Read They Say, I Say, “Introduction:
Entering the Conversation” (1-15)
-
In Best Essays, read Dave Eggers’ “The
Man at the River” (31-33)
o
While reading, consider these questions:
§
What are the American’s “default settings”?
§
Why, at the end, does the speaker say he
“doesn’t want to be…someone who needs to cross a river to see anything at all?”
§
David Foster Wallace and Dave Eggers seem to be
addressing a similar issue, that of being stuck in one's own head. Which author do you think is more effective at conveying his message? why?
§
The author, Dave Eggers, spent a lot of time in
Sudan where this essay is set. In fact, many of the details of the story
correspond to Eggers’ life. Why, then, might he have chosen to put this story
in the third person?
o
On the blog, respond to two of the above
questions
o
Use quotations from the essay to support your
answer
o
If someone else has responded to the same
question, reference that person’s response in your response. Use the template
from TSIS on page 15 to do so.
§
Example: Professor Rattner suggests that Eggers makes himself seem like a hateful ogre. I disagree. In my view, Eggers comes across as a gentle goat.
§
You get the idea
-
Post your response by the start of class on
Thursday, 09/07. Late work will not be accepted
-
I look forward to reading your responses
-
Enjoy!!
Your comments should appear here
ReplyDeleteMake sure to save your comments in Word or another program. Then, copy and paste them here
ReplyDeleteDavid eggers is the man
ReplyDelete(1.) Responding to-Why, at the end, does the speaker say he “doesn’t want to be…someone who needs to cross a river to see anything at all?” The American in the story comes off as a bit fragile when he did not wish to cross the river by foot. He was only remaining cautious as stated, "He had cut his shin a few days before...he is concerned that something in the river...will get into his body via this wound...he might get sick and die here" (Eggers pg. 31). His condition is effective because he is far from any medical care if he was to cross the river with an injured shin that was un-bandaged. Most importantly, because of his choosing to cross the river by a fisherman's boat, he doesn't wish to be judged differently in a different country and be viewed as a stranger from America who thinks he is better than anyone else in Sudan. The man is only living up to his own expectations.
ReplyDelete(2.) Responding to- Why, then, might he have chosen to put this story in the third person? Though this story relates to a time in David Eggers' life, but the story just doesn't involve himself. As the American visiting Sudan, he is one of the main characters, but There are other points of view are coming from the Sudanese friends of the American visitor. At the start of the essay, Eggers introduces not just one character and begins the essay with "I", "There is an American sitting by a narrow caramel-colored river in South Sudan" (Eggers 31). Anyone who begins an essay in the first person usually starts with I, my, or me. As noticeable, we all can agree that the American is David Egger's, but he doesn't refer to himself as "I'' and instead he only talks about a normal, regular American visiting Sudan who happens to have two Sudan native friends and just telling a story, without the mentioning of who the American is. Egger wished to involve all of the characters, rather than talk about himself.
Blog comment: After reading this essay, I take it as a lot of people believe that David Eggers is pompous and self-centered. I do not think that is the case; he is a cautious man, with his own expectations and knowledge about the world and it's dangers. As being the American visiting Sudan, I think the natives had the wrong impression of him. He is a good man.
Ryan Drago suggests that Eggers, was probably thought of as a pompous man by the Fisherman, second Sudanese friend, and probably the whole town, BUT he actually wasn't. He just had his own precautions, and sense of probable danger just like every human on Earth, so I agree with Ryan. In this essay, Dave Eggers seems like a man, who wouldn't want to bother a single soul. All he wanted to do was just simply sit on the rocks of the riverbed because of worries that something might get into his wound. " He had cut his shin a few days before, and the cut was unbandaged and deep enough that he is concerned that something in the river, some parasite or exotic microbe, will get into his body via his wound, and because they are hours away from any Western medical care, he might get sick and die here. " (The Man at the River, Dave Eggers, PG.31). You see? All Eggers was doing, was playing it safe. Eggers wanted safety, rather than taking the risk, which I don't blame him for. He was in foreign country, and knew about the dangers.
Delete" "But this river is clean," the second friend says.
"I'm sure it is," the American says, hating himself for seeming fragile, "but I read about the many infections we can get here, given the different microbes . . ." "(The Man at the River by Dave Eggers, PG.32).
I think Eggers wanted this essay told in third person because he wants the reader to not just focus on his view of the "situation", but every person involved. For example, The second Sudanese friend came to get Eggers, because their mutual friend wanted Eggers to see the town on the other side of the river, but the second friend wouldn't leave until his mission was accomplished "This day, his Sudanese friend wanted to show the American man a town on the other side of the river" . . . "The second friend continues to look pained, and the American begins to realize that the friend will be in trouble--with their mutual friend, and the mutual's friend's family, and with everyone else in town--if the second friend does not accomplish this one task of getting the American across the river." (The Man at the River, Dave Eggers, PG.31 & 32). Eggers, even then, simply just did not want to take the risk. For Eggars to write this simple, yet relative "situation" in third person was brilliant.
The speaker says he “doesn’t want to be…someone who needs to cross a river to see anything at all" because he did not want to be this person that people need to make a fuss over. Eggers tries to depict that he is just a man who wanted to sit on the riverbed, because he wanted rest, also, because of the untreated cut on his shin. "The heat is extreme, and he and his Sudanese friend have been biking for hours, on and off, so the American is happy to have some time alone." We can all relate to Eggers, when it comes to just trying to take a load off, but people continue to pester you. You don't want to be mean about it, but you try to get the point across.
"The heat is extreme, and he and his Sudanese friend have been biking for hours, on and off, so the American is happy to have some time alone." (The Man at the River, Dave Eggers, PG. 31)
DeleteLuis Dones Cruz suggest that Eggers told this essay in the form of third person to “not just bring focus on his view of the situation but every person involved.” I agree Eggers wanted to make sure the reader saw everyone's point of view. For example “The American is smiling grimly, apologetically, at the fisherman, who is not happy to have been asked to do this...The second friend is walking next to the fisherman and the two of them are argue loudly in Dinka about what’s happening. The fisherman is clearly annoyed…” (The Man at the River, Dave Eggers, PG.33) In this example you get to see the three different perspectives. The first being the americans’ view who is clearly uncomfortable, the second being the fishermans’ point of view who is annoyed and unhappy, and the third being the second friends view who is just trying to complete a task he has been asked to do.
DeleteI think the americans “default settings” are that we come off as lazy, or fragile to other cultures. Especially countries that don’t have as many resources as the United States. For example, “And the two of them are forming, or confirming, an idea of this American and all Westerners: that they will not walk across a shallow river, they must insist on commandeering canoes from busy fisherman and being pulled across while they squat inside. That they are afraid to get wet.” (The Man at the River, Dave Eggers, PG. 33) On one hand, that might be how the american came across to the fisherman and the second friend. On the other hand, the American just did not want to put himself in unnecessary danger with his cut on his shin. "He had cut his shin a few days before...he is concerned that something in the river...will get into his body via this wound...he might get sick and die here" (The Man at the River, Dave Eggers, PG.31) I agree that the American might be seen as lazy. But I disagree that the American was trying to come off that way to the fisherman and the second friend.
3.) Both David Foster Wallace and David Eggers try to let people see the benefits of sympathy, and both succeed to varying degrees; not because of the content but because of the intended audience. More people would find the message clearer in Wallace’s Kenyon Commencement Address because it’s spelled out for the audience. He gives many anecdotes that cement the theme in the story. One that stands out in particular is the shopping nightmare that he spins into the depressing story of how everybody might have it worse than the self-absorbed person that the story’s viewpoint is held(Wallace, 5-7). This depressing viewpoint can be distorted, however, to make the others think that because there is somebody who has it worse than everybody else, personal problems will be looked down upon because it’s not as bad as somebody else’s personal problems.
Delete4.) During The Man at the River by David Eggers, the American viewpoint is told from incredible detail because Eggers probably experienced this in Sudan. Both Luis Cruz and Elijah Biovin agree that he writes this in third person, however, to show the perspective of everybody else as well, instead of focusing on just the unsympathetic characters. During the passive-aggressive argument near the beginning of the story, the American realizes and sympathizes with his friend for a moment: “The second continues to look pained, and the American begins to realize that he friend will be in trouble – with their mutual friend, and the mutual friend’s family, and with everybody else in the town - if the second friend does not accomplish this one task of getting the American across the river.” (Eggers, 32) Everybody has their moments of sympathy, but the real test is what they do with that sympathy: either use it to better the other person or be stubborn and stick to the ways that only benefit themself.
Elijah Boivin suggests that americans “default settings” are that “we come off as lazy, or fragile to other cultures,” and I agree with that view to an extent. The American’s actions of worrying over his small cut may have made the fisherman and second friend think him to be a lazy person, but his worries also reveals how he can be selfish. Although worrying about one’s safety is normal, his lack of comprehending and going along with the second friend shows the “default setting” that the American is programmed with; the setting of putting one’s own interests over others.
DeleteAlthough David Foster Wallace and Dave Eggers both seem to address similar issues, I believe Wallace’s speech is more effective in conveying the message. Unlike Eggers, Wallace relates to the audience by using clear-cut everyday examples of what people think in certain situations (such as a traffic jam) and explaining how they should think. Although Eggers’ essay is by no means overly obscure, Wallace’s successful attempt to relate to the audience and be as frank as possible has made me think him to be more effective in conveying his message.
Elijah Boivin suggest that the American's default settings are people who are "lazy or fragile to other cultures." I agree that the American man was being indolent to his Sudanese friend who wanted to provided him immediate aid by insisting the American to go across the river to reach the Sudan's village. But, he had refused to help fulfill his considerate friend's task in the beginning until he had no choice but to accept in the end where the fisherman became part of the situation. On page 32 of The Man at the River by Dave Eggers, the author states, "Well, you see, in our culture, he says, and the American winces, for these words usually precede an unpleasant request, we must help our guests. It's my duty to help you get to the other side." The friend also, mentioned the river is clean however, the American had explained that because of his injury he may received a serious infection if he were to cross the river. Referring back to the beginning of the story , the American had said, "..and because they are hours away from any Western medical care, he might get sick and die here. (The Man at the River, Dave Eggers, P. 31)" In this quote, the American's only thought of getting aid was from a medical care that he's familiar with-care from his own country. By repudiating to his friend's proposal to get aid from a peculiar town, especially if it's a friend's hometown, the American was being ignorant to the Sudanese's culture.
ReplyDeleteThe author, Dave Eggers put this story in third person omniscient where it isn't grounded to only one character. He include the American, the Sudanese friend, and the fisherman to the plot of the story and reveal their thoughts as well as their actions and emotions. An example of the transitioning to person to person is found on page 33, the second to last paragraph: "The fisherman has nowhere to sit, so he stands in the water and begins to pull the canoe across the river in long, labored strides. The second friend is walking next to the fisherman and the two of them argue loudly in Dinka about what's happening." This quote points out on the fisherman's action and emotion of vexation. In addition, the fisherman's perspective is then pivoted to the second friend's point of view and begins interacting with the fisherman from there. Overall, Eggers wanted his readers to see each of the character's perspective to understand the thoughts, actions, and emotions of their situation which all contributed as a whole.
1) Responding to – What are the American's default setting's are to sit and wait for his friend out of fear of infection from the river water. “But the American man decided he couldn't wade across the river. He had cut his shin a few days before, and the cut was unbandaged and deep enough that he is concerned that something in the river, some parasite or exotic microbe, will get into his body via this wound,...” (Eggers pg 31) . “The American tells him that he's okay, that he's fine, that he would like to stay where he is. Embarrassed to admit that he doesn't want to wade through the water which is knee-deep, with his small wound,...” (Eggers pg 31-32) Embarrassment also appears to be one of the American's default setting's to respond to his own fears.
ReplyDelete2) Responding to - Why, at the end, does the speaker say he “doesn’t want to be…someone who needs to cross a river to see anything at all?” (Eggers pg 33). Ryan Drago described the American in this essay as coming off as fragile by not wanting to cross the river with an unbandaged leg wound, and I agree with this statement. Luis Dones Cruz goes onto say that the American simply doesn't want to be bothered, and wants to be left alone and not take the risk of infection from being in a foreign country, Luis implies that the American described in this essay did nothing wrong by playing it safe, I disagree on this point however, and I believe that once the second Sudanese friend arrived that the man should have crossed the river once it was explained to him that “ In our culture, … we must help our guests. It's my duty to help you get to the other side.” (Eggers pg 32) The American in the essay should have been more accommodating to the Sudanese friend who was sent to help him, as a respect for their culture, and gratefully accepted the help, as he was a visitor in their country.
1) In response to Patrick Servis-Tryba, The question about the Americans “default settings” I agree with what he stated about the American being cautious is one of his “default settings.” But I think that another one of his default settings was to try to be as polite as possible when trying to deny help from the second friend. “The American tells him that he’s okay, that he is fine, that he would like to stay where he is”(Eggers pg31-32)
Delete1) In response to what are the American's default setting's I would have to say that they are to proceed cautiously in an unknown environment. I understand that some might think that because the man doesn't want to cross the river that he is being a coward and should just follow the others, however I believe that at a certain point you have to start thinking about decisions on a personal level. Sure others were willing to cross but if as a person from your own perspective you truly don't believe that crossing is safe I think you have to put that decision before all others even if others think you are a coward. In my opinion the context of the story being the risk of infection as said here,"He had cut his shin a few days before...he is concerned that something in the river...will get into his body via this wound...he might get sick and die here" (Eggers pg. 31) is more than enough in my eyes to allow for his caution.
ReplyDelete