 | |
| Catoctin Mountain Park |
 |
| Brian Van Reet |
"I let out a primal yell, grabbed the fish, brought it to my mouth, and wrenched its head the rest of the way off with one powerful chomp" (183).
In reading "Big Two-Hearted Hunting Creek," I recognized characters like Ron Kovic, Jake Barnes, and more in Rooster and Sleed. I was especially struck by the similarities between Kovic and Rooster. They both suffer injuries that in many ways dictate their lives and must learn to live in their new bodies. While reading this story, I was also reminded of our conversation about atrocities on Friday. I thought of the actions in these stories as thoroughly disgusting, but wondered if they could be defined as "atrocious."
1. Do you think that there are atrocities in this story? If so, which parts of the story? (And if not, how do you define the terrible parts of the story, be them in in combat, recuperating, or at the end? —JC)
2. When describing his parents, Rooster says, "None of us had been bad people; we had simply made the wrong choices" (178). Shortly after, we see Rooster uncharacteristically chomp off the head of a fish. Then Rooster's good friend, Sleed, almost assaults two girls in the woods. Do you think the characters simply made "wrong choices," and it is unfair to assume their character based on their actions? In answering this question, remember the soldiers from Saving Private Ryan who killed surrendering men in the trench and laughed about it. Although the actions in "Big Two-Hearted Creek" are arguably smaller atrocities than in Saving Private Ryan, do you still agree with Rooster's comment?
3. In this class, I have noticed the emphasis and importance of nature. In many works we have discussed such as The Deer Hunter and The Sun Also Rises nature is used as a way to reflect the emotions of the characters or their overall journey. How does Brian Van Reet use nature in his story?
This is Brian Van Reet's well-reviewed novel (JC):
So, I am working with two distinct definitions of atrocious here: the first is “extremely wicked, brutal, or cruel” and the second is “appalling or horrifying.” I would not say that there was anything in this story that I consider to be extremely wicked, brutal or cruel. That said, I doubt anyone would disagree with the fact that there are many elements of this story that were appalling and horrifying. Using the second definition, I saw atrocity in this story through Sleed’s following and borderline assault of the two young girls in the woods.
ReplyDeleteActions speak louder than words do. While the soldier, especially Sleed, may HAVE not been bad people before the war, good people don’t follow young girls through the woods and take off their pants. We have discussed many aspects of what war does to people, and we know that it changes a soldier. While Sleed may have not been this damaged man before Iraq, he is defiantly not a good man during this story. That said, people change; it would be unfair to assume his character will remain bad for the rest of his life, but I would argue that in this brief time period after the war, Sleed is not a good man. However, I do think that Rooster is a good man: the chomping of the fish head seems more like a manifestation of his own frustrations, and when it came down to it, he fought and choked out his friend to stop him from assaulting two girls.
Reet’s use of nature in this story mirrors what we have seen in another one of the Fire and Forget stories: “Tips for a Smooth Transition.” In that story, we learn that “your own backyard might be paradise enough for a soldier who hasn’t seen grass in a year. Let him just sit in a hammock and relax.” Rest uses nature to show how Rooster chooses to try to adjust back to the civilian world. After the unwelcome adrenaline of Iraq and the shame of his injuries, Rooster finds some peace in nature, even if it is short-lived.
1. I really do not know how to answer this question. Although I think that war is inherently atrocious, because most of the story focuses on the veterans’ lives after they have returned home, the atrocities of war and combat are not clearly present in “Big Two-Hearted Hunting Creek.” However, we do see glimpses of Rooster and Sleed’s past experiences that led them to become altered both physically and mentally. While some could say that atrocity remains the underlying factor in the two veterans’ injuries, the argument could also be made that their injuries resulted not from the atrocities of combat, but from the consequences of their own decisions. I think that perhaps the only time we see something that is atrocious — something outright wicked and cruel — is when we understand that Sleed’s wife divorces him after he returns home badly injured. However, even this claim, when further scrutinized unravels under the fact that we do not know the ex-wife’s side of the story and perhaps knowing her perspective would influence our view of the situation. Ultimately, I do think that war is atrocious, but I do not see the consequences endured by those who chose war as being necessarily atrocious, and I don’t know how to square those two contradictions.
ReplyDelete2. Yes and no. Similarly to the previous question, I am struggling to discern the line between choice and circumstance. While I do not believe that Rooster or either of his parents are bad people, it is clear that they have made some poor choices. I do not think that joining the military is necessarily a wrong choice, but one must be prepared to accept all of the consequences that go along with engaging in combat. Furthermore, I do not think that it is acceptable to use one’s trauma as an excuse to hurt others, especially when that trauma is a product of one’s own choices.
3. I agree, I think that nature is an important element in this story. The entire plot revolves around the events that take place at Big Hearted Hunting Creek, and the way in which Brian Van Reet describes the outdoors and how his characters interact with “Mother Nature” struck me as very Hemingway-esque. The part of the story where Reet describes the moment when the veterans disembark from the bus and step out into “rejuventat[ing] nourishment” of the woods reminded me very strongly of The Sun Also Rises when Jake Barnes takes a restorative solo trip to the beaches of Spain. I also saw a lot of Michael from The Deer Hunter in Rooster and his interactions with wildlife and the outdoors. When we watched The Deer Hunter, we talked a lot about masculinity and the archetypal Western male as being extremely competent, and I think that these characteristics are present in Rooster, yet with a twist. The twist being his traumatic injury. In this manner the story reveals a lot about the lasting effects of trauma, and once more goes back to Kovic’s question: how does a man continue on when he has lost all of his defining masculine characteristics?
Prompt One: Atrocities. Well, the mention of Jake Barnes really had me thinking of the suicide bomber who hit them at their award ceremony. It’s like these men were right at the finish line, being rewarded for making it through, and then boom. Their bodies changed, taken away from them, the opposite of an award. Anyway, I just drew a connection between that and the medal jake gets by the Italian who just keeps saying, “Che mala fortuna!”
ReplyDeletePrompt Two: “For the first time in a long time I felt a welcome burst of adrenaline,” Rooster says as the fish bites his line. And I think that this statement lends itself well to the interpretation of his later actions: Knocking out the trout and biting off its head. Keep in mind that earlier in the story, Rooster mentions how his life is divided in two halves, before his injury and afterward. While the rules of the park are catch and release, it is this thrill of the fish on a line that reminds him of the childhood days when he would eat his catch. Thus, I interpret the killing of the fish as an attempt to regain the happiness he had in childhood, to get away from his injuries.
Here, he has made a wrong choice.. Breaking the rules of the creek by killing his catch. However, can we still say this makes him a bad person when we realize why it was done? And then the lines about bad people and mistakes were spoken by Rooster of his family. Perhaps he considers Sleed family, in which case the lines speak to his (Rooster’s) ability to forgive those close to him rather than an objective lack of fault. Because what Sleed did isn’t ok, just understandable and perhaps forgivable by the man who knows him best.
Prompt Three: Nature, setting, is important. It is what makes home a home. How the soldiers compare Baghdad to America and remark upon our abundance of greenery. At the same time, it also provides comfort because it is largely unchangeable. The river is still the same for Rooster as it was when he was a kid. Think of Micheal trying to get Nick to return. “Remember the trees,” he says.
1. As Javy wrote, the suicide bomber running up and exploding himself just as the unit is standing down for Sleed and Rooster to get an award is certainly brutal and cruel: and the result is horrifying. As some of you said in our discussion of the previous three stories (to continue tomorrow), war is atrocity. I think Van Reet acknowledges this from the beginning of the story with the use of "wounded warrior." "I guess it's what we were, but the phrase was too cute to do our ugliness justice." What's been done to Rooster and Sleed is atrocious. Sleed dropping his pants in front of the girls is atrocious. For me, there's a whole lot of atrocity in this story, beginning with the Iraq war itself. I'm thinking of "Raid," where Doc realizes the absurdity of the war, the deployments that change nothing and get Peters killed and scar and disfigure Rooster and Sleed.
ReplyDelete2. I partly agree with Rooster. I'm thinking about Kovic and Dwayne Hughes and Emmett: they had reasons for their choosing to join and go to war. Rooster goes to remedy "the dishonor" he feels he's inflicted on his parents by flunking out of college. That's not the actions of a bad person—yet he realizes that it was a wrong choice too late. But as Ruby says, does that remedy what you do after your initial choice? What Sleed does is so wrong—yet I think I understand his reason, his choice. I understand, I think, why the Americans shoot the scattering Germans in the trench—which is not the same, I don't think, as the two other soldiers gunning down the men surrendering. We don't know enough about those two to totally judge them for that atrocity—and it is an atrocity. We do know enough about out squad to understand why they want to execute Steamboat Willy, and to know they are wrong. We know enough about Sleed to know why he chooses to expose himself to those girls—we understand the wrongness of that choice. But I think we too understand why he does it. And perhaps to disagree with Ruby, how can we not take into the trauma these veterans have suffered?
3. I think my favorite paragraph of the story is on 181, where Van Reet describes the river bank in the middle of the page. Obviously he's wanting us to remember "Sun Also Rises"—he even name checks Jake—as well, and more so, "Big Two-Hearted River," in which a war traumatized Nick Adams does what Rooster and Sleed do: go into the woods of Michigan to fish and rejuvinate. Here, though, I think is a nature that is too close to civilization. Jake and Bill (Sleed and Rooster? Rooster and Sleed?) have to hike way the heck out there, as does Nick in "BTHR." Big Two-Hearted Hunting Creek is out there...but far enough to get away from young girls in a sports coupe. And ultimately where can Rooster and Sleed go to escape their trauma and rejuvenate in urban America? Or maybe even rural America?
1. Yes, like most everyone else who has responded, I believe there are many atrocities in this story. I think the injuries the men sustained because of the suicide bomber are atrocities, and I also think that Sleed’s assault is an atrocity. All of these are situations that are horrifying and highly distasteful.
ReplyDelete2. I somewhat agree with Rooster’s comment. I believe that it is unfair to assume that Rooster and Sleed are bad people but that it is fair to assume certain things about their character based on mutilating the fish and assaulting the two girls. They lack good judgement and have obviously been damaged by the war, both mentally and physically, and this is apparent through their actions. They make bad choices (Sleed’s much worse than Rooster’s), but these actions are partially understandable through this post-war lens. However, I will not excuse them just because they were wounded in war. They still hurt others and should be held accountable, but I will not go as far as to call the men evil or wicked, just disturbed.
3. I agree that nature is significant in this story and that it reflects the journeys of the characters. The men believe they have left the rain and grey skies of Iraq behind for the vivid green of home, but it catches up with them. At first, nature is an escape. It is “rejuvenation, nourishment, [and] safety”(179). However, Van Reet shifts the focus from the beautiful waters to the tree limbs that radiate like “the brittle fingers of a dead man,” and he makes the sky turn overcast (181). He even compares the hailstones at the end of the story to ricocheting bullets. In a supposedly calm and serene environment, there is still destruction and gloom. I believe war and its effects will find soldiers no matter how much they try to escape it.
This story is one of the most active reads I can recall from this class. Often, I and often the narrator go into the story knowing or at least anticipating that there is no way the events that take place could not happen. However, with this story, I felt as though I were in the woods and was an active character in the narrative.
ReplyDeleteI agree with everyone who has said that the suicide bombing is atrocious. The scene with Sleed and the two girls in the woods was scary for sure; however, I do not know that I would classify Sleed’s intent as “wicked.” It was definitely not out of the goodness of his heart and can in no way he brushed aside; however, this story did not contain the outlandish horror that I expected. This story is less atrocious in some ways for me than others, but somewhat scarier because Van Reet narrates a situation that is fathomable for civilians and in that way, more “real.”
I believe it is very often if not almost always fair to assume people’s character from their actions. Yes, I believe it is an understatement to say that following the girls through the woods was a “wrong/bad choice” on Sleed’s part; however, I do not think it makes him a “bad” person, perhaps just not a “good” person. I can say with certainty that it was a good choice to tackle Sleed, though.
I think Van Reet did a great job of utilizing nature in this story. Imagining the little rainbow reflective bits of fish scales mixed in with the blood in Rooster’s gums was not entirely gross and was kind of not beautiful, per se, but not ugly. I had never imagined it before. Additionally the last line, “They [hailstones] hit Big Hunting Creek like bullets ricocheting off depleted uranium armor” (190) is pretty powerful and reminds me of the imagery in Victor Hugo’s “L’Expiation.” Very solemn and stagnant from a distance but very active up close.
(Good job, Alondra!)
Also - Rooster’s nickname reminds me of Born On The Fourth of July because it is a constant reminder of masculinity and the supposed lack of.
Delete1. I feel like sometimes I get caught up in relating the definition of atrocity strictly with like physical violence, but this story reminded me that an act can be atrocious and not have anything to do with violence at all. Sleed's act or attempted act or whatever he did or was trying to do with those girls in the woods was atrocious. No one died, no one was injured, there were no weapons involved, and yet I would say this act is a really good example of the atrocities of war. It was not an atrocity that happened during the war, it was an atrocity that happened as a result of an atrocious war.
ReplyDelete2. I think this story has some good examples of something we talked about earlier in this year as it pertained to "Saving Private Ryan" and some of the other works we studied which is the dehumanization and immorality of war. Once you go to war, some things just don't seem to be as big of a deal anymore. Rooster, for example, slices his finger open to the point where he is going to need to get stitches, but plays it off as it is just a paper cut because in comparison to all that he has been through because of war, it really does seem to have the importance of a paper cut. I would say there is a little bit of both in these stories. I am in no way trying to make an excuse for the actions of Sleed in those woods with those girls. Part of me wants to say that if you do something like that or try to do something like that, you are simply a messed up person and there is nothing else to it. But also, another part of me knows that war changes people and we have seen this in all of the works we have studied so far. Looking back at "The Deer Hunter", Nick changed drastically became someone that he wasn't as a result of war. You are who you are as a result of your experiences and Rooster has lived a pretty messed up life so far and he's only 21. I really couldn't say for sure what kind of person Rooster is or what made him do that in the woods, but I also do not feel like I know enough to even begin to judge whether or not he is a bad person or made a wrong choice.
3. I think Brian Van Reet uses nature in this story as almost like a test for the characters. The whole story revolves around what happens in these woods and what these characters are thinking in these woods. Are they ready to go back into the civilian world? How will they react to certain hardships or triumphs? Rooster's whole description of his time catching the fish and then struggle to control it, something that he used to do in these exact woods before war, is a test to see how well will he be able to readjust back into his old routines or ways of life coming from war and with his new scars and baggage. Sleed's reaction to those young girls in the woods was a test of his strength of character. He's a 21 year old boy who will never be able to get with a girl again. How does he handle that or is he able to handle that? This time nature proved that he was not able to handle his new reality when faced with temptation.
1. Yes, I think there is atrocity in this story. The most obvious example is the description of Rooster and Sleed’s injuries, and in the description of how they got them. While I don’t think this is as atrocious as scenes we have seen in class before, the scene with the school children in Born on the Fourth of July comes to mind, I think that the physical and emotional damage that these characters, and so many soldiers like them, have gone through count as smaller atrocities.
ReplyDelete2. This is a hard question to answer with the information given to us. I am sure that Rooster believes he is a good person but I am not as sure that I agree with him. I think to make a full decision, I would need more information about who these characters were before their injuries, and who they become once they enter a more “normal” and regular life. Part of me doesn’t think we can judge them too harshly for their actions as they are still emotionally grappling with their injuries, but another part thinks that Sleed goes way too far. I think, in the end, Rooster is not a bad person, he is just recovering emotionally from his injury. Sleed’s actions, on the other hand, may not be as excusable.
3. Brian Van Reet uses nature to present a place of comfort for our characters, but it also almost seems like a symbol of “what used to be,” a physical representation of what Rooster has lost. As he says, Rooster used to live near these woods and would fish here, and clearly loves this place, but, due to his injuries, he can no longer go here, and has pushed those that live near here, his family, away. It is a place where he feels comfortable, making it easier for his emotions to come to a head, but, more importantly, it almost forced him to face those emotions as that symbol of what he lost.
1. Do you think that there are atrocities in this story? If so, which parts of the story? (And if not, how do you define the terrible parts of the story, be them in in combat, recuperating, or at the end? —JC)
ReplyDeleteI think the atrocity in this story is the aftermath effect war has on Rooster and Sleed. Because of war, it has changed their perspectives physically and mentally at such a young age at 21. The atrocity in a sense, is how drastically their lives are changed from war, where relaxation and peace is something they haven't encountered in years. They have to be reminded about their past constantly when just looking at the mirror, and they know that they can’t form deep relationships with people because of their appearance. In addition, Sleed has to grapple with his injury all the while with his divorce as well, knowing that his wife was cheating on him for years.
2. When describing his parents, Rooster says, "None of us had been bad people; we had simply made the wrong choices" (178). Shortly after, we see Rooster uncharacteristically chomp off the head of a fish. Then Rooster's good friend, Sleed, almost assaults two girls in the woods. Do you think the characters simply made "wrong choices," and it is unfair to assume their character based on their actions? In answering this question, remember the soldiers from Saving Private Ryan who killed surrendering men in the trench and laughed about it. Although the actions in "Big Two-Hearted Creek" are arguably smaller atrocities than in Saving Private Ryan, do you still agree with Rooster's comment?
I don’t think both Rooster or Sleed are inherently bad people, nor do I think that they are. However, I wouldn’t approve of Sleed’s actions either. I believe that these actions are a symptom of the aftermath of war. I’m sure that if they did not serve, then this moment would be quite different, if it would happen at all. The atrocities of war have changed how they view others and themselves, as they believe that it is infinitely harder to have deep relationships. They crave human relationships. Rooster talks about how he hadn’t interacted with a woman in two years. In doing so, I do believe that they make bad decisions, but are not bad people. War has damaged their moral compass, and in doing so, their decision making process.
3. In this class, I have noticed the emphasis and importance of nature. In many works we have discussed such as The Deer Hunter and The Sun Also Rises nature is used as a way to reflect the emotions of the characters or their overall journey. How does Brian Van Reet use nature in his story?
I think the author describes nature as a battlefield of sorts. Even though it is so peaceful, there is still death. This reminds me when Rooster tosses the dead fish into the water, only for another fish to eat at its remains. In addition, nature also reminds me of the battlefield when he compares the roots of trees to limbs: “Radiating from the main trunks like the brittle fingers of dead men, a tangle of limbs dipped under the foamy water, snagging floating branches, leaves, and plastic bags” (181). By describing what is supposed to be relaxing, and turning it into the scene of a battlefield, it shows how much war can change one’s perspective.
1. Like most people have responded, the suicide bomber taking away important parts of Rooster and Sleed’s lives is atrocious, but I did not find the actions in the story as atrocious. When I think of atrocity, I find myself considering why an action happened as opposed to what the action was. To me, the hardest part of this short story to read was the scene where Sleed takes his pants off in front of the girls but I did not find myself thinking it was atrocious. I found it hard to be disgusted by Sleed's act knowing some much about his backstory. Throughout the reading, Rooster narrates Sleed’s past, explaining how he took a lot of the impact of the suicide bomber and his wife cheated on him and divorced him. This build up to the climax of the story shifts the way I think about the action. Instead of a heinous attempt to assault girls in the woods, I saw the act as much harder to decipher. Although the action itself is atrocious, knowing the backstory makes it easy to see that Sleed’s motives are much more complex than just “evil” as the definition of atrocity states.
ReplyDelete2. I agree with Rooster’s quote. When Sleed makes his way through the woods to find the girls, Rooster follows him. I saw this as Rooster’s understanding of what Sleed has been through. He knew that Sleed was going to do something awful, not because he was a bad person, but because of what he has been through. A good example of this is Sleed’s use of the n-word. From an outside perspective, Sleed is a racist, but Rooster knows that Sleed calls everyone the n-word regardless of the circumstances. This example shows that the actions of these characters are so complex that it is impossible to judge them based on their actions alone. As Javi explained, Rooster does not bite the fish because he is unstable; he bites the fish because it brings him back to his childhood. These examples make me unable to judge Sleed and Rooster based on this story alone.
3. In many of the stories we have read, nature allows the characters to escape from issues brought upon by war. In “The Sun Also Rises,” Jake finds peace organizing his fish. In this story, Rooster talks about how even the name of the street they live on, “Georgia,” is a painful reminder of Sleed’s ex-wife. Again, nature serves as their escape. As Sleed exits the bus he states, “This is nice” (179). Before arriving, Sleed was worried about being able to fish with his prosthetic, but upon arrival, he forgets about his struggles. Their lives become simpler and they just enjoy nature.
1. There were plenty of instances in this story that made me uncomfortable, but when I really think about each one, I’m not sure if I can define them as atrocities. Some of the most disturbing parts of this narrative were not surprising nor were they particularly uncommon occurrences. For example, Sleed’s decision to harass the young girls is not surprising, and therefore I don’t think I would consider it an atrocity. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve been approached by older men in my life, and on two occasions I experienced an interaction quite similar to Sleed’s harassment— minus the injury, of course, which makes the contexts very different. While I do believe that his injury prompted his actions, there are plenty of people who do not share his disability and yet still choose to interact with young girls in a similar way. So, disappointing and nauseating as it is to say, older men making young girls uncomfortable is not an atrocity. It should be, but it isn’t. It happens every day.
ReplyDelete2. I think that a person’s choices definitely determine whether or not someone is a good person. It's absolutely fair to judge a person’s character based on their actions and decisions. While I think forgiveness can be valuable in many contexts, I don’t think it should be necessary or expected whenever anyone makes a mistake. While it is important to consider a person’s environment or reasoning for making their decision, I would encourage anyone to pay attention to the choices of the people around them. I don’t think biting off a fish head makes Rooster a bad person because I don’t think it really means anything other than expressing his stress and trauma after the war. I think judging Sleed’s character based on his actions is incredibly valid. He should not have acted that way, no matter the context of his actions. I think it’s important to take a person’s actions and their contexts into consideration, but sometimes the actions override the environment in which they exist.
3. In this story, nature seems to symbolize a feeling of coming home for Rooster. He is revisiting a time in his life pre-injury, and so the fishing trip is incredibly reflective. But in this environment also comes a kind of unspoken comparison between Rooster’s life before and after his injury, two times which contrasts starkly against the same common background. His past experiences at the lake involve first dates, countless sports games and overall a very different, more positive era of his life. This experience, while not necessarily leaving him with extreme negativity, goes in a very différent direction. He catches a fish, something he seems to be very proud of. But in cleaning it, he injures himself. He also has a very upsetting interaction with Sleed that causes him to think about their relationship in a different way. Nature is used to reflect change and maturity over time, showing just how much a person can change based on their experiences and hardships.
1. I do no think that any atrocities took place in this story. When I think of an atrocity I think of an event that is out of the ordinary and people come together to stop from happening again. While having a part of your body taken away from you unwillingly is terrible, it is commonplace when it comes to war. Sleed chasing those two young girls and trying to show them his deformed genitalia is not an atrocity. It is an egregious act that those two girls will probably need a lot of counseling from, but it is sadly not an entirely out of the ordinary event.
ReplyDelete2. I mostly agree with Rooster. Like with Kovic who shot down those children in the hut, I do not think that he was a bad person for doing that, he just made the wrong choice. However, Sleed seems like a bad person to me. He is most likely just a product of his upbring and his current environment, but I really do not like him. I do not like how he uses racial epithets and I do not like how he tried to assault two young women. I understand that he is most likely not in the right frame of mind, but my God why would anyone ever think that that was acceptable? Sleed’s actions are different from the soldiers in SPR because those soldiers were getting revenge on enemy soldiers when tensions were incredibly high. Sleed’s attempted assault came out of practically nowhere and whereas in SPR allowing soldiers to burn is somewhat of a part of war, harassing young women is not.
3. A quote involving nature that stood out to me was “The bed of decay colored the sluggish water dark, almost black” (181). This water seems like a metaphor for men after war. They come home and if their body has not been adversely affected, their minds certainly have been. They begin to decay by drinking away their sorrows and the drinking makes them sluggish and casts darkness over them and their families as if they are morning the man who was left in the war because the man who returned killed him.
1. Do you think that there are atrocities in this story? If so, which parts of the story? (And if not, how do you define the terrible parts of the story, be them in in combat, recuperating, or at the end? —JC)
ReplyDeleteYes. Although they may be different kinds of atrocities, I’d say most of the acts in this story are atrocious Perhaps the sheer horrific irony, violence, and uselessness of Rooster and Sleed getting blown up by a suicide bomber as they were getting commended is the most obvious one, but I’d agree with what most people are saying that what they have to live with in their recovery and Sleed’s near assault of the two girls are also atrocities that, ultimately, stem from war, even if they take place in a civilian environment.
2. When describing his parents, Rooster says, "None of us had been bad people; we had simply made the wrong choices" (178). Shortly after, we see Rooster uncharacteristically chomp off the head of a fish. Then Rooster's good friend, Sleed, almost assaults two girls in the woods. Do you think the characters simply made "wrong choices," and it is unfair to assume their character based on their actions? In answering this question, remember the soldiers from Saving Private Ryan who killed surrendering men in the trench and laughed about it. Although the actions in "Big Two-Hearted Creek" are arguably smaller atrocities than in Saving Private Ryan, do you still agree with Rooster's comment?
I think they made the wrong choices and their character is still determined by their actions. That being said, actions is plural. I agree with Keyes—we are defined by more than our worst moments, so I don’t think it’s fair to say that Sleed and Rooster are inherently bad people; however, they are clearly both very damaged by their past choices and are probably fundamentally different people than they were before. There’s really no reclaiming lost innocence. Moreover, personal trauma doesn’t excuse committing further atrocities (if you want to classify it as such). I don’t see any justification for Sleed exposing himself in front of two schoolgirls in the woods. It’s not inevitable, and certainly Rooster makes a very different choice, even if his channelling his frustrations out on a fish can seem weird and brutal. Indeed, though the bonds of brotherhood convince Rooster to follow Sleed into the woods despite being afraid of what Sleed might do, his actions with the girls crosses a line, driving Rooster to fight him, and, ultimately, leave him at the end of the story. That being said, the story also makes it clear why he flies off the handle like that. War isn’t an excuse, but it certainly is a context to help understand why this occured, that Sleed is more than just someone who did an incredibly ugly thing out of nowhere, and perhaps what might be done to prevent it from happening again.
3. In this class, I have noticed the emphasis and importance of nature. In many works we have discussed such as The Deer Hunter and The Sun Also Rises nature is used as a way to reflect the emotions of the characters or their overall journey. How does Brian Van Reet use nature in his story?
Like in the Sun Also Rises, there’s a sense of sanctuary and emotional safety in nature, and, specifically, in the act of fishing. However, as others have been saying, this sanctuary is much more flawed than Jake’s. Like John said, they’re not secluded enough from the city to avoid the girls. Moreover, Rooster cannot obtain the same satisfaction of Jake laying the fish out in a line; his injuries prevent him from beheading, gutting, and cleaning the fish as he wishes to, and ends up with him injuring himself more. This ache is psychological as well. He cannot return to his old way of doings things, even for something as mundane as cleaning a fish, and his frustration boils over into a near primitive act in biting the fish’s head off. Even in a place he instinctively feels is a sanctuary, there is also what feels like instinctual violence and the absence of peace.