21st Century Literature discussion

I think this is the heart of this story. The people. How they react to each other. How they are. And how we respond to them.

What do you guys make of Willard? Is he evil? And if not why not?

Sorry, quick aside, this book may be another example of exception in the Can You Like A Book If You Don't Like The Characters debate. More about that a bit later in the month.

I do not think Willard was not evil. He was, however, mentally disturbed. After what he experienced in WWII in the Pacific, I'd say he was suffering from post-traumatic stress. For the most part, WWII veterans did not talk about the horrific things they saw/experienced and Willard seems to fit in there. Somehow religion got mixed in with his mental illness, and he took Old Testament requirements a bit too literally. I think his love for his wife is what kept him from going off the deep end. He thought God would save her if he did all the things he did. When she died anyway, he was lost.

Deborah wrote: "I agree with everything you say. Can you throw on a spoiler tag until we get a bit further along

I have to say I am most interested in discussing Sandy and Carl. I'm just holding off for a little..."

I finished the book last night, or I should say early this morning.

I find it hard to believe that I'm saying this, given the level of horrible things that happened in this novel, but the only person I think was evil in this book was (view spoiler)[ Preacher Preston Teagardin (hide spoiler)]. He had not one iota of good in him.

The other characters that could be considered candidates for the evil tag and who were totally unlikeable, did show a tad of humanity. (view spoiler)[ Carl, one very sick dude, cared some for Sandy. Bodecker, one very weak man, cared some for Sandy and his wife, although mostly about himself. Sandy, probably a nymphmaniac as well as pyschotic, felt bad for some of the models. Theodore, one jealous boy, loved his brother. (hide spoiler)]

There were some likeable characters. (view spoiler)[Emma and Earskell were good people who did good things. And I couldn't help liking Arvin, despite his decision to take revenge against the Preacher. He was likable because he protected Lenora, because he never forgot the dog, because he loved Emma and Earskell, because he was a hard worker, and probably a few other becauses. (hide spoiler)]

I agree with everything you say. Can you throw on a spoiler tag until we get a bit further along

I have to say I am most interested in discussing Sandy and Carl. I'm just holding off for a little bit

Deborah, When I tried to reply to you that I had added the spoiler tags, my edited comment disappeared as a standalone and ended up as a reply! Not sure how I accomplished that but at least the comment still exists and there are now spoiler tags. Is it possible to have a discussion post that permits spoilers?

You got it!

I just read the first (maybe only, I've no idea) chapter that deals with Hank Bell (Chapter Eight), and I have to say that he is extremely well-drawn.

Examples:

(view spoiler)['All they desired out of life was a car that would run and a hot piece of ass. He thought that sounded nice in a way, just going through your life with no more expectations than that. Sometimes he wished he weren't so ambitious.'

'Damn, was I talking to myself?'
'Not really' [...] 'Who's Mildred?'

That last is done exceptionally well. I was drawn into his train of thought so completely that when he realised with a start that the boy was there, so did I.

The world from Hank Bell's point of view makes perfect sense, even as you can step to one side at any point and see how small his view of the world is, how based in ignorance. (hide spoiler)]

I don't see Willard as evil at all. He had some strange ideas, and he lost the plot as Charlotte lost her grip on life, but his actions make sense from his point of view. He sees himself as a good man, a righteous, god-fearing man; he never admits to himself how lost he is. Being lost and being unable to admit it is a dangerous combination, but not necessarily an evil one. He's a bad father, in the end, and his most serious crime in the eyes of the law is something he probably deserves to be punished for, but I doubt he would have done that if he didn't believe it was ultimately for good.

Terry, I agree that Hank is well-drawn. There are a number of minor/fleeting characters that make an appearance or two that are equally well-drawn. Even though we do not actually meet her in Chapter 8, Pollock gives us enough, I think, to capture the essence of Mildred McDonald. It is pretty amazing to me how quickly Pollock can convey the essence of a character. And the thing is, sometimes one of these "lesser" characters would make a reappearance.

I waited for the month to be half over to start talking about this.

-Spoilers follow-


I think this book is so character driven that there are more spoilers in discussing the people than the plot.

What draws my attention is the way Pollack invests you in people who are so repugnant, so debauched and so warped that they should be monsters. You should want to look away. And yet, each one is in some way redeemed. (Maybe not all. Maybe not the preacher)

This ability, this manipulation reminds me of the movie The King (which you should go rent immediately. It's the one with Gael Garcia Bernal in case you come across more than one.)

In particular Carl and Sandy. I think there is something compelling in the way these two truly fucked up individuals are humanized. I want to be able to do that in my writing.

Seconded.

For me the biggest single factor in that is the vulnerability. Every character is vulnerable, has doubts, fears, hopes. You can imagine that it didn't have to be this way. Had the world just been a little kinder, they might have turned out okay. Which is only a step away from 'there but for the grace of God go I'

The preacher is much harder to even consider forgiving as a reader, because he preys on the weak, and appears to show no remorse. He takes no blame upon himself, doesn't really search himself.

The only people in my own life I've been utterly unable to forgive are two men who preyed on the weak (not in exactly the same way) and who appeared to have no remorse, no self-doubt. I've forgiven a lot else, without too much difficulty, when it was essentially weakness, but cruelty is much harder.

I agree absolutely with you both Deborah and Terry! Teagardin, as presented, is unforgivable. There is nothing shown that comes even close to being redeeming. He personifies cruelty and evil. But, as you say, Carl and Sandy are presented, as horrific as their deeds are, as troubled souls who could have taken a different route. The best example of that, I think, may be Roy.

Great points above, and I'll add my approbation.

What I really loved about Pollock's writing is the complexity of his character sketches. I'm still amazed at how he left me with the unshakeable conviction that Sheriff Lee Bodecker was a worse person than Carl or Sandy - an impressive feat, given the circumstances.

What also caught my eye was how nobody was whitewashed. In real life, the self-proclaimed pillars of the community go to great lengths to project a certain public image which is usually contrary to the truth. Pollock's omniscient narration dispenses with this façade and cuts right to the quick of characters like Bodecker, Teagardin or even Henry Dunlap.

Your are so right Daniel. We know these people exist but usually only when exposed after years of "taking advantage." Pollock doesn't sugarcoat. But, I suspect that if we had more glimpses of their neighbors, we would see the whitewashing. Even Arvin wanted to protect Emman from knowing what Teagardin had done to Lenora. Perhaps the whitewashing is a form of denial that Pollock is not allowing us to have.

I keep coming back to Willard.

In many ways, I feel Carl is the main character, though Arvin is the hero.

But I keep coming back to Willard. Linda feels he's damaged by the war. I don't doubt that. But then, a lot of people go to war, and manage to never kill again.

That sounds very judgmental. The thing is I can get behind this character. I don't hate him. I root for him. I love that Pollack can do that.

Who did you find most compelling?

Emma. She's at a Job level of being tried - think of all those she loved who die horridly, think of that horrid preacher who deliberately embarasses her caseraole, is responsible for Lenora's death and refuses to preside at her funeral. And yet she still remains faithful to a God she believes is good and remains good herself.