For Tuesday: Ronson, The Men Who Stare at Goats, Chs. 4-6

NOTE: Try to read the next three chapters, which is longer than what we read last time, but it reads very quickly. If you don’t quite get to the end, no worries. Just make sure to read enough to answer the questions below.

Answer TWO of the following: 

Q1: Are we supposed to believe the stories of the various people Ronson encounters on his quest, such as Savelli, etc.? Does Ronson present them as essentially trustworthy, if extremely eccentric? Or are these people simply so desperate for the spotlight that they’ll spin any story to attract journalists like himself? A passage or moment that convinces you one way or another?

Q2: When General Stubblebine ‘destroys’ a cloud with his mind, he quickly concludes that it may or may not have been him. “Hard to tell,” he said, “who was doing what to whom” (72). Is that the basic story of this entire novel—things that could be read one way, but could also be read another? Is anything that Ronson discovers so far verifiable or irrefutable proof? Or is the nature of secret intelligence to make sure no one sees the ‘truth’?

Q3: In Chapter 5, Ronson writes that “For everyday agnostics, it is not easy to accept the idea that our leaders, and the leaders of our enemies, sometimes seem to believe that the business of managing world affairs should be carried out with both standard and supernatural dimensions” (81). Yet a majority of Americans (particularly in Oklahoma) continue to appeal to faith and the divine to guide their actions, even on relatively routine matters. Is it wrong of the government to turn to faith and/or supernatural powers when the stakes get high? Do you think the government should stick to proven science and traditional protocols? (related to this, what do you think Ronson believes?)

Q4: Courtney Brown convinced thousands of listeners that Martians would soon be arriving on Earth, and that, with a little effort, “our time of ignorance, our time of darkness, is coming to a close. We are entering a time of greatness” (108). Why do you think people are so easily fooled by such people? Is it merely their charisma and ability to speak convincingly? Or is it the message itself? Does it speak to our deepest desires and fears?

For Tuesday: Ronson, The Men Who Stare at Goats, Chs. 1-3

Answer TWO of the following:

Q1: What was Channon’s idea for a First Earth Battalion such a radical concept? Where did he get his inspiration? And related to this, why might the armed forces have been receptive to such an “out there” suggestion?

Q2: Do you get the impression that Ronson believes half the stories that people tell him about the Goat Lab and the Staring exercises? What is his tone throughout the piece, and why do you think he decided to write a book about these interviews and experiences?

Q3: Channon says something interesting in Chapter 3 about the average soldier: “The kind of person attracted to military service has a great difficulty...being cunning. We suffered in Vietnam from not being cunning...You might get some cunning out of other agencies in the American government, but you’d have a hard time finding it in the army” (31). According to him and others in this book, why might the conversation about war be more about cunning than fighting? Why does Channon believe that “cunning” is the future of the American army?

Q4: Ronson poses four possible scenarios in Chapter 2 for the stories about the Goat Lab, the last one being, “The U.S. Intelligence community was, back then, essentially nuts through and through” (10). While he’s obviously being facetious here, what might he be actually driving at? Why might the various bodies of U.S. Intelligence be more “nuts” than we assume? And why might it be in their best interests to be at least a little more “nuts” than the average person?

Argument Paper #2: The Truth We Never Tell

“We don’t tell each other the truth about dying, as a people. Not real dying. Real dying, regular and mundane dying, is so hard and so ugly that it becomes the worst thing of all...No one ever told me the truth about it, not once” (Teague 278).

PROMPT: For your Second Argument Paper, I want you to enter into a discussion about something no one ever “told you the truth about” in your own life. It should be something important to you and your identity: school, your job, your future career, your personal identity, your relationships, your faith, your family, etc. In other words, something you had to experience and learn by trial and error, even though someone could have told you the “truth” and saved you a lot of heartache. Assume that your readers don’t understand your identity or experience...explain it to them in detail and use other sources to help compare your experience to theirs. Make sure we understand that this is a conversation that many people have, even though our society might not be having it correctly or honestly.

NAYSAYER: For this paper, I also want you to add a “naysayer” into the work. This is someone who disagrees or shows another side to your discussion, and in this case, is the person who might not tell the truth about your experience. What do other people say about this identity or experience? What did people tell you which turned out to be slightly untrue or an outright lie? Why did they do this? Make sure we see the other side of the conversation so we understand where you’re coming from—and why you want us to see a different “truth.”

FOR EXAMPLE: The Truth/Lies of Teaching... “When I was first becoming a teacher, no one told me that the work never ends. As a student, you have a lot of work, but you eventually finish it (eventually!). As a teacher, however, you always have something to do, you are always grading, planning, reading, learning, writing, attending meetings, and then doing it all over again. You always have homework, and you’re never doing enough of it. So when people say “teachers are lazy, they get three months off,” etc., they don’t see the ‘truth’ that goes on behind the scenes, when teachers are up at one in the morning trying to plan an eight o’clock class.”

REQUIREMENTS:

• At least 3-4 sources, which can be any of the essays in the book (esp. the ones by Armstrong/Miller and Teague) and/or outside sources that inform your conversation.
• Remember that you can use an essay about rape and not write about rape—the ideas in the essay could help you discuss/express your own.
• At least 4-5 pages double spaced, though you can do more
• You must have a conversation: quote and respond to the articles, and introduce a Naysayer into your paper
• DUE THURSDAY, OCTOBER 26th BY 5pm

For Tuesday: Teague, “The Friend” (277-295)

NOTE: Trigger Warnings—this is a rough essay about death and cancer. I think it’s an important essay to read, and very powerful, but it’s also very sad and even disturbing in parts, particularly if you’ve gone through this yourself. So just a warning of what to expect. Read it in small doses if you find it too personal or disturbing.

A link to the essay with pictures: http://www.esquire.com/lifestyle/a34905/matthew-teague-wife-cancer-essay/

Answer TWO of the following:

Q1: At one point in the essay, Teague writes that “She drifted away on Haldol, an ocean measured in milliliters” (292). This essay uses metaphors often, as a way of trying to help us relate to the unfathomable and unimaginable. Discuss another metaphor in the essay that is particularly helpful in imagining the events or ideas the author is trying to explain. What does it help you ‘see,’ and why do you feel it’s appropriate?

Q2: Talking to a counselor, Matthew is told “Before this is over…you will long for it to end.” His response is, “Never” (282). But what did the counselor know that he didn’t? What couldn’t he know then that he learns in the course of the essay (though he never actually wants her to die, of course).

Q3: This essay isn’t called “The Wife” or “The Husband,” but “The Friend.” Why does he focus more on Dane than himself or his wife? Why is his role perhaps the most important part of the story, and the one he wants to help us appreciate and understand?

Q4: Unlike many stories of death and loss, this essay documents the aspect that doesn’t make it into TV movies or movies in general: the anger and vindictiveness of the wife against the husband. Why do you think he includes this in his essay? Is he getting revenge on his wife for all the suffering she put him through? Is it insensitive? Or is there another reason we need to see this?

Conferences for This Week

Below are the conference times in case you forget--all take place in my office, HM 348. Please e-mail me if you need to change.

MONDAY
12:30 Chassidy
:40 Jessica
:50 Kassandra

1:00 Penny / Sam 
:10 Reece
:20 Coleman
:30 Riley

2:00 Elisha
:20 Eddie

TUESDAY
9:30 Noah
:40 Jakob
:50 Lauren

10:00 Sarah
:10 Jesilee
:20 Kendra
:30 Tyler D
:40 Leonson

11:00 Jordan
:10 Mitchell
:30 Halie

1:00 Jasmine
:10 Madison
:20 Rhiannon
:30 Kelsey
:40 Ashley
:50 Emily

2:00 Hannah
:10 Madison
:40 Sebastian

3:30 Daniel
:40 Ashton

WEDNESDAY

12:30 Riley (re-schedule)  12:30 Nathan
:40 Gabe
:50 Kayla

2:10 Cliff

1-2:30 OPEN

FRIDAY
1:00 Ashlynd

1-2:40 OPEN