Past, Present, and Future

Adam Johnson’s story Trauma Plate was masterfully written. There are very deliberate connections to the 21st century and the past. The first thing that pops into the story is the references to betas, which can be attributed to the fast paced society of the present. However, in Johnson’s text we can see that Beta is referred as being in the past. “We used to have on Beta.” She sets down her design pad. “God, remember Beta? (80)” This conclusion would make the reader think that these events that are taking place are actually set in the future. Johnson goes on talking about the Kevlar vests that one must wear when going outside. There are two parallels that I can think of that can be explained here. The first is that the vest are a symbolism of protection when having sex, which we see later on in the story with Bill’s daughter Ruth and the pizza boy. The second parallel can just be attributed to the violence that will persist within the future. There are several usages of the past that can be attributed to Johnson’s story; William Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet and the uses of possibly Johnsons past life experiences with the 1970’s. The reference to Romeo and Juliet can be found with the disheartening feeling Bill has towards the owner of the pizza parlor because of the relationship between his son and Bill’s daughter. The connection with the 70’s can be simplistically related to the vehicles that are described in the story and some of the attitude towards using protection while having sex.

Are we the same?

This story makes me wonder if we are actually becoming similar to the people in the story. It seems that we are becoming more and more paranoid in our every day lives. You can't hardly do anything these days without having to read some kind of "warning" first. Almost everything out there is harmful in some way, or "causes cancer." We can't talk on a cell-phone or even drink from a plastic water container without being warned of the possible side-effects. There is also the new craze about carrying a concealed weapon for protection. It seems that everywhere you look someone is offering a class on weapons, or self-defense, or some kind of class on how to protect yourself.
This makes me wonder if I should be sad about the times we live in or think we are just being to over paranoid. Our parents and grandparents didn't have all these things and they turned out ok. Is it the times we live in? Are we living in a much more dangerous time than the times before us?
I personally think its a little of both. We do live in a time when things have happened that have helped to make us more paranoid or cautious about things. I do however think we are in many ways very similar to the people in the story. We get so caught up in being safe and avoiding the "dangers" in life, we forget to live and enjoy the good things.

Trauma Plate

When I read Trauma Plate I was thinking of the vests and they reminded me of bike helmets. Parents try to get their kids to wear helmets when they are little and the kids just don’t want to because they looked lame. I know I was that way when I was younger and Ruth thinks the same thing about her vest. She seems like the only kid that wears one and it makes her feel like an outcast. Her parents, mostly her dad, just want her to be safe, just as most parents feel their child should be. Bill seems somewhat paranoid about wearing the vests and it makes sense to the reader when they know that the story was written right around the time of 9/11. The day that proved that our happy bubble of America was not completely impenetrable to terrorists shocked Americans to feel a sense of insecurity that I know I have never felt before in my life. Extra precautions were taken and I felt nervous whenever someone I loved traveled in a plane.

The desolate parking lot by their store and the unsuccessful businesses around them made me think of the recession and all the businesses that have had to close and shut down. Even though it was written before the huge mess of the economy took place, it still might apply.

Trauma Plate

Trauma Plate is very clearly shaped by 21st century culture. The idea of the problem of national security no longer being a threat from somewhere overseas, but right here in our own backyard comes from the 9/11 attacks of course but i also in the rise of terrorist acts, even by American born citizens. The D.C sniper shootings, the Fort hood shootings, even the recent arrest of "Jihad Jane" all play apart. American Gun culture is also prevalent. I saw this in my own father after the Trolley Square incident, when he proudly showed me his new handgun and concealed weapons permit and explained to me his belief in the rising need to protect ourselves.

Johnson also draws from a scene in many communities, especially rural communities like ours, of small chains giving way to large big box stores, how that changes the face of the landscape and the community, and the sense of loss and abandonment that creates. In my own home town of Kaysville, One can get that same sense of Post Apocalyptic sadness when seeing the empty windows of shops in the older parts of town. And with familiar names like Kmart and Godfathers pizza, he brings the setting right next door.

Living with Fear

I find it interesting while reading "Trauma Plate" to see the different complexities of a person living life or just being alive, and how society/culture as well as individual human experience shapes that. I really like that way that review #6 addressed this issue that I totally agree with. The foundational factor for which that rests upon is the basis of fear. In a way it is also portraying the way a lot of society is functioned by today and why we are so concerned with national security (being protected by invading means, having universal health care), wealth (providing for ourselves in fear of having nothing--tangible or intangible), power (controlling the means in fear that they might control us), relationships (having ties with a family or significant other when you may not have anything but that) etc. They are in the story, as well as we are today in society, shaped by the interplay of all these discourses and the interpretation we take from the culture in which we live in--in which I believe is determined a lot by fear. And I mean who doesn't fear those things? I think they are completely realistic things to be scared about! But, it is the way that living through that fear or being consumed by it determines everything in which Trauma Plate evidently portrays.

title

Though the short story "Trauma Plate" has a number of social dialogues running through it, the most interesting by far is that of the dissolution of the family. Within the context of the narratives, given by the constituent members of said family, we find a story of weakening bonds and apathy.

Jane is the easiest to pick out in this regard, her narrative full of only regret. Her jealousy of her daughter and contempt for her husband are only the beginning. When she wanders into the Armour Emporium, obviously not the first time, she is committing a betrayal to her family and the bond they share. While not cheating sexually on her husband, she commits an emotional infidelity that is equally as adherent. It's clear by the language she uses when talking about her husband (intercourse is "fine with her") that she's going through the motions while avoiding the break which might bring her happiness or fully participating in the family. Even her daughter believes she "checked out."

Concerning Ruthie, she feels little or no connection to her parents at all. Since twelve, she's been hanging out in an abandoned Kmart doing basically whatever she felt. As the situation worsens, she only plans for escape. This disinterest isn't so harmful, as she never engaged enough to disengaged.

Bill may be the most pitiful, dutifully, in every permutation of the story, trying to construct the emotional bonds necessary to build an working family. He also the only one to think protectively about others, worrying about his daughter and her protection, or trying to cheer up his wife. But through his effort, he is the one the story mocks, the cuckold and the dreamer. All he does is futile against the future, the closing of his shop, the wife who will drift, the daughter who will leave for California. He even seems to know his actions are futile and ridiculous, but why does he do them? Some precieved obligation? Macho determinism? nothing else to do? When there is nothing to fight for, why fight?

To Truly Live

In another world, Ruth and Jane are fighting the battle of what to believe in. Fear can be stable for only so long before it gets exhausting, boring, endless, and hopeless. Even Bill feels that pull in his heart, but as he wages a war against foreign thoughts and feelings inside, he becomes more forcedly happy or optimistic on the outside. A life of little to no variation takes its toll on those who dream of what life could be. The simple possibility of more or different controls their thoughts and provoke secret exploration.

In this story, you see Jane's change from supportive and believing in her husband, along with what he stands for, into a lonely, dazed, stuck-in-time lady who is clinging to her known and trusted repetition. "Wandering, she strolls along the grit-worn sidewalk, stares at stars through holes in the Kmart awning. This way it all looks black up there, the occasional star the rarity" (pg 88). A picture of what her life has become, Jane wonders when a 'star occasion' will happen to her. When will life stop revolving around fear of the unknown?

When she finds her daughter flirting with Hector, fear is absent in her reaction. "This is a careless spirit Jane Has forgotten. As she sees them whisper, she remembers a time before Bill, and tries to read her daughter's lips" (pg 89). I would challenge to say that 'careless' is really the actual living of life and risk and possibilities. She probably was that girl who could do anything and was afraid of nothing. But then she met Bill, who most likely convinced her of the terrifying state of the world and led to a boxing-up of adventure and true hope of what could be. Instead, she became a woman who feared until fear let her down for the uneventful present could not be as happy or calming as her past. She is downright depressed and needs something or someone to yank her out of this nightmare of boredom.

Ruth, on the other hand, is ahead of her mother. She is pondering the what-ifs and asking hard questions. Maybe a bit slow-moving, but definitely more of a fire about her. I see the following two lines to be a description of her own life = "Stupidly waiting under the Styrofoam-coat hanger model of the solar system you reach up and set it in motion. But the hand-colored planets swing too smoothly it seems to you, too safely Halverson would say, and plucking Pluto from the mix sets the model wildly spinning" (p 95).

When it all comes down to it, Jane and Ruth's want to truly LIVE life is in fact their need and desire for real relationships full of vulnerable love and open hearts. Ultimately they (we; all Americans; all human beings) desire relationships that are more than just habits and sex, but that knowing the honest hopes and dreams of another - and opening up to them about yours - can be the fulfilling adventure that brightens and livens one's life.

Trauma Plate

I am most definitely not a New Historicist but I felt that Jane’s character could be seen as a comment on the current narratives about the American Dream. In my opinion, the American Dream is seen with an air of cynicism today. There isn’t really much hope in the American Dream. I think this can be reflected in the story by Bill and Jane’s failing mom-and-pop bulletproof vest rental shop—surrounded by a “closed-down Double Drive In”, a long-gone Kmart, and a bankrupt pizza place (79). There is no hope for the “little people” in the shadow of the 24-hour Body Armor Emporium. Success and hope is reserved for the rich and the powerful.

I also think that Jane’s character reinforces this cynical outlook on hope. She spends much of the story dwelling in the worn-down memories of her youth. She and Bill spend their evenings cruising around the town where they grew up. At one point in the novel, Jailhouse Rock plays behind her, reminding her of their “liberal-arts dreams, their own let’s put on a barn dance notion of being their own bosses” (86-7). She thinks, “This is the place we are at, around the corner from the drive-in theater where she and Bill spent their youth, a place she won’t even look at because these days, even worse than hope, nostalgia is her enemy” (87). She is surrounded by reminders of the dreams of her youth, dreams that will never come true because they have reached “a moment near the end of things” (86). I think this is why she dwells so much on the past. It was a time of hope and of happiness, a time when her dreams—the American Dream—was still possible.

When Jane sees Ruth with a boy, her reaction is completely different from Bill’s reaction. She seems jealous of her daughter because she is living in that time of hope and possibility, the time that Jane can’t seem to escape nor grasp. She watches her daughter laugh and drink and dance. “This is a careless spirit Jane has forgotten…I want my Monte Carlo back, Jane thinks” (89-90). Her car stands as an example of her inability to let go of the past, too. Whenever she would ride in it with Bill, she would swivel the chair backwards “to see it all disappear behind her” (90). She has “come to be on intimate terms with her blind spot,” constantly looking behind her to see the dreams of her youth (86). One final example can be her multiple rendezvous to the Emporium. “She feels safe in the arms of the enemy…For a moment, there are no blind spots and she is at ease” (90). The Emporium is the ultimate symbol in the novel of power, success and progression. No matter how she clings to the dreams of the past, they will not come true. The Emporium fills her with the hope she has lost since her youth and she no longer has to look to her “blind spots” to see some kind of hope in life. I feel that her actions throughout the story only solidify the cynical narrative of the American Dream. Success, happiness and security that inhabit the American Dream is not possible for little mom-and-pop stores. These things are only possible if you become a customer of the powerful and the wealthy.

Parenting never changes

The part in Trauma Plate that really stuck out to me as a narrative of parenting was the part where Ruth is talking with the pizza delivery boy and Bill discovers that she isn’t wearing the trauma plate. He asks her “where’s your protection”. This is very reminiscent of two things a parent would hassle their child about. The first is like telling a child to wear a coat when it is cold outside. Though the stakes are a lot higher in this story, the same theme of parental care and supervision are there.

The other is a bit more obvious in that she is talking to a member of the opposite sex and the text makes it clear that the pizza boy is physically attracted to her. The same comment about “where’s your protection” holds true, this time referencing parents who talk to their children about sexual protection. It is easy to see why a parent would get upset over this. They try to teach their children and hope they listen, but they find themselves constantly reminding them of their guidance. So in this world that Adam Johnson has crafted, we see that the circumstances are different, but all in all human nature remains the same.

Prompts for New Historicism and "Trauma Plate"

Each of the following numbers links to a discussion about "Trauma Plate," the collection Emporium from which it comes, or Adam Johnson's work in more general terms (including the audio of Johnson reading a different story, "Trial of the Century," in the voice of O.J. and Nicole Simpson's dog; please listen to this story as part of your reading; it will take you about 12 minutes): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. After reading and listening to these other texts, please respond to one or more of the following prompts:

1. What does the reception of Johnson's work suggest about the circulation of power and ideologies in our present century? What issues are raised in the text that both shape, and are shaped by, that circulation and exchange? Please use specific examples from the reviews.

2. In what ways do the characterizations of Ruth, Jane, and Bill reproduce, comment on, or question current narratives about national security, adolescence, relationships, sexuality, the American Dream, parenting, or iconography? (or any other narrative you see shaping/being shaped by the text).

3. How has "Trauma Plate" been shaped by the 21st-century American culture in which it was written? In answering this question, I would expect you to pull in cultural examples, i.e. socio-political, scientific, and economic events of our time (or examples from pop culture, many of which are referenced in "Trial of the Century"). In other words, use extra-textual examples, part of a thick description, as well as textual ones.

Have fun with this.

Deconstruction of The Things They Carried

As O'Brien is describing the need for "humping" certain pieces of equipment, he says two things, upon which, I feel as though the moral of the text rests upon: "if it involved a place they knew to be bad, they carried everything they could," as well as "with [the mine detector's] headphones and big sensing plate, the equipment was a stress on the lower back and shoulders, awkward to handle, often useless because of the shrapnel in the earth, but they carried it anyway, partly for safety, partly for the illusion of safety." He spends so much time describing minor, irrelevant details about the various items that the men carry, whether physical or mental, focusing on the small insignificant rather than the important, I am led to question if his method of storytelling is really a defense mechanism of avoidance. When describing the death of one of his men, Ted Lavender, Lt. Cross blames the man's passing on his own lack of concentration; "He pictured Martha's smooth young face, thinking he loved her more than anything, more than his men, and now Ted Lavender was dead because he loved her so much and could not stop thinking about her."

On the contrary, however, perhaps the narrator focuses on the seemingly smaller aspects in a logical attempt to preserve not only his, but the lives of the men around him for which he is responsible. Perhaps, instead of going over details as a way of distraction, the narrator is demonstrating the troop's protection method, a constant review of a mental inventory list, if you will. As stated in the text, "the carried all they could bear, and then some, including a silent awe for the terrible power of the things they carried." From this, it's possible to derive a sense of caution, as well, from the men, as they realize and remind themselves of what they are capable of, what their environment is capable of.  Also, in another fortification of their defensive mental walls, the narrator states that their "imagination was a killer." If they allowed themselves to focus on the big picture, one that revolves around dying, they'd surely kill themselves before the enemy had a chance to do so.

Identities

"The Things They Carried" relates the emotional and physical (tangible and intangible) items that these men and women at war carry. It explains that they have objects for survival, personal benefit, comfort, security, etc., and how they carry them everyday and then goes on to further elude how these physical objects go on to affect them on a deeper inner level within the memories, thoughts, emotions, and feelings, that they now in result must carry. These soldier's have fears, desires, motivations, discouragements, and they are all in result of the emotional baggage they now carry from the result of the war they are facing--the weight differs for each factor. The text also portrays a man specifically, Lieutenant Jimmy Cross, and how he is the main example of how the emotional aspects are affecting him and his company. The overall sense of the story is the fact that everyone may be placed in one situation (the war) but people have different things to carry, emotionally and physically, and it in turn affects the whole situation.

From a deconstructive aspect I think that it is important to remember that our identities are never concrete--they are always evolving. Within the text it is evident to see that these soldier's feelings, attitudes, emotions, baggage,--tangible and intangible--are always changing and effecting them in different personal ways. As never being a concrete "whole" person, and having an ever changing identity, this will effect the way different people deal with circumstances. For example, when Ted Lavender is shot Kiowa keeps on talking about it--expressing the only way he can comprehend his grief--with unbelieving and repetitive memories being verbally expressed. The others around him feel and grieve differently, thus, telling him to "shut-up" or digging a hole and weeping (even if weeping for more than one thing). Our experiences, influences, and circumstances all play a part in the altering of our ever changing identities--or lack of.

Deconstruction

So not to be repetitive with the many comments that have been expressed; I would have to agree with the masses in saying that O’brien’s message in this fictional biography was to illustrate the challenges one would have gone through if they were in the Vietnam war. The Things They Carried has many connotations of individuals who are bound with the atrocities they dealt with at war. Throughout the text this message is received in comments like: “among the necessities or near-necessities were P-38 can openers, pocket knives, heat tabs, wrist-watches, dog tags, mosquito repellent, chewing gum, candy, cigarettes, salt tablets, packets of Kool-Aid, lighters, matches, sewing kits… etc. (626)” This illustration is important because it signifies the physical things one must carry if one was at war. There are several other items that are expressed throughout the text, depending on what class you are associated with.

The binary opposite or deconstruction of this presentation would have to be expressed with the emotional state that is presented to the soldier. O’brien presents this connection with this text; “To carry something was to hump it, as when Lieutenant Jimmy Cross humped his love for Martha up the hills and through the swamps (626) .” This text has a connection with the sexual prowess of Lieutenant Jimmy Cross and his wife with carrying a back pack up the hill. The things they carry are also significant when dealing with the emotional tragedies that had to of occurred in this country. Death was very imminent, and there was surely a feeling of insecurity being thrown into a situation that many did not agree with.

You're Wrong and Right, and I Am, Too

This is a blanket response to the posts and comments below.

Although “The Things They Carried” seems to contradict itself in the ways some of you have noted, I think those contradictions are intentional and integral (my brain is too weary to elaborate). However, I am probably misunderstanding the story and the ideas you have shared; I question my interpretations because I’m filtering everything through fatigue. But even if I were comprehending what the posts and comments below are saying, I would be surprised if they fully express how their authors read the story.

And isn’t that a problem deconstruction says all writing has? Even when the writing is refined (and blog entries rarely are; at least mine aren’t), it’s just an attempt to organize thoughts and feelings that are changing as and because they are put into words. And regardless of how well a given piece captures its author’s intent, its readers will assign their own meaning to it. Which makes reading frustrating and exciting, and writing frightening.

"The Things They Carried"

One impression that I got from reading "The Things They Carried" was that O'Brien is using the experience of these soldiers to symbolize the way we experience our lives. We're wondering along "the path of life" with everything we need. I thought of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs: We start with our basic needs, both physiological and safety (the soldiers carry food, water, weapons for safety) and then progress to love, belonging and esteem (the soldiers carry objects that have sentimental value, particularly Lieutenant Cross with his photos, letters and lucky rock). All of these things were important to these soldiers, but I think O'Brien wanted to place particular emphasis on the items needed for physical survival. Each one of the tangible objects essential to survival and safety had a weight to go along with it - the medical supplies weighed 20 pounds, the M-60 weighed 23 pounds, so on and so forth. This would mean he's saying in life, these items at the bottom of Maslow's Hierarchy weigh more on our minds and are therefore more important.

A contradiction or deconstruction of this theme would be that, through most of this story, Lieutenant Cross has Martha on his mind and little else. He puts his emotional needs above not only his safety, but the safety of those around him, resulting in the death of a soldier. Actually, all of the soldiers contradict this theory. "They would often dicard things along the route of the march".. The things they threw away were rations or weapons, showing a disregard for the things that kept them alive so that they would have more strength the carry the emotional burdens.

The things they carried

I think one of they main themes of O'briens story is that these men carry their identity with them, they are defined by the things around them and on their person. Cross IS a dreamer and IS the leader, defined by what he carries with him. Kiowa IS religious by his bible he carries. Collectively, the men ARE Vietnam, because they in it and surrounded by it. I think it's O'brien's statement about how things and environment can define us, even when wee don't want it to.

Cross however, makes the choice to no longer be defined by his dreams and imaginations. In the end, I think it actually shows that we can break free of those definitions that are set by other people, ourselves and our environment.

THE THINGS THEY CARRIED

In The Things They Carried, O'Brien talks about the different things that are carried by soldiers, and that what a soldier carries varies based on the individual and his background. One soldier carries a bible and another carries a hatchet. The memories they carry will also vary depending on where they come from. Soldiers of larger stature might carry more because they can. A soldier of a smaller stature might carry a smaller gun and less food than that of a larger soldier. Soldiers who are of higher ranking carry different things than soldiers of lower ranking. The point of the story is that everyone has something they carry throughout this war.

Deconstructionism might disagree with this and say that the real emphasis is on what the soldiers carry because they are at war. The real intent of this story is to point out what the men once carried, and what they now carry. Kiowa carried his New Testament. This tells us the man he used to be, and what he used to carry. He used to be a sensitive man who lived according to the word of the Bible, and carried a love for God and his children. The war has lead him to carry a vulgar mouth and an ill sense of humor which displays his insensitive thoughts toward death and man; all he carries now is the shell of what used to be his New Testament. This is one example of what the war leads men to carry. Lieutenant Cross is in the process of becoming a product of the war. What he once carried, pictures, letters, and memories of Martha, are slowing dissolving and getting swallowed up by the war. What he is starting to carry is a regret for the many thoughts he's had about Martha.

JImmy

Lieutenant Jimmy Cross is a twenty-four-year-old that has been put in a situation that is too much for him to take on. He has deep emotional problems that interfere with his ability to lead the seventeen, soon to be sixteen, men through the unforgiving lands of Vietnam. His strenuous situation leads him to be distracted with Martha whose letters he carries while he fantasizes a romance between them. It is his only defense to keep him somewhat sane. This failure of romance between Martha and Lieutenant Cross is a parallel to happenings of the war. “They had no sense of strategy or mission. They searched the villages without knowing what to look for, not caring, kicking over jars of rice, frisking children and old men, blowing tunnels, sometimes setting fires and sometimes not, then forming up and moving on to the next village, then other villages, where it would always be the same.” Cross has no sense of what true love really is. He really does not know what he is searching for. Again and again he mulls over these fantasies trying to push them to the next level. He mentions several times that Martha is or is not a virgin. He wants to be the one take her virginity away from her, but no matter how far he goes with his fanaticizing nothing will change between him and Martha. Their situation will always be the same; yet, these fantasies are keeping him sane.

One may argue that the fantasies are actually making him deranged. He has been so distracted with Martha that he has not been able to focus on the troops and what really is important. The emotional baggage he carries because his relationship with Martha will never progress is killing his troops. Through the text, Cross, has been able to put the war behind him by fantasizing about Martha. At the end, the text contradicts itself and switches role that the letters and pictures play. They used to be something that kept the Lieutenant going, but in the end they pulled him down. Without burning the letters and pictures he would not have been able to keep going and would go insane. Instead of focusing on something that was impossible to attain, he needs to focus on the war right in front of him.

Deconstructing "The Things They Carried"

In the short story "The Things They Carried," by Tim O'Brien, we see a group of soldiers in Vietnam, going through the day to day trials of staying alive. They each have their job. With that job come the things they have to carry with them. However, when you look closer, they carry much more than the tangible items that take up space in their packs. They carry with them their thoughts of home and the fears they will never see that home again. They carry with them the ghosts of those who didn't make it out alive and the pictures in their heads of their deaths. For the leader Lieutenant Cross, in particular, he carries the weight of his men's safety and the guilt of those who died under his command because of his lack of focus on his responsibility. O'Brien help us to realize the enormous weight of these intangibles as the men go about their daily duties, trying not to think of what could happen in the next moment.

As we analyze this story through Deconstruction Theory, we realize that another person reading this piece of literature from a different background of understanding may not recognize those intangibles. Through Deconstruction Theory, we begin to see literature from other angles. Every community has their beliefs and systems of language that shape the way they see the world. If a child were to read this piece of literature, they might picture in their minds actual ghosts sitting on the backs of the soldiers working on weighing them down, making their packs heavier. Without the experiences of life behind them, they may not understand that this is a metaphor to help the reader recognize the soldier's fears. Just as a child might not see the same meaning in this language structure, a person from another culture with different language structure might have a hard time coming up with the same interpretation of the text. Deconstruction Theory teaches us that there are many different perspectives to the same texts and interpretation depends on a person's logocentrism.

"The Things They Carried" portrays the message that soldiers are required to carry great physical burdens, but that they also carry emotional burdens. The soldiers often carry things that have sentimental value often reminding them of something other than the war. The story focused heavily on what the soldiers physically carried and how much they weighed. Things such as a nylon-covered flak jacket that weighed 6.7 pounds or a .45 caliber pistol that weighed 2.9 pounds. The list of physical burdens is long and covers much of the story. It also focused on emotional burdens, "Leutenant Jimmy Cross humped his love for Martha up the hills and through the swamps." This exerpt is a used as a main example of an emotional burden that Leutenant Cross carried with him in the Vietnam war.


They story is meant to help us see how hard those emotional and physical burdens are on the soldiers. However it seems to contradict itself at the end. "It was very sad, he thought. The things men carried inside. The things men did or felt that they had to do. Instead he went back to his maps. He was now determined to do his duties firmly and without negligence." This exerpt is towards the end of the book when Leutenant Jimmy Cross burned Martha's letters and pictures. He overcame those emotional burdens and focused on his duties. It seemed to me the story contradicted itself at the end because it infered that soldiers could eliminate those emotional burdens. It says that they were doing things that they thought they had to do, but those things were not necessarily what they really had to do.

The Things They Carried

One of the themes I got from Tim O’Brien’s The Things They Carried is that love and attachment is just a distraction and the only way to be productive and stay focused is to become numb. Several times throughout the story, Lieutenant Jimmy Cross gets distracted by his feelings for Martha. He spends much of his time “pretending”, “[imagining] romantic camping trips” and carrying her pebble in his mouth: “…he carried the pebble in his mouth, turning it with his tongue, tasting sea salt and moisture. His mind wandered. He had difficulty keeping his attention on the war. On occasion he would yell at his men to spread out the column, to keep their eyes open, but then he would slip away into daydreams, just pretending…” (628). Because he is distracted by his feelings for Martha, Cross blames himself for Lavender’s death: “He felt shame. He hated himself. He had loved Martha more than his men, and as a consequence Lavender was now dead, and this was something he would have to carry like a stone in his stomach for the rest of the war” (632). He burns her letters and photographs and plans to dispose of the pebble. He then decides that he will be more productive because “his obligation was not to be loved but to lead. He would dispense with love; it was not now a factor” (636). He spends a paragraph explaining how he isn’t going to be distracted anymore but he’s going to take charge and his men are going to “police up their act…keep it together, and maintain it neatly and in good working order” (636). Their purpose in Vietnam only begins to be shaped when he has destroyed his emotional attachment to another reality: “Heretofore, when he thought about Martha, it would be only to think that she belonged elsewhere. He would shut down the daydreams. This was not Mount Sebastian, it was another world, where there were no pretty poems or midterm exams, a place where men died because of carelessness and gross stupidity” (636).

This interpretation can be deconstructed by the text itself. Cross’ men are already numb throughout most of the story. O’Brien spends an entire paragraph discussing the futility of their day-to-day activities under the leadership of the love struck Cross: “The moved like mules. By daylight they took sniper fire, at night they were mortared, but it was not battle, it was just the endless march, village to village, without purpose, nothing won or lost. They marched for the sake of the march. They plodded along slowly, dumbly, leaning forward against the heat, unthinking…no volition, no will…They searched the villages without knowing what to look for, not caring, kicking over jars of rice, frisking children and old men, blowing tunnels, sometimes setting fires and sometimes not, then forming up and moving on to the next village, then other villages, where it would always be the same” (631). They also work extremely hard to block all emotions: “They were afraid of dying but they were even more afraid to show it. They found jokes to tell. They used a hard vocabulary to contain the terrible softness. Greased they’d say. Offed, lit up, zapped while zipping. It wasn’t cruelty, just stage presence. They were actors. When someone died, it wasn’t quite dying, because in a curious way it seemed scripted…and because they called it by other names, as if to encyst and destroy the reality of death itself” (634). They have completely blocked love and emotional attachments and yet they are still not productive. Lavender is a perfect example of this: “They told stories about Ted Lavender’s supply of tranquilizers, how the poor guy didn’t feel a thing, how incredibly tranquil he was” (634). He is symbolic of being numb to all feeling and yet he is killed during the war. Cross also stands as an opposition to this interpretation. Even after burning the letters and photos, he is haunted by the memory of Martha: “He realized it was only a gesture. Stupid, he thought…Besides, the letters were in his head. And even now, without photographs, Lieutenant Cross could see Martha playing volley ball in her white gym shorts and yellow T-shirt. He could see her moving in the rain…He hated her. Yes, he did. He hated her. Love, too, but it was a hard, hating kind of love” (635-6). He is still distracted by her whether his feelings towards her are positive or negative.

Prompts for Deconstruction and "The Things They Carried"

One of the most important things deconstruction can do is remind us to be skeptical of "accepted" or "acceptable" interpretations of literature. Most texts have been analyzed and discussed to the point that there are a few generally accepted, or canonized, interpretations (these are the kinds of standard interpretations you can find on websites like Wikipedia and Sparknotes). Deconstruction does not assert that these are necessarily bad, or inaccurate, interpretations; rather, it reminds us that they, like all interpretations, are ultimately unreliable and have only been given prominence, or privilege, by the ideology of the culture that produced them.

As a literary critic, you will always have ideas about what a text means and the truths it contains; indeed, this is why most of us read literature in the first place - to discover some truth about ourselves or about the world. The value of deconstruction, however, is that it shines a light on the circumstances that lead us to find truth in a text and teaches us what ideology is shaping our truth-seeking and truth-making. It tells us much more about ourselves and our culture than about the text we are reading. Some students do not like deconstruction because they feel as though it invalidates their responses, and I suppose it does in a way, but I prefer to think of it as a tool to understanding our responses. Knowing that what I see in a text is in fact created by me--by the play of signifiers that are uniquely mine, by differance, and by the ideologies I favor--does not make me value them less; in fact, it helps me understand them more. Socrates said that "the unexamined life is not worth living," and for me, deconstruction asserts that the unexamined interpretation of text is not worth possessing or believing in.

I would like your response to "The Things They Carried" to be two paragraphs long. The first paragraph should be a close reading and interpretation of the story. Look for what you think is its main theme, and use supporting details from the text to illustrate that theme. You will probably find many themes in the story, and you can discuss these, but try to distill these into a single interpretation, the one you feel most comfortable with. Your interpretation will be rather New Critical in this way.

Your second paragraph will be a deconstruction of this interpretation, or rather, an explanation of how "The Things They Carried" itself deconstructs this interpretation; you will demonstrate this by finding textual examples that do not agree with, or live up to, the interpretation that seems to be favored. As part of this analysis, you might look at the binary opposites that exist in the text and decide which are favored, or given privilege, but then show how other parts of the text do not favor those same opposites. If your first paragraph is a decision about what O'Brien is doing in "The Things They Carried," then your second paragraph is a discussion about how the text undermines what he is doing and ultimately proves that the meaning of the story is ultimately undecidable. You might also discuss how this process of deconstruction helps you understand the ideology that helped to create the text.

Have fun with this! Enjoy your spring break, and I will see you on Tuesday.

Birdland = Disjunctive Structure

The story Birdland falls into the narrative category of Disjunctive structure. By definition from our text this means that the story must involve travel, movement arrivals and departure. This story is full of that. The parrots are a prime example of this in their migration to Elbow from Rhode island and back. They arrive and they depart in this repeated fashion.

The Blond traveling from New Hampshire to Elbow is another example of the Disjunctive structure, and she even departs at the end of the story, only to return once again. She travels as she follows the parrots around Elbow.

The football season, always arriving each year with renewed hopes of conquest and departing at the end of the season fits this structure as well. As you can see, this entire story is structured in this fashion, and it makes it easy for the author to keep the story rolling. I sure hope that I understand this structure correctly. It would seem that the Disjunctive would be the no brainer option.

The Mythos of Spring in “Birdland”

Although most of “Birdland” occurs during the literal season of fall and although its tone is often satirical, almost pushing it into Frye’s mythos of winter, by the end of the story, “Birdland” fits into the mythos of spring. Before the spring, in the winter (Frye’s winter) of “Birdland,” parrots repeat racist epithets; the people of Elbow live for Alabama’s Crimson Tide and pine for its glory days; Raymond repeatedly asks The Blond to marry him, and she refuses; and The Blond has applied for a government grant, which, if she receives it, will take her away from Elbow. The culmination of this winter comes when The Blond informs Raymond that she is pregnant, then leaves him. And if the story had ended there, Raymond alone with his “melancholy peanut butter sandwich” (18), “Birdland” would have remained in the mythos of winter. But spring comes: The Blond returns, and everyone lives more or less happily ever after.

Birdland

I felt that there was some kind of organizing structure that had to do with looking to the past to define the future. Several of the characters seem to follow this structure. Mayor Dillard and Lookout Mountain Coley look to their past to maintain their friendship. Lookout “will not run against his friend…Too much has passed between them” (19). Mayor Dillard continues to stake Dillard Does It Better signs all over the little town each election term. Driven by his superstitions, “he visits each of his constituents in person, bribes us with hard cider and the promise of a brighter future here in Elbow” despite the fact that he runs unopposed as he has for the last eleven terms. He simply continues to do what he has always done.

Similarly, much of the town’s future is based on the past of its football team. The entire town comes together to watch every football game at Dillard’s Country Store. They get very worked up over it. They live in the glory days of the “great Bear Bryant” and “Lookout’s punt return”. The narrator wishes he could “call all the broadcasters in New Jersey who have forgotten how great we used to be, how we won a dozen National Championships, how Alabama lost only six games in the first ten years of my life” (13). The story has more of a happy tone at the end, mirroring the hope the town has when their team starts winning again. The success of the football team defines the future of the town.

Archibald, the original bird-keeper, follows this structure as well. We find out that when he died, he “was deep in Alzheimer’s by the time of his death and was unable even to recognize his own children when they visited” (8). I find it interesting that because he no longer had a past, he couldn’t have a future.

The Blonde’s character is a little different but she still follows the basic structure. She wants to return to New Hampshire. She tells the narrator (Raymond) several times that she can’t stay in Elbow with him (“‘This is not my baby,’ she says. ‘This is not my life.’” (17)). Elbow is not her past so it cannot be her future. Eventually, Elbow does become a part of her past, especially once she becomes pregnant. Like the narrator said, “You can get used to anything, given time” (9). Now her past consists of both Elbow and New Hampshire and both influence her future: “We have reached an acceptable compromise: spring in Rhode Island, fall back here” (19).

Prompts for "Birdland"

I hope you are enjoying "Birdland." Here are the prompts for Tuesday.

1. Remember that for structuralist critics, people, animals, names, places, and events are all surface phenomena, or parole, that represent invisible organizing structure(s), or langue. What organizing structures lie behind the surface phenomena in "Birdland"?

2. Jonathan Culler would argue that the way you interpret "Birdland"--indeed any text--is determined by the langue, or underlying structure, of interpretation that you have learned. What rules or codes of interpretation influence the way you make meaning when reading Knight's story? To answer this well, you should not be analyzing the story itself, but rather the system, or structure of analysis, the rules and guidelines, that dictate your interpretation.

3. Which of Northrop Frye's mythoi does "Birdland" correspond to? Use specifics from the text in your answers.

4. Which of Greimas's plot types are carried out by the actants in "Birdland"? What is the "grammar" of the story? Be specific in your answer.

5. What is the narrative structure of "Birdland"? Contractual? Performative? Disjunctive? Again, please use specifics.

6. Using either Frye's or Schole's Fictional Modes, discuss the character types in "Birdland." You might also want to address the power of the protagonist.

Thank you. I appreciate your good efforts on these responses. Just give one of them a shot, and we will try to illuminate structuralism more fully on Tuesday.

Midterm Exam, Etc.

In case you were not in class this past week, here is what you need to know:

• The midterm is in the Testing Center. You can take it at any time between now and Monday, but you will have to pay a fee if you take it on Monday.
• You can take in photocopies of the stories and poems, but you cannot take in Critical Theory Today or any notes.
• We do not have class today, 3/4. Focus on taking the midterm and on reading your book for the independent reading assignment.
• We are having a peer review in class on Tuesday, 3/9. This is an optional peer review, but it is a good chance to get some feedback on your first essay, which is due on 3/16.
• We will be talking about Structuralism next Thursday, 3/11, and the following Tuesday, 3/16. Our discussion of Deconstruction will begin after Spring Break.

Thank you, and I will see you on Tuesday for peer review.