Talk:Z for Zachariah/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Inaccurate revision by 98.238.246.76

"She no longer believes his reasoning that he acted in self-defense....After he attempts to rape her and momentarily wounds her leg...."

Ann never gives Loomis a chance to explain his actions until the end, when he says, "He [Edward] tried to steal the suit...the way you're stealing it now" (247). Ann is the one who reasons correctly that Loomis acted in self-defense (126). However, her fears very quickly lead her to think unreasonably that Loomis's journey west suggests he "was trying to keep the suit for himself" (127). This view is unreasonable because Ann ignores the facts that (1) Edward was selfish in taking the suit to find his family; (2) Loomis actually spent half a year searching for other survivors before he set out on his own (57, 63-65); and (3) she herself was willing to let a person die to ensure her own safety (by letting Loomis swim in a dead stream). Thus, Ann is unreasonable, unjust, and hypocritical to question Loomis's morality. Further, references to attempted rape are merely questionable interpretations, not factual descriptions, condemning Loomis based entirely on Ann's point of view. The facts of the circumstances do not actually support such a condemnation (see above). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seoulseeker (talk • contribs) 18:07, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Inaccurate revisions by 71.142.229.132 and Hybrid Bird

Edits about Ann’s character delete questioning of both her self-justification (for letting Loomis swim in the dead stream) and reviewers’ praise of her kindness (while ignoring her partial responsibility for Loomis’s sickness). Also, Ann is described incorrectly as disbelieving “Loomis’ claim that he killed in self-defense”—-a "claim" that is expressed only by Ann, not Loomis. Only at the end does Ann reveal knowing about Edward's death, so Loomis has no chance to explain himself until then. The fact that murder involves premeditation is presented as only a position that “many argue,” denying fact. Finally, the end of the summary is repeated unnecessarily, incorrectly describing Loomis’s last words as providing “guidance” so Ann can find the valley in her dreams. The edits also cause problems with grammar and meaning in the affected sentences.

Hybrid Bird’s edits about Loomis’s character are similar, again incorrectly claiming “Ann disbelieves his recognition it was self-defense,” ascribing Ann’s cited reasoning to Loomis. The editor also deleted notes about inconsistencies in Ann’s view of Loomis; and all notes about Loomis’s greater forthrightness are replaced with the phrase “tyrant-like qualities”—presenting Ann’s extreme view of Loomis as fact.

This editing again shows the tendency among Ann sympathizers to ignore or twist facts of the story so as to believe Ann completely innocent and demonize Loomis. Seoulseeker (talk) 06:53, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

About Objectivity

OBJECTIVE (adjective): not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased.

An objective viewpoint is based strictly on facts, not personal feelings about a topic. Also, it cannot consider only ONE point of view.

So it is quite ironic when people think this article lacks objectivity because they accept the narrator's viewpoint as the only right one, sympathize completely with Ann, and react emotionally to any effort to understand Loomis. Funnily, it's also typical of these people to try to change the article in ways that clearly distort or suppress facts of the text (as shown repeatedly above). What these readers want is for the summary to explain Ann's interpretation of Loomis, not just what he does. The problem is not that the article lacks objectivity. Rather, it is these readers who do. Seoulseeker (talk) 02:40, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I approve

I agree with everything Seoulseeker has said. People point to the fact that Loomis tries to climb on top of Ann without consent, the fact that he shoots her in the leg, that he burns her possessions, he locks the store so that she cannot survive, and various other things he does. Yes, he does do these things, it's true. What these people are forgetting is that on a number of occasions, Ann runs away from him, she is unreasonably frightened of him after he tries to have sex with her without her consent and especially after he shoots her, and that she spends time praying in the church. As far as I'm concerned, she got off too lightly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.7.137.85 (talk) 15:24, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Not really

Your sarcasm is based on typical false assumptions. It's not a "fact" Loomis tries to have sex with Ann without her consent. Given his character, their circumstances, and Ann's description, he likely knows she's awake and assumes she gives tacit consent by saying nothing to stop him. She is foolish not to express her feelings or ask his intentions, which of course would be the only way for her and readers to know what he's thinking. Loomis might just want to be with her because of loneliness, which Ann later guesses as a motive (218). Many readers ridiculously expect Loomis to act with perfect decorum despite the trauma of experiencing a nuclear war and wandering many months among ruins and corpses, believing himself the last human on Earth. In contrast, Ann's experience of the war has been far less traumatic due to her staying in an isolated valley and seeing none of the devastation directly. She even continued curling her hair for a long time.

It's also false Loomis does anything "so that she cannot survive." Rather, given the fact he cares greatly about their future together and starting a colony, his purpose is surely to save her from dying in the wilderness during the winter. Her hiding in the forest is not practical for their mutual survival, which is why he calls her behavior "stupidity" (205). It's also stupid because they are the last two people and have to share a small valley that seems the last habitable place; so it's just stupidly unrealistic to try hiding from him indefinitely. They need to cooperate. Ann guesses that he locks the store to conserve limited resources with a "long-term view" (217) and to try to force her return (218). Further, Ann's belief that access to the store would solve her problems is delusional. After Loomis enabled her to use the tractor again, she recognized she'd been relying too much on the store, which was "an illusion" because the supplies could not last long (94). When she runs away, she seems to delude herself about that again due to paranoia and wishful thinking. Loomis' locking the store only forces her sooner to face the facts about hiding in the wilderness: "it was obvious that in the long run I could not live" (218)--one reason that the only practical course is to reach an understanding with Loomis.

Saying Ann "on a number of occasions...runs away" misleadingly suggests that she does this many times. In fact, she does it twice. The first time, she runs away and hides in the cave because of fearing the worst of an approaching stranger whom she knows nothing about. Given that (1) she believed she was the last survivor, (2) she's hoped for a man to come, (3) she cannot judge his character from a distance, and (4) she must face him sooner or later, her hiding in a cave is certainly unreasonable--as is her repeated annoyance when the stranger uses her things after she abandoned them and hid. If she hid briefly just to watch for any obvious signs of mania (e.g., staring madly, drooling, twitching, and shooting wildly), that would be sensible. Hiding from someone who seems quite normal and rational is foolishly paranoid; and her irrational fear even stops her from warning him of a poisoned stream. The second time she runs away is when Loomis comes to her room at night. This time she is unreasonable for the reasons stated above: (1) she should simply talk to him to understand his intentions and tell him her own feelings; (2) it's unreasonable to absolutely deny all friendship because of this incident (and without even discussing it); and (3) it isn't practical to think she can hide from him and live in the wilderness indefinitely. At this point, she has already gotten herself worked up about all sorts of false imaginings and assumptions about Loomis, so she is not thinking rationally at all.

The sarcastic comment that readers should sympathize with Loomis because of remembering Ann "spends time praying in the church" implies absurdly that Loomis despises Ann for being religious and that anyone who sympathizes with him must think the same way. In fact, Loomis never mocks Ann's beliefs. He becomes annoyed one time because she claimed she couldn't leave his sickbed to plant crops despite leaving him a few times to pray in church. Thinking she could also have left him to plant crops, he views her as foolishly impractical, and he sees she makes hypocritical excuses for herself. Also, Loomis actually suggests that Ann pray a couple of times. Earlier, when he tells her how to pump gas with a crank, he suggests saying a prayer first (91); and later he suggests that she pray for the bull calf (152). There is no indication in the text that his words are sarcastic, and even Ann doesn't suspect so on these occasions.

Perhaps some people confuse the story with the terrible BBC adaptation, which changes many facts in the text to make Ann look totally innocent and turn Loomis into a sinister caricature. For instance, in the film, Loomis usually looks nervous and wary, stares wildly, and appears to scoff at Ann's praying. Seoulseeker (talk) 18:48, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Far too detailed summary and analysis for WP

I am both impressed and a little concerned about the depth and detail of this article -- and its talk page. I believe the details of the summary section (and its subsections!) should be reduced by a substantial amount, and the commentary and analysis should be removed almost entirely except for descriptions of themes and that sort of thing.

Apparently this book has many very literate and dedicated fans, and that has fueled the current article's specificity and comprehensiveness. I applaud the efforts and I am sure that there is a place on the internet for all of what is here and more. However, I don't believe the WP article is the place for this. Compare the depth of this article with articles of master works of any genre or type. Or, be more specific and compare it to any number of articles of written works or even novels of the last century. Hardly any have such organization and reveal so much. I think it's very clear that what has been produced here is excellent... but also inappropriate for Wikipedia. Rather, it should be on a literary website or a website dedicated to chronicling and dissecting works. This is not what Wikipedia articles are. Hopefully I am not revisiting something already covered; nor am I alone in my impression. This is the first time I've ever visited this article, about a novel I read a couple decades ago and was taken aback by what I've found. Now I'm feeling like I would start over with my comments above. So instead, I refer to:

• Template:Plot
• Wikipedia:Article size
• Wikipedia:Summary style

Respectfully submitted.--05:40, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

______

After an effort was made to reduce the summary, I am willing to remove the tag. I still think it's too detailed and should be approximately four sentences, perhaps five. I'm not one to dash other's efforts entirely, though, and with no one else apparently fueling further pruning, I say thanks for being cooperative. --SidP (talk) 00:08, 26 April 2014 (UTC) ______

Thanks for the input and removing the tag. It was certainly too detailed before. I looked at the plot summary for Things Fall Apart as a guide and tried to reduce it to essentials. As it is, it's comparable to many (e.g., The Phantom Tollbooth, The Breadwinner, Mrs. Frisby and the Rats of NIMH, Silverwing, Life of Pi, Of Mice and Men) and much more concise than some others (e.g., Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, The War of the Worlds, Tangerine). With Z for Z, some length also seems necessary to make it objective, showing the first-person narrator's possible bias. Seoulseeker (talk) 02:42, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Biased interpretation

This "summary" is significantly biased toward one interpretation of the book - and IMO, it's likely a minority interpretation, based on the idea that a man who creeps silently into a teenage girl's bedroom at night, and tries to pin her by the shoulder to her bed is NOT trying to rape her, just taking advantage of her (probably sleeping) silence as consent...also the assumption that when that man who refuses to acknowledge that he did anything wrong by doing so tries to cut her off from her source of food and shoot her in the ankle to take out of her hands her decision as to what she can do with her own body is acting in tender concern and rationality with a hysterical teenager who should've just given in to him. It's all a pretty appalling defense of the would-be rapist antagonist as the REAL hero of the tale...and this page is going to be a lot more visited. In that light, maybe the summary could be trimmed to only refer to what actually HAPPENED in the story, and not ONE weird interpretation of the narrative? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.251.40.254 (talk) 20:23, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I trimmed the article. In doing so, I tried to respect as far as I could the labor the original writer of the entry obviously lavished on it. I tried only to take out what seemed to me to be subjective opinions of the article writer that aren't backed up in either the novel text or in published literary critiques of the novel. The character descriptions seemed especially subjective to me (as well as repeating info already cited) and I took them out completely. If there IS a controversy in published reviews regarding whether the narrator is unreliable and completely misinterpreting the benign actions of the other character as controlling, domineering and malicious, then the controversy should be summarized and sourced in a section at the end regarding "Literary criticism", not in the plot summary. If OTOH, there is no such published controversy about the narrator being unreliable, any arguing that she IS SO unreliable doesn't belong in an encyclopedia entry at all. -mambru — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mambru19 (talk • contribs) 01:03, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Just wanted to clarify a plot point. ~~mambru — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mambru19 (talk • contribs) 19:17, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Defense of Objective Summary (facts rather than Ann's POV) again

The story itself contains ample evidence that Ann is a biased narrator. As noted in the 1975 review in Publisher's Weekly, "What ensues is a grim contest for survival with each, crazed by paranoia, thinking the worst about the other." Both are "crazed by paranoia." The problem is that many readers uncritically accept Ann's point of view and have a "politically correct," kneejerk reaction to the so-called "attempted rape scene"--even though Ann's own description of it (and the evidence of his behavior throughout the story) suggest paranoia again makes her misinterpret Loomis. To present this plot summary factually, it should be clear all the time what is Ann's viewpoint and when the text suggests it is questionable--especially at important points for judging character.

To see how factually mistaken readers often are(because of blindly sympathizing with Ann), one can look at some past comments on this Talk page. For instance, one early editor put in the summary that Ann saw a cage in the house meant for her. Another tried changing the summary to say that Ann merely hoped to find another valley with children to teach (not that she believed her dream valley was real) and that Faro's death was accidental (not planned by Ann, making her guilty of murder as she herself says). These sorts of mistakes are typical. People view Loomis as actually being controlling and possessive--though the text shows clearly he only talks of THEIR shared food supply and future in the valley, whereas Ann struggles with the idea that the farm and the valley are not just HERS. She's selfish and paranoid. She suspects he's a murderer though he clearly killed Edward in self-defense and still has nightmares about it, and he clearly tried hard to find other survivors; moreover, she never sees the hypocrisy of her judging him selfish--after she selfishly decided to let him bathe in a dead stream, just in case he might be a threat to her. During his near-fatal sickness (for which she is partly responsible), she thinks with disgusting selfishness and presumption, "Even though he may be a murderer, I do not want him to die" (120). It is thinking like this which justifies arresting and torturing people on the mere suspicion of crimes, or which judges and sentences people without trial. Ann judges Loomis a murderer without giving him any chance to defend himself. He does not even know that she is judging him for his past actions until they meet the last time, as she's crazily leaving the only habitable valley.

The scene when Loomis goes to her room is especially controversial and underexamined. But the text again has plenty of evidence suggesting Ann's paranoia. When she wakes, she hears Loomis's breathing and right away realizes that he might hear hers also. So it is certainly possible (if not probable) that he does hear her breathing change and know she's awake. She then hopes he thinks her asleep because she expects him to leave if he thinks so. This thinking implies 2 things: (1) She thinks Loomis is a decent man who will not try to rape her while she's sleeping; and (2) if he thinks she's awake, he might not leave (Why? Because he obviously might assume tacit permission unless she says otherwise!)! But when Loomis proceeds to enter the room, Ann keeps her first assumption (that he thinks she's asleep), she ignores that he might be making wrong assumptions (assuming her permission), and she foolishly keeps silent. This silence is typical of her unwillingness to express her thoughts openly and clearly, and here it has serious consequences. It's not meaningless that Ann's favorite poem is "Epitaph for the Race of Man," or that she viewed herself as humanity's "scribe and confessor" like the speaker of the poem. She has much to confess. Likewise, all the other literary references suggest her paranoia interferes with her desire for companionship. Her favorite part of the Bible, Ecclesiastes, teaches "Two are better than one"; Gray's "Elegy" is about the importance in life of friendship; and Austen's Pride and Prejudice is about a woman who misjudges a man because of wrongly blaming him for his past treatment of another man. The name "Burden" may also be derived from Millay's poem, where it refers to the burden of life or the struggle to survive. It seems clear that Ann's name symbolizes her burden to continue that struggle of the species, which she fails to do because of being self-centered and paranoid. Seoulseeker (talk) 19:31, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Explanation about the above set of paragraphs entitled Views on "Z for Zachariah (posted earlier elsewhere)"

For any who came to this Talk page and are reading the above confusing set of paragraphs and unsure what the hell it is, it's a post I made to Seoulseeker's talk page in reply to one he made on mine, asking my view about his opinion that Loomis is NEVER being controlling and that there's NO evidence he was trying to rape her. (You all can look on my talk page for his part, if you're that interested.) He then put his opinions in square brackets in between my sentences, then moved the whole confusing mess here and used as his justification for reverting all my revisions wholesale (regardless of whether anyone else on this page would be able to understand what was going on). [Sorry it seemed that way; it just took long to make a more careful reply.]

Now I'm admittedly a newbie on Wiki and may not fully understand the etiquette, Seoulseeker. But when I made my revisions to the article I took the trouble to go line by line, make individual changes, and I explained to you the reasons for each change on this page. As I understood, this is what it is required when you make a revision to an article. I think you're supposed to do the same thing when you revise someone else's revisions. You did not do so. You reverted it wholesale without explaining why each change I made was unacceptable.

I'm not going to tackle each objection you made in your square brackets. As someone said on this thread, this is not a book club, and I meant that such discussion be limited to our Talk pages. But when you undid your revision, you gave as a reason, "Removed subjective opinions from the plot summary that do not appear in the novel text." Many of the changes I made were adding facts that you had omitted, not subjective opinions. It's a FACT written clearly in the actual novel text that Loomis grabbed Ann's hand, pulled her off balance, made her fall, and then blamed her for accidentally hitting him while falling. You omitted that. It's a FACT clearly written in the novel text that when Loomis goes silently into Ann's bedroom and presses down hard on her shoulder (check your text, page 175, "One hand brushed my face and then came down HARD on my shoulder" - "hard" is not "gentle") and she tries to get away, he grabs her, pulls her back, tears her clothes. You omitted that. It's a FACT clearly written in the novel that Loomis shot Ann in the leg. You ERASED that. You gave no explanation for any of those changes.

There are other changes I made among those you reverted, but that's enough for now. I'm fully aware that Ann's account is subjective - but that doesn't mean that the fact that you believe opposite things to Ann makes your opinion "objective." Like any other human being, you have biases which you must be careful to keep out of your Wikipedia article. Since I also am a human being with biases, it may well be that I have unconsciously inserted my "interpretation" of facts into the article instead of the fact itself, even though I have done my best to strictly summarize only what is clearly written in the novel. I plan to revert the article back to the revision I did a few hours ago (except for the bit about the colony, which I will add). I fully expect you - and encourage you - to make further changes. But when you do so, I think that you should explain each change you make. If you think something I wrote isn't factual, point out where I deviate from the facts. If you think something I wrote is biased, change the wording to something more neutral, and explain that. The key word is "neutral", though. The facts of the novel are subject to different interpretations (as you yourself grudgingly acknowledge in your square brackets: "It SEEMS he was starting then to try forcing her return to the house...The text suggests that he MIGHT know she is awake by hearing her breathing...MAYBE, but he probably expected to be successful..." and so on). To assume that YOUR interpretation MUST be the correct one and is therefore suitable to write into a Wikipedia article is assuming too much. Your opinion does not automatically equal the neutral, objective position by default. 24.188.152.193 (talk) 12:13, 26 November 2014 (UTC)mambru1924.188.152.193 (talk) 12:13, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, the above comment is mine, I wasn't logged in when I wrote it. mambru19Mambru19 (talk) 12:23, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Reliable sources

The book itself is a reliable source, and my understanding of its objective facts is as valid as yours. If there is really something in the summary that's not factual, I'm happy to reword it or remove it. That's why I left your deletion of the Character summaries, which did include much interpretation--in addition to summaries of published reviews.

Unfortunately, there isn't much information available on the Internet, and reviews are not really much good. They usually look like they were written quickly after a hasty reading, and interpretations are given with little or no detailed support or analysis. Still, there was one 1975 reviewer who noted that both Ann and Loomis are "crazed by paranoia" and think the worst of each other. That certainly does seem to describe the last part of the story, from the point Loomis starts hunting Ann. However, Ann's paranoia starts at the very beginning, whereas Loomis's doesn't appear much until she runs away and refuses friendship for two weeks (not counting his delirious fears of Edward). Perhaps his fear of being alone and Ann's leaving him could be paranoia, too, except that the fear actually appears justified by his horrible experiences and Ann's fear of him.

Anyway, there doesn't have to be published discussion of controversy about the narrator in order for the summary to present Ann's thoughts or imaginings as such rather than as facts (e.g., when you say Loomis becomes uncommmunicative and controlling rather than that Ann sees him that way). We also shouldn't need approval from other published sources to note Ann's clear errors, faults, inconsistencies or contradictions that seem important to the story (e.g., failing to warn Loomis about the dead stream; judging Loomis a murderer without cause; wrongly describing actions as controlling that clearly were not; believing things in her dreams are real; intentionally killing Faro).

I'm glad you acknowledge the 1975 review which views both characters as "each, crazed with paranoia, thinking the worst about the other." Maybe I'll write something about it in a literary criticism section as you suggest, using some notes from the parts you deleted completely--even though they did describe both interpretations of Ann and Loomis.

I actually haven't tried to include "all [my] opinions" about Ann in the article; I restricted those mainly to the Talk page, as you can see, and wrote them in response to others' faulty revisions. Seoulseeker (talk) 14:37, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

First, thank you, Seoulseeker, for your recent revisions addressing a lot of my concerns. In reply to some of the things you've said here.

Explanation of reposting

Hi Mambru19. What happened is that I tried to discuss things with you a little in a more relaxed way via our Talk pages, not expecting such a long response at once. Not having time then to reply at length, I went through your post quickly making notes in brackets intended just for us to see (and mainly for me to plan a response). Then I saw you pointed out that the discussion should be here (which I agree is probably better), so I transferred your post here quickly while working on a more careful reply, posted below.

Sorry about leaving the bracketed comments in your post. I'll delete them unless you prefer otherwise. Also, I tried to give your posts suitable headings to help find and read them; but it would be better, of course, if you could do that.

Since responding, I've put back many of your revisions. If there are still points to argue about, let's continue the discussion. I appreciate your detailed explanations and different perspective. In revising, I'm also trying to keep the summary concise with varied sentence structures that flow fairly well and aren't cumbersome.

Seoulseeker (talk) 14:46, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Regarding objectivity

"We seem to disagree somewhat about what is objective. Yes, if I say "realize" or "imagine," it might reflect my understanding of Ann's thoughts at times; but I'd have to look at the specific situation and check the text...The book itself is a reliable source, and my understanding of its objective facts are as valid as yours."

Indeed, your understanding of a text may be different from my understanding of the same text, and yet be valid. However, if our understandings of that text differ significantly, and both of us CAN'T be right, and the text does not clearly and unequivocally state which of us is right and which wrong - then what we both have are OPINIONS. Which is fine, everybody has them. But as Wikipedia editors, we are enjoined to maintain a Neutral Point of View as far as we can - that is, we're supposed to keep our bias and opinions out of the articles we write. Since all human beings tend to bias, it can be difficult to be conscious of one's own bias toward one opinion over another. One way to keep a check is by writing cautiously...in this case, don't say "She realizes X" when you think she's right UNLESS the text clearly and unequivocally shows she's right. Don't say "She imagines Y" when you think she's wrong, unless the text clearly says she's wrong. When a character says she thinks or believes X or Y, describe it as "She thinks X" or "She believes Y" whenever there's significant doubt as to whether she's right or wrong. And, since you've used words like "...The text SUGGESTS that he MIGHT know she is awake by hearing her breathing...MAYBE, but he probably expected to be successful..." to discuss some of the questions we're wrangling over here, you're conceding there IS significant doubt about the answers to those questions. Hence my changes to "She realizes...she imagines."

More specifically: "I wrote, "Imagining his behavior shows more disturbing signs." Maybe it would be more objective to say "Thinking" or "Feeling" instead, but what she thinks here seems clearly mistaken when we look at the incidents she lists as examples of controlling behavior."

Thing is, Ann spends considerable time in the narrative feeling increasingly uneasy - anxious, disturbed. And anxiety does not respond solely to quantifiable, logical reasons...sometimes it's partly from unconscious cues. But just because one can't explain clearly WHY one is anxious does not mean one is WRONG to be anxious. Sometimes there might be good reasons for it. Like, you didn't want to sign that contract - the papers seem in order, the agent says all the right things - but there was this look in his eyes. Also, things that some people find very disturbing may not disturb other people at all. An orthodox Jewish woman may feel very disturbed when a non-religious man shakes her daughter's hand - and she has plenty of reasons he may not get. A strong 250 lb person may shrug off the threat that a 150 lb loiterer may pose on a dark street where a 90 lb person might be afraid, and might be right to be. (Check out The Gift of Fear - great book). So saying "I don't find that disturbing - therefore it is not disturbing," may not be a correct statement.

Ann herself tries carefully to reason away her anxiety - it's hard to share the valley and farm when she had it to herself before, he's right about the crops, etc. - but cannot get rid of it. This anxiety is an important plot point - the author builds it up, walks us through all Ann's reasoning why she should or should not feel anxious. So when Ann specifically tells us that an incident made her feel MORE anxious - and describes the incident (the hand-holding) and relates it to other incidents that she experienced as controlling and also made her anxious - then the author is trying to tell us something. Leaving that incident out completely (as you did in your early version) or leaving out the part where he refuses to let her go when he asks and pulls her off balance so she falls and rebukes her for hitting him accidentally - does a disservice to the plot summary, IMO. Ann is worried about feeling controlled. You may find her concerns about being given orders trivial, simply because the orders are practical and important. Others may feel that always dictating without ever asking or persuading instead is disrespectful of a person's feelings, regardless of whether the person giving orders is ALWAYS right (a dubious condition in itself). Of course, this may be a sign of harmless social cluelessness. Loomis may have gone through thirty years of his life without ever noticing that people may get upset when they're continually ordered around, and maybe he'd try to moderate his behavior if asked. OR, he may simply not care much about other people's feelings, valuing getting his will done exactly as he wants through command over the trivial feelings of a girl who he thinks is always wrong anyway...and that is controlling, and a possible danger sign. Ann doesn't know which it is. WE don't know which it is.

So when the hand-holding happens - that Ann describes as increasing her anxiety enough to make her cry - it's important to note exactly what that incident was. You consider it trivial, and the way you write it in the article, it IS trivial:

"One time, he takes her hand firmly and demands why she asked about his past love life, then seems to blame her for being uncomfortable"

But that's inaccurate. He didn't blame her for feeling uncomfortable. He blamed her for accidentally hitting him when he grabbed her hand and pulled her so far she fell and had to flail to catch her balance. He blamed her for something that he caused. And you omit completely the part where she asks him to let go of her hand and he refuses, and then ups the ante by pulling her over. She has asked him for the first time to moderate his behavior - and he refuses her. This is literally an incident of physical control - he refuses to let go her hand after she asks him to, he pulls her entire unwilling body over. He ignores the boundaries she draws. Omitting this makes Ann's explanation about feeling controlled make no sense.

You may have omitted it because you feel the whole hand-holding incident may be a trivial instance of miscarried bumbling affection: "It's not clear at all that he's trying to be controlling here. He is probably just clumsy at expressing affection. It reminds me of hugging a sister-in-law a bit nervously once when young and accidentally knocking her glasses off." Were you thirty years young? If you think that's a parallel incident to the one with Loomis and Ann, then I guess that was the first time you hugged your sister-in- law. When you hugged her, did you ask her to tell you how she REALLY felt about your brother? Did she tell you to let her go, and did you refuse to do so until she answered your question? Did you then pull her closer, thus getting her off balance and breaking her glasses while doing so? Did you then blame her for the broken glasses and the fact that she'd swatted you while trying to catch her balance? If not, then it's not really a parallel incident.

You may think pulling Ann against her expressed wishes was a minor miscarried display of affection and not controlling or disturbing. I may think it was both controlling and disturbing and resembles some of the early warning signs of a potential domestic abuser. It is not my job as an editor to call Loomis a potential abuser in the plot summary and quote K.J. Wilson's book When Violence Begins at Home: A Comprehensive Guide to Understanding and Ending Domestic Abuse to prove it. I'm supposed to summarize the plot, presenting the important plot points without inserting my opinion, and let the reader decide what it was. And I do think that this is an important plot point, especially considering that the author has Ann refer to her uneasiness multiple times in the course of the novel, and that one of the running themes is about autonomy and control. The incident should be summarized without prejudice - but it should be told, not omitted for considerations of space in favor of a destroyed vegetable garden or a church wedding. I plan to rewrite it.

And so we come to...

Ann's feelings, and Objective interpretation

The fact the narrator feels something does not prove in itself that her feelings are valid. Also, for her feelings to be incorrect, it is not necessary for Ann to say they are so. An unreliable first-person narrator is evident only through actively questioning what he/she says--whether it is reasonable and factually or logically consistent. There cannot be dramatic irony if the reader doesn't understand more than the character does. There are many such inconsistencies in Ann's views, as well as clear instances of self-deception to suit her feelings (as when she lies to herself that she's unsure about the stream to justify not warning Loomis). When she feels Loomis is controlling and lists examples, one only needs to look back at the instances she describes to see she misrepresents them and is unjust to Loomis. You also seem to think that because she feels disturbed by Loomis's actions, it justifies her in thinking him a murderer. How can it? Her feelings about his behavior are not evidence about what he did. Killing a man in self-defense out of fear for one's own life cannot justly be construed as murder. Moreover, you delete Ann's faulty reasoning that Loomis's striking out on his own seems a sign he acted selfishly in taking the suit--which is ridiculous because she ignores that he spent months searching for survivors before setting out on his own. She also forgets what he said about the difficulty of giving up hope of finding other survivors. Ann's reasoning all through the story is clearly greatly influenced by her feelings of the moment. She herself recognizes this weakness in herself--e.g., when she thinks she'd be hysterical if she had radiation poisoning like Loomis; she admits deluding herself about the store supplies; and she repeatedly admits Loomis's thinking is more practical. She even admits this after she has run away and is hiding in the wilderness.

Then there are logical inconsistencies. For example, after the war and the deaths of her family, she continues curling her hair every evening. When she fears the approaching stranger and prepares to hide, writing "It's the beginning of the end," at the same time she continues taking apart a stove to move it to the house. As she hides in fear, she worries about whether to wear jeans or a dress--in case she might want to look nice for a rescue party. After being so terrified that she hides in a cave, she meets Loomis and 5 days later thinks there's no reason they can't have a church wedding next spring. She knows him a few days and feels happy about planning marriage and children with him. Later, her feelings change and she suddenly doesn't know him enough to be his partner. Then there's the illogic that she thinks he is selfish and immoral enough to rape her in her sleep, yet she decides she should still bring him supplies while he's weak and it's safe to do so and work on the farm every day in his sight. If he is so immoral, how could she reasonably think any compromise is possible? You also deleted that she was amazed when he fell for her ruse of offering to talk if he comes unarmed, which shows he is reasonable (not crazy, as she thinks). She runs in terror after believing he tried to rape her, but then she never blames him for that or thinks of it as a reason for revenge. Rather, the act that makes her feel most bitter and vengeful is his burning of her favorite book, which makes her think stealing the suit will be her revenge; and her last words are just to blame him for not thanking her for nursing him (which he actually did). She also kills Faro unnecesarily, thinking she has to do it to be safe but then afterwards thinking she's in more danger than ever now that Loomis knows she has a gun, requiring her to leave the valley sooner.

Ann is not a rational narrator, as much evidence shows. An objective summary would present some of this evidence in some balance with descriptions of her feelings and views about Loomis. Seoulseeker (talk) 19:32, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Ann doesn't "merely" blame him for not thanking him

Yes, you're right. It's a summary, so I was trying to select key facts. Her last words are to blame him for ingratitude, and she recognizes they are childish. It's a bit funny because she obviously wants to say something really dignified and righteous to put him in his place, but it turns out being ridiculous and hypocritical. She forgets that her selfish choice not to warn him allowed his sickness in the first place; and he did express his gratitude with his first words, telling him she'd saved his life. He also thanked her explicitly for playing piano and said it was the best evening of his life (74). When does Ann ever directly express any such appreciation of him or need for his companionship? Also, isn't it interesting that Loomis NEVER blames Ann for not warning him about the stream and preventing nearly fatal poisoning? When she feels guilty, he even reassures her that it was just his fault (101-102). He seems sympathetic and responsible in that, and able to be self-critical. Seoulseeker (talk) 19:33, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

About the possible attempted rape (again)

I partly commented on this above in the bit about objectivity, discussing your added, omitted, and differently interpreted details. You're claiming Loomis wants to have sex with her though there's no certainty of this in the text.

To me, Loomis's behavior seems analogous to that of Faro, who goes to both Loomis and Ann for companionship. Seeing the dog sitting near the tent when Loomis gets sick, Ann thinks Faro is adopting him (44). On the night Ann first plays piano, and Loomis compliments her, "This is the best evening I ever spent" (74), and just before she gathers greens by the apple tree while thinking of marriage, Faro visits her room: "there was a whining outside my door. I opened it and let Faro in. He lay down next to me on the bed, and after a while I went to sleep" (76).

We know Loomis is lonely and arrived at the valley desperate to find other people. Ann feels the same need for companionship, which made her want to run to him and hug him when he first called out (23). That need is what overcame her fear and motivated her to help him when he became sick (45). Loomis likely feels it even more because of experiencing the war up close, knowing more about radiation, and wandering for months through dead lands. When Ann tells him how her parents died, Loomis thinks they felt the same as he did: "I suppose they kept going too long....It's hard not to, especially at first. I know. You keep hoping" (57). During his sickness, if Ann wasn't there when he woke up, he worried that she'd left. One time, he says, "I thought you had run away" (83). Another time, he called out for her and said afterwards, "You went away" (103). Then there's the importance he places on her playing piano for him and holding his hand, a connection which he says kept him alive: "I thought I was a long way from--from everything. Someplace cold. Floating away. It was hard to breathe. But I heard you talking, and then the floating stopped as long as I listened. And the same with the music" (138). None of this suggests a desire for sex; but it does strongly suggest the importance of companionship, which lots of evidence suggests is a central idea of the story.

Even Ann doesn't notice any sign that he's interested in her romantically. When she thinks about marrying him the next spring, one reason she decides not to tell him is that he "had not indicated the slightest interest in any such idea" (81). Before the handholding scene, she also notes, "If possible, he was even more reserved....Nor did he seem to have any curiosity or interest in me, except once he had seemed to like my playing the piano" (157). Loomis doesn't seem to ogle her at all or gaze affectionately; rather, we see him concentrating on designs for a hydroelectric generator.

When Loomis goes to Ann's room, you say he knows he has no tacit consent; but of course you are as guilty of interpretation as I am if I say he assumes consent and just wants to lie down beside her. But I think the text and logic are not on your side here. The text makes clear that Loomis very likely knows Ann is awake (since when Ann hears his breathing, she knows he can hear hers also). Ann also explains that she pretends to be asleep because Loomis might go away. This described situation clearly allows two possibilibites about what happens: (1) he thinks she is asleep and he tries to lie with her without permission; or (2) he thinks she is awake and she gives tacit permission. If a man makes a move with a woman and she says nothing to stop him, she gives unspoken permission. It is the same with any action that might cause offense, and everyone knows it. It is the same with Loomis in Ann's doorway.

Ann expects him to leave if she pretends to be asleep because she assumes he isn't a rapist; but when he enters instead, she assumes he's a rapist instead of considering that he doesn't believe she's asleep. He moves slowly because he is still weak, not because he is creeping. In the dark, he bumps the bed and has to feel over her to find her shoulder, which he would probably expect to wake her if he thought her asleep. But she still says nothing. He lays a hand on her shoulder for support as he prepares to lie down, not necessarily for the purpose of pinning her. If the mattress were soft and he put his weight on it beside her, it might depress quickly, causing him to fall on her. What happens then is very fast. Ann spins to escape and Loomis falls on the bed. Then he grabs at her quickly to stop her from running. Why? Because he certainly wants to rape her? Or perhaps because he's afraid she's got the wrong idea and is leaving him in a panic, never to return?

You're right that he should apologize more even if he just made wrong assumptions and didn't communicate clearly. But it seems he lacks understanding and patience. But she is to blame also for not communicating clearly, which allowed wrong assumptions on his part; and her running away and refusing any friendship is an insane overreaction given that there's perhaps just a misunderstanding and they seem to be the last two people.

What I'd like to do is discuss all the evidence about Loomis from the start, point by point, to try to identify consistent behavior and characteristics. Seoulseeker (talk) 19:34, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

The handholding incident (again)

I omitted this in the summary because it is too long (as you point out) and there is enough explanation of Ann's fear that Loomis is becoming controlling. He takes her hand in both of his and pulls her towards him, as seems natural for that kind of gesture. Taking someone's hand this way is normally not threatening at all but an affectionate act; and when Ann goes a bit off balance, she can probably correct her position. But it seems she does not do this because she is nervous and tries instead to pull back. He asks why she is interested in his romantic past, probably assuming (correctly) that she is thinking about their relationship and wanting her to speak openly; but she then lies (saying she was just curious), loses her balance, and hits him in the face by accident. Loomis responds by saying very quietly, "You should not have done that," and, "You held my hand once before" (160). You characterized his words as a rebuke, as if scolding her. But what is the evidence? He expresses his view that it was wrong of her to strike him, apparently thinking mistakenly that she did it on purpose. When he quietly reminds her of holding his hand before, his thinking is again unclear. He could be confused and hurt that she is being aloof and reserved though she seemed to care for him very much before. We know that he thinks her holding his hand while sick saved his life, and it was the first thing he wanted to tell her when he started speaking again. This suggests the importance he places on her companionship and caring for him.

It's not clear at all that he's trying to be controlling here. He is probably just clumsy at expressing affection. It reminds me of hugging a sister-in-law a bit nervously once when young and accidentally knocking her glasses off. I can't say for sure what Loomis is thinking, but Ann can't know that either; and his actions and words don't prove he's being controlling. Seoulseeker (talk) 19:35, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Other ways Ann thinks Loomis is controlling (apparently without good reason)

It is after the handholding incident that Ann writes about supposed examples of Loomis's controlling behavior: "He was trying to control me, just as he had, in his way, controlled the planting, the use of the gasoline, the tractor, and even my going to church. And, of course, the suit, and, in the end, Edward" (162).

Everything she says here is very unreasonable and unjust.

1. He doesn't control the planting. He is simply disturbed that she didn't plant the corn while he was sick, explaining afterward that he even has anxious dreams about food (141-43). After she reassures him that it's not too late in the season to plant it, he seems to relax (143). He is practical and worried, not controlling! Before explaining this incident, Ann even notes, "The important thing was to get the corn planted" (140).

2. When does Loomis ever control gasoline?! Ann seems to forget it was only through his help that she was able to have any gas at all. When he tells her how to get it, he says emphatically that she shouldn't cut the V belt (91). Because he speaks strongly to be clear, is he controlling? After he talks about their need to plan for a permanent colony, he advises praying for their bull calf because "When the gasoline is gone, cattle can pull the plow" (152). Ann writes that she had already planned breeding more cattle, showing she shares his concern (153).

3. It's also unreasonable to say he controlled her going to church. Loomis only talked about what she did while he was sick and unconscious, never saying or implying anything about what she should generally do. Moreover, he was not even annoyed about her going to church per se. What bothered him was that she left him to do that but thought she couldn't leave his side to plant corn. It was related to his practical concerns about the corn planting. The fact that he didn't oppose her churchgoing is shown by his suggestion that she pray for the bull when she goes to church again (152).

4. I suppose he does control the suit, but it's his after all. Doesn't he have the right to tell Ann not to use it--particularly when she wants to borrow it to get novels from a radioactive town? Loomis is right that her suggestion is foolish, as even she partly understands in admitting, "I can see that it is not too practical" (151).

5. Finally, it is very unjust to say Loomis "controlled...Edward." When Ann first worries about Loomis's killing Edward, she recognizes that he may have acted in self-defense and intended to use the suit to find other survivors (not just to save himself) (126-127). All information about the incident and Loomis's actions afterwards seems to support these views. He acted out of fear to protect his own life when Edward tried stealing the suit. It does NOT appear that he calculatedly murdered Edward to control the suit. (And premeditation is important in defining murder.)

So if we look carefully at the incidents Ann refers to, she does not seem at all justified to think they are examples of Loomis controlling her. Rather, she interprets them that way because of her fear after the handholding incident, which she perhaps also misinterprets. Seoulseeker (talk) 19:35, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Partial Response about being objective

We seem to disagree somewhat about what is objective. Yes, if I say "realize" or "imagine," it might reflect my understanding of Ann's thoughts at times; but I'd have to look at the specific situation and check the text.

I wrote, "Imagining his behavior shows more disturbing signs." Maybe it would be more objective to say "Thinking" or "Feeling" instead, but what she thinks here seems clearly mistaken when we look at the incidents she lists as examples of controlling behavior. Still, her view about the character of Loomis's actions and his purposes is her opinion, not a fact--as you sometimes seem to present it. For example, you write of "his uncommunicativeness, and his increasing tendency to give orders..., dictating what she must plant and how the resources of the valley must be used." Her view that he is uncommunicative is ironic because she is the reserved one, repeatedly writing of holding back feelings, not expressing what she knows or thinks, and putting on pretenses. And why is it necessarily dictating to say what he thinks it is important to do for their joint survival, or if he speaks anxiously about such things? Moreover, Ann writes of the same needs that he is concerned about.

About the handholding scene, you write, "He begins to be physically controlling, grabbing her hand and refusing to let her go when she asks him to, pulling her off balance, and taking offense when she accidentally strikes him." Does he take offense?

I also wrote, "not realizing that her silence might seem a tacit invitation," which correctly describes an important and obvious fact she doesn't consider. By keeping silent, she allows him to assume it's okay to lie down with her. Your revision again presents Ann's fearful interpretation of his behavior as a fact, describing him as "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." Yes, she thinks that. She also thinks his hands touched her "in a dreadful, possessive way," yet "not roughly."

Your description adds details about controlling, pinning, tearing her shirt (as if Ann's views are right and Loomis intends all this); but you cut out that she fears he heard her wake and she pretends to be asleep in the hope he'll leave. It's a very important matter whether he thinks she is awake or not, making the difference between attempted rape and misunderstanding. It also explains her pretense, which likely confuses Loomis. To get across the idea that she thinks the worst of Loomis (right or wrong), I think it's enough to say, "Ann thinks her fears are validated," explaining just that he comes to her room at night and she flees in terror when he tries to lie on top of her. If more details are added, to be strictly accurate and objective we should perhaps clarify that he grabs "blindly," the shirt tears as Ann pulls forward (not from Loomis's violence), and she elbows him in the throat as hard as she can.

From the point Ann tries to escape, everything happens very fast and neither of them seems to have time to speak. Loomis might also be unable to speak after Ann hits him. Seoulseeker (talk) 19:36, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

About Ann's desperate fear of being alone

You say Ann only prays for Loomis's survival and doesn't do so specifically because she will be alone forever if he dies. Her desperate fear of being alone is a fact described repeatedly and an important motivation. When she prays the first time, Ann knows she does it for her own benefit: "maybe what I really thought was that it might do me some good" (119). The next morning, she is so frightened Loomis will die that she can't think clearly. She goes to the church again, writing, "This time I knew it was mostly for my own benefit" (122). She explains further, "I was worried not just about whether he would live, but about what had happened in the laboratory" (122-23). She is troubled about Loomis's killing Edward. A little later when she reads to him, she writes, "I suppose I have to accept the idea that Mr. Loomis shot Edward and killed him, and that is a terrible thought, because he is the only other human being I am ever likely to know" (126). This is not the first time she has had this fear. It also motivated her when she came out of hiding to help him after letting him bathe in the dead stream: "I thought I had become used to being alone, and to the idea that I would always be alone, but I was wrong. Now that somebody is here, the thought of going back, the thought of the house and the valley being empty again--this time forever, I am sure of that--seems so terrible I cannot bear it" (45).

So it is quite clear that Ann is desperately afraid of Loomis's dying because she is afraid of being alone--NOT because she is a kind and sympathetic girl. If she were symapthetic and caring rather than selfish, she wouldn't have let him bathe in the dead stream. She even admits 3 times that her prayers are mainly to make herself feel better. I don't see that fact mentioned in your revision. Seoulseeker (talk) 19:36, 28 November 2014 (UTC)