Thoughts on "Adams"

The entire story of “Adams” puzzled me. At first we’re thrown into this story, being told that this man is in the narrator’s house (where he isn’t supposed to be) in his underwear facing his kid’s room. I immediately thought that Adams was a total threat to the narrator-- a deranged man that was unpredictable. It fascinated that me as I read further into the story, I started to not feel as aligned with the narrator and by the end, didn’t even trust him. I started to think that the narrator was the deranged man-- breaking into a house because of paranoia of household items-- instead of Adams.

We didn’t get the backstory of why Adams was in the narrator's house without pants on. The narrator believed that it was to harm his family but I think he’s unreliable based on the ending of the story. Adams could be in the narrator’s house because the narrator instigated it. To me, Adams doesn’t seem like much of a threat.

“I never could stomach Adams and then one day he’s standing, in his underwear. Facing in the direction of my kids’ room! So, I wonk him in the back of the head and down he goes.” (Saunders 101).

At the beginning of the story Adams is just standing there. The narrator is the ones that goes and “wonks” him. Later in the story, unprovoked the narrator forces himself into Adam’s house and starts beating him again.

“Up I went and he was standing at the mirror, still in his goddam underwear, only now he had on shirt, and I wonked him again as he was turning. Down he went and tried to crab out of the room, but I put a foot on his back.” (Saunders 102)

This is totally unprovoked. Adams tries to get away but the narrator insists on continuing to beat him unnecessarily. At first I though Adams’ replies to the conversation were weird and fit with the deranged person that the narrator made him out to be.

“If you ever, I said. If you ever again

Now we’re even, he said. I came in your house and you came in mine.” (Saunders 102)

However, now that I look at it, all the things Adams says are things that I’d expect someone to say when they don’t want further harm or trouble.  It seems like Adams is doing everything in his power to keep the narrator from getting even more mad.

The one thing that seemed odd to me was that the neighbors didn’t like Adams either. One theory I had was that maybe it’s just because he is a weirder dude. Or, maybe the neighbors are just saying that because they know the narrator isn’t in his right mind and don’t want him as an enemy. 

By then end of the story, the anxious and paranoid tone of the narrator started to really stand out to me. He was breaking into Adams’ house to steal common household objects-- knives and cleaning supplies just because he feared what they could do. Only then do we see Adams fight back against the narrator's actions, and in self defense. Is Adams really all that bad? Who is the bad guy here? The narrator, Adams, or both?

Different, Yet the Same, Second Person

Having just read Lorrie Moore’s Self Help, Diaz’s “How to Date A Browngirl, Blackgirl, Whitegirl, or Halfie”, it really intrigued me. Within both, you get a guide for a very specific circumstance and it seems like a story lies underneath rather than it being an emotionless DIY guide. The person who was leading us through this story, Yunior, seemed not to reflect  that much on how he felt-- like some of the characters within Lorrie Moore’s stories. While I was listening to the reading, I was struck by how robotic Yunior’s guide was. This reminded me of “How to Become a Writer” because you get how people react, but you don’t get how the guide of the story feels about it.

Within “How to Date A Browngirl, Blackgirl, Whitegirl, or Halfie” I also saw a lot of differences between the stories. This story reminds me the most of “How” and “How to Be an Other Woman” within Self Help. You also get lots of possibilities about what you could do.

One difference that I see between these is that while Moore makes all the outcomes the same regardless of what option she gives you to pick, Diaz makes it so that there could be many different options and of them are possible.

“But usually it won’t work this way”  (48)

I guess that might just go along with that this is a guide for multiple types of girls. What do you guys think?     

Another difference was that Yunior thinks a lot about what outcomes his actions would have (if he does or doesn’t do something). In Moore’s stories, she portrays the character who is guiding us as more carefree and not thinking that far into the future.

"How to Become a Writer" matched with "The Truth of Running"

Hey all, when I was reading "How to Become a Writer" it reminded me a lot of a sketch from a sketch comedy group called Studio C. This one particular sketch, "The Truth of Running," really seemed to match the same style of humor that I found within "How to Become a Writer."

Both claim something that physically harmless to be toxic on all levels. Both involve parents disproving of what their child is doing.
One line from the story that really reminds me of this video is, "You have, as your mother would say, fallen in with a bad crowd" (122).

I just thought this was cool, and Studio C is my favorite sketch comedy group, so I thought I'd share!

NOTE: This is more of a fun blog post. Check out my more intense one for this 2 week period.

A Guide to Exposing Trudy

As most of you know, my group recently lead the class discussion for “Amahl and the Night Visitors: A Guide To the Tenor of Love”. There was one aspect of the story that I found really fascinating that we didn’t quite get to. We talked briefly about how we thought it would be weird for Trudy to be the voice writing these “journal entries” because they’re set in the present and usually we think of journal entries to be reflecting on things that happened in the past; therefore using past tense. Personally, I don’t think Trudy is writing this herself, but someone that has access to Trudy’s thoughts and actions every day. If it was Trudy writing this, I feel like she’d possibly try to paint herself in a different light by intentionally leaving out some details about what she did-- like the one scene where she asked Moss if he was cheating on her with Bob and Moss got mad. Although this might not be Trudy’s voice in these entries, our perspective of the story is still aligned with Trudy. One question I didn’t get to ask is do you think that since we’re in Trudy’s shoes that we automatically are more inclined to believe that Moss is cheating as opposed to if this story were written in third person? And, if you do think Moss is cheating, do you think our sympathies are geared more towards Trudy because we’re in her shoes?

Originally I was thinking that Moss was definitely cheating on Trudy. But, then from the overall picture that I got of Trudy (unchill, helicopter parent-esque, suspicious, not trusting), I started to lean away from that opinion. If I was dating someone that was that paranoid about where I was, when they know that I have a very demanding job, I honestly probably wouldn’t want to rush home to them after work either.
Although the phone ringing and then the caller hanging up does sound suspicious, we have to keep in mind that we’re in the shoes of a person who sees what they want to see. Trudy wants to find evidence that Moss is cheating on her. That is what drives her to ask the question if Moss is cheating with her on Bob when they all run into each other at the mall. To me, the phone calls could just be the wrong number or fans of Moss freaking out and hanging up when they hear a woman’s voice instead of Moss’. And when Moss did answer the phone oddly, maybe he was talking in a hushed voice because he was talking about a surprise for Trudy -- we never get anyone else’s views except Trudy’s and they paint Moss in a bad light. Maybe Moss is more innocent than she seems.

Where's the $$$$??

In "This Morning, This Evening, So Soon" we're presented with this mystery that is never solved. When money out of Ada's purse goes missing, Boona is accused of stealing it. Could he really be a thief or did someone else in the group steal it? Where's the cash????

Suspects:

The narrator - He isn't in the same room when the money is allegedly stolen. Also, when he hears the money is missing, his first thought is to just give Ada the amount that went missing. He is a rich movie star/singer and is pretty wealthy -- he has no reason to steal. I'd say he is definitely innocent.

Ada & friends - Could they just be tourists fishing for some extra money? When they first meet the narrator and Vidal, Ada offers to buy them a drink. This shows that Ada isn't extremely cheap with her money. However, what about her friends?
We don't get much detail on the other Americans aside from Pete singing. However, before Ada introduces herself at the cafe, the narrator comments that Ada seems to be in charge. Based on the assumption that Ada is sorta like a "ringleader", I doubt any of the other Americans would try to swindle the narrator and Vidal without consulting with her first. The Americans are very polite about the whole situation and don't try to make a huge scene out of it. Ada even apologizes for the trouble at the end. I'd say this group is innocent.

Vidal - Is he trying to frame Boona to get him out of the picture so he has a better chance with Ada? He does seem to manipulate the narrator in order to get the desired response and acting he wants for his movie. What makes him not manipulate someone else for his own benefit again? Ada seems to be more interested in Boona than Vidal. Is it possible that Vidal is jealous? If so, is this jealousy enhanced by the fact that he is famous and Boona is not? Competition might not mix well with Vidal. I'd say he's a prime suspect in this.

Boona - Is he desperate enough to steal money from friends of a friend? Within the story, the narrator believes that Boona is guilty, saying that Boona might be having to do this to eat tomorrow. However, if this is the case, why wouldn't he just steal from someone else? There are plenty of other tourists around in Paris. When Boona talks to the narrator about it, it's mentioned that his eyes are full of tears. This might be either because he is afraid of being caught, or he is genuinely hurt that he would be accused of stealing. He even offers to let the narrator search him for the money. To me, the offer to be searched shows how desperate Boona is for these accusations to go away.
My conclusion is that either Boona is an incredibly good actor and thief or that he is innocent.

Perhaps Talley saw wrong and Ada just lost the money somewhere.
Who do you think is the guilty one?

The Laughing Man's Death

When I was reading this, the parallels between the laughing man story and the Chief’s relationship to Mary Hudson really stood out to me. When we first are introduced to the Laughing Man story, everything is running smoothly on a day to day basis from the narrator’s perspective. The Laughing Man story is mainly optimistic. However, as Mary Hudson starts coming into the Chief’s life, the story keeps getting more and more dark as time passes. When the Comanche boys encorporated Mary Hudson into their lives, Chief seemed so happy. However, we don’t get an installment of the Laughing Man during that time. The next time we get an installment of the Laughing man is when the drama starts and the story gets darker. The villains (the Dufarges) capture the Laughing Man’s best friend (Black Wing) when Mary Hudson never shows up to get on the bus. We can see the Chief’s anger in, “Let’s have a little quiet in this damn bus” as he begins to drive the boys to their field to play baseball (Salinger, 68). He undoubtedly takes out his anger on the Laughing Man, leaving this installment with cliff hanger of whether or not the Laughing Man would die. Between this installment of the Laughing Man and the next, a lot happens in the relationship between Mary Hudson and the Chief. Mary Hudson shows up to a baseball outing between two maids with baby carriages, the Chief goes to talk to her and brings her to the field, and Mary Hudson starts crying and run away from the Chief. I guessed that the baby carriages were symbolic for Mary Hudson being pregnant, which could be a troubling thing for the Chief. After that but before the bus ride home, the Chief gives the final installment of the Laughing Man. He takes out his emotions from the encounter on the Laughing Man and he is killed by the villain. Having looked at all of that, I have a few questions.

Do you think Chief killing off the Laughing Man was symbolic of Chief ending his relationship with Mary Hudson or the Chief about to “end” his relationship with the group of boys?

It is mentioned that this story is very much a part of the club’s lives. Why do you think the Chief would choose to end it so suddenly? Do you think that the Chief went on telling more stories after the Laughing Man, or used it as a conclusion to the time he had with the Comanche club?

Do you think the Chief sees himself as the Laughing Man in the end (his feelings influencing how well the Laughing Man does in the story) and eventually makes Mary Hudson into the villain?

I’m curious to see what you all think.

Are you feelin it now, Mr. Krebs?

As most of you know, I was one of the people in charge of leading the group discussion on a few of the stories in Hemingway’s In Our Time, one of them being “A Soldier’s Home.” We explored a lot about Krebs, but I have some further things I’d like to discuss.

One of the first questions I had was why did Krebs come back later than everyone else? In the story it says that, “The men who had been drafted had all been welcomed elaborately on their return.” That makes it seem to me that Krebs chose to go to war -- all men who had been drafted being separate from him. Maybe he decided to go to get away from his mother that treated him like a child and a father who is presented as sort of this ominous figure. Maybe he heard promises of heroism.

Maybe Krebs is telling all these lies to try to justify and feel like going to war was the right choice for him. He just desperately wants people to see him as a hero, and to achieve that he tells people these lies to try to get that response (because his experiences in war weren't so thrilling for the average listener), but he just feels guilty later because he didn't actually do those things and he might not be the hero everyone thought he was. Not being seen as a hero and his town being the same once he came back seems to disappoint Krebs, making all these questions weigh heavy on his mind. He seems to let the war define his life, and can’t move past it.

Also, when the narrator was talking about Krebs reading about the war and understanding it more, he mentions that Krebs thinks finally that he had been a good soldier. Maybe Krebs constantly questioning if he was a good soldier can contribute to his need to try to validate himself going to war by lying. I think all of these worries contribute to the depressed vibe of Krebs that I get -- a Krebs that isn’t really feeling up to everyday life once he gets back.