<p>We have already brought up a couple of implications of the death of Cappy…the “life for a life” notion, and Cappy representing Joe’s wilder side (by Cappy’s influence being eliminated, Joe is placed more securely on the path to a responsible, stable life).</p>
<p>I think if the road trip and Cappy’s death hadn’t happened, we would have been left with many characters being overwhelmed with strange conflicting feelings about Lark’s murder. Cappy’s death was in a way a balancing mechanism, or a cleansing. Being able to focus on mourning Cappy took some of the dreary anxious muddledness out of the aftermath of the shooting.</p>
<p>^ I’m so relieved that others feel the same way about the “road trip” and Cappy’s death. Last night I was not happy about that ending, and it seemed like the ending to a 1940’s movie when everyone must pay for their dubious actions.
Yes, **nttheatremom ** it was a " balancing mechanism" for the reader, too. We are less likely to think the " tribe" really “got away” with their “vigilante justice” unscathed. </p>
<p>I liked Linda Wishkob, too. Joe’s relationship with her was part of his growth as a young man. He learned the importance of getting to know a person before passing judgement on them. I really like how their relationship developed.</p>
<p>I was frustrated with the drive to rescue Cappy’s girlfriend and the accident that caused his death. I know the boys were young and stupid, but I didn’t think they were that stupid.</p>
<p>The violation and subjugation of women, and its ripple effect, is an important part of The Round House. In an earlier post, I called the mother from Mooshum’s story “the woman who could not be killed,” but in fact, looking back, it’s “the woman no man could kill” (p. 196). A small but significant difference.</p>
<p>It’s not only Geraldine, but peripheral characters as well—Sonja and Mayla—who suffer mistreatment by men.</p>
<p>Here is one reviewer’s feminist take on Sonja’s theft of Joe’s found money:</p>
<p>We don’t really know how well Sonja does with all that money. Did she spend it to better her life, or did she waste it? What we do know is that she started spending it recklessly and she stole it from Joe. There was also a passage where we learned she was going back to Whitey. I wonder how that all worked out. Sonja was damaged, but I don’t think she had a right to take it out on Joe. She was the adult and certainly didn’t play that role very well where Joe and the money were concerned.</p>
<p>I was mad at Sonja for stealing Joe’s money, but really if that money belonged to anyone it belonged to the baby. I wonder if he ever figured that out?</p>
<p>The men of the tribe enact their own brand of vigilante justice before Joe and Cappy, but they stop short of killing Lark. I assume that’s because they are afraid of prosecution, not because of any moral code. Cappy phones Joe:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The problem is, I don’t think Sonja knows how to better her life, as much as she might like to. After Lark is beaten up, he drives in a rage to Whitey’s gas station and talks about “How Whitey’s rich girlfriend had herself a nice setup and he was thinking of joining her” (p. 261). I can’t believe Sonja would have anything to do with Lark, but his comments indicate that she is neither being cautious nor mapping out a long-term plan.</p>
<p>^^Exactly, @Mary13, I think the reviewer who thought that Sonja getting the money was a victory is wrong. I don’t see much of a victory. @mathmom is right. The money belongs to the baby. The only victory that would come of that money is if found it’s way back to her.</p>
<p>I agree. Mooshum probably made me smile more than any other character (I enjoyed the birthday party cake fiasco), but on the whole, the humor was pretty crude. The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian also contains its share of bawdy humor. At one point, the narrator says, “That’s one more thing people don’t know about Indians: we love to talk dirty.” I immediately thought of Grandma Ignatia Thunder.</p>
<p>I didn’t like the strip-tease scene. Do you think Erdrich intended the reader to be amused by Mooshum’s “near death” experience? Maybe I’m being too harsh, but I couldn’t see the humor in it. To me, the scene underscored the endless and timeless objectification of women by men—literally from puberty to age 102, the two ends of the spectrum represented by Joe and Mooshum. Yes, Sonja made the decision to strip, she was not forced, but I felt it was because she believed that it was the only “gift” she had to give. With Joe, there was the possibility of creating a deeper, more complex relationship, but his insistence on staying for the show ruins that, which Sonja realizes right away: “Can’t have it both ways, you lying little phony. I’m not momming you anymore (p. 231).” </p>
<p>I think we were supposed to find the stripper scene both amusing and a stage in Joe’s growing up. He’s seeing Sonja as a woman (even if it is an objectified version). He’s not going to be treated as a kid any more, but of course he’s still counting on being a kid for getting away with murder. He’s got one foot in childhood and one in adulthood, just the way he’s got one foot in Indian culture and the other in standard American culture. There are some dark,edgy bits to Erdrich’s biography, including two difficult step children. I’m not surprised it comes out in her writing. </p>
<p>I agree Mary. I didn’t like the scene, and I think Joe’s involvement and insistence in staying was meant to be a harsh statement about the ugliness of objectifying women. The same strip act Sonja gave as a gift to Mooshum was, in my opinion, a violation when viewed by the insistent, adamant Joe. I wasn’t offended by the sexual humor of the adult women describing acts between consenting adults. </p>
<p>The child with Fetal Alchohol Syndrome who was adopted by Erdrich’s husband Michael Dorris before their marriage, and who is described in Dorris’ harrowing nonfiction account Broken Cord is one example. A lot of us know about Asperger’s, Down Syndrome, etc, but FAS is…whew!..something else.</p>
<p>^^^I just looked up Michael Dorris and this book, The Broken Chord. The book is award winning, but whew…what a complicated life Dorris and Erdrich lived together. Very, very sad with allegations of his abuse of their daughters and his subsequent suicide. </p>
<p>I agree, PLANTMOM, and! I was so relieved that Sonja left Joe $10,000, she could have easily taken it all! Sonja’s rant about her life addresses the crucial theme of the book.The oppression of women,. It was a harsh scene, I agree with everyone, but the realities discussed in the two links below are sobering and depressing. Shameful. </p>
<p>When accepting the award for THE ROUNDHOUSE Erdrich said - “This is a book about a huge case of injustice ongoing on reservations,” she said in accepting the award, according to The New York Times. “Thank you for giving it a wider audience.”</p>
<p>I don’t think Sonja’s actions (leaving and taking the money) can be described as a victory in any way. Sonja’s life wasn’t easy, but there’s no evidence she was going to do anything with the money except spend it in a frivolous way. IMO leaving some of the money for Joe suggests that she’s got a kind heart, but it doesn’t justify taking the rest of the money for herself. Agree with mathmom–it was the baby’s money.</p>
<p>Just proposing this view-
Sonja’s childhood traumas
Sonja presently in abusive marriage ( the tribe seems to accept Whitey’s abuse)
She is trapped, and sees a way out.
Some sort of victory??? </p>
<p>The baby is adopted by the governor,right ? </p>