1, Our boy goes from someone who incessantly prays with the hope of amassing the greatest number of Days of Indulgence possible, to someone who wants to harness the powers of evil, to someone who does not believe in a God or the supernatural. Gavrila teaches him that he has the power to dictate the events in his life, and this is a powerful and at first foreign idea for the boy. So what do you make of the way the communist system is depicted here? Do you see it as an improvement of the religious system, more of the same, something worse, or something entirely different that cannot be compared?
2. Why do you think Mitka is able to shoot the villagers but not the dog? Is this Kosinski drawing a line between humans and animals?
1. Rules. Distinctions. Mysteries. "Would it mean that, just as my hair and eyes were held against me by the peasants, my social origins could handicap my new life with the Soviets?...I was worried. What would happen to me when I grew up? How would I look when seen through the many eyes of the Party? What was my deepest core: a healthy core like that of a fresh apple, or a rotten one like the maggoty stone of a withered plum?...The life if these Soviet grownups was not very easy" (194-195). I see these as another extension of what the boy experienced with the Church: rules that make no sense to him, that at the core are a mystery to the boy, and are designed to allow for the ones dictating the rules to do what they want to who they want. The superstitions of the villagers begin to look better as the book goes on. The Communists "rid [themselves] of those who, like a jammed or crooked wheel on a cart, impeded progress. This self-purging was done at the meetings" (192). I wonder if Kosinski wants us to think of the greater "purges" done to those who displeased the "great" man Stalin? I think so, as he is compared by the boy to a "loving grandfather or uncle" (188). Another system: more separation, more cruelty, more atrocity.
ReplyDelete2. The dog had done nothing wrong! Mitka is a very ethical killer. (That was ironic, by the way...) Yet he actually is. He is a murderer; he is also an appealing, caring father figure for the boy. We've been talking about evil throughout the book, and as far as I can tell, there is no resolutely evil person or people we meet, not even the Kalmuks who are just doing what they've always done, and know what would happen to them if caught by the Russians (which happens as they would assume it would, I imagine). I think the boy is being highlighted here. He has not forgotten Judas, and wants his revenge on that dog: this dog will do. And this is no snarling creature, but a seemingly big shambling dog wagging its tail and scratching its ear. This is, to me, human history in a nutshell: revenge. This is not animal, this is human.
1. I think that there are similarities between the communist system, religion, and superstitions. All of them are just systems that humans create to try and understand and control the world around them. You can see this in the way that the boy accepts all of them in his childlike way. Every time he is introduced to one of the ideas, he wholeheartedly accepts it because it helps him make sense of the world he is in. His innocent acceptance of any system of thought presented to him could be seen as commentary on how entire societies of adults accept these ideas with childlike naivety. Each of these systems of thought over simplify the world and make it easier for people to feel sure of themselves. Superstitions allow them to solve their problems with quick remedies, religion allows them to pray for indulgences, and communism defines a party to guide people and tell them “the right” things to do. Meanwhile, the world is in no way as simple as the terms that these explanations use to describe it. Communism and religion do differ in many ways, but the way Kosinski uses them in the story, they both seem to be demonstrating how humans organize themselves to follow made up rules that give certain people authority and certain things importance based on arbitrary ideas.
ReplyDelete2. It seems like killing the people was part of his mission. He was ordered or expected to kill them. The dog is outside the range of his work. When somebody with authority told him to kill the people, he was able to accept it, but the boy has no authority to tell him to kill the dog. I think this is less about the dog being an animal, and more about what Mitka is willing to do based on his ideas about what is important. He
1. Though communism is just a different belief system, much like Christianity, I do think that is an improvement because it promotes a sense of agency. Gavrila puts a lot of emphasis on the role of the individual within the collective, on acting deliberately and being aware of the consequences of one’s actions. He tries to impress upon the boy that his choices matter, that his decisions have a real and tangible impact on himself and those around him. This differs from conventional religion, since religion typically teaches that god has a plan for everyone, deemphasizing individual actions. Gavrila tells the boy that “people themselves determined the course of their lives and were the only masters of their destinies. That is why every man was important, and why it was crucial that each know what to do and what to aim for”(187). It seems to me that realizing the impact of one’s decisions leads to empowerment and, most important, greater self-value. If one is under the impression that his or her actions are futile, then what is the point of even acting? Having a sense of agency goes hand-in-hand with greater self worth and more motivation.
ReplyDelete2. I think that Kosinski is trying to give us a glimpse into Mitka’s code of ethics. For Mitka, revenge is doled out systematically and according to the offense, much like the adage “an eye for an eye.” I don’t think that Kosinski is trying to draw a line between humans and animals, rather, he is showing that Mitka does not kill without cause. There was simply no reason for Mitka to kill the dog, so he didn’t. No dog had wronged him, so he felt no need to retaliate against the entire species. That would be an act of senseless violence. Killing the villagers, however, Mitka saw as necessary to avenge the brutal deaths of his friends. So I think this passage is meant to show that what we might view as indiscriminate violence is actually a logical, retributive system of crime and punishment. Mitka doesn’t kill simply for the sport of it, but rather to bring justice to the world.
I agree with John insomuch that the communist system, like the religious and superstitious orders the boy had previously been introduced to, bombards him with countless and confusing rules for him to abide by. Serve the party, better the party, help the people, don't betray the party, but, at the same time, don't worry about anything because the great Stalin is looking over everything like a benevolent father-god. Communism, however, presents something entirely different: a system with an army behind it. The superstitious and religious beliefs of the villagers never really presented a threat beyond what the villagers would do themselves: God never came down to save or smite the boy, the devil never rewarded him for his evil acts, and he didn't lose years of his life by allowing somebody else to count his teeth. The communist system, however, presents rules grounded in reality, with real consequences. The Red Army kills the Kamluks, steadily pushes back the Germans, glorifies the valiant, and punishes the law-breakers, even if in an unofficial capacity, such as when Mitka assassinates the villagers. Following and obeying the party would have real benefits and consequences: “Gavrila, like all the officers and men in the regiment, owed all he had to this man: education, rank, home. The library owed all its beautifully printed and bound books to him. I owed the care of the army doctors and my recovery to him. Every Soviet citizen was in debt to this man for everything he possessed and all his good fortune”(169). So yes, the communist system does present just as many confusing rules as religion and superstition, but this time it is far more important that they be followed.
ReplyDeleteMitka's assassinations, unlike most other violence we have seen in this book, seem justified. He sought out and killed the men he believed were the murderers and assailants of his friends (yes, it is possible that he killed men that had nothing to do with the attack on his friends, but for the sake of the argument, we will assume he killed the assailants). So why should a man who spend all his life reaching the moral summit, killing those who deserved to be killed, suddenly stoop to the level of killing a dog on the order of a mute boy? He shouldn't. The distinction made here by Mitka is not one of whether his target is a dog or a man, but whether the killing is just.
1. No! It's just another falsehood! Communism is just another way to justify humanity existence that ultimately ignores Kosinski's truth that there aren't really any ethics or morals. The placement of the dramatic single line paragraph "This man's name was Stalin" (188) directly after the boy's summation of Communism's benefits is no coincidence; the irony is that Stalin's dictatorship came to stand for everything except equality and freedom, everything except opportunity. It is also no coincidence that Communism is compared -- directly -- to religion: the soldiers compare Lenin and Stalin "just as some of the peasants spoke more often about God the Father and others about God the Son" (189). The falsehood of "Communism" obfuscates the true dictatorship of Stalin's "republic," providing Soviets with a false sense of security. Yet ultimately, not only will the peasants be subjected to dictatorship (as Kosinski knew when the book was published in 1965), but just like every other falsehood-civilization throughout the book it is predicated off the subjugation of others -- much like the Germans subjugate the Jews and Gypsies, the Russians subjugate the bourgeois. The only difference is the bourgeois are a much more appealing victim for an American reader than the Jews are. The boy himself might have been subjected to bias for being rooted in wealth. Interestingly, Communism is much closer to the truth than any other falsehood in the book; Gavrila acknowledges in his Sartre-esque way that we are nothing but our choices and that other falsehoods are false. However, clinging to the hope that Communism will be his salvation is the pinnacle of folly; Communism in Russia is purely a vehicle for Stalin to exploit anti-bourgeois prejudice for personal gain. The boy's conclusion at the end of Chapter 17 reinforces this "dog-eat-dog/survival of the fittest" view; the boy realizes that every accomplishment, every action, in life is really just for the self and those you identify with: "but one could also reach the summit alone" (208).
ReplyDelete2. Yes, there is a line between humans and dogs -- for Mitka. In Mitka's view, the villagers were the only ones that committed wrongdoing, so they're the ones that should be punished. However for the boy, there is no line between humans and animals -- and I think that is the broader point that Kosinski attempts to make here. Much like Garbos attempts to make the boy suffer for just living when his children are dead (even though doing so will not bring his kids back), the boy takes out his anger on a similarly innocent target. The boy assigns agency to the dog and decides to punish all dogs as a whole, much like the Germans decided to punish Jews.
Communism is here treated almost as a religious system, but implements certain social behaviors. They speak of it in the same tones as one would speak of a religion, with deep reverence for leaders and deep belief in its practice. They even implement moral evaluations into every day life, which rings more than a little familiar when talking about higher powers. Communism, like religion and superstition, gives people a structure within which to work, and those who do not follow it are scrutinized and criticized. Something seemingly unique is its recognition and encouragement of the power of the individual - people can and should be active participants in daily life. This is new to the boy - and deeply important. The problem is that it empowers both violent and constructive individuals - often, people are both. Mitka, who loves poetry and music and nurses the boy back to health, wanders into the forest in the early morning and murders random villagers in penance for the death of his friends, comfortable in the knowledge that he as an individual has the right to be both “judge and executioner.” On paper, this is novel - when coming from a religious stand point, shouldn’t only God be able to judge? That would leave the religious individual as a passive observer, offering prayers to God to enact justice. Yet time and time again deeply religious (and superstitious) people have judged and executed whomever they wish - the farmer punishes the farm hand; the village wives punish Ludmilla; Garbos punishes the boy for living while his own sons are dead; the villagers punish the boy for interrupting the church service. Everyone in this world acts as judge, jury, and executioner at some point or another - individual agency isn’t so much unique as it is that communism has taken this and made it an officially encouraged behavior. So, really, it’s essentially a formalized version of what we’ve been seeing anyway, and that makes it dangerous. What have formalized versions of “what has already been happening” gotten us throughout this story, other than mass atrocities?
ReplyDeleteHe has no reason to shoot the dog - I think it’s that simple. The people? They killed his friends - or, at least, they’re part of the “group” that killed his friends, and that makes them… tangentially responsible. Had the dog (or any dog) torn someone’s throat out, he’d have shot any dog he’d seen, and left the villagers alone (or maybe he’d have gone after the dog’s owner). Humans tend to have more conscious decision making power than dogs, and that means they bear the brunt of responsibility and consequences, but for me the important part of this scene was that the boy’s reason for wanting the dog dead was the same as Mitka’s reason for wanting villagers dead: this being is somehow related to, or reminds them of someone who hurt them, so it must die. The boy sees this, and so expects Mitka to follow through - Mitka, however, does not know of the boy’s reason for wanting to kill the dog, and so instead sees a small child advocating directionless violence, and is disturbed. Mitka judges the boy for following his very own reasoning.
1. While there are similarities between communism, religion, and superstition, I think the main difference is that communism has a concrete goal that can be met in this lifetime. The Days of Indulgence religion prayer is geared towards is a kind of gamble, maybe you’ll get them, maybe you won’t. All religion seems to do is promise the unknowable. Superstition doesn’t even have a goal—all it is is an explanation given to events which cannot be explained (lightning, death, etc.). Communism, on the other hand, is working towards something. It gives its followers lives a greater purpose, just like religion, but it isn’t promising sweet nothings. Win the war and reach man made utopia; that is the promise, and it isn’t one shrouded in mystery or superstition. All that being said, there’s one pretty important element I’ve left out thus far, and that’s because I don’t quite know what to make of it, and that is: the other. Every belief system we’ve encountered has had some group that was lesser than them which they targeted. With superstition, it was anyone besides oneself who might want to do you harm. With religion, it was the Jews or Gypsies, and now, with communism, it’s anyone who’s wronged you and anyone who may be connected with them. I guess I’ll get into this in the next question though.
ReplyDelete2. Mitka’s shooting of the villages, while explained in a nice poetic way “a man, no matter how popular and admired, lives mainly with himself. If he is not at peace with himself, if he is harassed by something he did not do but should have done to preserve his own image of himself, his is like the ‘unhappy Demon, spirit of exile, gliding high above the sinful world,’” is still murder. I agree with what he said, wholeheartedly, but I’m also struck by how much characters in this book can live with. Can we explain away Ludmilla’s horrible, brutal murder as simply the wives’ right to peace of mind? I know that they’re two rather different things, but I think they beg to be compared. Now, to the actual question, the reason Mitka didn’t kill the dog, in my opinion was simply because he went there to do a job, to avenge his friends. He did not go there simply to enjoy the sport of killing, so there’s no reason for him to take more life than what was warrented.
1) I don't think communism and religion are necessarily the same, but I do think they serve the same purpose in the story. I think Kosinski is using them both to show 1) How dependent our beliefs are on the beliefs of those around us and 2) The different ways humans use morals and other societal constructs to control masses. While communism isn't a system of beliefs centered around a higher purpose, it's used for the exact same reason. It's just a little bit ironic having Gavrila say, “The cunning priests had invented him so they could trick stupid, superstitious people” when Stalin used communism to control and kill millions of people on the Soviet Union. Even Gavrila himself is being controlled and influenced by the system. Religion is different in some ways though. Religion has a lot more power to shape peoples morals. Religion is more of a way to believe, while communism affects more of the way we act and participate in society. I can be Muslim and believe in their rhetoric then vote in a democratic election or live under a theocracy. I can participate on communism while believing in God or being an atheist. There are fundamental differences between the two that allow them to be mix and matched like that.
ReplyDelete2) Mitka only killed the people because of what they had done to his comrades, not just out of cold blood. He had no reason to believe the dog had done anything to him or his squadron, so he left the dog go. I think if our boy was able to explain what that dog had done to him, Mitka would've killed or let our boy kill the dog. I would also agree that there is a difference between animals and humans in this story.
1. While Christianity enforces its ideology through God, heaven, and hell, the Red Army uses the much more immediate judgement of the collective. This is perhaps more similar to superstitions and prejudices of the villagers than the worship of God or of evil. It is the first time our narrator understands a system of belief as having specific values. Before, he sees ways of getting power, rather than a complicated system. Understanding the reasons gives him more autonomy within the system, rather than just reciting prayers and hoping. It's hard to say whether this is an improvement in general, but for the boy, it undoubtedly is an improvement.
ReplyDelete2. This demonstrates more of a divide between the innocent and guilty in Mitka's mind. To Mitka, the men who killed his friend are guilty, and thus deserving of his revenge. They are lower than animals in his mind. Our narrator sees Judas in the dog and wants it dead, just as villagers have seen evil gypsies in him. Mitka doesn't know exactly what is going through our narrator's head, but will not kill a dog that has done nothing to him. To Mitka, who or what something is is less important than what it has done.
1. I think communism is similar to religion and superstitions because it's a system and is based in some beliefs about the world. But similar to what Alice said, their aims are different. Religion and superstitions are focused on understanding the world (superstitions more so than religion). They deal with God and the afterlife, but communism doesn't. Communism is about this world and nothing else. Communism takes that understanding of the world and gives a solution to better the collective. Superstitions don't have this goal and in theory religion is supposed to have this goal, but it usually happens that religion helps better each person rather than the whole. I think communism is more closely related to religion than superstition, because of the way it has an affect on people. Communism – at least in this novel – has a following similar to a lot of religions. The followers are passionate about the system and they have this undefinable way about them that reminds me of religious followers. That being said, I don't think it's better because it does separating people into us and them which is what religion and superstition did.
ReplyDelete2. I don't think that Kosinski’s trying to draw a line between humans and dogs, but rather between justified and unjustified murder. Mitka knows the dog is innocent and had no reason to believe otherwise. Even if the dog in some weird way wasn't innocent, I don't think Mitka would shoot him. There's something almost irrational about taking vengeance on a dog. The people on the other hand were not innocent as far as he knew. I guess if I was taking my speculation about how Mitka would not shot a dog who was somehow guilty but would shot a person who was guilty as a fact then there would be a line between humans and dogs. I don't know if this is true, but I just can't imagine it and that's probably because I hold humans to a higher level of restraint than dogs.
1. It's interesting how they depict Stalin and communism in this book. It's seen as an alternative to religion that offers more benefits and more control over the future. It's more concrete I think and definite, but it's also more crude and doesn't allow room for any disagreement. I think it's presented as the better option because of how warmly the boy is treated. He gets to their camp and it's like he's back with his family. They're singing songs, teaching him things, including him, making sure he has enough to eat, and most importantly, they're not beating him. We see when he's apprehension when he's leaving them, wanting to stay rather than to find his actual parents and family. He becomes apart of them and they become his community. They even dress him like them which we see is significant because of Kosinski's attention to attire in the book. Even Stalin is presented as some heroic man, risking his life for the sake of others, trying to rid the world of all evil to better the community. The boy is being fed all this information in a way that makes so much sense. Communism in this book is presented as the better option and is made to seem as if it's what could make the world a better place.
ReplyDelete2. Mitka had no motive and I think this is one of the differences we see between the communists and the villagers. From our societal perspective, the communists are more civilized and appear to only kill when there's a reason presente. Whereas the villagers do all these crazy, horrible things just to do them. Mitka didn't see anything wrong with the dog so he didn't shoot it, but we see villagers earlier in the book tormenting birds and squirrels just for the fun of it.
4/23/17 - The Painted Bird:
ReplyDelete1. I think that the communist system is depicted as more of the same. Kosinski grapples with free will here, which I think is very interesting because of the way it ties into the actions of the Nazis. We think of Nazis as a mass of sheep following the shepherd Hitler and mindlessly killing and torturing. But they are not. As we discussed in class, they are human beings and they have free will just like the peasants in the villages do. The communist mindset is free of the faith that binds so many of us to blind hope. In talking with Gavrila, our boy learns that he is the master of his own destiny, that he does not have to pray to a God who never responds or evil demons who do not help him, either. He is alone in the world. The only thing he has is his intellect and his bravery and his will to survive. Gavrila helps him see that this is all he needs.
2. I think that Mitka is a very rational human being. He will only kill if it is a revenge, a retaliation in response to a wrong someone else committed. He will not kill the dog because the dog is innocent. He will kill the villagers because they are not innocent (in his mind). Hi emotions, his anger and grief over the deaths of his friends, give him the strength and motivation to kill. None of that emotional force is tied to the dog. I don’’t think that Mitka is an evil person who kills for the sake of killing—we see this in his refusal to kill the dog. He kills with purpose, and only with a purpose.