Monday, November 24, 2008

Death of a Puppy

When I originally read “The Death of the Ball Turret Gunner,” I interpreted the narrator to be an animal. Yes, I did realize that a ball turret gunner would probably be a really messed-up creature if it actually did exist and later learned that the name refers to a type of airplane. However, it interested me that the poem seemed to impact me differently if I interpreted it to be narrated by an animal (something that seemed more vulnerable) instead by a human, a more common point of view. I was reminded of conversations from AP Composition about The Things They Carried, a book about the Vietnam War with several scenes in which animals found themselves in unfortunate violent situations (a puppy strapped to a mine, a baby water buffalo attacked by a soldier). The indignation expressed by the class after reading these passages was understandable; I won’t deny that the acts were shocking. Still, it was interesting that these incidents seemed to demand more of the class’s attention than the sufferings of the people who were involved.


Stories of human casualties far outnumber those of animals killed in war—are we simply taken by surprise when they pop up and react accordingly? Maybe the animals' innocence is what affects us—they are harmed by something that they play no part in, that they do not understand. Of course, some people in Vietnam did not become involved by choice and many people in war (at least in that war) do/did not completely understand it. It seems that we should then logically be just as concered about those people as the occasional animals encountered in the stories.

4 comments:

Becca K. said...

I remember those stories from AP Composition. It was so sad that they died. For me, seeing animals hurt isn't as bad as seeing humans hurt because humans are doing the hurting to each other. It seems so pointless for humans to kill or hurt others, especially when it's on purpose.

I think that some people feel more sorry for the animal because they are powerless to defend themselves to a point. They can't really call for help, and they are basically powerless against human weapons.

I think it would do the human race a lot of good to put the suffering of humans at a higher priority than the suffering of animals. Animals are cute and all, but we need to solve the problems of our own species before we deal with another one.

Mr. Kunkle said...

Thoughtful post, Gena, and equally thoughtful response, Rebecca. The idea that we, as a humans, are somewhat callous when it comes to the sufferings of our own species is explored in the novel we'll be reading next, Slaughterhouse-Five.

I like the idea of a ball-turret gunner being some sort of weird animal. The poem does use the word "fur" in an interesting way...

Nicole H. said...

I wasn't in your AP Composition class, but Gena I think that you nailed on the head. I think because we hear about people getting killed and tortured so much that it make us sad, don't get me wrong, but we can't relate to it all that much. But when you hear about that stuff happening to animals it's just like what did they do? They are just so innocent and they play absolutly no role in what is happening, unless your like riding a horse or something. So, I guess what i'm getting at is yes they are just so innocent and it's horrible. I agree with you completely.

Jeff White said...

Just a heads up Gena, the end of chapter two in Slaughterhouse Five has a fairly touching passage about animals in war that you might like. It put things into the perspective you brought up in your post, which I feel is an excellent one at that. No one cares about the little guy (or in this case, animal).