Reading Ira Sher's "A Man in the Well", I at first wonder what the connection is to the texts we have been reading until now. Once I'd finished reading it, I had my answer: politics and sin, and the definition of each.
Granted, the children in the story know nothing of politics or sin, and that is a grave problem indeed. There is no problem in having a view different from your fellow, but to have no views at all, that is a gross display of willful ignorance, and that is entirely unacceptable. Now, this is making a few assumptions, yes, such as the children never being taught any sort of morals (disobeying teachings is not sinful, in fact it usually is the opposite, because to disobey a command you must think about it, understand it, and then willfully decide it is not for you). But, assuming these children are innocent, fresh, untouched minds, then they are some of the worst beings imaginable. At first, because they do ask themselves "is it right to let this man stay in the well?", and in the end, because they know it is wrong, and feel guilt and shame for it. In an earlier journal response, I said that slaveholders were not sinful when they beat their slaves, because they were obeying their personal faith that this was a right and just thing to do. But these children, they did not have a faith, and when they did, they went against it. Yes, ignorance is the greatest sin, but second to that is the abandonment of personal morals. Page 26, "When he said my name, I felt the water clouding my eyes, and I wanted to throw stones, dirt down the well to crush out his voice." When they finally realized they might be held responsible for their actions, they chose not to do the right thing and accept the consequences, instead attempting to cover up their wicked ways.
Children are inexperienced, they have poor problem-solving skills, and their minds are mostly worthless, but every child should know two things and abide by them: ask questions and follow what you believe in. This teaches them to vanquish ignorance, and builds confidence, even if they are wrong, they will still have a strong will. But these children are lazy whelps, and deserve to be tossed in the well to form a slope the nameless man could climb to escape.
As far as the story goes, it is easy to read and has a clear plot, its words are simple and concise, and the story it tells is not grand or wild. It is an average story, but manages to evoke feelings above its stature. Granted, this may be caused by my personal opinion of children, that they are an unfortunate necessity, but even for one less jaded with humans in the pupal stage, there should still be threads or disgust and dehumanization. They essentially killed a man, just to watch him die. Even though they gave him food and water, it wasn't in to save him, for getting help would have been the way to do that. No, they were merely prolonging his life that they may continue to "play" with it, to hold it in their hands knowing they could snuff it out should they desire. And that is not a motive of well-adjusted children, it is what drives fictional super villains, or real villains such as dictators and despots.
No comments:
Post a Comment