Understanding Loomis
Posted June 10, 2006 at Teachnology
To judge Loomis' character fairly, one should also consider all the facts about his behavior:
1) He never blames Ann for letting him swim in the radioactive steam--even though she could have prevented it (and SHOULD have done so!!).
2) He remains calm and rational even when he is facing his own death (Ann admits she could not do this herself. She would be hysterical!)
3) All the instructions he gives Ann are sensible and practical, and they sometimes show how foolish and shortsighted she is by comparison (for example, when he tells her how to get gas for the tractor and why she shouldn't just cut a V belt in the process).
4) After she runs away, he TRIES to get her to return to the house and be sensible--acting "more like an adult and less like a schoolgirl."
5) In the end, when Ann walks away in the safe-suit, Loomis LETS HER GO!! He even tries to direct her towards a place where he once saw birds circling. If he were insane, a killer, or unscrupulously self-interested, he would kill her (as he killed Edward) and keep the safe-suit. But he is NOT a murderer. His behavior suggests strongly that he feels great GUILT for killing Edward--NOT the way conscienceless murderers or crazy killers usually feel. In fact, of the two of them, he is definitely the more rational and reasonable person.
His behavior at the end is also NOT what Ann expects. Because of her paranoid and twisted understanding of him, she fully expects him to shoot her in the back. Yet, although her assessment of him is proven wrong here, she does not reevaluate her view of him. She's already lost in her own fantasy of herself as a righteous heroine taking revenge on her antagonist and going on to find another valley with children in it for her to teach.
And so ends the human race--as a result of self-preoccupation, lack of empathy, misunderstanding, and a FAILURE TO COMMUNICATE OPENLY!!
1) He never blames Ann for letting him swim in the radioactive steam--even though she could have prevented it (and SHOULD have done so!!).
2) He remains calm and rational even when he is facing his own death (Ann admits she could not do this herself. She would be hysterical!)
3) All the instructions he gives Ann are sensible and practical, and they sometimes show how foolish and shortsighted she is by comparison (for example, when he tells her how to get gas for the tractor and why she shouldn't just cut a V belt in the process).
4) After she runs away, he TRIES to get her to return to the house and be sensible--acting "more like an adult and less like a schoolgirl."
5) In the end, when Ann walks away in the safe-suit, Loomis LETS HER GO!! He even tries to direct her towards a place where he once saw birds circling. If he were insane, a killer, or unscrupulously self-interested, he would kill her (as he killed Edward) and keep the safe-suit. But he is NOT a murderer. His behavior suggests strongly that he feels great GUILT for killing Edward--NOT the way conscienceless murderers or crazy killers usually feel. In fact, of the two of them, he is definitely the more rational and reasonable person.
His behavior at the end is also NOT what Ann expects. Because of her paranoid and twisted understanding of him, she fully expects him to shoot her in the back. Yet, although her assessment of him is proven wrong here, she does not reevaluate her view of him. She's already lost in her own fantasy of herself as a righteous heroine taking revenge on her antagonist and going on to find another valley with children in it for her to teach.
And so ends the human race--as a result of self-preoccupation, lack of empathy, misunderstanding, and a FAILURE TO COMMUNICATE OPENLY!!
Irrational Reactions to Loomis
Posted March 13, 2007 at Teachnology
I think those who condemn Loomis and find him utterly unsympathetic are missing a very important point about this story:
It's about the last two survivors of the human race after a nuclear war. The context of the story is a war that has nearly wiped out all life on the planet. In such a situation, doesn't it occur to you that there has been a pretty major breakdown in human compassion, understanding, and reason? Also, doesn't it seem that the relationship between Ann and Loomis represents on a small scale the relationships among different cultures and nations?
In other words, they represent the LAST CHANCE for human beings to understand each other and work out their differences. In this situation, what makes the most sense? Should they speak frankly to each other about their feelings and expectations, try to control their own emotions and be open-minded, and try to reach an understanding? Or should they distrust each other, each expecting the other to conform to a particular subjective idea of "right behavior" in their situation (Ann wanting a romantic courtship, while Loomis takes for granted that they must be a couple).
Even the title implies the importance of Loomis as THE LAST MAN. This is what Ann says she assumed about "Z for Zachariah" in her children's Bible alphabet book.
So, there's a very simple matter to consider: If they are the last two people, what is necessary for their survival and the survival of the human race? Obviously, behavior such as refusing to communicate or have any relationship, or using violent force to resolve matters, does NOT have the best results!! It results in isolation and extinction.
A lot of people who write on this site (especially among young readers) seem to have the opinion that Ann should just shoot Loomis because he's "a murderer" or "a control-freak," and "it's HER valley." These are pretty emotional reactions that come from identifying completely with the narrator and probably making no effort at all to see beyond her limited perspective (or only a very minimal effort to do so).
These reactions also seem to me very similar to the attitudes that people have towards an "enemy" during a time of war. I don't think this similarity is coincidental; rather, it's a parallel the author intends us to see. Nations often come into conflict for reasons like these--that is, people think their freedom is threatened, or that they have more right to lands and resources than certain other people have. Perhaps a conflict like this caused the nuclear war in the background of the story that left Ann and Loomis the last two humans on Earth.
Such harsh judgments of Loomis' character, without any attempt to understand his perspective or sympathize with him, are also very like the prejudice of people towards enemies in a conflict. People just hate and demonize their enemies instead of trying to understand their enemies' point of view. And if people think that way even on just one side of a conflict, how can any understanding be reached and disastrous conflict be avoided?
The point is that human beings are complex, not simple; and there is never just ONE WAY of seeing things. This story presents Loomis ONLY FROM ANN'S VIEWPOINT, and it is a natural effect of this that readers are strongly tempted to sympathize with her.
I believe the diary format of the novel is is a narrative device used by the author to show readers how easy it is for us to become extremely biased against someone without even realizing it (as Ann does), and to show how fatal this one-sided perspective can be.
The ONLY really sensible solution for Ann and Loomis is for them to TALK RATIONALLY AND OPEN-HEARTEDLY with each other. They BOTH fail to do this--for different reasons. By the way, someone wrote that she couldn't understand why such a loving and compassionate person as Ann could kill her dog. This is one of the incidents in the story that shows Ann is in fact NOT loving and compassionate, but extremely self-centered, emotionally unbalanced, and out of touch with reality.
As for Loomis being a "murderer," I wrote a lot earlier about evidence of his good character and reasonableness. His resort to extreme behavior (trying to wound Ann to make her stay with him) results from desperation when he is faced by her irrational refusal to have any relationship with him. It is not representative of his usual behavior. Also, if you really think he is a murderer for killing Edward, try to put yourself in his position. What would you do? Would you let Edward leave with the only protective suit to visit family who are certainly dead? Would you trust Ed to come back for you?
Edward wasn't listening to reason or thinking clearly. He was overcome with fear for his family; and if he found them dead, he might've even become suicidal or wandered witless until he died himself--leaving Loomis to die gradually of starvation back in the underground lab. Edward forced Loomis to take action to save his own life, and Loomis' nightmares about it attest to the guilt he bears. He's not a murderer--just a survivor who did what he had to in order to survive.
One more thing. The "attempted rape" scene seems to be a particularly touchy aspect of the story.
This incident is obviously a central one in determining people's attitudes towards Loomis and their sympathy for Ann. But I think people are too inclined to have a knee-jerk emotional and moral (politically-correct) attitude about it. If the story is discussed in a middle school classroom, it is probably very difficult for any male to voice sympathy for Loomis without being hated by the females in the class and condemned for the indefensible attitude that rape is okay. On the other hand, any female who tries to understand Loomis might be automatically judged by others to be slutty or a traitor to her sex. In any case, attempts to sympathize with Loomis' viewpoint are bound to draw harsh moral criticism.
But a moralistic attitude (especially one that condemns someone utterly for particular behavior) is very narrow-minded and restricts an understanding of the novel to Ann's perspective only. As stated above, I think the author intends for it to be difficult to sympathize with Loomis because the whole story is an exercise in THE NEED TO TRY OUR UTMOST TO UNDERSTAND OTHERS EVEN WHEN THEY SEEM TO BE OUR ENEMY.
And, as I explained in an earlier blurb, I think there ARE good reasons for sympathizing with what Loomis does. The circumstances are far from being clear and unambiguous. (1) Always remember we only have Ann's version of events, and her assumptions about Loomis' intentions. (2) He has been living with Ann for a month while she nursed him back to health. (3) During that time, she has daydreamed about marrying Loomis, and she has shown her romantic interest in him. (4) Just before the "rape" incident, she raised the subject of whether Loomis was ever married and then acted extremely nervous when he took her hand. (MAYBE this led him to judge that she was too shy to say what she really wanted, OR she was naively afraid of sex. And then maybe he decided either that she WANTED him to take the lead or that he HAD TO take control. However he interpreted her behavior, WE CAN'T REALLY KNOW.) (5) After she fled the house and said she wanted no relationship with him anymore, he tried to reason with her, saying she should come back to the house and stop acting like a childish schoolgirl (which seems a good indication of how he views her behavior).
As I wrote before, of course I agree that Loomis acted inappropriately. Of course he should have been more sensitive about Ann's immaturity, spoken to her more frankly, and allowed her to get to know him better and perhaps love him--or at least allowed her time to accept the necessity of their being a couple. But people often make bad judgments, and the point of this story is not to show how easily we humans sympathize with and understand each other--it shows the opposite: how hard we find it to do this. He is a scientist, not a romantic; and he knows that he and Ann are the last two people in the world.
One thing for sure about this story: it is great for creating some heated debate.
It's about the last two survivors of the human race after a nuclear war. The context of the story is a war that has nearly wiped out all life on the planet. In such a situation, doesn't it occur to you that there has been a pretty major breakdown in human compassion, understanding, and reason? Also, doesn't it seem that the relationship between Ann and Loomis represents on a small scale the relationships among different cultures and nations?
In other words, they represent the LAST CHANCE for human beings to understand each other and work out their differences. In this situation, what makes the most sense? Should they speak frankly to each other about their feelings and expectations, try to control their own emotions and be open-minded, and try to reach an understanding? Or should they distrust each other, each expecting the other to conform to a particular subjective idea of "right behavior" in their situation (Ann wanting a romantic courtship, while Loomis takes for granted that they must be a couple).
Even the title implies the importance of Loomis as THE LAST MAN. This is what Ann says she assumed about "Z for Zachariah" in her children's Bible alphabet book.
So, there's a very simple matter to consider: If they are the last two people, what is necessary for their survival and the survival of the human race? Obviously, behavior such as refusing to communicate or have any relationship, or using violent force to resolve matters, does NOT have the best results!! It results in isolation and extinction.
A lot of people who write on this site (especially among young readers) seem to have the opinion that Ann should just shoot Loomis because he's "a murderer" or "a control-freak," and "it's HER valley." These are pretty emotional reactions that come from identifying completely with the narrator and probably making no effort at all to see beyond her limited perspective (or only a very minimal effort to do so).
These reactions also seem to me very similar to the attitudes that people have towards an "enemy" during a time of war. I don't think this similarity is coincidental; rather, it's a parallel the author intends us to see. Nations often come into conflict for reasons like these--that is, people think their freedom is threatened, or that they have more right to lands and resources than certain other people have. Perhaps a conflict like this caused the nuclear war in the background of the story that left Ann and Loomis the last two humans on Earth.
Such harsh judgments of Loomis' character, without any attempt to understand his perspective or sympathize with him, are also very like the prejudice of people towards enemies in a conflict. People just hate and demonize their enemies instead of trying to understand their enemies' point of view. And if people think that way even on just one side of a conflict, how can any understanding be reached and disastrous conflict be avoided?
The point is that human beings are complex, not simple; and there is never just ONE WAY of seeing things. This story presents Loomis ONLY FROM ANN'S VIEWPOINT, and it is a natural effect of this that readers are strongly tempted to sympathize with her.
I believe the diary format of the novel is is a narrative device used by the author to show readers how easy it is for us to become extremely biased against someone without even realizing it (as Ann does), and to show how fatal this one-sided perspective can be.
The ONLY really sensible solution for Ann and Loomis is for them to TALK RATIONALLY AND OPEN-HEARTEDLY with each other. They BOTH fail to do this--for different reasons. By the way, someone wrote that she couldn't understand why such a loving and compassionate person as Ann could kill her dog. This is one of the incidents in the story that shows Ann is in fact NOT loving and compassionate, but extremely self-centered, emotionally unbalanced, and out of touch with reality.
As for Loomis being a "murderer," I wrote a lot earlier about evidence of his good character and reasonableness. His resort to extreme behavior (trying to wound Ann to make her stay with him) results from desperation when he is faced by her irrational refusal to have any relationship with him. It is not representative of his usual behavior. Also, if you really think he is a murderer for killing Edward, try to put yourself in his position. What would you do? Would you let Edward leave with the only protective suit to visit family who are certainly dead? Would you trust Ed to come back for you?
Edward wasn't listening to reason or thinking clearly. He was overcome with fear for his family; and if he found them dead, he might've even become suicidal or wandered witless until he died himself--leaving Loomis to die gradually of starvation back in the underground lab. Edward forced Loomis to take action to save his own life, and Loomis' nightmares about it attest to the guilt he bears. He's not a murderer--just a survivor who did what he had to in order to survive.
One more thing. The "attempted rape" scene seems to be a particularly touchy aspect of the story.
This incident is obviously a central one in determining people's attitudes towards Loomis and their sympathy for Ann. But I think people are too inclined to have a knee-jerk emotional and moral (politically-correct) attitude about it. If the story is discussed in a middle school classroom, it is probably very difficult for any male to voice sympathy for Loomis without being hated by the females in the class and condemned for the indefensible attitude that rape is okay. On the other hand, any female who tries to understand Loomis might be automatically judged by others to be slutty or a traitor to her sex. In any case, attempts to sympathize with Loomis' viewpoint are bound to draw harsh moral criticism.
But a moralistic attitude (especially one that condemns someone utterly for particular behavior) is very narrow-minded and restricts an understanding of the novel to Ann's perspective only. As stated above, I think the author intends for it to be difficult to sympathize with Loomis because the whole story is an exercise in THE NEED TO TRY OUR UTMOST TO UNDERSTAND OTHERS EVEN WHEN THEY SEEM TO BE OUR ENEMY.
And, as I explained in an earlier blurb, I think there ARE good reasons for sympathizing with what Loomis does. The circumstances are far from being clear and unambiguous. (1) Always remember we only have Ann's version of events, and her assumptions about Loomis' intentions. (2) He has been living with Ann for a month while she nursed him back to health. (3) During that time, she has daydreamed about marrying Loomis, and she has shown her romantic interest in him. (4) Just before the "rape" incident, she raised the subject of whether Loomis was ever married and then acted extremely nervous when he took her hand. (MAYBE this led him to judge that she was too shy to say what she really wanted, OR she was naively afraid of sex. And then maybe he decided either that she WANTED him to take the lead or that he HAD TO take control. However he interpreted her behavior, WE CAN'T REALLY KNOW.) (5) After she fled the house and said she wanted no relationship with him anymore, he tried to reason with her, saying she should come back to the house and stop acting like a childish schoolgirl (which seems a good indication of how he views her behavior).
As I wrote before, of course I agree that Loomis acted inappropriately. Of course he should have been more sensitive about Ann's immaturity, spoken to her more frankly, and allowed her to get to know him better and perhaps love him--or at least allowed her time to accept the necessity of their being a couple. But people often make bad judgments, and the point of this story is not to show how easily we humans sympathize with and understand each other--it shows the opposite: how hard we find it to do this. He is a scientist, not a romantic; and he knows that he and Ann are the last two people in the world.
One thing for sure about this story: it is great for creating some heated debate.
Considering Alternate Interpretations
Posted March 13, 2007 at Teachnology
If I accept Ann's viewpoint completely and view Loomis as just a threatening, homicidal "control-freak," the message of the novel seems to be that humanity gets destroyed by the male desire for control or domination. When Loomis recovers from his illness, Ann is right to feel that he is starting to take charge of their lives. And when he tells her to stop being childish, he is really thinking that she should just accept his authority without question.
Ann then appears to be utterly good: innocent, idealistic, and sensibly cautious. In standing up to Loomis, she shows strength of character, moral dignity, and independence.
But I don't think this is a good interpretation of the story.
Firstly, the story, the characters, and the theme seem too simplistic. It is an uncomplicated struggle between "good" and "evil," with no ambiguity at all in how we should understand the characters or their conflict. The idea that the desire for control is destructive could make a good theme; but the conflict is presented in such a way that this desire for control is all on one side and identified with the male desire for power over a woman. By extension, it also seems suggested then that the war which wiped out humanity probably also resulted from a male desire for domination over others.
Personally, I think this is a pretty narrow and simplistic understanding of human conflicts. Although it's true that a conflict CAN be caused by one party's aggression, MOST conflicts probably result from competing desires or interests and a failure to achieve understanding or compromise. Also, it is generally true of ANY human conflict that viewing it as a struggle between good and evil reflects only the perspective of ONE SIDE. In ANY case, it is certain that people on each side regard themselves as being "good" or "in the right." Moreover, it is incorrect to think that the desire for power is a distinctively masculine characteristic, or that women have no aggressive or competitive inclinations.
On the other hand, if we make ourselves QUESTION Ann's judgment and TRY to understand Loomis sympathetically, the story, its characters, and its themes become much more complex and meaningful. It's NOT a conflict between a good person and a bad one, but between two basically good people who fail to understand and trust each other. Extended to the broader conflict that destroys the world in the story, it is suggested that disaster results from an all-too-common failure in understanding brought on by biased, self-serving judgments and single-minded pursuit of personal interests.
Secondly, there is much in the story that suggests Ann's behavior is irrational and her judgment of Loomis is wrong.
If she is a compassionate and sensible person, WHY DOES SHE LET LOOMIS SWIM IN CONTAMINATED WATER, just watching from a safe distance even while thinking that she COULD warn him? She chooses to let a stranger die rather than take a chance that he MIGHT be a threat to her. What could be more selfish? She kills her dog later for the same reason.
Her actions in these instances also show that she is NO DIFFERENT FROM LOOMIS in being willing to take another's life to preserve her own. In fact, she seems even LESS morally justified than Loomis was when he killed Edward, since Loomis does NOT directly threaten her when he first arrives; she has no logical reason to fear him at this point. In contrast,Edward's attempt to take the protective suit was a direct threat to Loomis' survival; and he felt at that moment he had to choose between Edward's life and his own.
I listed before some of the other evidence of Loomis' good character:
- He never blames Ann for not warning him about the contaminated water; rather, he blames himself for not being cautious. A selfish and unreasonable person tends to blame others for his hardships, not accept his own responsibility for them! And this is even a life-or-death matter!
- He stays calm and rational despite knowing that he will probably die, whereas a self-indulgent and undisciplined person would become despairing or angry. He shows that he is emotionally balanced, rational, self-controlled. Ann admits to herself that she would NOT act the same way, suggesting her contrary tendency to react emotionally and LACK reasoned self-control.
- When they meet for the last time and Ann expects him to kill her like he killed Edward (revealing for the first time her suspicions and fears), Loomis DOESN'T KILL HER. Instead, he immediately breaks into tears and wants to explain what happened, but he knows that she could never trust him now after everything that has gone wrong. This shows pretty clearly he suffers so much guilt about killing Edward that he cannot do it again, even at the risk of his own eventual death.
Moreover, Loomis knows that keeping the suit and protecting his own life is NOT the main concern anymore. Either way (whether he kills her and keeps the suit or lets her take the suit), he knows that they are both doomed.
So, if we think about the times Loomis shows he is a rational, responsible, and ethical person, it should make us question WHAT DROVE HIM TO ACT IN SEEMINGLY IMMORAL OR IRRATIONAL WAYS? It's not normally his character to be selfish, domineering, and violent.
ANSWER: probably a combination of factors, such as: being highly rational and practical (scientific) in his way of thinking; being in extremely desperate and traumatic circumstances (for a long time believing himself the last human on Earth); and having to deal with the immature and highly irrational character of Ann when he finally finds another human being with whom to start a new life (and maybe save the human race to boot).
Ann then appears to be utterly good: innocent, idealistic, and sensibly cautious. In standing up to Loomis, she shows strength of character, moral dignity, and independence.
But I don't think this is a good interpretation of the story.
Firstly, the story, the characters, and the theme seem too simplistic. It is an uncomplicated struggle between "good" and "evil," with no ambiguity at all in how we should understand the characters or their conflict. The idea that the desire for control is destructive could make a good theme; but the conflict is presented in such a way that this desire for control is all on one side and identified with the male desire for power over a woman. By extension, it also seems suggested then that the war which wiped out humanity probably also resulted from a male desire for domination over others.
Personally, I think this is a pretty narrow and simplistic understanding of human conflicts. Although it's true that a conflict CAN be caused by one party's aggression, MOST conflicts probably result from competing desires or interests and a failure to achieve understanding or compromise. Also, it is generally true of ANY human conflict that viewing it as a struggle between good and evil reflects only the perspective of ONE SIDE. In ANY case, it is certain that people on each side regard themselves as being "good" or "in the right." Moreover, it is incorrect to think that the desire for power is a distinctively masculine characteristic, or that women have no aggressive or competitive inclinations.
On the other hand, if we make ourselves QUESTION Ann's judgment and TRY to understand Loomis sympathetically, the story, its characters, and its themes become much more complex and meaningful. It's NOT a conflict between a good person and a bad one, but between two basically good people who fail to understand and trust each other. Extended to the broader conflict that destroys the world in the story, it is suggested that disaster results from an all-too-common failure in understanding brought on by biased, self-serving judgments and single-minded pursuit of personal interests.
Secondly, there is much in the story that suggests Ann's behavior is irrational and her judgment of Loomis is wrong.
If she is a compassionate and sensible person, WHY DOES SHE LET LOOMIS SWIM IN CONTAMINATED WATER, just watching from a safe distance even while thinking that she COULD warn him? She chooses to let a stranger die rather than take a chance that he MIGHT be a threat to her. What could be more selfish? She kills her dog later for the same reason.
Her actions in these instances also show that she is NO DIFFERENT FROM LOOMIS in being willing to take another's life to preserve her own. In fact, she seems even LESS morally justified than Loomis was when he killed Edward, since Loomis does NOT directly threaten her when he first arrives; she has no logical reason to fear him at this point. In contrast,Edward's attempt to take the protective suit was a direct threat to Loomis' survival; and he felt at that moment he had to choose between Edward's life and his own.
I listed before some of the other evidence of Loomis' good character:
- He never blames Ann for not warning him about the contaminated water; rather, he blames himself for not being cautious. A selfish and unreasonable person tends to blame others for his hardships, not accept his own responsibility for them! And this is even a life-or-death matter!
- He stays calm and rational despite knowing that he will probably die, whereas a self-indulgent and undisciplined person would become despairing or angry. He shows that he is emotionally balanced, rational, self-controlled. Ann admits to herself that she would NOT act the same way, suggesting her contrary tendency to react emotionally and LACK reasoned self-control.
- When they meet for the last time and Ann expects him to kill her like he killed Edward (revealing for the first time her suspicions and fears), Loomis DOESN'T KILL HER. Instead, he immediately breaks into tears and wants to explain what happened, but he knows that she could never trust him now after everything that has gone wrong. This shows pretty clearly he suffers so much guilt about killing Edward that he cannot do it again, even at the risk of his own eventual death.
Moreover, Loomis knows that keeping the suit and protecting his own life is NOT the main concern anymore. Either way (whether he kills her and keeps the suit or lets her take the suit), he knows that they are both doomed.
So, if we think about the times Loomis shows he is a rational, responsible, and ethical person, it should make us question WHAT DROVE HIM TO ACT IN SEEMINGLY IMMORAL OR IRRATIONAL WAYS? It's not normally his character to be selfish, domineering, and violent.
ANSWER: probably a combination of factors, such as: being highly rational and practical (scientific) in his way of thinking; being in extremely desperate and traumatic circumstances (for a long time believing himself the last human on Earth); and having to deal with the immature and highly irrational character of Ann when he finally finds another human being with whom to start a new life (and maybe save the human race to boot).
Possible Explanations of Loomis's Behavior
Posted March 13, 2007 at Teachnology
Maybe he misinterpreted her feelings about him. Maybe he was too impatient to resolve the tension between them and establish the relationship he viewed as inevitable. Maybe he thought she was just nervous about sex, and after doing it they'd be able to get on with their lives together. Maybe he was feeling particularly lonely and needy.
Ann never finds out WHY he did what he did, since she never asks him or tries to understand. She just condemns him and makes the absurd decision that they can't be friends anymore (even though they're the last two people on Earth).
He tries to reason with her and asks her to return. When she persists in her irrational behavior, he starts resorting to extreme measures: he tries
to force her to compromise with him by depriving her of what she needs (locking the store), and finally by shooting at her to wound her so she'll have to stay with him.
Though this is extreme and irrational behavior, the situation he tries to create would be very similar to the one when Ann was caring for him before. Ann had viewed Loomis as a threat until he was weakened by sickness, and then she cared for him; but she only felt comfortable with him as long as he was too weak to be any threat--that is, as long as SHE had the power and control.
Structurally, it seems unlikely that this parallel in the plot is accidental. Just as Ann felt secure when Loomis was weak and under her control, it seems now that Loomis wants to gain control over Ann by putting her in the same kind of physically weakened and needy position. What does this mean?
1) It at least suggests a similarity between them in that they BOTH like to feel in control of their relationship, or think they need control
in order to feel secure.
2) If the reader accepts Ann's view of Loomis, what Loomis attempts could seem a twisted version of the earlier situation: whereas Ann was "unselfishly" caring for Loomis while he was sick, Loomis wants to injure Ann on purpose in order to gain control of her. But this interpretation DOESN'T FIT with all the facts of what happened: she was at least partly RESPONSIBLE for his radiation sickness, and she LIKED it when he was weak and in her control.
3) Another interpretation of the parallel situations is that Loomis realizes the parallel also. Maybe he is trying to recreate a similar situation in which one of them would depend on the other. Maybe he not only wants to force her to stay and talk with him but also thinks that she will trust him over time as he nurses her back to health. To someone in these desperate circumstances, such thinking might seem rational. After all, the first time one of them had to care for the other, it seemed to bring them closer!
Personally, I think he just wants to make her stay at the house again so that she'll have to talk with him and be "reasonable"--but, in any case, he's clearly not thinking very rationally himself at this point if he believes shooting her will help win her over to his way of thinking!
Another possibility is that when she persists in her hatred of him, he begins to view her as a threat like Edward was. This attitude might have even
started as a petty sort of revenge, treating her the same way he feels that she is treating him: as an enemy. Or perhaps he only starts to view her as an enemy when she shoots at him in turn as he approaches her hiding place in the woods guided by her dog. He seems shocked by this attack, fleeing in a panic back to the house.
Once the shooting starts, Ann's feelings of distrust and animosity become firmly fixed; and the two of them enter a state of virtual war--analogous to the war that wiped out their world. If I remember correctly, just before Loomis first shoots at Ann, she is considering trying to be more friendly towards him. My view of this is that she is finally starting to be reasonable, but it's too late: Loomis has now given up on her capacity for reason and has decided to resort to force.
After war breaks out between them, there is probably just one last chance for them to reach an understanding. This is when Ann offers to meet Loomis to discuss a truce if he will come unarmed. What Loomis does here seems very important in judging him. He TRUSTS HER and goes to meet her unarmed. For all he knows, she might be waiting in ambush and planning to shoot him as he approaches. But he seems to trust her so that they can FINALLY talk openly and try to reach an understanding.
It is bitterly ironic that she throws away this last chance for their cooperation and survival, just using the offer of a parley as a ploy to steal the protective suit--as a trick to gain power for herself. In other words, the possibility of mutual understanding (the thing most important for survival) is sacrificed for what she selfishly THINKS serves her own interests. Thinking she doesn't NEED Loomis, she looks out only for her own interests; but the irony is that the two of them need each other desperately. By acting selfishly, they doom themselves and their posterity.
Isn't Ann's choice here essentially the cause of practically all human conflict? People forgo chances for mutual understanding (perhaps even scorning diplomacy) because they think they can only get what they want by force, or only force will give them security. Wrong. Only understanding and trust between people can give them real security.
Ann sacrifices everything for revenge and to pursue a fantasy that there is another valley somewhere with children waiting for her to teach them. Unable to handle the complexities of a real-life relationship with Loomis, she prefers to look for the unreal, wish-fulfilling relationships seen in her dreams. As she walks away into the barren radioactive landscape, she is still clinging to childhood dreams of a future career that have become absurdly unrealistic in a world where the society she knew has been completely wiped out. She and Loomis (the last man, "Zachariah") are all that's left of that society. But she is lost in her fanciful and self-indulgent imaginings and completely out of touch with the tragic reality of the world she lives in. In her last meeting with Loomis, she even thinks of herself as being like a heroine in fiction--oblivious to the monstrous differences between her reality and any fictional world she's familiar with.
Ann never finds out WHY he did what he did, since she never asks him or tries to understand. She just condemns him and makes the absurd decision that they can't be friends anymore (even though they're the last two people on Earth).
He tries to reason with her and asks her to return. When she persists in her irrational behavior, he starts resorting to extreme measures: he tries
to force her to compromise with him by depriving her of what she needs (locking the store), and finally by shooting at her to wound her so she'll have to stay with him.
Though this is extreme and irrational behavior, the situation he tries to create would be very similar to the one when Ann was caring for him before. Ann had viewed Loomis as a threat until he was weakened by sickness, and then she cared for him; but she only felt comfortable with him as long as he was too weak to be any threat--that is, as long as SHE had the power and control.
Structurally, it seems unlikely that this parallel in the plot is accidental. Just as Ann felt secure when Loomis was weak and under her control, it seems now that Loomis wants to gain control over Ann by putting her in the same kind of physically weakened and needy position. What does this mean?
1) It at least suggests a similarity between them in that they BOTH like to feel in control of their relationship, or think they need control
in order to feel secure.
2) If the reader accepts Ann's view of Loomis, what Loomis attempts could seem a twisted version of the earlier situation: whereas Ann was "unselfishly" caring for Loomis while he was sick, Loomis wants to injure Ann on purpose in order to gain control of her. But this interpretation DOESN'T FIT with all the facts of what happened: she was at least partly RESPONSIBLE for his radiation sickness, and she LIKED it when he was weak and in her control.
3) Another interpretation of the parallel situations is that Loomis realizes the parallel also. Maybe he is trying to recreate a similar situation in which one of them would depend on the other. Maybe he not only wants to force her to stay and talk with him but also thinks that she will trust him over time as he nurses her back to health. To someone in these desperate circumstances, such thinking might seem rational. After all, the first time one of them had to care for the other, it seemed to bring them closer!
Personally, I think he just wants to make her stay at the house again so that she'll have to talk with him and be "reasonable"--but, in any case, he's clearly not thinking very rationally himself at this point if he believes shooting her will help win her over to his way of thinking!
Another possibility is that when she persists in her hatred of him, he begins to view her as a threat like Edward was. This attitude might have even
started as a petty sort of revenge, treating her the same way he feels that she is treating him: as an enemy. Or perhaps he only starts to view her as an enemy when she shoots at him in turn as he approaches her hiding place in the woods guided by her dog. He seems shocked by this attack, fleeing in a panic back to the house.
Once the shooting starts, Ann's feelings of distrust and animosity become firmly fixed; and the two of them enter a state of virtual war--analogous to the war that wiped out their world. If I remember correctly, just before Loomis first shoots at Ann, she is considering trying to be more friendly towards him. My view of this is that she is finally starting to be reasonable, but it's too late: Loomis has now given up on her capacity for reason and has decided to resort to force.
After war breaks out between them, there is probably just one last chance for them to reach an understanding. This is when Ann offers to meet Loomis to discuss a truce if he will come unarmed. What Loomis does here seems very important in judging him. He TRUSTS HER and goes to meet her unarmed. For all he knows, she might be waiting in ambush and planning to shoot him as he approaches. But he seems to trust her so that they can FINALLY talk openly and try to reach an understanding.
It is bitterly ironic that she throws away this last chance for their cooperation and survival, just using the offer of a parley as a ploy to steal the protective suit--as a trick to gain power for herself. In other words, the possibility of mutual understanding (the thing most important for survival) is sacrificed for what she selfishly THINKS serves her own interests. Thinking she doesn't NEED Loomis, she looks out only for her own interests; but the irony is that the two of them need each other desperately. By acting selfishly, they doom themselves and their posterity.
Isn't Ann's choice here essentially the cause of practically all human conflict? People forgo chances for mutual understanding (perhaps even scorning diplomacy) because they think they can only get what they want by force, or only force will give them security. Wrong. Only understanding and trust between people can give them real security.
Ann sacrifices everything for revenge and to pursue a fantasy that there is another valley somewhere with children waiting for her to teach them. Unable to handle the complexities of a real-life relationship with Loomis, she prefers to look for the unreal, wish-fulfilling relationships seen in her dreams. As she walks away into the barren radioactive landscape, she is still clinging to childhood dreams of a future career that have become absurdly unrealistic in a world where the society she knew has been completely wiped out. She and Loomis (the last man, "Zachariah") are all that's left of that society. But she is lost in her fanciful and self-indulgent imaginings and completely out of touch with the tragic reality of the world she lives in. In her last meeting with Loomis, she even thinks of herself as being like a heroine in fiction--oblivious to the monstrous differences between her reality and any fictional world she's familiar with.
Concerning the use of Force
Posted March 13, 2007 at Teachnology
Another thing that seems important to consider is that ignoring someone or refusing to have a relationship with them is also a kind of violence--a use of force.
It is like one country's government refusing to recognize another country's leaders as legitimate and having no embassy in that country. It could also resemble a trade embargo or economic sanctions against a country in order to punish its government or try to force it to change.
Loomis' use of force is a reaction to Ann's use of force in breaking off relations with him. Her treatment of him is particularly harsh when one considers the simple fact that THERE IS NO ONE ELSE FOR HIM TO BE WITH! She seems to condemn him to living alone without love or a family.
In a way, this threat of being left alone to die is also the same one that he faced earlier from Edward.
It is like one country's government refusing to recognize another country's leaders as legitimate and having no embassy in that country. It could also resemble a trade embargo or economic sanctions against a country in order to punish its government or try to force it to change.
Loomis' use of force is a reaction to Ann's use of force in breaking off relations with him. Her treatment of him is particularly harsh when one considers the simple fact that THERE IS NO ONE ELSE FOR HIM TO BE WITH! She seems to condemn him to living alone without love or a family.
In a way, this threat of being left alone to die is also the same one that he faced earlier from Edward.
Misinterpreting Loomis as a "Control-freak"
Posted March 13, 2007 at Teachnology
I find it amazing and rather disturbing that so many readers of this story fail to see that it is told from a one-sided, biased perspective, but instead just take for granted that the narrator's viewpoint (and their own viewpoint through identifying with her) is the only valid one. It is disturbing because applying the same outlook to relationships in the real world is bound to lead to similarly biased and unsympathetic judgments about others.
It seems even worse if teachers actually ENCOURAGE students to accept Ann's views unquestioningly, since it is tantamount to encouraging self-righteous absolute moral judgments and an uncritical acceptance of one's own opinions about others.
Sadly, no one who disagrees with my attempts to understand Loomis has tried to explain the details in the story that I think raise doubts about Ann's reasoning and show Loomis' good qualities. Rather, people only respond by repeating Ann's general interpretation of Loomis, referring to the few incidents of his extreme behavior (without attempting to explain his character development), and dismiss him offhandedly as a "nutcase," "control-freak," "murderer," and "rapist."
First, he is definitely NOT a murderer. Killing Edward cannot be justly called murder because of the traumatic and morally complicated circumstances in which it happened (i.e., in the aftermath of a nuclear war that probably wiped out all but 3 people on the planet). Many readers who comment on the story here seem to ignore this background as if everything took place in an ordinary social context where ordinary rules apply--just as Ann tends to assume! As with Ann, perhaps this outlook is more comforting for these readers than the prospect that life and the world as they know it are over.
Anyway, as far as Edward and Loomis knew, they were the last survivors and they had the only means of now travelling safely in the radioactive outside world: one prototype of a safe-suit. Loomis wanted to take that safe-suit to look for his family, and Edward was afraid of losing the only means of escaping their laboratory when the food ran out. Edward was irrational in assuming that his family could have survived the radiation, and he couldn't be counted on to return with the safe-suit. If Edward took the suit, there's a good chance it would have been a death sentence for Loomis. Loomis caught Edward trying to leave and threatened him with a gun, but Edward apparently tried to leave anyway. How can you call this simply murder? Loomis was clearly defending his own life by killing Edward. Similarly, if 2 survivors of a shipwreck are in a boat at sea and one tries to take all the food for himself, the other has no choice but to either fight or die.
Even if Edward had stayed in the underground shelter with Loomis until the food ran low, there would have probably come a time when they had to fight for control over the one safe-suit. The only way that could've been avoided would've been if they had trusted each other completely. What would you probably do in such a situation? If you and a work acquaintance were the last ones alive with one safe-suit between you, are you sure you'd be able to trust each other absolutely and not act emotionally or instinctively to ensure personal survival?
So much for "murdering" Edward. Moreover, IF he is a murderer, why DOESN'T he kill Ann at the end? If she plans to leave him and she'll probably die soon anyway (of starvation or radiation sickness), it would make sense for him to value the safe-suit more than her life. If she takes it and dies with it, the suit will be lost and wasted; whereas if he kills her and keeps the suit, he can make good use of it to visit towns or cities sometimes to get books or useful items. Why should a callous murderer care about killing one more person to serve his own selfish interests?! Why should he let a fool like Ann waste the invaluable, irreplaceable safe-suit?
At least three factors make this situation at the end of the story very different from the situation when Loomis killed Edward: (1) Loomis' survival doesn't depend on having the safe-suit anymore; (2) he already suffers a lot of guilt over killing Edward; and (3) he thinks Ann is the last woman on Earth and is desperate for her to stay with him. Moreover, when she reveals what she suspects about Edward, Loomis probably understands for the first time the main reason she has distrusted him; and he sympathizes with her.
A murderer? No, he's just human.
As for being "the ultimate control-freak" and a "would-be rapist," how can you explain his seemingly very reasonable and responsible behavior when he first meets Ann and finds out she let him swim in contaminated water? Are control-freaks and rapists normally that mild, equable, and self-restrained, accepting of their fate even in the face of imminent death?
When he gives her practical instructions and advice as he recovers from sickness, is he trying to take control of her or just being practical? How can you trust Ann's interpretation that he's asserting control even though she was paranoid about a stranger trying to control her even before Loomis arrived in the valley? Even though she allowed him to be poisoned because of this paranoid fear? Even though she only felt it was safe to help him because he was weakened by sickness?
The fact is that as Loomis becomes healthy again, Ann simply reverts to her original paranoid fear of him as a man with the potential to threaten her if he wants to. Basically, what she fears is any POTENTIAL threat, not real threats that manifest themselves.
As for his "attempted rape" and later actions to force Ann to return to him, these do NOT prove he is either a control-freak or a would-be rapist, since all his actions are understandable under their circumstances (as I've explained in detail). Can you refute these possible expanations of his behavior that I've offered? I think it's difficult to do so when the only evidence available is Ann's interpretation. Basing your jugments on that just ignores that her individual viewpoint is open to interpretation at all.
TRY to put yourself in Loomis' shoes. As a scientist, he knows that the self-contained weather system of the valley is a phenomenal rarity and that there is probably nowhere else left on the planet that can support life. He believes that he and Ann are the last two humans and they must get down to the business of making a new life together as well as they can. But Ann is an incredibly naive and self-deluded young woman who still clings to childhood dreams about her future and believes that her relationships with others should still adhere to social and romantic conventions. Here she is with the last man on Earth in a situation where they HAVE TO cooperate in order to survive and continue the human race, yet she still dreams of marrying Loomis in a church wedding and frets that he might not be attracted to her, then struggles with doubts about whether she knows him well enough and whether she can trust him. She finds fault with him for not seeming interested in her personality, as if she could just dump him and find someone else if he doesn't give her enough attention! She tries to make small talk and asks about his background as if she needs to know more about him to judge if he's a suitable match, and she feels so nervous when he just holds her hand that she stumbles
and hits him in the face.
Given Loomis' knowledge of their dire situation, he must have little patience for Ann's silliness. And we readers are only getting a bare glimpse of her foolish ideas through her diary. Loomis probably sees a lot more evidence of her irrational thinking and behavior. Moreover, Ann is NOT a child. At 16, she is a young woman and past the age at which many girls have become sexually active or even married. In Western society, it used to be common for girls to wed at 13, and that probably still happens in some cultures. In our culture, people of that age or in their teens need to be taught in schools about safe sex and the dangers of unplanned pregnancies (which happen often enough). Ann is NOT typically innocent or naive for her age; she is extremely and irrationally naive, especially given her post-apocalypse circumstances. What her behavior suggests is that she has lived a VERY sheltered life with a conservative upbringing, and she is very likely deluding herself about the reality of her situation. She WANTS to believe that the world hasn't changed and normal society is continuing somewhere. At the end, she even goes off to try to find the place in her dreams where children are sitting in a schoolroom waiting for her to come and teach them.
You claim that she "embraces life by leaving the valley and moving on," but that is an absurd view of her actions. She doesn't even take with her the cart of supplies that Loomis needed for his travels, or the tent he used made of the same protective material. She has made no practical preparations for surviving outside the valley apart from securing the safe-suit, so it's no surprise that her diary entries soon end after she leaves. She doesn't embrace LIFE at all!! She embraces her deluded romantic fantasies. And, unwittingly, she recklessly embraces her own death and the end of the human race.
She is like a woman who rejects a man's advances, declaring proudly and scornfully, "I wouldn't sleep with YOU if you were the LAST man on Earth," while ignoring the fact that he actually IS the last man on Earth!! And then she marches off into a nuclear wasteland to find Mr. Right and a satisfying career. LOL. If her stupidity didn't have such tragic consequences, it would be laughably ridiculous.
It seems even worse if teachers actually ENCOURAGE students to accept Ann's views unquestioningly, since it is tantamount to encouraging self-righteous absolute moral judgments and an uncritical acceptance of one's own opinions about others.
Sadly, no one who disagrees with my attempts to understand Loomis has tried to explain the details in the story that I think raise doubts about Ann's reasoning and show Loomis' good qualities. Rather, people only respond by repeating Ann's general interpretation of Loomis, referring to the few incidents of his extreme behavior (without attempting to explain his character development), and dismiss him offhandedly as a "nutcase," "control-freak," "murderer," and "rapist."
First, he is definitely NOT a murderer. Killing Edward cannot be justly called murder because of the traumatic and morally complicated circumstances in which it happened (i.e., in the aftermath of a nuclear war that probably wiped out all but 3 people on the planet). Many readers who comment on the story here seem to ignore this background as if everything took place in an ordinary social context where ordinary rules apply--just as Ann tends to assume! As with Ann, perhaps this outlook is more comforting for these readers than the prospect that life and the world as they know it are over.
Anyway, as far as Edward and Loomis knew, they were the last survivors and they had the only means of now travelling safely in the radioactive outside world: one prototype of a safe-suit. Loomis wanted to take that safe-suit to look for his family, and Edward was afraid of losing the only means of escaping their laboratory when the food ran out. Edward was irrational in assuming that his family could have survived the radiation, and he couldn't be counted on to return with the safe-suit. If Edward took the suit, there's a good chance it would have been a death sentence for Loomis. Loomis caught Edward trying to leave and threatened him with a gun, but Edward apparently tried to leave anyway. How can you call this simply murder? Loomis was clearly defending his own life by killing Edward. Similarly, if 2 survivors of a shipwreck are in a boat at sea and one tries to take all the food for himself, the other has no choice but to either fight or die.
Even if Edward had stayed in the underground shelter with Loomis until the food ran low, there would have probably come a time when they had to fight for control over the one safe-suit. The only way that could've been avoided would've been if they had trusted each other completely. What would you probably do in such a situation? If you and a work acquaintance were the last ones alive with one safe-suit between you, are you sure you'd be able to trust each other absolutely and not act emotionally or instinctively to ensure personal survival?
So much for "murdering" Edward. Moreover, IF he is a murderer, why DOESN'T he kill Ann at the end? If she plans to leave him and she'll probably die soon anyway (of starvation or radiation sickness), it would make sense for him to value the safe-suit more than her life. If she takes it and dies with it, the suit will be lost and wasted; whereas if he kills her and keeps the suit, he can make good use of it to visit towns or cities sometimes to get books or useful items. Why should a callous murderer care about killing one more person to serve his own selfish interests?! Why should he let a fool like Ann waste the invaluable, irreplaceable safe-suit?
At least three factors make this situation at the end of the story very different from the situation when Loomis killed Edward: (1) Loomis' survival doesn't depend on having the safe-suit anymore; (2) he already suffers a lot of guilt over killing Edward; and (3) he thinks Ann is the last woman on Earth and is desperate for her to stay with him. Moreover, when she reveals what she suspects about Edward, Loomis probably understands for the first time the main reason she has distrusted him; and he sympathizes with her.
A murderer? No, he's just human.
As for being "the ultimate control-freak" and a "would-be rapist," how can you explain his seemingly very reasonable and responsible behavior when he first meets Ann and finds out she let him swim in contaminated water? Are control-freaks and rapists normally that mild, equable, and self-restrained, accepting of their fate even in the face of imminent death?
When he gives her practical instructions and advice as he recovers from sickness, is he trying to take control of her or just being practical? How can you trust Ann's interpretation that he's asserting control even though she was paranoid about a stranger trying to control her even before Loomis arrived in the valley? Even though she allowed him to be poisoned because of this paranoid fear? Even though she only felt it was safe to help him because he was weakened by sickness?
The fact is that as Loomis becomes healthy again, Ann simply reverts to her original paranoid fear of him as a man with the potential to threaten her if he wants to. Basically, what she fears is any POTENTIAL threat, not real threats that manifest themselves.
As for his "attempted rape" and later actions to force Ann to return to him, these do NOT prove he is either a control-freak or a would-be rapist, since all his actions are understandable under their circumstances (as I've explained in detail). Can you refute these possible expanations of his behavior that I've offered? I think it's difficult to do so when the only evidence available is Ann's interpretation. Basing your jugments on that just ignores that her individual viewpoint is open to interpretation at all.
TRY to put yourself in Loomis' shoes. As a scientist, he knows that the self-contained weather system of the valley is a phenomenal rarity and that there is probably nowhere else left on the planet that can support life. He believes that he and Ann are the last two humans and they must get down to the business of making a new life together as well as they can. But Ann is an incredibly naive and self-deluded young woman who still clings to childhood dreams about her future and believes that her relationships with others should still adhere to social and romantic conventions. Here she is with the last man on Earth in a situation where they HAVE TO cooperate in order to survive and continue the human race, yet she still dreams of marrying Loomis in a church wedding and frets that he might not be attracted to her, then struggles with doubts about whether she knows him well enough and whether she can trust him. She finds fault with him for not seeming interested in her personality, as if she could just dump him and find someone else if he doesn't give her enough attention! She tries to make small talk and asks about his background as if she needs to know more about him to judge if he's a suitable match, and she feels so nervous when he just holds her hand that she stumbles
and hits him in the face.
Given Loomis' knowledge of their dire situation, he must have little patience for Ann's silliness. And we readers are only getting a bare glimpse of her foolish ideas through her diary. Loomis probably sees a lot more evidence of her irrational thinking and behavior. Moreover, Ann is NOT a child. At 16, she is a young woman and past the age at which many girls have become sexually active or even married. In Western society, it used to be common for girls to wed at 13, and that probably still happens in some cultures. In our culture, people of that age or in their teens need to be taught in schools about safe sex and the dangers of unplanned pregnancies (which happen often enough). Ann is NOT typically innocent or naive for her age; she is extremely and irrationally naive, especially given her post-apocalypse circumstances. What her behavior suggests is that she has lived a VERY sheltered life with a conservative upbringing, and she is very likely deluding herself about the reality of her situation. She WANTS to believe that the world hasn't changed and normal society is continuing somewhere. At the end, she even goes off to try to find the place in her dreams where children are sitting in a schoolroom waiting for her to come and teach them.
You claim that she "embraces life by leaving the valley and moving on," but that is an absurd view of her actions. She doesn't even take with her the cart of supplies that Loomis needed for his travels, or the tent he used made of the same protective material. She has made no practical preparations for surviving outside the valley apart from securing the safe-suit, so it's no surprise that her diary entries soon end after she leaves. She doesn't embrace LIFE at all!! She embraces her deluded romantic fantasies. And, unwittingly, she recklessly embraces her own death and the end of the human race.
She is like a woman who rejects a man's advances, declaring proudly and scornfully, "I wouldn't sleep with YOU if you were the LAST man on Earth," while ignoring the fact that he actually IS the last man on Earth!! And then she marches off into a nuclear wasteland to find Mr. Right and a satisfying career. LOL. If her stupidity didn't have such tragic consequences, it would be laughably ridiculous.