Talk:Z for Zachariah/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

About the possible attempted rape (again and again)

You've said it's critical to parse whether Loomis knows Ann is awake when he goes into her bedroom, and that if he knows she's awake that makes ALL THE DIFFERENCE in showing that he has reasonable grounds to think he has "tacit permission" for coming into her bedroom and climbing on top of her in her bed. When I said that Loomis was under a moral obligation to VERIFY verbally that he is indeed welcome to come into her bedroom in the middle of the night, to climb into her bed, and on top of her body before actually doing so, you said I was being "arbitrary" and "irrelevant." You attempted to transfer the moral responsibility of all his actions to Ann for not telling him to leave when she becomes aware he's in the room.

" This is irrelevant. You're making arbitrary claims about what he is morally required to do here, while allowing Ann to do as she pleases with no rules. She's not required morally to tell him her wishes clearly?)"

But I don't think it's being "arbitrary" to say that in most of Western culture I should consider the bedroom of a person I'm not intimate with to be THEIR private space, in which they may feel free to do private things like undress, masturbate, relax, sleep uninterruptedly, or simply be alone if they prefer, without being intruded upon without warning. If I want to come in that private space, I don't think it's bizarrely farfetched to say that the minimum socially appropriate requirement is to ask "Can I come in?" BEFORE doing so. This applies doubly at night, when most people are generally getting their needed sleep, and even if they happen to have woken up, may prefer trying to go BACK to sleep to dealing with company at that hour. The social requirement to get permission to enter a bedroom applies even MORE to climbing into a person's bed and touching their body. Faro may enter the room and jump on the bed on top of Ann without asking permission - but Loomis isn't a dog. He can speak and ask permission for what he's doing, but he CHOOSES not to and violates boundaries instead. And he's an intelligent man who's been raised in Western society, been in the Navy and held a full time job, not a hermit who's lived alone out of society all his life and never learned how people behave. IMO, if he's violating Ann's privacy by entering her bedroom without speaking in the middle of the night, it's far more likely because he understands social boundaries but chooses to ignore them, than that this highly educated man with thirty years of life experience had NO IDEA that there's this thing called "privacy" and that people might get upset if you invade it without permission. And I think it's VERY farfetched to say that if I happened to wake up in the middle of the night and remain silent, I'm issuing a "tacit invitation" to any acquaintance in my doorway to come into my bedroom unless I ACTIVELY tell them to go away.

You may, of course, think otherwise. That's your opinion. And I have mine. And neither of them belongs in the plot summary. What we're supposed to do is present a summary of the text as it is written without writing our biases and opinions in it.

And what's written is that Ann wakes up in the middle of the night and becomes aware that Loomis is in her bedroom. She at first holds her breath to conceal her location, but then realizes he knows she's there and tries to breathe normally, hoping he will believe she is asleep and go away. But he goes up to her bed instead.

Now, it's my opinion that it's quite reasonable for Ann to pretend to sleep and hope that he will go away. Perhaps (putting the best spin on Loomis' behavior)he couldn't sleep and wanted to talk and unthinkingly walked into her room hoping to find her awake also, and when she continues to give no sign of being awake he will wander out again. But that's my opinion of a possibility and doesn't belong in the plot summary. You obviously disagree with my opinion, as is your right. But your opinion about the "tacit permission" doesn't belong in the summary either. If you think it's so all-fired clear and obvious that Loomis could tell by a brief hitch in Ann's breathing (ever heard of sleep apnea?) that she IS awake AND aware of his presence AND welcoming of him in her bedroom and in her bed and on top of her, then the readers of the summary will come to that conclusion on their own. You do not need to insert your opinion about "tacit permission" to guide them to your preferred conclusion. Your opinion does not belong in the plot summary.

As for the description of what happened afterwards...this is a crucial scene in the novel. It is a turning point in the plot that affects everything that happens afterwards. It must be described clearly. And that includes what Loomis and Ann do and how they do it, which is important to explain how each of them acts afterwards throughout the novel - why Ann refuses to live with Loomis afterwards, and how Loomis pursues her. You object to my description: "slipping into Ann's bedroom in the night and putting his hand hard down on her shoulder, in what she thinks is an attempt to pin her to the bed." You're right that I shouldn't have written "slipping into" Ann's bedroom, since Loomis was already in the bedroom when Ann became aware of him, so she doesn't know if he slipped, sauntered or sashayed in. As for the rest...

"Your description adds details about controlling, pinning, tearing her shirt (as if Ann's views are right and Loomis intends all this)"

...I did not use the word "controlling" in describing this scene in the article. I did mention pinning, but I made it clear that this was Ann's interpretation of Loomis' actions. I did not state that she was right to believe it - because that would be my opinion and does not belong there, just as your belief that Loomis is NOT trying to pin her is YOUR opinion and does not belong there either. However, there's no reason to omit "putting his hand down hard on her shoulder" The text explicitly SAYS that Loomis does this. You may think he's totally NOT trying to pin her down by doing it, that he's just dropping his full weight onto her shoulder preparatory to throwing his body on top of her in an attempt to snuggle. That's - again - your opinion. (Which - ouch. Have you ever had a full-grown man throw his full body weight on you through one hand on your shoulder? That would hurt, regardless of whether the gesture was meant to be affectionate).

Similarly, you think Loomis' grabbing her and dragging her back was a "reflexive" oops! on Loomis' part, and not a prolonged physical effort to override Ann's desire to leave with his own will. Let's look at the narrative: Loomis brings his hand down hard on Ann's shoulder (for whatever reason). Ann twists away to one side and dives for the door as Loomis lands on the bed. Ann trips as she dives to the door. Loomis grabs her ankle (one move). He pulls her backwards (two moves). He grabs her shirt with his other hand as she struggles (three moves, AND two hands). That's ONE HELL of a complicated "reflex". My opinion is the same; he is forcing her to stay when she wants to leave. It is controlling (as well as assaultive).

As for your attempt to justify him forcefully retaining her with the excuse: "...perhaps because he's afraid she's got the wrong idea and is leaving him in a panic, never to return?" I reply: You've excused Loomis' actions in the bedroom by saying that they are harmless actions and that he is only doing them because he sincerely believes they are harmless. But if Loomis sincerely and firmly believes that there is nothing wrong and terrible about what he is doing, why in the world would he expect her to run away and never return over a silly misunderstanding they can laugh about over breakfast? EITHER Loomis believes he's doing nothing wrong and therefore he's giving Ann no reason to run away for good and so he should not be fearing it, OR he's well aware he's doing something very wrong and possibly unforgivable, and therefore rightly fears she will run away for good. Pick one. You can't have it both ways.

I know you think Ann is wrong in her opinion of what happened in the bedroom and you want to correct her with your own, but our opinions don't belong in the plot summary. Our job here in the plot summary is to summarize the narrator's descriptions, thoughts and actions briefly and accurately. Even if we think the narrator is wrong about something, Wikipedia dictates we NOT insert our opinion in our summary of a novel text. Our opinions are not written in the novel. We are not the narrator. We are not the author. If the author didn't spell out exactly what we're supposed to think about the attitudes and actions of the characters, it's not up to us to spell it out FOR him in the plot summary like we were the author. If we summarize clearly enough, the readers will be able to draw their own conclusions about who is right or wrong - just as the author allowed his readers to do when he wrote the novel. So I will attempt to write clearly about what happens in this scene while trying to keep my opinion out of it. If you have a problem with what I wrote and believe that I inadvertently DID put my opinion in, by all means correct it and explain to me why - but don't put your opinion in to replace mine. The plot summary is not the place for a pissing match.

Oh, BTW, "Ann thinks her fears are validated when, early on June 28, she awakes in the dark to hear Loomis..." seems to be inaccurate. I checked the scene, and as far as I can tell there is no place in that scene of early June 28th where Ann thinks anything like "Eureka! My fears are validated!" So I'll trim it, for brevity.

Moving long-windedly along...

"On the morning of July 1, Ann speaks with Loomis from a safe distance and proposes a "compromise" of sharing the valley and farm work but living separate lives.[20] Amazed that he is sorry..." Inaccurate. Loomis never says that he is sorry, and expresses no remorse throughout the scene. Ann initially THINKS he is sorry, but then feels that he is acting. He certainly never apologizes, and though he may start out friendly, he ends up insulting her by calling her a schoolgirl, basically showing her that he's aware that his behavior has upset her, but he doesn't acknowledge anything wrong with what he did, and an "adult" would agree with him instead of being upset like silly immature Ann is. I will put those quotes back and let the readers judge their significance.

As for "shot in the leg" - the shooting scene is important, as is just WHAT got shot, since one may shoot to kill, to wound, to frighten, or up in the air on the 4th of July. So I think it's best to clarify that Loomis shot Ann in the scene where he shoots her, and not just casually drop the information that she was shot several pages later.

There's probably a lot more stuff I'm going to do, but I've talked way too much, so I will limit myself to the above. Happy Thanksgiving! Mambru19 (talk) 16:50, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Brevity

You're deleting a factual detail you think unimportant while adding many you consider important. The article is generally getting longer, not shorter. The detail about the timing of her hoped-for wedding is important to show Ann's emotionalism or irrationality--one moment hiding in fear, the next planning a wedding next spring. Saying she hopes for one "eventually" is quite different, making her sound far more reasonable than she is. You also cut out her reasons that seem silly (i.e., that it's too early to get engaged and he might not like her--though he seems the last man). Seoulseeker (talk) 19:30, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

The article is still a lot shorter than before I first started editing it, and I'm not finished editing for brevity. The word "eventually marry him" is shorter than "quickly planning a church wedding next spring." You may think that wedding after a year of acquaintance is silly or that having a spring wedding is sillier than having it some other time. Your opinion, again - but weddings go on all year round despite your opinion. You also think Ann's worry about proposing marriage to a perfect stranger is silly, and that whether he likes her or is interested in marriage is silly. (But what if he's gay? Or really DOESN'T like her? Or hates children? Or believes that mankind is unworthy of Mother Earth after what they've done to it?) Again, your opinion. It's also inaccurate to say that she's "one moment hiding in fear, the next planning a wedding." There is more than "a moment" between her hiding in fear and planning a wedding. IIRC, there's at least a day, possibly more. I'm sure you can tell me exactly how many.

And we both have to decide which details are important here. This Talk page is so we can reach consensus on this. I agree that we need to be brief. We have to come to an agreement on what's important and what isn't. BTW, please don't put your answers in unsigned paragraphs within my posts. It makes me look like I'm schizophrenically talking to myself and is confusing to others who read this page. If that's the way you prefer to communicate, please do it on my talk page and I will reply there. Let's keep this Talk page ONLY for specific changes we plan to make or have already made.Mambru19 (talk) 18:17, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Straw men

No discussion can progress far if one side misrepresents the other's views, interpreting them in ridiculous ways rather than trying to understand them. For example, saying Loomis acts reflexively does not mean his actions are accidental (an "Oops"). It means he acts instinctively or impulsively in a moment of panic in the dark while Ann is rushing to leave. It's also ridiculous to suggest he was wandering the house in the dark and accidentally blundered into her room; so it is pointless to discuss. Also, of course I don't mean it's "a silly misunderstanding they can laugh over at breakfast." How could they laugh about their relationship problems when Ann is never comfortable talking about their relationship openly at all? She's only comfortable with thinking about things on her own and writing in her diary, not talking about anything even though it concerns both of them and she can only understand him by talking openly. I also don't "excuse" Loomis completely for his actions. I just don't accept he intends rape, as it doesn't fit his logical and practical thinking or his sensitivity at other times. You also changed the summary to say she awoke to find him in her room rather than in her doorway, and you argue that he enters her room without permission. It's a fact that he is in the doorway when she awakes; he can hear her breathing and may know she's awake; and he may think her silence gives him tacit permission. Yes, he should ask to be clear. But his failure to ask does not prove him a rapist or a bad man. We don't know his thoughts and feelings at this moment, and there are other possibilities.

You also limit possibilities in saying he either believes he's doing no wrong (and she'd have no reason to run) or that he's acting wrongly (giving her a reason to fear). No. He can believe he's doing no wrong, thinking Ann knows and permits him; but when she suddenly tries to flee, he would only then know she's unwilling to lie together. We know Ann assumes he intends to rape her. If Loomis doesn't intend this but suddenly guesses she might think so (when she twists free), then of course he might think she has the wrong idea and run away for good. Then he might panic also and try wrongly to force her to stay, perhaps hoping to talk to her. Seoulseeker (talk) 19:30, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Communication failure

Both of them fail to communicate clearly, which is the only way they can really understand each other. Loomis should try harder to talk with Ann about their relationship in a sensitive and respectful way, instead of apparently just assuming that they must be a couple, that Ann must understand this also, and that she feels similarly lonely and glad of his companionship.

Ann, for her part, should talk openly with Loomis about her own feelings and hopes instead of holding all back in constant doubt. When she thinks of marriage and children as he sickens, she should tell him to give him hope. When he recovers and says she saved him, she should say how happy she is and hug him as she wishes instead of acting detached. When he is angry that she didn't plant corn and she thinks he doesn't understand how worried she was about him, she should TELL him how desperately worried she was. When she worries about his killing Edward and thinks it would be hard to keep her knowledge of his past secret, she should TELL him what she knows and give him a chance to explain his side of things. When she feels uncomfortable at any time, she should TELL him so he understands her feelings and can try to act accordingly.

We know from Ann's diary that in fact she DOES think the same way as Loomis (i.e., that they must be a couple, and happy to have his companionship), but her fear repeatedly obscures these thoughts and feelings. We know she has a general fear of a man controlling her (which made her hide in the beginning), that this fear lessens when Loomis becomes weaker, and the same fear increases as he recovers strength. We know that during his sickness she becomes very troubled that he killed a man, which makes her fear that he is a murderer (i.e., the kind of person she initially feared might come and control her). But we also see the evidence that he killed in self-defense and is not in fact a murderer; and we can see evidence also of his good character. Seoulseeker (talk) 19:30, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Talk page usage

I agree that it'd be best to limit future posts to brief explanations of edits, if even that is necessary. I don't have much hope of consensus, given your bullying and dictatorial approach (quite ironic given your criticisms of Loomis), sarcasm, and twisting of my words to ridicule them. I accept many of your changes as factual and reasonable (though some seem unnecessary and others biased), and the article is likely to keep changing. It's Wikipedia, so enjoy yourself. Seoulseeker (talk) 19:30, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Since it's about a change I made: I had no intention of misrepresenting you or the text. Speaking specifically of this: "You also changed the summary to say she awoke to find him in her room rather than in her doorway, and you argue that he enters her room without permission. It's a fact that he is in the doorway when she awakes." I changed the summary simply because it's factually correct that Ann woke up to find Loomis in her bedroom, not in the doorway. In the text, Ann wakes up when Faro growls: "The growl changed to a short yip of surprise, his feet scuffled on the floor, and he ran out. I wondered what had startled him and then, in the next second, I knew. Mr. Loomis was in the room." (my emphasis, pp. 174-175) It's only AFTERWARDS that Ann holds her breath and then pretends to sleep. So any discussion about whether or not Ann's breathing pattern signals permission for Loomis to enter her bedroom is irrelevant. He had entered her bedroom already WITHOUT any permission (even the dubious permission of breathing patterns.) No intent to insult you. Just being faithful to the text.Mambru19 (talk) 20:58, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Recent changes

To clarify recent changes, if anyone's interested; the book never clarifies the location of the valley. As for the direction Loomis came from to reach it, Ann seems to say on two different occasions that Loomis came from the north to the valley, not the east. In the absence of clear verification I decided to rewrite it as it is. The rest of the changes are, I think, self-explanatory.Mambru19 (talk) 20:19, 30 December 2014 (UTC)mambru

New Edit

The previous link to the Millay poem led not only to the poem itself (as one might expect) but also to a lengthy commentary which specifically interprets the poem as proof that Ann in Z for Zachariah is "largely responsible" for the extinction of humanity due to her selfishness. This interpretation is (at best) debatable, so I changed it to a link that only shows the poem itself.Mambru19 (talk) 16:14, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Addams Award incorrect

The reference in the Cullinan text is incorrect about the Jane Addams award. Z for Zachariah was a Jane Addams honor book in 1976, but did not win the award. This is fairly vital, as many lasting works of literature do not receive main awards in their earliest years but are often recognized as honor books. Jerekson (talk) 22:42, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments in Footnotes

Edited for being a little vague and subjective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.180.87 (talk) 03:54, 5 May 2016 (UTC)