Boulder Book Club discussion

Book 16: Deliverance discussion

Done with the first Part.
--Seems very 50's to me. Guys in advertising gigs going out hunting for the weekend and it being a big deal. Is it just 'cause we live in CO and play outside all the time that it's not? The main character guy is even impressed that his friend goes to the gym once in a while...
--So far, I'm not that enthralled...a 4 out of 10 so far.
...
See more
Like · · Unfollow post · 5 April 2011 at 20:48

Adam Sirois Part II (day 1):
--The owl thing at the end is not believable, but is pretty cool nonetheless.
--They all seem pretty bumbling
--The gear list is pretty funny - we have it pretty good in terms of non-canvas tenst, etc
--They come across as pretty much a-holes to the brothers.

onward.
7 April 2011 at 20:56 · Like

Adam Sirois M'k, done!
Overall summary:
--The first bit dragged a bit 'cause there was no action, then there was lots of action and it flew by. I ended up liking it quite a bit by the end, though it felt a bit movie script-like. Not sure if it's all very believable either.

--The writing wasn't great. He kept saying things like "the sun exploded slowly" - explosions don't go slowly. There were a bunch of other examples of those that I puzzled over.

--The social commentary, if you want to call it that, was all pretty offensive and stereotyped.

--So, what should they have done?
10 April 2011 at 09:11 · Like

Ben Roberts I was sorely disappoint that "squeal like a pig" doesn't make a single appearance in the book.
16 April 2011 at 08:41 · Like

Ben Roberts On a more serious note, Deliverance, much like a great portion of Hemmingway's and Jack London's work, seems to rely on emphasizing manliness. Reading Frank Miller's comics (and furthermore the films based on his work) shows that there's still a market for this type of thought taken to an extreme that classic writers wouldn't appreciate. Meanwhile, fiction, changing alongside man's place in the world, has ceded this type of book to non-fiction such as John Krakauer, which imparts less thematically in exchange for the narrative of reality.

Given that Deliverance came out in 1970, well after women's lib had begun to emasculate American culture, it thematically attempts to deal with the lost and aimless changes to man's place in the world. The societal shift from machismo to equality has made it difficult for men to explore these themes in their lives. The first half of Dickey's book felt designed to emphasize the plodding monotony of modern life, as well as the unsuccessful ways in which men attempt to change it, if only to make the incredible turn of events in the second half seem that much more amazing.

Really, discussion of Deliverance has to be a discussion of what it is to be a man in a modern urban world. The commentary the book offers is far less social as societal and personal, and while the narrative may seem lean and the prose light for a poet, like Hemmingway, the meat of the book is what goes unsaid, much in the same way men often try to address their issues.
16 April 2011 at 09:10 · Like

Mark Krebs Just starting. I liked the hemingway comparison: he, too, came on so strong with his manliness that it became revolting, not admirable. I'm remembering from the movie *decades* ago, that Mr Tough Guy (Lewis) is not made of the right stuff after all. That's cool, if it's true. I think we need to look at these things through some kind of way-back machine, making an allowance for the stereotypes. It won't be easy. For starters, get ready to watch the movie, and tell yourself that Burt Reynolds is the legit bad-ass of all. Suspension of disbelief is going to be required! :) Just as important, for the book, will be suspension of our jaded cultural precocity, if we're going to be able to feel the theme of this. It's too early for me to assert there is one; I'm whipping it all up out of a hazy memory! On to actually read the thing!

Best quote so far: "Not a good man. Drinks too much in an uncreative way."
17 April 2011 at 06:04 · Like

Mark Krebs Here's another thought: how would you update the book to play well today? I think we're in a generation of over-the-top hyperbole, so I would have had an extra day on the river wherein Ned (what was his name in the book? who cares) start to crack, plainly won't dare stick to the story. Then Drew gets killed and Lew & Ed decide Ned's gotta die too; it's the only way... Then Ed gets to kill him in cold blood. Then maybe they kill the sheriff 'cause it turns out the model is actually his *daughter* and there was some hanky panky involving a tramp stamp in the shape of a masonic eye...
19 April 2011 at 12:36 · Like

Mark Krebs Done: a few more thoughts below ~ spoiler warning! ~

Obviously Ed turns out to be the real Tarzan, and literally earns that nickname from the Sheriff. Since Lewis was described that way earlier, it's a literal acknowledgement of the scepter passing. Lewis is still stronger, but then it was never *only* about brute force, but also brute mind, and Ed rises to that. So too has Lewis, with his single perfect shot, so maybe there's enough room on the podium for both of them. Their collegial retirement suggests so.

Speaking of the sheriff, what did he know? Everything, I say: he let 'em go.

A theme I'd like to suggest is that modern effete society does not need or tolerate giants. Lewis' style of real man is the kind who gets locked up. We can see ourselves on both sides of the jury too: in our complete agreement with Ed's behavior in the wild where it is appropriate, and a later shift in opinion, knowing the hand of justice, if it fell, would find their conduct wanting by civilized standards. Like them, we're able to belong in both worlds. That was really cool.

From what I remember of the movie (very little) it adheres closely to these themes.
19 April 2011 at 20:03 · Like

Mark Krebs Adam asked "what should they have done?" and I think they did it.

Ed and Lewis are painted unabashedly as champions. It is the change of scene, from wild rapids to the placid stillwater of civilization that transmutes their acts into something you can question. In the wild, rule was by tooth & claw, and two of the men rose to the challenge.

Should they have been caught? What jurisdiction should modern morals have over the primordial? None.