User talk:Seoulseeker: Difference between revisions
just answering some points you raised. |
Seoulseeker (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 96: | Line 96: | ||
* If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the '''<span class="plainlinks">[//en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit§ion=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=User_talk:Seoulseeker help desk]</span>'''. |
* If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the '''<span class="plainlinks">[//en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit§ion=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=User_talk:Seoulseeker help desk]</span>'''. |
||
* If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider {{leave feedback/link|page=Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation|text=leaving us some feedback}}. |
* If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider {{leave feedback/link|page=Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation|text=leaving us some feedback}}. |
||
==Views on Z for Zachariah |
|||
Hello, mambru19 here. I originally wrote this... |
Hello, mambru19 here. I originally wrote this... |
||
| Line 103: | Line 105: | ||
"For instance, when she first thinks he is becoming possessive and controlling, the facts don't actually support this view at all. So it is only objective to say that she imagines or thinks so." |
"For instance, when she first thinks he is becoming possessive and controlling, the facts don't actually support this view at all. So it is only objective to say that she imagines or thinks so." |
||
That's a question of opinion. You said in the article Talk page that Ann "imagines" that Loomis does disturbing things. However, it's a FACT that Ann is disturbed by his actions. The question is whether Ann has sufficient grounds for her unease. He does not ask her, suggest to her or persuade her of things. He gives her orders and criticizes and belittles her wishes and choices. All this is usually grounds for mere annoyance, but when you're facing the idea that this is the ONLY person you're going to have to spend the rest of your life nonstop alone with, IMO that's grounds for some unease. When you add in the FACT that he LITERALLY tries to physically control her by grabbing her hand and refusing to let go till she says what he wants to hear, pulling her off balance and rebuking her when she accidentally hits him when she falls - then yes, I DO think there ARE some facts that support the view that he is controlling. You may think they are insufficient - but that's your opinion, and as an opinion it's not any more objective than my opinion that they are. |
That's a question of opinion. You said in the article Talk page that Ann "imagines" that Loomis does disturbing things. However, it's a FACT that Ann is disturbed by his actions. The question is whether Ann has sufficient grounds for her unease. [Yes.] He does not ask her, suggest to her or persuade her of things. [This seems true mainly after his sickness. He's nicer before that. But he says he worries a lot about food and has dreams about it. Also, he just has a direct manner in explaining what he thinks is necessary; Ann is impractical; and she actually agrees he is right.] He gives her orders and criticizes and belittles her wishes and choices. [I'm not sure what you mean about criticizing and belittling her wishes and choices. His criticisms are correct, aren't they? Even she agrees.] All this is usually grounds for mere annoyance, but when you're facing the idea that this is the ONLY person you're going to have to spend the rest of your life nonstop alone with, IMO that's grounds for some unease. [Not if he's right and she is unreasonable.] When you add in the FACT that he LITERALLY tries to physically control her by grabbing her hand and refusing to let go till she says what he wants to hear [possibly for good reason], pulling her off balance [accidental] and rebuking her [quietly, seemingly hurt by her manner] when she accidentally hits him when she falls - then yes, I DO think there ARE some facts that support the view that he is controlling. [These aren't facts but, again, interpretations.] You may think they are insufficient - but that's your opinion, and as an opinion it's not any more objective than my opinion that they are. |
||
"Most crucially, perhaps, when he goes to her room one night, there is no actual evidence he tries to rape her or even that he "pins her to the bed." A key point here is that she guesses he hears her breathing change, but then she assumes he thinks she's asleep because she hopes he will leave. It is typical of Ann to believe what she wishes to be true, deluding herself. In this case, she wants to believe he thinks she's asleep because she hopes he will then leave (apparently assuming he is a decent man who would not enter her room without permission). Blinded by her fear and wishful thinking, she continues to assume he thinks her asleep even as he enters the room, not considering that he likely knows she's awake. So fear leads her to make the wrong conclusion about his character and motives. |
"Most crucially, perhaps, when he goes to her room one night, there is no actual evidence he tries to rape her or even that he "pins her to the bed." A key point here is that she guesses he hears her breathing change, but then she assumes he thinks she's asleep because she hopes he will leave. It is typical of Ann to believe what she wishes to be true, deluding herself. In this case, she wants to believe he thinks she's asleep because she hopes he will then leave (apparently assuming he is a decent man who would not enter her room without permission). Blinded by her fear and wishful thinking, she continues to assume he thinks her asleep even as he enters the room, not considering that he likely knows she's awake. So fear leads her to make the wrong conclusion about his character and motives. |
||
| Line 109: | Line 111: | ||
"Logically, there are 2 possibilities here: (1) he thinks she's asleep and plans to rape her (which is monstrous and seems completely inconsistent with his character); or (2) he knows she's awake and assumes her silence gives tacit permission to enter (which can be consistent with his character and allows him to make an understandable mistake by simply, like Ann, believing what he wishes to believe)." |
"Logically, there are 2 possibilities here: (1) he thinks she's asleep and plans to rape her (which is monstrous and seems completely inconsistent with his character); or (2) he knows she's awake and assumes her silence gives tacit permission to enter (which can be consistent with his character and allows him to make an understandable mistake by simply, like Ann, believing what he wishes to believe)." |
||
Sorry, no, that's just wrong. Loomis had no way of knowing for sure if she was awake or asleep. If he honestly thought she would be okay with him coming into her room and having sex with her because she was silent when he talked about a colony, it behooved him as a minimally decent human being to verify that she IS in fact awake and willing by SPEAKING to her, even if it is only to say, "Hi, can we have teh sex I hinted at when I mentioned the colony?" Walking in silently and pressing down hard on her shoulder before jumping on top of her gives a lot more credibility to possibility 1. |
Sorry, no, that's just wrong. [No, it isn't] Loomis had no way of knowing for sure if she was awake or asleep. [The text suggests that he might know she is awake by hearing her breathing, so it's a definite possibility. It seems likely because he is already standing there; so it's just logical that if she can hear his breathing after she wakes, he could hear hers while she's sleeping, the moment she awakes, while she starts holding her breath, and then when she tries to breathe normally.) If he honestly thought she would be okay with him coming into her room and having sex with her because she was silent when he talked about a colony, it behooved him as a minimally decent human being to verify that she IS in fact awake and willing by SPEAKING to her, even if it is only to say, "Hi, can we have teh sex I hinted at when I mentioned the colony?" [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? Also, you're assuming he plans to have sex, though he might just wish to lie down with her--like Faro, wanting company.] Walking in silently [Ann's characterization; he's still weak and moves slowly] and pressing down hard on her shoulder [No, he leans his weight on her shoulder; but she says his touch is gentle] before jumping on top of her gives a lot more credibility to possibility 1. [No, much more must be explained to make it credible.] |
||
Besides, where do you get the idea that a rape is "monstrous and seems completely inconsistent with his character"? We don't get to know his character that well, ever. He hides his killing of Edward and the events leading up to it. When Ann attempts to get to know him by asking him about his childhood, his past and his relationships, he refuses to give any but the most minimal answers, and then tries to physically intimidate her into speaking more personally to him than he was willing to speak to her. We know very little about his character, and in the few facts that we do know there are as many bad signs as good ones. So saying it's "incompatible" with his character to rape is, again, only your opinion. |
Besides, where do you get the idea that a rape is "monstrous and seems completely inconsistent with his character"? [I get the idea from his character so far in the story.] We don't get to know his character that well, ever. [Yes, we learn a lot about him from Ann's observations and reports.] He hides his killing of Edward [understandably, given her fearful reaction] and the events leading up to it. When Ann attempts to get to know him by asking him about his childhood, his past and his relationships, he refuses to give any but the most minimal answers, [Ann's view only! Her questions are simplistic and don't require more of an answer; and she contributes nothing to the converstation] and then tries to physically intimidate her into speaking more personally to him [No--your interpretation] than he was willing to speak to her. [No. He shared more than she did.] We know very little about his character, [Much from his behavior and words] and in the few facts that we do know there are as many bad signs as good ones. [Not at all!! What bad signs are there?] So saying it's "incompatible" with his character to rape is, again, only your opinion. [No.] |
||
But the clearest "evidence that he tries to rape her" is what he did when he pressed down hard on her shoulder and she tried to flee. By doing so, she showed clearly that she did NOT want to have sex with him. As I said in the article Talk page, he then pulled her back (scratching her while doing so, IIRC) while she was struggling to get away, tearing her clothes. He was physically trying to force her to do what she clearly does not want to do. That covers the "by force and without her consent" part of attempted rape neatly, thus making Possibility 1 pretty much a certainty, IMO...so therefore he IMO is not the nice honest frank non-rapist fellow you judge him as. |
But the clearest "evidence that he tries to rape her" is what he did when he pressed down hard on her shoulder and she tried to flee. [No. She wasn't trying to flee at that time; you're inventing that detail. He was just leaning his weight on her as he prepared to lie down, and then she suddenly twisted free.] By doing so, she showed clearly that she did NOT want to have sex with him. [Check the text again.] As I said in the article Talk page, he then pulled her back (scratching her while doing so, IIRC) while she was struggling to get away, tearing her clothes. [No. He grabbed at her reflexively as she tried to flee, and her shirt ripped as he pulled away. It proves only he was trying to stop her panicked flight, not that he was trying to rape her.] He was physically trying to force her to do what she clearly does not want to do. [He was trying to stop her from running, which she wanted to do.] That covers the "by force and without her consent" part of attempted rape neatly, [No, it doesn't.] thus making Possibility 1 pretty much a certainty, IMO... [Not at all] so therefore he IMO is not the nice honest frank non-rapist fellow you judge him as. [There seems much you are not considering.] |
||
"A big problem with Ann throughout the story is that she communicates very poorly, keeping her thoughts and feelings secret from Loomis. Loomis has the same problem sometimes, but it's to a lesser degree because he at least tries sometimes to get close to Ann and talks frankly about his expectations for their relationship." |
"A big problem with Ann throughout the story is that she communicates very poorly, keeping her thoughts and feelings secret from Loomis. Loomis has the same problem sometimes, but it's to a lesser degree because he at least tries sometimes to get close to Ann and talks frankly about his expectations for their relationship." |
||
Shockingly, I disagree. Ann, it's true, does not communicate her thoughts very well - but she is barely sixteen and Loomis is thirty. She TRIES to talk to him about his life and about his romantic past - which was the perfect opening for him to gain her confidence by talking to her and revealing himself a little so that he could bring the conversation to his expectations for their relationship. Instead he grabs her hand and tries to intimidate her into revealing more about herself instead. He wants to control and limit even his confidences to her. That's not frank or honest. And I don't see that Loomis' talk about the "colony" that he pictures the valley as is a particularly frank and honest way to reveal his expectations for their relationship. He was talking about the colony in the context of preserving seed stocks for beets and wheat, for breeding the cattle. If Ann's a part of that, he seems to rate her at about the level of importance of the breeding cow. He certainly never discusses with her what an actual human relationship would be like between them, let alone ask her wishes and preferences about it. He just ignores the idea that she might actually HAVE preferences at all as he goes to her bedroom without her leave. Again, not very honest to himself or her. |
Shockingly, I disagree. [??] Ann, it's true, does not communicate her thoughts very well - but she is barely sixteen and Loomis is thirty. [So?] She TRIES to talk to him about his life and about his romantic past - which was the perfect opening for him to gain her confidence by talking to her and revealing himself a little so that he could bring the conversation to his expectations for their relationship. Instead he grabs her hand and tries to intimidate her into revealing more about herself instead. [I don't see it as trying to intimidate her at all. He seems to be trying to get her to be serious and talk openly, suspecting that she is holding back; he may not intend to be rough at all but just be too direct in his manner. Certainly he's not tactful.] He wants to control and limit even his confidences to her. [I see no evidence of that at all.] That's not frank or honest. [?] [He told her they need to start a colony! Not frank?] And I don't see that Loomis' talk about the "colony" that he pictures the valley as is a particularly frank and honest way to reveal his expectations for their relationship. [Why not?] He was talking about the colony in the context of preserving seed stocks for beets and wheat, for breeding the cattle. [NO!! He means he and Ann will be starting a human colony, and Ann understands that's exactly what he means but says nothing about it.] If Ann's a part of that, he seems to rate her at about the level of importance of the breeding cow. [Not at all. He simply thinks and speaks in scientific terms, as a scientist. He says at another time that the suit is the most important thing in the world apart from Ann and him--obviously, since they assume they are the last human couple.] He certainly never discusses with her what an actual human relationship would be like between them, let alone ask her wishes and preferences about it. [Yes, that's true, and he should. So should Ann. It doesn't make him a rapist, though, or a controlling and possessive person; he simply lacks some social skills, just as Ann has shortcomings.] He just ignores the idea that she might actually HAVE preferences at all as he goes to her bedroom without her leave. [No, you're assuming that. If you mean preference in partner, it's not really relevant when there are only the two of them left anyway!] Again, not very honest to himself or her. [?] |
||
You say Loomis 'had no choice' but to act the way he did after the attempted rape. I say that he could have apologized to Ann, acknowledged that he had frightened her, had trespassed her boundaries, had done wrong, and was willing to make amends, say, by giving up his weapons to her and whatever other measures she might decide on that might eventually restore her trust. [He doesn't seem to understand why she is afraid of him, and he certainly doesn't suspect that she knows about Edward and fears he's a murderer. Ann actually writes, "He was sorry and wanted to be friends again." So she appears to think he is sorry. When he says, "I hoped you would [come back]," he seems vulnerable, telling her that he needs her companionship but can only hope she will give it. When she refuses to return, he is bewildered and thinks it makes no sense given their situation. Yes, certainly he could be more apologetic; but blaming him is the same as blaming Ann for not being more trusting, reasonable and practical at one time or another.] Loomis puts all these possibilities aside by refusing to acknowledge that he's done anything wrong. [She doesn't accuse him of anything specific, and they don't discuss what happened that night.] ANN's the one who's making a fuss about his attack on her - she should just get over it and come back for more. [Well, that's a harsh interpretation, of course. There isn't enough information to go on. Looking over all the story's information about Loomis, I find it very hard to believe he could think that forcing himself on Ann is all right. He seems to think about their situation in a practical way, and he also desperately needs companionship--like Ann.] |
|||
| ⚫ | The most sinister characteristics of Loomis are seen AFTER the attempted rape, IMO. You have said that Loomis acted to force Ann to return out of pure concern that she would starve or freeze to death in winter. [No, I didn't mean purely for that reason but partly. Of course he would think that way, since she is the last person who can be a companion and the last woman.] I don't think the facts support that information. Loomis initially thought she had fled to live at the store - where there is no danger that she will either starve or freeze to death, and in fact could live quite comfortably. [Yes, that's a good point.] This was not satisfactory to Loomis - so he put the store with its food and warmth out of her reach. [It seems he was starting then to try forcing her return to the house; and everything he does for that purpose is extreme and irrational--desperate, as Ann's guess about his feelings suggests. It shows that he can act irrationally in deseperation, too--like Ann.] He INCREASED the risk that she would starve or freeze to death, instead of living comfortably in the store, because the risk of starving or freezing to death might force her to return under his control, and he's willing to risk that she might actually in his attempt to recapture her. [Maybe, but he probably expected to be successful. In any case, she was already hiding in the wilderness, and the point I made referred to his efforts to track her down in the wilderness. Another point is that she was depending on precious and limited store supplies that would inevitably run out, making her whole plan impractical and wasteful.] |
||
He shoots her in the leg, risking death by septicemia or tetanus for her, all so that he can get her back under his complete control. That's IMO kind of sociopathic. [It's crazy, yes. He's not rational in doing that; but it doesn't prove he is generally crazy--only that he is acting crazily in desperation. And, nevertheless, he is able to be reasonable again--going to meet her unarmed as she asks, and then just begging her not to leave instead of threatening her or shooting her as she walks away.] |
|||
You say Loomis 'had no choice' but to act the way he did after the attempted rape. I say that he could have apologized to Ann, acknowledged that he had frightened her, had trespassed her boundaries, had done wrong, and was willing to make amends, say, by giving up his weapons to her and whatever other measures she might decide on that might eventually restore her trust. Loomis puts all these possibilities aside by refusing to acknowledge that he's done anything wrong. ANN's the one who's making a fuss about his attack on her - she should just get over it and come back for more. |
|||
| ⚫ | The worst thing he does is at the end of the book, when he straight up intends to murder Ann because she's DARING to steal his suit. [He's furious because she betrayed his trust, too. More later....] He wants to kill her, even though (having gotten possession of Ann's farm) he no longer needs it to survive, so killing her for it is no longer a dubious act of defense but a straight up vengeful murder - because she had DARED steal what was his. That's his lowest point as a character, and Ann offers him the only redemption he can get by reminding him of a previous crime to dissuade him from this one. He starts rising to a character eventually redeemable by helping Ann leave toward other life that he's seen out there, recognizing that the life out there may be better than the life he would force her to lead in the valley with him. |
||
| ⚫ | The most sinister characteristics of Loomis are seen AFTER the attempted rape, IMO. You have said that Loomis acted to force Ann to return out of pure concern that she would starve or freeze to death in winter. I don't think the facts support that information. Loomis initially thought she had fled to live at the store - where there is no danger that she will either starve or freeze to death, and in fact could live quite comfortably. This was not satisfactory to Loomis - so he put the store with its food and warmth out of her reach. He INCREASED the risk that she would starve or freeze to death, instead of living comfortably in the store, because the risk of starving or freezing to death might force her to return under his control, and he's willing to risk that she might actually in his attempt to recapture her. |
||
| ⚫ | The worst thing he does is at the end of the book, when he straight up intends to murder Ann because she's DARING to steal his suit. He wants to kill her, even though (having gotten possession of Ann's farm) he no longer needs it to survive, so killing her for it is no longer a dubious act of defense but a straight up vengeful murder - because she had DARED steal what was his. That's his lowest point as a character, and Ann offers him the only redemption he can get by reminding him of a previous crime to dissuade him from this one. He starts rising to a character eventually redeemable by helping Ann leave toward other life that he's seen out there, recognizing that the life out there may be better than the life he would force her to lead in the valley with him. |
||
Sorry, Ambien makes me poetic-like. |
Sorry, Ambien makes me poetic-like. |
||
Revision as of 06:03, 26 November 2014
I edited the introduction and entirely rewrote the plot summary for the page on Robert C. O'Brien's Z for Zachariah to correct factual errors. The plot summary contained many errors and omitted important details, generally presenting an interpretation of the text rather than a summary. This story is a first-person narrative with a demonstrably unreliable narrator. Many of the views and actions of the narrator, Ann Burden, are questionable in terms of reasoning and morality. Taking for granted the validity of her assumptions (especially those towards the end of the story) results in a very biased interpretation and misunderstanding of the main themes.
In response to your feedback
Hi Seoulseeker.... I think there will have to be a middle ground between being concise and fully explaining the plot! :) Unfortunately, that's one of the things that'll have to be achieved through consensus and collaboration.
I noticed you wrote a terrific explanation on YOUR talk page. You ought to put that same paragraph on the article's talk page so other editors can read and respond to it. That's where discussions about how the article is written take place. One of the editors mentioned Wikipedia's Manual of Style. You can find that on this page.
If you ever need any help with something, please feel free to let me know. Just click on the word, "Talk" after my name and you'll be able to leave me a message. I'm happy to help in whatever way I can. Cheers!
Wikipelli Talk 18:59, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your response and links to guidelines. I posted the explanation of the editing on my talk page because I'm new at this and couldn't find where to put it. Regarding the summary, I am working on reducing its length while keeping details that seem important for avoiding misinterpretation. The problem with this story is that readers tend to sympathize with the narrator rather than view her narrative objectively and critically. Facts that go against the narrator's assumptions tend to be completely ignored or distorted. If possible, I'd like to add more about interpretation, but it'll require some research and I'd want to balance it with some of my own interpretation if it's allowed.
- I think it's great that you have such an interest (and expertise) in the topic. I want to let you know that you should be kind of careful in adding your own interpretations to the article. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and adding one's own views or interpretations is really not permitted. Wikipedia operates on verifiability. That is to say that additions to articles - particularly when you get into the realm of interpretations - must be cited to reliable 3rd party sources. Thus, it would not be good to add, "In this book, the author was contrasting good with evil". It would be better to say, "Some scholars (researchers/reviewers/whatever) have interpreted this book as a contrast between good and evil" and then cite the sources of the information.
- This is a thumbnail of what you want to be careful of. If you follow the links above you can find a much better articulation of what is allowed and what is not.
- As always, feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions! Wikipelli Talk 20:32, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your warning. I try to write objectively. However, I'm motivated to work on this because of the problem that the story is widely misinterpreted. Should the encyclopedia ONLY present standard views even if there is stronger textual support for a different interpretation? Through discussing the story on an educational website for a few years, I found other teachers who agreed. The story is interesting because it can act as a test of a reader's susceptibility to bias and wishful thinking.
- You've kind of answered your own question above about including interpretations. You state that you have discussed the story with other teachers and they have a different view from yours. Clearly, it would be problematic for Wikipedia articles about books to present all interpretations. Again, I have to go back to venerability. If, in reviews published by reliable sources, various interpretations can be found, then those could be included (with references) in the article. But it would be very difficult to include everyone's personal interpretations. You might also wish to look over this page on including original research in articles.
- Hope this is helpful! Wikipelli Talk 19:15, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
It's not a matter of including "everyone's personal interpretations" about details. Any interpretation hinges on the reliability of the narrator. If an article assumes the viewpoint that the narrator is reliable, it is biased and misleading. To be objective, it should summarize the story matter-of-factly and explain interpretation separately. This article has existed for a long time with nothing more than a biased and factually inaccurate summary, so the result should be a more accurate and useful article.
Welcome to Wikipedia: check out the Teahouse!
|
Hello! Seoulseeker,
you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! heather walls (talk) 22:38, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
|
Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:16, 23 May 2012 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template.
Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 13:35, 26 May 2012 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template.
Discussion with Robert C. O'Brien's daughter
Hello, as the main editor of the Z for Zachariah page, you might be interested in a discussion I'm having with one of Robert C. O'Brien's daughters about some edits she made to the Wikipedia page about her father, which might go some way to explaining the random edits I made to the Z for Zachariah article earlier today. You can see the back and forth of the discussion in the links above. Graham87 08:47, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation
- If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/A Report from Group 17.
- To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
- If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the . Please remember to link to the submission!
- You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.
- Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:01, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/A Report from Group 17, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 180 days. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.
If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.
You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.
If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.
Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 16:44, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/A Report from Group 17, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.
If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.
You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.
If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.
Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 02:02, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: A Report from Group 17 (March 24)
Please read the comments left by the reviewer on your submission. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
- If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/A Report from Group 17.
- To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
- If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the .
contributions to Wikipedia!
- Please remember to link to the submission!
- You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.
Z for Zachariah summary
Your message: Hi. Seeing your notice, I shortened the summary quite a bit. Please check it again and remove the notice if it is concise enough, or let me know why it still seems too detailed. Thanks. Seoulseeker (talk) 22:03, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
- You're welcome. I've complied with your wishes in response to your good faith efforts.--SidP (talk) 00:29, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: A Report from Group 17 has been accepted
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.
- If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
- If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .
==Views on Z for Zachariah
Hello, mambru19 here. I originally wrote this... "Yes, I am very interested in Z for Zachariah (as you also obviously are)as I've loved the book since I was a teenager. But I think discussion about what I think about the Wiki article belongs on the Talk page for that article, where other potential editors may agree or disagree as they see fit. I will address your points there." ...in response to your query on my Talk page, but after revising the article and updating the Talk page there, I realize I didn't address your points here fully. So, here goes.
"For instance, when she first thinks he is becoming possessive and controlling, the facts don't actually support this view at all. So it is only objective to say that she imagines or thinks so."
That's a question of opinion. You said in the article Talk page that Ann "imagines" that Loomis does disturbing things. However, it's a FACT that Ann is disturbed by his actions. The question is whether Ann has sufficient grounds for her unease. [Yes.] He does not ask her, suggest to her or persuade her of things. [This seems true mainly after his sickness. He's nicer before that. But he says he worries a lot about food and has dreams about it. Also, he just has a direct manner in explaining what he thinks is necessary; Ann is impractical; and she actually agrees he is right.] He gives her orders and criticizes and belittles her wishes and choices. [I'm not sure what you mean about criticizing and belittling her wishes and choices. His criticisms are correct, aren't they? Even she agrees.] All this is usually grounds for mere annoyance, but when you're facing the idea that this is the ONLY person you're going to have to spend the rest of your life nonstop alone with, IMO that's grounds for some unease. [Not if he's right and she is unreasonable.] When you add in the FACT that he LITERALLY tries to physically control her by grabbing her hand and refusing to let go till she says what he wants to hear [possibly for good reason], pulling her off balance [accidental] and rebuking her [quietly, seemingly hurt by her manner] when she accidentally hits him when she falls - then yes, I DO think there ARE some facts that support the view that he is controlling. [These aren't facts but, again, interpretations.] You may think they are insufficient - but that's your opinion, and as an opinion it's not any more objective than my opinion that they are.
"Most crucially, perhaps, when he goes to her room one night, there is no actual evidence he tries to rape her or even that he "pins her to the bed." A key point here is that she guesses he hears her breathing change, but then she assumes he thinks she's asleep because she hopes he will leave. It is typical of Ann to believe what she wishes to be true, deluding herself. In this case, she wants to believe he thinks she's asleep because she hopes he will then leave (apparently assuming he is a decent man who would not enter her room without permission). Blinded by her fear and wishful thinking, she continues to assume he thinks her asleep even as he enters the room, not considering that he likely knows she's awake. So fear leads her to make the wrong conclusion about his character and motives.
"Logically, there are 2 possibilities here: (1) he thinks she's asleep and plans to rape her (which is monstrous and seems completely inconsistent with his character); or (2) he knows she's awake and assumes her silence gives tacit permission to enter (which can be consistent with his character and allows him to make an understandable mistake by simply, like Ann, believing what he wishes to believe)."
Sorry, no, that's just wrong. [No, it isn't] Loomis had no way of knowing for sure if she was awake or asleep. [The text suggests that he might know she is awake by hearing her breathing, so it's a definite possibility. It seems likely because he is already standing there; so it's just logical that if she can hear his breathing after she wakes, he could hear hers while she's sleeping, the moment she awakes, while she starts holding her breath, and then when she tries to breathe normally.) If he honestly thought she would be okay with him coming into her room and having sex with her because she was silent when he talked about a colony, it behooved him as a minimally decent human being to verify that she IS in fact awake and willing by SPEAKING to her, even if it is only to say, "Hi, can we have teh sex I hinted at when I mentioned the colony?" [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? Also, you're assuming he plans to have sex, though he might just wish to lie down with her--like Faro, wanting company.] Walking in silently [Ann's characterization; he's still weak and moves slowly] and pressing down hard on her shoulder [No, he leans his weight on her shoulder; but she says his touch is gentle] before jumping on top of her gives a lot more credibility to possibility 1. [No, much more must be explained to make it credible.]
Besides, where do you get the idea that a rape is "monstrous and seems completely inconsistent with his character"? [I get the idea from his character so far in the story.] We don't get to know his character that well, ever. [Yes, we learn a lot about him from Ann's observations and reports.] He hides his killing of Edward [understandably, given her fearful reaction] and the events leading up to it. When Ann attempts to get to know him by asking him about his childhood, his past and his relationships, he refuses to give any but the most minimal answers, [Ann's view only! Her questions are simplistic and don't require more of an answer; and she contributes nothing to the converstation] and then tries to physically intimidate her into speaking more personally to him [No--your interpretation] than he was willing to speak to her. [No. He shared more than she did.] We know very little about his character, [Much from his behavior and words] and in the few facts that we do know there are as many bad signs as good ones. [Not at all!! What bad signs are there?] So saying it's "incompatible" with his character to rape is, again, only your opinion. [No.]
But the clearest "evidence that he tries to rape her" is what he did when he pressed down hard on her shoulder and she tried to flee. [No. She wasn't trying to flee at that time; you're inventing that detail. He was just leaning his weight on her as he prepared to lie down, and then she suddenly twisted free.] By doing so, she showed clearly that she did NOT want to have sex with him. [Check the text again.] As I said in the article Talk page, he then pulled her back (scratching her while doing so, IIRC) while she was struggling to get away, tearing her clothes. [No. He grabbed at her reflexively as she tried to flee, and her shirt ripped as he pulled away. It proves only he was trying to stop her panicked flight, not that he was trying to rape her.] He was physically trying to force her to do what she clearly does not want to do. [He was trying to stop her from running, which she wanted to do.] That covers the "by force and without her consent" part of attempted rape neatly, [No, it doesn't.] thus making Possibility 1 pretty much a certainty, IMO... [Not at all] so therefore he IMO is not the nice honest frank non-rapist fellow you judge him as. [There seems much you are not considering.]
"A big problem with Ann throughout the story is that she communicates very poorly, keeping her thoughts and feelings secret from Loomis. Loomis has the same problem sometimes, but it's to a lesser degree because he at least tries sometimes to get close to Ann and talks frankly about his expectations for their relationship."
Shockingly, I disagree. [??] Ann, it's true, does not communicate her thoughts very well - but she is barely sixteen and Loomis is thirty. [So?] She TRIES to talk to him about his life and about his romantic past - which was the perfect opening for him to gain her confidence by talking to her and revealing himself a little so that he could bring the conversation to his expectations for their relationship. Instead he grabs her hand and tries to intimidate her into revealing more about herself instead. [I don't see it as trying to intimidate her at all. He seems to be trying to get her to be serious and talk openly, suspecting that she is holding back; he may not intend to be rough at all but just be too direct in his manner. Certainly he's not tactful.] He wants to control and limit even his confidences to her. [I see no evidence of that at all.] That's not frank or honest. [?] [He told her they need to start a colony! Not frank?] And I don't see that Loomis' talk about the "colony" that he pictures the valley as is a particularly frank and honest way to reveal his expectations for their relationship. [Why not?] He was talking about the colony in the context of preserving seed stocks for beets and wheat, for breeding the cattle. [NO!! He means he and Ann will be starting a human colony, and Ann understands that's exactly what he means but says nothing about it.] If Ann's a part of that, he seems to rate her at about the level of importance of the breeding cow. [Not at all. He simply thinks and speaks in scientific terms, as a scientist. He says at another time that the suit is the most important thing in the world apart from Ann and him--obviously, since they assume they are the last human couple.] He certainly never discusses with her what an actual human relationship would be like between them, let alone ask her wishes and preferences about it. [Yes, that's true, and he should. So should Ann. It doesn't make him a rapist, though, or a controlling and possessive person; he simply lacks some social skills, just as Ann has shortcomings.] He just ignores the idea that she might actually HAVE preferences at all as he goes to her bedroom without her leave. [No, you're assuming that. If you mean preference in partner, it's not really relevant when there are only the two of them left anyway!] Again, not very honest to himself or her. [?]
You say Loomis 'had no choice' but to act the way he did after the attempted rape. I say that he could have apologized to Ann, acknowledged that he had frightened her, had trespassed her boundaries, had done wrong, and was willing to make amends, say, by giving up his weapons to her and whatever other measures she might decide on that might eventually restore her trust. [He doesn't seem to understand why she is afraid of him, and he certainly doesn't suspect that she knows about Edward and fears he's a murderer. Ann actually writes, "He was sorry and wanted to be friends again." So she appears to think he is sorry. When he says, "I hoped you would [come back]," he seems vulnerable, telling her that he needs her companionship but can only hope she will give it. When she refuses to return, he is bewildered and thinks it makes no sense given their situation. Yes, certainly he could be more apologetic; but blaming him is the same as blaming Ann for not being more trusting, reasonable and practical at one time or another.] Loomis puts all these possibilities aside by refusing to acknowledge that he's done anything wrong. [She doesn't accuse him of anything specific, and they don't discuss what happened that night.] ANN's the one who's making a fuss about his attack on her - she should just get over it and come back for more. [Well, that's a harsh interpretation, of course. There isn't enough information to go on. Looking over all the story's information about Loomis, I find it very hard to believe he could think that forcing himself on Ann is all right. He seems to think about their situation in a practical way, and he also desperately needs companionship--like Ann.]
The most sinister characteristics of Loomis are seen AFTER the attempted rape, IMO. You have said that Loomis acted to force Ann to return out of pure concern that she would starve or freeze to death in winter. [No, I didn't mean purely for that reason but partly. Of course he would think that way, since she is the last person who can be a companion and the last woman.] I don't think the facts support that information. Loomis initially thought she had fled to live at the store - where there is no danger that she will either starve or freeze to death, and in fact could live quite comfortably. [Yes, that's a good point.] This was not satisfactory to Loomis - so he put the store with its food and warmth out of her reach. [It seems he was starting then to try forcing her return to the house; and everything he does for that purpose is extreme and irrational--desperate, as Ann's guess about his feelings suggests. It shows that he can act irrationally in deseperation, too--like Ann.] He INCREASED the risk that she would starve or freeze to death, instead of living comfortably in the store, because the risk of starving or freezing to death might force her to return under his control, and he's willing to risk that she might actually in his attempt to recapture her. [Maybe, but he probably expected to be successful. In any case, she was already hiding in the wilderness, and the point I made referred to his efforts to track her down in the wilderness. Another point is that she was depending on precious and limited store supplies that would inevitably run out, making her whole plan impractical and wasteful.]
He shoots her in the leg, risking death by septicemia or tetanus for her, all so that he can get her back under his complete control. That's IMO kind of sociopathic. [It's crazy, yes. He's not rational in doing that; but it doesn't prove he is generally crazy--only that he is acting crazily in desperation. And, nevertheless, he is able to be reasonable again--going to meet her unarmed as she asks, and then just begging her not to leave instead of threatening her or shooting her as she walks away.]
The worst thing he does is at the end of the book, when he straight up intends to murder Ann because she's DARING to steal his suit. [He's furious because she betrayed his trust, too. More later....] He wants to kill her, even though (having gotten possession of Ann's farm) he no longer needs it to survive, so killing her for it is no longer a dubious act of defense but a straight up vengeful murder - because she had DARED steal what was his. That's his lowest point as a character, and Ann offers him the only redemption he can get by reminding him of a previous crime to dissuade him from this one. He starts rising to a character eventually redeemable by helping Ann leave toward other life that he's seen out there, recognizing that the life out there may be better than the life he would force her to lead in the valley with him.
Sorry, Ambien makes me poetic-like.