In class we have established a good background of the different themes featured in Dear America, and in that I’ve told you that themes, ideas, characters and values, though separate things, are closely linked and inform each other. It is important for you to ensure your essays contain references to these features of the text because your understanding and analysis of them are part of the assessment criteria for this outcome.
Criteria 1: Understanding of ideas, characters and themes.
Criteria 3: Analysis of ways in which values are embodied in the text.
As each of these features of the text inform each other you will find that thinking about and discussing one of them will naturally lead you to reflecting and commenting on another one. Discussing values will invariably lead to discussing characters which will invariably lead to discussing themes and ideas and so on it goes, round and round:
Can you identify these features being addressed in this passage? Leave comments about where you see them being discussed.
Edelman is careful not to simplify the soldiers in ‘Dear America’ into representations of good soldiers and bad soldiers. For the most part the soldiers were decent, respectable young men trying to handle the situation they found themselves in as well as they could. However, the situation they were in was extreme and at times this led them to act in ways that contradicted their values. Rod Chastant, an author of multiple letters in the text, is a character that Edelman has chosen to illustrate this point. The reader admires Chastant for his courage and endurance as they discover ‘he extended his tour for an additional six months’. They like him further because he is someone who believes in standing up for one’s ideals which can be seen in his comments, ‘My experience is invaluable. This job requires a man of conscience’. A dominant reading of the text leaves the reader believing Chastant is confident and comfortable in his role whilst a resistant reading of the text actually exposes a ‘world of hurt’ and confusion for him. Chastant imparts, ‘The incompetency and the wrongs committed in Vietnam are staggering’. When he makes this point the implied reader wonders how the experiences he has had in Vietnam might torment his soul. He acknowledges that it is letters from his mother that keep him ‘civilized’, stating, ‘…as I read your letters I am a normal person. I’m not killing people…I’m not carrying guns or grenades’. The surreal environment of war forced Chastant to be a killing machine and on some levels allowed him to justify his actions. Yet, within his heart of hearts he felt that much was ‘wrong’. This was the case for many soldiers who fought in Vietnam; good men, compromising on their values in a bid to protect their society’s democratic beliefs, only to be left feeling as though they were in some ways sold out by their government and participants in many unnecessary violent actions.
