Reminders: As you respond to your class’s post, review the expectations for thoughtful, valuable, and timely communication outlined in the “Discussion Forum Rubric.” Additionally, even though you are only responsible for responding to your assigned topic, we will use all four posted topics in our class discussion; prepare accordingly.
Huttmann presents two opposing ideas of God’s role in human life and death. For the member of Phil Donahue’s audience, only God can decide to stop someone’s life; anyone who tries to make that decision is “play[ing] God” (par. 2). For Huttmann, in contrast, sustaining life artificially is “meddling in God’s work” (par. 11). Reflect and respond: Although Huttmann presents both sides, how does her essay convince you which side to take, or do your own personal beliefs prevent you from considering her position?
Huttman's personal narrative was able to convince me that artificially sustaining life is not alway beneficial. Although artificially sustaining life can be positive, this expansion of life is not always wanted. Life-support extends life; it does not, however, ease pain. For example, Mac was in constant pain. Not only was Mac in pain, but Maura also suffered seeing her husband hurt. The opposing argument states how Huttmann is "playing God". But aren't the doctors playing God when they prevent Mac's death fifty-two times? The doctors are obstructing what would naturally occur. This does not mean I don't agree with life support. In many cases it can help someone recover or extend life for a specific cause. But when the patient is suffering and ready for death and acceptant it, how can it be refused? Huttman presents her opinion by through a story, providing Mac as an example of the pain that life-support can bring.
ReplyDeleteEllie, thank you for initiating our discussion blog. You bring up an important comment for your peers to extend: "[are not] doctors playing God when they prevent Mac's death fifty-two times?" A side note regarding responses: Remember to address specific narrative techniques that Huttman employs to convey her purpose in this narration/argument. LWeaver
ReplyDeleteHuttmann presents a story with a purpose and employs many techniques to accomplish this goal. To introduce her topic Huttmann begins with a bold and dramatic introduction. The harassing shouts of "murderer" create an interesting and startling opening that draws the audience (sorry, I know we are not supposed to say this word. This interest is fueled by the curiosity as to why people are calling her mean names; she thus allows the perfect opportunity to present her side of the story. As Jimmy states below, another technique that Huttmann uses is the use of imagery. All five sense are addressed in this story. You can see the bedsores, feel the bony hands, smell the death, hear Mac's pleas of pain, and taste bitter sorrow felt by Huttmann and Mac. Huttmann's point of view also contributes to the effectiveness of her essay. By using first person, Huttmann creates a more personable mood. First person puts emotion and feeling into a difficult subject and humans are often swayed by sympathy and sadness. She also creates a personable feel to the story by fueling the plot with background. This background information allows the audience to see Mac, Huttmann, and Maura as friends, colleges, and peers as opposed to characters in a story. When the audience understands and relates to a character, an emotional bond is created. Huttmann also utilizes specific and descriptive diction to qualify these characters. Maura is initially described as "young woman" who transforms into "a haggard beaten old lady". Mac is initially described as "a young, witty, macho cop" who transforms into a "60 pound skeleton". This descriptive diction presents the severity of the circumstances and clarifies the amount of pain that both characters endured. These quotes also set up contrast to portray exactly what change has taken place due to Mac's illness and inability to die (he can die but he isn't exactly able to due to the doctor's orders). Hatmann also uses many appeals, the most obvious being to pathos. The rhetorical strategy of logos is also utilized logos, because it only seems logical and appropriate that a person should be allowed to die. Hattmann also uses ethos because she proves that she did not kill Mac because she was sick of taking care of him or because she didn't like him, but she killed him because she had his best interest in mind. Hattmann is writing this with the same interest in her audience in order to inform them and prevent this from happening again. She also creates a creditable name because Hattmann, a nurse, actually experienced first-hand the pain that can be caused through life-support. Hattmann's argument appears to me to be that a person has the right to life and death, regardless of the opinion of the medical professionals. The patient's choice should be first. Narrative stories do not state a thesis, but the central idea should be evident through the text. Hattmann's thesis is never directly stated, but her argument is presented through Mac's example and the rhetorical questions at the end of the story. Irony is also present throughout the story because "we do not have the right to die" against our own wishes. Death is something that is unavoidable so it is ironic that SOME (not all) doctors and regulations have taken away ability to die as we please. This is another example, in my opinion, that government regulation does not always work the way it is intended to. Overall this story is a very good example of how to write a narrative: you should provide details to hook the readers, appeal to senses, appeal to emotions, and not force the thesis into words (let the story speak for itself). Whether or not one agrees with Huttmann's argument, it is true that she employs many effective strategies to convey her purpose in this narration.
DeleteI completely agree with you Ellie. The doctors are also to blame here because they prevented God's will and the will of the patient. How can we as humans with compassion refuse someone their right to make their own decisons, regardless of whether or not they are on their death bed? The decision of whether or not to end someone's life is a big decision and doctors must look more closely at the patients' wishes, not their own beliefs. While life support is a great tool, the doctors and nurses must know when to stop. On another note, the part that struck me the hardest in this narration was the last line stating, "We do not have the right to die." I disagree with this statement. How can this assertion be true if hundreds of people die each day? Is this statement how doctors justify their decisions? Do they believe that by allowing them to die they are denying them their rights?
ReplyDeleteI also agree with Ellie and Winslow, but I believe that Huttman is saying something different when he claims, "We do not have the right to die." It seems to me that he is fighting for a law to be created that makes it illegal to continue resuscitating a person if that person asks for death. He is making the point that doctors are making death into a sort of reward; we can only achieve death if doctors see fit. Rather than allowing God to decide when it is a person's time to die, the doctors are meddling by deciding that their patient needs to continue living, despite the opposing evidence right beneath their fingertips as they resuscitate the "decaying flesh." Life support is most commonly a miracle, but it can also be a torture device if taken advantage of. By showing the despair of Mac and his family, Huttman is attempting to sway his audience emotionally into supporting his argument against the excessive use of life support. I'm not sure about everyone else, but the sympathetic tone he creates in the narrative definitely swayed me towards supporting his side of the argument.
ReplyDeleteSusan, you've identified something important with regard to the narrative: how does she--Huttmann--create a sympathetic tone?
Delete(I'm sorry if this question was targeted toward Susan) I felt the most pity on Mac when Huttman describes his daily issues, especially the passage in paragraph 7, "the nurses stayed to...irrigate the big craters of bedsores...suction the lung fluids that threatened to drown him...pour the liquid food down the tube attached to his stomach...." Seeing his helplessness and "hearing" his continuous pleads of "God, let me go," really creates the sympathy towards not only Mac, but to the situation that Huttman was put in and the effort it took to act on her decision (and the public ridicule as a result). So the sympathetic tone goes out to both Mac and Huttman, in my opinion.
DeleteLike Meredith, I do feel sympathy towards the predicaments of both Mac and Huttmann (who I now realize is a female), but I feel as though Mac is just a side/background piece of Huttmann's main point. It seems to me that Huttmann organizes the narrative in a very distinct manner: she introduces the problem (paragraphs 1-3), asks her audience to consider the arrogant nature of humanity (paragraph 11), and then concludes with a solution to the problem (paragraph 18). The whole story of Mac and his family in between these paragraphs seems to simply be her supporting evidence. If the primary paragraphs stated above were to be taken out and published by themselves, practically no one would support her claim against the abuse of life support. However, she introduces this character named Mac and portrays to her audience a scene of harsh treatment and inhumane procedures which then sways her audience into seeing her way. We would not feel a connection to Huttmann's case had she not introduced all of these characters, and therefore we, or at least I, would not support her argument as strongly as I do after meeting and growing to love Mac. Mac and his family are Huttmann's tools of sympathy; she uses them to make her point. It is easy to get caught up in the moving story of Mac and his family, but I believe that it is the small, in-between paragraphs in the narrative that Huttmann wants her audience to focus on.
DeleteI agree with Ellie, Winslow, and Susan. I would also like to add that, in Mac's case, life support was not sustaining his life but preventing his death. There is a difference between the two. Mac wanted to die to end the pain, but the doctors were artificially keeping him alive in a nearly comatose state. Who are they to go against a patient's wishes? There was no way he was going to magically get better. I believe the line "We do not have the right to die" is Huttmann's way of calling out people who think she is a murderer and those who feel that life should be extended as long as medically possible. She feels as though patients should have the right to choose whether they want to live or die. Huttmann's argument convinced me that a patient should have the right to choose whether or not to continue on life support.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Jimmy and the previous people who have posted. I would like to atribute that in today's society people( in this case the dctors) fear death and try at any cost to stop it. If a patient knows that it's their time and they accept that, they should be the one to make the call weather or not they want to be brought back or not. In some cases loved ones make request to their relatives to not put them on life support if anything is to happen to them. From a religous standpoint some believe that we should embrace death and not run from it .Doctors have a job but they need to let God do his.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Winslow and Kevin. Mac was in despair and life-support only made his last days miserable. Mac knew he was dying and wanted the process to die in peace rather than through pain. Huttmann convinces me to take her side. She not only saw Mac's pain, but how his cancer transformed his family into despair. Reviving him only brought back to life the ongoing anxiety and depression for Maura and his children; Mac was completely numb, his only dream was the end-of cancer, his family's unhappiness, and life. Why would someone want an individual to continue living a life of suffering? Mac has a "right to die"; his illness was untreatable. In the end, it should have been his decision to provide closure for himself and his family.
ReplyDeleteEach of you is validating your position in support of Huttmann (or not); will you additionally identify the narrative techniques (review pages 73-84 and selecction notations from authors as well) that Huttmann uses? What techniques help her achieve her purpose? LW
ReplyDeleteI think that Huttmann makes a powerful case to sway her audience to her side of the argument. By starting off with her critics calling her a "murderer", she automatically sways the sympathy of her audience to her side. She also uses emotional appeals to accomplish this goal. Huttmann tells her audience of her struggles to accept Mac dying in front of her. This pathos creates the same sympathy she used at the beginning of her argument to sway the audience to her side. As for the last sentence ("We do not have the right to die"), I believe that she is trying to plant the idea of change in the mind of her audience. Her primary goal in saying this is to change the laws so patients can have the freedom to choose between life and death so the doctors do not play the role of God and decide for them.
ReplyDeleteHuttman certainly does present a difficult question. I began thinking of what I would have done in the same situation, and honestly, I have no answer. I specifically believe that life-support depends solely on the situation; if the person has in his/her will the specifications of being on life-support or not, or if the family has the decision to make, it is their decision. It is not the doctor's. In this case, Huttman steps in, as a nurse, and allows Mac the death of which he has been wishing for. Not only has his illness and the continuous detrimental effects of cancer taken their toll on Mac, but on his family as well. Is it easier to live with a perpetually sick, dying father/husband, or without one knowing that he is no longer in pain? In regards to anyone--or thing--you love, this is a difficult situation: I know that we recently had a beloved dog in the same predicament--she was old and sick, but seemingly not in pain. But we decided to put her down and our decision (within 3 days) was justified by the hopes of ending her suffering and fatigue, much less the sorrow it brought us seeing a loved one in such a state. It seems like the decisions of the dead and dying are, and should be, always in the hands of those that it affects. Will a specific doctor always feel the pang of loss from one patient? I don't think so, but the family will. Always. Furthermore, Huttman states that as individuals, "we do not have the right to die." The threats of legality and scientific innovation have stripped us of our natural rights. Huttman uses this statement as a closing to leave this "flock of vultures" with a question, and I believe it to be a strong conclusion. Was her decision morally incorrect? Or was it merely politically or socially incorrect? Because "what, then, shall we say in response to this? If God is for us, who can be against us? ...Who will bring any charge against those who God has chosen? It is God who justifies" (Romans 8:31-33, NIV).
ReplyDeleteThought-provoking!
DeleteI agree with Kevin. Society as a whole does fear death and it is often seen as a failure on the doctors' part when a patient dies. Unless we have personally witnessed a loved one in constant pain, staying alive only through life-support, it is difficult to understand how Huttmann could have let Mac die. However, Huttmann's detailed description of Mac's suffering does create a sympathetic tone (as Susan said earlier). After reading what Mac, his family, and Huttmann went through as Mac suffered so greatly, accusing Huttmann of "murder" seems wrong. Personally, it was the description of Maura's reaction as she saw the medical team attempting to resuscitate Mac for the last time that made me realize that Huttmann's decision to let Mac die was justified. Through Maura's reaction, Huttmann uses pathos to make her audience feel the family's pain. Every time Mac was saved, he was only forced to suffer for a longer period of time, which in effect made those who loved him suffer as well. Huttman was not a murderer, yet to a "death-denying society" this is difficult for all to see and agree with.
ReplyDeleteInstead of stating who I agree or disagree with, I will present to you a line from a modern incarnation of the Hippocratic Oath for your consideration:
ReplyDelete"Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given to me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God." (Courtesy Wikipedia.org)
It is not especially difficult to outline our own moral guidelines from which we feel all medical practitioners should abide by, being those founded on a respect for the will of the patient. However, by attempting to surmise someone’s will and reasoning, are we not playing God? Those in the medical profession have the great burden of discerning the boundaries between the manifestations of a disease, and those of an individual’s true desire. They must decide how to act in tough situations, and formulate the moral standards from which they follow. It is their care in which you will lie, and in their hands which you trust your wellbeing. Thus, some of your rights are forfeited to your physician, unless by some legal means you retain them. Therefore, in the usual sense, a doctor must play God when deciding such a consequential decision as is present in “A Crime of Compassion.” The nexus of the issue lies in not whether Huttmann played God, but whether her decision is morally sound and in agreeance with her profession. We do have the right to die, but in some cases, we entrust that right to our doctors. Unfortunately, Huttmann argues to gain the sympathy of her audience. She includes all doctors in her alleged crime, being those who resuscitate their patient, and those who allow theirs to die, and positions herself as an “Angel of Death.” Thus, she confounds the true paradox of the situation with emotionally saturated testimony that defies the Hippocratic Oath from which all practitioners of medicine are obliged to follow.
Powerful reflection!
DeleteI like how you reffered to the oath that pritty much created the proffesions in the medical field. It seems clever to ask the "father of medicine" himself if he would have done the same thing.
DeleteAs Ellie said, the doctors were playing God. Though they had a responsibility to maintain Mac's life, their actions were in vain. Mac begged to be "let go" because of his agony and his family's agony. Life support is not always the best, most just route to take for patients. Mac's cancer was terminal. Mac knew he was going to die, but he was denied the right to do so. Huttmann's description of Mac's transformation from a strong and healthy man to a weak and bony figure who could not even take care of himself is extremely effective in terms of commiseration for Mac and his family. The line is drawn between the value of human life and the value of humanity, making them opposing sides for Huttmann's essay. While the doctors believed in the sustaining of life for as long as possible, they disregarded Mac's discomfort, humiliation, pain, and frailty. By sustaining his life, they completely dehumanized him. They took away his choice to live when they took away his right to die. Huttmann's use of imagery is her strongest method of proving her point in her essay because of the details she poured into the descriptions of Mac.
ReplyDeleteI especially like the contrasts of details she includes when depicting the Mac she first met--"young, witty, macho cop who walked into the hospital with thirty-two pounds of equipment"--with the dying Mac--"a sixty-pound skeleton." You are right, George, in your assessment of the power of details, and the placement of them in a narrative.
DeleteI agree with Huttmann's personal decision. Patients should have a right to say whether they want to stay on life support or not. In Mac's case, he was ready to die, and resuscitating him was bringing more pain to himself and his family. Why should Huttmann be called a murderer is she was really helping a life? She was helping more than one life though. When she let Mac die, it took the stress off of his wife and children, not having to worry about how much pain he was suffering from.Huttmann did not "play God." He determines when it's the right time for someone to leave this earth, and is the only one that should justify our actions, as Meredith said. If I were in Huttmann's position, I think I would do the same thing because I hate to see someone suffer in pain. I agree with Meredith's statement when Huttmann states "we do not have a right to die" at the end because it symbolizes the restriction of our natural rights. If someone is suffering on life support and wants to die, who are we to keep them alive so they can continue to live and suffer in pain?
ReplyDeleteAs Hayley and many others before her have said i agree with Huttmann's decision.Every human should have the right tho decide when it is their time to go.To me that is not concidered "playing God" becasue Mac was going to die anyways one day so way prolong his suffering? To me resuscitating him fifty-two times is "playing god" no human should be allowed to suffer through that so many times. If the patient is suffering and wants to die then the doctor should not be allowed to say no. Mac plainly stated "God let me go." His wife Maura wanted him to stop suffering as well. Once the doctors heard this man and his family state that it was time they should have allowed him to die peacefully.Huttmann's essay convices me of this because she shows how Mac was suffering through describing his bed sores in such detail and how his decaying flesh smell was "woven" into her uniform.Huttmann created a sense of pity for him. then when she describes the moment of not pushing the code button she says "nothing i had ever done in my forty-seven years has taken so much effort as it took not to press that code button." from this statement that huttmann makes we can tell that she cares about that man and she only wants whats best for him and at this point she sees that as dying. Huttman uses an anecdote at that beginning when she says "Murder,' a man shouted.' God help patients who get you for a nurse.' 'what gives you the right to play god?'another one asks." when huttman states this it draws your attention to read the rest of the story.she narrated from her own point of view from the 1st person stance and this made her point more effective because she was able to provide her counter arguement by expressing how the doctor felt but at the same time express her opinion on the matter.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteLife is sacred in all forms and I fail to see how any medical attention could stop God from ending life if that was really the desired outcome. In the story, Barbara Huttmann decided that prolonging a life that is doomed to end soon anyway was pointless but morally I can't agree with her. I don't believe that a life in pain is worse than death. This strongly reminds me of my grandfather, he had multiple medical problems for many years of his life and yet I loved every second I was with him and deep in my heart, I knew he felt the same way. I only wish that my grandfather had the same chance to receive immediate medical attention as Mac did, I wish I could have been able to talk to him one last time even if it was off the phone. Sure my grandfather felt great pain everyday but seeing his family meant the world to him and no amount of pain could stop him from enjoying every moment he shared with his family. Many times I wished he could be free of those pains and medical problems but death was never the answer I had in mind. Now on the other hand, I would not consider leaving Cal to rest a "murder", he was only following his own morals and found that a friend and his family who begs for death had the right to decide. Murder would not have the patient’s blessing. Yet you can see the moral conflict within the Huttmann as she described seeing Cal die. Huttmann said, "Nothing I've ever done in my forty-seven years has taken so much effort as it took not to press the code button." Huttmann debated what to do but she let go of her fear to please the law and acted as the patient and her morals asked her to and for that I respect her decision.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I agree with Huttman's final decision to allow Mac to die, I find it unfair for us to say that anyone was interrupting "God's will." It is impossible for any of us to truly know the will of God regarding Mac's life. In fact, Huttman's purpose in her narrative was not to prove one of the two opposing sides (artificially sustaining life versus allowing life to take its course) to be righteous or evil. Rather, Huttman wanted to relay to her audience that humanity has a very twisted view on the sacredness of life. We support capital punishment for monetary reasons and use it as a response to killing. We hold utmost respect for unborn fetuses, but condemn their mothers as murderers if they make a decision we feel is immoral regarding the life of their child. War is not murder. We sustain life until the patient at hand begs pitifully for death. Whether any of these things are right or wrong is not necessarily the question; Huttman simply wants for her audience to question what we think about the sacredness of life, why we think it, and how that belief manifests itself. Huttman made a personal choice to follow her personal beliefs rather than the code of law. But we must remember that the doctors who resuscitated Mac were only following a law, something that we all do fearfully, because they didn't know what else to do. We cannot condemn the doctors nor Barbara Huttman for their personal decisions because we have never been in such a situation (I guess I'm assuming this, but it is probably a pretty safe assumption). "Do not judge, or you too will be judged." - Luke 6:37
ReplyDeleteThere were a lot of interesting and thought-provoking statements made today during our discussion. What struck me the most was Kaitlyn's statement about how personal suffering was the powerful swaying point in Huttmann's argument. I went back and reread the passage, and I have come to the conclusion that Mac's agony while he lays in his coma is the most powerful strategy Huttmann uses. The vivid descriptions in paragraph seven coupled with the later imagery of Mac begging to die creates a strong sympathetic emotion. This emotional response is what makes Huttmann's argument so powerful.
ReplyDeleteI would also like to add that, while Mac's problems are not the overall focus of this narrative, the emotions created through Huttmann's use of sympathy leave the reader with a viewpoint similar to hers. She seems to let the audience reach the conclusion that Mac should be let off of life support on its own, and then reinforces this conclusion with her final closing paragraphs.
DeleteWe should not confine the notion of Huttmann’s appeals to Pathos simply to Mac’s agony in his nearly vegetative state. Rather, we should note that the effect of her appeals is two-fold, in that not only are we sympathetic towards Mac, but also to Huttmann herself. In fact, throughout her narrative, Huttmann’s tone is one of victimization. She is being attacked by Phil Donahue’s audience, and likely her colleagues, and thus she diverts the focus from her past actions to that of free will, and slavery to science. The use of the first person in the narrative is not by accident, but by choice, as she tries to connect with her audience on an emotional level. She describes the personal effect of Mac’s deterioration (5 & 8) and her love for Mac and his family, as well as her identification with them (use of “we”). This places her in a purportedly justified position to understand Mac and carry out his wishes. It is in this sense that she asks us to question and condemn the doctors, who, unlike her, will not abide by Mac’s wishes. She asserts that they do not understand Mac as she does, and that they defy the will of God, to which she is aligned, by not allowing Mac to die. Thus, at the end of Huttmann’s narrative, we have been distracted from the possible criminality of her decision, with our emotions channeled towards her final statement, in that, unless we change the system to which we abide, we “do not have the right to die.”
DeleteJimmy,
DeleteThis is why lawyers employ this technique as they appeal to a jury. It it hard to separate ourselves from those appeals and we must pause and ask ourselves what we'd do under the same circumstances.
Eric, astute observation about the two-fold nature of the appeals to emotion (pathors).
DeleteDuring the discussion today, Jessica made an interesting point regarding the fact that everyone seems to have similar opinions towards Huttmann. She looked at the situation in a different light, and she made me think that perhaps I should attempt to look at the narrative from a different perspective as well. Though I do support Huttmann's decision to not press the button, I tried looking at her situation with Mac from an impersonal standpoint and without an emotional connection to the events that occurred. While doing so, it occurred to me that, from a medical perspective and within the medical community, Huttmann's act was a huge violation of legal conduct; she deliberately disobeyed a direct order. Had she committed such an act elsewhere, for example, in the military, her punishment for going against the orders of her superiors, no matter the circumstance, would be incredibly brutal. Being called a murderer and being ridiculed by her peers would be a blessing compared to what her military punishment would be. Huttmann was told by her superior, the doctor, to continue giving the code to resuscitate the patient. In black and white, she disobeyed orders and cost her patient his life. Though that conclusion may seem twisted and untrue, it is what I got out of the narrative when attempting to look at it from a different perspective. I am aware that it's most likely not agreeable with the majority, for I honestly don't agree with it. However, I believe that it is important to look at the narrative from all angles.
ReplyDeleteThank you Susan!
DeleteThat brings up another point that I think Mrs. Field said. Which will dictate your decisions, the law or your conscience? Mrs. Field was talking about you have to make decisions based on what you'll be able to sleep with at night. For some people, breaking the law and being the direct cause of someone's death is unbearable, but for others knowing that you put another human being in pain is unbearable. It's just about the person really, very deep, very deep!
DeleteBilly Budd and Captain Vere resonate!
DeleteAfter today's discussion, I thought about what the majority of the class - including myself - had said, and I decided I didn't totally agree with my initial opinion. I neglected to look at the case from more than one point-of-view. I don't think her essay's message had anything to do with God's will, or "playing god." Rather, the essay exploited current society's moral ambiguity and hypocrisy. I think it is unfair to say the nurses and doctors were cruel, because they were also human beings and they couldn't possibly enjoy causing Mac to suffer. They could have just been trying to avoid a lawsuit, which is a very common thing in the medical realm. My own father, for example, almost lost his job for being accused of malpractice, even though the patient was never his to begin with. The case with my dad made it very far in the judiciary system before it was thrown out. This being said, doctors have to be extremely careful in making decisions. I feel that from a view through the physicians' eyes should certainly be considered. Huttmann's decision is one that is just in some ways, but also unjust in others. Her narrative most certainly amplifies the inconsistencies between morality and law, and suggests they should be one in the same.
ReplyDeleteI would also like to say that the topic of "playing God" was brought up frequently during the discussion and recent blog posts, and I do not exclude myself from the others who brought up the topic. However, after the discussion I thought about whether or not Huttmann really believed in God, and also her readers' religious views. What if you didn't believe in God and you read the story? You wouldn't quickly jump to the conclusion that the doctors and nurses were simply "playing God" because to you, God doesn't exist. My point is that there has to be a deeper purpose to the story, and the idea of playing God is less than scratching the surface of what Huttmann is really trying to discuss. As I've said in my earlier paragraph, she could have been simply using her narrative as a vehicle to make commentary on the gray areas in society. She also could have been trying to make the point that just because you can, doesn't necessarily mean you should. Sure life support is a great tool and great innovation in modern science and engineering, but it has the capability to turn nature's life-cycle into something obsolete for the human race, which is shown through her narrative.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI agree completely. It would've been really interesting to hear some discussion over Huttman's decision from an atheistic perspective, but I'm not sure our class has one. Your point about the disconnect between morality and law is also fantastic. I feel like although Huttman addresses a certain issue with her narrative, this story reaches out to become a much broader problem. We are often forced to decide whether our own moral code is worth disobeying societal conventions or even laws, something I think humanity never intended to do to itself. This issue actually reminds me a lot of The Scarlet Letter. When we analyzed the novel chapter by chapter, I realized that Dimmesdale was not ignoring Hester and projecting himself as righteous to be cruel. Rather, he was caught feeling his heart pulling him to confess his sins to the public in order to redeem Hester and aid her in raising Pearl, yet he found it a sad prospect to let down his entire congregation and was afraid of affecting their faith in righteousness. I think Dimmesdale is very comparable to the nurses in Huttman's story.
DeleteJessica, George: You remind me that The Great Debates will invite this same level of conversation and moral dilemma! Bring on March 6-9! To revisit The Scarlet Letter, Jessica, I RESPECT your asessment of Dimmesdale, and agree that his intentions, however cowardly, were not intended to be cruel with regard to Hester, but I stubbornly disagree that he had anyone but himself in mind as he attempted to redeem his sin. :-) I salute your ability to keep us heartily engaged in the heat of debate. The arts and techniques and strategies of rhetoric and debate will be memorable for this AP Lang Community.
DeleteMy follow-up is going to be on the same subject is Jimmy's; our discussion today made me think most about what it was that Huttman used to sway my sympathy toward her argument (which is that life should be sacred enough for us to let go). Or, more specifically, during what part of the narrative did I find myself in total agreement with Huttman? I realized that the portion of the narrative which truly showed me that Huttman was in the right was actually her description of Mac's death. Huttman describes Mac's passing so peacefully, and in such a bittersweet fashion. I am here reminded of a portion of a play I am presently in, Steel Magnolias. In the play, a grieving mother describes her sick daughter's slip from coma to death as being beautifully peaceful: "There was no tremble...just peace." M'Lynn Eatenton, the mother in this situation, has watched her daughter, Shelby, suffer from severe diabetes and failing kidneys for thirty years. Upon her daughter's death, she experiences a mess of emotions, yet she is relieved to know that Shelby has finally experienced the last of her suffering. Examples such as this scene of Steel Magnolias show that Huttman is not alone in her moral code, which lead her to give Mac death - peacefully. The passage in which Mac dies is designed to sway a reader's sympathy by showing - rather than telling - that death is not as frightening, violent, or terrible as it may seem, especially in cases similar to Mac's. Huttman's description of Mac's passing makes me personally feel like she made the right decision because I could literally feel the tone of the narrative change from tumultuous to peaceful within a few sentences. The new calm nature of the story makes me feel assured that Mac's suffering has finally ended.
ReplyDeleteJessica, yes: "(which is that life should be sacred enough for us to let go). Or, more specifically, during what part of the narrative did I find myself in total agreement with Huttman? I realized that the portion of the narrative which truly showed me that Huttman was in the right was actually her description of Mac's death." Two-fold...you observe the powerful techniques of her narrative and the powerful moral dilemma of her profession.
DeleteDuring our conversation today, Mrs. Field brought up an interesting perspective about A Crime of Compassion. She brought up how we as a society are hypocritical because Americans allow abortion to take place, but criticize someone like Huttmann who was just trying to abide by Mac’s wishes. Abortion is also the killing of a human being, so why then are we willing to let that take place while we cannot condone Huttmann’s actions?
ReplyDeleteSomething else we addressed during our discussion was Huttmann’s writing style and the tools she uses. Her use of imagery helps the audience to feel as if they are in that hospital room sitting next to Mac. The audience can hear, feel, see, touch, and taste what Huttman experiences throughout the narrative. Because of this imagery and her use of dialogue, she is able to tell the stories of three people: herself, Mac, and his wife. She shows how much despair his wife feels, how much pain Mac suffers, and the heaviness she felt when making her decision. In the end, it was all about this decision and Mac’s will. We as outsiders, cannot judge her eniding his life because we have not been in her shoes.
In today’s discussion I liked how Jimmy brought up the irony that Huttmann uses in her account of what happened to Mac. Mac was described when he came into the hospital as though he were fit to defend a state, but as time progressed he was transformed into a thin skeleton covered in bed sores. Before Mac came to the hospital the description that Huttmann uses made me think that Mac was in the peak fitness and health, a symbol of youth and strength in a time which he was in the prime of his life. And to go through a complete transformation into a person who had to be constantly revived and was begging for death really swayed my opinion to support Huttmann's actions to Mac out of misery and to allow his relatives to finally have some peace.
ReplyDeleteNicely stated, Kevin!
DeleteI agree with Susan on having to look at the narrative from different angles. If you look beyond the sympathy you feel for Huttmann, she chose to let Mac die because he asked, but her actions were illegal. She was ordered to press the code button when Mac would slip out of consciousness. As Susan said, if she were to act on those same actions in the military, she would be blamed for murder,under certain circumstances. Soldiers on duty are ordered to kill their enemies, but if they kill they're fellow soldiers on duty with them, it could be classified as murder. Should she have been punished because she killed a life? Should her decision have the same circumstance as someone in the military? I also remembered the reference back to abortion. That is also killing a life that was never allowed to live. I do not think Huttmann should be classified as a murderer. She did what she thought was best and it was to let Mac die because he suffered for so long. Everyone has a choice to either kill a life or save a life under different circumstances, and I think Huttmann was saving his life.
ReplyDeleteI also went back and reread the story,and I agree that we are able to use all of our five senses just by reading the story. Huttmann's choice of words made me feel uncomfortable as she did. I could see Mac's decaying body and bony fingers, and I could smell the decay in Huttmann's hair. I could feel it to the point that it made me cringe. Her choice of words and imagery help me connect to the story. I could feel Huttmann's pain because she had to take care of Mac everyday, knowing that he wanted to die. She had to follow orders. Her decision not only relieved Mac and his family's pain, but her own. She couldn't live with having to see Mac suffer any longer. Yes, she disobeyed her orders, but in a way she saved a life through death.
Hayley: Yes. "Huttmann's choice of words made me feel uncomfortable as she did. I could see Mac's decaying body and bony fingers, and I could smell the decay in Huttmann's hair. I could feel it to the point that it made me cringe. Her choice of words and imagery help me connect to the story. I could feel Huttmann's pain because she had to take care of Mac everyday, knowing that he wanted to die." I charge each of you as you begin considering topics/subjects/experiences that are worthy of your narrative attention to utilize imagery to envoke the response you desire from your audience. An additional observation of imagery...what about Mac's wife Maura " ...transformed from a young woman into a haggard, beaten, old lady"?
DeleteThis narrative of Huttmann's truly makes us consider: at what point does life become a curse rather than a blessing? In today's media, life is constantly being portrayed as a "miracle" that should be preserved at all costs. But no one seems to actually question the truth of this statement. We are too afraid to consider the negative effects of supported life, afraid to let go of the life that used to be or could have been. Even though the the doctors in Huttmann's narrative know their efforts to revive Mac are futile, why do they continue to try? Why put him through such misery time after time? Are they so afraid of death that they cannot bear the thought of any of their patients experiencing it? Or are they simply acting in accordance to the fears of society, rather than their personal fears? Perhaps the confidence science and technology has given us has grown too large. We have deluded ourselves into believing we can overcome anything, even death. We must remind ourselves that no matter what technology we create in the future, death will still exist. As will pain. And the pains, sorrows, and hardships of life are what make death not so formidable. When the pains outweigh the pleasures, death becomes a refuge from life.
ReplyDeleteChloe, you have captured the essence of this dilemma succinctly (and richly):
Delete"Perhaps the confidence science and technology has given us has grown too large. We have deluded ourselves into believing we can overcome anything, even death. We must remind ourselves that no matter what technology we create in the future, death will still exist. As will pain. And the pains, sorrows, and hardships of life are what make death not so formidable. When the pains outweigh the pleasures, death becomes a refuge from life." I know that each of you have the skills/talents to use language to this effect in your debates and personal narratives. Chloe, your sentence construction in this passage is commanding and powerful.
In class today we discussed the doctor in the story believing that life should be sustained until it can not last any long. In this discussion someone, i believe it was Rahaf, brought up the point that the doctors were not around mac enough to realize that he was suffering so badly and wanted to die.At first i did not agree because i could not see how a doctor would not know his own patients problems but now i agree with this point after going through and rereading the story.Now i notice that Huttmann was macs primary nurse and a patients main nurse does everything for them and knows what they truly want and feel. so ultimately Huttann was the only person who really had the athority to make the decision whether Mac was ready to die or he need to be revived once again.
ReplyDeleteAs well in class today we mentioned that Huttman tries to create this image that makes the doctors seem cruel. An example of this is when she says that she asked Mac's doctor EVERYDAY for the "no code" but he would never give it to her. After going back and reading and rethinking this i realized that the doctor did not want to be cruel he was forced to. Like someone said in class today everyone has done something in their lives that they might not have wanted to do simply because someone with authority over them told them they had to. I believe the doctors only kept mac alive to avoid a law suit.Like George said this area for a doctor is extremely hard and they must make decisions that we might not see "moral" in order to continue to work and make a living.
Building off of what Kevin brought up, I feel that because Mac's transformation is so vividly described by Huttmann, a sense of reality is brought to the story. Cancer does not discriminate, as we see that even the strongest people can be overcome by such a terrible disease. Even though we do not know Mac personally, Huttmann's description of his suffering almost places us in the story. This is further emphasized as Huttmann appeals to senses such as sight, hearing, touch, and smell. Illustrating Mac before his battle with cancer makes the audience feel almost as if they know him. Through the few pages of the story, we almost begin to get to know Mac. By bringing the reader closer to Mac in a sense, Huttmann is able to evoke more emotion and sympathy in the reader and in effect, makes it easier for the reader to understand the reasoning behind her decision to let Mac die peacefully.
ReplyDeleteAlso, as George said, I do believe that it is important to remember that the other nurses and doctors in the story as described by Huttmann are not cruel or bad people. In my opinion, Huttmann's point was not to make the audience feel as if they were bad people. These doctors and nurses did not want Mac to suffer, yet they were simply caught in a moral decision that would be difficult for all to make. By showing the contrasting opinions on the "no-code" order, Huttmann reveals to the audience truly how difficult her decision to let Mac die was. The difference between Huttmann and the other medical professionals is that because she had grown to know and love Mac and his family, she was able to live with herself and her decision to let Mac die and she had the courage to act on this.
In today's discussion, I liked how Susan brought up the view on abortion and Huttmann's case. Letting a man die peacefully on life-support is looked to as a crime, but a woman aborting her premature fetus is looked upon as a courageous thing to do. It questions what we view as living and nonliving. I see Mac as nonliving; all energy and life has left his body. He is basically a corpse as is his family. Dying provides closure to the situation, instead he is brought back to life, but with what purpose? His illness is terminal. With abortion, a baby can progress and fulfill life. Although just an embryo, it has a heartbeat. Mac's relies on life-support, his life is artificial.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with George. From an agnostic POV, I do not see Huttmann "playing God", but more of having an internal conflict. She is worried how her decision will alter her reputation as a nurse and if society will see her as a murderer or a hero. Huttmann overcame the death scare the doctors and nurses around her were so afraid of; instead of feeling compassion for Mac and seeing him everyday to notice his pain, they went on resuscitating him for fear of malpractice. But that is the issue Huttman's narrative presents. Donahue's audience worries that she will be looked down upon in God's eyes, but Huttmann's worry was not religious. She let Mac go because it was the right thing to do. I think her narrative presents the question of what is right and wrong.
Like what Winslow mentioned in her comment, Mrs. Field's comments about the hypocrisy of humans relating to abortion and Huttmann's decision really resonated with me personally. I think that the controversy surrounding abortion is the perfect way to juxtapose the situation that Huttmann found herself in. Huttmann allowed a death to take place under her watch, but how is that any different from a mother taking the life of an unborn fetus? If abortion is accepted as a legal practice, then why do patients in a medical hospital not have the right to choose their own time to pass away?
ReplyDeleteHuttmann begins her passage with an engaging hook and immediately calls for both the reader's attention and sympathy. Why would this target face the title of "murderer?" Furthermore, as this audience (and ultimately any other opposition) attacks Huttmann, she doesn't retaliate in such a harsh manner (as I believe Ellie brought up in class today). These people are part of a "death-denying society," a seemingly appropriate term that Kaitlyn brought up earlier, and they cannot accept the death of an individual who could ultimately be alive. How do we define our quality of life? Is it based on the person's age? Their condition? Their moral or religious standards? Essentially, I believe that life seems to be valued by how you impact others; the more you mean to someone, the more you're--in a sense--worth. But this is not the case in the medical field, as is evident in Huttmann's situation, because the doctors (although I, too, recognize that they do not intentionally want Mac to suffer) do not know Mac's personal life. Sure, they may know him as a patient and want to treat them in the best way possible (a strictly doctor-patient relationship), but there is a fine line that I think that many doctors are wary of: it is the line between moral and legal standards. Do you strive to keep your miserable patient alive to avoid a lawsuit, or do you sympathize with them and give them their dying wish of death?
ReplyDeleteOnce a patient's body is inable to support and sustain itself, as Mrs. Field mentioned, it is no longer the doctor's decision to keep the patient alive or induce death. It is not the doctor's profession to create life or to end it; it is merely his/her responsibility to maintain and care for the body while it is living in this world. This is an ongoing moral v. legal and science v. religion issue from the unborn fetus to the sickest elderly, and it may never reach a conclusion. I can only hope that as the medical field advances, so do the decisions of doctors in regards to the natural ability, longetivity, and quality of a human body and life.
On another note, I realized that in both Huttmann's and Angelou's stories, they both organize their arguments in similar ways. Both provide, on the intial surface, an emotional story. However, their plentiful details and abundant sensory appeals take a break at crucial points in their stories; actual argumentative paragraphs are inserted into the narrative as if part of the anecdote (see paragraph 16 in "Champion" and paragraph 11 of "A Crime" for examples). I feel this is very effective because the reader is thrown into an argument that they are not prepared for, in a sense, and because the focal point is admist the entire evidence of the story itself, the reader cannot help to agree with the author at that point in time, unless actively realizing this strategy.
I can clearly see that the majority of class still believes that the decision to let nature take its course, when referring to Cal’s illnesses, was the right one but I still cannot see it as right to take a life but I was close to being persuaded (which says a lot since I never agree with killing). The persuasive tools Huttmann uses are very effective in portraying her viewpoint of the entire situation while relating her actions to the actions any other person would have make if in her situation. As previously mentioned in class (by Jimmy, I think), for a nurse could see a friend of hers start out as a strong and healthy man able to handle anything and go to a 60 pound skeleton unable to bath himself really shows a lot when it comes to the visualization. Throughout the narrative, the incorporation of the senses really brings a lot of emotional response from the readers and listeners. By the end of the narrative, I wonder if the people in the audience were still insulting her the same way as they were in the beginning.
ReplyDeleteI think that's a good observation; I'd like to see how the audience was treating Huttmann afterwards as well. However, I don't think Huttmann killed Mac. She did not induce death in any way. If she could even be charged with murder in a legal case, it would be for passively letting him die, not actively. She chose not to push the code button in time and did Not force death upon him; death came at its natural time. Even so, I personally feel that her perspective on the case would defend her from the most severe charges (in a legal situation), if Mac's wife even chose to press charges--a very unlikely happening seeing that she wanted him out of his misery as well.
DeleteI see what you are saying about the whole taking a life vs. letting nature take it's cource but, is death always the best way to get out of painful or stressfull situations? I understand that Mac's pain was practically like living death repeatedly but doesn't it mean anything to him to be able to see his family again knowing death is approaching and no science can help him when it comes. Everyone who has lost a family member always wishes for that one last minute with their family and yet Mac overlooks those opportunities and begs for an end. Should Huttmann and Mac's wife just ignore the time they have to share with Mac?
DeleteI certainly don't believe that death is always the best "out," but there's something to be said about Mac's choices: he only has two at this point. One is to remain alive until even his body can't withstand the strain that multiple resuscitations brings and the other is to die peacefully as his body has attempted beforehand. What is the point in living if you can't even support yourself? Yes, I agree that Mac's family is an important factor in his will to live, but even they don't seem a large motivation for him. Once you see someone in such a helpless condition, don't you feel sorry for them? Don't you want for their misery to end? Love is unconditional, and when death comes knocking, love is the driving force in both wanting the person to stay and wanting the best for them (getting them out of their misery--don't you hate it when you see someone you love in pain?). I think the fact is with Mac, once you make peace with your loved ones and accept fate, there's nothing worse than having to wait for it to swallow you.
DeleteAs Laura Moeller wrote (from 5th period), "So I believe the only real solution to this debate is that there is no black and white answer. Every scenario is different and therefore should be addressed differently....For this reason it is wrong for a binding “legal obligation” to be placed on these cases such as the one involving Mac," she brings out the true fact of why this is a debate: there is no completely right or completely wrong answer. We would all like to believe that people would act on the same motives as ourselves, but this will never be the case. That's the interesting thing about the human race: we are all so different, subsequently creating those "gray areas" that are neither right nor wrong, but also alarmingly all the same. I feel like we have fleshed out "A Crime of Compassion" so much, and I would like to adress the existence of these gray areas in the lives of the other authors.
ReplyDeleteIn "An Indian Education" we see the development of a boy to a man. Alexi is taught, ironically in school, to be ashamed in his race because he is either "too white" for the Indian school or "too Indian" for the white school. However, as he matures, he learns to embrace the actual culture, but not its stereotypes; he strives to get past the discrimination of his physical appearance. I believe Mrs. Field brought up how being "educated" to another race is equivalent to being "white," and how just the simple miscommunication can cause such issues, such gray areas, between people who are supposedly alike. Similarly, in Tan's "Fish Cheeks," she faces the shame of her heritage and wants to hide from it. Discrimination has blinded her from the true beauty of being different. "Champion of the World" also shows these barriers that race establishes. A simple boxing fight has become one of significance in that if the black race wins this battle, they may ultimately win the war.
In these three latter stories, the gray areas of society consist of discrimination, being accepted, and/or being liked by others. The focal point of each story makes this issue seem huge, but in today's world, discrimination is "discrete" (Joy/Jerika from 4th period). Is it better to address this bigotry upfront, as seems prevalent in our narrative selections, or to place it on the back burner? In reality, those being discriminated against feel the pain of bullying today as much as their ancestors did when lynched, mocked, or beaten many years before. All in all, emotional damage can be just as painful as physical damage (another evident theme in "A Crime of Compassion").
After reflecting back on our class discussions and prior posts, I believe that all students have obtained a concrete understanding of narratives. Each story we read served as an example on how to write an effective and meaningful narrative. There must be character development, details, emotional attachment, and an underlying meaning. Each story that we read presented a character (or characters), introduced the dilemma, had a crisis (in some cases many, "An Indian Education" used many small dilemmas over the years), and then came to some conclusion. The stories we read, in particular, focused primarily the judgmental nature of society. In "Fish Checks", Tan presents the theme that differences are what make us unique and that we must learn to embrace them, even if they set us apart at times. Likewise, in "An Indian Education", Alexi wants to call society's attention to the discrimination Native Americans face and call Native Americans to obtain quality educations and better themselves. Angelou's topic, though dealing with discrimination, takes a different approach. Her story about the fight aims to prove the discrimination and struggles that African Americans faced during this time period. She uses the fight as a symbol of the fight of African Americans during this time. Huttmann's argument proves the discrimination that everyone faces a some point-the right to die. Through her emotional appeals, Huttmann makes the point that everyone deserves the choice to die. Each of these stories can serve as examples for the classwork narrative stories. Different strategies, like the emotional appeals of Huttman, the chronological structure of Alexi, the symbolism and sensory details of Angelou, and the personable language and emotions of Tan, can be used to create a personal narrative. I know that I personally will try to incorporate the sensory details of that Tan and Angelou use. I will also try to create a personal story that creates an emotional response like Huttmann. From reading these stories, I have a greater understanding about narratives. When we began this unit I thought to myself, "What is difficult about writing a story?" I have learned, however, that narratives are much more than entertaining stories. A great narrative has a strong thesis that is subtle enough that the audience does not even notice its presence. I will strive to create a story that presents my ideas without me explicitly stating them. Overall, these stories and our discussions have given me a solid narrative background and provided examples of techniques that I can use in my own writing.
ReplyDeleteNarration is a mode of writing in which you can tell personal experiences and teach others something about life. All narration must have a purpose or moral. In several of the examples we read, such as Champion of the World and Fish Cheeks, the purpose was to show how discrimination hurts, but everyone can overcome these racial barriers. All narratives also use good imagery that involves all five senses, such as in A Crime of Compassion. We can see the wasted away body of Mac as he is dying, we can smell the decaying flesh, we can hear the nurses as they try to resuscitate him, and we can feel his bony hand the way Huttmann felt it when she held it as he passed. All of these narrative authors used symbolism as well. Sherman Alexie uses symbolism well when she uses her hair to symbolize her embracing her Indian culture, thus showing her triumph over her resentment towards her heritage. All of the narratives use a story about a perilous situation and how to embrace it and/or overcome it. It is also become apparent to me throughout the study of these narratives as well as our discussions that there is more than one right answer or solution, you just have to look at all angles. I find that narratives are a way for us to connect and sympathize with one another because we have all been in a situation in which we felt like the outsider or the minority. By reading and writing narratives, we can see that we are not alone in our struggles, but are surrounded with a whole community that has been in our shoes.
ReplyDeleteWhen looking back on our in class discussions and reading everyones blog posts i believe we have all captured what it takes to write a narrative. The authors that we have reviewed over the week have really helped show me and i believe everyone else what a narrative truly is, its not just a story about something that happened to you it is a real life situation that has a underlying meaning. that meaning is often view differently every individual. when reading everyone's incited about each story we all have realized what each of these narratives means to each of us. much like what emma said in her latest post "The narration mode has opened my eyes to all the different ways that people can express their experiences. all the details of the storys and different views on society have really been fun to look at.
ReplyDeleteAfter our discussions and blog posts I feel as though I have a much better understanding of narratives. A narrative is not just a story, it is an experience that is retold in order to be instructive and helpful for someone else. In "Fish Cheeks," "Champion of the World" and "Indian Education," discrimination is the main focus. Each author focuses on something unique; "Fish Cheeks" is about accepting and embracing one's culture, "Indian Education" displays a young man's growth in his life and heritage, and "Champion of the World" takes a broader view of a racial dispute that spans centuries. Each narrative tells a story, but the main purpose is to instruct the audience about the topic at hand. In "A Crime of Compassion" Barbara Huttmann examines the ethical and moral dilemma of life support. While her story focuses on an individual's perspective, on a larger scale Huttmann is trying to communicate to the audience her views on the subject of life support, and, on an even broader topic, the conflict between moral values and the laws of society. Narratives have a purpose, whether it is blatantly referred to as in the closing paragraphs of "A Crime of Compassion" or subtly placed throughout the work as Sherman Alexei does in "Indian Education." I feel as though our class as a whole comprehends and respects the mode of narratives.
ReplyDeleteAn effective narrative makes a point, entertains, explains , and illustrates, which keeps a reader's attention. A good story has a purpose. Fish Cheeks, Champion of the World, and Indian Education are entertaining stories but also have an underlying meaning. The stories let me understand what their culture meant to them and how much they were willing to treasure it for the rest of their lives. Although the stories may have taken place at different periods of time, there are enough details for me to understand what happened and why they treasure their culture. A Crime of Compassion let me use my five senses. It varies from seeing Mac waste away, to smelling his decayed body and even feeling his bony fingers. Mac was an example of what Huttmann was trying to show us; she had an underlying meaning. Everyone has their own point of view when reading these narratives, but I think we can agree that every single narrative we read had its own underlying meaning. Some of the stories related to each other more than other stories. Each narrative was organized, had a point of view, transitions, dialogue, selection of events and a main point. Each of these are classified in different categories but creates a good and an effective narrative.
ReplyDeleteAfter all of the reading we've done, the main thing I noticed about the narratives is that all three make you feel connected to the stories being told. While I read "Indian Education," I am horrified watching Alexei undergo such torment, yet I also feel pride as he is able to make something of himself despite the constant criticism he receives. Then, while I read "Fish Cheeks," I feel embarrassment alongside Amy Tan as Robert judges her based solely upon her background. When I read "A Crime of Compassion," I am as torn between my emotions as Huttmann is herself. Finally, when reading "Champion of the World" I am holding my breath along with everyone in the store as the men fight for the pride of their races.
ReplyDeleteNarratives do not tell a story; they invite the audience to step out of their seats and into the world the authors are creating. If a narrative does not create emotion, then it is not a narrative at all. If the audience does not feel the sorrow, or the pride, or the anger alongside the characters, then the narrative was not successful. In In Cold Blood I grow to love the Clutter family as Capote describes their loving and innocent nature. I care for Nancy as she bakes pie with the little girl, and I want to help Mrs. Clutter when she feels the stress of everyday life. Therefore, when the crime is committed, I despise Dick and Perry as much as anyone in the town. The story creates emotion, which in effect allows me to connect to the characters and the situations that arise.
The organization that each author uses is very effective for the story that each is attempting to portray. Tan attempts to show just a snippet of her life, yet her conclusion shows the moral of the story. We do not need any more information of Tan's life to understand the point that she is trying to make. With Alexei, he is attempting to portray more of a long-term scenario to show the discrimination he faces all throughout his life. It is a constant aspect of his life, so therefore a short glimpse would not have been effective. With Huttmann, she is trying to convince her reading of something, so throughout her narrative she continuously brings her point back up. She uses one story to back up the point she is trying to get across. Then with Angelou, she writes the narrative in such a way that her audience feels as if they have just read something much longer. She is able to summarize a whole racial issue into just a few pages, for she writes in such a manner that portrays many emotions all at once. All in all, every author wrote in the most effective manner for their specific purposes.
After all of the discussions our class has had on the mode of narration, and after reading the examples of good narration in the bedford, I think I understand how to write a structured and powerful narration. In all of the narratives we have read, I think the underlying aspect of a narrative that is necessary in any story is the first hand and detailed descriptions of the characters and plot. In all of the stories we have read, details provide the most important aspect of any story. Whether it be in "Champion of the World," and Angelou's descriptions of the small knit community she grew up in as they watch their hope triumph over discrimination, or in "A Crime of Compassion" where Huttmann describes the transformation of Mac from a strong, young cop to a bony and sickly mess. These descriptions provide the details necessary to make a narrative compelling to anyone that reads it, and are necessary to any narrative. I think everyone in our class understands this important aspect of a narrative, and based on the discussions we have had in class i think that as a class we have successfully understood the stories that have been presented to us for study. "Champion of the World" discusses the racial implications faced by a young African American girl and how one boxer held the hope of an entire race; "Fish Cheeks" offers the story of a young Chinese girl and her struggle to learn to accept her own culture in an unfamiliar place; "Indian Education" describes the discrimination of an Indian child as he matures towards adulthood, and his eventual determination to accept and be accepted by both races; and finally, "A Crime of Compassion" details to painful decision of Barbara Huttmann as she decides to let a pained man die to ease his pain. These stories, along with the insight provided by everyone else in the class, have allowed me to understand the process and the expectations of a compelling and powerful narrative.
ReplyDeleteAlthough some would consider a narrative just another story but it is much more than that. It is a literary piece that has some particular meaning within its pages. Narratives also make the reader feel as though they are in the story and it makes you recall memories of when you were in similar situations or knew someone in a similar situation. Through all the readings we have done I have come to realize that a good narrative plays upon the emotions of the reader. A well written narrative will immerse the reader in colorful imagery as well as obtain an emotional response, a narrative is a story with many meanings of which can be perceived in a different way depending through what lens it is being read.
ReplyDeleteAfter all the reading and class discussions, I have a clear sense of what a narrative is. A narrative is not just a story, but a personal experience between the writer and the reader containing depths of meaning beneath all of the imagery,diction, and allusions. "Indian Education" stood out to me because of the organization. As Alexie progressed in grade level, his writing did the same. He became mature and accepted that his future is on the reservation, but doing something more than contributing to his culture's statistics. After analyzing his text further, I see that he is not just talking about life on and off the reservation, but how wherever he lives he always feels outcastes. I believe he captures the dry humor and arrogance teenagers go trough jn high school. Sooner or later we have to accept ourselves the way we are and not be naive about the future.
ReplyDeleteWhen Alexie talks about his cousin getting high, it was effective in creating sympathy-pity almost. I felt sorry for his cousin, knowing that he will be unable to attend a public school like Shernan or experience anything new. But in the end, it was his cousins decision. Alexie's narrative shows how choices as an adolescent can have a destructive or positive impact on the future. It all depends on what road you take.
The narrative genre is not an easy genre to define. However, narratives can be summed up in three words: narratives are stories. Although the selections we received within the narrative genre almost all told stories of cultural struggles and overcoming societal prejudices, the genre expands much beyond tales of the cultural subject. However, despite the similarities between Tan's, Angelou's, and Alexie's stories, they all have striking differences. Tan's and Angelou's narratives relate a single incident, while Alexie's story spans twelve years. Angelou exhibits pride for her race as a consequence of the event that takes place in her story, while Tan's story shows her struggling to accept herself as a Chinese-American, although she does grow to do so. Alexie, on the other hand, goes from loving his heritage to being ashamed of it and every emotion in between in his twelve years of both Indian and white school. Tan's and Angelou's narratives are descriptive, while Alexie's is broader and more poetic. Alexie's narrative is also unique in its sarcasm.
ReplyDeleteThen there is A Crime of Compassion. Although this narrative breaks from issues of race, the story does relate an issue of the American culture. In this, her narrative, Huttman questions America's value of life and appeals for the right to die in her story of a patient whose suffering compelled her to allow him to die rather than following the law and resuscitating him.
Although these narratives differ largely in many ways, all of them share a few elements that can serve as a definition of the narrative genre. All are stories. All of the narratives attempt to sway the reader in a certain direction in order to teach a lesson, rather it be cultural empathy or sympathy for a suffering human being. All of the stories we read were personal; this is not to say that all narratives are personal, but perhaps "writing what you know" is a help for success in effective writing. All began with something that caught my attention and made me want to keep reading.
None of the writers we read from in this genre were wrong or less effective in their style and rhetorical strategy. The equality I find here is entirely due to the fact that these essays are so personal. It is very difficult to judge an author's representation of an event which altered their lives. In fact, this personal representation may be the closest thing to defining the genre I can think of.
Narratives are made for a reason and often the reasons are far beyond just entertaining the readers. "Champions of the World", "Indian Education", and "Fish Cheeks" focus on the racial troubles the authors faced either from the world or within themselves. Of the stories that we read, I felt that the purpose for "A Crime of Compassion" were not as easy to distinguish as the others. I was not sure if it was written to persuade those who disagreed with her actions or wether Huttmann wanted to clerify her understanding of what was nessisary and show the audience that she did not do it out of hate but love and compassion.
ReplyDeleteAnother think that was more significant within "A Crime of Compassion" that the others was what I was left with after the story was done. After reading the narrative, I felt a lot more open to death that normally. I never could look at death as a solution to anything like I could after understanding Huttmann's narrative and the more we talked about it in class the more I agreed with letting Mac rest but even now, I am in no absolute desision.
In "Fish Cheeks" and "Champion of the World", I was more entertained by the simple format of the storries. They were detailed yet simple and that was what I loved about them. In "Champion of the World", I saw that there was a much stonger sence of unity and pride in culture from the very begining unlike "Fish Cheeks" where Tan grows to feel more comfident in herself over time.
The connecting factor that I noticed in the four narratives that we read was the narratives' ability to make the audience feel as if they were witnessing the events of the story first-hand. The authors of each narrative found a way to involve their audience in the story, whether it be with pathos appeals, relatable events, or vivid detail. However, these elements alone do not create an effective narrative. It is the purpose of the narrative that speaks the loudest to the reader and in effect determines whether or not a narrative is believable. A truly "effective" narrative is memorable; the author teaches the audience a valuable lesson or brings about a thought provoking question--creating emotion in the reader. As we have seen as a class, "Fish Cheeks," "Champion of the World," "A Crime of Compassion," and "Indian Education" are all very different styles of narrative. While the authors of "Fish Cheeks," "A Crime of Compassion," and "Indian Education all aim to create a life lesson within their stories, Maya Angelou uses vivid detail to bring "Champion of the World" to life. The common thread in not only these four narratives but in all narratives, is the reality of the story itself. The reality of a narrative in combination with precise detail and created emotion is able to make the audience feel as though they can relate to the story. I have learned that a narrative is not simply the recollection of an event or dilemma, but rather is a story aimed at teaching its audience an important moral lesson, both understandable and relatable.
ReplyDeleteAfter having the discussions over the narratives we read last week, I have learned that a narrative is not just a story that is told for the sake of telling, but a story that consists of deeper meanings. Some narratives have open ends, like Crime of Compassion, leaving the reader with a thought-provoking idea or question, and then there are narratives that blatantly make their point. Narratives that are more blunt with their messages, while usually not as controversial, can still be just as interesting if written properly. Imagery, to me, is the most useful tool when writing a narrative. Imagery provides not only for physical senses but also emotional, like in Crime of Compassion. All of the narratives we read also had factors that made them unique. Champion of the World used dialect to distinguish itself, while Crime of Compassion used gut-wrenching details. Similar to Champion of the World, Fish Cheeks used dialect and culture to distinguish itself and create a more real atmosphere. Sherman Alexie's Indian Education used not only detail and cultural context, but also humor. Alexie's series of memoirs, though sad to some people, had some comedic elements to me. "Indians lose again" was a pun, perhaps in poor taste, but a pun nonetheless. Alexie's use of dark humor successfully makes his narrative more lighthearted than it would have otherwise been. However, because his memoirs were typically sad, his use of humor is very debatable. Over all, the use of imagery plays the largest role in telling a successful narrative.
ReplyDeleteA Narrative is advantageous due to its intrinsic ability to illustrate an event with the accuracy necessary for realism and effectiveness. Not only is the audience able to picture the events unfolding, but they can experience them with all of their senses. In this way, a narrative is a powerful medium to express an idea. In “A Crime of Compassion,” this idea is one of the value of life, where Huttman uses vivid description of personal experience to describe the immeasurable toll of Mac’s lung cancer. Without the emotion that a narrative allows the author to express, Huttman’s argument would not have been as effective in persuading the reader into agreeance with her position. “Champion of the world” utilizes the unique properties of a narrative to a different extent, where Angelou allows the audience to experience a unique and distinct culture, as well as the racial tension in which she grew up, in order to strengthen her appeals later on. However, by allowing their respective audiences to experience a purposefully censored occurrence, both authors were empowered with with the subtle tools to manipulate and persuade that define a well written narrative. (Reminiscent of the changing information in “1984”)
ReplyDelete