Wake of Forgiveness: Middle Chapters to "Testaments to Seed," (p.212)

[DSaff]

I totally agree with the "precious things" left behind. It seems that can be lost in today's world even when both parents are there.

---

BookWoman718 wrote:

---

 Vaclav doesn't see that the most precious things Klara left behind were her sons.  If she were there, she might scold at a broken dish, but she probably would take a whip to Vaclav rather than let him harness their sons like oxen.  OK, that might be MY reaction...  but in any event, she sure wouldn't still be looking tenderly at Vaclav if he tried anything like that.  He's blind to plain truths, he's totally selfish.  In the end, he got pretty much what he deserved. 

---

[DSaff]

The twins were living off the money they inherited after killing their father and selling the property. They are certainly proof that "idle hands are the devil's workshop."

---

Vermontcozy wrote:

I am still figuring out,or trying too The Twins.   No family,probably doing all of this for a while,stealing,it couldn't be the first time..I don't know them or what drove them to steal,from Karel,where have they been living,etc...Everything changes..Karel is angry,we have not seen that anger for a while,actually  not since he left his father to die;;He is on a mission.find the twins,Confront them....Seeing his brother,needing his brothers,everything changes for me.... Susan

---

[Peppermill]

---

JuneC wrote:

Does anyone else find it interesting or unusual that in spite of their mean spirited, self-engaged father who shows no signs of affection, the Skala men appear to be just the opposite with their children? It seems they are warm, playful and loving.   How did they manage to accomplish this without a decent role model?  I was also pleased to see that they could be affectionate and helpful to their wives,once again without an example set for them.

Is it   Nature/nurture?   Their mother's personality?  The women they married? What do you think?

---

With all the twists and turns and fragmented ways Machart gives us information about his characters (which is much like we learn or realize later we learn about people in "real" life), I find it easy to lose or forget about or never notice -- at least at first read -- little clues we are given as readers.

While I do think the factors you name are significant, don't forget little scenes like Vaclav telling stories or being somehow involved with or letting the boys go fishing.  (I'm not going hunting for the specifics right now, so these are my soft, fuzzy recollections.)  He once had been  someone his sons had wanted to please.  Somehow, he still commanded some sort of respect in a way that the drunken, abusive Knedlik never did.

I have been slowly coming to the view that the Knedlik family is a foil for the Skala family.  As tough, as abusive, as violent, even despicable as Vaclav may have been, somehow, he and Karla bequeathed to the next generation some positive values and life ambitions that Old Man Knedlik and his wife never did. Sadly, or wonderously, depending on the situation, we see such cases in real life families.

I'd love to hear other views, comments.

[DSaff]

I have wondered about the smells as well. One thought I have is that many of these people live or wallow in the seedy side of life and the smells are connected to that. Bruce is painting a dark picture here, so sights and smells have to match it. Due to the descriptions of the land, etc., I have wondered if there was much free vegetation besides that by the water. That would make the farm smells so much more pronounced. I would love to find that the women have flowers planted around the house, or even a small family vegetable garden. Those would produce wonderful imaginary smells!

---

Peppermill wrote:

---

flouncyninja wrote [bold added]:

---

CAG wrote:

I just wanted to make a comment about several readers finding the "vivid descriptions" in this story as somewhat overwhelming. I do respect that opinion but for me those "vivid descriptions" are what made the book seem so real to me both in the first and second sections. I like my books to feel real, the characters, the settings etc. The descriptions are what made me see Bruce Machart as a talented writer. I am interested in what anyone else has to say and how the descriptions add or take away from this story as far as others are concerned. The differing opinions are what makes these discussions so interesting to me.

---

I completely agree that Bruce Machart is an incredible writer to create such vivid descriptions that they leave me feeling a bit ill inside.  That doesn't happen with bad writing.  I guess this novel is just a little too far outside my comfort zone in the sense of the cruder aspects of his characters' daily lives.  It's a very real world with real characters; perhaps I'm just a little too sensitive to spend my free time immersed in that world for too long, so I've found in this second section that it's taken away from my enjoyment of the plot at times.  But that's all on me, not the author.

---

Flouncy Ninja -- I'm not convinced that's all on you, "not the author."  As I have said elsewhere, I still haven't figured out what Machart has been doing with all the sensory attention to dung, outhouses, and other bodily secretions, animal and human.  At one point, when I was musing on the topic, I asked myself, where are the lilacs or apple trees or whatever other fragrant harbingers of pleasantness one might incur in Lavaca County, Texas, at the turn of the century.  Then I told myself probably I was being unduly feminine.  Still, the earth, the hay, the rivers, spilled beer have scents.  Somewhere along the line I stumbled across this quotation from Norman Mailer: "the ancient redolent odor of plowed land".

But the place that finally got to me was the paragraph on p. 150 beginning "Still, these were days of a generous, ever-yielding landscape, days of bright red wagonloads of tomatoes come summertime, of railcars piled with maize and dimpled, rust-colored sweet potatoes, of dense bales of hay, of cattle herds ... spared the foot-and-mouth outbreaks...[of] way up north, of steers so plentiful that the slaughterhouse pens ...stayed full and the stench of the Yoakum tannery could water one's eyes from a half mile away...."

Amidst all those rich, earthy smells of fall, why is the stench of the tannery the one that Machart calls to our attention?  What has the author been (obviously? unconsciously?) evoking via the olfactory senses throughout the novel?

Other readers, please give me some ideas.  For me, the answer I posit (life reeks) is too simplistic for the novel.

Pepper

---

[blkeyesuzi]

---

Peppermill wrote:

---

 What has the author been (obviously? unconsciously?) evoking via the olfactory senses throughout the novel?

Other readers, please give me some ideas.  For me, the answer I posit (life reeks) is too simplistic for the novel.

Pepper

---

Pepper,

I'd hate to put words in the authors mouth and I may be way off base here.  I can only say what my feelings are on this particular subject.  Bruce might disagree completely.  BUT. Here's my take..

I think, the author is conveying what these characters see, experience, and truly BELIEVE their world to be.  Unfortunately, not everyone sees beauty or softness in the world.  Some people can be surrounded by beauty and still not SEE it.  These characters are hard people, hardened by circumstance and sometimes hate.  Theirs is a bitter world and what better way for you to understand it than for the author to have you smell, taste, and touch it?  You get to experience it, muck around in it with your boots, smell it. These characters are blind to the rolling hills, smell of hay, anything light and beautiful most of the time.  You get to see (and smell) only what they see.  On occasion you get glimpses into Karel's attempts to see good things, but his world is overcome by hardship most of the time.

While I find this unpleasant at times, I think the novel is better for it and as a reader...so am I.   I have the opportunity to enter the world of the characters and understand their existence on a higher level.  Few writers are able to do that for me and I applaud any writer who can accomplish this task.  I get to disappear for a while and enter another world (this one just happens to be rather dark).  When I return from my adventure, it's nice to take a deep breath and see the light again, but I'll never forget the characters.  They stay with me because the author has managed to do such a good job creating the world they live in.  Had the author plunked in some goodness and light into this novel, I think it would have lost much of its atmosphere, thus the characters would have had to change with it.

Granted, this isn't the type of novel I'd pick up and read on a daily basis due to it's dark nature.  It IS, however one I enjoy because of it's depth, setting, characterization, masterful writing, and ability to keep me turning the pages.

I know that this answer is purely personal to my reading experience, but I hope it may help you in some way. I hope you enjoy the rest of the novel.

[fordmg]

I am commenting before reading everyone else.

---

We open with our only childhood scene so far after the first pages of the novel. Does Vaclav become more "human" for us, if not more humane, toward his boys? We get, for example, an image of Vaclav making breakfast for the young boys and watching them eat, warning them to be careful with their mother's dishes. How does such a scene fit with the man who would put yokes on his sons for plowing? 

I see that putting the boys to a plow harness is directly related to ruining the picture of Karel's mother, Vaclav's wife.  Vaclav doesn't exactly blame Karel as he is still a child, but he looses his 'humanity' after that.  He also studied the picture to bring back a loss.  Vaclav blamed Stan as the oldest, and he is the one who will not fight back.

Why does Karel turn his truck around after watching a boy and his father hunt along the roadside?

I am not sure about this, except that his father never had any special moments with Karel.  Karel dreams of how he will teach his son to hunt.  It is actually a poignent scene.

What does Sophie's teasing of him tell us about their relationship?

I think this shows that Karel and Sophie have a good relationship overall.  Not perfect, but Karel does not seem to be abusive.

Why did Karel hire the twins, Joe and Raymond? Why did he feel some affinity for the boys? How do you compare their characters with Karel's now that we've seen them in action? 

I couldn't follow this at all.  Except that all were drunk , and maybe Karal wanted some help with the farm so he could be with his new son.

How many misunderstandings can we trace in the mess of events that unfolds at the end of these chapters? What was the effect of the extended and unclear way we learn of the events that have transpired with the boys, Thomas, the alcohol, and all of it. At what point did you feel you developed a clear picture of what had happened? Is Karel able to clarify what's happened?

Everything seems to be a disconect.  One wrong action after another.

MG

---

[Vermontcozy]

  bikeyesuzi,Thank you for the wonderful summary..I am in favor of  all I have read so far..I love Western Authors,Cormac McCarthy,Larry McMurthy., .One cannot as we know ,convince one to like,or even respect what the Author has written...That is so important to me as a reader..This is a brutal,realistic account of a time and place in our history..Even here in Vermont in an area called The Kingdom.a favorite Author of mine,"Howard Frank Mosher" has from his own Family's account ,American and French Canadian settlers and others,have similar stories;;Written so well,like Bruce's;;I am always transported to where a fine author takes me..Susan..

[Vermontcozy]

---

DSaff wrote:

The twins were living off the money they inherited after killing their father and selling the property. They are certainly proof that "idle hands are the devil's workshop."

---

Vermontcozy wrote:

I am still figuring out,or trying too The Twins.   No family,probably doing all of this for a while,stealing,it couldn't be the first time..I don't know them or what drove them to steal,from Karel,where have they been living,etc...Everything changes..Karel is angry,we have not seen that anger for a while,actually  not since he left his father to die;;He is on a mission.find the twins,Confront them....Seeing his brother,needing his brothers,everything changes for me.... Susan

---

---

Yes,so true Donna..I have wondered about them and Bruce had mentioned that he might include them in his next book..Without any spoilers,I am almost finished,next week should be interesting..Susan

[thewanderingjew]

---

Rachel-K wrote:

Why does Karel turn his truck around after watching a boy and his father hunt along the roadside?

I thought that scene was really an important turn around moment for Karel. I hope it continues in the last portion of the book. All of a sudden, his life seemed so much richer to him because he realized he would be able to share those kinds of moments with his own son, share moments he would have loved to share with his own father but never did.

Karel always seems to be searching for a deeper connection to his family, imagining a relationship with a mother he never knew, opining about his brothers being yoked to him and wishing they could be together again, though not in that way. Now he has the deepest of connections with his own son and he makes a decision to embrace it.

[thewanderingjew]

---

Rachel-K wrote: 

What does Sophie's teasing of him tell us about their relationship?

I think Sophie completely understands Karel and his nature. She, like Klara did for Vaclav, opens him up and makes him whole. Without her, I think he would be incomplete as Vaclav was without Klara. Perhaps she is the Yin for his Yang.

[thewanderingjew]

---

Rachel-K wrote:

Why did Karel hire the twins, Joe and Raymond? Why did he feel some affinity for the boys? How do you compare their characters with Karel's now that we've seen them in action? 

Perhaps he no longer wanted to be alone. He often wistfully thought of the relationship he had with his brothers. I think he might have been looking for surrogates but these brothers betrayed him, as well.

They were abused by their father too. I actually thought that he recognized the loneliness in them that he always felt. He and Raymond both had scars on their faces. Both of them were hurt as a result of either their father's behavior or his actions. The twin's mom had been Karel's wet nurse. Maybe he felt as if they were kindred spirits, if he knew that fact. Another common thread was that all three were thought to have been involved in their own father's death.

I think that Joe might have been more similar to Karel and Ray more similar to Thom. Karel looked up to his brother Stan and Joe looked up to Ray.  It was almost as if the twins represented the sides of good and evil warring against each other as I often felt those emotions, living side by side in Karel, also fought within him.

---

[blkeyesuzi]

---

JuneC wrote:

Does anyone else find it interesting or unusual that in spite of their mean spirited, self-engaged father who shows no signs of affection, the Skala men appear to be just the opposite with their children? It seems they are warm, playful and loving.   How did they manage to accomplish this without a decent role model?  I was also pleased to see that they could be affectionate and helpful to their wives,once again without an example set for them.

Is it   Nature/nurture?   Their mother's personality?  The women they married? What do you think?

---

Ah, but they did have a role model.  Their father revered, almost worshipped, their mother and her memory.  They (particularly Karel) grew up experiencing a a wife and mother as someone to be adored and perhaps untouchable or out of reach.  This is perhaps why they treat the women (and their children) in their lives better than you might expect.

[thewanderingjew]

---

Rachel-K wrote:
At what point did you feel you developed a clear picture of what had happened? Is Karel able to clarify what's happened?

I have to be honest, I didn't really understand any of the timeline totally, until Karel got back to his farm, found the mess and made his plan of action which I thought was an uncommonly calm pursuit.

I skimmed the pages several times after that to try and figure out whether Karel asked the twins to help him before or after Sophie had their son.

If he had spoken to them afterwards, then I thought, maybe he wanted to have more time to spend with his family and his new son and maybe he felt that it was natural to have "brothers" helping brothers as his brothers helped each other pulling the plow together. So therefore, he hired them, almost as surrogates. When I realized that he asked them before she had his son, it blew a hole in my theory and a bulb went off in my head...another similarity, his surrogate brothers betrayed him too, although not each other.

[blkeyesuzi]

---

Vermontcozy wrote:

  bikeyesuzi,Thank you for the wonderful summary..I am in favor of  all I have read so far..I love Western Authors,Cormac McCarthy,Larry McMurthy., .One cannot as we know ,convince one to like,or even respect what the Author has written...That is so important to me as a reader..This is a brutal,realistic account of a time and place in our history..Even here in Vermont in an area called The Kingdom.a favorite Author of mine,"Howard Frank Mosher" has from his own Family's account ,American and French Canadian settlers and others,have similar stories;;Written so well,like Bruce's;;I am always transported to where a fine author takes me..Susan..

---

Thanks, Susan!

[Madgy]

---

Rachel-K wrote:

Hi all, please use any of the following question to continue our discussion of Wake of Forgiveness!

We open with our only childhood scene so far after the first pages of the novel. Does Vaclav become more "human" for us, if not more humane, toward his boys? We get, for example, an image of Vaclav making breakfast for the young boys and watching them eat, warning them to be careful with their mother's dishes. How does such a scene fit with the man who would put yokes on his sons for plowing? You can see that Vaclav is still grieving his wife's loss when her picture is ruined.  I think that makes you realize that he is human and has strong feelings. 

Why does Karel turn his truck around after watching a boy and his father hunt along the roadside?

I have to say I love this part.  Karel sees how a father and son should be and it really gets him thinking about his own son.  He thinks about the relationship he can have and it really makes you feel good to know that he won't use his son for plowing. 

What does Sophie's teasing of him tell us about their relationship?

 I really think Karel and Sophie have a good relationship.  Yes he's been unfaithful to her and she probably knows it but I think that kind of thing probably happened alot and the women just turned their heads because divorce was a no no.

Why did Karel hire the twins, Joe and Raymond? Why did he feel some affinity for the boys? How do you compare their characters with Karel's now that we've seen them in action? 

 Perhaps Karel hired the twins to give them a chance to be responsible.  Because he came from an abusive backround like they did he understands why they are like they are. 

How many misunderstandings can we trace in the mess of events that unfolds at the end of these chapters? What was the effect of the extended and unclear way we learn of the events that have transpired with the boys, Thomas, the alcohol, and all of it. At what point did you feel you developed a clear picture of what had happened? Is Karel able to clarify what's happened?

---

[Madgy]

Hey everyone,

   Does anyone know why Thomas shot Joe because he wasn't armed?  Perhaps I missed the reason.   Thanks 

[dhaupt]

---

Madgy wrote:

Hey everyone,

   Does anyone know why Thomas shot Joe because he wasn't armed?  Perhaps I missed the reason.   Thanks 

---

You know I wondered that too until I remembered that it was in the back of his shoulder and maybe he couldn't tell them apart and thought he shot Raymond. Or maybe he didn't care which one he shot and did it to make a point.

[Fozzie]

---

Peppermill wrote:

But the place that finally got to me was the paragraph on p. 150 beginning "Still, these were days of a generous, ever-yielding landscape, days of bright red wagonloads of tomatoes come summertime, of railcars piled with maize and dimpled, rust-colored sweet potatoes, of dense bales of hay, of cattle herds ... spared the foot-and-mouth outbreaks...[of] way up north, of steers so plentiful that the slaughterhouse pens ...stayed full and the stench of the Yoakum tannery could water one's eyes from a half mile away...."

Amidst all those rich, earthy smells of fall, why is the stench of the tannery the one that Machart calls to our attention?  What has the author been (obviously? unconsciously?) evoking via the olfactory senses throughout the novel?

Pepper

---

I think this is a great questions for the author.

[Peppermill]

I see the word “evil” bandied about in the discussions here of TWoF.  “Evil,” like “sin” and “truth,” has always seemed one of those strong words, certainly not without meaning, but hard to cleanly identify.  So what are the candidates for “evil” in TWoF?

Burning the barn, destroying property and animals.

Subjecting young boys to pulling a plow to the extent they are physically deformed for life.

Drunkenness and abuse.

Using a horserace to determine the marriages of one’s daughters

Kicking a heifer such that she fails to calve.

Failing to call a midwife in a timely manner.

Placing one’s property in the care of irresponsible teenagers.

Fickleness and jealousy among neighbors.

Bootlegging during Prohibition.

Whoring.

Adultery.

Keeping and pampering race horses when work horses are needed.

Hoof and mouth disease up on the Panhandle.  (Probably largely considered disease, not evil, even in 1924, yet is there "truth" in a more medieval view?)

The stench from tanning and slaughterhouse operations.

Questionable banking negotiations.

Slurs towards others of different backgrounds.  (One of the few times I laughed at the description of spit! p. 14)

War and its impact on young men.

Using a crop to the face of another to win a race.

Dropping a tree branch low to influence a race.

Failure as an adult to act responsibly towards others, regardless of one’s own experiences.

Failure to express love and kindness.

Most probably would not apply the word “evil” to all of these and there are probably significant possibilities for its application from the book not included here.  These are only intended to possibly provoke a discussion probing the “meaning” or significance of “evil” a bit, at least within the scope of TWoF.  Do we have guesses as to the author’s intent?  Does that matter, or more so, our reactions as readers?

Probably reading Purge at the same time and having recently finished Sarah's Key  prompt me to post these rather outrageous questions.  Please feel free to ignore.

Pepper

[Fozzie]

---

Rachel-K wrote:

Why did Karel hire the twins, Joe and Raymond?

---

Yes, this is the question I kept asking myself.  The story of the twins' actions in the section called The Blind Janus ruined the book for me.  I didn’t feel like I was in the scenes, like I did in earlier sections, nor did I feel the sense of tension that the earlier parts of the book had.  I was bored with the storyline in the section but pushed through, hoping that once I finished The Blind Janus, the book would return to the book I was enjoying for the first 143 pages.