




Part One: RYAN MUST DIE BECAUSE HE IS AN INCURABLE BIGMOUTH.
1. What do we learn about B.D. in the story’s first paragraph? He is superstitious, a man dependent on rituals, a man who thrives on maintaining an illusion of order to make him feel safe. The war has made him consolidate all his energies to safety, even if those rituals he exercises having nothing to do with safety. As a result, he becomes over diligent and is mocked by his fellow troops.
2. Why did B.D. and Ryan initially clash before forging their friendship? Ryan is an irrepressible prankster, jokester, and a loudmouth, who cannot shut up even when it’s for his own good.
3. Why does Ryan volunteer to ambush? Because he cannot pass up an opportunity for sarcasm, even if the sarcasm endangers his life. Ryan must mock authorities who don’t deserve their power.
4. Does Ryan have any control over his compulsion to mock his sergeant? See page 21 and top of page 22.
5. What is the main chimera or illusion in the story? See question #6.
6. How does the title’s meaning extend beyond Ryan’s death? See page 27. The manner in which our self evolves has less to do with free will than we’d like to believe. In fact, there are environmental and biological hard-wired factors that overpower our free will. Thus the story is a meditation on the limits of free will as it acknowledges determinism. People go on American Idol, try to be jiu-jitsu fighters, professional baseball players, entrepreneurs, to name a few examples, but no matter how hard they try, they fail. Or we try to be a certain way and we fail. For example, we try to be less aggressive drivers but we lose our temper in spite of our resolve to do otherwise. A boy sees a bunch of playboys acting cruel against women and he says he’ll never be that way and he grows up to be just like them.
7. We read that “B.D. concluded that grief was impossible to describe,” on page 30. Why is this ironic in the context of the story? Because the story achieves what B.D. could not. This is the story’s purpose.
Part Two: Parallelism and Sample thesis mapping components (noun followed by adjectival clause) come before the thesis:
Sample: Rendering the compulsions that overtake us, the unconscious that guides us unknowingly, and the incremental way we evolve into a person who defies our most noble aspirations, Tobias Wolff’s “Casualty” is a meditation on the limits of free will.
Sample: Here’s a thesis followed by mapping components (adjective followed by noun):
“Casualty” is a meditation on the limits of free will by virtue of being subject to irrepressible compulsions, an insidious unconscious, and a gradual evolution.
Part Three: Avoid Faulty Parallelism
In “Mortals” we encounter the narrator and Givens, two like-minded souls who suffer from vain self-delusion, obsessing over their lost entitlements, and pity themselves. (vain self-delusion, entitlement, and self-pity)
In “Mortals” the narrator hates Givens to distract himself from his own personal failings, which include squandering his existence on laziness, he won’t face his resignation to a mediocre life, and he is not happy that he is a failed writer. (laziness, mediocrity, and self-pity)
Improved Thesis Statements that Correct the Faulty Parallelism:
“Mortals” is not a story about death or mortality; rather, it is a story about two failed lives, the narrator’s and Givens’, who, despising each other for their similarities, are both mired in self-pity and vain self-delusion alternated by grandiose bouts of self-pity.
The “resurrection” mentioned in the story is no resurrection at all; rather, it speaks to Givens’ desire to write his own obituary, for doing so enables him to gloss over his shortcomings, to exaggerate his strengths, and to impose an artificial narrative shape to his shapeless, meaningless existence.
Givens’ alleged “resurrection” is no resurrection at all. Rather, it is a chimera that enables him to gloss over his shortcomings, to exaggerate his strengths, and to impose an artificial narrative shape to his shapeless, meaningless existence.
The narrator is convinced that Givens called in his own obituary but in fact we have no definitive proof that Givens committed such a fraud. What is evident, however, is that the narrator is projecting his own failures onto Givens. These failures include a man who knows in his gut that he is squandering his existence on laziness, self-pity, and vain self-delusion and rather than face his shortcomings he would rather divert his energy to hating Givens.