Claims re: The former society is gone, its customs no longer relevant (1)
Posted July 31, 2011 at Teachnology
Although the commenter Anne insists repeatedly that Ann and Loomis are NOT the last people (despite all evidence to the contrary), she nevertheless makes a couple of good points about social collapse:
1. Ann and Loomis must TOGETHER decide on the values of their own society:
.”..it is important for the students to realize that things we take as ‘given’ in our society are not the same everywhere. For Ann and Mr Loomis, there is no social framework. They need to sort this issue out
by themselves. The second half of the novel deals with the conflict that arises when their two sets of values collide.” (Post 165)
Yes, they need to work out a social contract TOGETHER—NOT through either Loomis or Ann deciding unilaterally what their relationship should be. When Loomis tries to sleep with Ann, he acts unreasonably because Ann has NOT indicated clearly she is ready. However, they HAVE already talked about starting a colony together, so it is likely Loomis assumes she accepts they will sleep together at some point. He has also TRIED to get her to talk openly about their relationship, but she has behaved shyly and pretended not to understand him.
When Ann runs away and thinks they will have to share the valley without being friends, leaving each other “entirely alone” (183), she is being at least equally unreasonable and impractical. She thinks this plan of hers is “a compromise,” but she clearly doesn’t know the meaning of the word because she allows no input from Loomis. The closest she comes to a real compromise is 2 weeks later, when she considers offering him friendship again by talking with him at a distance sometimes—actually TALKING to him! Repeatedly in the story, Ann thinks she is the only one who needs to make decisions.
As for the two “sets of values” the commenter Anne refers to, she is not clear here exactly what she means, but it is not too hard to imagine based on her other posts and the list she gives of silly discussion points for planning a colony, including: “personal desire, or otherwise, for children”; “benefit to society generally in having children”; “pleasure of sex”; and “frustration of abstinence.” All these points look like ones Anne would consider to be Loomis’s concerns only, since she is under the delusion that Loomis is a sex maniac and Ann doesn’t want any children.
All these points are irrelevant because: (1) they both want children; (2) they HAVE TO have children to “keep [humanity] from dying,” which they both care about (96); (3) the social benefits of children are self-evident, and there can be no society without them (making this point a non-issue); and (4) the issues of enjoying sex or abstaining never arise (but a more relevant topic would be the problem of Ann’s sexual repression!).
2. It is NOT relevant to judge characters' morality as if a functioning society still existed:
While discussing Loomis’s blameworthiness for killing Edward, Anne states:
If rescue forces had arrived at the end of 2 weeks and found Edward dead, I think Mr Loomis would have been charged with murder. They didn’t- and in the absence of any legal system- it’s a moot point. Is he morally culpable? (Post 143)
As Anne says, it’s a moot point that Loomis may have been charged with murder. But it is particularly moot because the chances of rescue forces or any such conviction are zero. In the event of a full-scale nuclear war, it’s very likely “game over” for the planet. Loomis knew right after the war that they would need to remain in their shelter until radiation levels outside might decrease enough for it to be safe to go out. Moreover, he knew that if radiation levels did not decrease enough, their ONE safe-suit would be the ONLY means to contact people in other shelters and, ultimately, to survive at all. There is no suggestion that either he or Edward ever imagined rescue possible. Who could rescue them when they
had the ONLY means to travel outside safely? Rescue them how? By taking them from one of the only safe shelters?
In terms of the situation after social collapse, the important point Anne makes is that a society’s laws are moot without any legal system to enforce them. Again, as she says in Post 165, morality and laws in any new society must depend on what Ann AND Loomis agree on.
3. Incorrect assumptions about effects of social collapse:
Anne also makes a couple of points about the post-war situation that are incorrect. She chooses two of the protagonist’s statements about her increased fear of Loomis in the absence of any protecting society:
“It is one thing to hope for someone to come when things are civilized, when there are other people around, too. But when there is nobody else, then the whole idea changes” (36).
“It is different when there is no one else present, no one to turn to or tell about it” (161).
3-A: People’s personal values are more important than government control:
Both of these quotes are actually instances when the reader should QUESTION Ann’s views, but I’ll discuss that issue separately (Posts 207-214). Anne argues that when society is gone, nothing prevents people from using force to get what they want. This is not true. People don’t generally transform into sociopaths when there’s a social breakdown. What mainly determines behavior is individual character and values, NOT Big Brother watching—unless one lives in an oppressive totalitarian state, perhaps. Since most people are not sociopathic, the odds of running into a vicious person even after social collapse are quite small, and Loomis is quite evidently NOT that sort of person. Partly for this reason, Ann’s fear of him in the beginning is unreasonable.
3-B: It would be unreasonable for Ann to expect brutality common in other wars:
In Post 141, Anne argues that the protagonist is NOT paranoid to hide in the hills when Loomis arrives because hiding in the hills is common in wartime. As proof of the sense of this behavior, she makes a general reference to historical incidents of “rape, murder, mutilation, enslavement, genocide, pillage and theft in times of war,” explaining them as the result of “the power vacuum” which “allows free
rein to humanity’s capacity for brutality.” She also says examples of this kind of violence are given in the story in references to “food riots” near a radio station and “a fight outside the Air Force base.”
Okay, let’s consider these points. First, all the cases of violence that Anne refers to in history involved conventional warfare with soldiers fighting amongst civilians, often while invading other countries. In recent times, brutality has sometimes resulted from conflict over territory between different ethnic groups (e.g., the Balkan War and Rwanda). A history of prejudice and ethnic conflict played an important part. In the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, brutality has resulted from invasions that caused massive civilian casualties, naturally provoking hatred, revenge attacks, and savage resistance against invading
forces. Moreover, civil war resulted between different Muslim groups in Iraq (Sunnis vs. Shiites), and between rival warlords in Afghanistan (e.g., Taliban vs. Northern Alliance gangsters). Further, much brutality by Muslim forces towards their own people is not a result of war but of power being in the hands of warlords and their followers (generally not very democratic or humane people) who are also religious extremists.
Ann’s situation is obviously very different. She lives in the aftermath of a nuclear war which she
suspects has wiped out everyone else on the planet, so she is probably “the only person left in the world” (5). Therefore, she has no reason to fear roving bands of soldiers bent on pillaging, rapine, or ethnic cleansing, and she never imagines this kind of threat.
3-C: “Food riots” and “a fight outside an Air Base”:
What about the examples Anne gives from the story describing “food riots” and “a fight outside an Air Base”? First, Anne’s expression “food riots” is a great exaggeration, suggesting large groups of people protesting, but the broadcaster said “there were only a few people left where he was” (6). So it would be more accurate to say “a few people fighting over remaining scraps of uncontaminated food.”
Second, these instances in the story of violence in wartime involved people fighting desperately for personal survival in the aftermath of nuclear war, NOT “giving free rein to their...brutality” because
of a power vacuum, wantonly engaging in “rape, murder, mutilation, enslavement, genocide, pillage and theft”! The people at the radio station were probably fighting over a meager supply of food and water and facing inevitable death, and the people at the Air Base were trying desperately to break into an
underground shelter to escape radiation and germ weapons.
These examples are NOT relevant to Ann’s situation in Burden Valley. The valley is probably large enough to support the population of a small town if resources were managed carefully, so nobody would need to kill Ann in order to survive there.
Of course, Anne and like-minded readers can argue that male survivors coming to the valley might still want to rape the protagonist. But the violence in the story that Anne cites has nothing to do
with men giving free rein to their sexual urges. And this just brings us back to the earlier point that ordinary civilians don’t generally become vicious and sociopathic just because there isn’t an authority around to impose laws. It is more reasonable to expect that a surviving man would want a willing
companion rather than a female slave! The test of this is simply to ask yourself, “Would I rape or kill freely if there were no one to stop me?” If the commenter Anne assumes people are only held in check by the existence of laws and police, perhaps it is a measure of HER OWN need for such controls or distrust of men.
Conclusion: Ann doesn’t have any good reason to fear. Rather, she should think as she did before: she should hope that a man will come who can be a companion and have a family with her. As she realizes again when Loomis gets sick (45), the alternative is to be alone all her life and continue in her role as the “scribe and confessor” of humanity (96).
3-D: The democratic character of small vs. large groups:
In Post 128, Anne also makes the completely illogical claim that large and diverse groups tend to be more democratic, whereas in smaller groups “It starts degenerating into a power play.” This is absurd. The possession of power has an equally important role in groups of ANY size. The fairness of a society is not determined by its size! If anything, the relationship between size and justness works the other way, since it is harder for individuals to participate equally and get fair treatment the larger the society is.
It seems to me that a society’s particular organization and laws depend first on the interests and values of those with power. Secondly, over a long period of time, pressures from interest groups and popular protests bring about gradual changes to laws and customs. Sometimes a government ruthlessly crushes protests for democracy (as recently in Saudi Arabia and Bahrain). Sometimes powerful interest groups (e.g., corporations) have a corrupting effect instead of a positive one. On the other hand, sometimes protests bring gradual positive changes, such as ending child labor, extending women the right to vote, improving labor and environmental laws, and increasing civil rights. But such progress is difficult, ongoing, and always in danger of setbacks.
Anne’s idea that equity tends to decrease in smaller groups is something she probably just rationalized to try to justify Ann’s fear of Loomis—on the absurd assumption that there’s more danger of injustice and abuse of power in a small group of 2 people than there is in a large society. The truth is the opposite! The fewer people there are, the more power each person has in determining the organization and rules of society. In the Burden Valley society of Ann and Loomis, for instance, Ann has far more power than she ever had in her family or in the society before the war. The proof is that when she tells Loomis it’s not too late to plant corn, he accepts her explanation; and when she tells him they have to live separately, he says, “I have no choice” (190). She has the power to force his acceptance of demands. Unfortunately, she abuses it by being extreme instead of working out a reasonable compromise.
1. Ann and Loomis must TOGETHER decide on the values of their own society:
.”..it is important for the students to realize that things we take as ‘given’ in our society are not the same everywhere. For Ann and Mr Loomis, there is no social framework. They need to sort this issue out
by themselves. The second half of the novel deals with the conflict that arises when their two sets of values collide.” (Post 165)
Yes, they need to work out a social contract TOGETHER—NOT through either Loomis or Ann deciding unilaterally what their relationship should be. When Loomis tries to sleep with Ann, he acts unreasonably because Ann has NOT indicated clearly she is ready. However, they HAVE already talked about starting a colony together, so it is likely Loomis assumes she accepts they will sleep together at some point. He has also TRIED to get her to talk openly about their relationship, but she has behaved shyly and pretended not to understand him.
When Ann runs away and thinks they will have to share the valley without being friends, leaving each other “entirely alone” (183), she is being at least equally unreasonable and impractical. She thinks this plan of hers is “a compromise,” but she clearly doesn’t know the meaning of the word because she allows no input from Loomis. The closest she comes to a real compromise is 2 weeks later, when she considers offering him friendship again by talking with him at a distance sometimes—actually TALKING to him! Repeatedly in the story, Ann thinks she is the only one who needs to make decisions.
As for the two “sets of values” the commenter Anne refers to, she is not clear here exactly what she means, but it is not too hard to imagine based on her other posts and the list she gives of silly discussion points for planning a colony, including: “personal desire, or otherwise, for children”; “benefit to society generally in having children”; “pleasure of sex”; and “frustration of abstinence.” All these points look like ones Anne would consider to be Loomis’s concerns only, since she is under the delusion that Loomis is a sex maniac and Ann doesn’t want any children.
All these points are irrelevant because: (1) they both want children; (2) they HAVE TO have children to “keep [humanity] from dying,” which they both care about (96); (3) the social benefits of children are self-evident, and there can be no society without them (making this point a non-issue); and (4) the issues of enjoying sex or abstaining never arise (but a more relevant topic would be the problem of Ann’s sexual repression!).
2. It is NOT relevant to judge characters' morality as if a functioning society still existed:
While discussing Loomis’s blameworthiness for killing Edward, Anne states:
If rescue forces had arrived at the end of 2 weeks and found Edward dead, I think Mr Loomis would have been charged with murder. They didn’t- and in the absence of any legal system- it’s a moot point. Is he morally culpable? (Post 143)
As Anne says, it’s a moot point that Loomis may have been charged with murder. But it is particularly moot because the chances of rescue forces or any such conviction are zero. In the event of a full-scale nuclear war, it’s very likely “game over” for the planet. Loomis knew right after the war that they would need to remain in their shelter until radiation levels outside might decrease enough for it to be safe to go out. Moreover, he knew that if radiation levels did not decrease enough, their ONE safe-suit would be the ONLY means to contact people in other shelters and, ultimately, to survive at all. There is no suggestion that either he or Edward ever imagined rescue possible. Who could rescue them when they
had the ONLY means to travel outside safely? Rescue them how? By taking them from one of the only safe shelters?
In terms of the situation after social collapse, the important point Anne makes is that a society’s laws are moot without any legal system to enforce them. Again, as she says in Post 165, morality and laws in any new society must depend on what Ann AND Loomis agree on.
3. Incorrect assumptions about effects of social collapse:
Anne also makes a couple of points about the post-war situation that are incorrect. She chooses two of the protagonist’s statements about her increased fear of Loomis in the absence of any protecting society:
“It is one thing to hope for someone to come when things are civilized, when there are other people around, too. But when there is nobody else, then the whole idea changes” (36).
“It is different when there is no one else present, no one to turn to or tell about it” (161).
3-A: People’s personal values are more important than government control:
Both of these quotes are actually instances when the reader should QUESTION Ann’s views, but I’ll discuss that issue separately (Posts 207-214). Anne argues that when society is gone, nothing prevents people from using force to get what they want. This is not true. People don’t generally transform into sociopaths when there’s a social breakdown. What mainly determines behavior is individual character and values, NOT Big Brother watching—unless one lives in an oppressive totalitarian state, perhaps. Since most people are not sociopathic, the odds of running into a vicious person even after social collapse are quite small, and Loomis is quite evidently NOT that sort of person. Partly for this reason, Ann’s fear of him in the beginning is unreasonable.
3-B: It would be unreasonable for Ann to expect brutality common in other wars:
In Post 141, Anne argues that the protagonist is NOT paranoid to hide in the hills when Loomis arrives because hiding in the hills is common in wartime. As proof of the sense of this behavior, she makes a general reference to historical incidents of “rape, murder, mutilation, enslavement, genocide, pillage and theft in times of war,” explaining them as the result of “the power vacuum” which “allows free
rein to humanity’s capacity for brutality.” She also says examples of this kind of violence are given in the story in references to “food riots” near a radio station and “a fight outside the Air Force base.”
Okay, let’s consider these points. First, all the cases of violence that Anne refers to in history involved conventional warfare with soldiers fighting amongst civilians, often while invading other countries. In recent times, brutality has sometimes resulted from conflict over territory between different ethnic groups (e.g., the Balkan War and Rwanda). A history of prejudice and ethnic conflict played an important part. In the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, brutality has resulted from invasions that caused massive civilian casualties, naturally provoking hatred, revenge attacks, and savage resistance against invading
forces. Moreover, civil war resulted between different Muslim groups in Iraq (Sunnis vs. Shiites), and between rival warlords in Afghanistan (e.g., Taliban vs. Northern Alliance gangsters). Further, much brutality by Muslim forces towards their own people is not a result of war but of power being in the hands of warlords and their followers (generally not very democratic or humane people) who are also religious extremists.
Ann’s situation is obviously very different. She lives in the aftermath of a nuclear war which she
suspects has wiped out everyone else on the planet, so she is probably “the only person left in the world” (5). Therefore, she has no reason to fear roving bands of soldiers bent on pillaging, rapine, or ethnic cleansing, and she never imagines this kind of threat.
3-C: “Food riots” and “a fight outside an Air Base”:
What about the examples Anne gives from the story describing “food riots” and “a fight outside an Air Base”? First, Anne’s expression “food riots” is a great exaggeration, suggesting large groups of people protesting, but the broadcaster said “there were only a few people left where he was” (6). So it would be more accurate to say “a few people fighting over remaining scraps of uncontaminated food.”
Second, these instances in the story of violence in wartime involved people fighting desperately for personal survival in the aftermath of nuclear war, NOT “giving free rein to their...brutality” because
of a power vacuum, wantonly engaging in “rape, murder, mutilation, enslavement, genocide, pillage and theft”! The people at the radio station were probably fighting over a meager supply of food and water and facing inevitable death, and the people at the Air Base were trying desperately to break into an
underground shelter to escape radiation and germ weapons.
These examples are NOT relevant to Ann’s situation in Burden Valley. The valley is probably large enough to support the population of a small town if resources were managed carefully, so nobody would need to kill Ann in order to survive there.
Of course, Anne and like-minded readers can argue that male survivors coming to the valley might still want to rape the protagonist. But the violence in the story that Anne cites has nothing to do
with men giving free rein to their sexual urges. And this just brings us back to the earlier point that ordinary civilians don’t generally become vicious and sociopathic just because there isn’t an authority around to impose laws. It is more reasonable to expect that a surviving man would want a willing
companion rather than a female slave! The test of this is simply to ask yourself, “Would I rape or kill freely if there were no one to stop me?” If the commenter Anne assumes people are only held in check by the existence of laws and police, perhaps it is a measure of HER OWN need for such controls or distrust of men.
Conclusion: Ann doesn’t have any good reason to fear. Rather, she should think as she did before: she should hope that a man will come who can be a companion and have a family with her. As she realizes again when Loomis gets sick (45), the alternative is to be alone all her life and continue in her role as the “scribe and confessor” of humanity (96).
3-D: The democratic character of small vs. large groups:
In Post 128, Anne also makes the completely illogical claim that large and diverse groups tend to be more democratic, whereas in smaller groups “It starts degenerating into a power play.” This is absurd. The possession of power has an equally important role in groups of ANY size. The fairness of a society is not determined by its size! If anything, the relationship between size and justness works the other way, since it is harder for individuals to participate equally and get fair treatment the larger the society is.
It seems to me that a society’s particular organization and laws depend first on the interests and values of those with power. Secondly, over a long period of time, pressures from interest groups and popular protests bring about gradual changes to laws and customs. Sometimes a government ruthlessly crushes protests for democracy (as recently in Saudi Arabia and Bahrain). Sometimes powerful interest groups (e.g., corporations) have a corrupting effect instead of a positive one. On the other hand, sometimes protests bring gradual positive changes, such as ending child labor, extending women the right to vote, improving labor and environmental laws, and increasing civil rights. But such progress is difficult, ongoing, and always in danger of setbacks.
Anne’s idea that equity tends to decrease in smaller groups is something she probably just rationalized to try to justify Ann’s fear of Loomis—on the absurd assumption that there’s more danger of injustice and abuse of power in a small group of 2 people than there is in a large society. The truth is the opposite! The fewer people there are, the more power each person has in determining the organization and rules of society. In the Burden Valley society of Ann and Loomis, for instance, Ann has far more power than she ever had in her family or in the society before the war. The proof is that when she tells Loomis it’s not too late to plant corn, he accepts her explanation; and when she tells him they have to live separately, he says, “I have no choice” (190). She has the power to force his acceptance of demands. Unfortunately, she abuses it by being extreme instead of working out a reasonable compromise.
Responses to the blogger Anne's posts in order (1)
Posted August 3, 2011 at Teachnology
The following posts are specific responses to posts by the commenter Anne--generally in the order of her posts.
As shown above (in my Posts 172-185), there are 3 basic facts about the story: (1) Burden Valley is probably the last habitable place; (2) Ann and Loomis are probably the last two humans; and (3) they have the responsibility (or burden), of continuing the human race.
Given these facts, it is not helpful to students’ understanding of the story if, as the commenter Anne suggests (in Posts 120-127), they focus largely on topics such as survival skills, life without modern conveniences, and details of forward planning, or if they are asked to list mundane daily activities (“Wash dishes...Brush teeth...”) and research what chickens eat!!
The most relevant topic Anne suggests is “Decision making, negotiation, and conflict resolution,” but she places it last and mainly suggests more activities that have little relevance to the story. After encountering in this forum so much opposition (often quite hostile) to well-supported assertions about the theme and the protagonist, it’s clear that "forward planning” is definitely NOT “the hardest topic.” Much harder and more important topics are the story’s fallible narrator and its theme that the failure of people to understand and cooperate with one another threatens the survival of our species.
The central question put forward by the speaker of Millay’s poem “Epitaph for the Race of Man” is, “What will finally cause the human race to lose its struggle to survive?” The speaker addresses the Earth, asking, “What wonders must you not relate to me / Of Man” (Sonnet IV)?
After recounting examples of humanity’s struggle to survive volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, and floods, the speaker expresses the view that such disasters were actually beneficial for Man (humanity), “For then it was, his neighbor was his friend, / ...Defiance faltered, and derision slept” (Sonnet XI). According to the speaker, natural disasters provoked people to HELP one another, one of the ways the poem suggests the importance of companionship.
The speaker finally laments that the cause of humanity’s end was (or will be) conflict motivated by “greed” (self-interest), which causes reason to be overthrown by passion:
You shall achieve destruction where you stand,
In intimate conflict, at your brother’s hand.
Alas for Man, so stealthily betrayed,
Bearing the bad cell in him from the start,
Pumping and feeding from his healthy heart
That wild disorder never to be stayed
When once established, destined to invade
With angry hordes the true and proper part,
Till Reason joggles in the headman’s cart,
And Mania spits from every balustrade.
Would he had searched his closet for his bane,
Where lurked the trusted ancient of his soul,
Obsequious Greed, and seen that visage plain...
(Sonnet XV-XVI)
The protagonist Ann Burden praises Millay’s poem as “one of [her] favorites” (96), and she identifies herself personally with the poem’s speaker, “the scribe and confessor” who describes humanity’s history and final end. This poem is clearly central to the meaning of Z for Zachariah, so students should study it before reading the story. It provides a perfect introduction to the exact topic (the end of humanity) and the theme (what most threatens human survival), which should both be focused on to understand the story.
As shown above (in my Posts 172-185), there are 3 basic facts about the story: (1) Burden Valley is probably the last habitable place; (2) Ann and Loomis are probably the last two humans; and (3) they have the responsibility (or burden), of continuing the human race.
Given these facts, it is not helpful to students’ understanding of the story if, as the commenter Anne suggests (in Posts 120-127), they focus largely on topics such as survival skills, life without modern conveniences, and details of forward planning, or if they are asked to list mundane daily activities (“Wash dishes...Brush teeth...”) and research what chickens eat!!
The most relevant topic Anne suggests is “Decision making, negotiation, and conflict resolution,” but she places it last and mainly suggests more activities that have little relevance to the story. After encountering in this forum so much opposition (often quite hostile) to well-supported assertions about the theme and the protagonist, it’s clear that "forward planning” is definitely NOT “the hardest topic.” Much harder and more important topics are the story’s fallible narrator and its theme that the failure of people to understand and cooperate with one another threatens the survival of our species.
The central question put forward by the speaker of Millay’s poem “Epitaph for the Race of Man” is, “What will finally cause the human race to lose its struggle to survive?” The speaker addresses the Earth, asking, “What wonders must you not relate to me / Of Man” (Sonnet IV)?
After recounting examples of humanity’s struggle to survive volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, and floods, the speaker expresses the view that such disasters were actually beneficial for Man (humanity), “For then it was, his neighbor was his friend, / ...Defiance faltered, and derision slept” (Sonnet XI). According to the speaker, natural disasters provoked people to HELP one another, one of the ways the poem suggests the importance of companionship.
The speaker finally laments that the cause of humanity’s end was (or will be) conflict motivated by “greed” (self-interest), which causes reason to be overthrown by passion:
You shall achieve destruction where you stand,
In intimate conflict, at your brother’s hand.
Alas for Man, so stealthily betrayed,
Bearing the bad cell in him from the start,
Pumping and feeding from his healthy heart
That wild disorder never to be stayed
When once established, destined to invade
With angry hordes the true and proper part,
Till Reason joggles in the headman’s cart,
And Mania spits from every balustrade.
Would he had searched his closet for his bane,
Where lurked the trusted ancient of his soul,
Obsequious Greed, and seen that visage plain...
(Sonnet XV-XVI)
The protagonist Ann Burden praises Millay’s poem as “one of [her] favorites” (96), and she identifies herself personally with the poem’s speaker, “the scribe and confessor” who describes humanity’s history and final end. This poem is clearly central to the meaning of Z for Zachariah, so students should study it before reading the story. It provides a perfect introduction to the exact topic (the end of humanity) and the theme (what most threatens human survival), which should both be focused on to understand the story.
Anne's Posts 124-127: Mostly irrelevant and misinterpreted details
Posted August 3, 2011 at Teachnology
In Posts 124-127, Anne makes two relevant points about Burden Valley but doesn’t understand their significance: “She [Ann] starts planning for a life where she is entirely dependent on the resources in the valley. Burden Valley is, in essence, [a] small eco-system” (Post 124).
1. Ann is “entirely dependent” on the valley...but also NOT?
Yes, the protagonist Ann is “entirely dependent” on Burden Valley—because it is the last known habitable place and very likely the ONLY habitable place left. This makes it essential for Ann to stay there and try to build a new society with Loomis, like the crows stay and have chicks. The commenter Anne doesn’t recognize this, so she elsewhere claims contradictorily (based on bird signs and pure supposition) that the valley is NOT the last habitable place (Post 136). So she accepts the protagonist’s delusions at the end, believing that Ann’s choice to leave the valley is reasonable rather than insane folly.
2. The valley is a small ecosystem:
The fact that the valley is a small ecosystem is important because it is literally AND symbolically “the world”: it is the last possible living environment on Earth, and it represents the world in small. It is a microcosm of our world. Thus, the society Ann and Loomis must build together within the valley represents the global society that we need to build through the cooperation of the different countries of the world. The commenter Anne doesn’t recognize this significance of the valley because of focusing on the protagonist Ann’s personal difficulties and struggle for survival, and wanting to believe as Ann does that she does not need to cooperate with Loomis and share the valley. This attitude of the protagonist’s at the end of the story should be likened to that of people thinking they can just leave the world if they don’t want to share it with others, or, alternatively, rid the world of the ones they don’t want to live with (like the societies that destroyed each other in the story's background!). Of course, as the story suggests, trying to just wipe out enemies is not really an option if humanity is to survive.
3. Technical details and cost-benefit analysis:
In Posts 124-127 under the heading “Forward planning activities,” the commenter Anne focuses on fairly trivial details of cost-benefit analysis concerning practical decisions (Post 124-127), such as why cutting wood is a priority and whether it’s better to plant corn or wheat. Anne recommends projects such as researching how Ann could mill flour, get sugar from beets, preserve meat, or manage the supply of matches and candles.
I agree it can be interesting to research one or two kinds of technology (e.g., milling flour, building a generator, or making sugar), but such topics are not really important for understanding the story
because there’s no indication they are. They are just interesting footnotes, at best.
Later, in Post 148, Anne claims that Loomis is wrong to push Ann to plant wheat as well as corn, arguing that this is one example of Loomis trying to take charge even though he lacks Ann’s expertise at farming. The problem is that the protagonist Ann AGREES with Loomis that it’s important to plant wheat to ensure it doesn’t die out as a species, whereas the commenter Anne just IGNORES the risk of species loss! This is an example of how the beliefs of a reader (Anne) are completely at odds with those of the characters in the story, including the protagonist she identifies with. Very likely, Anne the reader isn’t concerned about species loss in doing cost-benefit analysis because of her comfortable but misguided assumption that Burden Valley is NOT the last habitable place.
One of the main problems with Anne’s approach to the story is that she focuses on particular story details (e.g., Ann’s choice to plant corn, not wheat), then makes assumptions that are NOT supported
by the text (e.g., Loomis is wrong to insist on planting wheat) in order to justify her critical opinion of Loomis (i.e., He’s just a bully and sexual predator, not reasonable and practical). I suspect Anne focuses on tedious details of farm life partly to emphasize Ann’s hard work and that she’s more capable than Loomis of running a farm (despite Ann’s own admission that Loomis is better at planning for the long-term). But Anne grossly misrepresents the facts and makes wholly unsupported assumptions. Also, it is absurd to treat the story as if it were mainly just about Ann’s practical concerns doing daily farm work and trying to survive in the wilderness!!
Another trivial detail Anne focuses on irrelevantly is methods of lighting fires without matches, claiming in Post 127, “Eyeglasses don’t work, despite what Golding wrote” (in his Nobel-winning The Lord of the Flies). However, she is probably wrong about this as well because fire departments commonly warn that bottles and broken glass magnify the sun (see the website of the London Fire Brigade, for example). I have to assume firefighters probably know more about fires.
In relation to the wood supply, Anne asks, “What are the future consequences if Ann and Mr. Loomis live in separate places?” As with many of her suggested questions, there seem to be unstated assumptions—in this case, perhaps the notion that it might be a good idea for them to live separately? Why? As the last two humans, shouldn’t they be a couple, provide each other with companionship, and start a family? Of course, Anne doesn’t make this assumption or even accept that the human race is in danger and these characters are likened to Adam and Eve. In her view, Loomis is just a sexual predator to be kept at a distance; so students should be encouraged to think about the best ways for Ann and Loomis to live separately even though they might be the last humans.
Anne doesn’t explain what she thinks the consequences might be if Ann and Loomis live separately, perhaps because it would obviously be a much less efficient arrangement, increasing their labor
and consumption of resources. Again, I’m reminded of these lines in Ecclesiastes, one of Ann’s favorite books to read in church: "Better two than one alone...how can anyone keep warm alone?” (Eccles. 4:7-12).
1. Ann is “entirely dependent” on the valley...but also NOT?
Yes, the protagonist Ann is “entirely dependent” on Burden Valley—because it is the last known habitable place and very likely the ONLY habitable place left. This makes it essential for Ann to stay there and try to build a new society with Loomis, like the crows stay and have chicks. The commenter Anne doesn’t recognize this, so she elsewhere claims contradictorily (based on bird signs and pure supposition) that the valley is NOT the last habitable place (Post 136). So she accepts the protagonist’s delusions at the end, believing that Ann’s choice to leave the valley is reasonable rather than insane folly.
2. The valley is a small ecosystem:
The fact that the valley is a small ecosystem is important because it is literally AND symbolically “the world”: it is the last possible living environment on Earth, and it represents the world in small. It is a microcosm of our world. Thus, the society Ann and Loomis must build together within the valley represents the global society that we need to build through the cooperation of the different countries of the world. The commenter Anne doesn’t recognize this significance of the valley because of focusing on the protagonist Ann’s personal difficulties and struggle for survival, and wanting to believe as Ann does that she does not need to cooperate with Loomis and share the valley. This attitude of the protagonist’s at the end of the story should be likened to that of people thinking they can just leave the world if they don’t want to share it with others, or, alternatively, rid the world of the ones they don’t want to live with (like the societies that destroyed each other in the story's background!). Of course, as the story suggests, trying to just wipe out enemies is not really an option if humanity is to survive.
3. Technical details and cost-benefit analysis:
In Posts 124-127 under the heading “Forward planning activities,” the commenter Anne focuses on fairly trivial details of cost-benefit analysis concerning practical decisions (Post 124-127), such as why cutting wood is a priority and whether it’s better to plant corn or wheat. Anne recommends projects such as researching how Ann could mill flour, get sugar from beets, preserve meat, or manage the supply of matches and candles.
I agree it can be interesting to research one or two kinds of technology (e.g., milling flour, building a generator, or making sugar), but such topics are not really important for understanding the story
because there’s no indication they are. They are just interesting footnotes, at best.
Later, in Post 148, Anne claims that Loomis is wrong to push Ann to plant wheat as well as corn, arguing that this is one example of Loomis trying to take charge even though he lacks Ann’s expertise at farming. The problem is that the protagonist Ann AGREES with Loomis that it’s important to plant wheat to ensure it doesn’t die out as a species, whereas the commenter Anne just IGNORES the risk of species loss! This is an example of how the beliefs of a reader (Anne) are completely at odds with those of the characters in the story, including the protagonist she identifies with. Very likely, Anne the reader isn’t concerned about species loss in doing cost-benefit analysis because of her comfortable but misguided assumption that Burden Valley is NOT the last habitable place.
One of the main problems with Anne’s approach to the story is that she focuses on particular story details (e.g., Ann’s choice to plant corn, not wheat), then makes assumptions that are NOT supported
by the text (e.g., Loomis is wrong to insist on planting wheat) in order to justify her critical opinion of Loomis (i.e., He’s just a bully and sexual predator, not reasonable and practical). I suspect Anne focuses on tedious details of farm life partly to emphasize Ann’s hard work and that she’s more capable than Loomis of running a farm (despite Ann’s own admission that Loomis is better at planning for the long-term). But Anne grossly misrepresents the facts and makes wholly unsupported assumptions. Also, it is absurd to treat the story as if it were mainly just about Ann’s practical concerns doing daily farm work and trying to survive in the wilderness!!
Another trivial detail Anne focuses on irrelevantly is methods of lighting fires without matches, claiming in Post 127, “Eyeglasses don’t work, despite what Golding wrote” (in his Nobel-winning The Lord of the Flies). However, she is probably wrong about this as well because fire departments commonly warn that bottles and broken glass magnify the sun (see the website of the London Fire Brigade, for example). I have to assume firefighters probably know more about fires.
In relation to the wood supply, Anne asks, “What are the future consequences if Ann and Mr. Loomis live in separate places?” As with many of her suggested questions, there seem to be unstated assumptions—in this case, perhaps the notion that it might be a good idea for them to live separately? Why? As the last two humans, shouldn’t they be a couple, provide each other with companionship, and start a family? Of course, Anne doesn’t make this assumption or even accept that the human race is in danger and these characters are likened to Adam and Eve. In her view, Loomis is just a sexual predator to be kept at a distance; so students should be encouraged to think about the best ways for Ann and Loomis to live separately even though they might be the last humans.
Anne doesn’t explain what she thinks the consequences might be if Ann and Loomis live separately, perhaps because it would obviously be a much less efficient arrangement, increasing their labor
and consumption of resources. Again, I’m reminded of these lines in Ecclesiastes, one of Ann’s favorite books to read in church: "Better two than one alone...how can anyone keep warm alone?” (Eccles. 4:7-12).
General suggestions for teaching
Posted August 3, 2011 at Teachnology
When it comes to choosing aspects of the story to study, it would be a waste of time to focus too much on details such as survival skills and daily farm chores, since this is not Social Studies; and, although such details are necessary to the plot, they are usually not important to the story’s meaning. They are ONLY important when attention is drawn to them by the narrative, as when Ann regrets digging up the garden and neglecting farm work because of hiding from Loomis (obviously impractical), or when Ann
realizes that she cannot survive for long hiding in the wilderness (NOT a practical long-term plan). Similarly, the text draws attention to a disagreement about planting wheat, but this does NOT show that Ann has more expertise. Rather, it shows that Loomis is better at long-term planning because
Ann thinks mainly about what is convenient in the short-term. Although her diary entries show she KNOWS of the need to plant seeds before the ones in the store become infertile, she then illogically ignores this issue in deciding corn is more useful at present (without a way to process wheat).
Also, students should not try to second-guess the characters’ judgments when they BOTH AGREE about something. If the characters DISAGREE, it makes sense to consider carefully who seems more reasonable; but if they AGREE, then their judgment is probably sensible enough. If there were anything questionable about it, it could be a matter the author overlooked (which is therefore unimportant to interpretation), and it wouldn’t matter for evaluating the characters’ reasoning because they’d be equally mistaken.
The main focus should of course be to analyze the plot, characters, and theme.
Since this story makes use of a first-person narrator whose judgments are strongly influenced by her fear of men and inexperience with them, it is a good idea to prepare students by studying the device of the unreliable or fallible narrator. A good way to do this would be to read 1-2 short stories first that have an unreliable narrator and a resulting pattern of ironies.
One posible example is Charlotte Gilman’s “The Yellow Wallpaper.” Like Ann in Z for Zachariah, the narrator is imaginative, seems reasonable most of the time, but is finally shown to be delusional—actually insane. Students’ attention could be drawn to the way the narrator persuades herself that her delusions are real; and the more certain she becomes, the more deluded she is. Ann is similar in the novel, writing first of a worry, then having suspicions or theories, and finally claiming, "I'm sure it's true," even though her her views are entirely supposition. It could also be fruitful to contrast the two narrators and their situations. In Gilman’s story, the narrator is a submissive housewife whose madness seems to be caused by the oppressive control of her physician husband, who always tells her what to think and do; whereas, in the novel, Ann is an independent young woman who fears being controlled by a man. Irrational thinking results on one hand from a woman’s actual oppression, on the other from a woman’s extreme fear of it.
A very funny short story with an unreliable narrator is Will Stanton’s “Barney.” This story seems appropriate preparation for O’Brien’s novel because it involves a scientist who is overconfident in his intellectual superiority and the control he has over an experiment (to increase the intelligence of a rat). In the end, of course, there is also a sudden change of narrator as the lab rat dupes the scientist and impersonates him in his journal.
Both stories can also be very useful for illustrating the extensive dramatic irony that occurs with an unreliable narrator, which is only evident when the reader realizes the narrator’s fallibility and specific mistakes in judgment. For example, the narrator in Gilman’s story thinks she is “unreasonably angry” with her husband, but the reader learns her anger is an understandable reaction to being repressed. She also thinks children tore off strips of wallpaper in her room and damaged the bed, but actually she did these things herself. In “Barney,” the scientist repeatedly underestimates the intelligence of his lab rat, gain and again failing to understand how he is tricked.
Situational irony is also important in these kinds of stories, since a surprise results when an outcome is opposite in some way to what is expected. In “The Yellow Wallpaper,” the narrator’s husband thinks staying in a rented house for the summer will cure his wife's nervous condition, but it actually drives her insane. In “Barney,” the scientist plans to kill his lab rat after finishing his experiment, but the rat finds out and kills the scientist instead. In Z for Zachariah, Ann at first hopes for a male companion with whom she can save the human race, but in the end her fear of a sexual relationship with the last man drives her to flee him and doom humanity to extinction.
Since Z for Zachariah makes use of important literary allusions, it would also be a good idea to study at least 1 or 2 of the relevant texts BEFORE reading the story so they can be examined independently first and then later reconsidered in connection with the story. Looking at them in advance would also avoid interrupting the students’ focus on the story while reading it. When they see references in the story to Millay’s “Epitaph for the Race of Man,” Gray’s “Elegy,” and Ecclesiastes, it would be best if they are already familiar with these texts and can understand right away their relevance to the protagonist’s situation. A little time can then be taken to discuss exactly how they seem relevant. Although students probably can’t also study Austen’s novel Pride and Prejudice as a class, they could be told of the book’s relevance and encouraged to read it on their own if they wish (which might appeal to advanced readers). Also, a short synopsis of the novel’s plot could be given to the class, perhaps with excerpts from the sections that Ann reads to Loomis.
There are also quite a few symbols in Z for Zachariah, but I think a study of symbolism should be left until after students have read and discussed the story in detail. Only then can they understand how symbols relate to situations in the story in somewhat complex ways.
realizes that she cannot survive for long hiding in the wilderness (NOT a practical long-term plan). Similarly, the text draws attention to a disagreement about planting wheat, but this does NOT show that Ann has more expertise. Rather, it shows that Loomis is better at long-term planning because
Ann thinks mainly about what is convenient in the short-term. Although her diary entries show she KNOWS of the need to plant seeds before the ones in the store become infertile, she then illogically ignores this issue in deciding corn is more useful at present (without a way to process wheat).
Also, students should not try to second-guess the characters’ judgments when they BOTH AGREE about something. If the characters DISAGREE, it makes sense to consider carefully who seems more reasonable; but if they AGREE, then their judgment is probably sensible enough. If there were anything questionable about it, it could be a matter the author overlooked (which is therefore unimportant to interpretation), and it wouldn’t matter for evaluating the characters’ reasoning because they’d be equally mistaken.
The main focus should of course be to analyze the plot, characters, and theme.
Since this story makes use of a first-person narrator whose judgments are strongly influenced by her fear of men and inexperience with them, it is a good idea to prepare students by studying the device of the unreliable or fallible narrator. A good way to do this would be to read 1-2 short stories first that have an unreliable narrator and a resulting pattern of ironies.
One posible example is Charlotte Gilman’s “The Yellow Wallpaper.” Like Ann in Z for Zachariah, the narrator is imaginative, seems reasonable most of the time, but is finally shown to be delusional—actually insane. Students’ attention could be drawn to the way the narrator persuades herself that her delusions are real; and the more certain she becomes, the more deluded she is. Ann is similar in the novel, writing first of a worry, then having suspicions or theories, and finally claiming, "I'm sure it's true," even though her her views are entirely supposition. It could also be fruitful to contrast the two narrators and their situations. In Gilman’s story, the narrator is a submissive housewife whose madness seems to be caused by the oppressive control of her physician husband, who always tells her what to think and do; whereas, in the novel, Ann is an independent young woman who fears being controlled by a man. Irrational thinking results on one hand from a woman’s actual oppression, on the other from a woman’s extreme fear of it.
A very funny short story with an unreliable narrator is Will Stanton’s “Barney.” This story seems appropriate preparation for O’Brien’s novel because it involves a scientist who is overconfident in his intellectual superiority and the control he has over an experiment (to increase the intelligence of a rat). In the end, of course, there is also a sudden change of narrator as the lab rat dupes the scientist and impersonates him in his journal.
Both stories can also be very useful for illustrating the extensive dramatic irony that occurs with an unreliable narrator, which is only evident when the reader realizes the narrator’s fallibility and specific mistakes in judgment. For example, the narrator in Gilman’s story thinks she is “unreasonably angry” with her husband, but the reader learns her anger is an understandable reaction to being repressed. She also thinks children tore off strips of wallpaper in her room and damaged the bed, but actually she did these things herself. In “Barney,” the scientist repeatedly underestimates the intelligence of his lab rat, gain and again failing to understand how he is tricked.
Situational irony is also important in these kinds of stories, since a surprise results when an outcome is opposite in some way to what is expected. In “The Yellow Wallpaper,” the narrator’s husband thinks staying in a rented house for the summer will cure his wife's nervous condition, but it actually drives her insane. In “Barney,” the scientist plans to kill his lab rat after finishing his experiment, but the rat finds out and kills the scientist instead. In Z for Zachariah, Ann at first hopes for a male companion with whom she can save the human race, but in the end her fear of a sexual relationship with the last man drives her to flee him and doom humanity to extinction.
Since Z for Zachariah makes use of important literary allusions, it would also be a good idea to study at least 1 or 2 of the relevant texts BEFORE reading the story so they can be examined independently first and then later reconsidered in connection with the story. Looking at them in advance would also avoid interrupting the students’ focus on the story while reading it. When they see references in the story to Millay’s “Epitaph for the Race of Man,” Gray’s “Elegy,” and Ecclesiastes, it would be best if they are already familiar with these texts and can understand right away their relevance to the protagonist’s situation. A little time can then be taken to discuss exactly how they seem relevant. Although students probably can’t also study Austen’s novel Pride and Prejudice as a class, they could be told of the book’s relevance and encouraged to read it on their own if they wish (which might appeal to advanced readers). Also, a short synopsis of the novel’s plot could be given to the class, perhaps with excerpts from the sections that Ann reads to Loomis.
There are also quite a few symbols in Z for Zachariah, but I think a study of symbolism should be left until after students have read and discussed the story in detail. Only then can they understand how symbols relate to situations in the story in somewhat complex ways.
Decision-making, Negotiation, & Conflict Resolution (Anne's Post 128)
Posted August 3, 2011 at Teachnology
Anne’s choice of quotes to start her discussion here is interesting. Both quotes express the protagonist Ann’s fear of Loomis. But what the commenter fails to notice is that the protagonist’s feelings at these times in the story clearly SHOULD BE QUESTIONED, not just accepted as reasonable. Readers should generally be alert to narrators’ and characters’ views that are questionable, and Ann’s views in these instances are good examples.
1. Ann’s hiding from Loomis when he first arrives in the valley:
In Chapter 1, when Ann sees a column of smoke outside the valley, she worries that the person approaching could be crazy, cruel, or a murderer, so she decides to hide in a cave and watch him from a
distance “to see who it is before I show myself” (6). The commenter Anne quotes the protagonist’s view, “It is one thing to hope for someone to come when things are civilized, when there are other people around, too. But when there is nobody else, then the whole idea changes” (6).
1A. Ann’s plan here isn’t very logical at all:
If it were a situation of conventional warfare with bands of invaders and pillagers about, of course
it would be reasonable of Ann to hide in the hills when she saw someone approaching. Then, if the person looked like an enemy soldier or appeared threatening (e.g., brutish-looking, loaded with weapons, and holding an automatic weapon at the ready), she might decide to leave the valley or even
shoot the enemy from hiding. But Ann’s real situation is completely different. She believes she lives in the last habitable place on Earth after a nuclear war. Until Loomis’s appearance, she has believed she is the last survivor of the war, and she has hoped a man would come so he could be a companion and start a family with her, which she believes could save the human race. This situation is crucial and entirely changes what is reasonable for Ann to do. Readers such as the commenter Anne completely ignore the actual situation in the story and imagine possibilities that do not exist and are NEVER suggested in the text (e.g., pillaging soldiers)!
1. There are no invaders or pillagers, and Ann doesn’t expect any. All she fears is a lone man who might be cruel and use his strength to enslave her.
2. The chances of a stranger being this kind of man are very small (See Post 202 above).
3. It is virtually impossible for Ann to judge an ordinary man’s character by watching him from a distance through binoculars.
4. Even IF she thought the stranger looked suspicious or threatening for some reason, she couldn’t either leave the valley or be sure enough of his character to be justified in killing him.
5. Since the valley could be the last habitable place, the stranger is probably NOT going to leave it; and since Ann can’t hide indefinitely in the hills, SHE HAS TO FACE HIM sooner or later anyway.
6. To be temporarily safe from someone whom she has no reasonable grounds to fear and whom she will have to face anyway, Ann destroys precious food in her garden.
1. Ann’s hiding from Loomis when he first arrives in the valley:
In Chapter 1, when Ann sees a column of smoke outside the valley, she worries that the person approaching could be crazy, cruel, or a murderer, so she decides to hide in a cave and watch him from a
distance “to see who it is before I show myself” (6). The commenter Anne quotes the protagonist’s view, “It is one thing to hope for someone to come when things are civilized, when there are other people around, too. But when there is nobody else, then the whole idea changes” (6).
1A. Ann’s plan here isn’t very logical at all:
If it were a situation of conventional warfare with bands of invaders and pillagers about, of course
it would be reasonable of Ann to hide in the hills when she saw someone approaching. Then, if the person looked like an enemy soldier or appeared threatening (e.g., brutish-looking, loaded with weapons, and holding an automatic weapon at the ready), she might decide to leave the valley or even
shoot the enemy from hiding. But Ann’s real situation is completely different. She believes she lives in the last habitable place on Earth after a nuclear war. Until Loomis’s appearance, she has believed she is the last survivor of the war, and she has hoped a man would come so he could be a companion and start a family with her, which she believes could save the human race. This situation is crucial and entirely changes what is reasonable for Ann to do. Readers such as the commenter Anne completely ignore the actual situation in the story and imagine possibilities that do not exist and are NEVER suggested in the text (e.g., pillaging soldiers)!
1. There are no invaders or pillagers, and Ann doesn’t expect any. All she fears is a lone man who might be cruel and use his strength to enslave her.
2. The chances of a stranger being this kind of man are very small (See Post 202 above).
3. It is virtually impossible for Ann to judge an ordinary man’s character by watching him from a distance through binoculars.
4. Even IF she thought the stranger looked suspicious or threatening for some reason, she couldn’t either leave the valley or be sure enough of his character to be justified in killing him.
5. Since the valley could be the last habitable place, the stranger is probably NOT going to leave it; and since Ann can’t hide indefinitely in the hills, SHE HAS TO FACE HIM sooner or later anyway.
6. To be temporarily safe from someone whom she has no reasonable grounds to fear and whom she will have to face anyway, Ann destroys precious food in her garden.
Decision-making, Negotiation, & Conflict Resolution (2)
Posted August 3, 2011 at Teachnology
1B: Loomis's behavior gives a good first impression:
Most of Loomis’s behavior gives Ann a positive first impression and suggests he is trustworthy, but Ann foolishly still stays hidden.
1. Upon entering the valley, Loomis’s first act is to check the level of radioactivity. Ann doesn’t deduce anything from this, but this behavior suggests he is a careful and intelligent person (with a knowledge of science), not a maniac eager to give “free rein” to innate male desires to pillage and rape!
2. Loomis enters the valley carrying no weapon and walks halfway to the house (one mile from the hilltop) leaving his weapons behind in his wagon. Ann doesn’t consider this at any point, but such behavior indicates he is NOT aggressive or paranoid. It suggests a trusting and hopeful attitude, NOT an expectation that anyone he meets might be a threat.
The commenter Anne downplays the significance of Loomis’s walking in the open, saying, “he has fewer choices. He is the stranger entering a new place; his coming will have been observed” (Post 128). This assessment is a farfetched rationalization to justify bias, similar to a conspiracy theory. If Loomis were dishonest and sought an advantage over anyone in the valley, he could have entered the valley at night and moved through the woods intead of taking the road. It is far more likely that Loomis is exactly what he seems: someone who WANTS to find other survivors.
3. When Loomis takes off his headgear, his first action is to call out twice: first “a long ‘Haaay’ sound, the kind they make at football games” (22), then “Anybody here?” (23). The sound of his first cheer-like shout suggests joyful hope that he might at last find other survivors. He WANTS to find other people. He is not afraid to do so, as Ann is. The positive impression that these calls have on Ann is so strong that she responds physically by starting to run to him.
“It startled me so that I jumped back. I started to run—then I stopped” (22).
“But the sound of his voice was nice, a strong sound. For a minute I almost changed my mind. It came on me in a rush, very strong. I wanted to run down the hill through the woods and call, ‘I’m here.’ I wanted to cry, and touch his face. But I caught myself in time, and stayed quiet” (23).
This description also shows very clearly Ann’s longing for human companionship.
After returning for the wagon and continuing down the road, Loomis calls out two more times (24)—four times in total, his voice echoing each time. Such behavior suggests friendliness and honesty, not cunning.
The commenter Anne is so determined to demonize Loomis that her analysis of his behavior is logically inconsistent. On one hand, she claims Loomis should have assumed it would be dangerous to approach shelters where “someone would have challenged [him] for the suit!” (Post 135). On the other hand, when Loomis arrives in Burden Valley holding no weapon and calls out 4 times, Anne thinks we should view HIM as a potential threat? So Loomis should have expected a threat from people in shelters, but NOT from people in a valley? Why not? Surely, there is almost as much threat of attack from someone in the valley as there is from someone in a shelter! Yet, as far as we can see, LOOMIS DOES NOT EXPECT A THREAT in either case. This is NOT a sign he is “incredibly foolish” or a liar (e.g., about other survivors), and it is NOT just a result of his having “[few] choices.”
LOOMIS SEEMS A MORE TRUSTING OR OPTIMISTIC PERSON THAN ANN, NOT PARANOID THAT OTHER PEOPLE ARE A THREAT. He probably has more faith in people's reasoning, or he is more desperate to find another human being.
4. Ann’s first impression of Loomis’s face is positive also. She thinks his paleness, long hair and beard make him look “rather poetic” but unhealthy (23). By “poetic,” she must mean that he looks charming, artistic, or like a character in a story. Ann DOESN’T THINK HE LOOKS LIKE A CRAZY KILLER. She thinks he is attractive. So what is she waiting for, a letter of recommendation?!
There is NO GOOD REASON why Ann should not run to Loomis when he calls out hopefully. She has thought of herself until now as the last survivor of a nuclear holocaust. She supposes the newcomer hasn’t seen any other living thing on his journey (15), so he has probably thought himself the last survivor, too. Ann has hoped a man would come to the valley to be a companion, and Loomis calls out excitedly in the hope of finally finding a companion as well. THEY BOTH WANT AND NEED COMPANIONSHIP. But Ann denies it to them both because of irrational fear.
Most of Loomis’s behavior gives Ann a positive first impression and suggests he is trustworthy, but Ann foolishly still stays hidden.
1. Upon entering the valley, Loomis’s first act is to check the level of radioactivity. Ann doesn’t deduce anything from this, but this behavior suggests he is a careful and intelligent person (with a knowledge of science), not a maniac eager to give “free rein” to innate male desires to pillage and rape!
2. Loomis enters the valley carrying no weapon and walks halfway to the house (one mile from the hilltop) leaving his weapons behind in his wagon. Ann doesn’t consider this at any point, but such behavior indicates he is NOT aggressive or paranoid. It suggests a trusting and hopeful attitude, NOT an expectation that anyone he meets might be a threat.
The commenter Anne downplays the significance of Loomis’s walking in the open, saying, “he has fewer choices. He is the stranger entering a new place; his coming will have been observed” (Post 128). This assessment is a farfetched rationalization to justify bias, similar to a conspiracy theory. If Loomis were dishonest and sought an advantage over anyone in the valley, he could have entered the valley at night and moved through the woods intead of taking the road. It is far more likely that Loomis is exactly what he seems: someone who WANTS to find other survivors.
3. When Loomis takes off his headgear, his first action is to call out twice: first “a long ‘Haaay’ sound, the kind they make at football games” (22), then “Anybody here?” (23). The sound of his first cheer-like shout suggests joyful hope that he might at last find other survivors. He WANTS to find other people. He is not afraid to do so, as Ann is. The positive impression that these calls have on Ann is so strong that she responds physically by starting to run to him.
“It startled me so that I jumped back. I started to run—then I stopped” (22).
“But the sound of his voice was nice, a strong sound. For a minute I almost changed my mind. It came on me in a rush, very strong. I wanted to run down the hill through the woods and call, ‘I’m here.’ I wanted to cry, and touch his face. But I caught myself in time, and stayed quiet” (23).
This description also shows very clearly Ann’s longing for human companionship.
After returning for the wagon and continuing down the road, Loomis calls out two more times (24)—four times in total, his voice echoing each time. Such behavior suggests friendliness and honesty, not cunning.
The commenter Anne is so determined to demonize Loomis that her analysis of his behavior is logically inconsistent. On one hand, she claims Loomis should have assumed it would be dangerous to approach shelters where “someone would have challenged [him] for the suit!” (Post 135). On the other hand, when Loomis arrives in Burden Valley holding no weapon and calls out 4 times, Anne thinks we should view HIM as a potential threat? So Loomis should have expected a threat from people in shelters, but NOT from people in a valley? Why not? Surely, there is almost as much threat of attack from someone in the valley as there is from someone in a shelter! Yet, as far as we can see, LOOMIS DOES NOT EXPECT A THREAT in either case. This is NOT a sign he is “incredibly foolish” or a liar (e.g., about other survivors), and it is NOT just a result of his having “[few] choices.”
LOOMIS SEEMS A MORE TRUSTING OR OPTIMISTIC PERSON THAN ANN, NOT PARANOID THAT OTHER PEOPLE ARE A THREAT. He probably has more faith in people's reasoning, or he is more desperate to find another human being.
4. Ann’s first impression of Loomis’s face is positive also. She thinks his paleness, long hair and beard make him look “rather poetic” but unhealthy (23). By “poetic,” she must mean that he looks charming, artistic, or like a character in a story. Ann DOESN’T THINK HE LOOKS LIKE A CRAZY KILLER. She thinks he is attractive. So what is she waiting for, a letter of recommendation?!
There is NO GOOD REASON why Ann should not run to Loomis when he calls out hopefully. She has thought of herself until now as the last survivor of a nuclear holocaust. She supposes the newcomer hasn’t seen any other living thing on his journey (15), so he has probably thought himself the last survivor, too. Ann has hoped a man would come to the valley to be a companion, and Loomis calls out excitedly in the hope of finally finding a companion as well. THEY BOTH WANT AND NEED COMPANIONSHIP. But Ann denies it to them both because of irrational fear.
Decision-making, Negotiation, & Conflict Resolution (3)
Posted August 4, 2011 at Teachnology
1C: Loomis’s “strange” behavior: HE ACTS LIKE ANN, but not as extreme!
Watching the stranger longer from a distance DOES NOT SHOW ANN ANY GOOD REASON TO FEAR LOOMIS. The only behavior Ann thinks is “surprising” or “strange” is (1) reasonable under the
circumstances and (2) a reaction to Ann’s decision not to answer his calls.
1. Eeek! He has a gun!!
Ann thinks it is “surprising” when Loomis takes out a .22 rifle and lays it on his wagon. Why surprising?! It suggests a remarkable lack of self-awareness if Ann can be surprised the newcomer has a weapon while she is hiding in the woods holding almost exactly the same kind of gun! His behavior is at least as reasonable as hers--more so if we consider that he is a sitting duck! The commenter Anne focuses on Loomis’s possession of a military carbine, suggesting it would be unsafe of Ann to approach a man with such a weapon: “a man would be glad he had not rushed into the first meeting when he sees Mr
Loomis remove a military-style weapon from the wagon” (Post 144). This kind of statement grossly misrepresents the situation in the text to support illogical assumptions.
First of all, Loomis doesn’t take out the carbine until the second day, May 25, when he seems to consider using it to kill a chicken (!!) and then puts it away again.He NEVER carries it. If anything, this behavior suggests Loomis knows nothing about automatic weapons and isn’t comfortable with them.
Secondly, Loomis DOES NOT CARRY A GUN when he enters the valley, walks down the road to Ann’s house, or looks in windows. He only takes out a rifle from his wagon when nobody answers his calls, and then he lays it on the wagon instead of holding it. Clearly, he is NOT someone used to toting a weapon or relying on one to deal with confrontations. Moreover, the gun Loomis keeps handy is almost EXACTLY THE SAME KIND that Ann is carrying (except bolt-action instead of pump).
Thirdly, when Loomis makes the amazing discovery of a whole valley that still seems able to support life, it would be logical for him to assume that someone else is probably there—people who lived in the valley at the time of the war and stayed there when they saw the effects of nerve gas and radiation
outside. So, when there is no answer to his calls, it would be reasonable for him to assume that someone might be watching him from hiding, possibly afraid of him or preparing an ambush. Perhaps he lays his rifle on the wagon so it will be handy but he will not appear as threatening as he would if he were holding it.
2. Peering in windows cautiously:
Ann thinks Loomis acts “in a strange way” when he cautiously walks around the house looking in windows from a distance before knocking on the door. But again his actions show reasonable caution and NOT any sinister intentions. Very likely, he is TRYING TO AVOID SUPRISING ANYONE by making sure they see him first through a window instead of being shocked by a sudden knock at the door from someone they can’t see (after perhaps a year of being alone).
The commenter Anne writes, “Taking out a gun and peering in windows is not the ‘normal’ way of approaching a stranger’s house—most people walk up and knock on the door” (Post 141). But again Anne misrepresents the situation because Loomis DOES NOT CARRY A GUN when he looks in the windows; he leaves his rifle on the wagon. Thus, he is clearly NOT either trying to surprise anyone in the house or fearfully expecting to have to defend himself.
I might also say similarly of Ann’s behavior that hiding in the hills is not a “normal way” of behaving when a stranger approaches or when someone calls out a friendly greeting. The only things Loomis does that Ann views as “strange” are reasonable precautions FAR LESS STRANGE than her extreme precautions of hiding with a gun in the hills and trying to judge a man’s character by spying on him
through binoculars!
Watching the stranger longer from a distance DOES NOT SHOW ANN ANY GOOD REASON TO FEAR LOOMIS. The only behavior Ann thinks is “surprising” or “strange” is (1) reasonable under the
circumstances and (2) a reaction to Ann’s decision not to answer his calls.
1. Eeek! He has a gun!!
Ann thinks it is “surprising” when Loomis takes out a .22 rifle and lays it on his wagon. Why surprising?! It suggests a remarkable lack of self-awareness if Ann can be surprised the newcomer has a weapon while she is hiding in the woods holding almost exactly the same kind of gun! His behavior is at least as reasonable as hers--more so if we consider that he is a sitting duck! The commenter Anne focuses on Loomis’s possession of a military carbine, suggesting it would be unsafe of Ann to approach a man with such a weapon: “a man would be glad he had not rushed into the first meeting when he sees Mr
Loomis remove a military-style weapon from the wagon” (Post 144). This kind of statement grossly misrepresents the situation in the text to support illogical assumptions.
First of all, Loomis doesn’t take out the carbine until the second day, May 25, when he seems to consider using it to kill a chicken (!!) and then puts it away again.He NEVER carries it. If anything, this behavior suggests Loomis knows nothing about automatic weapons and isn’t comfortable with them.
Secondly, Loomis DOES NOT CARRY A GUN when he enters the valley, walks down the road to Ann’s house, or looks in windows. He only takes out a rifle from his wagon when nobody answers his calls, and then he lays it on the wagon instead of holding it. Clearly, he is NOT someone used to toting a weapon or relying on one to deal with confrontations. Moreover, the gun Loomis keeps handy is almost EXACTLY THE SAME KIND that Ann is carrying (except bolt-action instead of pump).
Thirdly, when Loomis makes the amazing discovery of a whole valley that still seems able to support life, it would be logical for him to assume that someone else is probably there—people who lived in the valley at the time of the war and stayed there when they saw the effects of nerve gas and radiation
outside. So, when there is no answer to his calls, it would be reasonable for him to assume that someone might be watching him from hiding, possibly afraid of him or preparing an ambush. Perhaps he lays his rifle on the wagon so it will be handy but he will not appear as threatening as he would if he were holding it.
2. Peering in windows cautiously:
Ann thinks Loomis acts “in a strange way” when he cautiously walks around the house looking in windows from a distance before knocking on the door. But again his actions show reasonable caution and NOT any sinister intentions. Very likely, he is TRYING TO AVOID SUPRISING ANYONE by making sure they see him first through a window instead of being shocked by a sudden knock at the door from someone they can’t see (after perhaps a year of being alone).
The commenter Anne writes, “Taking out a gun and peering in windows is not the ‘normal’ way of approaching a stranger’s house—most people walk up and knock on the door” (Post 141). But again Anne misrepresents the situation because Loomis DOES NOT CARRY A GUN when he looks in the windows; he leaves his rifle on the wagon. Thus, he is clearly NOT either trying to surprise anyone in the house or fearfully expecting to have to defend himself.
I might also say similarly of Ann’s behavior that hiding in the hills is not a “normal way” of behaving when a stranger approaches or when someone calls out a friendly greeting. The only things Loomis does that Ann views as “strange” are reasonable precautions FAR LESS STRANGE than her extreme precautions of hiding with a gun in the hills and trying to judge a man’s character by spying on him
through binoculars!
Decision-making, Negotiation, & Conflict Resolution (4)
1D: The only effect of Ann’s hiding is a harmful one:
Because of her paranoid fear (or selfish concern for her own safety), Ann allows Loomis to swim in a creek she knows is dead due to poisoning from the war.
The commenter Anne claims the incident of Loomis swimming in the poisoned creek is not important but merely a device to enable the plot to move forward. It is typical of her to dismiss anything that doesn't fit her interpretation as a meaningless narrative device--ignoring evidence to believe what she wishes. However, the scene is clearly important. It causes Ann to remember her desire for companionship (itself central to the theme). Also, Ann’s repeatedly expressed regret shows that SHE HERSELF BELIEVES SHE MADE A MISTAKE.
The commenter Anne also finds fault with this scene because she claims it is unrealistic Loomis would not notice the creek is poisoned. Again, Anne bases her interpretation of the story on her own unfounded assumptions instead of the text itself. If the text doesn’t conform to her assumptions, then the TEXT must be flawed! In fact, it is NOT unrealistic at all that Loomis makes this mistake. Most people realize that anyone can be careless and make a stupid mistake. Loomis took readings of the water in one place and mistakenly assumed that the creek had the same source. No doubt he was also very tired and eager to have perhaps his first bath in about a year.
Moreover, the text itself suggests how easy it could be to make this mistake. When Ann and Joseph first went to Burden Creek for water, they very nearly overlooked the poisoning also: “Then, just in time, Joseph and I, who went down the first time, noticed something. It had fish in it, too, though not as big or as many as the pond. But that first time we went to get some water we saw a dead fish floating past. I found a dead turtle on the bank...We looked a long time...and we saw that there was nothing left alive in it at all, not even a frog or a water bug” (17).
It appears Ann and Joseph only noticed the poisoning because they knew there were ordinarily fish in the stream, but this time there were a couple of dead animals and they couldn’t see anything alive in the water. Also, they looked at the water "a long time" to be sure. In contrast, when Loomis goes for a swim, he does NOT know what creatures normally live in the creek, there are no dead bodies anymore, and he doesn't look at length for signs of life. He's too eager for a bath. The ONLY sign the creek is poisoned is the brown grass near it, but brown grass is NOT just a sign of radiation poisoning!
Loomis admits that he made a stupid mistake, but it is perfectly understandable, and his own negligence doesn't free Ann from blame. She could have warned him, but A REAL THREAT to Loomis's life was more acceptable to Ann than exposing herself to AN IMAGINED THREAT--from a man showing no sign of being dangerous!
Because of her paranoid fear (or selfish concern for her own safety), Ann allows Loomis to swim in a creek she knows is dead due to poisoning from the war.
The commenter Anne claims the incident of Loomis swimming in the poisoned creek is not important but merely a device to enable the plot to move forward. It is typical of her to dismiss anything that doesn't fit her interpretation as a meaningless narrative device--ignoring evidence to believe what she wishes. However, the scene is clearly important. It causes Ann to remember her desire for companionship (itself central to the theme). Also, Ann’s repeatedly expressed regret shows that SHE HERSELF BELIEVES SHE MADE A MISTAKE.
The commenter Anne also finds fault with this scene because she claims it is unrealistic Loomis would not notice the creek is poisoned. Again, Anne bases her interpretation of the story on her own unfounded assumptions instead of the text itself. If the text doesn’t conform to her assumptions, then the TEXT must be flawed! In fact, it is NOT unrealistic at all that Loomis makes this mistake. Most people realize that anyone can be careless and make a stupid mistake. Loomis took readings of the water in one place and mistakenly assumed that the creek had the same source. No doubt he was also very tired and eager to have perhaps his first bath in about a year.
Moreover, the text itself suggests how easy it could be to make this mistake. When Ann and Joseph first went to Burden Creek for water, they very nearly overlooked the poisoning also: “Then, just in time, Joseph and I, who went down the first time, noticed something. It had fish in it, too, though not as big or as many as the pond. But that first time we went to get some water we saw a dead fish floating past. I found a dead turtle on the bank...We looked a long time...and we saw that there was nothing left alive in it at all, not even a frog or a water bug” (17).
It appears Ann and Joseph only noticed the poisoning because they knew there were ordinarily fish in the stream, but this time there were a couple of dead animals and they couldn’t see anything alive in the water. Also, they looked at the water "a long time" to be sure. In contrast, when Loomis goes for a swim, he does NOT know what creatures normally live in the creek, there are no dead bodies anymore, and he doesn't look at length for signs of life. He's too eager for a bath. The ONLY sign the creek is poisoned is the brown grass near it, but brown grass is NOT just a sign of radiation poisoning!
Loomis admits that he made a stupid mistake, but it is perfectly understandable, and his own negligence doesn't free Ann from blame. She could have warned him, but A REAL THREAT to Loomis's life was more acceptable to Ann than exposing herself to AN IMAGINED THREAT--from a man showing no sign of being dangerous!
Decision-making, Negotiation, & Conflict Resolution (5)
1E: Finally, Ann chooses to face Loomis because of her need for companionship:
In the end, Ann doesn’t go down to Loomis because she can see he is a good person (which is IMPOSSIBLE to tell from watching him). SHE DECIDES TO GO TO HIM BECAUSE OF HER NEED FOR COMPANIONSHIP. She is terrified that he will die, leaving her alone in the valley for the rest of her life. Loomis’s sickness forces Ann to realize she is NOT “used to being alone” (45). So her hiding and spying on Loomis achieved absolutely nothing except the poisoning of the last surviving man!
If Ann had heeded her desire for companionship from the start, Loomis would have been spared a possibly fatal mistake (an example of how friends can help one another). Moreover, their relationship could have started joyfully, with the two of them happy to find each other. However, because Ann starts with an attitude of paranoid fear, it becomes the default emotion that she continually returns to when she feels uneasy. Thus, she continually worries about whether Loomis is trustworthy instead of thinking
about their good fortune to find one another and how to make their relationship work best!
The simple fact is that the ONLY way Ann can find out anything about a stranger’s character is to meet and talk with him. In other words, she must start out with an attitude of TRUST, not fear, in dealing
with someone. This is how people normally relate to one another, and it is the only way they can live together. Hiding in the hills only delays the inevitable, wastes resources needlessly, and exposes the newcomer to unnecessary danger.
If people read critically, they should QUESTION Ann’s judgment when she decides to hide in fear of an approaching stranger, and especially when she stays in hiding despite a strong urge to run to him when he calls.
In the end, Ann doesn’t go down to Loomis because she can see he is a good person (which is IMPOSSIBLE to tell from watching him). SHE DECIDES TO GO TO HIM BECAUSE OF HER NEED FOR COMPANIONSHIP. She is terrified that he will die, leaving her alone in the valley for the rest of her life. Loomis’s sickness forces Ann to realize she is NOT “used to being alone” (45). So her hiding and spying on Loomis achieved absolutely nothing except the poisoning of the last surviving man!
If Ann had heeded her desire for companionship from the start, Loomis would have been spared a possibly fatal mistake (an example of how friends can help one another). Moreover, their relationship could have started joyfully, with the two of them happy to find each other. However, because Ann starts with an attitude of paranoid fear, it becomes the default emotion that she continually returns to when she feels uneasy. Thus, she continually worries about whether Loomis is trustworthy instead of thinking
about their good fortune to find one another and how to make their relationship work best!
The simple fact is that the ONLY way Ann can find out anything about a stranger’s character is to meet and talk with him. In other words, she must start out with an attitude of TRUST, not fear, in dealing
with someone. This is how people normally relate to one another, and it is the only way they can live together. Hiding in the hills only delays the inevitable, wastes resources needlessly, and exposes the newcomer to unnecessary danger.
If people read critically, they should QUESTION Ann’s judgment when she decides to hide in fear of an approaching stranger, and especially when she stays in hiding despite a strong urge to run to him when he calls.
Decision-making, Negotiation, & Conflict Resolution (6)
1F: Ann’s concern about decision-making is a signal to readers:
Speaking of decision-making, one good approach to the story is to recognize that every time Ann says she needs to make a decision, it is a sign of her uncertainty and the need for the reader to consider what is reasonable for her to do. That is, when the text draws attention to Ann’s decision-making, it invites analysis.
For example, when Loomis arrives and Ann is unsure whether to reveal herself, she writes the following: “So I decided: if anyone does come, I want to see who it is before I show myself” (6). After digging up her garden and moving supplies to the cave, she watches smoke moving slowly south from Claypole Ridge and writes, “I must make up my mind what to do” (14). She wrote earlier that she had decided to hide in the cave and watch the stranger from a distance first; but she is still undecided about it. Then she considers going to Burden Hill the next morning with her .22 rifle (NOT a “deer rifle”) to watch. She plans how she can sneak to the brook at night to get water in cider jugs to keep in her cave. Then, having made up her mind to go to the hill in the morning, she worries about dressing well in case she meets the stranger:
“Now that I have decided, I am beginning to worry about something that I know is really foolish: how I look, how I’m dressed” (17).
To sum up the situation so far, she’s worried that an approaching stranger might be a crazy person who will try to enslave her, so she goes to a lot of trouble to hide her presence in the valley and prepare a cave hideout. But then she also worries about dressing nicely in case she wants to meet him? Clearly, she doesn’t seem fully committed to the idea of hiding, or feel sure that it’s necessary. Then when Loomis starts climbing Burden Hill pulling his wagon, Ann is still indecisive: “I have to decide what to do” (19). Ann’s repeated notes about the need to make decision remind the reader to consider exactly what she needs to make a decision about.
SHOULD she be hiding in the hills in fear, or should she dress nicely and go to greet the newcomer, happy to find another living soul? Even if we finally agree with Ann that it is safer to watch Loomis for a while, the question remains, “What is sufficient evidence that she can trust the stranger enough to approach him?”
When Ann starts her next entry on May 24, Loomis is already at her house and has gone to sleep in his tent after sitting by a fire. Ann reports, “I decided not to show myself. I can always change my mind later” (20). The reader should wonder WHY she made this decision. Did Loomis do something suspicious? Reading on, we find that in fact he DIDN’T. Rather, he looks “poetic,” he has a nice voice, and he calls out in a friendly manner—making such a positive impression on Ann, in fact, that she has to
resist a powerful urge to run to him and she almost changes her mind (23)!
Readers should recognize that Ann SHOULD change her mind, and her decision to stay in hiding is UNREASONABLE.
Speaking of decision-making, one good approach to the story is to recognize that every time Ann says she needs to make a decision, it is a sign of her uncertainty and the need for the reader to consider what is reasonable for her to do. That is, when the text draws attention to Ann’s decision-making, it invites analysis.
For example, when Loomis arrives and Ann is unsure whether to reveal herself, she writes the following: “So I decided: if anyone does come, I want to see who it is before I show myself” (6). After digging up her garden and moving supplies to the cave, she watches smoke moving slowly south from Claypole Ridge and writes, “I must make up my mind what to do” (14). She wrote earlier that she had decided to hide in the cave and watch the stranger from a distance first; but she is still undecided about it. Then she considers going to Burden Hill the next morning with her .22 rifle (NOT a “deer rifle”) to watch. She plans how she can sneak to the brook at night to get water in cider jugs to keep in her cave. Then, having made up her mind to go to the hill in the morning, she worries about dressing well in case she meets the stranger:
“Now that I have decided, I am beginning to worry about something that I know is really foolish: how I look, how I’m dressed” (17).
To sum up the situation so far, she’s worried that an approaching stranger might be a crazy person who will try to enslave her, so she goes to a lot of trouble to hide her presence in the valley and prepare a cave hideout. But then she also worries about dressing nicely in case she wants to meet him? Clearly, she doesn’t seem fully committed to the idea of hiding, or feel sure that it’s necessary. Then when Loomis starts climbing Burden Hill pulling his wagon, Ann is still indecisive: “I have to decide what to do” (19). Ann’s repeated notes about the need to make decision remind the reader to consider exactly what she needs to make a decision about.
SHOULD she be hiding in the hills in fear, or should she dress nicely and go to greet the newcomer, happy to find another living soul? Even if we finally agree with Ann that it is safer to watch Loomis for a while, the question remains, “What is sufficient evidence that she can trust the stranger enough to approach him?”
When Ann starts her next entry on May 24, Loomis is already at her house and has gone to sleep in his tent after sitting by a fire. Ann reports, “I decided not to show myself. I can always change my mind later” (20). The reader should wonder WHY she made this decision. Did Loomis do something suspicious? Reading on, we find that in fact he DIDN’T. Rather, he looks “poetic,” he has a nice voice, and he calls out in a friendly manner—making such a positive impression on Ann, in fact, that she has to
resist a powerful urge to run to him and she almost changes her mind (23)!
Readers should recognize that Ann SHOULD change her mind, and her decision to stay in hiding is UNREASONABLE.
Decision-making, Negotiation, & Conflict Resolution (7)
2. Ann’s fear of Loomis because there is no one else she can talk with about him:
The second quote chosen by the commenter Anne describes the protagonist’s uneasy feeling about a handholding incident when she thought Loomis’s firm grip showed “he was taking charge, or possession” (161). The commenter fails to notice the line she quotes is related to the protagonist’s DOUBTS about her understanding of Loomis: “I told myself it was not really so important. It was the kind of thing the girls at school used to tell about after they had had a date. But it happened when they were on their way home to their parents. It’s different when there’s no one to turn to or tell about it” (160-61).
This quote does NOT show that Ann is really in more danger because her parents are not there to
protect or advise her. It shows that BEING ALONE INCREASES HER FEAR, which might make her worry needlessly and misinterpret Loomis’s actions.
The first quote (“...when there is nobody else, then the whole idea [of someone coming] changes”) shows AN ATTITUDE OF ANN’S THAT SHOULD BE QUESTIONED because it is illogical in her circumstances. But the commenter Anne accepts without hesitation that the protagonist’s hiding in the hills is entirely reasonable and justified. The second quote (“It’s different when there’s no one to turn to or tell about it”) shows Ann’s questioning of her own feelings, but the commenter ignores this context and interprets a selected part of what Ann says as having a separate meaning.
2-A. Power issues: Ann’s (& Anne’s) assumption that society ensures justice is incorrect: Society is
flawed and does not prevent abuse of power. What Ann misses is the feeling that she has power on her side:
Setting aside questioning of the protagonist’s views, Anne’s comments on these quotes focus on the problem that a “higher authority” and a large group help ensure that people are treated fairly, or that “might” doesn’t determine “right.” She asks “What happens when it’s gone?”
However, Anne does not consider this situation carefully but rather suggests a series of possible student activities to practice negotiating about a non-controversial topic for which a compromise isn’t possible (e.g., where to hold an end-of-year function, whether basketball is better than hockey, or which one of 30 people deserves most to be rescued in an emergency).
None of this helps us at all to understand Z for Zachariah. First of all, her claims about “higher authority” and the greater democracy of large groups are of course nonsense. The existence of a
higher authority is no guarantee of its fairness, since it might be a tyranny or serve special interests, and any government can be corrupt. As for the supposition that a larger group is generally more democratic, Anne doesn’t recognize that the FAIRNESS of any group depends on its shared values and the moral character of individuals, not the size of the group! If they are a group of racist people or religious extremists, for instance, they won’t be fair to someone of a different race or religion.
What the protagonist Ann misses is the presence of a group that supports her personal interests and can protect her, which is the same as wanting power on her side. She supposes that if there is a civilized society, other people will protect her from a bad man. But her understanding of civilization is
very naive. In most societies (especially larger ones), ORDER is unfortunately maintained by the threat of force, and having one’s rights protected depends on the values and interests of those with power. If those with power care about her, she’s okay. If not, she could be in greater danger than she's in when facing an individual stranger (as is probably the situation of women under the Taliban, for instance).
The second quote chosen by the commenter Anne describes the protagonist’s uneasy feeling about a handholding incident when she thought Loomis’s firm grip showed “he was taking charge, or possession” (161). The commenter fails to notice the line she quotes is related to the protagonist’s DOUBTS about her understanding of Loomis: “I told myself it was not really so important. It was the kind of thing the girls at school used to tell about after they had had a date. But it happened when they were on their way home to their parents. It’s different when there’s no one to turn to or tell about it” (160-61).
This quote does NOT show that Ann is really in more danger because her parents are not there to
protect or advise her. It shows that BEING ALONE INCREASES HER FEAR, which might make her worry needlessly and misinterpret Loomis’s actions.
The first quote (“...when there is nobody else, then the whole idea [of someone coming] changes”) shows AN ATTITUDE OF ANN’S THAT SHOULD BE QUESTIONED because it is illogical in her circumstances. But the commenter Anne accepts without hesitation that the protagonist’s hiding in the hills is entirely reasonable and justified. The second quote (“It’s different when there’s no one to turn to or tell about it”) shows Ann’s questioning of her own feelings, but the commenter ignores this context and interprets a selected part of what Ann says as having a separate meaning.
2-A. Power issues: Ann’s (& Anne’s) assumption that society ensures justice is incorrect: Society is
flawed and does not prevent abuse of power. What Ann misses is the feeling that she has power on her side:
Setting aside questioning of the protagonist’s views, Anne’s comments on these quotes focus on the problem that a “higher authority” and a large group help ensure that people are treated fairly, or that “might” doesn’t determine “right.” She asks “What happens when it’s gone?”
However, Anne does not consider this situation carefully but rather suggests a series of possible student activities to practice negotiating about a non-controversial topic for which a compromise isn’t possible (e.g., where to hold an end-of-year function, whether basketball is better than hockey, or which one of 30 people deserves most to be rescued in an emergency).
None of this helps us at all to understand Z for Zachariah. First of all, her claims about “higher authority” and the greater democracy of large groups are of course nonsense. The existence of a
higher authority is no guarantee of its fairness, since it might be a tyranny or serve special interests, and any government can be corrupt. As for the supposition that a larger group is generally more democratic, Anne doesn’t recognize that the FAIRNESS of any group depends on its shared values and the moral character of individuals, not the size of the group! If they are a group of racist people or religious extremists, for instance, they won’t be fair to someone of a different race or religion.
What the protagonist Ann misses is the presence of a group that supports her personal interests and can protect her, which is the same as wanting power on her side. She supposes that if there is a civilized society, other people will protect her from a bad man. But her understanding of civilization is
very naive. In most societies (especially larger ones), ORDER is unfortunately maintained by the threat of force, and having one’s rights protected depends on the values and interests of those with power. If those with power care about her, she’s okay. If not, she could be in greater danger than she's in when facing an individual stranger (as is probably the situation of women under the Taliban, for instance).
Decision-making, Negotiation, & Conflict Resolution (8)
2-B. The IRONY of believing society is “civilized”:
When Ann supposes there’s no need to fear a stranger “when things are civilized, when there are other people around“ (6), her words are also an instance of DRAMATIC IRONY. She does not recognize that the previous society she belonged to was flawed by problems of narrow competitive interests, disregard for others, and the accepted use of violence to pursue those interests. She forgets that the “other people” she counted on for protection in that “civilized” society nearly killed her by waging a war using nuclear and biological weapons, which destroyed their so-called civilization and most other living things by poisoning the whole planet.
Civilized?? Anyone who thinks such a society is civilized must be either ignorant or joking.
One grim reminder of the flaws of the former society is Ann's commentary on Loomis’s explanation of the purpose of the safe-suit that he helped design. It was not intended to save innocent people’s lives in the event of an attack. Loomis identifies government interests with a military agenda, saying, “That was what the government—the army, of course—wanted. So that troops could live on (fight on!) in places that had been atom-bombed” (60-61). The exclamation in brackets "fight on!" is probably Ann's comment on the lunacy of the government's purposes, expressing her shock at the extremes to which people went to destroy an enemy. This is a description of an insane kind of society where the use of force to pursue the interests of one group reached such an extreme that its people developed weapons capable of killing all life on the planet; and, not satisfied this would be enough to eliminate their enemy, they also designed a protective suit so its soldiers could continue killing if necessary even after making the world a radioactive wasteland!! The safe-suit is a product of a society where insanely violent and destructive behavior was considered acceptable; and, not surprisingly, that society finally destroyed itself.
Of course, this is the kind of society we actually live in now, and I think Robert C. O’Brien obviously hoped to provoke some questioning of its organization and values by means of this novel. Thus, other very relevant and important topics of research for students are current wars and military technology. In
other words, what sort of insanity is going on right now, and how is it being rationalized? Are there less violent and destructive ways of dealing with problems?
2-C: More of Anne's ridiculous suggestions for activities:
None of the commenter Anne’s suggested negotiation exercises seem relevant to the situation of Ann and Loomis in the story. Moreover, the exercise of choosing who is worthy to be saved of 30 people in
a crisis is both ridiculous and immoral. It’s absurd to imagine 30 people calmly agreeing in such a situation, unless they all comically insisted on dying out of high-mindedness! Much worse, the exercise is highly unethical because of the assumption that it is reasonable to assign value to people’s lives based on characteristics.
What criteria could possibly be used to objectively judge human value? Race? Gender? Age? Profession? Past good deeds? Good intentions? Charisma? Good looks? What the exercise fails to recognize is that ALL life has the same inherent value, and judging its value beyond that can only be subjective—a matter of playing God. It’s not hard to imagine what the commenter Anne probably thinks about the respective value of the lives of Ann and Loomis in the story. By her calculations, it would perhaps be a simple matter to just write off Loomis and assign the only right to life to Ann—the first-person protagonist whom readers are most inclined to identify themselves with. All too easy, isn’t it?
In case any people are reading this and imagine I’m saying we should identify most with Loomis and assign HIM the greater right to life, you are completely missing the point. It’s not a matter of choosing sides and deciding self-righteously who should live. It’s a matter of understanding how people can resolve conflicting interests peaceably and live together in relative happiness.
When Ann supposes there’s no need to fear a stranger “when things are civilized, when there are other people around“ (6), her words are also an instance of DRAMATIC IRONY. She does not recognize that the previous society she belonged to was flawed by problems of narrow competitive interests, disregard for others, and the accepted use of violence to pursue those interests. She forgets that the “other people” she counted on for protection in that “civilized” society nearly killed her by waging a war using nuclear and biological weapons, which destroyed their so-called civilization and most other living things by poisoning the whole planet.
Civilized?? Anyone who thinks such a society is civilized must be either ignorant or joking.
One grim reminder of the flaws of the former society is Ann's commentary on Loomis’s explanation of the purpose of the safe-suit that he helped design. It was not intended to save innocent people’s lives in the event of an attack. Loomis identifies government interests with a military agenda, saying, “That was what the government—the army, of course—wanted. So that troops could live on (fight on!) in places that had been atom-bombed” (60-61). The exclamation in brackets "fight on!" is probably Ann's comment on the lunacy of the government's purposes, expressing her shock at the extremes to which people went to destroy an enemy. This is a description of an insane kind of society where the use of force to pursue the interests of one group reached such an extreme that its people developed weapons capable of killing all life on the planet; and, not satisfied this would be enough to eliminate their enemy, they also designed a protective suit so its soldiers could continue killing if necessary even after making the world a radioactive wasteland!! The safe-suit is a product of a society where insanely violent and destructive behavior was considered acceptable; and, not surprisingly, that society finally destroyed itself.
Of course, this is the kind of society we actually live in now, and I think Robert C. O’Brien obviously hoped to provoke some questioning of its organization and values by means of this novel. Thus, other very relevant and important topics of research for students are current wars and military technology. In
other words, what sort of insanity is going on right now, and how is it being rationalized? Are there less violent and destructive ways of dealing with problems?
2-C: More of Anne's ridiculous suggestions for activities:
None of the commenter Anne’s suggested negotiation exercises seem relevant to the situation of Ann and Loomis in the story. Moreover, the exercise of choosing who is worthy to be saved of 30 people in
a crisis is both ridiculous and immoral. It’s absurd to imagine 30 people calmly agreeing in such a situation, unless they all comically insisted on dying out of high-mindedness! Much worse, the exercise is highly unethical because of the assumption that it is reasonable to assign value to people’s lives based on characteristics.
What criteria could possibly be used to objectively judge human value? Race? Gender? Age? Profession? Past good deeds? Good intentions? Charisma? Good looks? What the exercise fails to recognize is that ALL life has the same inherent value, and judging its value beyond that can only be subjective—a matter of playing God. It’s not hard to imagine what the commenter Anne probably thinks about the respective value of the lives of Ann and Loomis in the story. By her calculations, it would perhaps be a simple matter to just write off Loomis and assign the only right to life to Ann—the first-person protagonist whom readers are most inclined to identify themselves with. All too easy, isn’t it?
In case any people are reading this and imagine I’m saying we should identify most with Loomis and assign HIM the greater right to life, you are completely missing the point. It’s not a matter of choosing sides and deciding self-righteously who should live. It’s a matter of understanding how people can resolve conflicting interests peaceably and live together in relative happiness.
Decision-making, Negotiation, & Conflict Resolution (9)
Relevant Topics for Discussing “Negotiation and Conflict Resolution”
Contrary to the commenter Anne’s belief, the story presents a situation in which there seem to be only two human survivors of a nuclear war with only one valley they can live in. Surely, the main question raised is whether they can share the valley and build a more civilized society there or not. Assuming that their mutual survival and a chance of rebuilding society are the best possible outcomes, the main points of negotiation between them are the precise nature of their relationship and agreeable terms for living together. Unfortunately, it appears many readers don’t want to consider these issues at all, referring to focus on passing moral judgment and choosing sides--which is, of course, much easier.
In any case, whatever our opinion of Loomis, there are numerous times in the story when specific matters of negotiation could be considered.
(1) When Loomis starts to recover from sickness and Ann worries he is trying to take control of the farm, she could then talk to him about her concerns and the division of labor.
(2) Again, when Loomis speaks of their having children and starting a new society (an idea Ann feels good about as she is driving the tractor), she could talk with him openly about what she wants from their relationship and when she will be ready to start a family. While picking greens near the apple tree, Ann imagines doing that with her own children in ten years (81), so presumably she imagines herself having children almost anytime, or at least within a few years.
(3) Assuming it is possible for Ann to forgive Loomis after he tries to sleep with her, they could still negotiate terms for a relationship if they both still want companionship and a family. Ann DOES appear capable of forgiving him, since after TWO WEEKS in hiding she realizes belatedly that she CAN sympathize with Loomis’s loneliness, and they could still be friends at a safe distance: “There was no reason I should not be as friendly as safety permitted” (218). Unfortunately, Ann is much too late in coming to this understanding because Loomis is now about to take more drastic measures in reaction to Ann’s staying away. As she recognizes at this time, “It seemed the more I stayed away from him the more determined he was that I come back” (218). She AGAIN misses the chance to negotiate with him reasonably.
(4) Alternatively, if Ann insists on giving up hopes to have children and rebuild society, she and Loomis might at least negotiate how they can share the valley on friendly terms—NOT in the extreme and unrealistic way that Ann at first intends, thinking, “we could stay apart, and leave each other entirely alone” (183). When she first runs away, her irrational idea of a “compromise” is to share the valley as enemies: “we would have to work out a compromise, a way that we could both live in the valley even though not as friends” (183).
(5) One of the last important turning points in the story is Ann’s letter to Loomis offering to talk with him because she is tired of hiding in the wilderness. When he accepts the offer and goes to meet her unarmed, they could still express their different points of view and negotiate a way to share the valley.
Clearly, he is still willing to negotiate and reach a mutually acceptable agreement. When Loomis leaves his gun, trusting Ann not to shoot him when they meet, Ann is so stunned that she hesitates to continue her planned deception: “I knew that I should run and get the cart, but I still could not believe that he was really gone. For almost five minutes I lay still in the grass, trembling” (241). This is another chance for negotiation and mutual survival that Ann passes up.
(6) Finally, when Ann and Loomis meet for the last time and each passes up the chance to kill the other, there is a last chance for them to negotiate about living together. Unfortunately, Ann again decides to think only of her own interests, placing all her hopes in a dream-based fantasy that she can realize her old ambitions of being a teacher if she heads out into the deadness—like all the birds that “flew out into the deadness and died,” as opposed to the crows that had the sense to stay (29).
All of these situations are worth discussing in detail. But important points should be kept in mind: (1) Ann shows repeatedly that she wants to have companionship and a family, and (through children) to help save the human race from dying; (2) at least at first, she finds Loomis attractive and hopes to marry him and have children with him; (3) Ann and Loomis are probably the last people in the world; and (4) Burden Valley is probably the last place anything can live.
Contrary to the commenter Anne’s belief, the story presents a situation in which there seem to be only two human survivors of a nuclear war with only one valley they can live in. Surely, the main question raised is whether they can share the valley and build a more civilized society there or not. Assuming that their mutual survival and a chance of rebuilding society are the best possible outcomes, the main points of negotiation between them are the precise nature of their relationship and agreeable terms for living together. Unfortunately, it appears many readers don’t want to consider these issues at all, referring to focus on passing moral judgment and choosing sides--which is, of course, much easier.
In any case, whatever our opinion of Loomis, there are numerous times in the story when specific matters of negotiation could be considered.
(1) When Loomis starts to recover from sickness and Ann worries he is trying to take control of the farm, she could then talk to him about her concerns and the division of labor.
(2) Again, when Loomis speaks of their having children and starting a new society (an idea Ann feels good about as she is driving the tractor), she could talk with him openly about what she wants from their relationship and when she will be ready to start a family. While picking greens near the apple tree, Ann imagines doing that with her own children in ten years (81), so presumably she imagines herself having children almost anytime, or at least within a few years.
(3) Assuming it is possible for Ann to forgive Loomis after he tries to sleep with her, they could still negotiate terms for a relationship if they both still want companionship and a family. Ann DOES appear capable of forgiving him, since after TWO WEEKS in hiding she realizes belatedly that she CAN sympathize with Loomis’s loneliness, and they could still be friends at a safe distance: “There was no reason I should not be as friendly as safety permitted” (218). Unfortunately, Ann is much too late in coming to this understanding because Loomis is now about to take more drastic measures in reaction to Ann’s staying away. As she recognizes at this time, “It seemed the more I stayed away from him the more determined he was that I come back” (218). She AGAIN misses the chance to negotiate with him reasonably.
(4) Alternatively, if Ann insists on giving up hopes to have children and rebuild society, she and Loomis might at least negotiate how they can share the valley on friendly terms—NOT in the extreme and unrealistic way that Ann at first intends, thinking, “we could stay apart, and leave each other entirely alone” (183). When she first runs away, her irrational idea of a “compromise” is to share the valley as enemies: “we would have to work out a compromise, a way that we could both live in the valley even though not as friends” (183).
(5) One of the last important turning points in the story is Ann’s letter to Loomis offering to talk with him because she is tired of hiding in the wilderness. When he accepts the offer and goes to meet her unarmed, they could still express their different points of view and negotiate a way to share the valley.
Clearly, he is still willing to negotiate and reach a mutually acceptable agreement. When Loomis leaves his gun, trusting Ann not to shoot him when they meet, Ann is so stunned that she hesitates to continue her planned deception: “I knew that I should run and get the cart, but I still could not believe that he was really gone. For almost five minutes I lay still in the grass, trembling” (241). This is another chance for negotiation and mutual survival that Ann passes up.
(6) Finally, when Ann and Loomis meet for the last time and each passes up the chance to kill the other, there is a last chance for them to negotiate about living together. Unfortunately, Ann again decides to think only of her own interests, placing all her hopes in a dream-based fantasy that she can realize her old ambitions of being a teacher if she heads out into the deadness—like all the birds that “flew out into the deadness and died,” as opposed to the crows that had the sense to stay (29).
All of these situations are worth discussing in detail. But important points should be kept in mind: (1) Ann shows repeatedly that she wants to have companionship and a family, and (through children) to help save the human race from dying; (2) at least at first, she finds Loomis attractive and hopes to marry him and have children with him; (3) Ann and Loomis are probably the last people in the world; and (4) Burden Valley is probably the last place anything can live.
Loomis REACTS to Ann's behavior, and she can still sympathize
Loomis's behavior is partly a REACTION to Ann:
It is also important to note that Ann’s repeated decision NOT to talk openly with Loomis about her feelings and concerns influences later events which then seem to narrow the options for them. For example, if they had spoken more openly about their relationship early on, they could have agreed about when to start sleeping together, and perhaps Loomis would not have tried anything without her permission. Similarly, if Ann forgave Loomis’s attempt to sleep with her and then discussed openly how they could live together on friendly terms (instead of denying any companionship and hiding in a cave for 2 weeks), he would not have started hunting her in desperation, making her worst fears come true.
Ann is still able to sympathize with Loomis:
As for the character of Loomis, it seems possible for Ann to sympathize and reason with him if she does not just condemn him unfairly as a tyrant, murderer, or lunatic. She knows he had to kill his coworker Edward in order to survive, and she sees he suffers nightmares about that incident. During his sickness, she worries, “But how can I go when he is afraid to be left alone? (104). She knows that holding his hand and offering companionship when he was sick probably saved his life. When she considers offering friendship again after 2 weeks in hiding, she realizes, “There are people who cannot stand being alone; perhaps he was acting from despair” (218). This observation is also IRONIC because she herself is one of these people who can’t stand being alone. It should remind readers of her fear of being left alone forever in the valley when Loomis is sick: “the thought...seems so terrible I cannot bear it” (45).
When she offers to talk with him if he comes unarmed, he accepts the offer and trusts her not to kill him. And when she is leaving the valley, he finally tries to help her (pointing out where he saw birds circling once), instead of killing her for the safe-suit.
But I’ve made these points about Loomis before, and I don’t expect them to persuade readers who, like Anne, are determined to see Loomis as just a monstrous unforgivable rapist that can’t be endured at all—last man or not.
I wonder what the commenter Anne thinks should be done with real people who are convicted of rape (even date rape) if she assumes they are irredeemably bad? Public shaming, whipping, and stoning to death, perhaps? Clearly they could never be forgiven, reformed, and accepted again in society. And perhaps the same should go for anyone else who offends our moral sensibilities or appears to be an enemy? In the case of enemies, we can just nuke them—like they do in the novel. Sure, there might be some collateral damage worldwide, but enough people would survive. It’s silly to think about this story that Burden Valley is the last habitable place, and that Ann and Loomis are the last humans—despite all evidence to the contrary. Nuclear weapons are a viable option and a necessary one, just as nuclear power is necessary. Never mind Fukushima, Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and fallout from every accident spreading around both hemispheres. And characters who believe in dreams should be trusted because dreams DO come true, and reality really is exactly as we wish it.
It is also important to note that Ann’s repeated decision NOT to talk openly with Loomis about her feelings and concerns influences later events which then seem to narrow the options for them. For example, if they had spoken more openly about their relationship early on, they could have agreed about when to start sleeping together, and perhaps Loomis would not have tried anything without her permission. Similarly, if Ann forgave Loomis’s attempt to sleep with her and then discussed openly how they could live together on friendly terms (instead of denying any companionship and hiding in a cave for 2 weeks), he would not have started hunting her in desperation, making her worst fears come true.
Ann is still able to sympathize with Loomis:
As for the character of Loomis, it seems possible for Ann to sympathize and reason with him if she does not just condemn him unfairly as a tyrant, murderer, or lunatic. She knows he had to kill his coworker Edward in order to survive, and she sees he suffers nightmares about that incident. During his sickness, she worries, “But how can I go when he is afraid to be left alone? (104). She knows that holding his hand and offering companionship when he was sick probably saved his life. When she considers offering friendship again after 2 weeks in hiding, she realizes, “There are people who cannot stand being alone; perhaps he was acting from despair” (218). This observation is also IRONIC because she herself is one of these people who can’t stand being alone. It should remind readers of her fear of being left alone forever in the valley when Loomis is sick: “the thought...seems so terrible I cannot bear it” (45).
When she offers to talk with him if he comes unarmed, he accepts the offer and trusts her not to kill him. And when she is leaving the valley, he finally tries to help her (pointing out where he saw birds circling once), instead of killing her for the safe-suit.
But I’ve made these points about Loomis before, and I don’t expect them to persuade readers who, like Anne, are determined to see Loomis as just a monstrous unforgivable rapist that can’t be endured at all—last man or not.
I wonder what the commenter Anne thinks should be done with real people who are convicted of rape (even date rape) if she assumes they are irredeemably bad? Public shaming, whipping, and stoning to death, perhaps? Clearly they could never be forgiven, reformed, and accepted again in society. And perhaps the same should go for anyone else who offends our moral sensibilities or appears to be an enemy? In the case of enemies, we can just nuke them—like they do in the novel. Sure, there might be some collateral damage worldwide, but enough people would survive. It’s silly to think about this story that Burden Valley is the last habitable place, and that Ann and Loomis are the last humans—despite all evidence to the contrary. Nuclear weapons are a viable option and a necessary one, just as nuclear power is necessary. Never mind Fukushima, Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and fallout from every accident spreading around both hemispheres. And characters who believe in dreams should be trusted because dreams DO come true, and reality really is exactly as we wish it.
Technology (Anne's Post 130)
In Post 130, Anne makes some comments about technology in the story which are mostly either self-evident (e.g., “Obviously the tractor is useful....”) or irrelevant (“The tractors from the 1950s or earlier had a dual start system....”). It’s also irrelevant to consider whether using cows to plow is “a viable option,” as Loomis suggests in what Anne dismisses as “a throwaway line.” All that matters is whether there’s any suggestion IN THE STORY that readers should question an idea.
1. Breeding more cattle, especially a bull for plowing:
After Loomis suggests praying for a bull calf so cattle can pull the plow when the gas runs out, Ann AGREES this is reasonable and asserts she had the same idea:
“It was true that some of the Amish, being slow to change their ways, used to plow with mules or oxen.... There was even an old wood and leather harness hanging on the wall of our own barn, though I had never seen it used. What he meant was that we needed to breed more cattle, and I had planned that, at least, from the beginning” (152-153).
Anne raises a slew of unnecessary questions about the issue of their harnessing cows to a plow and concludes authoritatively, “Too many unknowns to make it worthwhile in the short term. Probably not viable even if the tractor fails.” So because there are unknown factors (e.g., “How does one train a bullock team?”), Ann and Loomis should just give up this possibility as an option instead of trying to overcome any challenges that arise? Anne is determined to invent problems before they exist in the story, second-guess the narrator’s judgments on details of farming, and dismiss Loomis’s suggestions as worthless even when the narrator accepts them!! This is NOT a reasonable approach to interpreting a story.
2. One correct point: the story DOESN'T present technology as bad in itself:
The only important point that Anne makes in all this irrelevancy is her correct observation at the start of Post 129, “The book is not about whether technology is good or bad.” Of course it isn’t, despite Sarah Hall’s unsupported claims in her article “Survivor’s Tale,” where she imagines that Loomis represents evils of “industrialization.” Ms. Hall makes many such ill-considered generalizations without supporting them.
3. Building a water-powered generator:
Again with the apparent aim of finding fault with Loomis’s ideas, the commenter Anne examines the
feasibility of building a water-powered generator, which could provide electricity to run a fridge, stove, and water pump, perhaps eventually giving them conveniences such as running water and showers. Ann notes early on that there is “a drilled well near the house...with an electric pump” and that, when
power went off, the water heater and shower stopped working (16).
After again tediously enumerating considerations that are either obvious (“Check for necessary components”) or irrelevant (“Is it reasonable to expect to find [items] in Ogdentown?”), Anne predictably reaches a pessimistic conclusion again: “In all probability,...nothing happens....The generator isn’t big
enough.”). According to Anne, “Mr Loomis could have abandoned the project...because it was a poor use of time and resources.”
So the commenter Anne’s wisdom would lead us to base our interpretation of this story on HER judgments about what’s likely or feasible regardless of what characters in the story think? For the characters in the story, the plan to make a generator inspires great hope for their future. The narrator wonders where they would get an electric motor and then remembers, “There were two or three
of them in the barn, in my father’s workshop” (84). Loomis smiles hopefully at this news. When Ann wonders if the lights would work, he estimates that they would, though they’d be “a bit flickery,” and he concludes, “Mainly, it would run your refrigerator, your freezer, things like that. They don’t use much
current” (84). Ann accepts these estimations are reasonable and becomes excited about the hopeful prospects:
“It would be nice to have a refrigerator again. And a freezer! I could freeze vegetables and fruit for the
winter....I felt so optimistic and energetic....” (84-85).
There is no hint anywhere in the story that the plan to build a generator is unrealistic. Despite the strenuous efforts of the commenter Anne to discredit the idea, there must be a good chance that a scientist such as Loomis could carry out such a plan, and it certainly seems worth TRYING.
Anne’s idea of cutting ice from the stream “if it gets cold enough” in order to use it in an ice house might also be a good idea, but it seems less reliable because it depends on the weather (another unknown) and could not provide benefits such as lighting and perhaps someday running water from an
electric pump. Anyway, it’s irrelevant whether an ice house could be a better option because Ann and Loomis only consider the generator idea and are optimistic about it. Also, maybe Ann does not think of using ice from the stream because she knows it doesn’t get cold enough in winter to freeze.
4. Ann seems a reluctant farmer (a farmer by necessity), perhaps not someone who always took farming seriously:
With regard to Ann’s expertise in the field of farming, a minor point that might be worth noting is that it seems she was ashamed of farming skills before the war. The first time she drives the tractor, she remembers this: “I almost laughed, remembering how I had hated to drive it several years ago; the girls who lived inOgdentown didn’t drive tractors” (93). Ann wanted to be like girls who lived in town. When she wrote earlier about her hopes of getting married, she also noted, “The truth is, in high school most of the boys lived in Ogdentown, and those of us who came on the bus were regarded as outsiders—hillbillies, in fact, and not fashionable” (81). Though she certainly has more hands-on farming experience than Loomis, Ann's knowledge of some things may be imperfect because she didn’t want to be a farmer and perhaps didn’t care about learning skills properly. This might be one reason that she is somewhat careless about planting corn quickly and growing crops such as wheat to save seeds. She also didn’t need to care about farming skills because she was hoping to be a teacher.
1. Breeding more cattle, especially a bull for plowing:
After Loomis suggests praying for a bull calf so cattle can pull the plow when the gas runs out, Ann AGREES this is reasonable and asserts she had the same idea:
“It was true that some of the Amish, being slow to change their ways, used to plow with mules or oxen.... There was even an old wood and leather harness hanging on the wall of our own barn, though I had never seen it used. What he meant was that we needed to breed more cattle, and I had planned that, at least, from the beginning” (152-153).
Anne raises a slew of unnecessary questions about the issue of their harnessing cows to a plow and concludes authoritatively, “Too many unknowns to make it worthwhile in the short term. Probably not viable even if the tractor fails.” So because there are unknown factors (e.g., “How does one train a bullock team?”), Ann and Loomis should just give up this possibility as an option instead of trying to overcome any challenges that arise? Anne is determined to invent problems before they exist in the story, second-guess the narrator’s judgments on details of farming, and dismiss Loomis’s suggestions as worthless even when the narrator accepts them!! This is NOT a reasonable approach to interpreting a story.
2. One correct point: the story DOESN'T present technology as bad in itself:
The only important point that Anne makes in all this irrelevancy is her correct observation at the start of Post 129, “The book is not about whether technology is good or bad.” Of course it isn’t, despite Sarah Hall’s unsupported claims in her article “Survivor’s Tale,” where she imagines that Loomis represents evils of “industrialization.” Ms. Hall makes many such ill-considered generalizations without supporting them.
3. Building a water-powered generator:
Again with the apparent aim of finding fault with Loomis’s ideas, the commenter Anne examines the
feasibility of building a water-powered generator, which could provide electricity to run a fridge, stove, and water pump, perhaps eventually giving them conveniences such as running water and showers. Ann notes early on that there is “a drilled well near the house...with an electric pump” and that, when
power went off, the water heater and shower stopped working (16).
After again tediously enumerating considerations that are either obvious (“Check for necessary components”) or irrelevant (“Is it reasonable to expect to find [items] in Ogdentown?”), Anne predictably reaches a pessimistic conclusion again: “In all probability,...nothing happens....The generator isn’t big
enough.”). According to Anne, “Mr Loomis could have abandoned the project...because it was a poor use of time and resources.”
So the commenter Anne’s wisdom would lead us to base our interpretation of this story on HER judgments about what’s likely or feasible regardless of what characters in the story think? For the characters in the story, the plan to make a generator inspires great hope for their future. The narrator wonders where they would get an electric motor and then remembers, “There were two or three
of them in the barn, in my father’s workshop” (84). Loomis smiles hopefully at this news. When Ann wonders if the lights would work, he estimates that they would, though they’d be “a bit flickery,” and he concludes, “Mainly, it would run your refrigerator, your freezer, things like that. They don’t use much
current” (84). Ann accepts these estimations are reasonable and becomes excited about the hopeful prospects:
“It would be nice to have a refrigerator again. And a freezer! I could freeze vegetables and fruit for the
winter....I felt so optimistic and energetic....” (84-85).
There is no hint anywhere in the story that the plan to build a generator is unrealistic. Despite the strenuous efforts of the commenter Anne to discredit the idea, there must be a good chance that a scientist such as Loomis could carry out such a plan, and it certainly seems worth TRYING.
Anne’s idea of cutting ice from the stream “if it gets cold enough” in order to use it in an ice house might also be a good idea, but it seems less reliable because it depends on the weather (another unknown) and could not provide benefits such as lighting and perhaps someday running water from an
electric pump. Anyway, it’s irrelevant whether an ice house could be a better option because Ann and Loomis only consider the generator idea and are optimistic about it. Also, maybe Ann does not think of using ice from the stream because she knows it doesn’t get cold enough in winter to freeze.
4. Ann seems a reluctant farmer (a farmer by necessity), perhaps not someone who always took farming seriously:
With regard to Ann’s expertise in the field of farming, a minor point that might be worth noting is that it seems she was ashamed of farming skills before the war. The first time she drives the tractor, she remembers this: “I almost laughed, remembering how I had hated to drive it several years ago; the girls who lived inOgdentown didn’t drive tractors” (93). Ann wanted to be like girls who lived in town. When she wrote earlier about her hopes of getting married, she also noted, “The truth is, in high school most of the boys lived in Ogdentown, and those of us who came on the bus were regarded as outsiders—hillbillies, in fact, and not fashionable” (81). Though she certainly has more hands-on farming experience than Loomis, Ann's knowledge of some things may be imperfect because she didn’t want to be a farmer and perhaps didn’t care about learning skills properly. This might be one reason that she is somewhat careless about planting corn quickly and growing crops such as wheat to save seeds. She also didn’t need to care about farming skills because she was hoping to be a teacher.
Ann as an UNRELIABLE NARRATOR (Anne's Post 132)
In Post 132, Anne starts directly responding to views I expressed earlier about the story, starting with the issue of whether Ann is an unreliable narrator. First, she makes the obvious point that a first-person narrator is “NOT the same thing as an unreliable witness,” and she makes some irrelevant statements about firsthand witnesses in the justice system.
1. The admissibility of a diary as evidence:
Anne goes on to say that in a court case, much information in the story would be “inadmissible as evidence” (e.g., “Ann’s speculation about Loomis’s intentions,” and “her dreams, fantasies, and doubts”). This is not true.
A quick search online reveals that many people think diaries ARE in fact admissible as evidence. One judgment of a Maine district court in the case of Emerson vs. Zanke states, “The Court denies the Plaintiff’s Motion to exclude the diary of the Defendant’s wife...because its admissibility depends upon developments at trial.” One response about this issue at Yahoo! Answers states, “All evidence is generally admissible if it is relevant and tends to prove a material fact in the case before the court.” Of course, the diary has to be proven authentic, but I think readers of the story can be reasonably sure that the views expressed by the narrator actually ARE the views of the narrator.
2. This is a story, NOT a court trial!!
In any event, we are talking here about a STORY, not a court case. Although readers like Anne may like to ignore some things in the story in order to believe what they wish about it, in fact EVERYTHING in the story is relevant and may be important for understanding it. The best kind of interpretation must take as much as possible into consideration. What is NOT relevant is the opinions of people like Anne about realities of the story situation that are NOT EVEN MENTIONED IN THE STORY ITSELF, such as her views on the feasibility of hitching cows to plows or generating electricity.
3. The device of the unreliable or fallible narrator:
Regarding the touchy issue of Ann’s reliability as a narrator, there is a literary device in fiction commonly known as a fallible or unreliable narrator, which is a first-person narrator with apparent biases that make it necessary for readers to question the narrator’s views in order to understand the narrative correctly. As explained by Abrams in A Glossary of Literary Terms, this kind of narrator is “one
whose perception, interpretation and evaluation of the matters he or she narrates do not coincide with the implicit opinions and norms manifested by the author, which the author expects the alert reader to share.” The result can be “an elaborate structure of ironies,” as in Henry James’ The Turn of the Screw.
It should not be too difficult a concept for readers to understand that a so-called “unreliable narrator” in fiction does NOT have to be considered completely unreliable in everything he/she thinks. Being “unreliable” or “fallible” merely means that the narrator is NOT INFALLIBLE, and therefore his/her ideas CAN be very mistaken. As with most people, his/her views are influenced by biases and limited knowledge, so readers should be alert for ideas or assumptions that might not be reasonable. Moreover, it is important to read critically in this way because these biases and limitations certainly influence the events in the story and the reader’s understanding of them in important ways. In effect, the use of an unreliable narrator just requires readers to be as open-minded or skeptical of the narrator’s views as they probably should be normally in evaluating what other people say. Do we normally accept without question EVERYTHING that others say and believe?
1. The admissibility of a diary as evidence:
Anne goes on to say that in a court case, much information in the story would be “inadmissible as evidence” (e.g., “Ann’s speculation about Loomis’s intentions,” and “her dreams, fantasies, and doubts”). This is not true.
A quick search online reveals that many people think diaries ARE in fact admissible as evidence. One judgment of a Maine district court in the case of Emerson vs. Zanke states, “The Court denies the Plaintiff’s Motion to exclude the diary of the Defendant’s wife...because its admissibility depends upon developments at trial.” One response about this issue at Yahoo! Answers states, “All evidence is generally admissible if it is relevant and tends to prove a material fact in the case before the court.” Of course, the diary has to be proven authentic, but I think readers of the story can be reasonably sure that the views expressed by the narrator actually ARE the views of the narrator.
2. This is a story, NOT a court trial!!
In any event, we are talking here about a STORY, not a court case. Although readers like Anne may like to ignore some things in the story in order to believe what they wish about it, in fact EVERYTHING in the story is relevant and may be important for understanding it. The best kind of interpretation must take as much as possible into consideration. What is NOT relevant is the opinions of people like Anne about realities of the story situation that are NOT EVEN MENTIONED IN THE STORY ITSELF, such as her views on the feasibility of hitching cows to plows or generating electricity.
3. The device of the unreliable or fallible narrator:
Regarding the touchy issue of Ann’s reliability as a narrator, there is a literary device in fiction commonly known as a fallible or unreliable narrator, which is a first-person narrator with apparent biases that make it necessary for readers to question the narrator’s views in order to understand the narrative correctly. As explained by Abrams in A Glossary of Literary Terms, this kind of narrator is “one
whose perception, interpretation and evaluation of the matters he or she narrates do not coincide with the implicit opinions and norms manifested by the author, which the author expects the alert reader to share.” The result can be “an elaborate structure of ironies,” as in Henry James’ The Turn of the Screw.
It should not be too difficult a concept for readers to understand that a so-called “unreliable narrator” in fiction does NOT have to be considered completely unreliable in everything he/she thinks. Being “unreliable” or “fallible” merely means that the narrator is NOT INFALLIBLE, and therefore his/her ideas CAN be very mistaken. As with most people, his/her views are influenced by biases and limited knowledge, so readers should be alert for ideas or assumptions that might not be reasonable. Moreover, it is important to read critically in this way because these biases and limitations certainly influence the events in the story and the reader’s understanding of them in important ways. In effect, the use of an unreliable narrator just requires readers to be as open-minded or skeptical of the narrator’s views as they probably should be normally in evaluating what other people say. Do we normally accept without question EVERYTHING that others say and believe?