first thing they say to him is "did you do it?" And acting as if he would hurt his niece of nephew. Or his own kids. Did he do these heinous acts? Or witness them? Or both. He himself may not even know the answer to that. But "you sent me there, now find a way to bring me back." This is to me the tremendous tragedy of our wars. It broke my heart and my mind, and does so every time I read it.
It is true that we do not need the exact details of what happened. And it is also true that the serious nature of the acts are inferred through the reactions of others, as you write. But the facts are definitely missing. We do not know the acts committed. When he is asked "did you do it?" we can only imagine what "it" is. So, to me, this basic fact is omitted--a choice made by George when he wrote the story. We only know that something terrible happened. By leaving it up to our imagination, the acts of violence are somehow even more powerful.
Well, what would make your sister and your ex-wife terrified to have you near their children? This to me is not a missing "basic fact." There are possibilities which to my mind the character himself is not always sure of. The other returnee's story of the dog he injured - I've read the reaction to that several times. There are, in guerilla war, I think, no "basic facts." Murder and torture cover all, until mind and heart either crack or go under from it. If you didn't blow up kids, the guy next to you did. You are a part of the whole scene. Babel's stories are like this, too. We seldom see him slaughter anything, as I recall - the goose, yes. But the blood bath is over everything. To the effect, finally I could no longer read them.
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I can only imagine "what would make your sister and your ex-wife terrified to have you near their children," because I'm not told the details. The basic fact that IS included is that something terrible happened and the main character was involved. The details, however, are missing. We don't know what the character did. That's how I read the story.
I've really enjoyed - should I write 'reading' or 'watching' - the rallies that your exchanges amount to: "agree to disagree", quite the sporting outcome,the spoils of a genial provocative debate go, shared, to both of you. With thanks.
Wonderful stuff, as always. I immediately opened a story I was struggling with, asking: what does this other character think about these events - truly. And I'm off and running. Might come to naught, but it was a question I hadn't asked that suddenly seems important. Hope I can make it to the Bay Area for "Home." It is my favorite story!
For me, it has everything - the dystopia of war, the fuck-up of family, rage, the failure of our culture. And finally - the only solution: Find some way to bring me back, you fuckers, or you are the sorriest bunch of bastards the world has ever known.
It makes me laugh and cry (so messy!) all at the same time.
"Home" seems to provide an example of a writer not giving the reader a major piece of information, namely the war act that damaged the psyche of the main character and got him a court martial. But as it turns out, that piece of information isn't necessary to the story. We are okay not knowing (and perhaps it's even better not to know...?). So it's a kind of writer-imposed-blur, but one that works. (Maybe that means it's NOT a WIB...) Anyway, it's an interesting choice on George's part--to leave out that basic fact from the story.
For me, the basic fact was not left out. It was - framed. Unspoken but powerfully - in the reactions of others, and the narrator himself. There's the scene with the other returnee(s), in which it is pretty plain what happened. And we know the narrator got through his "court martial" without being charged with a crime. The way it plays, for me, shows the real tragedy of our "little wars." The narrator is deeply distressed by being in the position of having had to perform acts that appall and craze him, to the point he cannot speak of them. His family is brutal with him - first thing they say to him is "did you do it?" And acting as if he would hurt his niece of nephew. Or his own kids. Did he do these heinous acts? Or witness them? Or both. He himself may not even know the answer to that. But "you sent me there, now find a way to bring me back." This is to me the tremendous tragedy of our wars. It broke my heart and my mind, and does so every time I read it.
It is true that we do not need the exact details of what happened. And it is also true that the serious nature of the acts are inferred through the reactions of others, as you write. But the facts are definitely missing. We do not know the acts committed. When he is asked "did you do it?" we can only imagine what "it" is. So, to me, this basic fact is omitted--a choice made by George when he wrote the story. We only know that something terrible happened. By leaving it up to our imagination, the acts of violence are somehow even more powerful.
Well, what would make your sister and your ex-wife terrified to have you near their children? This to me is not a missing "basic fact." There are possibilities which to my mind the character himself is not always sure of. The other returnee's story of the dog he injured - I've read the reaction to that several times. There are, in guerilla war, I think, no "basic facts." Murder and torture cover all, until mind and heart either crack or go under from it. If you didn't blow up kids, the guy next to you did. You are a part of the whole scene. Babel's stories are like this, too. We seldom see him slaughter anything, as I recall - the goose, yes. But the blood bath is over everything. To the effect, finally I could no longer read them.
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I can only imagine "what would make your sister and your ex-wife terrified to have you near their children," because I'm not told the details. The basic fact that IS included is that something terrible happened and the main character was involved. The details, however, are missing. We don't know what the character did. That's how I read the story.
You've played your side of what's turned into a fascinating 'ping pong' of POVs with both passion and skill Mary. Bravo!
I've really enjoyed - should I write 'reading' or 'watching' - the rallies that your exchanges amount to: "agree to disagree", quite the sporting outcome,the spoils of a genial provocative debate go, shared, to both of you. With thanks.
Thanks, Rob!
You've played your side of what's turned into a fascinating 'ping pong' of POVs with both passion and skill Sallie. Bravo!