Skip to main content

Extended Response to "On the Rainy River"

Here's the original prompt that we were given in class: 

Respond directly to O'Brien's questions for the reader near the end of the story: "You're at the bow of a boat on the Rainy River. You're twenty years old, you're scared, and there's a hard squeezing pressure in your chest. What would you do?" How would you answer this? What would you do?

Had I been in O'Brien's shoes, I probably would have turned back and headed home, not because of a lack of courage, but because I would not be able to deal with the guilt of having not fought in the war when I had been asked. It certainly wouldn't come from a place of proud nationalism or extreme bravado, rather from the understanding that it would be hard, years later, to see other men who died or fought at my age while I was sitting up somewhere safe and unbothered in Canada. I would feel as if I had cheated life. I also wouldn't see leaving for Canada as an act of courage. Yes, it would take a great amount of 'courage' to do what everyone was told you not to do - but I'm not sure if this would qualify as a courageous act. It's somewhat cowardly, although I can't blame anyone who had the chance to leave. He had every reason to - the only thing stopping him was his conscience. 

Perhaps it's unfair to call him a coward, but that's how I would have felt if I had left, and he might have felt the same after some time. It's complicated - we usually call someone a coward when they back down from a formidable and righteous fight or challenge. In this case, the war is a foreboding obstacle in his future, but it's not perceived to be a worthwhile cause. The Vietnam war was widely unpopular, and many Americans (including those who served) were unsure about why they were there, just like O'Brien. Still, we place blame on those who avoided fighting. I think it's because so many others died fighting, not so much because we were fighting for an honorable cause or to protect our home or an ally's. Hundreds of thousands of young men risked their lives for an objective that the most of the American public was never fully aware of. However, this is enough to make anyone feel guilty for not participating in the war or at least showing that they cared about the lives of their fellow Americans.

This is the guilt that I would be dealing with as a 21 year old on that boat, wondering whether or not I should leave for Canada. I can imagine questioning myself, wondering "what makes me so special that I deserve to live in peace?" It wouldn't be about doing the right thing at all, because there isn't a right choice in the end. You either leave the country and save yourself, or you fly off somewhere to fight and kill other human beings just because someone's told you to. It's a lose, lose. In a way, it's like saying "yes" when someone asks, "If all your friends jump off a cliff, will you?" Maybe that's true cowardice; not standing up for your own beliefs because you fear the pressure of others. Or maybe that's true honor; standing with your brothers and fighting for one another. All I know is that I fear guilt more than anything else, and I know I wouldn't be able to deal with that feeling if I left the country.  

Comments

  1. My response was different because I said I would instantly go to Canada, but after reading this I realize I never thought about guilt. It's definitely a lose lose situation and also a dilemma of whether cowardice can be courage, which is probably why O'Brien didn't tell others about it.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I definitely agree with you that it's a lose-lose situation. You bring up a really good point that even though he looks back at this moment with regret, if he had gone to Canada he undoubtedly would also feel some variation of survivor's guilt. No matter which decision he made, he will always feel cowardly in this moment because to not feel ashamed in this situation would be essentially impossible. Either way, he loses a part of himself. O'Brien just maintains an understandable "the grass is greener on the other side" mentality since what he experienced would probably outweigh the prospects of survivor's guilt since the war became a very real experience for him.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I really sympathized for O'Brien throughout the story because I could totally see myself going through the exact same situation should it happen to me, and it reminded me of just how massive of an impact unexpected war can have. I agree that either way, he's stuck between a rock and a hard place and has to live with the "shame" of either choice. The way I see it, coming to a decision on his own while knowing that he'll have to carry its burden for the rest of his life was bravery in itself.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

How to Be an Other Man

In "How to Be an Other Woman" from  Self-Help , we saw (are took the role of) a woman enter a relationship with a married man, and learned how to deal with being in this situation. In this story, the narrator directs the  you  to go on a number of dates, to be discreet and careful, to refrain from asking too many questions about his wife, and to try to adopt the qualities that the man likes in his wife. The character that is being directed in this story is a young, healthy, somewhat nerdy woman who works in a disappointing job. She seems unsatisfied with her status before the relationship, and once the affair begins, she feels increasingly uncomfortable with her position. "How" features another young, healthy (and maybe a bit nerdy too) young woman who finds herself stuck in a relationship that is increasingly aggravating to her, mostly because she's grown bored of her partner, but also because it never becomes easy to leave him. Here, instead of the male char...

Sexual Promiscuity in "A Perfect Day for Bananafish"

Disclaimer: This is not a "concise critique" by any means, so if you're looking for a short read, this is not the blog post for you. In our discussion of Seymour in "A Perfect Day for Bananafish" this week, several of us had an uncomfortable feeling reading Seymour's interaction with Sybil, the young girl he meets on the beach. The question of whether Seymour was a pedophile or a general "creep" arose, but we left it unanswered. Instead, we (somewhat) concluded that Seymour was more comfortable talking to children, and that his peculiar behavior came from a place of mental instability, not malicious or perverted intention. Furthermore, Mr. Mitchell added that throughout Salinger's stories, Seymour never has a hint of pedophilia or suspicious sexual activity. Even so, he did acknowledge the possibility that Seymour's actions were sexual, and he was aware that students have frequently raised the same questions in recent years. It...