separating guy from the beast in the pond of the
He has dark secrets and regrets. The unknown to solve isn’t only that of David Wade, but that of the narrator from the story him self. Throughout the novel In the Pond of the Woods by Harry O’Brien, the narrator uses the case of John and Kathy since way to justify his own previous. The narrator depicts the problem of David Wade and Kathy via a unique viewpoint, disregarding the reality of what happened to Kathy. non-etheless, the footnotes disclose that there is a lot more to the history than what occurred to Kathy. The narrator has his own mystery he is looking to solve, the lining complexities of John as a person. It appears that the narrator is an unreliable narrator, as he, “distorts the tale [he’s] telling” (Kelly xiii). Kelly’s introduction points out, “When browsing a story by such a narrator, portion of the reader’s enjoyment comes from piecing together a more reliable bank account of the events” (xiii). The footnote at the end of section 30 uncovers a further truth about the narrator and about the novel by itself.
In attempt to put together the bits of the secret, the narrator is trying to assemble the pieces of him self. The narrator says, “Maybe thats what this book is good for. To help remind me. To offer me again my disappeared life” (298n10). When the narrator says “remind me” he could be referring to becoming reminded that deep straight down he is not a bad person. In this footnote the narrator reveals that, he also, has had a similar experience in Thuan Yen. He admits, “I possess my own PFC Wetherby, my own old man with a hoe” (298n10). These atrocities that the narrator relates to are John’s many tormenting and painful memories. The tough of Wetherby and the old fart make Ruben seem like a monster. The narrator shows he carries the same fat of feel dissapointed. It is because on this predisposition the narrator shows un-reliable. In case the narrator can easily persuade readers to understand Steve as a complicated individual, whom deep down is a good person, then the narrator can persuade himself that he also is the same. The book boils down to these kinds of final inquiries, “Can we believe that he was not a creature but a man? That having been innocent of everything except his life” (303)? Contrary to the story of the history, the book does not end with resolution to the puzzle, but rather shows the narrators final request to understand John as a great soul below all the monstrosity of his life. As the footnotes reveal the relation between your narrator and John, it might be clear that the verdict of John’s persona is seite an seite to determining the narrators character too.
Mainly because it becomes obvious that the tale is not really about figuring out what happened to Kathy, it also becomes obvious that it is rather a collection of “evidence” that guards the narrators own previous. He admits, “I get myself wondering if these types of old tattered memories were not lifted from someone else’s existence, or coming from a pice of fictional works I when read or perhaps heard about. inch (298n10) After learning this kind of relationship between your narrator and the main personality it becomes apparent that the narrator has taken the secret of David and Kathy and tried it as a theme to place his own tattered memories. This reflects evidence that the narrator has collected. Since the story is told by an unreliable narrator, the evidence gathered is not actually conducive to the mystery of Kathy, but rather for the mystery of the narrators self. The narrator even reports in the first footnote, “I have tried of course , being faithful towards the evidence. But evidence is usually not truth” (30n10). Later on, the narrator ironically uses evidence to dismiss the chance that John killed Kathy and argues, “Besides, there’s the weight of evidence. Having been crazy about her” (300n4). Both of these statements possess a protective connotation. Seems like the narrator uses “evidence” not in a truthful approach, but a means that will serve the narrator himself. The narrator forever searches for a solution to the character of him self. He says, “God knows I’ve tried. Tons of data, miles of permanent magnetic tape, but non-e of it satisfies possibly my own simple appetite to get answers” (266n29). Data and magnetic tape cannot satisfy the narrator when he is not really trying to find answers to the murder case, he is trying to find answers to his own affliction.
In relation to the story as a whole, the aspects that this footnotes uncover, can indeed reveal the story at hand. Understanding the narrator as an unreliable narrator with futuro motives can shed light on the mystery of Kathy’s disappearance. Perhaps it was obvious that John killed Kathy plus the Biographer and Historian found the case since an opportunity to guard his individual merit. How a narrator weighted importance in persuading Ruben as anything but a monster, and the approach the narrator twisted the utilization of evidence show that he was trying hard to influence readers out of what might have or else been obvious. The narrator is sympathetic towards David and does not proper care to prove what happened to Kathy as they knows what happened to her. Rather he strains the importance of actually understanding Steve Wade. Like Wade, the narrator has committed despicable acts and wants to be observed for whom he is below such works. Realizing the resemblance between himself and John, he found a journey in the human objective and human desire in attempt to at last discover him self. After all, it is just through the distinctness of one more that one provides a mirror to see the self.
Works Offered
Kelly, Frederick. Introduction. The Seagull Target audience Stories. 2cd Ed. Nyc: Norton Firm, Inc, 2008, 2001. xxv. Print.
O’Brien, Harry. In the Pond of the Timber. Boston: Houghton Mifflin/Seymour Lawrence, 1994. Produce.
