Discussion with James

To do this section of the project I gave my husband, James, a copy of "The Man in the Well" and simply asked him to read it and record any thoughts, impressions or questions he had regarding it. Then I responded to him and then again he back to me. This was how we maintained our discussion because I did not want to interject my thoughts into his initial response...

The following is his response to the short story:

The image of children playing outside on a hot sunny day is something that I can picture clearly in my head. This is due to the fact that at one point in time, even I was a playful kid. The way we're introduced to the children, and the man in the well, seems so feasible, because I think most people can look back and remember a point in time when we were having fun as children and then something happened that changed the mood or altered the day's events. Whether it be a car wreck on a nearby street, a friend falling off the swing set, or someone finding a dead bird or something. In any of these situations, curiosity usually takes over. Or at least in my case, it did.

And that is the thing that is hard to swallow when thinking about this story. From the very beginning, I was furious that the little bastards didn't just go and get help. During my first reading, I actually said out load "What the hell are you doing!?", because I know that the younger version of myself wouldn't just leave some stranger abandoned in a well! That would be insane! Granted, I'd question how the hell he or she got there in the first place, but I'd like to think that myself or my friends wouldn't turn it into some two day long Q & A session. Its like playful curiosity was replaced by a severe case of Lord of the Flies syndrome.

With that said, while most children may have a whacked sense of morbid curiosity, these kids clearly took it to a whole new level. And since they were "still full of games and laughter" when they called down to him, why not mess with him a bit, right? All kids possess the ability to be shitheads, that's what kids do. The nicest kid, when put in the right situation with the wrong peers, will be a shithead too. But why did the children in this story do what they did??? This is the question I've asked myself repeatedly since reading this crazy thing. After the initial introduction of the man in the well, the rest of the story was just kind of uncomfortable. It wasn't quite unbearable, but it would make me cringe. It was as if the man in the well became a giant lightning bug for the children to play with. He was already in a jar, just sadly and anxiously waiting and moving back and forth, and much like one would do for a firefly... all they had to do was throw a few necessities in the jar in order for him to be happy. Only in this case it wasn't a twig or two and some grass, but some water and some fruit. The whole thing is just creepy...

Why didn't the children want to get too close to the lip of the well? I suppose it was because they were afraid, but of what? What could a guy trapped in the ground do? They asked him questions, but they didn't want him to know anything about them... because I suppose at that point it would be too personal for them to continue with their little game. And how is it that they could go from being innocent children, "... I think little Jason, called down, 'Hello. Is it dark?'" to inconsiderate jerks in a split second? The prime example of this being when some of them left to go cool down in the movie theatre. WHAT THE HELL!?

Like I said before, the whole story was just uncomfortable to read. And while I wish it would have turned out in a better light, it is interesting for something to shed light on the possibility of children not being the perfect little angels everyone expects them to be.

Oh yeah, one last thing... what was the deal with the kid's mother crying and being upset? Was this to set the tone for the kid's thought process? If he's having a crappy time at home, then he's allowed to leave some guy to die in a well?? Weird... and sad. I just wish they would have gotten him a damn ladder.


Karen's Response:

As I read James' response it brought to light several things that I did not capture in my initial response. The first thing was that he pointed out how real the story world was painted. This was the least of my thoughts in my first reading. While it is true that the descriptions of the children playing on the hot day were very realistic and easy to picture I was not captured by that as James was. In hindsight it seems like an important thing to notice because the type of short story Sher is writing is that of Realism. The description of the story world backs up that notion.

James' second point of him definitely going to get help as a child made me think a lot. My first reaction would be the same. I would think that for sure there would be no way that I or any of my friends would let a man die in the bottom of a well. That notion is heartwarming and everything, but to disagree with James, I actually would have no idea what my child self would do if placed in that situation. It would be nice to think that I would automatically get help, but I have never had to make that decision so in reality who knows what I would do?

Thirdly, James' linking of the children in "The Man in the Well" to the Lord of The Flies is an excellent reference. While it did not occur to me upon my first reading, I can see how the children in both stories have similar traits. There is definitely a hiararchy in The Lord of the Flies which is emmanated in "The Man in the Well". Aaron is the oldest therefore is the one everyone listens to. It appears that at a few parts the narrator and Wendy seem to get cold feet about leaving the man down in the well, but in the end go along with what the older kids do. Classic Lord of the Flies.

I agree with James' use of the phrase "full of games and laughter". I used this in my response too in order to note that they did not believe what they did was wrong. It would also have been important for James to note though that this feeling of happiness would eventually disappear as the man learned all of the children's names. It was at that point that I believe they realized they were doing something bad, but because he had their names they did not want to help him for fear of getting in trouble.

The link James makes to the firefly in the jar makes sense in the fact that they are toying with the man as one would toy with the firefly. Yes you do put things in the jar in hopes of keeping the firefly happy and the children did give the man food and water so that he would be happy, but we can see from his constant yelling and eventual taunting of the children that he was not happy and nothing other than them getting help would make him happy.

In answer to the question about why the children avoided going near the lip...I believe there was a psychological explanation at work there. The children felt if the man could see them then he could potentially identify them (which makes him learning their names all the more terrible), but it also goes back to those electric shock studies where people would have no hesitation in applying an electric shock to someone they could not see, but as soon as that person was infront of them they could not do it. Sher is telling us that if the children cannot see the man then they have less of a problem leaving him to die.

The main issue that James brought up that I still have a problem figuring out was that of the sobbing mother. At first I had no clue why Sher would mention her especially at the end of the story where you think her importance would be clarified but it is not. A few of the explanations of have since come up with are...Sher wanted to point out the turbulence of the boy's homelife to explain maybe why he would act out in the way he was, or maybe there is a more farfetched reason to mention the mother sobbing. Sher also mentions an angry murmur from the father so maybe the mother was having an affair with a man who was then found out by the father and could potentially be the man who is now trapped in the well and who is thusly not receiving help from the son. That explanation would be way too crazy though.

Finally, I find it interesting that James did not bring up the struggle for power. I believed this to be the ultimate motivation for the children leaving the man trapped. They have finally found a being who is literally and figuritively below them. Now that they finally have an unfortunate soul in that position they intend to take full advantage and assert the newfound power they have gained. Overall as James felt, I too wish they would have just got the ladder, but the story would have been boring.

James' Counter:

As far as the sobbing mom thing goes, a similar plot twist manifested itself in my head. Initially I thought that maybe the man in the well was someone whom the mother cared for, hence the sobbing, but obviuosly we'll never know... so yeah, I don't know. But I must admit that I didn't really think about the whole power struggle aspect too much, due to the fact I was busy being angry with the kids for not doing the right thing. Your whole psychological approach makes sense, and again is something I hadn't thought of. Why not torture a dude in a hole in the ground? If he can't see you and no one else knows he's there, what's the harm in a little sadistic fun? Weirdos.

p.s.

I'm sure the young version of yourself would've done the right thing, :)


Final Reflection on discussion:

It appears that both James and myself learned a lot from each other's responses. He brought the significance of the story life to my attention whereas I brought up the notion of a power struggle. While there were a few things we agreed upon there were also several things that we did not. We both thought the kids were sadistic weirdos, but our thoughts on what we would do in the situation definitely did not line up. I would like to think that everyone would be angels and do the right thing, but it is impossible for anyone to know for sure so I leave the possibility of someone truly not doing the right thing out there.

All in all, I think Sher did a phenomenal job writing a story that makes us beleive it could take place, but leaves us horrified at the possibilities. It all ties back to the age old notion of the cruelty of children.