Critique of Sarah Hall's Article on Z for Zachariah
Posted August 10, 2008 at Teachnology
Claims about O'Brien's likely views as a Catholic and about an interpretation by Sarah Hall are utter rubbish. Not a bit of it makes the slightest sense in relation to the actual story, and blanket acceptance of such ideas merely shows a near complete inability to think critically. Some statements are really absurd, such as to claim a writer's love of music proves anything about his intentions in a particular novel. As for the claim that Loomis is portrayed as exploiting nature like an industrialist, try to back that up with ANY strong evidence from the story. Ann is thrilled that he shows her how to get gas for the tractor. Is that supposed to represent Loomis's destruction of nature? What about when Ann drives the tractor? And how is his design for a waterwheel generator supposed to show destructive industrialization? Ann approves of that also, and hydroelectricity is one of the cleanest types of energy. Most or all of the things Loomis suggests about farming are things Ann has already thought about or planned to do; and part of her annoyance stems from his presuming to instruct her about work she thinks she understands better than he does.
A "murderer"? Previous posts explain clearly why Loomis is NOT a murderer. Ann understands why he had no choice in killing Edward. She sees the reasons, but she ignores them because of the paranoid fears she had even before meeting Loomis. Furthermore, he clearly feels guilt about killing someone; and he proves her wrong about him when he does NOT kill her in the end as she expects (even though she is stealing the invaluable safesuit).
Ann certainly does NOT "give Loomis the benefit of the doubt." That is utter nonsense. From the moment he enters her room and she runs away, she believes she can never trust him again. IT IS LOOMIS WHO GIVES ANN THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT!!! When she offers to meet with him to talk on the condition that he come unarmed, HE TRUSTS HER AND GOES UNARMED TO THE PLACE SHE SAYS. But she exploits his trust only to deceive him so she can steal the safesuit.
No, Loomis is not interested in any absurd and melodramatic "redemption." His behavior at the end is in
keeping with his character throughout the story. He never had any intention of killing Ann. He just wanted her desperately as a companion, and her refusal to have any relationship with him drove him to take irrational and extreme measures. (She appears to be the last woman, after all!) The guilt he shows at the end of the story for killing Edward is the same feeling he has shown repeatedly in delirium and nightmares. Conscienceless murderers don't have nightmares. Why would he want to add guilt for another killing, and why would he kill the last woman in the world if there were the remotest hope she might return? At most, he might have wounded her and taken her home, which would probably have been the best outcome for both of them. But he probably realizes finally that it is hopeless to try to force her to stay with him.
The silly idea that he tries for redemption is based on countless misinterpretations of the story, including the assumption that Loomis alone is to blame for the failure of their relationship. The many instances of Ann's self-doubt provide some pointers to her mistakes. She considers sometimes that she might be wrong in her thinking. But, as with most people, it's almost impossible for her to really accept her own faults and overcome them. Only after two weeks of shunning Loomis does she begin to think that maybe she's being too extreme, and by then it's too late to take a more moderate course because Loomis's desperation is about to make him extreme in turn. That's a great example of a common cycle in human interaction.
Anyone who can claim that the heroine of a story is likely a reliable narrator just by virtue of being the heroine simply does not understand the device of the unreliable narrator. Look it up. Gulliver's Travels is one famous example of a story that uses one. Wuthering Heights provides an example of an unreliable narrator who is NOT the main character. Ann is clearly unreliable if one reads the story at all critically and understands how naive she really is.
In response to those who lamely challenge me to justify Loomis's shooting at Ann, I NEVER made any claim that his actions are JUSTIFIED. That is a ridiculous reduction of my views to absurdity, or a kind of straw man argument. It also involves thinking in a very simplistic way, assuming that anyone who finds fault with Ann must think she is the "villain" and Loomis is the real "good guy" in the story. Loomis's actions are an UNDERSTANDABLE reaction to the circumstances of being one of two survivors of a horrific nuclear holocaust who miraculously finds a companion and a safe place to begin a new life, starts to feel a close bond with the other survivor, and then finds himself suddenly, irrationally, and permanently rejected by her. Ann's behaviour with him is without doubt childishly unbalanced, irrational, and maddening, and it is NOT typical of any 16-year-old I've ever met. She is an ultra-conservative and repressed self-described "hillbilly," and it's no wonder she was unappealing to high school boys in Ogdentown or that the only time she ever had a "date" was ONE TIME when she was 13 and accompanied by her mother for the duration.
A "murderer"? Previous posts explain clearly why Loomis is NOT a murderer. Ann understands why he had no choice in killing Edward. She sees the reasons, but she ignores them because of the paranoid fears she had even before meeting Loomis. Furthermore, he clearly feels guilt about killing someone; and he proves her wrong about him when he does NOT kill her in the end as she expects (even though she is stealing the invaluable safesuit).
Ann certainly does NOT "give Loomis the benefit of the doubt." That is utter nonsense. From the moment he enters her room and she runs away, she believes she can never trust him again. IT IS LOOMIS WHO GIVES ANN THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT!!! When she offers to meet with him to talk on the condition that he come unarmed, HE TRUSTS HER AND GOES UNARMED TO THE PLACE SHE SAYS. But she exploits his trust only to deceive him so she can steal the safesuit.
No, Loomis is not interested in any absurd and melodramatic "redemption." His behavior at the end is in
keeping with his character throughout the story. He never had any intention of killing Ann. He just wanted her desperately as a companion, and her refusal to have any relationship with him drove him to take irrational and extreme measures. (She appears to be the last woman, after all!) The guilt he shows at the end of the story for killing Edward is the same feeling he has shown repeatedly in delirium and nightmares. Conscienceless murderers don't have nightmares. Why would he want to add guilt for another killing, and why would he kill the last woman in the world if there were the remotest hope she might return? At most, he might have wounded her and taken her home, which would probably have been the best outcome for both of them. But he probably realizes finally that it is hopeless to try to force her to stay with him.
The silly idea that he tries for redemption is based on countless misinterpretations of the story, including the assumption that Loomis alone is to blame for the failure of their relationship. The many instances of Ann's self-doubt provide some pointers to her mistakes. She considers sometimes that she might be wrong in her thinking. But, as with most people, it's almost impossible for her to really accept her own faults and overcome them. Only after two weeks of shunning Loomis does she begin to think that maybe she's being too extreme, and by then it's too late to take a more moderate course because Loomis's desperation is about to make him extreme in turn. That's a great example of a common cycle in human interaction.
Anyone who can claim that the heroine of a story is likely a reliable narrator just by virtue of being the heroine simply does not understand the device of the unreliable narrator. Look it up. Gulliver's Travels is one famous example of a story that uses one. Wuthering Heights provides an example of an unreliable narrator who is NOT the main character. Ann is clearly unreliable if one reads the story at all critically and understands how naive she really is.
In response to those who lamely challenge me to justify Loomis's shooting at Ann, I NEVER made any claim that his actions are JUSTIFIED. That is a ridiculous reduction of my views to absurdity, or a kind of straw man argument. It also involves thinking in a very simplistic way, assuming that anyone who finds fault with Ann must think she is the "villain" and Loomis is the real "good guy" in the story. Loomis's actions are an UNDERSTANDABLE reaction to the circumstances of being one of two survivors of a horrific nuclear holocaust who miraculously finds a companion and a safe place to begin a new life, starts to feel a close bond with the other survivor, and then finds himself suddenly, irrationally, and permanently rejected by her. Ann's behaviour with him is without doubt childishly unbalanced, irrational, and maddening, and it is NOT typical of any 16-year-old I've ever met. She is an ultra-conservative and repressed self-described "hillbilly," and it's no wonder she was unappealing to high school boys in Ogdentown or that the only time she ever had a "date" was ONE TIME when she was 13 and accompanied by her mother for the duration.