Wake of Forgiveness: Early Chapters until "Meander Scars," (p.132)

[thewanderingjew]

It is interesting that you pointed out that Karel was on the floor playing with his children as a sign of a possible softer side to his personality. I seem to remember that when the book opened, Vaclav felt more warmly toward his children too, before Klara died. I hope it doesn't foreshadow a coming tragedy and extreme change in Karel's personality, to far more violent  behavior. I have only read the first assigned reading, now you have sparked my curiosity even further.

---

MSaff wrote:

Good Afternoon Everyone,

 ....snip....While I am sounding negative here, I do have some areas where there appears to be some softening of the human side of these characters.  The example I can use here is when Karel is on the floor playing with his children.  That section showed me that at least Karel may have a tender side to explore.  If now we can get him to be faithful to his wife, maybe there will be hope for him.

---

[BookBobBP]

What kind of a man is Vaclav? He sees himself as a man who is "bitter and hard" but had been softened only by being close to Klara during their marriage. Are you able to feel any sympathy for his character in the novel so far?

Yes I do feel sypathy for this man.  He looses the woman he loves he has a farm to work and children which he has never been trained to take care.  I think yes he is a poor father and the only way he knows how to gain respect in his community is  thru racing his horses.  But loose his wife he lost his anchor in his life and did not have anyone to give him the direction that she had.

Do we see Vaclav and Karee show tenderness, pride, or respect in their relationship to land and horses that they don't seem to expect at all in the human relationships within their family?

Yes with Vaclav that it is practically true with his sons and the people in his community but his wife he had had the kind of respect for when she died he transferred it all to the land and the horses.  Karee is different we know he has feelings for his sister in law, his mistress, and his wife.  He also seems to be a very good father to his children.  He has resentment towards his brothers and everyone else in his community.

Is there a relationship between the four brothers?

Maybe between the three older boys but not between Karee and them.

Karee has a dreamed up relationship to his mother. How would you describe his thoughts of her?

His mother takes on the role of a Catholic Saint  he can still talk with her thru prayer.

What effect do the shifts in time between chapters have on your understanding of this family's story?

I like it.  It gives us a better understanding of the characters and what is happening.

At the end of this first section, Karee expresses some astonishment that Graciela's father would harness fine horses to pull a carriage, but seems to register no irony that his own father has crippled his brothers and himself by making them pull a plow. Do you have any understanding of this? 

He is a product of how he was raised.  He was taught by his father to treat the horses that way.

[LadyMin]

---

nfam wrote:

The characters in this book are not really likeable. Valclav is a sadistic tormentor of his sons. The sons seem to be headed the same way. I found the fight scene between the family very explainable after the way the boys had been treated. 

The neighbors also seemed cruel. They enjoyed the fight. It was their way or getting back at the Skala's. Truthfully, everyone seemed bent on revenge of one sort or another, or if not that taking out their incrustation at their poverty on anyone who was slightly better off. 

I did find the skipping about in years difficult for the story. I though the author sacrificed a great amount of tension by having us already know what was going to happen. The race was tense and well writter, but we already knew the outcome. 

In general, the book is well written. The descriptions bring us into the hardscrabble life of the people. I think the author did a good job with that. 

---

I didn't find the men very likeable but I do like the women characters. While some of the men, like Vaclav, are just plain mean, others are a product of the era in which they lived. Men were not allowed to be sensitive.

I see the women as strong characters and even if I don't like some of the things they do, I do like their strength. I can't even imagine having to survive without my modern conveniences. (I've only read up to p132 so that may change.)

I generally don't mind books that skip about in time if there is a distinct past and present story, but this time the technique is making it more difficult for me to follow.

[Peppermill]

What kind of a man is Vaclav? He sees himself as a man who is "bitter and hard" but had been softened only by being close to Klara during their marriage. Are you able to feel any sympathy for his character in the novel so far?

Since I have been late in taking ahold of WoF, I read several of the discussion questions before reading.  In looking for textual evidence for sympathy for Vaclav, I noted these:

“…Turning the knife at his side, the man coughs phlegm and spits, and it occurs to Karel that, in all these years, he’s never thought to imagine that this wiry and unforgiving man was one the very one his mother had loved.  When he imagines her, dreaming her alive daily in his mind, manufacturing memories, forging connections with her that he’d never known, what he sees is a woman sitting horseback with a swollen belly, a woman pale and lovely and comforting her youngest son, stroking his curly hair and pressing him to the warm, faintly perfumed comfort of her bosom.  Only now, with the wind’s murmuring in the pines akin to the hushed sounds of graveside consolation, does he shiver with the notion of all she’s lost, all she’ll never know of the family she’s left alive and discontented in the world from which she must always have meant to protect them.”

What was there about this man Vaclav Skala that Klara could love? is the question the author instilled for me with the passage above.

“She’d been put a girl of fifteen when Klara Skala died in childbirth, but she remembers the young family well, remembers Vaclav Skala as a young man, reserved but kind, the gentle way he had with his wife. And now, long without her, the man works his boys like animals, instead of animals, and she’s beginning to understand how you can come to see in your children only what they’ve left you without…. p. 85.

This is from the woman (“the Knedlik woman”), now thirty in 1910, who has just given birth to twins to a man who is not gentle with her and who, in 1895, had been pregnant at fifteen (14?), lost her child, and wet-nursed the baby Karel.

“The townspeople would assume, from this day forward, that Klara’s death had turned a gentle man bitter and hard, but the truth, Vaclav knew, was that her absence only rendered him, again, the man he’d been before he’d met her, one only her proximity had ever softened….” p. 5

After reading these passages, I asked, who are the reliable narrators here?  Did Vaclav know the truth about himself or has he given himself justification for his bitterness and his cruelty going forward?  Did the townspeople really see a different person?  What clues does the author give us on whom to believe and why?

DSaff uses a wonderful passage in her tag line: "Reading is a means of thinking with another person's mind; it forces you to stretch your own." Charles Scribner

For me, perhaps one of the greatest challenges is finding the appropriate empathy for seemingly unsavory characters.

[erinsam]

His character is very troublesome for me with his contradictory spirit.  The treatment of the children which is only true link to Klara makes me wonder on if the love was true or just what she could do for him.

[CAG]

---

doe965 wrote:

To be honest I do not think we can really judge Vaclav fairly since we only see one aspect of his life.  We have no idea how he became a hard, bitter man.

We only know that when Klara was alive, he was a caring man due to her love for him. (I believe it was during this time he treated his sons differently because Klara was there to intercede.)   Once Klara passed away, everything redeeming about him died, he took his pain and anger out on his sons because they were convenient. Vaclav put his energy into his animals and his farm because he did not have to feel anything to take care of them. From that day on, he treated his sons as animals so he would not have to feel pain again.

---

I think you are right. My hunch is his childhood background has a lot to do with the man he has become. I think he is detached from everyone in his life and it became easy for him to focus on the farm, the land, winning horse races because (as you said) he didn't have to feel anything.

[pen21]

---

doe965 wrote:

To be honest I do not think we can really judge Vaclav fairly since we only see one aspect of his life.  We have no idea how he became a hard, bitter man.

We only know that when Klara was alive, he was a caring man due to her love for him. (I believe it was during this time he treated his sons differently because Klara was there to intercede.)   Once Klara passed away, everything redeeming about him died, he took his pain and anger out on his sons because they were convenient. Vaclav put his energy into his animals and his farm because he did not have to feel anything to take care of them. From that day on, he treated his sons as animals so he would not have to feel pain again.

---

I also think I need more information before I can truly judge Vaclav. How did Vaclav's father treat him?  Also when Klara was alive it was said he was more caring, but how much more caring?  It could be that Klara kept Vaclav on a caring path. In this first section Vaclav doesn't leave me with any hope that he could change. There is no excuse for the way he treated his sons. Family was very important in this time in history. Family is who you depended on most.

Luanne

[spicy_t]

What kind of a man is Vaclav? He sees himself as a man who is "bitter and hard" but had been softened only by being close to Klara during their marriage. Are you able to feel any sympathy for his character in the novel so far?  So far I really have no sympathy for Vaclav...it's sad he lost his wife, but he seems to have always been heartless for the most part.

Do we see Vaclav and Karel show tenderness, pride, or respect in their relationship to land and horses that they don't seem to expect at all in the human relationships within their family? Yes they both show their deep caring for the land and the horses, but none toward each other or their family.

Is there a relationship between the four brothers? There doesn't seem to be much of any...I feel the other three do hold Karel responsible for their mothers death even if subconciously and they almost seem jealous of him at times as well.

Karel has a dreamed up relationship to his mother. How would you describe his thoughts of her? He dreams of receiving the affection he imagines and longs for...maybe feels undeserving because she died giving birth to him?

What effect do the shifts in time between chapters have on your understanding of this family's story? I had to look back a couple of times but it really didn't affect the flow of the story, the author did a good job on keeping it on track.

At the end of this first section, Karel expresses some astonishment that Graciela's father would harness fine horses to pull a carriage, but seems to register no irony that his own father has crippled his brothers and himself by making them pull a plow. Do you have any understanding of this? He was raised so harshly that he wouldn't even realize that there was any other way, in his mind the horses are worth much more.

[HannibalCat]

---

PiperMurphy wrote:

---

---

I've thought quite a bit about this, and it is the one thing that I most want to find an answer for. Vaclav has a lot of land, but he has obtained a lot of it by gambling. Is he land poor? He has the land, but not the means to make it produce. Making his sons pull a plow is certainly not an efficient way to raise a crop. We know so little about Vaclav's background. Maybe he is a poor businessman, but he has discovered that he can use Karel's horsemanship to obtain some wealth, or prestige. He's a landowner after all.

---

I had the same question. I could not understand how he could use his children in such a manner, and yet seemed to be a wealthy man. I think his use of his sons this way was not to raise crops efficiently, rather it was to punish them for the loss of the only woman he could stand. He seems to have no respect for the lives of other people.

[AshDar]

---

JaneM wrote:

Having experienced the same pain as other readers over the unbearable cruelty of forcing your sons to be harnassed. I have been thinking about this for some time.  Questions that come to mind have to do with the inception of this practice.  Obviously Vaclav used horses or oxen to plow while his wife was alive and later while the boys were still too small to do this.  So at what point did it begin?  One day he just says to his sons to get out there and start plowing?  There must have been a defining moment.  Or a long period of verbal abuse leading up to this ultimate physical abuse that would make them accept the yoke as their duty.  His special horses have been used mostly in the last 4 years (prior to 1910) (Page 9) in races to win land from Dalton, so maybe the harnassing began when Stan was 16 and Karal was 11.

I would expect further flashbacks in later chapters will bring clarity to this point.

I would also like to say that this is a dark book so far, with only brief flickers of humanity to lighten the mood.  But they are there, if you look for them, from Karal playing with his children, to his stated love for his wife (regardless of his fidelity), to the courage of the young man who raised the cross on the church.  While others may find this depressing, I personally am keeping the book's title in mind, about "Foregiveness", thinking that Bruce M. will guide us along a path that will bring understanding and ultimately foregiveness to at least one or more of the characters. 

I recently saw the movie "Winter's Bone" (originally a novel) which is equally dark, and full of familial abuse, but in books of this type there is also a beauty in how the author lays out and reveals the story, allowing us to build to the ending.. 

Winter's Bone  

---

Incidentally, one of my friends from high school is in that movie!

But, back on topic, I like Karel. He does have humanity to him, even after everything his father put him through. The chapter where they go to church and his wife goes into labor is very touching to me. 

[Peppermill]

---

Popper19 wrote [excerpt]:

What kind of a man is Vaclav? He sees himself as a man who is "bitter and hard" but had been softened only by being close to Klara during their marriage. Are you able to feel any sympathy for his character in the novel so far?

I only found sympathy for him when his wife died.  It seemed that he cared deeply for his sons when he took his wife's dead body to the hay loft to spare the boys seeing their dead mother.

---

When I was writing my post about evidences for sympathy for Vaclav, I considered including this piece about placing their mother's body out of sight.  In some ways, it seemed such a kind thing to do, especially when I have read so many stories out of the 18th and 19th centuries where small children were forced to view and touch and even kiss dead parents. 

What stopped me was that at the same time the episode showed a lack of understanding of the process of grieving, however death was mourned in that community at that time.  It has somewhat disconcerted me that we are never given any closure as readers on what happened subsequently.  Was there a funeral service?  A burial in community cemetery?  Did other members of the community participate beyond the young woman taking on wet-nursing Karel? Why were we denied this chance to further understand the character of Vaclav?  Did Vaclav eventually bury Karla himself?  Did he reject the communal rituals of death? Where was the church?  The community?

The burning of the marriage bed and the boiling of the ticking seemed simultaneously brutal and poignant, including the reactions of the cattle and the coyotes.  On re-reading, I note these words:

"...when he lay pressed for the first time between her tender skin and the soft warmth of the bed she'd made for him, he'd startled his bride, so loud was his laugh."  Those words remind me now of the playfulness and rowdiness of Karel.  They are among the closest we get to a glimpse of the young Vaclav.  (See pp. 4-5.)

[Peppermill]

---

Rachel-K wrote:

An interesting point! Hard labor is often expected of children in very hard times. 

Vaclav was about the richest man in the county, yet he put the yoke on his boys rather than get farm animals for the labor.

Is it sheer cruelty for the pleasure of it, or is it cheapness? Was there ever a time when the way he drove the boys was actually out of necessity? Or does that even matter in terms of understanding this character?

---

Machart  has told us that the use of children for labor like beasts of burden came from a real life story embedded in his family.  I wonder if he knows the "why", either there or for this story.

I do think the "why" matters.  I am wondering, however, if I shall ever know within the context of TWoF.

[RalphMalph]

I think this is something like modern day abusive relationships where it is feared that worst things will happen if they try to change the status quo.  Additionally, the assistance from the community wasn't there to assist the boys in getting out. 

Vaclav seems to be an outsider even in the community once his wife passes away and the boys feel that being outside there isn't help to turn to in assistance.  They also feel family pride in quality farming but they don't know that they are being abused to achieve it.

[Starr-Dragon]

---

nfam wrote:

The characters in this book are not really likeable. Valclav is a sadistic tormentor of his sons.  

---

I have to agree with you on the point about Valclav. He is very sadistic and has little time for anybody or anything that can't do something for him.

I had a hard time as well with the way the author kept going back and forth in time. I found myself having to go back and re-read passages because I hadn't noticed the switch. I disagree though when you said we already knew the outcome of the race. We knew that something happened to disband the family, but not what or how. I had no idea that the boys would be that willling to sabatoge their brother.

The author's descriptions of the people and the times they lived in brought it all to life and made me feel their emotions.

[Lil_Irish_Lass]

There is something about the young Karel that completely fascinates me... and in someway, the young Karel is someone I can relate to. Even I am at a loss at HOW I relate to him besides experiencing the actual feeling.

I fully believe that these men are victims of the time they lived in - especially in the location they are in as well. The Frontier was not a place for the weak and timid. A physically hard life raises harsh people. That doesn't make the violence right per say, but I find it easier to accept given the location and time period than if this novel took place in 2010 Texas.

The writing style has sucked me in and I found it very difficult to stop at the end of the first reading assignment.

[fordmg]

---

Peppermill wrote:

---

Rachel-K wrote:

An interesting point! Hard labor is often expected of children in very hard times. 

Vaclav was about the richest man in the county, yet he put the yoke on his boys rather than get farm animals for the labor.

Is it sheer cruelty for the pleasure of it, or is it cheapness? Was there ever a time when the way he drove the boys was actually out of necessity? Or does that even matter in terms of understanding this character?

---

Machart  has told us that the use of children for labor like beasts of burden came from a real life story embedded in his family.  I wonder if he knows the "why", either there or for this story.

I do think the "why" matters.  I am wondering, however, if I shall ever know within the context of TWoF.

---

Keep reading.  Some questions are answered in the next section.

MG

[Lil_Irish_Lass]

---

mommybooknerd wrote:

---

maxcat wrote:

I have no love of the character of Vaclav. After his wife's death upon giving birth to Karel, he absolutely lost all feeling for love of his sons. He became a very cruel and bitter man and I have to wonder if the original 3 boys noticed any difference. To make his boys into plow animals to save his horses for races is just beyond thinking. I tend to think the boys didn't interact much, they  did the daily chores and watched Karel when he was young. This is a story of survival as you can see a farmer depends on the weather for his crops and money for the results.

There is no relationship between Vaclav and Karel. I think some of the scenes can tell you that. The fight scene after the horse race between Karel and Graciela. The castrating of an old horse that will never be a stud again. All of these are sadistic and cruel and hard to read.

Karel wishes he knew his mother...he never touched her and he has never known her love. He fantasizes that she is there and he is in her arms. He definitely needs a woman's touch as he grew up.

The shifting in time is a bit confusing as you read one part and Karel is sort of grown up and the next part, he's a child again. It seems confusing to me but well written otherwise.

Karel does mention about the fine horses that drove the carriage but doesn't relate them to what his own father has done to the boys by making them pull a plow. Remember, Vaclav is a cruel character and saves his horses for races or studs. He would rather have the boys pull the plow at the expense or the curvature in their necks and spines.

---

But Karel has a moment on page 20: The truth, Karel knew, though he could not have yet put it into words, was thatthe horse wanted the whip, wanted it teh same way karel wanted his pop's strap, the stinging and the unambiguousurgency of its attention, and, for Karel, the closest he got to his father's touch...

How does that relate to your feelings about Vaclav?  That is considered a tender moment of reflection?

---

Also, when Villasenior approaches Vaclav about racing their horses, Vaclav does look to Karel. Who grins as he steps back in to the harness. I believe Vaclav nods, and then agrees to the match. Vaclav may not know how to love now that Klara is gone, but I think there is a part of him that respects Karel in a way that he cannot respect his other sons. Karel is a natural horseman and to Vaclav, that deserves respect.

It was a very brief moment, and the rest contradict it, but I truly believe that in that instant, Vaclav respected his sons oppinion and looked to him for advice on the situation.

[ruthieWW]

What kind of a man is Vaclav? He sees himself as a man who is "bitter and hard" but had been softened only by being close to Klara during their marriage. Are you able to feel any sympathy for his character in the novel so far?

Vaclav is indeed a bitter and hard man, and he is aware of this. He knows himself. I am reluctant to judge his character this soon in the book. Although I am reserving my judgment of his CHARACTER, I can certainly judge the BEHAVIOR, which is repulsive, cruel and abusive. He does not reflect any positive attributes of fatherhood or neighborly kindness.  No, I do not have sympathy for him because so far in this book, we do not really know WHY he is so extremely hard. I am looking forward to more insight.

Do we see Vaclav and Karel show tenderness, pride, or respect in their relationship to land and horses that they don't seem to expect at all in the human relationships within their family?

 Oh yes, both men are able to freely express these qualities to land and horses. Yet their personal feelings toward family and humanity in general is alien to them. We are completely aware of why Karel is so distant. "A Child Learns from How He Lives" is forever a true statement. A tender child raised up with NO exhibits of love or affection can only resort to what he does know. But Vaclav is another question. We do not know why he is so hard.

Is there a relationship between the four brothers?

I thought in the beginning that the four brothers would be close. Stan is described as the nurturing figure. A few joking remarks at bedtime makes you think the boys will stick together, perhaps eventually find a way to end this oppression or escape from it. But the brawl after the race gave me a different perspective. It seems the three older boys are united against Karel, which is so extremely sad. But again, they lived in fear, jealousy, abuse and had no one to guide them in a loving, positive direction. I am a firm believer that a child needs NO instruction in the negative side of life; but a child NEEDS to be TAUGHT the positive things in life. No one was there to teach them or council them, so the ugliness abounded.

Karel has a dreamed up relationship to his mother. How would you describe his thoughts of her?

Another extremely sad element to this story. The older boys can at least have somewhat of a memory of being held and loved. Karel has been led to believe that he was the reason she died...the guilt is too much for such a tender age. No one tells him otherwise. No one takes her place. There is an empty hole in his little heart that aches for affection. It is amazing to me that he is able to imagine a bond with her.

What effect do the shifts in time between chapters have on your understanding of this family's story?

At first the shifts were a little distracting, but then it seemed natural. Just like how we all think and remember things. Our memory goes back and forth; but the overall picture is clear. I like it.

At the end of this first section, Karel expresses some astonishment that Graciela's father would harness fine horses to pull a carriage, but seems to register no irony that his own father has crippled his brothers and himself by making them pull a plow. Do you have any understanding of this? 

This is indeed very interesting. Again we see his respect for a fine horse is elevated above his respect for human life, even his own! His mindset is warped because of his environment and development under the hand of Vaclav. While I am glad that he appreciates the value of these horses, I am also hoping that Karel will cultivate that same esteem for people. I can't wait to see how this story continues.

[Donna-readerin…]

It gives me encouragement to know that there are some answers in the coming chapters.  While I don't "like" Vaclav, I wonder how he became the man he is.  I don't feel it's fair of me to judge him when I'm seeing such a small part of his life.

Also, while the boy's younger life was indeed harsh, and I would certainly NOT want to see any child treated the way they were, those hardships molded them into the men they are.  I see Karel as a loving father (so far anyway) and I wonder, would he have been different had he not lost his mother or been love deprived from his father?

I also keep going back to the time when the author talks about the rapt attention the boys show their father when he does talk to them.  And the little bit of humor shown before the big race.  These boys are searching so hard for any kind of love or attention to be thrown their way, it is heartbreaking.

I do find that I have to keep reminding myself of the time period.  Things, attitudes, necessities are so much different now that we are appalled by some of the going ones, yet at the time, they were probably considered "normal".  While we feel sick about how the boys were treated, we must remind ourselves that there ARE worse things out there, even today.

I do have to say that I wasn't real fond of the skipping back and forth between years.  Honestly, the story would of seemed more "intriguing" had things developed along a normal time line.  Because we see into the future, we aren't surprised by some of the things that happen along the way.

I wanted to say also that I had a bit of a hard time with some of the sentences and the descriptions that seemed to go on and on.  I can understand the author wanting to put us into the story, but I felt I could of been there without so many "words".  I found myself having to re-read several sentences because my mind was blocking out all the descriptive.  Now granted, I am not a literary scholar so to a lot of people it is probably amazing and they are in love with the way the author wrote, but I'm just an "ordinary" person and kind of felt it was to much. :-(

[PiperMurphy]

---

Donna-readerinWI wrote:

I also keep going back to the time when the author talks about the rapt attention the boys show their father when he does talk to them.  And the little bit of humor shown before the big race.  These boys are searching so hard for any kind of love or attention to be thrown their way, it is heartbreaking. 

---

I agree. Isn't it natural to seek love and attention from a parent, even an abusive one, simply because they are the parent? It must have been frustrating and confusing to get a glimpse of the father Vaclav could have been only to have him return to the shut-down abuser.