EQ: What is accomplished by O'Brien's nonlinear narrative scheme (see question 2)
Take a quick quiz::
http://www.goodreads.com/quizzes/11227-in-the-lake-of-the-woods
Please discuss questions 1-4 with a partner and post your responses on the blog!
Discussion Questions
In the Lake of the Woods
1. Almost from this novel's first page we know that Kathy Wade will vanish, and it is not long before we discover that her disappearance will remain unsolved. What, then, gives In the Lake of the Woodsits undeniable suspense? What does it offer in place of the revelations of traditional mysteries?2. Instead of a linear narrative, in which action unfolds chronologically, Tim O'Brien has constructed a narrative that simultaneously moves forward and backward in time: forward from John and Kathy's arrival at the cabin; backward into John's childhood, and beyond that to Little Big Horn and the War of Independence. It also moves laterally, into the "virtual" time that is represented by different hypotheses about Kathy's fate. What does the author accomplish with this narrative scheme? In what ways are his different narrative strands connected?
3. What does O'Brien accomplish in the sections titled "Evidence"? What information do these passages impart that is absent from the straightforward narrative? How do they alter or deepen our understanding of John as a magician, a politician, a husband, and a soldier who committed atrocities in wartime? What connections do they forge between his private tragedy and the pathologies of our public life and history? Does the testimony of (or about) such "real" people as Richard Nixon, William Calley, or George Custer lend greater verisimilitude to John's story or remind us that it--and John himself--are artifices?
4. Who is the narrator who addresses us in the "Evidence" sections? Are we meant to see him as a surrogate for the author, who also served in Vietnam and revisited Thuan Yen many years after the massacre? (See Tim O'Brien, "The Vietnam in Me," in The New York Times Magazine, October 3, 1994, pp. 48-57.) In what ways does O'Brien's use of this narrator further explode the conventions of the traditional novel?
5. One of the few things that we know for certain about John is that he loves Kathy. But what does John mean by love? How do John's feelings for his wife resemble his hopeless yearning for his father, who had a similar habit of vanishing? In what circumstances does John say "I love you"? What vision of love is suggested by his metaphor of two snakes devouring each other? Why might Kathy have fallen in love with John?
6. Although it is easy to see Kathy as the victim of John's deceptions, the author at times suggests that she may be more conscious (and therefore more complex) than she first appears. We learn, for example, that Kathy has always known about John's spying and even referred to him as "Inspector Clouseau," an ironic counterpoint to John's vision of himself as "Sorcerer." At a critical moment she rebuffs her husband's attempt at a confession. And in the final section of "Evidence," we get hints that Kathy may have planned her own disappearance. Are we meant to see Kathy as John's victim or as his accomplice, like a beautiful assistant vanishing inside a magician's cabinet?
7. Why might John have entered politics? Is he merely a cynical operator with no interest in anything but winning? Or, as Tony Carbo suggests, might John be trying to atone for his actions in Vietnam? Why might the author have chosen to leave John's political convictions a blank?
8. John's response to the horrors of Thuan Yen is to deny them: "This could not have happened. Therefore it did not." Where else in the novel does he perform this trick? How does John's way of coping with the massacre compare to the psychic strategies adopted by William Calley or Paul Meadlo? Do any of O'Brien's characters seems capable of acknowledging terrible truths directly? How does In the Lake of the Woods treat the matter of individual responsibility for evil?
9. Each of this novel's hypotheses about events at the cabin begins with speculation but gradually comes to resemble certainty. The narrator suggests that John and Kathy Wade are ultimately unknowable, as well; that any attempt to "penetrate...those leaden walls that encase the human spirit" can never be anything but provisional. Seen in this light, In the Lake of the Woods comes to resemble a magician's trick, in which every assertion turns out to be only another speculation. Given the information we receive, does any hypothesis about what happened at Lake of the Woods seem more plausible than the others? With what certainties, if any, does this novel leave us?
WRITING:Work on nonlinear nrratives
EVENT: Panel discussion this evening 7 pm Playwriting!
CONTEST: Virgilio Haiku contest
HMWK: Finish In the Lake of the Woods for Friday!
Jaymee, Grace, and Shai
ReplyDelete1. Almost from this novel's first page we know that Kathy Wade will vanish, and it is not long before we discover that her disappearance will remain unsolved. What, then, gives In the Lake of the Woods its undeniable suspense? What does it offer in place of the revelations of traditional mysteries?
- What gives In The Lake of The Woods is primarily John Wade's characterization. The book delves into many aspects of John's background which allows the reader to understand what drives his erratic behaviors.The novel focuses more on why Kathy is missing rather than how, which is interesting because it doesn't really matter how exactly it happened because Kathy is missing regardless. Why she is missing is the bigger problem at hand.
2. Instead of a linear narrative, in which action unfolds chronologically, Tim O'Brien has constructed a narrative that simultaneously moves forward and backward in time: forward from John and Kathy's arrival at the cabin; backward into John's childhood, and beyond that to Little Big Horn and the War of Independence. It also moves laterally, into the "virtual" time that is represented by different hypotheses about Kathy's fate. What does the author accomplish with this narrative scheme? In what ways are his different narrative strands connected?
-I feel like the different narrative strands represent multiple points of view, in a way. Nothing really ever happens in a concrete way, nothing is definite. The use of the reporter and "evidence" gives a more clear and leveled understanding from Wade's cloudy memories.
3. What does O'Brien accomplish in the sections titled "Evidence"? What information do these passages impart that is absent from the straightforward narrative? How do they alter or deepen our understanding of John as a magician, a politician, a husband, and a soldier who committed atrocities in wartime? What connections do they forge between his private tragedy and the pathologies of our public life and history? Does the testimony of (or about) such "real" people as Richard Nixon, William Calley, or George Custer lend greater verisimilitude to John's story or remind us that it--and John himself--are artifices?
- The use of 'real' people and their excerpts add to the creation of verisimilitude in the way that it that it ties events in the story together with actual historic happenings.
4. Who is the narrator who addresses us in the "Evidence" sections? Are we meant to see him as a surrogate for the author, who also served in Vietnam and revisited Thuan Yen many years after the massacre? (See Tim O'Brien, "The Vietnam in Me," in The New York Times Magazine, October 3, 1994, pp. 48-57.) In what ways does O'Brien's use of this narrator further explode the conventions of the traditional novel?
-The use of the reporter as a narrator gives the story a certain objective, almost as a reporter is supposed to do in real life. His sets of hypotheses happen in more than one way, and it helps 'answers' some of the readers questions about Wade. And, it eliminates some of the unreliability of Wade.
Xavier And Aleah and Allan
ReplyDelete1.) Its undeniable suspense stems from our fascination of wanting to know what happened to Kathy, and also how John Wade is characterized throughout the novel. He appears to seem responsible for her disappearance but however we aren't sure completely. It isn't a traditional mystery due to how its nonlinear and we already know something bad has happened from the beginning.
2.) Tim O'Brien accomplishes a lot by writing like this because you never know when a new clue will be revealed. It keeps the reader unsure of what will happen in the future so they have to finish the novel in order to figure out what truly happens to Kathy. His different narrative strands are connected due to them all being based around Tim O'Brien's background, Kathy's background and their relationship together. They all have the same goal of wanting to unveil the truth gradually to the reader they just reveal it in different forms.
3.) The sections titled "Evidence" are very important to the novel because they give outside perceptions of the situation. Rather than sticking to John Wade's side of the story we get input from his mother, Kathy's sister and sheriffs in the town. They alter our views of John Wade because they speak on details or life events that John hadn't shared and he's also a very secretive character so other characters views help greatly. The use of real people in this story add greater to the verisimilitude because he makes it seem so realistic due to Tim O'Brien's real life past.
4.) The narrator who addresses us in the "Evidence" sections is pretty neutral. I don't think the person necessarily has Vietnam backgrounds or is opposing John Wade either. The use of this narrator definitely trails away from the traditional tropes of mysterious novels because it includes footnotes and statistics.
1. The background information and the evidence provided gives us the suspense about finding out where did Kathy go or if she was killed. Unlike normal mysteries, we are trying to figure out what happened to her instead of watching the story build up to her disappearing.
ReplyDelete2. This style allows us to see different point of views without changing the book’s main point of view. They are all connected with what happened in that chapter. We are able to fill in the missing pieces from John’s memory with the stories of the other people.
3. In the Evidence sections we are able to get background information that was not told by John. In straightforward narrative, we can’t really see how everyone else thinks. In this book, we can. It helps our understanding because we are able to see and learn about him from different point of views.
4. The narrator is the reporter who is covering the case. I think we are meant to see him, not as a narrator, but as someone who can steer us back onto the right course if we get to confused. It has two narrators instead of the traditional, one narrator.
Mitchell Duncan, Austin Hammond, Jacob Gilbert-Manhoney
ReplyDelete1. Almost from this novel's first page we know that Kathy Wade will vanish, and it is not long before we discover that her disappearance will remain unsolved. What, then, gives In the Lake of the Woods its undeniable suspense? What does it offer in place of the revelations of traditional mysteries?
- The in depth characterization, character development, and background information helps keep In The Lake of the Woods suspenseful tone.
2. Instead of a linear narrative, in which action unfolds chronologically, Tim O'Brien has constructed a narrative that simultaneously moves forward and backward in time: forward from John and Kathy's arrival at the cabin; backward into John's childhood, and beyond that to Little Big Horn and the War of Independence. It also moves laterally, into the "virtual" time that is represented by different hypotheses about Kathy's fate. What does the author accomplish with this narrative scheme? In what ways are his different narrative strands connected?
- Tim O'Brien accomplishes a larger sense of mystery by telling the story in a non chronological order. The reader has to put together the pieces instead of having them spelled out for them. The strands are all connected because they all have to do with the life of John Wade.
3. What does O'Brien accomplish in the sections titled "Evidence"? What information do these passages impart that is absent from the straightforward narrative? How do they alter or deepen our understanding of John as a magician, a politician, a husband, and a soldier who committed atrocities in wartime? What connections do they forge between his private tragedy and the pathologies of our public life and history? Does the testimony of (or about) such "real" people as Richard Nixon, William Calley, or George Custer lend greater verisimilitude to John's story or remind us that it--and John himself--are artifices?
- The "Evidence" sections allow us to reach a better understanding of the situation beyond John's point of view. They provide insight from multiple perspectives without expressing a decisive or overall conclusion on the matter. Within the narrative, we are limited to John's perspective, and thus we are as lost as he is. The use, or reference, to 'real people' both allows us to draw connections to real-life occurrences similar to John's, whilst also making the narrative seem increasingly realistic.
4. Who is the narrator who addresses us in the "Evidence" sections? Are we meant to see him as a surrogate for the author, who also served in Vietnam and revisited Thuan Yen many years after the massacre? (See Tim O'Brien, "The Vietnam in Me," in The New York Times Magazine, October 3, 1994, pp. 48-57.) In what ways does O'Brien's use of this narrator further explode the conventions of the traditional novel?
- The narrator in "In The Lake of The Woods" is a journalist trying to uncover the truth about John Wade. He acts more like an outside influence that would help bring the reader into the story. He shares some experiences with Tim O'Brien.
Aleah, Allan, Karla, Jaymee and Xavier
ReplyDelete5.) John's over obsessive and jealous tendencies resemble his yearning for his father due to how he felt abandoned by his suicide and vanishing and never wanting Kathy to leave his side. That's why during their arguments and fights that's when he chooses to say "I love you" because he's scared to lose her during rough times. The love that's portrayed with the two snake metaphor is an all-consuming love and it's dangerous.
6.) We're meant to see Kathy as an accomplice. We think this because she hasn't been completely innocent and she was more than aware of John's tendencies.
7.) John might've entered into politics to feel liked, to feel power and to try and erase his Vietnam past. Entering as senator might make people associate him with higher positions and respect him rather than look at him as a murderer in Vietnam. As well he just wanted to be liked and appreciated due to his past with his father and the name-calling he went through with him.
8.) He uses this trick as well during Kathy's disappearance. He tries to cope with her vanishing or him killing her by pretending that things never happened.
9.) The hypothesis that seems the most plausible is him killing her, wrapping Kathy up in the sheets and driving her out in the boat. The sheets being missing from the bed and the boat being missing from the dock make it seem that this happened.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete1.The suspense of finding the answer is replaced with looking for the clues to see if you can solve the case. You are constantly searching the text for evidence and clues as to what happened.
ReplyDelete2.It is scattered; just like John. The narrative is as sporadic as Johns own head and it works well. I think it reinforces just how crazy John was going.
3.In this section he gives the "evidence" or facts they are sure of. The rest of the narrative is largely speculation but these chapters were pure facts.
4.We see the speaker I the "evidence"' sections as a reporter, who also visited the grounds of My Lai years after John. He acts as a substitute of the author in narration.
5.John means a controlling, obsessive love. His metaphor involving the snakes was meant to describe a destructive one. It was describing a love that has both parties destroying the other; in the end no ones left.
6.I think we are meant to see Kathy as his assistant. I think he had a black out and went mental. he killed Kathy during this black out and then ends up disappearing himself; the disappearing act.
7.I think it was his dream for a really long time; he became more dedicated after the war. He wanted to be in politics and change things even more after My Lai. Politics were the only thing he really knew.
8.John also denied his fathers death. The conversations in his head , the mirrors, there was a lot to keep him, and Kathy, alive. None of the characters really face there demons; they always just run. With out directly acknowledging it, the characters are able to turn a blind eye to evil.
9.Yes, it was more plausible that John killed her by boiling her to death. It explains him taking his "morning swim." you are certain Kathy is gone; you are certain John denies knowing anything; that's really it.