Aria Bashizadeh Fakhar
Week 2 Journal 2
The Secret Life of Bees
“I used to have daydreams in which she [Rosaleen] was white and married to T. Ray and became my real mother. Other times, I was a Negro orphan she found in a cornfield and adopted. Once in a while I had us living in a foreign country like New York where she could adopt me and we could both stay our natural color.”
The paragraph above is really interesting to me, in that it tells us a heck of a lot of the time period and the race relations were like in a very tiny amount of text. Also, it tells us a lot about the relationship that Lily and Rosaleen have, despite the issues that people are having around them regarding her race.
The first thing that struck me in that paragraph was the quip about Rosaleen being white and being married to T. Ray. It tells me that even a young and naïve girl like Lily knows of the taboos that surround interracial marriage and the legality of it in her time period. It tells me that she knows that she’s looked down upon, but in her mind, she’s a sweet, loving and gentle person who’s race didn’t matter whatsoever, and only wanted her to be white so that she could actually marry her father. The next thing in that sentence that struck me was; “and become my real mother”. I see that Lily is already regarding her as her mother, but needs some sort of institution that she and T. Ray need to be a part of for her to be considered her “real mother”.
Lily also does not see the black race as below her. She in fact would like to be a black child so that she can be taken care of by Rosaleen in a legal manner. Lily is definitely aware of the pending issues that surround her, but she does not partake in this hateful talk and manner, all because this gentle woman has taken care of her for so long and so much better than how her father has been treating her.
Finally, we get a glimpse of what it is like in places in the north, in this case, New York. It seems as if it is acceptable for black people to adopt white children. This, to me seems like it would be especially taboo in a southern state. It would be admitting that a black woman is capable of rearing a white child, who is considered to be of a better standing, socially.
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
resources
To find the article "Dilemma of Forgiveness" and the interview with Franklin H. Littell, go to yadvashem.org and do a custom search for the word "forgiveness." The texts will be the first and fifth hits on the the search.
We also looked at a book article, part of which is available online through google books. The article, entitled “Forgiveness, Reconciliation, and Jewish Memory after Auschwitz,” is by Peter J. Haas and is in a book called In After-Words: Post-Holocaust Struggles with Forgiveness, Reconciliation, Justice.
We also looked at a book article, part of which is available online through google books. The article, entitled “Forgiveness, Reconciliation, and Jewish Memory after Auschwitz,” is by Peter J. Haas and is in a book called In After-Words: Post-Holocaust Struggles with Forgiveness, Reconciliation, Justice.
Journal Entry 6-30-10
I think that in asking the reader to consider his predicament and to put themselves in his shoes, that he still has not come to a conclusion of whether or not he acted correctly. He says that even years after his liberation, he still searched for an answer to his question, still sought to allay his conscience. While at the end of the book he says, “that challenges the conscience of the reader…as it once challenged my heart and my mind.” This puts his dilemma in the past tense, and leads one to believe that he has finally reached a conclusion, but does not tell us what his conclusion is. I believe he does this so as not to bias the reader to his opinion, and to be better able to pose this moral question of forgiveness to a larger audience for debate.
As for myself, I believe I would be in the same boat as he is. A few things that would occur to me are the fact that one cannot forgive a person for a wrong that was not done to him. I fully agree on this point, and so would have acted the way that he did. As from the man’s perspective that the author was seen as part of a larger whole, the simple fact that he confessed to a Jew his wrongs and expressed remorse for his actions seemed to me to be sufficient simply in the act of confessing to clear the man’s conscience. While there was no priest that we know of to clear the man’s slate before he left this earth for the life after this one, the confession and expression of remorse would be seen by his omnipotent creator, and I’m sure was noted as such for his journey to life beyond the pearly gates.
As for myself, I believe I would be in the same boat as he is. A few things that would occur to me are the fact that one cannot forgive a person for a wrong that was not done to him. I fully agree on this point, and so would have acted the way that he did. As from the man’s perspective that the author was seen as part of a larger whole, the simple fact that he confessed to a Jew his wrongs and expressed remorse for his actions seemed to me to be sufficient simply in the act of confessing to clear the man’s conscience. While there was no priest that we know of to clear the man’s slate before he left this earth for the life after this one, the confession and expression of remorse would be seen by his omnipotent creator, and I’m sure was noted as such for his journey to life beyond the pearly gates.
The sunflower
The narrator at ends ask us to put ourselves in his shoes and wonders what we would have done. He asks if we would have given the soldier forgiveness and wonders how we would have handled the situation. I think it is really hard for anyone to put themselves in that same situation that he was in because most people never have to go through such terrible things. The life that he went through and things he saw are almost unimaginable, but still he still thought about forgiving one of the people that caused him so much agony.
If it was me I don’t know I would have been able to forgive the soldier. I would have been so mad at all SS soldier for putting me in a concentration camp and for killing so many of my friends and family. I would have just seen all the German soldiers as my enemy and wouldn’t think as them as different individual people that all act different. I would just see the uniform and think that they were muddier and killed with no remorse. I think this booked showed that Simon Wiesenthal had a lot of character by being able to see through the uniform and over all think if the soldier was a good person that was just trying to serve their country. I don’t know if I would have been able to go back and talk to the soldier’s mom and sit inside his house. Simon wanted to give the soldier forgiveness but wanted to make sure he was a good person like he said, so going back to visit his mother was a way to confirm the soldier was telling the truth. I think at the end Simon gave the soldier forgiveness but I think I wouldn’t of have, but it is really hard for me to put myself in his shoes. There is no way that I have forgiven the soldier when he was telling his life story, but I think the soldier wasn’t expecting Simon to forgive hinm. He was just trying to make a confession and make peace with himself. Over time I might have forgiven but it is really hard for me to tell. Forgiveness is not something that is instant; it takes time and happens a little at a time. Again though I feel I really can’t fathom the situation because it is so extreme but this soldier really seemed to make a big impact on Simon. He takes about on page 85 this encounter with the soldier was the most unpleasant experiences of his life. I think this tells a lot with the fact that he was a prisoner in a concentration camp. Overall all I feel I like I couldn’t forgive the man but I don’t think I would of have been able to survive the situation the Simon was in either.
Logan Reames
If it was me I don’t know I would have been able to forgive the soldier. I would have been so mad at all SS soldier for putting me in a concentration camp and for killing so many of my friends and family. I would have just seen all the German soldiers as my enemy and wouldn’t think as them as different individual people that all act different. I would just see the uniform and think that they were muddier and killed with no remorse. I think this booked showed that Simon Wiesenthal had a lot of character by being able to see through the uniform and over all think if the soldier was a good person that was just trying to serve their country. I don’t know if I would have been able to go back and talk to the soldier’s mom and sit inside his house. Simon wanted to give the soldier forgiveness but wanted to make sure he was a good person like he said, so going back to visit his mother was a way to confirm the soldier was telling the truth. I think at the end Simon gave the soldier forgiveness but I think I wouldn’t of have, but it is really hard for me to put myself in his shoes. There is no way that I have forgiven the soldier when he was telling his life story, but I think the soldier wasn’t expecting Simon to forgive hinm. He was just trying to make a confession and make peace with himself. Over time I might have forgiven but it is really hard for me to tell. Forgiveness is not something that is instant; it takes time and happens a little at a time. Again though I feel I really can’t fathom the situation because it is so extreme but this soldier really seemed to make a big impact on Simon. He takes about on page 85 this encounter with the soldier was the most unpleasant experiences of his life. I think this tells a lot with the fact that he was a prisoner in a concentration camp. Overall all I feel I like I couldn’t forgive the man but I don’t think I would of have been able to survive the situation the Simon was in either.
Logan Reames
Morgan McMahan
Topics in Lit
Journal #4
The Sunflower
After reading the responses to the text, I am left with even more thoughts and feelings about the book and Simon’s ultimate question. The responses were very different, with each person responding to different aspects of the book, and also a few who, in a way, respond with no answer.
As for my response to his question, I would define forgiveness as something that must be asked for, because one cannot be forgiven unless they repent their wrongdoing and ask to be forgiven for it. It is also something that must be granted by the person that was wronged. In the case of the dying SS man, only half of the equation is present. It’s not his place to forgive the man for what he did. I think he did the right thing by just staying silent. He could have easily made the man feel even worse and say mean things to him. In the circumstances, I wouldn’t have thought him a bad person for telling the man off. His silence showed he felt bad for the man, but on the other hand, didn’t find it right to forgive him.
However, the thing that I have been wondering throughout the whole text is why he cares what others think about what he did in that specific situation and why is weighed so heavily upon him? With all that Simon has gone through, why does this one incident matter so much to him? I almost want to side with some of the responders who almost scold Wiesenthal for caring so much. In the grand scheme of things, what does it matter? What he did in that situation, at that time, was what he thought was best. We, as people, cannot second guess and obsess over situation as he does. Everyone has internal battles of morality, but those are personal and once a decision has been made, there isn’t much room to amend it. In my opinion, what’s done is done. The man killed many innocent people and when he reflected upon these acts he wished he hadn’t committed them, but he can’t right what he did no matter how many Jews he finds to forgive him. This is also true for Wiesenthal. Say he did decide, after reading many responses to his question, that he was wrong in his choice, that he should have forgiven the dying SS man. Where would that leave him? What’s done is done.
Due to this, I don’t feel that this need for an answer to this incessant question on the author’s mind is the true reason for writing this book. I think he wants to remind of a few things. One, and most obvious, being that the Holocaust is a horrible scar left on the world, and that we must never forget this tragic mistreatment of mankind. This can never be forgotten because we need to remind ourselves of the dangers of power, hatred, intolerance, and ignorance. Second, that one should never loose faith in what they believe in, because everyone will have to face their God (whatever God that maybe) upon their leave from earth. Lastly, he wants us to question things we have done in our own lives and decided where our morals lie so that, presented with a tough situation as he was, we would know how to respond in good conscious.
Mara Scribner
6/30/10
The Sunflower
“What would I have done,” is the question that Simon from The Sunflower asks us to consider for ourselves. It’s a very difficult question to ask, considering, none of us in this literature class have been through a genocide and I’m sure that none of us have experienced anything as heartbreaking as one. When I am hurt by someone or someone does something wrong to me I become very angry and I am also easily made upset. Therefore, I believe that if I were in Simon’s position I would have made the dying SS soldier feel even worse about his situation and his guilt and then left him to die without any sense of peace. I am not a very forgiving person, and to think of what he did to all those people in the burning house makes me sick to my stomach. He might feel sorry now, but it seems that he realized this a little too late.
I find it strange that Simon was so worried about his meeting with the dying SS soldier. If I was in his position I would feel numb to the situation considering all of the other tortures I was being put through at the time. Even though I would have acted differently in that hospital room, I still believe that Simon’s reaction to the SS man was okay and that he had to reason to regret or feel sorry for the way he had acted. He merely ignored the SS man and denied him the mercy of showing any forgiveness. I feel that this is a more merciful way of not allowing the man to die in peace compared to the way I would do it, by attempting to make him feel even worse about what he has done. In the story, every time Simon would ask for their opinions on how he treated the SS man and if it was the right thing to do I just asked myself, “Why?” I didn’t understand why he was so bothered by it. He is obviously still somewhat bothered by it if he had to write a novel to ask for more people’s opinions on the matter. If I ever got a chance to say anything to him or exchange words with him I would let him know that, in my eyes, how he reacted to the SS man was alright and quite merciful. I do not believe the SS man deserved anything more than what he got.
6/30/10
The Sunflower
“What would I have done,” is the question that Simon from The Sunflower asks us to consider for ourselves. It’s a very difficult question to ask, considering, none of us in this literature class have been through a genocide and I’m sure that none of us have experienced anything as heartbreaking as one. When I am hurt by someone or someone does something wrong to me I become very angry and I am also easily made upset. Therefore, I believe that if I were in Simon’s position I would have made the dying SS soldier feel even worse about his situation and his guilt and then left him to die without any sense of peace. I am not a very forgiving person, and to think of what he did to all those people in the burning house makes me sick to my stomach. He might feel sorry now, but it seems that he realized this a little too late.
I find it strange that Simon was so worried about his meeting with the dying SS soldier. If I was in his position I would feel numb to the situation considering all of the other tortures I was being put through at the time. Even though I would have acted differently in that hospital room, I still believe that Simon’s reaction to the SS man was okay and that he had to reason to regret or feel sorry for the way he had acted. He merely ignored the SS man and denied him the mercy of showing any forgiveness. I feel that this is a more merciful way of not allowing the man to die in peace compared to the way I would do it, by attempting to make him feel even worse about what he has done. In the story, every time Simon would ask for their opinions on how he treated the SS man and if it was the right thing to do I just asked myself, “Why?” I didn’t understand why he was so bothered by it. He is obviously still somewhat bothered by it if he had to write a novel to ask for more people’s opinions on the matter. If I ever got a chance to say anything to him or exchange words with him I would let him know that, in my eyes, how he reacted to the SS man was alright and quite merciful. I do not believe the SS man deserved anything more than what he got.
Natasa Misic -- Journal Entry 5
Natasa Misic
Journal Entry 5
The Sunflower Ending
Wiesenthal life story takes place in horrible part of history; however, he is one of the few holocaust survivors and therefore was able to share his story with the world. Throughout his lifetime he is haunted by one SS soldier who was dying and asked him for repentance and Simon did not forgive him but instead walked out of the room. At the end of the novel he poses the question to his readers that he has struggled with for a large part of his life. “You, who have just read this sad and tragic episode in my life, can mentally change places with me and ask yourself the crucial question, “What would I have done?”” (p99)
My personal definition of forgives is as follows: Forgiveness is when you accept something wrong someone has done to you and you can let go of that wrong doing and don’t hold it against them any longer. You let the “bad things” go. Forgiveness is saying that you are not mad at that person any longer and will not hold a grudge against them for what has happened in the past.
I believe the SS man had no right to ask Simon for forgives especially if he saw it as forgives from all Jews. I do think that Simon did what most humans would have done in his situation and walked out. He did not feel that he was in power to have a say in a situation like this and could probably never truly forgive what has been done to him by the Germans. The soldiers sins are between him and God and his time will come to be able to clean his slate.
It is good to forgive people because we all make mistakes and do and say things we don’t mean or regret. So we ask for forgiveness. Unfortunately, there are some things that we can’t forget even if we try to forgive them and in my opinion if you can’t forgive and forget you don’t truly forgive someone. If I truly put myself in Simons position, I would not be able to forgive the SS soldier because I could never forgot and would forever hold a grudge against what has happened to my people.
Journal Entry 5
The Sunflower Ending
Wiesenthal life story takes place in horrible part of history; however, he is one of the few holocaust survivors and therefore was able to share his story with the world. Throughout his lifetime he is haunted by one SS soldier who was dying and asked him for repentance and Simon did not forgive him but instead walked out of the room. At the end of the novel he poses the question to his readers that he has struggled with for a large part of his life. “You, who have just read this sad and tragic episode in my life, can mentally change places with me and ask yourself the crucial question, “What would I have done?”” (p99)
My personal definition of forgives is as follows: Forgiveness is when you accept something wrong someone has done to you and you can let go of that wrong doing and don’t hold it against them any longer. You let the “bad things” go. Forgiveness is saying that you are not mad at that person any longer and will not hold a grudge against them for what has happened in the past.
I believe the SS man had no right to ask Simon for forgives especially if he saw it as forgives from all Jews. I do think that Simon did what most humans would have done in his situation and walked out. He did not feel that he was in power to have a say in a situation like this and could probably never truly forgive what has been done to him by the Germans. The soldiers sins are between him and God and his time will come to be able to clean his slate.
It is good to forgive people because we all make mistakes and do and say things we don’t mean or regret. So we ask for forgiveness. Unfortunately, there are some things that we can’t forget even if we try to forgive them and in my opinion if you can’t forgive and forget you don’t truly forgive someone. If I truly put myself in Simons position, I would not be able to forgive the SS soldier because I could never forgot and would forever hold a grudge against what has happened to my people.
Aria Bashizadeh Fakhar
Journal 1 week 2
The Sunflower
Wiesenthal’s question at the end of his narrative is quite a surprising one. By this I mean that, usually, in holocaust narratives, the author almost immediately condemns the actions of all of the SS, and does not even question forgiving the SS for their murderous actions. However, Wiesenthal did, and as he said, he wants us to “mentally change places… and ask yourself the crucial question ‘What would I have done’”, and to that, I would have to say I would have done exactly as he had done. I would have simply walked out of the room without uttering a word. I would have however, when talking to his mother, provided her with the actual details of what her son had done to the Jews, and reinforced the idea that Hitler was the one that had converted her son into a murderous person. It was only his influence that had changed him, and the influence on others that had pressured him to conform to the national socialist party ideals. It was for Hitler that Karl joined the SS and became a murderer. She needed to understand that her neighbors were just like her, and in her exact situations and that finding and removing the Jews was not the answer to their economic and life woes. I would have also confirmed the fact that her son was a good man, but kept up with the fact that Hitler was actually the cause of their problems, and was the cause of the loss of a generation’s innocence.
In the hospital itself, I could have not said a word. How could I have? He and his kind were killing my people, and were doing it with the world famous German efficiency. It reminds me of (one of) our current economic woes: the BP oil leak. To this day, I can never understand (other than purposes of greed, but I unsure if Representative Barton had received funding from the company for his campaign) why the representative from Texas actually apologized to BP for our government’s apparent shakedown of the oil company. Does he not understand that in previous natural disasters that oil companies have tried to deny any obligation to the environmental disaster that they had caused? Had I forgiven Karl right then and there, I would have dismissed any obligation from the Germans to right what they have wronged, and prolonged the misery of my people.
Journal 1 week 2
The Sunflower
Wiesenthal’s question at the end of his narrative is quite a surprising one. By this I mean that, usually, in holocaust narratives, the author almost immediately condemns the actions of all of the SS, and does not even question forgiving the SS for their murderous actions. However, Wiesenthal did, and as he said, he wants us to “mentally change places… and ask yourself the crucial question ‘What would I have done’”, and to that, I would have to say I would have done exactly as he had done. I would have simply walked out of the room without uttering a word. I would have however, when talking to his mother, provided her with the actual details of what her son had done to the Jews, and reinforced the idea that Hitler was the one that had converted her son into a murderous person. It was only his influence that had changed him, and the influence on others that had pressured him to conform to the national socialist party ideals. It was for Hitler that Karl joined the SS and became a murderer. She needed to understand that her neighbors were just like her, and in her exact situations and that finding and removing the Jews was not the answer to their economic and life woes. I would have also confirmed the fact that her son was a good man, but kept up with the fact that Hitler was actually the cause of their problems, and was the cause of the loss of a generation’s innocence.
In the hospital itself, I could have not said a word. How could I have? He and his kind were killing my people, and were doing it with the world famous German efficiency. It reminds me of (one of) our current economic woes: the BP oil leak. To this day, I can never understand (other than purposes of greed, but I unsure if Representative Barton had received funding from the company for his campaign) why the representative from Texas actually apologized to BP for our government’s apparent shakedown of the oil company. Does he not understand that in previous natural disasters that oil companies have tried to deny any obligation to the environmental disaster that they had caused? Had I forgiven Karl right then and there, I would have dismissed any obligation from the Germans to right what they have wronged, and prolonged the misery of my people.
week 2-journal 2
Would I have forgiven the dying SS soldier? I don’t know. I am deeply conflicted. I consider myself to be an almost overly sympathetic person (I can’t watch certain movies/shows because I am too embarrassed for the characters) and I loose almost all justice or fairness when I know the person (I tend to make exceptions for people I know). Another layer of complication: I am Jewish (not that it should make a difference. I think a Christian should be just as conflicted as a Jew, but the question of German guilt has been something that’s been in my mind since I was young). Although I never asked myself whether or not I forgive the Germans for what they did, I do wonder what I would have done if I was a plain German citizen at that time.
My father always told me that to understand what the Germans did is to forgive them for what happened. He paints understanding as a form of absolution; something unacceptable. I still don’t really understand this statement completely. I tend to put myself in the situation of the average German who gets swept up in the politics of their time. I make parallels between my morals in my own time and compare it to the moral stances of the average German in the 30’s/40’s. For example, I am aware through news reports of the genocide in Rwanda yet I don’t do anything about it. I continue to buy clothes from Target even though the labor they employ must be very inhumane as evidenced by their low, low prices. I am very average in my society….perhaps I am even worse than the average citizen because I am aware of these conflicts and my behavior remains unchanged.
I like to believe that I would be different but I don’t have any evidence that I would be the brave exception. I worry that I am too morally relativistic. I tend to frown at people who state their beliefs fanatically (I see them as narrow-minded, provincial) but it is that type of person, who is unwilling to compromise their principles, that would become the exception in a fascist society.
If I were in Simon’s place, I wouldn’t have said anything. During the first half of the book, I kept repeating in my head…”you cannot just seek forgiveness from any Jew, we are not all interchangeable…the soldier must seek forgiveness from the Jew’s he murdered.” I was relieved when Simon finally got around to discussing that issue. Although I have a tendency to be overly sympathetic, I fear such blind forgiveness. I don’t think I would forgive the dying, repentant SS soldier. Some things cannot be forgiven and the perpetrator must live with the guilt. Not everyone deserves to die with a feeling of relief. Although I recognize in myself the ability to become a passive murderer, I don’t think I would deserve absolution if I murdered others. I would have to suffer through the guilt. I don’t believe that the Nazi’s should be treated like they treated the Jews (afterall, humanity has to set an example for itself at some point), but I don’t think it’s possible to forgive them for what they did. Forgiving the dying soldier does not change what happened to all those innocent people. Forgiveness in this situation only benefits the soldier’s sense of inner peace. I think a lifetime of guilt seems like just penance for burning a houseful of people alive. I don’t think I’m being too harsh.
Journal #5 Rick Davidson Symposium
Simon’s silence was neutral. The neutrality of the silence is what gives the most cause of doubt to Simon. The silence also sets up the debate by which he asks multitudes of readers to place themselves in his shoes. By remaining neutral, Simon and the Author, create a curiosity within the reader. The reader might ask, “Why didn’t he do anything, I would’ve… or … Why did do nothing… or … He is right/wrong for doing nothing”. Some readers would not hold a grudge to Simon if he decided to smother the soldier with a pillow; but that would cause others circles of readers to do so. The debate would have then been was Simon justified or is he now a murderer of a helpless man? If Simon would have granted the absolution of the soldier and forgave him in his dying moments some readers would be rejoicing; others would condemn him for assuming he could grant forgiveness to one among thousands. But by staying absolutely neutral no-one can truly blame him, after all he did nothing wrong; He didn’t succumb to an easy vengeance nor grant the wishes of a dying man simply because the man was dying. This easy neutrality Simon unknowing slipped into, I find to be a stroke of genius and what creates the book’s meaning, allows the Author to truly ask anybody from any background an absolutely unbiased question; What would YOU have done?
I am in the group of being frustrated by Simon’s inactivity. I believe under the circumstances physical vengeance is out of the question…impossible. The nurse outside the door would get suspicious if the soldier was dead after my leaving. I would have spoken words to him. Words don’t make you bleed nor leave bruises; words do however cause pain and never heal. My atheist beliefs wouldn’t have allowed me to let him die without letting him know what horrors he caused. I believe once you are dead you are no longer a human but a human’s corpse, the human that had previously occupied the corpse is gone. The only metaphor I can think of to describe my beliefs further without causing a religious debate is to think of a record. A record, the life of a body, by itself is nothing. It needs to be played by a phonograph, the body, to create anything. The song is life. You can shape and create your own song but inevitable the record can hold only so much song. Once the song is over, the record can never be played again. With the understanding of my beliefs, I would’ve allowed the soldier’s song to end without letting him know his song is horrible, vulgar, ugly and macabre. He would know his song cut short many many others songs; Songs that were beautiful and untainted by hate. I would above all else not have given his dying note a cheerful tune when he has not himself done the same for another. I would have damned him through words for his actions.
It could be argued that he was bullied and coerced into his actions but he still has no right to ask forgiveness of anybody, especially a Jew. If he sincerely believes he would have forfeited for his life had he acted out then he should’ve not shied away from becoming a martyr. I could have then easily granted forgiveness for a dying martyr standing up for the persecuted. I believe the greatest act of cowardness is going through life not acting on what you know to be right then asking for mercy for your inability to act. I would have left him with the final thought, a coward need not ask me for forgiveness when he likes not what he sees in a mirror on his deathbed; Turn back on him, and walk out of room.
Simon’s silence was neutral. The neutrality of the silence is what gives the most cause of doubt to Simon. The silence also sets up the debate by which he asks multitudes of readers to place themselves in his shoes. By remaining neutral, Simon and the Author, create a curiosity within the reader. The reader might ask, “Why didn’t he do anything, I would’ve… or … Why did do nothing… or … He is right/wrong for doing nothing”. Some readers would not hold a grudge to Simon if he decided to smother the soldier with a pillow; but that would cause others circles of readers to do so. The debate would have then been was Simon justified or is he now a murderer of a helpless man? If Simon would have granted the absolution of the soldier and forgave him in his dying moments some readers would be rejoicing; others would condemn him for assuming he could grant forgiveness to one among thousands. But by staying absolutely neutral no-one can truly blame him, after all he did nothing wrong; He didn’t succumb to an easy vengeance nor grant the wishes of a dying man simply because the man was dying. This easy neutrality Simon unknowing slipped into, I find to be a stroke of genius and what creates the book’s meaning, allows the Author to truly ask anybody from any background an absolutely unbiased question; What would YOU have done?
I am in the group of being frustrated by Simon’s inactivity. I believe under the circumstances physical vengeance is out of the question…impossible. The nurse outside the door would get suspicious if the soldier was dead after my leaving. I would have spoken words to him. Words don’t make you bleed nor leave bruises; words do however cause pain and never heal. My atheist beliefs wouldn’t have allowed me to let him die without letting him know what horrors he caused. I believe once you are dead you are no longer a human but a human’s corpse, the human that had previously occupied the corpse is gone. The only metaphor I can think of to describe my beliefs further without causing a religious debate is to think of a record. A record, the life of a body, by itself is nothing. It needs to be played by a phonograph, the body, to create anything. The song is life. You can shape and create your own song but inevitable the record can hold only so much song. Once the song is over, the record can never be played again. With the understanding of my beliefs, I would’ve allowed the soldier’s song to end without letting him know his song is horrible, vulgar, ugly and macabre. He would know his song cut short many many others songs; Songs that were beautiful and untainted by hate. I would above all else not have given his dying note a cheerful tune when he has not himself done the same for another. I would have damned him through words for his actions.
It could be argued that he was bullied and coerced into his actions but he still has no right to ask forgiveness of anybody, especially a Jew. If he sincerely believes he would have forfeited for his life had he acted out then he should’ve not shied away from becoming a martyr. I could have then easily granted forgiveness for a dying martyr standing up for the persecuted. I believe the greatest act of cowardness is going through life not acting on what you know to be right then asking for mercy for your inability to act. I would have left him with the final thought, a coward need not ask me for forgiveness when he likes not what he sees in a mirror on his deathbed; Turn back on him, and walk out of room.
Journal Entry 6/30/10
My immediate reaction to the author’s question was one of dumbfoundedness. The sheer volume of context that goes into such a scenario is enough to make me take quite a few steps back and really think about this. At first, I didn’t know what to say for one obvious reason: I am not a Jew. Nor was my family or I personally involved in or affected by the Holocaust in any way other than the emotional impact from learning secondhand about these horrors from books and other sources. Thus, it was hard for me initially to even put myself in his shoes. So I first went about pondering this question as if it were myself under normal circumstances. When I meet a stranger, I make no presumptions about that person’s character, regardless of what I have heard about said person from others. In my mind, if a person has done me no wrong, then I have no right to judge him or her based upon their interactions with others. Besides, people often present a biased opinion of someone’s entire character when they’ve had bad experiences with that person, which isn’t fair to base my own opinion on. Following this everyday logic, I would forgive this dying stranger who seems truly remorseful for what he has done.
What Would I Have Done?
"Ought I to have forgiven him? Was my silence at the bedside of the dying Nazi right or wrong? This is a profound moral question . . . The crux of the matter is, of course, the question of forgiveness. Forgetting is something that time alone takes care of, but forgiveness is an act of volition, and only the sufferer is qualified to make the decision" (97-98)
“What would I have done?” The question could mean so many different things. Is it asking what would I have done sitting in the room with the dying Nazi soldier? Are my choices limited to forgive or not? Is it asking what would I have done for the remainder of my life following that event?
I think each individual’s response comes down to his/her personal psychological nature and how his/her actions in that moment would affect him/herself and humanity as a whole. If you were a person who would benefit from forgiving then why not? You wouldn’t have to be doing it for the sake of the dying soldier’s conscience. You could be doing it for purely selfish reasons. However, if forgiving the soldier is made public because of you or him, you may suffer costs because of others’ judgments. You may also want to consider how your actions will affect humanity and how that will affect the world you live in. If you do not forgive you may be contributing to a cruel and uncompassionate world. If you forgive you may be sending a wrong message: no act is too evil to make it unforgiveable. Or, moreover, I took the liberty of forgiving a man for crimes in which I was not the victim. Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel writes, "No one can forgive crimes committed against other people" (165).
What would I have done after getting out of the camp? Simon “thought the work of the commission (investigating Nazi crimes) might help [him] regain [his] faith in humanity and in the things which mankind needs in life besides the material.” (84) This may be a good way to battle emotional issues related to the event in a somewhat directly related area, but this may not be suitable for all people struggling with what to do.
An additional question must be asked: Am I forgiving the person or the act? Forgiving the act I believe will prove to be much more difficult than forgiving the person. An act in itself could be unintentional or accidental, in which case forgiveness can be granted quite easily. However, the soldier is asking for absolution for a crime which he knew full well was wrong and almost all humans would agree is 100% wrong. On the other hand, forgiving the person is something that may be more acceptable. One should consider all other actions in the person’s life. Is this his first and only crime ever. Has he helped and/or saved any other lives. Has a significant amount of time passed since the incident and what has he done to repent? Having read the book the audience knows that the mother of the dying soldier says: "Ah, if you only knew what a fine young fellow our son was. He was always ready to help without being asked. At school he was really a model pupil--till he joined the Hitler Youth, and that completely altered him" (90). Was the soldier a good person that was only forced to do horrible things?
The Dalai Lama believes that one must forgive but not necessarily forget. He might be suggesting that we forgive so we can move on, but at the same time never forget the lessons that have been learned.
Jean Amery, “I refuse any reconciliation with the criminals.”
In conclusion, if I could have done anything, I would have figured out a way to end all killing and human suffering in the world while still assuring Nazis repent and see the error in their ways.
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
week 2 journal 3
I believe I would have not granted the man sympathy. It was not the author’s right to do so. He is not an ordained minister or even a representative of his people he was a random guy chosen. Forgiveness is one thing; you can forgive someone for stepping on your shoes or spilling a drink on you. Telling someone that it was okay that they murdered people is a whole other situation. I do however can justify killing someone. If it is either your life and your family or theirs then one must do what they must do. It’s like if you asked Albert Einstein when he was working on the atomic bomb if he thought it was okay to use it to kill hundreds of thousands of people, what would he have said? The way he justified it was that it was a means to an end. If the atomic bomb was not created millions more people would have died as a result of the war. As I stated in class it all depends on your particular ideology. While others in my class may have sympathized with the man in the room of death; I do not. It is a true statement that he was given an order and he had to carry it out. Although as he stated he volunteered to be in the SS. He was not forced to join, although he did not know what exactly he would have to do. He had a good idea that he would be going to war. There is a saying that comes to mind in this situation, “War is hell”. If the man was not prepared to go to hell then he should have not signed up to go to war.
Journal 5 "The SUnflower": Travis Hearn
At the end of Wiesenthal's The Sunflower, he asks if he should have forgiven the Nazi soldier who, nearing the end of his life, sought to be absolved from the sins he had committed against his own Christian faith, and the God he and Wiesenthal shared. By approaching a victim of his crimes, he recognized that he had done awful things, and the only one with the power to release him from guilt was the one who he had lorded power over.
There are several themes at play here, such as the notion of evil, the power switch mentioned above, the summation of a genocide to just a single soldier and a single victim. All of these play roles in deciding whether forgiveness is correct, both at the time and in retrospect, from various angles.
Simply put, the answer is yes, Simon should have forgiven Karl. At that point, with Karl dying and no one around to judge him, if Simon had forgiven him then he could have lived what little time he had left in better spirits. Even if Simon could only say the words, could not feel the emotions of forgiveness, that would be enough for the soldier. And, put honestly, Simon should not have been able to feel the emotions. It was not his duty or privilege to speak for his entire people, he did not have the authority to grant to this soldier or to the entire Nazi party, true forgiveness. But, he could have eased a dying man's last day. Similarly, Karl was wrong for seeking out a single person to tell his story to, thinking that a single Jew's forgiveness was the forgiveness of their race. Instead, he should have written down his story, his sincere request, and tried to get it to the living relatives of the family he had burned. If you hit someone in the street, you don't go to the person who sits next to them in church/synagogue/mosque and ask forgiveness. You ask it from their family. So, yes, Karl was foolish in his request, but Simon was hateful, and between the two hateful is much worse. Yes, Karl was a cog in a grand machine of genocide against Simon's people, but he was also a human, and if a single word, one single "yes" to Karl's "Do you forgive me?" would lift the weight of his deeds, then why not give it? In William and Ellen Craft's story, there is a quote from a preacher who says he would not utter a single prayer, even if it would free every single slave, and the response to that was that it was hateful and lazy and weak. Granted, in this case the reward is not a race's freedom from shackles of iron, but a man's freedom from the shackles of self-loathing, but the refusal to take the slightest motion to do so just makes Simon petty.
Week 2-journal 1
Eli is a small boy that the narrator observed in the Jewish ghetto. Unlike other children, he went up to the gates and didn’t seem afraid like the other children. He managed to escape all the raids on the children. Eli had almost mystical powers to escape the fate of the other children. The narrator likens him to the prophet Elijah who comes every Passover and drinks a tear’s worth of wine from an offered glass of wine. Elijah is a protective figure that may show up in the form of a townsperson, beggar…child. By connecting the child Eli to the prophet Elijah, the narrator is connecting the events of his life with the Jew’s ancient enslavement to the Egyptians. The Egyptians were in the end punished by G-d for all that they had done to the Jews. Although Eli does not seem to represent a retributive figure, he does seem to represent what little hope there is for salvation from the horror they are experiencing.
The dying SS soldier tells the narrator that he became aware of the true horror of what he had done to the Jews when he saw the dead bodies of a father and son who had jumped from the burning building. The SS soldier mentions the dark eyes of the boy. The description of the dark eyes triggers an association for the narrator to Eli, the boy in the Ghetto. Eli and by extension Elijah made the SS soldier aware of what he was doing. If the spirit of Elijah confronted all the soldiers, perhaps the Jews would be humanized and saved. By attributing this conversion to an act of the prophet Elijah and by extension G-d, it suggests that what is happening to the Jews is being supervised by G-d (rather than him being absent as other prisoner’s contend). Why would G-d sit back and watch this happening to his people?! By attributing the SS man’s remorse to some kind of supernatural intervention, it takes away from the idea that pure human suffering could be understood on it’s own. The Jews cannot be pitied except through some kind of supernatural intervention. Why is plain human tragedy not enough to inspire remorse?
Mara Scribner
6/29/10
The Sunflower
Eli is a little boy that Simon used to see playing outside of the ghetto. He had dark hair and dark questioning, accusing eyes, just like the little boy that the dying soldier saw falling from the window with his family. Eli was usually seen searching for scraps of food and playing ‘hide-and-seek’ with death. He was obviously a smart little boy, for he had outlived the rest of the children in his town. One fateful day, an SS leader decided he would set up a fake kindergarden so that he could find the rest of the living children in the area. SS soldiers viewed children as just an extra mouth to feed. To them, they were not of any real use, so they were murdered. The day the kindergarden was to start Eli stayed at home. Something within him told him that the kindergarden was not safe. The rest of the children that had chosen to go were taken away to the gas chambers.
I believe that after hearing the SS soldier’s story of the little boy falling from the window and after rethinking his own memories of Eli, Eli becomes a symbol for the will and to survive. Eli wanted to live, and he definitely knew how to go about achieving that. He would keep away from the other children, so that he was not obvious to the SS soldiers. He also had such a strength and will to survive that his young body could survive off of nearly no nutrients. The little boy falling from the window also wanted to live. The dying SS soldier saw it in the little boy’s eyes. His eyes were accusing and non-understanding. He knew that these terrible tyrants were taking his life from him much too early. They represent the want to survive because they know they are being cut short of their time here on Earth, and they know in their hearts that it is not right.
Young children should never have their lives taken from them, especially if the causes are not natural. I believe that murdering a child is one of the worst sins that someone could commit. I feel that because the life a child is so valuable and to take it away is so morally wrong, that some people are more likely to save a life of a child than to save the life of an adult. I also believe that when SS soldiers took the lives of children they felt much more regret and sadness than when they took the life of an adult.
6/29/10
The Sunflower
Eli is a little boy that Simon used to see playing outside of the ghetto. He had dark hair and dark questioning, accusing eyes, just like the little boy that the dying soldier saw falling from the window with his family. Eli was usually seen searching for scraps of food and playing ‘hide-and-seek’ with death. He was obviously a smart little boy, for he had outlived the rest of the children in his town. One fateful day, an SS leader decided he would set up a fake kindergarden so that he could find the rest of the living children in the area. SS soldiers viewed children as just an extra mouth to feed. To them, they were not of any real use, so they were murdered. The day the kindergarden was to start Eli stayed at home. Something within him told him that the kindergarden was not safe. The rest of the children that had chosen to go were taken away to the gas chambers.
I believe that after hearing the SS soldier’s story of the little boy falling from the window and after rethinking his own memories of Eli, Eli becomes a symbol for the will and to survive. Eli wanted to live, and he definitely knew how to go about achieving that. He would keep away from the other children, so that he was not obvious to the SS soldiers. He also had such a strength and will to survive that his young body could survive off of nearly no nutrients. The little boy falling from the window also wanted to live. The dying SS soldier saw it in the little boy’s eyes. His eyes were accusing and non-understanding. He knew that these terrible tyrants were taking his life from him much too early. They represent the want to survive because they know they are being cut short of their time here on Earth, and they know in their hearts that it is not right.
Young children should never have their lives taken from them, especially if the causes are not natural. I believe that murdering a child is one of the worst sins that someone could commit. I feel that because the life a child is so valuable and to take it away is so morally wrong, that some people are more likely to save a life of a child than to save the life of an adult. I also believe that when SS soldiers took the lives of children they felt much more regret and sadness than when they took the life of an adult.
Rick Davidson Journal #4 The Sunflower
Eli is a young starving Jewish child that Simon often seen within the Ghetto. Eli has amazing sixth senses about danger and good luck to boot. Eli became a ray of hope to Simon; after several attempts to gather the “useless mouths” the Germans still couldn’t capture all the Jewish children. Eli, for me, was the personification of persistence. He, just a child, lived without any help from the city’s residence. Of course the author relates his name to Elijah, the prophet. This comparison also bolsters the ideal of hope within a child.
Eli is also significant to the story pertaining to the story of the Nazi soldier. The soldier had taken part of a mass murdering of Jews. The Jews were trapped within a burning house; any Jew who dared exit the house was shot. In the midst of the horror, the soldier saw a family: Mother, Father and Child. They threw themselves to their death to escape the horror of burning alive. The eyes of the soldier met with that of the child and this is what haunts him. Simon while hearing the grisly details replaced the child with Eli. This creates two things for the reader; one element is the closeness of Eli and Simon and the other is the symbolism of Eli.
The closeness of the two characters, Simon and Eli, create a more dramatic effect on the reader. The reader will feel more sorrow for a child linked to Simon, no matter how vaguely, than just a Jewish child. The Author uses Simon’s memories to create the character Eli so the reader will bond to the character. Characters without backgrounds are simply characters used to show us something of a character through the interactions taking place. Since the Author chose to divulge the circumstances of Eli he becomes more of a believable person than a character.
Also symbolic of Eli is the revelation he is a metaphor or personification for the Jewish people. The Nazis have tried over and over again to rid themselves of the Jewish people; they have tried regulations, deceit and brutality yet the Jewish presence remain. The fact Eli is a child only deepens the metaphor. The Author chose to create Eli. It is widely believed (as our discussions in class proved) children are associated with innocence, honesty, and pureness. The author wanted to show how low the Germans have bought the innocence of Eli. The Germans consider the Jewish children as an infestation, a waste of needed resources. Poor Eli resort to eating crumbs left for the birds because within the German influence the townspeople fear or resent helping him in this condition.
More symbolism I found moving was the German soldier laid lower than a Jew (physically). The soldier within the story was unmanned. I loved the passage, “And for the first time I realized then I, a defenseless subhuman, had contrived to lighten the lot of an equally defenseless superman”. The soldier was faceless yet his background was very commonplace. I took the meaning of this unmanned soldier to represent the German army. Faceless hordes of the “German Soldier” marched past Hitler saluting within my mind. By unmanning one “average” soldier the author created a stereotypical soldier. I believe the author’s main point was not the soldier’s plea for forgiveness but the forgiveness of all the stereotypical soldiers. The soldier was absolutely sincere in his repent. Proof is how the thoughts caused him physical pain beyond his current condition. Also Simon stated that he believed the soldier; once the author lets the character believe something it creates a sense of truthfulness for the reader
You could also make the same argument for Simon.
So I guess I am saying the whole story is for the Jews forgiveness of the German Soldiers sincere repentance.
Eli is a young starving Jewish child that Simon often seen within the Ghetto. Eli has amazing sixth senses about danger and good luck to boot. Eli became a ray of hope to Simon; after several attempts to gather the “useless mouths” the Germans still couldn’t capture all the Jewish children. Eli, for me, was the personification of persistence. He, just a child, lived without any help from the city’s residence. Of course the author relates his name to Elijah, the prophet. This comparison also bolsters the ideal of hope within a child.
Eli is also significant to the story pertaining to the story of the Nazi soldier. The soldier had taken part of a mass murdering of Jews. The Jews were trapped within a burning house; any Jew who dared exit the house was shot. In the midst of the horror, the soldier saw a family: Mother, Father and Child. They threw themselves to their death to escape the horror of burning alive. The eyes of the soldier met with that of the child and this is what haunts him. Simon while hearing the grisly details replaced the child with Eli. This creates two things for the reader; one element is the closeness of Eli and Simon and the other is the symbolism of Eli.
The closeness of the two characters, Simon and Eli, create a more dramatic effect on the reader. The reader will feel more sorrow for a child linked to Simon, no matter how vaguely, than just a Jewish child. The Author uses Simon’s memories to create the character Eli so the reader will bond to the character. Characters without backgrounds are simply characters used to show us something of a character through the interactions taking place. Since the Author chose to divulge the circumstances of Eli he becomes more of a believable person than a character.
Also symbolic of Eli is the revelation he is a metaphor or personification for the Jewish people. The Nazis have tried over and over again to rid themselves of the Jewish people; they have tried regulations, deceit and brutality yet the Jewish presence remain. The fact Eli is a child only deepens the metaphor. The Author chose to create Eli. It is widely believed (as our discussions in class proved) children are associated with innocence, honesty, and pureness. The author wanted to show how low the Germans have bought the innocence of Eli. The Germans consider the Jewish children as an infestation, a waste of needed resources. Poor Eli resort to eating crumbs left for the birds because within the German influence the townspeople fear or resent helping him in this condition.
More symbolism I found moving was the German soldier laid lower than a Jew (physically). The soldier within the story was unmanned. I loved the passage, “And for the first time I realized then I, a defenseless subhuman, had contrived to lighten the lot of an equally defenseless superman”. The soldier was faceless yet his background was very commonplace. I took the meaning of this unmanned soldier to represent the German army. Faceless hordes of the “German Soldier” marched past Hitler saluting within my mind. By unmanning one “average” soldier the author created a stereotypical soldier. I believe the author’s main point was not the soldier’s plea for forgiveness but the forgiveness of all the stereotypical soldiers. The soldier was absolutely sincere in his repent. Proof is how the thoughts caused him physical pain beyond his current condition. Also Simon stated that he believed the soldier; once the author lets the character believe something it creates a sense of truthfulness for the reader
You could also make the same argument for Simon.
So I guess I am saying the whole story is for the Jews forgiveness of the German Soldiers sincere repentance.
Journal Five-6/29/2010
Amy Blackman
Journal Five
The Sunflower
Eli, is the Last child that Simon had seen in the ghetto. When Eli is first spoken of in this novel, we learn that Eli was “six years old with large questioning eyes-eyes that could not understand-accusing eyes-eyes that one never forgets” (Wiesenthal 43). Children are used to represent purity and innocence. In this book, Eli is that child. He soon becomes of representative of every starving and lost Jewish child. Also to Simon, Eli is the represents the last shred of innocence in humanity. When he thinks of Eli he thinks of hope, he has hope that innocence and purity are still alive. Clearly it is not, the Nazis have persecuted everyone’s dream.
Also, as it says in the book, “Eli” is a pet name for Elijah-Eliyahu Hanavi, the prophet” (Wiesenthal 43). Children looked to Eliyahu as a protector, and he took every possible form. Simon remembers a story his grandmother had told him about the prophet Eliyahu. “My grandmother told us that he was rarely recognizable; he might appear in the form of a village peasant, a shopkeeper, a beggar, or even a child” (Wiesenthal 44). Simon sees the great protector Eliyahu in the little Jewish child, Eli. Simon recalls leaving the camp from day to day looking for Eli. If he saw Eli that day, at that moment there was no danger (Wiesenthal 45). Eli’s instincts were so powerful that the day they had decided to send the children in the Jewish kindergarten to the gas chamber, Eli had stayed home.
Eli was a representation of all suffering Jewish children for Simon. If someone would refer to a child, Simon’s mind would always think of Eli. Karl spoke of a family that he killed when he was a soldier, “I saw a man with a small child in his arms. His clothes were alight, “By his side stood a woman, doubtless the mother of a child. With his free hand the man covered the child’s eyes…then he jumped into the street. Seconds later the mother followed…We shot” (Wiesenthal 43). Karl spoke of never forgetting the family especially, the child who had black hair and dark eyes. This description made Simon think of Eli.
During one particular evening, Simon dreamt of Eli. In this dream he remembers seeing Eli’s eyes which “expressed the unanswered question: Why?” (Wiesenthal 68). He recalls seeing the child’s father bringing “Eli” to Simon’s arms. Also in the dream, Simon wanted to take and hold the terrified Eli but couldn’t. They had escaped from a burning fire and “all that existed was a bloody mess” (Wiesenthal 68). I feel that Simon dreamt of Eli because Simon had just been brought face to face with so much crime and sin (which represents the burning fire and bloody mess in the dream) he began to long for peacefulness and innocence (which represents Eli).
Journal Five
The Sunflower
Eli, is the Last child that Simon had seen in the ghetto. When Eli is first spoken of in this novel, we learn that Eli was “six years old with large questioning eyes-eyes that could not understand-accusing eyes-eyes that one never forgets” (Wiesenthal 43). Children are used to represent purity and innocence. In this book, Eli is that child. He soon becomes of representative of every starving and lost Jewish child. Also to Simon, Eli is the represents the last shred of innocence in humanity. When he thinks of Eli he thinks of hope, he has hope that innocence and purity are still alive. Clearly it is not, the Nazis have persecuted everyone’s dream.
Also, as it says in the book, “Eli” is a pet name for Elijah-Eliyahu Hanavi, the prophet” (Wiesenthal 43). Children looked to Eliyahu as a protector, and he took every possible form. Simon remembers a story his grandmother had told him about the prophet Eliyahu. “My grandmother told us that he was rarely recognizable; he might appear in the form of a village peasant, a shopkeeper, a beggar, or even a child” (Wiesenthal 44). Simon sees the great protector Eliyahu in the little Jewish child, Eli. Simon recalls leaving the camp from day to day looking for Eli. If he saw Eli that day, at that moment there was no danger (Wiesenthal 45). Eli’s instincts were so powerful that the day they had decided to send the children in the Jewish kindergarten to the gas chamber, Eli had stayed home.
Eli was a representation of all suffering Jewish children for Simon. If someone would refer to a child, Simon’s mind would always think of Eli. Karl spoke of a family that he killed when he was a soldier, “I saw a man with a small child in his arms. His clothes were alight, “By his side stood a woman, doubtless the mother of a child. With his free hand the man covered the child’s eyes…then he jumped into the street. Seconds later the mother followed…We shot” (Wiesenthal 43). Karl spoke of never forgetting the family especially, the child who had black hair and dark eyes. This description made Simon think of Eli.
During one particular evening, Simon dreamt of Eli. In this dream he remembers seeing Eli’s eyes which “expressed the unanswered question: Why?” (Wiesenthal 68). He recalls seeing the child’s father bringing “Eli” to Simon’s arms. Also in the dream, Simon wanted to take and hold the terrified Eli but couldn’t. They had escaped from a burning fire and “all that existed was a bloody mess” (Wiesenthal 68). I feel that Simon dreamt of Eli because Simon had just been brought face to face with so much crime and sin (which represents the burning fire and bloody mess in the dream) he began to long for peacefulness and innocence (which represents Eli).
Natasa Misic -- Journal Entry 4
Natasa Misic
Journal entry 4
The Sunflower – Eli
Eli is a six year old Jewish boy from Lemberg, Ghetto. He comes from poor Jewish parents who are working for the Nazis while barely being able to provide food for their son. Eli has black hair and big dark eyes. “The kind of eyes that are questioning but that could not understand, accusing eyes that no one could ever forget.” (p46) Eli’s name comes from a prophet named Eljahu Hanavi. Eljahu is a protector and would appear in many different forms to people such as a peasant, beggar or a child.
Eli is important for hope of the Jewish people. Children are innocent and don’t understand the evils of wars or the Nazis in this case. Since Eli’s name comes from the prophet Eljahu he is a symbolic representation of being the protector of Jews. The Jewish prisoners who saw Eli saw him as a sign of hope and that there is a God that will help them.
Morality is being able to distinct right from wrong. Eli’s moral implications are that he will protect the Jewish people from being killed by the German Nazis. The potential moral risks of this are that the Jewish people will have too much faith in him but the Nazis will continue to kill Jews and the people will lose hope in the protector and even God, as many have.
Eli's role in the story and the way in which smaller incidents and individuals stand for larger events is very significant. Throughout our history there is a person or a small group of people who sacrifice themselves and their bodies for what they believe in and so that justice is brought to the rest of the world. From Jesus, Gods son, to the many saints and prophets that have sacrificed their lives so that we can have the kind of life of freedom we do today is incredible. It takes a special person to be able to do this and in this novel Eli is that incredible person.
Journal entry 4
The Sunflower – Eli
Eli is a six year old Jewish boy from Lemberg, Ghetto. He comes from poor Jewish parents who are working for the Nazis while barely being able to provide food for their son. Eli has black hair and big dark eyes. “The kind of eyes that are questioning but that could not understand, accusing eyes that no one could ever forget.” (p46) Eli’s name comes from a prophet named Eljahu Hanavi. Eljahu is a protector and would appear in many different forms to people such as a peasant, beggar or a child.
Eli is important for hope of the Jewish people. Children are innocent and don’t understand the evils of wars or the Nazis in this case. Since Eli’s name comes from the prophet Eljahu he is a symbolic representation of being the protector of Jews. The Jewish prisoners who saw Eli saw him as a sign of hope and that there is a God that will help them.
Morality is being able to distinct right from wrong. Eli’s moral implications are that he will protect the Jewish people from being killed by the German Nazis. The potential moral risks of this are that the Jewish people will have too much faith in him but the Nazis will continue to kill Jews and the people will lose hope in the protector and even God, as many have.
Eli's role in the story and the way in which smaller incidents and individuals stand for larger events is very significant. Throughout our history there is a person or a small group of people who sacrifice themselves and their bodies for what they believe in and so that justice is brought to the rest of the world. From Jesus, Gods son, to the many saints and prophets that have sacrificed their lives so that we can have the kind of life of freedom we do today is incredible. It takes a special person to be able to do this and in this novel Eli is that incredible person.
Monday, June 28, 2010
Journal 6
Allison Rood
Topics In Literature
6/28/2010
To Simon, Eli represents many different aspects of his mentality. Eli is a dark haired Jewish child from the Ghetto that is used to being inquisitive, and sometimes gets into trouble for doing so. In seeing Eli alive at the gates of the Ghetto, Simon finds this as a reassurance of hope that another generation of Jews will survive.
Eli even survived some of the trickery of the Nazi regime. In the Ghetto, to clear the Jewish youth, the Nazis created a plan to create a school for the children, supported by a Jewish committee. Parents were encouraged to allow their students to gain a quality education, thinking they were fortunate enough to provide them with such a terrific opportunity. However the day the school opened, while the parents were working, the children were whisked away and were never to be seen again. When the parents went to retrieve their children and found an empty schoolhouse they knew they were had. Somehow Eli knew not to go to school and stayed home, perhaps having some sort of intuition that there was no such thing as a great opportunity during the time of the Holocaust. Eli was perhaps wise beyond his years, though it was never known what ever happened to him.
Eli also is the personal representation of every Jewish child to Simon. For example when Karl, the SS soldier, described the scene in which a house was packed full of Jews and set ablaze. A family tried to escape, a man, woman, and child. To Simon, that child was Eli. Eli became almost his go-to face in picturing the innocent faces of the Jewish youth. Simon’s dreams of the terrible tragedy as dictated to him by Karl always contained Eli’s face. It haunted him in his dreams as the death of the future of the Jewish race, in addition to purely being the death of the little Jewish boy that he knew. Eli became more of a symbol than a human being in this reading after learning of the Nazi actions in that house that went up in flames. It is interesting to see the shift between person and idea in terms of Eli’s character.
Topics In Literature
6/28/2010
To Simon, Eli represents many different aspects of his mentality. Eli is a dark haired Jewish child from the Ghetto that is used to being inquisitive, and sometimes gets into trouble for doing so. In seeing Eli alive at the gates of the Ghetto, Simon finds this as a reassurance of hope that another generation of Jews will survive.
Eli even survived some of the trickery of the Nazi regime. In the Ghetto, to clear the Jewish youth, the Nazis created a plan to create a school for the children, supported by a Jewish committee. Parents were encouraged to allow their students to gain a quality education, thinking they were fortunate enough to provide them with such a terrific opportunity. However the day the school opened, while the parents were working, the children were whisked away and were never to be seen again. When the parents went to retrieve their children and found an empty schoolhouse they knew they were had. Somehow Eli knew not to go to school and stayed home, perhaps having some sort of intuition that there was no such thing as a great opportunity during the time of the Holocaust. Eli was perhaps wise beyond his years, though it was never known what ever happened to him.
Eli also is the personal representation of every Jewish child to Simon. For example when Karl, the SS soldier, described the scene in which a house was packed full of Jews and set ablaze. A family tried to escape, a man, woman, and child. To Simon, that child was Eli. Eli became almost his go-to face in picturing the innocent faces of the Jewish youth. Simon’s dreams of the terrible tragedy as dictated to him by Karl always contained Eli’s face. It haunted him in his dreams as the death of the future of the Jewish race, in addition to purely being the death of the little Jewish boy that he knew. Eli became more of a symbol than a human being in this reading after learning of the Nazi actions in that house that went up in flames. It is interesting to see the shift between person and idea in terms of Eli’s character.
teh sunflower
The dying soldier wants to tell the narrator his story because he wants to clear his conscience and the narrator just happened to be at the right place at the right time. The dying soldier had worked as a SS in the German military and did some wrong doing to Jews and may be feeling bad about it right now. The soldier knows that his time is almost up and as a last wish he has the nurse find a Jew that will listen to him. The narrator is confused about why he is the one being told the story and is also confused about why the soldier starts his story from his childhood. The soldier seems to be telling the Jew his life story without really a reason and is including a lot of details that are not very relevant to the Jew.
I think the dying soldier realizes that all people are the same and all will die at one part of their lives. It doesn’t matter what group you’re from or belong to, everyone at the end will all end up the same. Now that he knows he is trying to make peace for what he has done and he thinks and can get it by telling his story to a Jew. I don’t know if the soldier is going to apologize to the narrator and thinks it will clear his conscience or he just wants some to be by his side will he dies. Right now the soldier is all alone in a death ward and knows his times is coming very soon. The Jewish prisoner may be the only person he could to be by his side while he dies.
The narrator is a little reluctant to listen to his story because he is still suppose to be with the group of slaves but instead he up in his old school that has been turned into a hospital. The guards don’t know that the nurse took him away and he fears that they will think he tried to escaped and get punished when they find him. The soldier notices that the narrator is worried about the noises outside but insures him the nurse is keeping watch from them. This makes me think that the soldier has something important to tell the Jew instead of just wanting company. I feel like that since he thought this out and talked it over with nurse he must have something really important to tell him. There must be a reason why the soldier and is telling the Jew his life story and must be leading to something of more importance.
I think the dying soldier realizes that all people are the same and all will die at one part of their lives. It doesn’t matter what group you’re from or belong to, everyone at the end will all end up the same. Now that he knows he is trying to make peace for what he has done and he thinks and can get it by telling his story to a Jew. I don’t know if the soldier is going to apologize to the narrator and thinks it will clear his conscience or he just wants some to be by his side will he dies. Right now the soldier is all alone in a death ward and knows his times is coming very soon. The Jewish prisoner may be the only person he could to be by his side while he dies.
The narrator is a little reluctant to listen to his story because he is still suppose to be with the group of slaves but instead he up in his old school that has been turned into a hospital. The guards don’t know that the nurse took him away and he fears that they will think he tried to escaped and get punished when they find him. The soldier notices that the narrator is worried about the noises outside but insures him the nurse is keeping watch from them. This makes me think that the soldier has something important to tell the Jew instead of just wanting company. I feel like that since he thought this out and talked it over with nurse he must have something really important to tell him. There must be a reason why the soldier and is telling the Jew his life story and must be leading to something of more importance.
Journal 4-6/28/2010
Amy Blackman
Journal 4
On about page 26, we meet a dying Nazi soldier who asks the main character, Simon, a Jew imprisoned in a concentration camp, for forgiveness. He confesses to Simon, “I am dying,” “I shall die; there is nobody in the world to help me and nobody to mourn my death” (Wiesenthal 27). However, Simon reveals to us that he was unmoved by this dying mans words. Being forced to exist in a concentration camp had destroyed any feelings he may have once had, especially feelings or fear about death (Wiesenthal 26). However, he proceeds to listen to this man and even tries to get help for the dying Nazi soldier by a doctor.
He then reveals that he must confess to a Jew in order to die peacefully, “I am resigned to dying soon, but before that I want to talk about an experience which is torturing me. Otherwise I cannot die in peace” (Wiesenthal 27). He also reveals that he must confess of this “horrible deed” specifically to a Jew. In this particular section of pages, we do not know what particular crime this man committed. However, it probably deals with harsh treatment of Jews and by this he feels very guilty. In order to make up for this ill treatment of Jews, Karl must apologize and confess to a Jew of his evil doings. That is just my guess and what I foresee happening. At first, Simon seemed to be uneasy during Karl’s confession. He didn’t seem to even care about what Karl was saying and he even tried to leave. However, Karl kept pleading for him to stay. He hoped the Askari knew where he was so he would not get punished.
We later on learn that Karl feels as though he deceived his parents by being in the SS, especially his father. While Karl was still in Hitler Youth, his father barely spoke to him and when he did it was very cautious. It was as if his father knew that SS was going to change his son for the worse and his son failed to realize it at the time. His father even says, “They are taking are son away from us. No good will come of it” (Wiesenthal 32). Karl says that his mother “still sees him as a happy boy” (Wiesenthal 34). Clearly, this is not how Karl’s mother should be viewing him anymore. For this, Karl is also sorry and feels he must confess his guilt about this subject to someone as well. “His voice grew bitter as if he wanted to hurt himself, give himself pain” (Wiesenthal 34). He not only wanted to confess, he wanted to inflict pain on himself for his crime. I do not know this for sure, but I feel that Karl will confess to Simon of his crime. Simon will in turn feel something for the dying Nazi soldier, maybe even accept him. I’m excited to read more!
Journal 4
On about page 26, we meet a dying Nazi soldier who asks the main character, Simon, a Jew imprisoned in a concentration camp, for forgiveness. He confesses to Simon, “I am dying,” “I shall die; there is nobody in the world to help me and nobody to mourn my death” (Wiesenthal 27). However, Simon reveals to us that he was unmoved by this dying mans words. Being forced to exist in a concentration camp had destroyed any feelings he may have once had, especially feelings or fear about death (Wiesenthal 26). However, he proceeds to listen to this man and even tries to get help for the dying Nazi soldier by a doctor.
He then reveals that he must confess to a Jew in order to die peacefully, “I am resigned to dying soon, but before that I want to talk about an experience which is torturing me. Otherwise I cannot die in peace” (Wiesenthal 27). He also reveals that he must confess of this “horrible deed” specifically to a Jew. In this particular section of pages, we do not know what particular crime this man committed. However, it probably deals with harsh treatment of Jews and by this he feels very guilty. In order to make up for this ill treatment of Jews, Karl must apologize and confess to a Jew of his evil doings. That is just my guess and what I foresee happening. At first, Simon seemed to be uneasy during Karl’s confession. He didn’t seem to even care about what Karl was saying and he even tried to leave. However, Karl kept pleading for him to stay. He hoped the Askari knew where he was so he would not get punished.
We later on learn that Karl feels as though he deceived his parents by being in the SS, especially his father. While Karl was still in Hitler Youth, his father barely spoke to him and when he did it was very cautious. It was as if his father knew that SS was going to change his son for the worse and his son failed to realize it at the time. His father even says, “They are taking are son away from us. No good will come of it” (Wiesenthal 32). Karl says that his mother “still sees him as a happy boy” (Wiesenthal 34). Clearly, this is not how Karl’s mother should be viewing him anymore. For this, Karl is also sorry and feels he must confess his guilt about this subject to someone as well. “His voice grew bitter as if he wanted to hurt himself, give himself pain” (Wiesenthal 34). He not only wanted to confess, he wanted to inflict pain on himself for his crime. I do not know this for sure, but I feel that Karl will confess to Simon of his crime. Simon will in turn feel something for the dying Nazi soldier, maybe even accept him. I’m excited to read more!
Sunday, June 27, 2010
Journal 5
Allison Rood
Topics In Literature
6/27/2010
The dying Nazi soldier wanted to tell his story to the narrator, Simon Wiesenthal, almost as a last act of repentance before his final breath. He wanted to be able to live out the rest of his days without imagining the sights of men, women, and their children jumping out of a burning building, the building he helped set ablaze. He didn’t want to feel the pain and remorse day after day when all he was trying to do was live through the pain, hoping the doctor would put him to sleep.
Since the people that he had hurt were no longer alive to accept his forgiveness, he asked the first Jew he could find to do him the honor. But in my opinion, as I agree with Simon’s friend Josek, it isn’t his place to forgive the soldier. He isn’t the one directly hurt by the SS man’s actions. The people killed, if in an afterlife, would have asked Simon how he could have possibly found it in his place to forgive their murderer. Josek also explained that perhaps it was part of his sin that he now has to live with this strong sense of regret and torment. It wasn’t like he didn’t deserve to continually be reminded of the terrible acts that he had performed.
But was the soldier always such a bad man? He is a product of his society, as we have discussed in depth in class. Did he have other options as far as his life choices, or was he poisoned by the propaganda and promises of glory from the fiery likes of Hitler. Simon and the wounded soldier may have lived a similar childhood, been cut from a similar cloth, but who was to make the eternal decision of what makes a decent man on the inside other than G-d himself? This situation is very complex. It is difficult to say to what degree this man purposely believed in the evils he had been following. He has shown remorse, but is he deserving of forgiveness? This reading brought more questions than answers to me with regards to morality in the case of such forms of murder, when ordered by someone who could take your life as easily as they could take the Jews’. Did the soldier have the power to avoid his situation? Didn’t he voluntarily join the service? Where should blame in such matters be placed?
Topics In Literature
6/27/2010
The dying Nazi soldier wanted to tell his story to the narrator, Simon Wiesenthal, almost as a last act of repentance before his final breath. He wanted to be able to live out the rest of his days without imagining the sights of men, women, and their children jumping out of a burning building, the building he helped set ablaze. He didn’t want to feel the pain and remorse day after day when all he was trying to do was live through the pain, hoping the doctor would put him to sleep.
Since the people that he had hurt were no longer alive to accept his forgiveness, he asked the first Jew he could find to do him the honor. But in my opinion, as I agree with Simon’s friend Josek, it isn’t his place to forgive the soldier. He isn’t the one directly hurt by the SS man’s actions. The people killed, if in an afterlife, would have asked Simon how he could have possibly found it in his place to forgive their murderer. Josek also explained that perhaps it was part of his sin that he now has to live with this strong sense of regret and torment. It wasn’t like he didn’t deserve to continually be reminded of the terrible acts that he had performed.
But was the soldier always such a bad man? He is a product of his society, as we have discussed in depth in class. Did he have other options as far as his life choices, or was he poisoned by the propaganda and promises of glory from the fiery likes of Hitler. Simon and the wounded soldier may have lived a similar childhood, been cut from a similar cloth, but who was to make the eternal decision of what makes a decent man on the inside other than G-d himself? This situation is very complex. It is difficult to say to what degree this man purposely believed in the evils he had been following. He has shown remorse, but is he deserving of forgiveness? This reading brought more questions than answers to me with regards to morality in the case of such forms of murder, when ordered by someone who could take your life as easily as they could take the Jews’. Did the soldier have the power to avoid his situation? Didn’t he voluntarily join the service? Where should blame in such matters be placed?
Journal 1
Jodi Finchum
Professor McLaughlin
Journal 1
June 23, 2010
Christianity is a practicing religion that is founded and based on loving God, loving your neighbors and the ability to live a self-sacrificial life. If you love God and love people, everything else involving Christianity should follow in that direction. For example, if you love God and want to please him, you will not steal because you know that would make your God unhappy. Quoted in the bible, it is stated that you should love your neighbors, and it even takes the statement a step further when Jesus says “…love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven.” The previous statement that comes from the book of Matthew gives a good depiction of what Christianity shows as “love”, and what the actual meaning of love is. Jesus is explaining that loving your neighbor is easier, just like loving your family is easier to do than loving a complete stranger. The hard task of Christianity is to love your enemies, which you would honestly want to have no ties to, but we are told that we need to love them just like our brothers.
Relating to the text, the idea of loving your enemies shows a great example of how important love and acceptance is in Christianity, yet pastors noted on page 95-97 try to somehow show otherwise. On page 96 Rev. Bishop Hopkins gave the argument that in the Old Testament, slaving owning was acceptable, so it is not a sin since the people of that time were permitting in the same action as southern slave owners. My response to that argument would revolve around the idea that a lot of scenarios and events in the old testament and even the bible as a whole were time specific, and we have grown as a people, and some of the ways of the old testament were not right in Gods eyes, so we should not use the idea that “ if it happened in the old testament, it’s okay” as a guiding way. Women were treated badly and of lesser importance in the old testament, and men had young boys on the side that they would have sex with, and you will not hear one argument from a southern preacher that those acts are “okay” because they are in the old testament. If your argument roots around everything being in the bible is the way to live, then you must use that statement with every intention to apply that to your whole life, rather than pick the parts that you would like to.
Journal Three
Jodi Finchum
Professor McLaughlin
Journal Entry
6-23-10
The similarities between Everything That Rises Must Converge by Flannery O’Connor and Where Is The Voice Coming From by Eudora Welty are subtle but substantial. The most common similarity between the two is the idea of there being tension, to say the least, between blacks and white during that time period. Both stories also share the timing in the United States of black people being newly freed from slavery and trying to adapt into a white dominated society. The texts also share similar language styles that are “southern” and some language that is offensive to black people, as well as many people today. Evidence of this kind of language is seen when Julian’s mother explains how proud she is to have come from where she came from, which is from a family that owned two hundred slaves (3). She also shows a great deal resistance towards black people, and definitely sees black people as a lower class than herself. In Where The Voice Is Coming From, the narrator doesn’t try to conceal his reservations toward black people as much as Julian’s mother, which is still not enough to take notice. He uses a great amount of offensive language including “…a black nigger face…” (1).
Differences in the text are most evident when referring to the actual story and plot. Flannery O’Connor’s text is more a wake up call, and the tone is lighter than Eudora Welty’s story, which takes on a more serious tone, with a dark motive. Also, the main characters of the story are quite different in their motives. Julian’s mother is at fault for her close-mindedness and her racism towards black people, but the character in Welty’s text has a motive to kill a black man and succeeds. The degree to which each story is defensive is most definitely different. Also, O’Connor’s story is easier to follow, and mapped out as a general short story, whereas Welty’s story is hard to understand at first, and takes some reflection and re-reading to get the total point of the reading.
The enlightening main points that I understood from the texts to be most interesting and meaningful is the contradiction and hypocrisy. In O’Connor’s story, the narrator states, “They should rise yes, but on their own side of the fence” (3). This statement shows injustice of the inside of a person, in this case, Julian’s mother. The bible highly goes against injustice, and a sort of sit back and watch attitude without intervening, which is what Julian’s mother is all about. She claims that she is faithful woman, and that she can be gracious to anybody (2). Trying to show her “gracious” side certainly does not coincide with people being mistreated as slaves, which is what Julian’s mother is totally about. As for Welty’s story, the most contradicting piece of evidence of the narrator’s ignorance was located on page one in the first paragraph when the wife states “ You don’t have to set and look at a black nigger face no longer than you want to, or listen to what you don’t want to hear. It’s still a free country.” The inconsistency in this statement is quite obvious, that the woman is talking about freedom for her family and in the same breathe, her husband is plotting to kill this black man that is advocating for his own freedom and rights. I don’t think religion is a main theme in these two stories, as much a culture and class.
Man in the Well
Jodi Finchum
Professor McLaughlin
Journal-Friday
6-25-10
The Man in the Well by Ira Sher was a very interesting and startling story for me to read. I had reservations and questions during the entire story. The main struggle that I encountered while reading the story was the very obvious question of why the children did not get help to get the man out of the well. The whole story was vey peculiar, and makes me wonder about the minds of children, and how much we developed in such a short period of time during our late teens and early twenties. I am also asking myself the question of “what would I do at that age if this scenario happened to me?” I also take into account the idea of peers following peers. It only takes one person to make a slight move one way, and the rest of the group follows. The scary idea within this story is that adults have been proven to take the “sit back and watch” approach just like the children on many occasions, which in my opinion, is silly and can be very harmful. I have reservations to judge though, because you never know what you will actually do when a situation arrives.
I am concerned at why the man in the well stayed so call. I wonder if he was just hoping that his calmness and limited conversation would keep the children coming back, and hopefully force them to understand that this was a serious situation, and the fact that he kept asking them to get their parents to help would show that he was in danger. On the other hand, I wonder if he would have taken a more forceful stand and possible threatened the children as an older adult, if they may have reacted differently, and possibly let good take over evil thinking and get the man out of the well, or to go get help. Thinking on political and religious terms, the behavior of the kids is nothing less than wrong. It almost seemed as if the man in the well was their “toy”. This is quite evident when the narrator said “It was all I could think about during supper the night before, and then the anticipation in the morning over breakfast” (24). It was very clear that the children didn’t understand that this was a life or death event, and that they were aiding in this man’s death. It’s also significant that the narrator aided parts of his life in sequence with the event of the man in the well. You can understand that he reflected on this event often, and sees it as a somewhat unhappy moment for him.
Friday, June 25, 2010
The man in the well
At the very beginning when the person said that “ I think it’s very important that we decided not to help him” I was wondering why you wouldn’t help the man in the well. I found it hard to believe that a group of little kids wouldn’t want to help a person that was in trouble. There was no motivation for not helping the man, they could of went and told their parents and saved the man. They were doing nothing wrong, they would be known as almost heroes but instead they decided to lie to him and give him hope.
On the pg. 22 after lying to the man again, tell him help is coming the narrator says “ I don’t think anyone smiled at how easy it was to deceive him—this is was too important.” While reading this I was think that they knew it was important and they knew they should help but wouldn’t. The only reason I could see of why they wouldn’t help is that they were treating it as a game. The man in the well gave them something to do for a few days and I guess that was more important than actually helping him. I just keep wonder what the man in the well was thinking, there he is stuck in the well with people talking to him but no one is helping him. They keep telling him that people were on the way to help but after awhile he knows it was just a lie. Have people around talking but know helping would something really hard to deal with while being trapped in the well. I found myself sympathizing for the man the whole time.
When the children bring him food I water it just made me wonder more and more of why didn’t they get help. They cared enough to get him food but would just tell their parents. On pg. 24 the narrator says “we could hear him shouting for awhile, and we were afraid someone might hear” Again why didn’t children want the man to be saved from the well? They just kept visiting everyday and giving him hope. The children then seemed to get upset when Aaron said everyone’s names to the man the well. I was wondering if Aaron felt bad for what they were doing and wanted to help him or was he just saying the names. The man in the well then called everyone’s name and tried to talk to them and seem liked they made all the children feel a little guilty. I thought for sure the children were going to help him then but then they just left them there and never came back.
I don’t know if the author was using this as example about the little things can make the biggest difference. There are many little things you can do that would make a big difference and help someone out, but there are many people who don’t do these things. The littlest thing in the world for you to do could change the world for someone but people don’t do it. The children never thought of how the man the well was feeling or put themselves in his shoes. I think I author might have been trying say that many people know what the right thing is but they still don’t do it.
On the pg. 22 after lying to the man again, tell him help is coming the narrator says “ I don’t think anyone smiled at how easy it was to deceive him—this is was too important.” While reading this I was think that they knew it was important and they knew they should help but wouldn’t. The only reason I could see of why they wouldn’t help is that they were treating it as a game. The man in the well gave them something to do for a few days and I guess that was more important than actually helping him. I just keep wonder what the man in the well was thinking, there he is stuck in the well with people talking to him but no one is helping him. They keep telling him that people were on the way to help but after awhile he knows it was just a lie. Have people around talking but know helping would something really hard to deal with while being trapped in the well. I found myself sympathizing for the man the whole time.
When the children bring him food I water it just made me wonder more and more of why didn’t they get help. They cared enough to get him food but would just tell their parents. On pg. 24 the narrator says “we could hear him shouting for awhile, and we were afraid someone might hear” Again why didn’t children want the man to be saved from the well? They just kept visiting everyday and giving him hope. The children then seemed to get upset when Aaron said everyone’s names to the man the well. I was wondering if Aaron felt bad for what they were doing and wanted to help him or was he just saying the names. The man in the well then called everyone’s name and tried to talk to them and seem liked they made all the children feel a little guilty. I thought for sure the children were going to help him then but then they just left them there and never came back.
I don’t know if the author was using this as example about the little things can make the biggest difference. There are many little things you can do that would make a big difference and help someone out, but there are many people who don’t do these things. The littlest thing in the world for you to do could change the world for someone but people don’t do it. The children never thought of how the man the well was feeling or put themselves in his shoes. I think I author might have been trying say that many people know what the right thing is but they still don’t do it.
Journal Entry 6/25/10
The story starts off with a man in distress which, of course, led me to believe that there would be some sort of rescue involved. However, as soon as I red the line, “I think it’s important we decided not to help him,” I knew this was a different type of story. In one line, the ending is foreshadowed, and this fictional man’s fate is sealed. The fact that there was really no reason for the children’s decision to act asympathetically threw me for a loop. At this point I was wondering what they planned to do instead of rescue this man. Did they plan on gaining something from his dire situation? I immediately feel sorry for the man because the kids could have saved him in an instant by telling their parents, who could have devised a plan.
To my surprise, the kids really wanted nothing from the man in the well. They just took turns asking him questions about nothing in particular such as, “What’s your name?” or “Can you see the sky?” At this point I thought to myself, “What do they want to know these things for?” At first I thought maybe they were trying to gain an intellectual advantage over the man (to go along with their physical advantage) in order to feel better than him. But the more I read on, the more I thought that they were just kids who were bored and were asking questions that kids would ask a stranger.
Throughout this first day, the kids seem to be testing the man to see what they can get him to say. However, he refuses to answer any questions and only asks them to go get help, that is until Wendy says all the others have gone to tell their parents about the situation (which they have not), whereupon he answers her question. Bingo. Now the kids know how to manipulate this man into telling them what they want to hear. Now the story is starting to take form. They come back the next day and bring food and water to the man in the well, which says to me that they intend to keep him down there as a form of amusement unlike any game they’d ever played. Again, I sympathize with the man because of the relative ease it would take to get him out of the well, but as the story goes on I actually start to wonder about his innocence. For instance, he refuses to even give the children his name, even after they ask him repeatedly. To me this seems not only like a stupid move, because they are his only chance of survival and it would be wise to go along with their game, but it also seems suspicious. Why wouldn’t you want someone to know who you are if you need help? To me that says maybe this man is a criminal or has something to hide.
The huge turn in the plot comes when Wendy slips up and mentions Aaron’s name, the first time any of the children had “broken one of the rules.” Now the man in the well has something to use against his “captors.” When he calls out to Aaron by name, everything changes. Aaron states everyone’s name, so that they are all on an even playing field and are all equally guilty. Once the man starts trying to use their names to coax the children into helping him, the game has lost its appeal and the children leave.
Looking back at the story, it’s hard to see a point to it but perhaps there is more to it than meets the eye. From the narrator’s brief mentions of his family, especially his mother, I can tell that something else is going on. His mother’s constant sobbing and his father’s “stubborn murmur” say to me that perhaps his mother knows the man in the well. The father’s indifference say to me that he doesn’t know the man, which suggests that perhaps (and this might be a long shot in the dark) his mother was having an affair with this mysterious man before he went missing, and is now grieving for her loss. So in a sense, the children’s lack of action can either be seen as inherently ruthless (as children can be at times) if the man is innocent, or somehow a positive turn of events, refusing to help someone who doesn’t “deserve” it.Journal 4
Allison Rood
Topics In Literature
6/24/2010
In reading “The Man in the Well” I couldn’t help but be severely angered by the children’s inability to use sound moral judgment to get the man in the well some help. I consistently found segments in the reading where I was questioning if they even understood right from wrong. In the second paragraph, the children chose, for no apparent reason, that they wouldn’t help him. But why not help? What could it hurt? Did they not know what could possibly happen to the man if he was left down there? Did Death not seem like a plausible option? After resigning this man to his death, they were still “full of games and laughter” when they started to talk to him. This foolishness seemed like a child throwing a sack of kittens into a rushing river. There is no morally sound reason to torture a man.
The first logical thing the children did was ask the man his name. It is a logical question, and it is important to notify someone who it is that is in the well in case he has been reported missing, or somebody may know who needs to be contacted in case of emergency. But alas this man refused to answer, perhaps out of fear of scaring away the children, or out of his own daze after being stranded in the well for an extended period of time. Either way, I believe that the man should have identified himself. But he kept asking the children to fetch help, continuing to fuel the fire of their games.
In the middle of the second page a girl lies that the other children left to get help, and strikes up a little conversation. Why would you give a man false hope if you weren’t intending to save his life? What satisfaction would you get from leaving a man to die? The children almost made him their pet and began to give him food. They continued to bring false promises of rescue, and this lasted at least a few days. They tried to hide their identities perhaps to preserve their innocence in case the man got free. They didn’t realize how guilty they were of these mind games they were playing. Alas they gave away a name, starting to make the children uncomfortable. They had been made, and there was no turning back now.
On the marked page 25, the man finally gives away his name. Arthur had been mentioned earlier in the story as the owner of the closest house to the well. As soon as the children knew his name, something changed within them. There was finally a name to this pet of theirs; there was a soul to this mysterious creature that had fallen into the well. Unfortunately that didn’t change their final decision. Finally an ounce of guilt had overcome at least one of the children’s eyes clouded with tears but they went home, never to return to the man again. I think they were afraid to free him because he could now identify the children that had pointlessly tortured him for days on end instead of fetching help. I wonder if those children ever realized that they most likely are the reason for an innocent man’s painful deterioration at the bottom of the well. Did they know nothing of death?
This story was extremely difficult to read for the reasons of these children treating a human being like nothing more than a game on a hot summer day. Even at 9 years old, isn’t a child taught right from wrong, how to share, and a basic moral understanding of life? This reading brought more questions than answers to the audience.
Topics In Literature
6/24/2010
In reading “The Man in the Well” I couldn’t help but be severely angered by the children’s inability to use sound moral judgment to get the man in the well some help. I consistently found segments in the reading where I was questioning if they even understood right from wrong. In the second paragraph, the children chose, for no apparent reason, that they wouldn’t help him. But why not help? What could it hurt? Did they not know what could possibly happen to the man if he was left down there? Did Death not seem like a plausible option? After resigning this man to his death, they were still “full of games and laughter” when they started to talk to him. This foolishness seemed like a child throwing a sack of kittens into a rushing river. There is no morally sound reason to torture a man.
The first logical thing the children did was ask the man his name. It is a logical question, and it is important to notify someone who it is that is in the well in case he has been reported missing, or somebody may know who needs to be contacted in case of emergency. But alas this man refused to answer, perhaps out of fear of scaring away the children, or out of his own daze after being stranded in the well for an extended period of time. Either way, I believe that the man should have identified himself. But he kept asking the children to fetch help, continuing to fuel the fire of their games.
In the middle of the second page a girl lies that the other children left to get help, and strikes up a little conversation. Why would you give a man false hope if you weren’t intending to save his life? What satisfaction would you get from leaving a man to die? The children almost made him their pet and began to give him food. They continued to bring false promises of rescue, and this lasted at least a few days. They tried to hide their identities perhaps to preserve their innocence in case the man got free. They didn’t realize how guilty they were of these mind games they were playing. Alas they gave away a name, starting to make the children uncomfortable. They had been made, and there was no turning back now.
On the marked page 25, the man finally gives away his name. Arthur had been mentioned earlier in the story as the owner of the closest house to the well. As soon as the children knew his name, something changed within them. There was finally a name to this pet of theirs; there was a soul to this mysterious creature that had fallen into the well. Unfortunately that didn’t change their final decision. Finally an ounce of guilt had overcome at least one of the children’s eyes clouded with tears but they went home, never to return to the man again. I think they were afraid to free him because he could now identify the children that had pointlessly tortured him for days on end instead of fetching help. I wonder if those children ever realized that they most likely are the reason for an innocent man’s painful deterioration at the bottom of the well. Did they know nothing of death?
This story was extremely difficult to read for the reasons of these children treating a human being like nothing more than a game on a hot summer day. Even at 9 years old, isn’t a child taught right from wrong, how to share, and a basic moral understanding of life? This reading brought more questions than answers to the audience.
Journal 3- 6/25/2010
Amy Blackman
Journal 3
Upon first reading the short story, “The Man In The Well” by Ira Sher, I first decided to analyze the title. I couldn’t figure out exactly what the story was about exactly by reading the title so I took the title literally. Since we have been reading stories about the concept of slavery and acceptance of African Americans, perhaps an African American Man was stuck in a well and since white people did not accept African Americans at this time, no one had the desire to help this man escape from the well. Or maybe the man in the well was hiding from someone or something.
After reading on, I became shocked. Instead of helping this man, these children began taunting the man in the well. I feel as though there taunting turned in to sort of a game for these children. These children would ask questions such as, “Hello. Is it dark?” or “Can you see the sky?” instead of responding to the man’s cry for help. They also left the man in the well, ignoring the severity of the predicament the man was in.
However, I was proven a bit wrong in the next paragraph when the children decided to bring “the man” food to eat. Here again, the man kept asking for help but the children would lie and say that help was on the way. Aaron said, “My father said don’t worry, because he’s coming with the police” (Sher 23). It’s almost as if they view “the man” in the well as their secret or as a game they do not want their authority figures to know about. Apparently one of the rules of the game was to not reveal your name to the man. Wendy broke one of the rules by saying, “I think they’re almost here. Aaron said his dad is almost here” (Sher 24). I felt bad for Wendy at this point. Essentially, Wendy had lost the game for the children.
Later on we find that this is a mistake on Wendy’s part. Aaron discovers the next day that Wendy had revealed his name to “the man” when “the man” had called out his name. Out of spite and anger, Aaron revealed all the other childrens’ name to “the man”. By this point, “the man” had realized that the children were not going to get him help and that they were playing a game with him. The man decides to play the game back with them, by using their names and asking them questions. “Aaron what do you think my name is?” or “All right, then Arthur. What do you think I look like?” (Sher 25). One of the major points of this game between “the man” and the children was to figure out each other’s names. By this point, the children had lost the game. “The man” had discovered their names. Clearly this had frightened the children, “even when we were much older, we didn’t go back. I will never go back” (Sher 25).
For such a simple and short story, it was a challenge. I did not see a clear plot or point to the story. Many times I would read the story but I don’t feel as though I grasped the underlying message. The story ends rather abruptly. We do not find out what happens to “the man” in the well. Also, we do not find out why “the man” was in the well to being with. I can sympathize with both sides of the story; “the man” and the children. The children saw the game as innocent however the man was always left helpless. However, maybe it turns out that “the man” was a criminal and maybe it’s best for him to remain in the well.
Journal 3
Upon first reading the short story, “The Man In The Well” by Ira Sher, I first decided to analyze the title. I couldn’t figure out exactly what the story was about exactly by reading the title so I took the title literally. Since we have been reading stories about the concept of slavery and acceptance of African Americans, perhaps an African American Man was stuck in a well and since white people did not accept African Americans at this time, no one had the desire to help this man escape from the well. Or maybe the man in the well was hiding from someone or something.
After reading on, I became shocked. Instead of helping this man, these children began taunting the man in the well. I feel as though there taunting turned in to sort of a game for these children. These children would ask questions such as, “Hello. Is it dark?” or “Can you see the sky?” instead of responding to the man’s cry for help. They also left the man in the well, ignoring the severity of the predicament the man was in.
However, I was proven a bit wrong in the next paragraph when the children decided to bring “the man” food to eat. Here again, the man kept asking for help but the children would lie and say that help was on the way. Aaron said, “My father said don’t worry, because he’s coming with the police” (Sher 23). It’s almost as if they view “the man” in the well as their secret or as a game they do not want their authority figures to know about. Apparently one of the rules of the game was to not reveal your name to the man. Wendy broke one of the rules by saying, “I think they’re almost here. Aaron said his dad is almost here” (Sher 24). I felt bad for Wendy at this point. Essentially, Wendy had lost the game for the children.
Later on we find that this is a mistake on Wendy’s part. Aaron discovers the next day that Wendy had revealed his name to “the man” when “the man” had called out his name. Out of spite and anger, Aaron revealed all the other childrens’ name to “the man”. By this point, “the man” had realized that the children were not going to get him help and that they were playing a game with him. The man decides to play the game back with them, by using their names and asking them questions. “Aaron what do you think my name is?” or “All right, then Arthur. What do you think I look like?” (Sher 25). One of the major points of this game between “the man” and the children was to figure out each other’s names. By this point, the children had lost the game. “The man” had discovered their names. Clearly this had frightened the children, “even when we were much older, we didn’t go back. I will never go back” (Sher 25).
For such a simple and short story, it was a challenge. I did not see a clear plot or point to the story. Many times I would read the story but I don’t feel as though I grasped the underlying message. The story ends rather abruptly. We do not find out what happens to “the man” in the well. Also, we do not find out why “the man” was in the well to being with. I can sympathize with both sides of the story; “the man” and the children. The children saw the game as innocent however the man was always left helpless. However, maybe it turns out that “the man” was a criminal and maybe it’s best for him to remain in the well.
Week 1-journal 3
Thoughts While Reading Ira Sher’s “The Man in the Well”
Page 21: The opening paragraph is very matter of fact, the narrator was 9 when they found a man in a well. Although the writing is direct, it also expresses uncertainty. The narrator cannot remember precisely what they were doing (“playing hide and go seek or something”). The narrator is obviously reflecting on past events and she cannot remember the exact thought process behind their reaction to the man; the narrator uses a lot of subjunktiv case. Certain details in the story seem symbolic (the fact that the kids only heard the man but never saw him) that it reads a bit like a parable despite the mundane setting. I’m wondering what the significance is that the kids only get half way to Arthur’s house before slowing down and returning to the man in the well. Is the author connecting the action of the children to wider societal tendencies?
Page 22: Although this text makes me anxious for someone to help the poor man in the well, the cool curiosity of the children seems natural. The kids seem naïve to the direness of the situation; they are curious but not empathetic. I am kind of shocked that Wendy lied telling the man in the well that the other children had gone for help. I can’t help but imagine what I would have done as a child in such a situation. Like the narrator, “I tried to picture him. I tried to imagine the gesture of his hand…” etc. Like the kids who never see the man in the well, as a reader, I am likewise unable to see the man.
Page 23: The fact that the kids were anxious not be noticed “in particular” by the man in the well reminds me of what I mentioned earlier: The kids seem to be stand ins for people in general society who are unwilling to step forward. Perhaps it’s my awareness of this class and it’s general themes that makes me so willing to believe that this story is about wider societal tendencies. I imagine the man in the well is black and the children are white, although there is no evidence in the text for such a statement.
Page 25: The name question keeps popping up again and again in this short story. At first it “seemed like the most natural question” (21) but now “the question humiliated us with its simplicity” (25). I’m not really sure what that change means. Obviously a name holds a certain power that the children are aware and fearful of (no one wants the man in the well to know their name). The guessing-name game the children played with the man in the well reminds me a little of Rumpelstilskin…but the situation is completely different. I think the guessing game is a way for the man in the well to get the children to think of him as a human. The narrator is enraged when the well man guesses his name and “wanted to throw stones, dirt down the well to crush out his voice” (26). Did the kids think that it was better to let a man die then to be associated with their behavior toward the man? I don’t know what the kids wanted or feared but it seems a lot more complicated than a fear of punishment.
Dude in the well
Journal 3
Sher’s story was very short. There wasn’t very much to it. The various kids who stumbled upon a man in the well were from the same town. They were just a group of kids who were playing hide and go seek. They were younger kids around the age of nine.
My first impression was that the kids had stumbled upon a man and that they were going to go find help to get the man out. The kids however decided not to do that. Instead they started to ask the man questions. They kept repeating “What is your name?” The man never did answer the question. The man kept asking for help which is like something I would do if I were in his situation. All the man wanted to do was get out of the well he stated that he had been in the well a couple of days. The children did not get help the first day.
The next day the children brought him food and water but they still didn’t get help to get the man out of the well. At this point I was wondering why they just didn’t get help to get the man out of the well. After all it was the right thing to do. This brings me to question what is easier to do; do what is wrong because all of your friends are doing it or stand up and do what is right. All of the children decided to do what was wrong. I couldn’t understand why the children didn’t just go get help to get the man out of the well. They would have been considered heroes. They would have saved a man’s life. After the third day the children still didn’t get help. The children left the well and didn’t go back. In the story the narrator went on to say that to this day he still hasn’t been by the well. There was no word on whether the man got out of the well or not but I am assuming that he didn’t so the children just stood by and let a man die.
Sher’s story was very short. There wasn’t very much to it. The various kids who stumbled upon a man in the well were from the same town. They were just a group of kids who were playing hide and go seek. They were younger kids around the age of nine.
My first impression was that the kids had stumbled upon a man and that they were going to go find help to get the man out. The kids however decided not to do that. Instead they started to ask the man questions. They kept repeating “What is your name?” The man never did answer the question. The man kept asking for help which is like something I would do if I were in his situation. All the man wanted to do was get out of the well he stated that he had been in the well a couple of days. The children did not get help the first day.
The next day the children brought him food and water but they still didn’t get help to get the man out of the well. At this point I was wondering why they just didn’t get help to get the man out of the well. After all it was the right thing to do. This brings me to question what is easier to do; do what is wrong because all of your friends are doing it or stand up and do what is right. All of the children decided to do what was wrong. I couldn’t understand why the children didn’t just go get help to get the man out of the well. They would have been considered heroes. They would have saved a man’s life. After the third day the children still didn’t get help. The children left the well and didn’t go back. In the story the narrator went on to say that to this day he still hasn’t been by the well. There was no word on whether the man got out of the well or not but I am assuming that he didn’t so the children just stood by and let a man die.
Sher on youtube
A short clip of Sher talking about writing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=po37Z65SIXU
"The Man in the Well" audio:
http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/27/the-cruelty-of-children
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=po37Z65SIXU
"The Man in the Well" audio:
http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/27/the-cruelty-of-children
The Man in the Well
After reading the title, I immediately think that the story is going to be about getting a trapped man out of a well. Beginning to read the story, the first words to jump out are the words “or something” that are used to describe the activity the children were engaged in. This expression shows that that narrator does not remember all details exactly. This brings into question the accuracy of the entire account. Next, the narrator describes a person as “the man.” This leads the audience to ask, “Why is this person not named?” Then, right off the bat, the audience discovers that the children decided not to help and that none of the children ever saw him. Why did they decide not to help? At this point, things are not looking so good for the man in the well, but I am still a little optimistic that “the man’s” fortune will not turn out too bad.
Looking back on the story, I see that it is a story about politics. It is politics between an adult stranger and children. Being down a well the stranger in this story is in a precarious position. However, he is an adult and has some power in relation to children. The audience first notices this type of power when the man instructs the children to go get a ladder. They start making their way to retrieve one, because they are “afraid to disobey”. Also, his power stems from the fact that no details about the man are known. From the beginning of the story, the audience sees that the children are weary of the man. The narrator will only go to the lip of the well so as not to be seen. The children’s first demonstration of power is when they turn around and decide not to get a ladder right away. Next, the children demonstrate power by waiting around (the man is on the children’s time), asking the man questions, and by lying to the man. Throughout the story the children play the waiting game by letting a half hour, hour, and entire nights go by without communicating with the man. The man too plays the game of cat and mouse by strategically responding when he wants and how he wants. He does not directly respond to the children’s questions. Another very significant power play is the children bringing food and water to the man and he is heard eating the food. The man’s power is further diminished by demonstrating a physical weakness in recurring coughing.
The story is also about the intergroup politics of the children. Each child in the group speaks up at different times. They carefully assess the situation by waiting around and allowing time for each other or the man to engage in conversation before offering up any words. The children were even conscious of their breathing that was an indication of their physical and mental disposition. The audience notices group cooperation when the children lie to the man and the narrator says it was “too important” that they deceived him. At one point, the children are all gathered at the well but as time passes they leave at different times. This provides some individuals an opportunity of access to “the man” without the entire group present to evaluate, influence, or weigh in on any interactions. This is precisely when the first problem arises for the intergroup politics: Wendy mentions Aaron’s name. The children were keeping their names a secret from the man so he could not identify them. The dynamics of the children really changes when Aaron hears the man say his name and looks at the others “as if we had somehow taken on a part of the man.” Finally, things blow up for the group when Aaron starts rattling off each of the children’s names. Later, the man started calling those names and from then on the children understood that the man knew their names.
Looking back on the story, I see that it is a story about politics. It is politics between an adult stranger and children. Being down a well the stranger in this story is in a precarious position. However, he is an adult and has some power in relation to children. The audience first notices this type of power when the man instructs the children to go get a ladder. They start making their way to retrieve one, because they are “afraid to disobey”. Also, his power stems from the fact that no details about the man are known. From the beginning of the story, the audience sees that the children are weary of the man. The narrator will only go to the lip of the well so as not to be seen. The children’s first demonstration of power is when they turn around and decide not to get a ladder right away. Next, the children demonstrate power by waiting around (the man is on the children’s time), asking the man questions, and by lying to the man. Throughout the story the children play the waiting game by letting a half hour, hour, and entire nights go by without communicating with the man. The man too plays the game of cat and mouse by strategically responding when he wants and how he wants. He does not directly respond to the children’s questions. Another very significant power play is the children bringing food and water to the man and he is heard eating the food. The man’s power is further diminished by demonstrating a physical weakness in recurring coughing.
The story is also about the intergroup politics of the children. Each child in the group speaks up at different times. They carefully assess the situation by waiting around and allowing time for each other or the man to engage in conversation before offering up any words. The children were even conscious of their breathing that was an indication of their physical and mental disposition. The audience notices group cooperation when the children lie to the man and the narrator says it was “too important” that they deceived him. At one point, the children are all gathered at the well but as time passes they leave at different times. This provides some individuals an opportunity of access to “the man” without the entire group present to evaluate, influence, or weigh in on any interactions. This is precisely when the first problem arises for the intergroup politics: Wendy mentions Aaron’s name. The children were keeping their names a secret from the man so he could not identify them. The dynamics of the children really changes when Aaron hears the man say his name and looks at the others “as if we had somehow taken on a part of the man.” Finally, things blow up for the group when Aaron starts rattling off each of the children’s names. Later, the man started calling those names and from then on the children understood that the man knew their names.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)