CCBC-Net Archives
Fwd: Re: Tenderness, continued -Reply -Reply
- Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by subject ] [ by author ]
From: Megan Schliesman <Schliesman>
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 12:28:38 -0500
I confess I haven't had a copy of Tenderness to refer back to so I was making my comment about the police not knowing on memory. Thanks for the clarification on that point!
Megan Schliesman Cooperative Children's Book Center School of Education UW-Madison schliesman at mail.soemadison.wisc.edu
11:10pm >>> I, also, had the impression that the police knew (in their hearts, at least) that Eric did not kill Lori. I substantiated my thought by returning to the book. Refer to the conversation between Lou and Jimmy at the top of page 227. Lou certainly knows that Eric did not kill Lori; Jimmy accepts the older policeman's judgement, but is content--even anxious--to let matters stand as they are.
In response to the discussion about "technical innocence," I think there's no doubt that Cormier is exploring innocence as a theme here. Consider the fact that he alternates (sometimes within the same paragraph) descriptions of Lori as child and as sophisticate, as well as his treatment of Eric's kaleidoscopic dreams during his final incarceration.
Also, what about Cormier's treatment of the lieutenant's own guilt/innocence? If his recurring nightmare was spawned by his not being able to solve the Oregon mystery (p.57), and if it returns when he becomes involved with Eric (p.55), then why doesn't it go away once Eric is finally "brought to justice?" Could it be that we are supposed to understand that the nightmare's continued presence (p.227) is Lou's response to his silent guilt over not being able to prosecute Eric for one of the crimes the boy really committed? (After all, Proctor has remained silent while a man is prosecuted for a crime he didn't commit, even though he is "technically innocent" of false accusation.)
Kathleen Linton graduate student, elementary education University of Alabama at Birmingham kaffeine at uab.campus.mci.net
In response to Megan Schliesman: I thought the police knew he didn't kill her, but they didn't care because they wanted him in jail so badly. Did anyone else get that?
reader's outside there
Received on Wed 13 Aug 1997 12:28:38 PM CDT
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 12:28:38 -0500
I confess I haven't had a copy of Tenderness to refer back to so I was making my comment about the police not knowing on memory. Thanks for the clarification on that point!
Megan Schliesman Cooperative Children's Book Center School of Education UW-Madison schliesman at mail.soemadison.wisc.edu
11:10pm >>> I, also, had the impression that the police knew (in their hearts, at least) that Eric did not kill Lori. I substantiated my thought by returning to the book. Refer to the conversation between Lou and Jimmy at the top of page 227. Lou certainly knows that Eric did not kill Lori; Jimmy accepts the older policeman's judgement, but is content--even anxious--to let matters stand as they are.
In response to the discussion about "technical innocence," I think there's no doubt that Cormier is exploring innocence as a theme here. Consider the fact that he alternates (sometimes within the same paragraph) descriptions of Lori as child and as sophisticate, as well as his treatment of Eric's kaleidoscopic dreams during his final incarceration.
Also, what about Cormier's treatment of the lieutenant's own guilt/innocence? If his recurring nightmare was spawned by his not being able to solve the Oregon mystery (p.57), and if it returns when he becomes involved with Eric (p.55), then why doesn't it go away once Eric is finally "brought to justice?" Could it be that we are supposed to understand that the nightmare's continued presence (p.227) is Lou's response to his silent guilt over not being able to prosecute Eric for one of the crimes the boy really committed? (After all, Proctor has remained silent while a man is prosecuted for a crime he didn't commit, even though he is "technically innocent" of false accusation.)
Kathleen Linton graduate student, elementary education University of Alabama at Birmingham kaffeine at uab.campus.mci.net
In response to Megan Schliesman: I thought the police knew he didn't kill her, but they didn't care because they wanted him in jail so badly. Did anyone else get that?
reader's outside there
Received on Wed 13 Aug 1997 12:28:38 PM CDT
