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?
I really meant to get to "Adams" on Friday, and I promise we'll touch on it at the start of class Tuesday.
ReplyDeleteAdding to all this ambiguity surrounding Adams, and whether and what kind of threat he actually poses, is his weird defensiveness, embodied in his ambiguous and defiant, "I am what I am" (which still begs the question, "What ARE you?"). The narrator (Roberts?) works hard to set himself up as the obvious hero in this scenario, even as he's aware at various points that his actions could be interpreted differently, from the point of view of Adams's family. And yet this glimmer of self-awareness isn't enough to stop him--far from it, it seems to further motivate him to keep breaking into Adams's place and undermining him further.
A truly insane story, which we really should talk about as a group. Thanks for getting the conversation started here!
Very interesting point, Lizzy. I never contemplated the notion that the story ends somewhat flipped on its head, if you will. I, too, entered the narrative thinking that Adams was mentally ill in one way or another (and discussed the possibility of dementia with Molly and Mr. Mitchell after class). The narrator's focus and reiteration of the fact that Adams had been standing in front of his kid's room made it seem as though he was the threat. But upon reading the end of the story, I found myself caught very off guard. I had to read over the last page to ensure that I hadn't formulated some odd ending to the story in my own head rather than reading what was actually on the page, but it didn't change much. It's very interesting to think that these could be equals when it comes to their respective craziness, and that it's simply portrayed the way it is because of who's telling the story. You're right, by the end I even question the validity of his observations, questioning how much of what he's said actually occurred.
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed going through this reversal of feelings for the characters as the story went on. You pointed out that at first you were naturally thinking of Roger as the "good guy", but as he started losing his credibility with his actions/thoughts, you shifted to supporting Adams. This is exactly what I went through as I read the book, and to be honest even now I am not completely sure who I support. There is evidence to argue both ways on who is the weird one, and there is also evidence to prove that both of these characters are not in their right mind. I find it interesting that you pointed out how the neighbors agreed with Rogers. This is the one instance when I really started questioning Adams again, because Roger wasn't the only one disliking Adams. I cannot answer your questions, because I still can't decide who is the bad one.
ReplyDeleteEverybody makes some really excellent points here. The narrator was the one who really struck me as the "crazy" one here. This is not to say, however, that Adams isn't also messed up in certain ways.
ReplyDeleteIf, one day, someone I knew (even if I didn't like them) were standing in my house without pants, I would ask them what the heck they were doing. I wouldn't immediately jump to "wonking" them. From asking the person themselves, I would advance to calling the police if necessary. Assault wouldn't be on my mind, especially since there could be an actual reason the person was there without pants. Then, when Roger breaks into Adams' house to steal all his dangerous things, even after Adams said they were even (102), and all solely based on feelings of paranoia, it solidifies Roger as the crazier of the two parties here.