Wake of Forgiveness: Characters

[PiperMurphy]

---

literature wrote:

Need some clarification...

I've been reading and rereading the horse race and the Skala family fight over and over, trying to figure out the sequence of who's fighting with whom.  Once the whole Skala family is actively in the fight, bottom of page 110, last paragraph, last four lines:

...he (Skala) nods at Karel with a satisfied look on his face that suggests he's been waiting for this since the first of his sons slid wide-eyed and helpless out of their mother and into the world.

Now bottom of page 112, last paragraph, last two lines:

"Turn him loose," and when Thom spins around with his fists up he finds his old man on his feet with his knife drawn,  waving it...

How more blunt could Skala be.  He knew his sons would provide the necessary manpower for working the farm and this was the only reason he needed them; out of necessity for working the farm, not out of love for having children.  Was it only Klara that wanted children?  If it wasn't for the farm, I believe Skala would have abondoned his sons when Klara died. 

---

I had a different interpretation from this scene. I thought that Vaclav, for whatever misguided reason, expected his sons to be loyal to him, partly because they were his sons and partly because he regarded them as workhorses or possessions, something that he could dominate. But, I think he knew that the boys would betray him at some point. Why wouldn't they, and they did. When he turned to Karel during the fight it was like he was saying "See, I told you so." I think in his own weird way he was trying to preserve what was his because he didn't want Villasenor to win.

[tcg60]

I had the feeling that Elizka was angry because Karel might have put her at risk of becoming pregnant, by satisfying his own needs without protecting her. It was his smile that made me think he felt that he had done something careless, good for him, not for her. I agree that he broke his vows and is far more guilty. This was the same thought I had when I read this part of the book.

[thewanderingjew]

Weren't you also surprised that the brothers reallly turned against Karel, as well? He was, after all, the biggest loser in the race, not only because he lost the horse race but because there was no bride for him. One of his brother's would wind up with Graciela and he, Karel, would wind up with his father, all alone to withstand his anger and hatred and whatever form his vengeance would take. I can't even imagine what that would be like for him, especially after losing the race. Didn't his father also leave him with the threat of never enjoying the horse again, if he lost?

There is so much betrayal in the book so far...brother against brother, father against sons, man against man, man against woman, woman against man! The loyalty that existed between Vaclav and his sons, Graciela and her dad, seemed all consuming until the fight breaks out after the race and until you see the scene with Karel and Graciela. Then you finally see their previous silent defiance in action. You realize that they are aware of the yoke that binds them all to their parent.

I am having a tough time determining what motivates these characters. I wondered if they ever fully considered the consequences of their recklessness. Is it just the thrill of the risk involved or the gamble taken that spurs them on to make these foolish bargains?

twj

PiperMurphy wrote:

I had a different interpretation from this scene. I thought that Vaclav, for whatever misguided reason, expected his sons to be loyal to him, partly because they were his sons and partly because he regarded them as workhorses or possessions, something that he could dominate. But, I think he knew that the boys would betray him at some point. Why wouldn't they, and they did. When he turned to Karel during the fight it was like he was saying "See, I told you so." I think in his own weird way he was trying to preserve what was his because he didn't want Villasenor to win.

[fordmg]

---

Peppermill wrote:

Bibanon wrote [excerpt]:  He clearly loves his wife and he is not abusive to her or his lover.

Doesn't that depend upon what is considered to be "abusive"?

(True, we read no evidence of physical abuse, such as Karel inflicted on the heifer who had bitten him.  pp. 42-43  However, having read only to p. 132, I am still guessing how to interpret "Damn it, Karel..." from Elizka.)

I know others here have deplored Elizka's behavior towards Karel, and I understand and respect that view, but I suspect it was Karel who made a commitment of fidelity before God and community in his marriage vows.

Pepper

---

I think Elizka realized that Karel was not using any protection against pregnancy.  That is when she got upset.

MG

[thewanderingjew]

i am laughing because my comment was nearly the same as yours, a few posts back, but i am a dinosaur and my prudishness made me find it difficult to put it into words.

you put it so much better and so much more directly than i did!

in many ways, life has become more open and navigable for the younger  generation, of which i am assuming you are a part, lol. otherwise, i am just a lone dinosaur!

twj

---

fordmg wrote: I think Elizka realized that Karel was not using any protection against pregnancy.  That is when she got upset.

MG

---

[dhaupt]

---

thewanderingjew wrote:

i am laughing because my comment was nearly the same as yours, a few posts back, but i am a dinosaur and my prudishness made me find it difficult to put it into words.

you put it so much better and so much more directly than i did!

in many ways, life has become more open and navigable for the younger  generation, of which i am assuming you are a part, lol. otherwise, i am just a lone dinosaur!

twj

---

fordmg wrote: I think Elizka realized that Karel was not using any protection against pregnancy.  That is when she got upset.

MG

---

---

No twj, I'm fossilizing right along with you ;-)

[fordmg]

---

thewanderingjew wrote:

i am laughing because my comment was nearly the same as yours, a few posts back, but i am a dinosaur and my prudishness made me find it difficult to put it into words. in many ways, life has become more open and navigable for the younger  generation, of which i am assuming you are a part, lol. otherwise, i am just a lone dinosaur!

twj

---

fordmg wrote: I think Elizka realized that Karel was not using any protection against pregnancy.  That is when she got upset.

MG

---

Oh, I am far from the younger generation.  I guess my 13 year old granddaughter keeps me up to date on trends.  She is the one who programs my cell phone and shows me the new querks on the computer. LOL!

MG

---

[thewanderingjew]

Then we are in good company!!! My 11 year old granddaughter is the one who shows me how to work the tv's, the remotes, the ipad, the cell phones, etc. Even my 8 year old grandson knows more about technology than I do. Every time I turn around he is looking for a "free" app! It took me weeks to figure out what an app was and I think I am pretty up there when it comes to the computer stuff!

---

fordmg wrote:

---

thewanderingjew wrote:

i am laughing because my comment was nearly the same as yours, a few posts back, but i am a dinosaur and my prudishness made me find it difficult to put it into words. in many ways, life has become more open and navigable for the younger  generation, of which i am assuming you are a part, lol. otherwise, i am just a lone dinosaur!

twj

---

fordmg wrote: I think Elizka realized that Karel was not using any protection against pregnancy.  That is when she got upset.

MG

---

Oh, I am far from the younger generation.  I guess my 13 year old granddaughter keeps me up to date on trends.  She is the one who programs my cell phone and shows me the new querks on the computer. LOL!

MG

---

---

[thewanderingjew]

I love the way you put that!

---

dhaupt wrote:

---

thewanderingjew wrote:

i am laughing because my comment was nearly the same as yours, a few posts back, but i am a dinosaur and my prudishness made me find it difficult to put it into words.

you put it so much better and so much more directly than i did!

in many ways, life has become more open and navigable for the younger  generation, of which i am assuming you are a part, lol. otherwise, i am just a lone dinosaur!

twj

---

fordmg wrote: I think Elizka realized that Karel was not using any protection against pregnancy.  That is when she got upset.

MG

---

---

No twj, I'm fossilizing right along with you ;-)

---

[DSaff]

I wasn't surprised that the brothers turned against Karel because I think they thought of him as a "daddy's boy." Anything his father did was an opportunity to learn something or spend time with him. They didn't understand Karel, nor did they try to. Karel seemed to be the one reaching out for some type of parental love which, I think, looked to them as turning against them. This fight was their opportunity to say, "We're here too!!" I also think they were happy to rub his face in the loss and in the fact that he wasn't getting a bride. They are definitely their father's sons.

---

thewanderingjew wrote:

Weren't you also surprised that the brothers reallly turned against Karel, as well? He was, after all, the biggest loser in the race, not only because he lost the horse race but because there was no bride for him. One of his brother's would wind up with Graciela and he, Karel, would wind up with his father, all alone to withstand his anger and hatred and whatever form his vengeance would take. I can't even imagine what that would be like for him, especially after losing the race. Didn't his father also leave him with the threat of never enjoying the horse again, if he lost?

---

[thewanderingjew]

you have a good point. i didn't think about that. i guess the three brothers would be against karel because he followed the father's wishes pretty blindly. i just focused on the four of them pulling the plow, thinking that the unfair control the father had over them would definitely unite them. you so rightly point out that they are all ruthless like vaclav.

---

DSaff wrote:

I wasn't surprised that the brothers turned against Karel because I think they thought of him as a "daddy's boy." Anything his father did was an opportunity to learn something or spend time with him. They didn't understand Karel, nor did they try to. Karel seemed to be the one reaching out for some type of parental love which, I think, looked to them as turning against them. This fight was their opportunity to say, "We're here too!!" I also think they were happy to rub his face in the loss and in the fact that he wasn't getting a bride. They are definitely their father's sons.

---

thewanderingjew wrote:

Weren't you also surprised that the brothers reallly turned against Karel, as well? He was, after all, the biggest loser in the race, not only because he lost the horse race but because there was no bride for him. One of his brother's would wind up with Graciela and he, Karel, would wind up with his father, all alone to withstand his anger and hatred and whatever form his vengeance would take. I can't even imagine what that would be like for him, especially after losing the race. Didn't his father also leave him with the threat of never enjoying the horse again, if he lost?

---

---

[PiperMurphy]

---

thewanderingjew wrote:

Weren't you also surprised that the brothers reallly turned against Karel, as well? He was, after all, the biggest loser in the race, not only because he lost the horse race but because there was no bride for him. One of his brother's would wind up with Graciela and he, Karel, would wind up with his father, all alone to withstand his anger and hatred and whatever form his vengeance would take. I can't even imagine what that would be like for him, especially after losing the race. Didn't his father also leave him with the threat of never enjoying the horse again, if he lost?

There is so much betrayal in the book so far...brother against brother, father against sons, man against man, man against woman, woman against man! The loyalty that existed between Vaclav and his sons, Graciela and her dad, seemed all consuming until the fight breaks out after the race and until you see the scene with Karel and Graciela. Then you finally see their previous silent defiance in action. You realize that they are aware of the yoke that binds them all to their parent.

I am having a tough time determining what motivates these characters. I wondered if they ever fully considered the consequences of their recklessness. Is it just the thrill of the risk involved or the gamble taken that spurs them on to make these foolish bargains?

twj

PiperMurphy wrote:

I had a different interpretation from this scene. I thought that Vaclav, for whatever misguided reason, expected his sons to be loyal to him, partly because they were his sons and partly because he regarded them as workhorses or possessions, something that he could dominate. But, I think he knew that the boys would betray him at some point. Why wouldn't they, and they did. When he turned to Karel during the fight it was like he was saying "See, I told you so." I think in his own weird way he was trying to preserve what was his because he didn't want Villasenor to win.

---

Actually, yes, I was surprised. I thought that there was more of an alliance between the brothers, and that the older ones were looking out for Karel. Now I think that there was some jealousy particularly from Thom. I really do think that Vaclav favored Karel to a certain extent. He at least saw him as a means to an end to win a race.

I'm also having a hard time with the motivations. Why did the boys allow the abuse? It would have been natural for them to just leave, run away, but somehow Vaclav had a hold on them. They stayed until they found a better opportunity from Villasenor. I think that is really interesting.

[literature]

---

thewanderingjew wrote:

i am laughing because my comment was nearly the same as yours, a few posts back, but i am a dinosaur and my prudishness made me find it difficult to put it into words.

you put it so much better and so much more directly than i did!

in many ways, life has become more open and navigable for the younger  generation, of which i am assuming you are a part, lol. otherwise, i am just a lone dinosaur!

twj

---

fordmg wrote: I think Elizka realized that Karel was not using any protection against pregnancy.  That is when she got upset.

MG

---

 Hi TWJ,

You are not a lone dinosaur!  I'm part of your generation and I was thinking how to delicately put it, but that was going to be a weekend post.  I heard Elizka's voice loud and clear when she screamed.  Considering how free a spirit she was, protection should have been foremost on your mind.  Next question, is she going to sire a child from this unioni?  If so, how can she be sure it's Karel's?

---

[literature]

---

thewanderingjew wrote:

Weren't you also surprised that the brothers reallly turned against Karel, as well? He was, after all, the biggest loser in the race, not only because he lost the horse race but because there was no bride for him. One of his brother's would wind up with Graciela and he, Karel, would wind up with his father, all alone to withstand his anger and hatred and whatever form his vengeance would take. I can't even imagine what that would be like for him, especially after losing the race. Didn't his father also leave him with the threat of never enjoying the horse again, if he lost?

There is so much betrayal in the book so far...brother against brother, father against sons, man against man, man against woman, woman against man! The loyalty that existed between Vaclav and his sons, Graciela and her dad, seemed all consuming until the fight breaks out after the race and until you see the scene with Karel and Graciela. Then you finally see their previous silent defiance in action. You realize that they are aware of the yoke that binds them all to their parent.

I am having a tough time determining what motivates these characters. I wondered if they ever fully considered the consequences of their recklessness. Is it just the thrill of the risk involved or the gamble taken that spurs them on to make these foolish bargains?

twj

PiperMurphy wrote:

I had a different interpretation from this scene. I thought that Vaclav, for whatever misguided reason, expected his sons to be loyal to him, partly because they were his sons and partly because he regarded them as workhorses or possessions, something that he could dominate. But, I think he knew that the boys would betray him at some point. Why wouldn't they, and they did. When he turned to Karel during the fight it was like he was saying "See, I told you so." I think in his own weird way he was trying to preserve what was his because he didn't want Villasenor to win.

---

Hi TWJ,

It's greed that makes them wager these bets.  Skala wants all the land as did Dalton.  Villasenor wants all the land plus the sons of the landowners to marry his daughters as additonal insurance for the land.  After this whole awful fight scene, Villsenor walks into the center of the circle with his hands in his coat pockets as if he's strolling around town of a dry Saturday evening.  I would love to know the history behind Villasenor; something is not right.  He's described as being too perfect and I wonder what happened before he became so gentlemanly.  Villasenor's comment after the fight scene was that he might afford my daughters the luxury of unblemished bridegrooms.

Hi PiperMurphy,

I agree with you here. Then after all the fighting is over, Skala very nonchalantly turns first to Stan and then to Karel to ask if there was any reason to doubt the result of the race?  The outcome was the outcome.  Maybe he should have asked if anything suspicious happened that prevented Karel from winning.  If the fight had never happened, would Karel have mentioned Graciela's orchestrated horse tricks or the run in with the branch?

[thewanderingjew]

Now that thickens the plot considerably! Another Skala child, a generation removed, would probably be unwanted and might destroy the marriage of Karel and Sophie which could possibly destroy Karel, as Klara's death destroyed Vaclav.

Is another family going to suffer retribution for the sins of the father, for surely, there is some sinning in Vaclav's past, as well? Now I think I might have to read on, off schedule, to find out!

---

literature wrote:
Hi TWJ,

You are not a lone dinosaur!  I'm part of your generation and I was thinking how to delicately put it, but that was going to be a weekend post.  I heard Elizka's voice loud and clear when she screamed.  Considering how free a spirit she was, protection should have been foremost on your mind.  Next question, is she going to sire a child from this unioni?  If so, how can she be sure it's Karel's?

---

---

[PiperMurphy]

---

literature wrote:

---

thewanderingjew wrote:

Weren't you also surprised that the brothers reallly turned against Karel, as well? He was, after all, the biggest loser in the race, not only because he lost the horse race but because there was no bride for him. One of his brother's would wind up with Graciela and he, Karel, would wind up with his father, all alone to withstand his anger and hatred and whatever form his vengeance would take. I can't even imagine what that would be like for him, especially after losing the race. Didn't his father also leave him with the threat of never enjoying the horse again, if he lost?

There is so much betrayal in the book so far...brother against brother, father against sons, man against man, man against woman, woman against man! The loyalty that existed between Vaclav and his sons, Graciela and her dad, seemed all consuming until the fight breaks out after the race and until you see the scene with Karel and Graciela. Then you finally see their previous silent defiance in action. You realize that they are aware of the yoke that binds them all to their parent.

I am having a tough time determining what motivates these characters. I wondered if they ever fully considered the consequences of their recklessness. Is it just the thrill of the risk involved or the gamble taken that spurs them on to make these foolish bargains?

twj

PiperMurphy wrote:

I had a different interpretation from this scene. I thought that Vaclav, for whatever misguided reason, expected his sons to be loyal to him, partly because they were his sons and partly because he regarded them as workhorses or possessions, something that he could dominate. But, I think he knew that the boys would betray him at some point. Why wouldn't they, and they did. When he turned to Karel during the fight it was like he was saying "See, I told you so." I think in his own weird way he was trying to preserve what was his because he didn't want Villasenor to win.

---

Hi TWJ,

It's greed that makes them wager these bets.  Skala wants all the land as did Dalton.  Villasenor wants all the land plus the sons of the landowners to marry his daughters as additonal insurance for the land.  After this whole awful fight scene, Villsenor walks into the center of the circle with his hands in his coat pockets as if he's strolling around town of a dry Saturday evening.  I would love to know the history behind Villasenor; something is not right.  He's described as being too perfect and I wonder what happened before he became so gentlemanly.  Villasenor's comment after the fight scene was that he might afford my daughters the luxury of unblemished bridegrooms.

Hi PiperMurphy,

I agree with you here. Then after all the fighting is over, Skala very nonchalantly turns first to Stan and then to Karel to ask if there was any reason to doubt the result of the race?  The outcome was the outcome.  Maybe he should have asked if anything suspicious happened that prevented Karel from winning.  If the fight had never happened, would Karel have mentioned Graciela's orchestrated horse tricks or the run in with the branch?

---

No, because he was in love with her, but also Vaclav is guilty of the same tricks. Villasenor and Dalton got retribution on Vaclav. If Karel had said anything there still would have been a fight, but this time it wouldn't have been between family. Also Villasenor's guards are a little bit menacing. I was a little bit concerned about what they were up to. It was interesting that Stan and Eduard didn't enter the fight until they tried to break it up. I wonder how many times they had to do that in the past.

[liisa22]

---

thewanderingjew wrote:

Thanks so much for your good wishes. (Yes it is the Jewish New Year; we are welcoming in 5771) I am getting ready to go to my son's house for holiday dinner. He/his wife are expecting twins in a couple of weeks, their first. Last night was spent with my daughter and her family.

I just stopped by BN because I love "talking" books and I find the best place to do it is here!

twj

_____________________________________ear to y__

Well then Happy New Year to you and your family! May you be blessed with continued love and happiness!  And congrats on the future twin grands!

[liisa22]

---

CAG wrote:

---

I agree with you. I also had the feeling that Elizka only feared getting pregnant and felt Karel was careless. I see Elizka as simply using Karel for her own needs and certainly Karel was doing the same to her. I think his behavior was typical of many men especially in this time period.

---

I must say I agree with this as well.  Still the era of women shall obey their husband.

[liisa22]

---

dhaupt wrote:

---

thewanderingjew wrote:

.... otherwise, i am just a lone dinosaur!

twj

---

No twj, I'm fossilizing right along with you ;-)

---

As I am.  But wisdom comes with the fossilization.   

Or so I've heard; it has yet to come to me.  Just forgetfulness.  

[thewanderingjew]

It makes me so happy to be in such good company!

---

liisa22 wrote:

---

dhaupt wrote:

---

thewanderingjew wrote:

.... otherwise, i am just a lone dinosaur!

twj

---

No twj, I'm fossilizing right along with you ;-)

---

As I am.  But wisdom comes with the fossilization.   

Or so I've heard; it has yet to come to me.  Just forgetfulness.  

---