Talk:Z for Zachariah

Children's novel?

"Children's novel"? Really? --HanzoHattori 22:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, really. I first read it as a school assignment in 4th grade. Cmadler (talk) 15:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Really, this book is as far as you can go into post-nuclear genre, before the imagery will require an older reader to understand. I remember picking up this book, back in 7th (6th? 8th?) grade due to the cover. It does not have descriptions of burned bodies and overall destruction, since most of the story is based in the valley. Flashback are also non-violent. - gufu —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.128.221.53 (talk) 04:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that necessarily makes it a children's novel... it definitely suitable for children, but does that make it specifically a children's novel? To Kill a Mockingbird, for example, is definitely not a children's novel, but that doesn't stop it being suitable for children, and being studied at school. _TalkIslander 11:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Deleted: "She also remembers seeing a human-sized cage next to a cage for Faro in the house." (added by 131.204.175.221)

There are no cages in the story for either a dog or a human. The only remotely similar description is Ann’s imagining of Loomis's plans: "I realized that whatever Mr. Loomis was planning, at the end of the plan was a picture, and it was of me, too, tied up like Faro in the house" (191). --Seoulseeker (talk) 21:21, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Inaccurate & seemingly biased revisions (by 140.180.246.15)

Ann never tries to “negotiate” with Loomis

“Deciding to try to negotiate once again in hopes of mutual survival and of learning his intentions, Ann concludes that she might be aggravating his behavior by denying companionship…”

1. Ann wishes to learn Loomis’s intentions, not negotiate. Unsure whether he controls things due to long-term planning or is trying to force her return, she writes, “I had to find out, fearful as I was of the answer” (219).
2. This is the FIRST time Ann tries to learn Loomis’s intentions by asking him directly. She never tries to “negotiate” for mutual survival, since a negotiation involves two equal parties reaching an agreement. When Ann first returns to the house, she views herself as arranging a “compromise” (183), but she actually gives Loomis an ultimatum that he accepts because he has “no choice” (190). There is no actual negotiation or compromise because Ann refuses to discuss matters with him.

Ann considers she may be causing Loomis’s behavior, not “aggravating” it

Ann states, “perhaps, in a way, these new things he had done were my own fault. It seemed that the more I stayed away from him the more determined he was that I come back” (218). The distinction is important because she realizes she could be responsible for provoking his extreme behavior.

Ann’s conviction there is another valley is based on believing dreams

“After she recovers, hoping there are humans somewhere else, maybe even children to teach, feeling that Loomis is insane, facing winter, and unwilling to be enslaved, Ann plans to steal the safe-suit…”

Ann does not have a reasonable hope there are other survivors and “maybe even children to teach.” Rather, she has feverish dreams about another valley with children waiting for her, and she convinces herself that the dreams are true:

“For several days after I was shot, I was aware of very little. I think I had a fever….It was during those days of sleeping that a dream began, a dream I have had many times since….Coming night after night, it began to dominate my thoughts, so that first I hoped and now I believe in what it seems to tell: there is another place where I can live. I am needed there. There is a schoolroom lined with books, and children sitting at the desks” (226-28).

It is not rational either to believe in dreams this way or to leave the last known habitable valley because of such dreams. Hence the irony when she feels sure at this time that Loomis is insane (228).

The threat of being enslaved is Ann’s fear, not a fact

Ann’s fear of being enslaved is only her questionable viewpoint of what Loomis intends. He is probably concerned about her survival through the winter if she persists in her “stupidity” of hiding in the hills (205), since she is the last companion he can have and he believes only they can save humanity from extinction.

Faro’s death is planned by Ann, not accidental

“…but Ann escapes by a path over the radioactive creek and doubles back down the other side, knowing that Loomis will not touch the water…. The dog then swims across Burden Creek to reach Ann and unexpectedly dies of radiation sickness the next day - Ann had meant to get Faro away from Loomis so her dog could no longer be used to track her,…”

The text makes clear that Ann set a trap for the specific purpose of killing Faro:

After Loomis tracked her to the cave and burnt her things, Ann writes: “The worst part of it was that I really did decide to kill Faro….It makes me feel as much a murderer as Mr. Loomis” (225).

When Loomis pursued Ann to the creek, where she hid on the other side behind a rock, everything happened according to her plan. She fired her rifle over Loomis’s head to surprise him, knowing he was unaware she had another gun (234). He then released Faro in his panic, and the dog followed Ann’s scent across the contaminated creek, as Ann knew Faro would. She notes matter-of-factly that she “expected” he would be sick for several days like Loomis had been, but he died by nightfall. Ann was not surprised or shocked, and in the next entry she states explicitly, “In setting the trap for Faro, I had exposed an important secret: I had a gun and bullets” (237).

It is because she kills Faro intentionally that Ann thinks she is as much a murderer as Loomis (225). Ironically, however, her act is more truly murder in the sense that she killed with premeditation, not under duress and in self-defense. Of course the term "murder" only legally applies to humans, and people generally value humans above other animals. What's important is that Ann's comparison of herself with Loomis points to the difference between them in terms of intention. Loomis did not kill "with malice aforethought," so it is wrong for Ann to think of him as a murderer at all.

In addition, for those who know the companionship, unconditional affection, and loyalty that dogs offer, Ann's choice to kill Faro is a terrible betrayal. Ann herself is aware of Faro's importance as a companion when she first fears Loomis' befriending the dog and admits, "I suppose it seems wrong to be afraid of that" (36). Considering Loomis's probable loneliness, it is wrong to deny him companionship with Faro. Symbolically, Ann's "murder" of the last dog represents a selfish disregard for life that directly contrasts with the custodial attitude she earlier showed while saving a baby crow, helping that species to survive (124-25). Seoulseeker (talk) 16:31, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore, killing Faro is entirely unnecessary and certainly not justifiable as "self-defense."

1. Ann could have simply caught the dog and kept him with her.
2. Loomis's panic when Ann fired suggests that the knowledge she is armed might be enough to keep him away.
3. Ann plans to leave the valley anyway, so killing Faro denies Loomis even the dog as a companion when she is gone.
4. Ann's fear of Loomis is actually paranoid, and she should just talk openly with him about their relationship.--Seoulseeker (talk) 21:45, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Ann does not double back on the other side of the creek

In fact, Ann doubles back from the hollow tree after getting her rifle, then crosses the stream at a spot with flat stones. This is probably so that Faro will follow her scent over the stream there (233).

Ann is not forced to act but makes all her choices freely

Ann believes Loomis forces her to take drastic measures (231), so she claims at the end, “I had no choice” (247). She thinks this way throughout the story, starting with her choices to hide from an approaching stranger and not warn him about a dead stream. However, the irony is that all Ann’s actions are freely chosen, so her belief she has no choice simply avoids responsibility for her behavior and its consequences.

Ann assumes she has no choice because of believing fears about Loomis, which are never shown valid and seem unreasonable when his behavior is examined. Her real options probably include starting a mutually supportive, beneficial, and happy relationship with Loomis, which could soon lead to having her own family. The chief obstacles to this are Ann’s egocentricity and paranoia, not Loomis’s bad character.

The choices most important to consider are the ones explicitly referenced by Ann. In every case, she has freedom to make different meaningful choices, such as by being more optimistic, trusting, and honest. For example, she chooses:

• to dig up the garden and hide in the cave when a stranger approached the valley (10-11, 19, 20)
• to restrain the urge to run to him when he called out (23)
• to let the newcomer swim in a contaminated stream and possibly die (26)
• to conceal her hope to marry and have children (81, 101)
• to suppress her joy when he recovered from sickness (137-39)
• to hide her feelings about their relationship when he spoke of starting a colony (152)
• to hide what she knows about his past from listening to his nightmares (128, 157)
• to lie about her intentions in asking if he was married before (159-61)
• not to tell Loomis her feelings when he came to her room at night (175)
• to run away and live impractically in the wild, relying on limited store supplies
• to deny Loomis any companionship (183)
• to kill Faro by leading him to swim in the dead stream, again using the poisoned stream to protect herself (225, 237)
• to trick Loomis by offering companionship and then stealing his safe-suit (226)
• to believe her wishful dreams about another valley with children waiting for her to teach them (227-28)
• to leave the last known habitable place and all that she has hoped for (236)

Ann’s self-justifications are certainly weak, and she does not fear Loomis may be armed

“Her claims that she is unsure about the stream and hiding is the only way to ensure her own safety from a potentially armed and physically stronger stranger are her primary justifications.”

1. Ann is only unsure about the exact reason the stream is dead, not about the fact it is dead; yet she uses this irrelevant doubt to justify letting a stranger possibly suffer fatal poisoning (26, 31)! This is called culpable inaction.
2. Hiding from the stranger does not “ensure her own safety,” since she will have to face him sooner or later. He is not likely to leave the last habitable place in the world!
3. Ann never actually fears the possibility that the stranger will be armed--perhaps because she always carries her own rifle with her and she's "a good shot" with it (15).
4. Ann is actually more of a threat than the stranger. Loomis is unarmed when he enters the valley whereas Ann watches him from hiding with a rifle at her side (21). Loomis only gets out a rifle and puts it on his wagon when no one answers his call (24). Walking down the road in the open and calling out two more times, Loomis is entirely at the mercy of Ann as she hides in the woods with her gun.
5. After guilelessly calling out 3 times while walking a mile down the open road, it is not likely Loomis is trying to ambush anyone when he looks in the windows of the house from a distance (24). He is probably just cautious in exactly the same way Ann is when she later approaches his tent (45-46).
6. Allowing the last man to die from radiation exposure would certainly ensure Ann’s safety from a potential tyrant, but it would be highly immoral (i.e., culpable inaction), she would be doomed to living alone, and the human race would probably end.
7. The only way Ann can find out about a stranger’s character is to talk with him and get to know him.

Ann's main fear is that the stranger could be a cruel tyrant who will enslave her, which is extreme and can reasonably be described as paranoid.

Ann has irrational fears from the outset

“Upon learning Loomis killed a man and realizing that he is hiding his physical recovery from her, this fear immediately returns and she starts interpreting his attempts to take control and his impatience with her as a sign he is domineering.”

This revision deletes the fact that Ann fears meeting a cruel murderer as well as being enslaved, and it deletes the description of these fears as “irrational.”

The fact that Ann’s fears exist before she meets Loomis shows Ann is capable of extreme fear without reasonable cause. Upon seeing columns of smoke nearing, she anticipates the worst imaginable situation. In fact, it is far more likely the stranger will be an ordinary person longing for human companionship rather than a homicidal maniac looking for someone to enslave (36). Hiding in fear and watching from a distance is also irrational because facing the stranger is inevitable and she cannot know his character until they spend time together. Above all, perhaps, she has lived alone for a year believing herself the last survivor of nuclear war and longing for a companion, and this person could be both her last chance of companionship as well as the last hope for the human race to continue.

Fear of a man's strength; independence versus companionship

On the second day of watching Loomis, Ann writes, “This man is a stranger, and bigger and stronger than I am…But if he is not [kind]…I will be a slave for the rest of my life” (36). At this point, Loomis has already bathed in the dead stream because Ann chose not to warn him, illustrating his need for her help despite his supposedly greater strength. As it says in Ecclesiastes, one of Ann's favorite Bible texts (37), "but what of the person with no one to help him up when he falls?" (Eccles. 4:10).

Ann only dares to face Loomis when he sickens and she fears the last man might die (45). She loses her fear of him because of (1) her greater fear of being alone forever and (2) his weakened condition. When his sickness worsens and he becomes even weaker, Ann feels stronger: “I felt calm—almost as if I were the older one. It was as if when he got weaker, I got stronger” (100). Ann appears most comfortable with Loomis when he is sick and weak, since there can be no physical threat. Conversely, when he is regaining strength, Ann’s fear returns and grows. After the hand-holding incident, she fears unreasonably that he is trying to take control, and writes, “For that reason his walking back to the bed without help, which should have been something to celebrate, instead makes me uneasy” (162). In fact, since Ann has no real cause for fear (see 3.11 below), Loomis’s increasing strength should only make her happy. But Ann already has a paranoid fear of a man using his strength to enslave her.

This fear prevents her from thinking of Loomis as a companion as she should. Instead, she keeps thinking of herself as completely independent and viewing his references to their life together as a threat to her freedom. This mistake in her thinking may also be suggested by a passage in Ecclesiastes:

“And something else futile I observe under the sun: a person is quite alone—no child, no brother…For whom, then, do I work so hard…? Better two than one alone, since thus their work is really rewarding. If one should fall, the other helps him up; but what of the person with no one to help him up when he falls? Again: if two sleep together they keep warm, but how can anyone keep warm alone? Where one alone would be overcome, two will put up resistance; and a threefold cord is not quickly broken” (Eccles. 4:7-12).

Loomis does not hide his recovery

Ann suspects this, but it is an unreasonable suspicion. When Loomis first tries to walk and falls down, Ann stands in the doorway and watches in amusement as he struggles painfully to pull himself up, then falls again. She thinks he looks like a comedian acting drunk. Only after he falls twice does Ann offer to help, and then he tells her in annoyance, “No…Just don’t stand and watch” (145).

About a week later, Ann thinks Loomis is “secretive” about his efforts to walk again and guesses, “Probably because he felt foolish when I saw him after he fell” (146). But when she hears the thud of his feet hitting the floor and then slow footsteps a second time, she feels guilty of eavesdropping and says with pretended uncertainty, “I thought I heard you walking” (147). He is busy working on designs for a generator and just replies without expression, “It’s something I have to do” (147).

Considering Ann’s attitude as she watched Loomis, it is likely he asked her not to watch him because she seemed amused by his efforts. The loud noise of his movements and his indifference when Ann commented on his progress suggest that Loomis makes no attempt to hide his efforts. His reply that he is merely doing what he must to regain his strength is far more credible than her suspicions.

Earlier on the evening Loomis visits Ann's room, she sees him at a distance walking to the wagon, and she notes twice, "He definitely did not have the cane" (173-74). Despite Ann’s concern, this shows only that Loomis is getting better, not that he is hiding his recovery. He told her the night before that he would soon be able to help with farm work (172). Also, even after Ann runs away, she believes Loomis is still weak and writes, “I did not think he could walk far enough to get his own [supplies], not yet” (183).Seoulseeker (talk) 22:19, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Ann is more secretive than Loomis

It is ironic that Ann is suspicious of Loomis being secretive while she herself is eavesdropping and pretending uncertainty about his actions. Ann is certainly secretive with Loomis. She repeatedly hides from him feelings or concerns that are important to their relationship. For example, she hides:

• her fear of being controlled (36);
• her desire for companionship and family (23, 36, 81);
• romantic feelings (81);
• hopes for their future together and to save the human race (81, 96, 101);
• the fear that he would die, leaving her alone (118-20, 121-23, 126);
• her joy when he recovers and says her presence saved him (137-39);
• her knowledge that he killed Edward (128, 157);
• her concern that he acted wrongly and doubts about his character (126-27);
• her discomfort with his presumed attitude about her church-going and the valley (141-43, 162);
• exactly how she thinks of their relationship though believing they are the last human survivors and knowing Loomis expects them to start a colony together (153).

She hides her thoughts about their relationship even when he asks directly what her intentions are in inquiring if he was ever married (159-60).

Loomis doesn't try to take control; Ann is more possessive

The editor adds “his attempts to take control” as if this were a fact rather than Ann’s interpretation (162). Ann’s descriptions of Loomis’s actual behavior show only impatience with Ann, which in every case is understandable.

The text shows that Ann is actually more possessive of the valley than Loomis. Ann starts to think Loomis is becoming possessive of the valley merely because he is concerned about her delay in planting corn during his sickness. After he scolds her, she writes, “And so he considered the valley as much his as mine. I would have to get used to it” (143). Loomis does not speak of the valley as his alone but as theirs to manage together. It is reasonable for him to assume a right to live in the last habitable place in the world. It is not Loomis but Ann who possessively assumes ownership of the whole valley, which is why she feels uncomfortable:

“I had been regarding the field, the tractor—the valley—and the planting and garden, all as things of mine, to do or to worry about. But now he had begun thinking about them as his, too” (143).

--Seoulseeker (talk) 18:44, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Why Ann's fear of Loomis taking control is unjustified

Ann expresses this fear after the hand-holding incident:

"When he was holding my hand, I could tell that he was taking charge, or possession...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).

However, in every case Ann thinks of here, she appears to misinterpret Loomis's behavior and think unjustly of him.

1. His concerns about the planting are practical, and Ann agrees with him (140-42, 151-53, 154-55).
2. Concerning the gas and the tractor, it is his ingenuity that enables them to access gas and use the tractor at all (70-71, 93). Ann forgets this. Further, he never controls use of these things but simply cautions her sensibly of the need to conserve fuel and breed more cattle to use for plowing in the future (152-53). He shows necessary concern for their mutual long-term survival.
3. Loomis never blames Ann for church-going in itself or tries to stop her from doing it; he even suggests good-naturedly, "When you go to your church, if you want something to pray for, pray for that bull calf" (152). When he is annoyed one time about her going to church, it is only because she claims she could not leave him alone to plant corn though she did so to pray in church (142). His point is simply that if she could leave him to go to church, she should have done so for the more practical purpose of planting. But Ann misunderstands him completely, thinking, "He had sounded annoyed and did not understand why I had gone to church" (143).
4. As for the safe-suit and Edward, it is biased and unjust to view his actions as "controlling" when Loomis's dreams clearly show that he killed Edward in desperation to save his own life and so the suit could be used to look for other survivors (116-17). As Ann notes when she is reasonable, Loomis acted in self-defense (126-27).
5. Loomis is also not tyrannically "controlling" when he refuses to let Ann use the suit to leave the valley to get novels from a town library; her suggestion is, as he says, "too foolish to consider" (150), and Ann admits to herself reluctantly, "I can see that it is not too practical" (151).

If we do not read critically, questioning Ann's views and reviewing earlier parts of the text, it is easy to be misled by her fearful interpretations of Loomis's behavior.

False dilemma: Ann’s decision to leave rather than be a slave

“In the end, wanting desperately to escape Loomis after the gunshot wound in her ankle becomes infected, Ann has feverish dreams that children are waiting for her in another valley.”

1. The phrase “even believes” in reference to Ann’s dreams was deleted, hiding the fact Ann irrationally bases her judgments on dreams. This change corresponds with deletion of information about Ann’s dream in the summary. The apparent purpose is to make Ann's decision to leave the last known habitable valley and the last known man appear more reasonable.
2. The reference to the gunshot wound is irrelevant here because Ann does not mention it at this point. The fact of the wound is included in the summary. Loomis is trying to wound Ann, not to kill her. He is using extreme methods, but his purpose is clearly to force her out of hiding in the wilderness, which is impractical for their mutual survival and that of the human race. --Seoulseeker (talk) 19:01, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

“After her fever improves, she concludes that it's unlikely, but focuses on it as her best hope for the future. She does not consider enslavement by Loomis to be an acceptable option, even if it would ensure her survival, so decides to set out in hopes of finding other humans.”

1. The first sentence of the revision is wholly false, attempting again to make Ann appear more rational by concealing that she decides to leave the valley because of believing dreams (see 3.3 above). A sentence questioning Ann's sanity was deleted from the character analysis: “By this point, it is ironic that she thinks Loomis is the insane one of them.”
2. It is true Ann refuses to be enslaved, but there is no evidence Loomis actually intends this. The evidence shows only that he wishes them to live together and start a colony. Therefore, it is a false dilemma to believe she must choose between enslavement and running away.

Loomis’s willingness to meet with Ann unarmed and his choice not to shoot her as she leaves suggest he is not a tyrant but a rational man trying to make a life with the last woman, who fears him without real reason. Ann initially runs away because Loomis tries to get in bed with her at a point when they both know the need for them to be a couple and they have spoken of it. Ann’s hiding in the hills and refusal of any relationship is an extreme overreaction, and it jeopardizes not only their mutual survival but that of humanity.

After two weeks of her impractical and mutually destructive behavior, Loomis starts resorting to extreme and irrational measures of his own by denying store supplies and trying to wound her to force her back. At this point, even Ann realizes briefly that her own behavior might be causing him to act in desperation; but then he shoots at her and she reverts to her fear that he is just crazy.

Ann's decision to leave the last known habitable place based on dreams seems the most insane act of all. --Seoulseeker (talk) 19:30, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

140.180.246.15, responding to reversions by Seoulseeker to biased and inaccurate content

I'm afraid, having recently read the book, I still think Seoulseeker's interpretations are strongly (and strangely!) biased in favor of Loomis and against Ann. However, it appears that Seoulseeker is attached to this particular lens of viewing this book, and I'm afraid I do not care enough to get into edit wars over this (although I would find it extremely, extremely unfortunate if anyone were to take Loomis's behavior in the book as an acceptable model of social interaction).

But my primary objections/defenses are below:

Ann is in a position of highly unequal power (see: attempted rape by Loomis, which she only barely escapes; his tracking of her; his demonstrated willingness to shoot her to injure her, and shoot-to-kill his lab partner, none of which she even *considers* reciprocating, which leaves their both-having-guns status substantially unequal; his physical strength; the fact that to rape her, he just needs to find her at a disadvantage or temporarily unarmed; Loomis padlocking her source of food, taking the key to her family's tractor, burning her supplies in the cave and, strangely, her only book). Given how she's boxed in, her choices are not entirely free. (as a bank robber might say "you can either hand over the money or be shot"; this is a free choice in one sense, but not a free choice in another, more meaningful sense) Her concerns over who might enter the valley were supported by the final Boston radio broadcast (which indicated that at least many people were not acting humanely by the broadcaster's standard at least) and by general human history (the weaker or less aggressive party often does not survive contact; if it does, it is often enslaved). While human continuity would eventually require procreation, her significant caution in wishing to observe this peculiarly-acting stranger (note his suspicious approach to the house) before showing herself and hence putting herself at risk of being actively hunted or shot seems very sensible to me.

When Loomis asks Ann repeatedly why she is asking if he's ever been married (as she attempts to get to know him), he grabs her hand forcefully and pulls her further and further off-balance, then threatens her when her hand hits him as she's falling off her chair (it's unclear whether this is an instinctive defensive reaction or whether it was just the sheer consequences of her falling over). This should be obvious, but this is not how to communicate and build trust or a relationship in any situation, let alone as an older and physically stronger male attempting to start something romantic with a 16-year-old female.

Ann does decide, when she realizes Loomis can track her using Faro, and she has a clear shot, to shoot her dog, but is then unable to pull the trigger - but still feels like a murderer for choosing to shoot her dog (this is where the quote about her feeling like as much of a murderer as Loomis comes from - I would argue that shooting a dog in self-defense is not equivalent to shooting a human lab partner in self-defense). It's worth noting that she did not at any point attempt to shoot Loomis (even "shoot to injure" as he did to her), although she had ample opportunities and it would have made her life significantly easier. I still believe it is unclear whether Faro's actual death is deliberate later; the creek plan sounds more impromptu ("I knew then what I had to do", or something to that effect, *between* the gunshots at the shed and getting to the creek) and, since Loomis survived swimming the creek for a decent period of time, she may expect Faro to as well (she expects Faro to be sick, as Loomis had been sick, but he dies the evening after instead of continuing to be sick). Even so, Faro is a dog, not a human being.

It's true that demarcating boundaries for work and food (when Ann offers to work on the farm and provide him food, but only if he physically stays away from her, after he attempts to pin her in her bed at night and she runs away) is not a full negotiation in a give-and-take sense, since Loomis does not offer a different but also acceptable solution. He could have done this by, for instance, allowing her to have Faro, or by arranging a way for her to inhabit a building locked against him until trust was rebuilt. These options would have been far more sane than Loomis's decisions in the book were.

The only logically successful method of mutual survival would have been to reach to a point of mutual trust and cooperation where they can work together well, divide farming responsibilities, get married/have children together, etc. (which, after Loomis falls sick initially, is Ann's hope, although obviously this hope is subject to further data-gathering and time, since she still does not know him well). Loomis absolutely destroys this with both actions and words, which is surprising for someone who has been able to work with others in a lab environment (where locking down control and physically attacking co-workers is not seen as acceptable), but from his hallucinations during radiation-sickness (which result in him going outside, getting a gun and shooting at the house because he thinks Edward is in the attic?), and from his other... non-optimized... behavior, such as attempting to rape Ann, he seems to have some mental damage and paranoia, especially about survival and keeping control of the safe-suit (not that surprising, given what he's been through).

Loomis walks differently around Ann than when he thinks she's not around (I don't have the page number handy, but he goes outside to check on something while he's still pretending to need a cane to walk while he's around Ann). Along with the odd cane-tapping behavior while she's at the piano, I am confident that this counts as hiding his level of recovery (and trying to ascertain how "jumpy" she is - also not a demonstration of good intentions), especially since this is shortly before he tries to pin her in her bed at night while she is asleep, with no previous discussion of anything of the sort. (obviously, trying to pin her down in bed at night while she is asleep, with the apparent intent of rape, is particularly unacceptable behavior which would normally indicate that he is either a criminal or a lunatic; in this case, since this action is clearly breaking trust with Ann, which he needs for mutual survival, it's decidedly irrational as well)

At the end of the book, it sounds like what stops Loomis from killing Ann is her pointing out that if Loomis kills her like he killed Edward, he will again be alone in the world, at which point his voice breaks; this is a potent disincentive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.180.246.132 (talk) 21:53, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Response to 140.180.246.15 summarizing factual errors

I called your edits biased because they made false claims about the text for the obvious purpose of presenting Ann more favorably. Bias is a strong inclination to favor or dislike something based on a preconceived opinion and regardless of facts.

1. You claimed Ann thinks she is “aggravating” Loomis’s behavior and she plans to “negotiate once again in hopes of mutual survival”; in fact, Ann thinks she is causing Loomis's behavior, she only plans to ask Loomis’s intentions, and she never actually negotiates with him.
2. You tried to gloss over the important fact that her decision to leave is based largely on a belief in dreams, also clearly described (226-28), claiming falsely that Ann is only “hoping there are humans somewhere else, maybe even children to teach.”
3. You wrote incorrectly that Faro’s death was accidental although Ann states her decision to kill the dog and speaks explicitly of “setting the trap for Faro” (237). To view the issue as "unclear" ignores stated facts.
4. In addition, your description of Ann doubling back on the other side of the stream was incorrect, as the text makes clear (233).

These are not matters of opinion. Whatever your interpretation of Ann, these facts remain the same and should probably raise some concerns about her reasoning and behavior. In any case, editors should present the facts in the summary as accurately as possible and put interpretations in separate sections where they are clearly opinions. All readers should be able to make their own judgments based on the facts.

Responses re: interpretation of story details

Loomis’s presumed “attempted rape”

No one claims attempted rape is “an acceptable model” of behavior. To assume Loomis is a rapist begs the question and makes a straw man argument. The story only presents Ann’s highly emotional first-person account of this incident, so it is certainly possible she misjudges him.

1. Ann already knows that Loomis assumes they must live together and start a colony. On perhaps June 18, when he stated matter-of-factly, “we’ve got to plan as if this valley is the whole world, and we are starting a colony” (152), he expressed his assumptions about their relationship plainly. Ann notes that his ideas were nearly the same as the ones she had before while plowing. If Ann does not tell Loomis she is unready to start a relationship, he may just assume she thinks the same way.
2. Ann assumes Loomis thinks she is asleep, but he probably knows she is awake. When Ann hears Loomis’s breathing, she guesses he can hear hers also (175). It is unlikely Ann could control her breathing quickly enough that he would not notice her waking. Also, it is unlikely Loomis would expect her to stay asleep as he bumped the bed, felt over her to find her shoulder, and then rested his hand firmly there. If she were not awake already, she would wake when he touched her.
3. Some of Ann’s descriptions of Loomis reflect her assumptions, not facts about his behavior and intentions. She says he “crept,” implying an effort to be secretive; but he always moves slowly because he only began walking again a few days earlier (162). She says his touch was “dreadful, possessive,” but she cannot know he had a possessive attitude, and she also says he did not touch her roughly (175). So he was gentle, yet dreadfully possessive?!
4. If Loomis knew Ann was awake, it must greatly change our understanding of his behavior and character. Ann's assumption he might go away if he thought her asleep also implies the opposite. Why would he be less likely to leave if he thought her awake? If he knew she was awake and she said nothing to stop him, he might just assume she accepted his presence.
5. On the other hand, if Loomis believed Ann was asleep, he can only be viewed as a contemptible rapist and the exact kind of cruel tyrant Ann has feared from the start. But this interpretation of Loomis seems entirely inconsistent with his background, his behavior with Ann until this time, and his stated concern for building a colony together. Obviously, it would not be rational to expect her cooperation in any long-term project if he treated her as a slave.
6. Also, if Ann is really certain that Loomis tried to rape her, it seems odd she never writes about such a traumatic incident again (or has nightmares like Loomis) and she appears to forget what a monster he must be. She continues giving him a share of food and supplies, she considers being friendly again, and she seems to blame him more for relatively trivial offenses.

• Ann allowed Loomis to swim in a dead stream before knowing anything about him; yet after a supposed rape attempt, she writes, “I could not let him starve, no matter what he had done” (183). She seems to fear him less after his night-time visit than she did when he was a complete stranger!
• After Loomis locks the store, Ann considers that he might just be desperately lonely, so she thinks it would be sensible to offer to talk with him sometimes from the roadside: “There was no reason I should not be as friendly as safety permitted” (218). This makes no sense if he is really a cruel rapist, since she could never be safe with him anywhere in the valley.
• Ann’s hatred for Loomis and desire for revenge are aroused not by his despicable rape attempt but by the burning of her favorite book: “That memory stirs my harshest feelings toward Mr. Loomis.…I admit that I want to hurt him, and cause him grief. He deliberately ruined the thing I prized most. Stealing the safe-suit will be my revenge” (231).
• Even at their last meeting, she never mentions the incident that caused her to run away, and her last words of blame just accuse him of never thanking her (248). Ann herself describes these last words as “childish” (248).

In conclusion, when Loomis visited Ann at night on June 27, it's likely that he believed (correctly) they thought the same way about their relationship, he knew she was awake, and he assumed her silence gave him tacit permission. Moreover, Ann’s inconsistent thinking about Loomis afterwards suggests that she does not really believe he is either a rapist or a cruel tyrant. Rather, these are extreme fears she has at times, but she simultaneously assumes he is an ordinary person who deserves help and needs companionship. It is not sensible to blame a presumed murderer, rapist, and tyrant for burning a book or being ungrateful. These are offenses we blame ordinary people for, since we expect them to share the same ideas of morality. --Seoulseeker (talk) 15:48, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Assumptions about guns and unequal power

“Ann is in a position of highly unequal power (see: attempted rape…his tracking her…willingness to shoot her to injure her, and shoot-to-kill his lab partner, none of which she even *considers* reciprocating, which leaves their both-having-guns status substantially unequal; his physical strength; the fact that to rape her, he just needs to find her at a disadvantage or temporarily unarmed; Loomis padlocking the store…burning her supplies…Given how she’s boxed in, her choices are not entirely free.”

1. It’s an obvious fact that guns are great equalizers, which is why their appearance in 15th-century Europe ended the age of chivalry. Ann is not only equal in power to Loomis through having a gun; she appears more knowledgeable and experienced with guns than he is (27), she watches him from hiding while he is in the open, and she has the home advantage of knowing the valley. Moreover, when Loomis later tracks Ann in the forest, it is clear he feels at a disadvantage when he yells in fear and flees upon realizing Ann is still armed (234).
2. In terms of gun use, another difference between Ann and Loomis is their purpose in carrying a rifle. Ann carries her rifle only for use against another person, fearing a possible threat. On the other hand, Loomis may carry a gun partly or even mainly for the purpose of hunting. His behavior in entering the valley unarmed, walking in the open, and calling out three times suggests he does not expect a threat. When he takes out a rifle, he rests it on the wagon instead of holding it ready. The next morning, he uses the rifle to shoot a chicken, and Ann sympathizes with his probable craving for fresh meat (27). Then, when he explores south carrying a rifle, he uses it to shoot at a rabbit, which Ann later notes is "good to eat" (79).
3. References to Loomis’s threatening behavior often make false assumptions about his purposes and character. First, Loomis kills Edward in self-defense when directly threatened, as Ann at first recognizes (126); and Ann does much worse in not warning him about a deadly stream. Second, he is probably not a rapist (see 6.1 above). Third, though his attempts to track and wound Ann are extreme and unreasonable, they can be understood without viewing him as a sociopath. He clearly thinks it is foolish for Ann to live separately and deny friendship, since she is wasting store supplies, hindering their survival efforts, and sabotaging their shared hope of saving their species. But it is probably not just practicality that drives him to resort to force. As Ann herself considers, he may be desperately lonely. This is also suggested at their last meeting when he begs her not to leave him alone (247).
4. Claiming that superior strength would enable Loomis to rape Ann any time she is at a disadvantage ignores that (1) he is probably not a rapist, (2) he would be at a disadvantage sometimes, too, and (3) trying to enslave Ann could not be practical over the long-term for raising a family and saving their species.
5. On the issue of Ann's freedom, see 3.5 above for a summary of important choices she makes freely.
6. It makes no sense to say Ann never "reciprocates" Loomis's actions. Even if it were true Loomis attempts to rape and enslave her, these acts could not be reciprocated unless Ann did the same to him! What you mean is that Ann doesn't take revenge. But in fact she explicitly states, "Stealing the safe-suit will be my revenge" (231). So she very clearly DOES take revenge. But revenge is NOT justice! The truth is that she misunderstands his behavior, overreacts to it, and finally dooms them both with her petty vengeance. Further, she has no right at all to take revenge for what Loomis did to Edward, since (1) she was not affected by it and (2) she has no right to judge (particularly after letting him swim in a poisoned stream to ensure her own safety!). Ann's moral judgments of Loomis are hypocritical. Seoulseeker (talk) 18:12, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

The Boston broadcaster & Ann’s unreasonable fear of an approaching stranger

“Her concerns over who might enter the valley were supported by the final Boston radio broadcast (which indicated that at least many people were not acting humanely by the broadcaster’s standard at least) and by general human history (the weaker or less aggressive party often does not survive contact; if it does, it is often enslaved).”

Ann’s fears are unjustified because the Boston broadcaster’s situation was entirely different from hers. He was one of a few survivors in a shelter with dwindling supplies of air and food. Ann recalls, “He said that men should act with dignity even in the face of death, that no one was better off than any other” (6). Apparently, the last few survivors were beginning to fight over the remaining supplies even though they were all doomed. Ann’s situation is entirely different because she lives in a valley able to sustain life indefinitely and where there is no need to fight over diminishing resources in the face of death. Rather, Ann’s situation should make her hope above all (as she did for a long time) that a man will come who can be a companion and have a family with her (36).

Historical parallels: the strong vs. the weak, or selfish rivalry?

The assumption that history proves the strong always dominate the weak is a broad generalization that, as with the claim above, ignores important differences between circumstances. For instance, Loomis’s arrival in the valley bears no similarity at all to the arrival of conquering Europeans in the Americas. In fact, Ann even imagines Loomis in the role of an Indian, not a colonizer: “He looked like an Indian on horseback in an old Western movie” (210). Also, Ann is actually more possessive of the valley than Loomis (see 3.10 above).

More relevant historical parallels to the story can be found in Edna St. Vincent Millay’s “Epitaph for the Race of Man,” Ann’s favorite poem that she recites while plowing (96). While outlining humanity’s tremendously resilient will to survive throughout their history, the speaker notes that the greatest threat to humans comes from their own egotism, or selfishness:

Alas for Man, so stealthily betrayed,

Bearing the bad cell in him from the start,

Pumping and feeding from his healthy heart

That wild disorder never to be stayed

When once established, destined to invade

With angry hordes the true and proper part,

Till Reason joggles in the headman's cart,

And Mania spits from every balustrade.

Would he had searched his closet for his bane,

Where lurked the trusted ancient of his soul,

Obsequious Greed, and seen that visage plain;

Would he had whittled treason from his side

In his stout youth and bled his body whole,

Then had he died a king, or never died.

In the story, Ann appears far more manic (or irrational) than Loomis, and her fears are all self-centered. Even when she fears Loomis will die, it is due not to kindness but to fear of being alone forever. In contrast, Loomis's first action in the valley is to call out in hope of finding others; and, until he visits Ann at night, he seems only considerate, reasonable, and practical--despite Ann's fears. Loomis's only selfish behavior is shown in nightmares of experiences with Edward, when he feared a direct threat to his survival and acted in self-defense. Ann's fear of Loomis at the start, leading her to let him swim in a dead stream, is far less justified. Loomis's behavior only really becomes questionable when he visits Ann at night, but even then it is not clear he acts wrongly (see 6.1 above). He might know Ann is awake and assume she accepts his presence. Even in his most extreme actions while trying to force Ann out of hiding in the wilderness, he appears concerned about their mutual survival and saving the human species from extinction. Ann, however, cares only about imagined threats to her freedom and repeatedly sabotages efforts for their own and human survival--e.g., hiding, allowing Loomis to be poisoned, denying all friendship, and finally leaving the last habitable valley. --Seoulseeker (talk) 23:24, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Loomis’s expectations of Ann and her inexperience with dating

“…this is not how to communicate and build trust or a relationship in any situation, let alone as an older and physically stronger male attempting to start something romantic with a 16-year-old female.”

Perhaps Loomis should be more sensitive to Ann’s character, but she is not too young to marry or have children. The age of consent in Canada and most US states is 16. According to statistics cited in Wikipedia, 41% of 15- to 16-year-olds in the US are sexually active and most females abstain from fear of STDs or pregnancy—concerns seemingly irrelevant to Ann.

Ann herself seems to think she is unusually inexperienced at dating. While writing of her wish to marry Loomis in a year, she admits she has never had a real date and schoolboys viewed her as an unfashionable “hillbilly” (80-81). Later, writing of the handholding incident, she observes, “It was the kind of thing the girls at school used to tell about after they had had a date” (161). This comparison might suggest the best way to understand Loomis’s behavior and Ann’s feelings about it.

Loomis apparently just expects Ann to be more mature as a 16-year-old than she is, as is suggested when he says, “I can only hope you will change your mind…and act more like an adult and less like a schoolgirl” (190). It is not unreasonable to expect this, since Ann probably should be more mature given their situation as the last couple following a nuclear war.

The main problem might be Ann’s extreme naïveté and emotionalism, which Loomis simply does not understand. Her diary entries show foolishly unrealistic expectations that their relationship should go through conventional stages of dating, getting engaged, and having a church wedding (81, 156-57). Also, though knowing Loomis is probably the last man (45), Ann worries absurdly about whether he likes her or she likes him enough—as if either of them had a choice in this situation. These thoughts are as sensible as worrying whether to wear jeans or a dress when she hides from an approaching stranger (18).

Interpreting the “hand-holding” incident

“When Loomis asks Ann repeatedly why she is asking if he's ever been married (as she attempts to get to know him), he grabs her hand forcefully and pulls her further and further off-balance, then threatens her when her hand hits him as she's falling off her chair (it's unclear whether this is an instinctive defensive reaction or whether it was just the sheer consequences of her falling over). This should be obvious, but this is not how to communicate and build trust or a relationship in any situation…..”

Ann’s intentions in asking about Loomis’s past love life

The chapter about the handholding incident is pivotal and requires careful analysis. Ann’s intentions are more complicated than a simple wish to get to know Loomis, and the incident appears to have a great influence on her thinking about Loomis—shown by her biased conclusions afterwards (see 3.11 above) and her sudden assumption that Loomis is a murderer (157).

One problem is determining how much Ann’s feelings after the incident influence her description of it. Did she think of Loomis as a murderer beforehand, or does increased fear cause her to make that assumption while writing? If she already thought of him as a cruel murderer, it is less likely she’d still want to know him better as a partner. So it is probable that Ann was still unsure about Loomis’s morality, as when she debated about it earlier:

“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).

Because Loomis seems the last man, Ann hopes he is not a murderer. However, at the same time, she has a great fear of meeting a murderer and being enslaved (see 3.7). This fear lessened when Loomis was in danger of dying but then returned after she heard his nightmares and he began regaining strength (see 3.7.1). It is probably due to this fear that Ann misinterprets Loomis’s behavior as “controlling” (see 3.10, 3.11).

When Ann explains her intentions, she begins by explaining a growing feeling since the start of Loomis’s recovery that she “did not know him at all” (156). She thinks he told her little about himself, he was “even more reserved” after his sickness, and he never showed any interest in Ann—except for seeming to like her piano playing once (157). Ann explains two “theories” she has about his apparent reserve: (1) his “murder” of Edward and terrible experiences alone make him suppress memories, and (2) his sickness may have “changed parts of his mind” (157). Finally, Ann writes, “whatever the cause [of his reserve], I did not believe we could go on forever as strangers” (157). Then she says she thought of scenes in stories or movies when couples first meet and one says, for instance, “Tell me all about yourself” (157).

Ann’s preliminary explanation shows the following:

• She was already suspicious of Loomis.
• She either already viewed him as a murderer or at least feared that possibility.
• She feared he might be crazy.
• She still thought of him as a potential lifetime partner that she needed to get to know better.

Thus, it seems that Ann’s confused intentions when she questioned Loomis were:

1. to test if his experiences and illness had left him repressed or crazy.
2. to get to know him as a possible partner.
3. to find out if he liked her (out of concern he’d shown no interest in her).

Ann did NOT simply wish to get to know him better, and she was not honest with Loomis about any of her concerns. Rather, she decided at this time not to reveal her knowledge about Edward (157), in effect denying Loomis any chance to explain himself. She preferred to guess about his character by just observing him and asking indirect questions while hiding her own thoughts. When he then asked her to explain her thoughts frankly, she was paralyzed by fear.

Interpreting Ann’s and Loomis’s behavior

Ann at first asked Loomis very mundane factual questions that understandably elicited short responses rather than interesting conversation. For example, she asked where his cousin lived whose piano playing he enjoyed. When Ann complains that he seemed “determined to be uninteresting” because he just told her a town’s name without elaborating (158), she does not realize that her questions are to blame. Also, she fails to grasp that it takes two people to make a conversation, since she said nothing about herself to contribute.

Another important fact Ann overlooks is that Loomis’s indifferent responses showed no sign he was suppressing memories of the past. Loomis probably just viewed his past as irrelevant and uninteresting in their current situation. Bang goes one of Ann’s theories—unnoticed by her.

However, when Ann asked Loomis if he was ever married, he suddenly became very interested, took her hand, held it between both of his, and replied seriously, “No, I never got married. Why did you ask that?” (159). Loomis clearly assumed there was an important purpose behind Ann’s question, and he wished her to express her thoughts clearly. What did he assume about her intentions?

From Ann’s preliminary explanation, we know she wanted to get to know Loomis better as a possible lifetime partner and perhaps also determine if he liked her. These were likely the real intentions behind Ann’s question. Ann does not seem to realize that her explanation, “I was interested” (160), was dishonest, pretending just idle curiosity. It would be reasonable for Loomis to assume Ann’s question suggested the romantic interest she really had. So it seems he was simply trying to get Ann to express her actual hopes about their relationship openly.

Given Ann’s biased judgments about Loomis at the chapter’s end (see 3.11 above), her fear probably influences her descriptions of Loomis's behavior--e.g., when she claims he “grabbed” her hand, held it “hard,” and “jerked” her toward him (159). She also says, “when I tried to pull away he just tightened his grip. There was nothing gentle about the way he held my hand, and no expression at all in his face” (159). In fact, these descriptions only show he held Ann’s hand firmly and had a serious expression--appropriate for discussing their relationship seriously.

Ann says she then lost balance and accidentally struck Loomis in the face: “quite instinctively I threw my right hand up…to catch myself” (160). It is false to say “it’s unclear whether this is an instinctive defensive reaction.” Ann states clearly that she hit him purely by accident.

Loomis let go right away when Ann slapped him, and she then jumped away: “In that moment he pulled back and relaxed his grip. I snatched my hand away and sprang back” (160). If Loomis had really been trying to control Ann using superior strength, would he quickly loosen his grip when she showed any resistance? His behavior suggests he was surprised and hurt by Ann’s actions, not angry. Speaking very quietly, he responded, “You should not have done that” (160). Then, as she left the porch after apologizing, he reminded her, “You held my hand once before” (160).

It is also false to say Loomis “threatens her.” Loomis probably only meant it was wrong for Ann to strike him, which is true. Simply asking Ann to talk openly did not merit such a response. When Loomis then reminded her of holding his hand before, he apparently meant it seemed strange for her to act uncomfortable with him. He clearly believes she showed feelings for him when he was sick, and now she seems strangely standoffish. Loomis seems confused and perhaps hurt by an apparent change in Ann’s feelings towards him.

Also, Loomis's behavior here seems similar to his response at their last meeting when Ann blames him for killing Edward and declares she is leaving the valley. As soon as she accuses him of murder, Loomis backs off and becomes defensive, saying in apparent fear and confusion, “It’s wrong” (247). These are perhaps the two times they come closest to communicating openly with each other. In both cases, when Loomis gets a glimpse of Ann’s fear of him, he backs away and seems confused--apparently because she misunderstands him.

Ann’s biased and revisionist interpretation

Ann makes two false claims about “the hand-holding” incident and the earlier time they held hands.

First, she writes of the earlier handholding, “I was simply trying to let him know that I was still there” (161), suggesting she had no special feeling for Loomis--only the charitable concern of a nurse caring for a patient. In fact, Ann’s earlier descriptions show she was desperately worried Loomis would die because he seemed the only man who could be her companion.

When his sickness worsened, Ann wanted to share her hope of marrying: “I could not bring myself to tell him what I really wished. How could I tell him about the apple tree, about what I had thought that morning…?” (101). On June 5, after finding bullet holes in the safe-suit, she described the worst night of Loomis’s illness (when she held his hand), saying, “I felt so frightened I thought my own heart was going to stop” (121), and “I was so worried I could not think clearly” (122). Also, as quoted above, Ann wrote that it was terrible to think of Loomis as a killer “because he is the only other human being I am ever likely to know” (126). A few days later, when Loomis’s first words were to say he heard Ann play piano, she wrote, “I wanted to hug him” (137).

Ann clearly cared greatly about Loomis’s survival because of hoping he could be a companion. So why does she deny her actual feelings for him by pretending she just held his hand like a nurse? If she admits showing any personal attachment to Loomis as a would-be companion, then it would be reasonable for him to assume she had such feelings; and then his handholding should be acceptable to her. But because Ann now fears him and interprets his handholding as threatening, she cannot accept he had any right to be even this familiar with her.

Ann’s second false claim is that she knows Loomis’s handholding was possessive and controlling:

“What he had done was not the same at all. There is a telepathy that goes with such things. When he was holding my hand, I could tell that he was taking charge, or possession…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” (161-62).

In fact, Ann is not telepathic, and she cannot know Loomis’s actual feelings or intentions unless she talks with him honestly--which she never does. Ann’s fear leads her to misinterpret Loomis’s holding her hand the same way she does all of his other behavior that she lists here reductively--careless of facts and the limitations of her own biased viewpoint (see 3.11 above). --Seoulseeker (talk) 05:04, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Why Loomis doesn't kill Ann at the end

“At the end of the book, it sounds like what stops Loomis from killing Ann is her pointing out that if Loomis kills her like he killed Edward, he will again be alone in the world, at which point his voice breaks; this is a potent disincentive.”

At their last meeting, what changes Loomis’s behavior is NOT fear of being alone but a new understanding of Ann’s thinking and behavior. This is the first time Ann reveals knowing that Loomis killed Edward, and her accusation implies he committed murder.

Loomis answers her, “No…you don’t know that” (246). Then, turning away and trembling, he says quietly, “He tried to steal the suit…the way you’re stealing it now” (247).

As is shown by descriptions of Loomis’s nightmares, remembering Edward is very distressing for Loomis, often leaving him on the verge of tears. Describing the time he shot at an upstairs window, Ann writes, “His face suddenly looked incredibly distressed and twisted up, as if he might cry” (107). After the nightmare when Loomis remembered shooting Edward, Ann says, “He gave a desperate groan,…and then a series of strangling noises. I thought he must be trying to cry” (117). It is clear from these descriptions that Loomis was terrified of Edward and also deeply upset by the act of shooting him—probably guilt-ridden.

So it is likely Ann’s mere mention of the incident would be upsetting for Loomis; but, far worse, she speaks accusingly, blaming him for actions that already lie heavily on his conscience. He does not even speak strongly in his own defense but turns away, trembles, and becomes dispirited.

Yet it is wholly unjust for Ann to blame Loomis for killing Edward, since he only acted in self-defense and he faced a more direct threat to his life than Ann ever faced from Loomis. Her blame of him contrasts greatly with his forgiveness when she regretted not warning him about the poisoned stream. Loomis generously took all the responsibility for his actions without blaming her at all--even though her inaction put him in danger (50, 101-2). On the other hand, Ann hypocritically passes the harshest judgment on Loomis for actions no more selfish than her own—and even though she was not personally threatened.

In addition, the revelation that Ann thinks him a murderer would also help Loomis greatly to understand Ann's behavior with him since the beginning of his recovery. Only now can he understand she is afraid of him and know why. This, too, explains why he quickly loses his anger at being deceived and robbed when her message offered hope of trust between them.

It is ridiculous to think that Loomis only refrains from shooting Ann because she warns he will then be truly alone--as if he only thinks of this then! He is well aware of the fact they are the last two people. He loses all his aggression and turns away the moment Ann accuses him of killing Edward, not when she later says, “If you shoot me, you will really be alone” (247). By that point in their discussion, Loomis is not threatening at all but “frightened and bewildered.” In the end he is a pitiable figure, protesting weakly on the verge of tears, “It’s wrong,” then pleading, “Don’t go…don’t leave me. Don’t leave me here alone” (247).

Loomis probably never meant to kill or enslave Ann. He just assumed correctly they should be together for their mutual benefit and to give their species a chance of continuing, on top of which he is understandably desperate for companionship—as Ann is, too, when manic fears don’t get in the way. However, it appears his desperate loneliness and view of Ann’s behavior as irrational drove him to resort to extreme methods to force her out of hiding, in doing which he became equally irrational. By hiding her feelings and acting in extreme ways, Ann provoked extreme behavior in Loomis also—as she herself realized too late (218). (See 3.2 above) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seoulseeker (talk • contribs) 20:07, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Unreasonable criticisms and expectations of Loomis

“It's true that demarcating boundaries for work and food…is not a full negotiation in a give-and-take sense, since Loomis does not offer a different but also acceptable solution. He could have done this by, for instance, allowing her to have Faro, or by arranging a way for her to inhabit a building locked against him until trust was rebuilt. These options would have been far more sane than Loomis's decisions in the book were.”

It is Ann’s fault, not Loomis’s, that there is no negotiation—just as it is her fault every time she chooses not to explain her thoughts or ask his viewpoint openly. Negotiation is impossible because Ann assumes her understanding of Loomis is right and makes absolute demands, permitting no discussion and giving him no chance to explain his actions. Loomis cannot offer an alternative because Ann is unwilling to listen.

Moreover, common sense and evidence of Loomis’s behavior suggest that Ann greatly misunderstands him and is wrong to fear him. In fact, if she were honest and trusting with him, staying with Loomis would be best for their mutual happiness and survival.

Suggesting that Loomis could have offered to let Ann have Faro and live in a locked building is absurd. Ann fears Loomis is a cruel rapist and murderer who can never be trusted, so a locked building would seem no barrier to him. She only feels safe at all if he doesn’t know where she is. For this reason, she fears Faro’s tracking ability and finally decides to kill the dog so she can hide safely. After Ann runs away and refuses any friendship, Loomis probably cannot make any offer acceptable to Ann except to leave the valley—because her fear prevents her from trusting him at all or negotiating with him.

Of course Loomis’s resort to force to make Ann return is irrational. However, he acts this way because of circumstances, not just because of his own character and desires. After 2 weeks of Ann's inflexible, close-minded refusal of any trust or friendship, Loomis reacts to extreme and irrational behavior by taking extreme measures in turn. Also, it should be remembered he has lived alone for months believing himself the last surviving human while experiencing more of the last war's horrors than Ann has seen. If Ann longs for human companionship after a year alone in a protected valley, Loomis probably feels that need even more desperately. His extreme behavior is thus an understandable reaction to the last woman's absolute refusal of companionship--despite apparently sharing the hope that they can be a couple. Ann's behavior must seem to him insane, endangering what they both hope for most and what should be most important for them.

Also, if we are to speak of what characters “should have” done, then much more can be said about Ann. For example, she should not have been so afraid of a stranger approaching her valley. She should not have let him swim in a dead stream and possibly die just because of an unfounded and selfish fear he might be a threat. She should have followed her instinct of running to him (when he first called out) and later shared her hope to marry him. She should have discussed their relationship openly. When she heard his nightmares, she should have sympathized with Loomis and given him a chance to explain himself--instead of judging him self-righteously. She should have recognized he had a right to share the last valley and his concerns about farming were just sensible--instead of viewing the valley as her own property and fearing an attempt to take control. When Loomis spoke of starting a colony, asked why Ann was interested in his love life, and then came to her room at night, she should have told him honestly how she felt--instead of staying silent, assuming what she wished, and letting him make wrong assumptions about her (then condemning him for it).

It is unreasonable to be critical only of Loomis and assume that all Ann’s judgments about him are right--despite her poor reasoning skills, very limited understanding, and obvious bias throughout the story. --Seoulseeker (talk) 21:04, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Book club

Can we take the book club that formed on this page somewhere else? --Daysleeper47 (talk) 19:27, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

POV-check

This article appears to suffer from POVioring, and ownership. It also appears to be original research, reading rather like an elementary book report synopsizing the plot from a specific pov with no references to authorities and paraphrasing (to that pov) the two uncited reviews. Even a cursory examination of the linked contemporary reviews supports an interpretation of Loomis as violent and unscrupulous, an attempted rapist.

While reviewing the plot through the lens of "the unreliable witness" may possibly be justifiable, it is not verifiable and is certainly original research. It seems to be inappropriate to be present in a Wikipedia article unless it is cited, at the least, and even then should be a footnote and not the primary POV. - Amgine (talk) 19:38, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Re: POV-check comment and "book club"

The summary is completely accurate, presenting the facts of the story without bias. Recent reversions of one editor's comments were all to correct inaccuracies, including quotes and page references for verification. Anyone can check the facts conveniently if they wish to. If the summary is changed to reflect the consensus opinion of reviewers, it is an interpretation rather than a summary. The problem is that some readers wish to ignore facts of the story to believe what they wish about it. Also, if the article is, as you say, like an "elementary book report," it is strange that its ratings for reliability, objectivity, completeness, and quality of writing are usually 4.0 or above. I don't think your assessment is fair or reasonable.

Yes, my viewpoint on the story is unconventional, and I have been forthright about that from the start. But there is some support for it even in the linked reviews. As one quoted reviewer noted, both characters are "crazed by paranoia." I intend to add further research with citations as soon as possible in the sections on character analysis. If anyone else adds such research with citations, I'd be very happy about it no matter what it says. But adding inaccurate opinions or assumptions to the plot summary should not be acceptable.

As to the "book club" on the Talk page, it seems to me that this is what the page is for--discussion of the article and its topic. Until the recent discussion began here, this page was practically unused, containing only a couple of short comments from 2007 and 2009 about whether Z for Z is a children's story. Whatever is said here about the story, it can be useful and thought-provoking for people who are interested in it. If it encourages debate, that seems good. Also, how else can interested editors explain and discuss their views? Seoulseeker (talk) 16:36, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Re: Rape

I'm not interested in getting in the middle of an edit war here, but can I just say that the plot and character summary's repeated attempts to justify Loomis's attempt to rape Ann (ie calling it a logical necessity) is really creepy. Plot summaries should describe the events of the story, nothing more and nothing less. I think that everyone involved in this article needs to read the policy Wikipedia: Original Research and Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary before editing any further. Neither of these policies are being applied well to this article. Euchrid (talk) 02:15, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

More misconstrual and hyperbole

The plot and character summaries of course DO NOT attempt to justify rape (see above). Thinking so involves a particular interpretation of the story that accepts the narrator's view of Loomis as a fact. You are criticizing the summary for lacking objectivity while expecting it to present a specific interpretation. For a story with a first-person narrator, describing ONLY "the events" means that facts should be clearly distinguished from the narrator's opinions. Further, to avoid narrative bias and distortion, facts of the story should be presented objectively--that is, including any details that raise doubts about the narrator's reliability (e.g., selfish or immoral acts, hypocrisy, inconsistent claims, & irrational beliefs). These are facts, not interpretations. It is up to the reader to judge their significance. It is not original research to state verifiable facts about the story. Also, it is either careless or a willful misreading of the article to say it describes rape as a "logical necessity." That phrase in the section about Loomis's character simply refers to the fact he and Ann must sleep together at some point if they wish to have a family and continue the human race--wishes that they both express. It is a rather obvious point and does not seem "creepy" at all--if one doesn't make unreasonable assumptions about the characters.Seoulseeker (talk) 19:25, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

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)

New revisions to improve objectivity & remove bias

Regarding my revisions: Z for Zachariah is a limited first person narrative in journal form. This means that it is a fictional account of the day-by-day record of one person's experiences, thoughts and actions, and her moral dilemmas and changing judgements on them. There is no omniscient narrator in Z for Zachariah to tell We the Readers whether and when she is right or wrong in those judgements (and in the book these judgements sometimes have no easy answers, as is often the case with moral judgements). A "plot summary" is a brief recounting of the text of a novel. So therefore, Seoulseeker, inserting your opinions on whether the narrator is right or wrong into your summary (by saying "Ann realizes..." when you think she is right and "Ann imagines..." when you think she's wrong and deluded) is writing your opinion into the summary when your opinion is NOT written in the novel text and therefore does not belong in the summary. Writing your justifications of your opinion about Ann being right or wrong ALSO is not written in the novel text and also does not belong in the summary. Putting it in also has the additional unhappy effect of making the plot summary a lot longer than it needs to be. Ann may or may not be unreliable as a narrator, but you telling us she IS wrong in the plot summary is as out of place as saying during the plot summary of The Turn of the Screw that the governess IS obviously insane and hallucinating when she sees the ghosts, when the actual novel text does not say definitively whether she is or not. You may be right or you may be wrong, but it is not our place to give our judgements in the plot summary when those judgements are not clearly spelled out in the text. In the plot summary we're supposed to summarize the plot - period.

I made my newest revisions mainly for this reason, though also I did make some changes for clarification. I'll detail them:

First line of the plot summary: I reverted a few words of explanation about the death of Ann's family and the valley's mysterious sparing, since I think it's important to clarify briefly to non-readers just WHY a teenage girl is alone on a farm in a valley after a nuclear war.

"Nevertheless, desperately afraid of being alone forever, Ann hopes Loomis will live even though he could be a murderer; so she nurses him through his illness and keeps her doubts secret. ..." In the novel, Ann prays for Loomis' survival and does not say it is specifically because she will be alone forever if he dies. Also, "keeping her doubts secret" is a lot vaguer than simply saying that Ann does not tell Loomis that he talked to her about killing Edward.

"The first time he speaks again, saying her companionship saved him, she restrains an urge to embrace and expresses no feeling for him." Inaccurate. The first time he speaks, he says she played the piano.

As Loomis slowly recovers his strength, Ann's original fear of being controlled returns and increases... When he later begins making practical plans and one time scolds her for not planting corn, she fears he is becoming possessive and controlling;[16] and his plan to start a colony together makes her uneasy now despite her similar hopes earlier.[17] Imagining his behavior shows more disturbing signs, by June 23 Ann thinks of Loomis as a murderer and fears his horrible experiences have damaged his mind.[18]

You omit other incidents that Ann reports as a cause of her unease, especially the one where he grabs her hand, pulls her off balance and makes her fall despite her plea that he let her go. This is LITERALLY Loomis physically trying to control Ann. Why omit it and say that Ann is "imagining" that his behavior is disturbing? I added it as well as other incidents Ann details as part of her unease with Loomis. Let the reader decide whether Ann is "imagining" something or not.

"Ann thinks her fears are validated when, early on June 28, she awakes in the dark to hear Loomis in her doorway. Fearing he heard her wake, she pretends to be asleep in the hope he will leave, not realizing that her silence might seem a tacit invitation." Really? Since when is a girl lying silently in her own bedroom in the nighttime considered a tacit invitation to sex? No such invitation is extended by Ann in the text, so it has no place in the summary. And Loomis rambling about starting a colony and Ann remaining silent upon hearing it does not count as either an invitation or an assent. Loomis did not ask for one, didn't get one, and therefore has entered her bedroom and approached her bed without one.

"But when Loomis tries to lie on top of her, she breaks free and flees to the cave, where she hides in terror for a few days, watching constantly and scared to sleep." You omit the part where Loomis puts his hand hard on Ann's shoulder (to pin her, she thinks). You omit the part where Ann tries to flee, and Loomis grabs her and pulls her back, tearing her shirt, and she has to strike backwards with her elbow to force him to let her go so she can escape. Why do you omit these things? The minute Ann tries to flee, Loomis knows she does not want to have sex with him, and that he has no "tacit" consent from her to have it. Yet he physically pulls her back, trying force her to stay and take control of her body away regardless of what she wants or doesn't want. This casts an important light on Loomis' character. I added those details in, since you may have forgotten them and you seem very worried that Loomis might be misjudged on the strength of this scene.

"On the morning of July 1, Ann speaks with Loomis from a safe distance and proposes a "compromise" of sharing the valley and farm work but living separate lives.[19] She is amazed by his friendly manner, "as if nothing had happened."[20] Saying he has no choice but to accept her proposal, Loomis hopes she will reconsider and “act more like an adult";[21] but Ann assures him she will not change her mind. Though this arrangement is inconvenient and Ann worries about surviving winter, she assumes there’s no alternative and now wishes Loomis had never come.[22]

I added the rest of the quotes, which make it clear that while Loomis may have started the conversation on a "friendly" note, he didn't end on one. And Ann does not "assume there's no alternative"; there's a choice (stay with Loomis or not) and she makes it.

"About 10 days later, it seems Loomis begins trying to force Ann's return by controlling the tractor and the limited store supplies that she relies on."

Inaccurate. It's not that it "seems" that Loomis is trying to force Ann's return; Loomis clearly TELLS her that that's exactly what he's doing. When she asks for the tractor key, he refuses and says that if she persists in her determination to stay away, there are things she will have to do without. I added that in. Also, you edited out my explanation of what Loomis specifically did to keep Ann from getting food (padlock the store). Why?

"Ann realizes she may have provoked him by denying any companionship, reasoning, "There are people who cannot stand being alone; perhaps he was acting from despair." Saying that she "realizes" she may have "provoked" Loomis by depriving him of companionship means that you think it's the truth, when we don't KNOW it's the truth. It could also be that his desire to control extended to wanting to control Ann too. We don't read Loomis' mind, so we don't know which it is. Changed to a more neutral wording.

"She decides it is sensible to offer to talk sometimes from a safe distance; but when she approaches the house, Loomis shockingly shoots at her from a window."

You deliberately edited out the part where Loomis SHOOTS HER IN THE LEG. Why is that? This also casts an important light on Loomis' character. There is no hospital and no antibiotics or vaccines; if Ann's wound is seriously infected, she could die of septicemia or tetanus. Loomis was willing to risk that to force Ann to come back to him. What justification do you have for editing this out?

"Seeming frightened and confused, he begs her not to leave him alone, saying, “It’s wrong.”[31] But Ann merely blames him because he never thanked her for nursing him..."

Inaccurate. Ann does not "merely" blame him because he never thanked her for nursing him. She first tells him that if she finds other people, she will tell them to come for him.

Now, I understand you're upset that many readers both here on this Talk thread and elsewhere on the internet do not share your opinion regarding Ann as an unreliable narrator and a selfish, disgusting, presumptuous, paranoid, etc., character. You feel that there is a "controversy" about this. You have your reasons. But as far as I understand Wikipedia policy, nothing belongs in a Wikipedia article that is not published in reliable sources. Arguments on the internet are ephemeral, and do not count as reliable sources, and do not belong in the article. Nor are arguments here on the Wikipedia Talk page worthy of inclusion in the article.

If there IS a controversy IN PUBLISHED SOURCES about whether Ann is not a reliable narrator, by all means include it - in a section entitled "Literary criticism", not in the plot summary. That 1975 Publisher's Weekly review you mentioned IS a perfectly acceptable inclusion in such a section. If you want to write about an argument among published reviews and analyses about whether or not Ann is a despicable character, do so - but you must cite the articles that go against your view as well as the ones that agree with you.

And if you want to include all your opinions and reasonings about why you think Ann is unreliable, paranoid, selfish, etc., character, and there is NO published source detailing such opinions and reasonings, then your opinion and reasoning regarding Ann count as Original Research and do not belong on Wikipedia - no matter how convincing they are to you and how strongly you feel about them. Write an essay about it and publish it in The Horn Book or Publisher's Weekly or some other reliable source and THEN it will be proper to include it in Wikipedia. Not before.

I have other edits that would streamline the article, but I think I've Talked way too much today already. ~~mambru19

Views on Z for Zachariah (posted earlier elsewhere)

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. 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.

"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. 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 the 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.

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

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.

"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.</ref>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 and thinks about things in more scientific and rational ways. Ann has shortcomings also.</ref> He just ignores the idea that she might actually HAVE preferences at all as he goes to her bedroom without her leave.

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 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.

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.

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.

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)

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)

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)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Trying to force Ann's return

I wrote that it "seems" Loomis is trying to force Ann's return because Ann herself is unsure about his motives, apparently not wanting to believe it's true. She thinks he might just be concerned about controlling and rationing supplies with a practical, "long-term-term view" (217). She also admits he might be right to do so: "And he did not trust me to do that (perhaps rightly)" (217). In fact, she is depending on limited store supplies to live in the cave, ignoring the reality that she won't be able to continue hiding this way when they run out. She admits deluding herself the same way before Loomis arrived and showed her how to get gas for the tractor: "I could face a fact that I had previously tried to keep out of my mind, it being too depressing to dwell on: the store was an illusion" (94). When Loomis controls the store, he forces her to face that reality again sooner.

Why edit out that he padlocked the store? I think it is enough to say he takes control of the tractor and store supplies she relies on--clearly implying that he stops her from using them. There are many details that can be added for various reasons, but this one seems unnecessary. No, the wording can't mean that he is trying to control Ann, as I said, "trying to force Ann's return by controlling the tractor and the limited store supplies." It's adequately clear.

Editing of shooting her in the leg?

That was edited for brevity, a faster-paced narrative, and to avoid repetition. It already says later that she nurses a bullet-grazed ankle. Why say twice that he shot her in the leg? I think the really shocking thing is that he shoots at her at all. But I just realized that what's missing is Ann's deduction that he was apparently trying to wound and catch her, not kill her.

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)

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.

In the name of brevity

If you're really interested in making the article shorter and faster paced, why did you (for example) change my "Having the companion she often wished for, Ann imagines eventually marrying Loomis; but she decides not to speak of this until he is better," to "Having the companion she often wished for, Ann quickly imagines a church wedding the following spring. But she decides it is too soon to get engaged, since they just met, he might not like her, and he is sick."...which is longer and does not convey any vital plot information that I omitted in my sentence? Why repeatedly insert exact dates when only the general sequence and duration of events are important to a summary? Why write about the vegetable patch Ann dug up before going into hiding? Why explain who Faro the dog used to belong to when Ann's cousin is dead and is not a character in the story? And there are many other places that can be trimmed without omitting important plot points. I plan to do so in a separate edit.

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)

About the possible attempted rape (again and again)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Moving long-windedly along...

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

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

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

Brevity

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

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

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

Straw men

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

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

Communication failure

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

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

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

Talk page usage

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