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.