From a scholarly analysis and overview of the American Civil War, we move to an unmitigated on-the-ground account of the Iraq War--The Good Soldiers by Pulitzer Prize-winning Washington Post journalist David Finkel.Between January 2007 and June 2008, Finkel spent eight months with the United States Army soldiers of the 2-16 Infantry Battalion in Iraq as they took part in the campaign know as "the surge." What is the true story of the surge? And was it really a success? These are the questions Finkel's unflinching third-person narrative poses to its readers as it follows Lieutenant Colonel Ralph Kauzlarich and the men and women in his charge through the violence, tension, and loss of armed conflict and its aftermath. Finkel writes, "my intent was to document their corner of the war, without agenda. This book, then, is that corner, unshaded." Can it be argued that even if the conflict these soldiers were involved in was impossible to win, the soldiers who fought in it can be seen as successful?
Finkel's premise is that the lives of these good soldiers are intrinsically valuable, that their valor in facing and surviving this war is remarkable. He shows rather than tells readers what Drew Gilpin Faust calls, in This Republic of Suffering: Death and the American Civil War, "the work of death," evoking the same questions and contradictions Faust argues were raised by the American Civil War: "the venerable problem of theodicy--of how and why God permits evil" (188); the "problem of the one and the many . . . How could the meaning of so many deaths be understood? And conversely, how could an individual's death continue to matter amid the loss of so many?" (262); and the resulting paradox of "[s]entimentality and irony [which] grew side by side in Americans' war-born consciousness" (264).
Many reviewers have written that The Good Soldiers will take its place as a classic story of war for all times. What do you think? We invite you to join the discussion: Tuesday, August 3, at 6:30 p.m. at Main Library; Thursday, August 19, at 11:00 a.m. at West Ashley Branch Library; or here on the blog.
Do you have a list of discussion question you used for this book? We are using The Good Soldiers for our community read this spring, and are looking for good questions to borrow.
ReplyDeleteThanks,
The Arlington Public Library (VA)
Hello! I am so glad to hear that you will be discussing this important, powerful, profoundly moving book at your library! Yes, I created a list of questions to guide our discussion. Here they are, including my notes for opening the discussion using quotations from interviews with Finkel. The biographical facts were collated from various reviews and interviews and the book jacket copy. The page numbers for text references are from the hardcover edition of the book. (I will need to send them in several comments.)
ReplyDeleteI hope you will have a great discussion! Kate Hudson
Introduce author/book
ReplyDelete• David Finkel b. 1955
• Married, with two daughters
• Lives in Silver Springs, Maryland
• 1977 graduate of the University of Florida
• National Enterprise Editor of the Washington Post
• 2006 Pulitzer Prize for Explanatory Reporting
• 2010 New York Public Library’s Helen Burnstein Book Award for
• Excellence in Journalism
• 2010 Columbia Graduate School of Journalism and Neiman Foundation’s
• J. Anthony Lukas Book Prize
• Finkel’s next book: “the next volume of this story . . . The war is over, it’s
• moving into American communities now and so what does that mean?”
• (New York Public Library interview, found on huffingtonpost.com)
•
• Quotations:
ReplyDeleteo Q. “Your book starts in 2007, when Iraq pretty much looked lost and even many early supporters were throwing up their hands. Americans seemed to feel they already knew too much about Iraq and the war. Why write then? What did you want to show? A. You’re right about 2007. . . . Such a moment, of course, would interest any writer. Also, the great policy books of the war had been published by then, and memoirs were coming out, but no one had done a book based on observed journalism, the kind where you plant yourself in the middle of something and document, without agenda, what happens. That’s what this book attempts to do. I didn’t want to write a book about the Iraq war so much as use the war to write intimately about the character of young men, and if the book is successful, it’s because it’s a story pretty much about any soldiers in any war.” (atwar.blogs.nytimes.com)
o Q. What helped Finkel determine his structure and content? A. “ . . . when things began to happen and I saw the soldiers changing, that became important to me. . . . The other thing that happened is that I began gaining the trust of the soldiers. They began coming over and confiding in me and saying things like, ‘The true story of what’s going on is how hard this has turned out to be and the way we’re getting torn up. If you’re going to tell a story, I hope the story you’re going to tell gets to the truth of that and doesn’t gloss over it.’ In some ways, that was helpful to hear, but I still had my doubts. And then interviewing Kauzlarich, . . . I said, ‘Tell me about your worst day here, so far.’ And we had a long conservation about that. And I said, ‘Now tell me your best day so far.’ And he said, ‘There isn’t one. It’s not about the best days. It’s about these worst days.’ And that was very interesting to hear from this incredibly, ceaselessly optimistic man.” (neimanstoryboard.us)
o Q. “This is tough stuff, not all flattering but very real. How did the Second Battalion, 16th Infantry and their families react to having you watching so closely? How did you balance the journalist’s eye to tell all with the close bond you obviously forged with the people you were writing about? What has been their reaction to your book? A. It took awhile for trust to develop from the soldiers. Despite my assurances that this wasn’t to be a polemic, a polemic was what some of the soldiers expected. What changed that more than anything else was my continuing presence. . . . the first time one of those bombs went off on a convoy I was in and I didn’t wig out and become an extra problem for the soldiers to deal with, that helped, too. One more thing: they wanted their story told, and after a while they realized I wanted the same thing. Now that the book is out, their reactions have been especially moving and gratifying. I’m in contact with many of the soldiers, and the common thread to their emails is along the lines of: When I came back, everyone wanted to know what is was like, and I didn’t want to tell them, I didn’t want to talk about it, I couldn’t talk about it and still can’t, but now I can give them the book and say, ‘Read this if you really want to know.’ I’ve also heard from some of the families of the soldiers who died, and they are letters and emails that I will always treasure.” (atwar.blogs.nytimes.com)
ReplyDeleteo Q. “How do you think history will judge the mission of the men and women, like those in the 2-16, in Iraq? Did your time with them change your opinion in any way about whether the war in Iraq was worth it? A. . . . what my time with them changed my opinion of is what it means to be a soldier. I simply had no idea until I saw it, and now that I have I think their conclusions are the ones that ought to be considered by people back here making decisions about, say, increasing the number of troops in Afghanistan. Or maybe that’s the wrong way to say it. Not their conclusions—because with 800 soldiers, those conclusions were all over the map—but their experiences and example, right up until the end of their deployment, when, as they were packing up to come home, their area of Baghdad exploded all of a sudden into the very worst fighting of the entire tour. . . . In the short term . . . let their experiences, from their very best moments to their very worst . . . be part of the conversation about what happens next in Iraq, and Afghanistan, and forever down the line.” (atwar.blogs.nytimes.com)
o Q. “This is tough stuff, not all flattering but very real. How did the Second Battalion, 16th Infantry and their families react to having you watching so closely? How did you balance the journalist’s eye to tell all with the close bond you obviously forged with the people you were writing about? What has been their reaction to your book? A. It took awhile for trust to develop from the soldiers. Despite my assurances that this wasn’t to be a polemic, a polemic was what some of the soldiers expected. What changed that more than anything else was my continuing presence. . . . the first time one of those bombs went off on a convoy I was in and I didn’t wig out and become an extra problem for the soldiers to deal with, that helped, too. One more thing: they wanted their story told, and after a while they realized I wanted the same thing. Now that the book is out, their reactions have been especially moving and gratifying. I’m in contact with many of the soldiers, and the common thread to their emails is along the lines of: When I came back, everyone wanted to know what is was like, and I didn’t want to tell them, I didn’t want to talk about it, I couldn’t talk about it and still can’t, but now I can give them the book and say, ‘Read this if you really want to know.’ I’ve also heard from some of the families of the soldiers who died, and they are letters and emails that I will always treasure.” (atwar.blogs.nytimes.com)
ReplyDeleteo Q. “How do you think history will judge the mission of the men and women, like those in the 2-16, in Iraq? Did your time with them change your opinion in any way about whether the war in Iraq was worth it? A. . . . what my time with them changed my opinion of is what it means to be a soldier. I simply had no idea until I saw it, and now that I have I think their conclusions are the ones that ought to be considered by people back here making decisions about, say, increasing the number of troops in Afghanistan. Or maybe that’s the wrong way to say it. Not their conclusions—because with 800 soldiers, those conclusions were all over the map—but their experiences and example, right up until the end of their deployment, when, as they were packing up to come home, their area of Baghdad exploded all of a sudden into the very worst fighting of the entire tour. . . . In the short term . . . let their experiences, from their very best moments to their very worst . . . be part of the conversation about what happens next in Iraq, and Afghanistan, and forever down the line.” (atwar.blogs.nytimes.com)
• Current events: New York Times 7/31/2010: “Taking Calls From Veterans
ReplyDeleteon the Brink”
o No reliable data exists for suicides among veterans.
o Estimates by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: veterans account for 1 in 5 of the more than 30,000 suicides committed in the U.S. each year
o In the 2007 fiscal year, the Department of Veterans Affairs suicide hotline handled about 9,380 calls; last year the number was nearly 119,000.
Possible questions for discussion
ReplyDelete• Have any of you ever served in the U.S. armed forces? Do you have or have you had any family or acquaintances who have served? How does The Good Soldiers resonate with these personal experiences?
• A reviewer for the Dallas Morning News said, “everyone in the U.S. and other governments who has anything to do with foreign policy should read this book.” Do you agree? What about U. S. citizens who have no role in government, foreign policy, etc.?
• Finkel writes in his note on sources and methods: “ . . . my intent was to document their corner of the war, without agenda. This book, then, is that corner, unshaded.” What do you think Finkel’s initial purpose was in writing this book? Do you think it changed after he began observing and writing? Do you agree that what he presents is “unshaded”? Explain.
• Describe the effect of Finkel’s use of quotations from President George W. Bush before each chapter.
• What is the overall tone of the book, and what techniques does Finkel use to create it? (irony, sadness, loss; repetition of words and phrases and events; p.94 “four distinct versions of war” and p. 123 “six versions of what nerve can mean”)
• A reviewer for the Washington Post asked, “What is the responsibility of a writer? To describe events, or explain them? . . . one wonders if after six years, another verite, day-by-day portrait of war is sufficient?” What do you think of Finkel’s decision to limit his narrative scope to just the events he witnessed rather than a broader historical, tactical analysis? What do you think the difference is for the reader between these two kinds of narrative?
• What do you think of Finkel’s decision to use a 3rd person point of view rather than include himself in the narrative?
• Discuss the title The Good Soldiers. What do you think it means?
ReplyDelete• Finkel stated in an interview with atwar.blogs.nytimes.com that he wanted to “use the war to write intimately about the character of young men.” Discuss some of the good soldiers described in the book, such as Ralph Kauzlarich (especially his phrase, “It’s all good” and his reason for serving p.15), Brent Cummings, Jay March, Patrick Miller, Duncan Crookston, Nate Showman.
• On page 109ff, Finkel offers a picture of who the U.S. armed forces are recruiting. Discuss who serves in the U.S. armed forces, why they serve, and what service means.
• Discuss the prediction made by an acquaintance of Kauzlarich before the 2-16 left for Iraq: “ You’re going to see a good man disintegrate before your eyes.”
• Discuss this statement by Sergeant Frank Gietz after his platoon engaged in a firefight with insurgents that ended with one soldier slightly injured and 35 Iraqis dead: “But as Gietz said in his troubled voice as he thought of Sassman, Atchley, Johnson, Lancaster, and Campbell, and the fact that he and his soldiers had gone to Fedaliyah to capture two Iraqis and had ended up killing 35: ‘It’s a thin line between what we’re calling acceptable and not acceptable. It’s a thin line. As a leader, you’re supposed to know when not to cross it. But how do you know? Does the army teach us how to control our emotions? Does the army teach us how to deal with a friend bleeding out in front of you?’” p.72
• Discuss the portrayal of relations between the U.S. soldiers and the Iraqis. “Suspicion in 360 degrees—this is what four years of war had led to” p.37; “Sometimes Kauzlarich and Cummings would wonder what exactly the Iraqis hated about them” p. 151 ff; “An Iraqi’s life: the soldiers had no idea” p.158; Kauzlarich’s relationship with Qasim, Mr. Timimi, and Izzy; Cummings’ feelings about the cadaver in the septic tank at the spaghetti factory p.47 and his act of generosity towards Izzy’s injured daughter p. 152 ff.
ReplyDelete• Discuss the portrayal of the soldier’s families and their experience, as well as of what life was like for the soldiers on leave and at home in the hospital. Chapters 9 and 10.
• Discuss this statement: “How did moments of decency occur in this war?” p. 154
• Discuss this portrayal of the disconnect between what was important in Iraq versus what was important in the U.S.: “In the United States, the news was all macro rather than micro.” P. 128ff
• Many reviewers have said that The Good Soldiers will become a classic of war writing? Do you agree? Why/why not?
Thank you so much! We will give you full credit for providing the info, and I'll send you the link when the info is live.
ReplyDeleteYou are welcome! We look forward to seeing your discussion information! Kate Hudson
ReplyDelete