THE MAIN CHARACTER’S DREAMS AS THE CONFLICTS
REPRESENTATION IN THE PLOT DEVELOPMENT IN
DAVID SHERMAN’S
THE JUNKYARD DOGS
AN UNDERGRADUATE THESIS
Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Sarjana Sastra
in English Letters
By
THOMAS SURYA AGUNG
Student Number: 054214049
ENGLISH LETTERS STUDY PROGRAMME DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH LETTERS
FACULTY OF LETTERS SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY
i
THE MAIN CHARACTER’S DREAMS AS THE CONFLICTS
REPRESENTATION IN THE PLOT DEVELOPMENT IN
DAVID SHERMAN’S
THE JUNKYARD DOGS
AN UNDERGRADUATE THESIS
Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Sarjana Sastra
in English Letters
By
THOMAS SURYA AGUNG
Student Number: 054214049
ENGLISH LETTERS STUDY PROGRAMME DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH LETTERS
FACULTY OF LETTERS SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY
v
To live a creative life, we must lose our fear of being wrong.
--vi
This undergraduate thesis is dedicated to
The Almighty Jesus Christ
The Holy Mary
My Lovely Parents
The Unyielding Spirit and
vii
AKNOWLEDGEMENTS
My deepest gratitude to Jesus Christ and Holy Mary for giving me a solid
strength to me so that I finally can finish this thesis. I thank God for giving me
very patient parents who always pray for me, give me support in this thesis
making.
In this opportunity, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my
advisor Drs. Hirmawan Wijanarka M. Hum. and co-advisor Adventina Putranti
S.S., M.Hum. who have provided their precious time for guiding me during my
thesis writing process. May God always bestow His blessing on them.
I also would like to express my heartfelt appreciation to all the lecturers
of the English Letters Department for the sharing knowledge to me and the
members of secretariat staff for their best service.
Last but not least, I thank my fellow comrades who still struggle for the
better future. God bless them all.
viii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TITLE PAGE ... i
APPROVAL PAGE ... ii
ACCEPTANCE PAGE ... iii
PERSETUJUAN PUBLIKASI ... iv
MOTTO PAGE ... v
DEDICATION PAGE ... vi
AKNOWLEDGEMENTS ... vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS ... viii
ABSTRACT ... x
ABSTRAK ... xi
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION ... 1
A. . Background of the Study ... 1
B. Problem Formulation ... 4
C. Objectives of the Study ... 5
D. Definition of Terms ... 5
CHAPTER II: THEORETICAL REVIEW ... 7
A. Review of Related Studies ... 7
B. Review of Related Theories ... 8
1. Theory of Plot ... 8
2. Figures of Speech or Rhetorical Figures ... 13
3. The Interpretation of Dreams ... 14
C. Theoretical Framework ... 14
CHAPTER III: METHODOLOGY ... 16
A. Object of the Study ... 16
ix
C. Method of the Study ... 18
CHAPTER IV: ANALYSIS ... 20
A. The Plot of the Story ... 20
B. The Main Character’s Dreams ... 40
C. The Main Character’s Dreams as the Conflicts Representation in the Plot Development in Sherman’s The Junkyard Dogs ... 48
CHAPTER V: CONCLUSION ... 62
x
ABSTRACT
THOMAS SURYA AGUNG, THE MAIN CHARACTER’S DREAMS AS THE CONFLICTS REPRESENTATION IN THE PLOT DEVELOPMENT IN DAVID SHERMAN’S THE JUNKYARD DOGS. Yogyakarta: Department of English Letters, Faculty of Letters, Sanata Dharma University, 2012.
David Sherman’s The Junkyard Dogs is a novel in which among the development of the plot, the author implanted its story with several dreams of the main character that likely gave any important role toward the structure of the novel. There are many experts who put their opinion related to the dream. Most of them said that a dream is a kind of vehicle to connect a person with his/her unconscious elements. Therefore, since the novel The Junkyard Dogs contains several dreams experienced by the main charatcer, the present study is interesting yet challenging and giving some advantages about knowing the role of those main character’s dreams to the main plot of the story and enriching the scientific research related to the topic chosen in this thesis.
The present study analyzes three main problems. The first one is desrcribing the plot of the story. The sond one is describing the main character’s dreams. Then, last problem will find out that the thesis attempts to find out that the main character’s dreams represent the conflicts in the plot development in David Sherman’s The Junkyard Dogs (2008).
The analysis in this thesis was conducted using new criticism approach based on M. H. Abrams’ A Glossary of Literary Terms/ Seventh Edition (1999) that insists that detailed consideration of the work itself as an independent entity.
After the analysis is done, the plot of the story is described as well as the main character’s dreams. Then, it is concluded that the main charatcer’s dreams represent the conflicts in the plot development in Sherman’s The Junkyard Dogs
xi
ABSTRAK
THOMAS SURYA AGUNG, THE MAIN CHARACTER’S DREAMS AS THE CONFLICTS REPRESENTATION IN THE PLOT DEVELOPMENT IN DAVID SHERMAN’S THE JUNKYARD DOGS. Yogyakarta: Program Studi Sastra Inggris, Fakultas Sastra, Universitas Sanata Dharma, 2012.
Novel The Junkyard Dogs oleh David Sherman adalah novel dimana sang penulis menyisipkan beberapa mimpi yang dialami oleh karakter utama. Mimpi-mimpi tersebut seperti memiliki arti dan hubungan tersendiri dengan alur cerita novel. Banyak pakar yang berpendapat bahwa mimpi merupakan sebuah jembatan yang menghubungkan dunia sadar sesorang dengan dunia bawah sadarnya. Melihat beberapa mimpi yang dialami oleh karakter utama, maka studi ini menjadi cukup menantang dan menarik serta memberikan pemahaman mengenai hubungan mimpi-mimpi si karakter utama dengan alur cerita novel. Selain itu, studi ini dapat memperkaya penelitian ilmiah yang bersangkutan dengan topik yang dipilih di dalam studi kali ini.
Studi kali ini menganalisa tiga masalah utama. Masalah yang pertama adalah bagaimana alur cerita novel dijabarkan. Masalah yang kedua adalah bagaimana mimpi-mimpi si karakter utama dijabarkan. Terkahir, masalah yang ketiga adalah tentang apa hubungan antara mimpi-mimpi si karakter utama dengan alur cerita novel.
The analysis in this thesis was conducted using new criticism approach based on M. H. Abrams’ A Glossary of Literary Terms/ Seventh Edition (1999) that insists that detailed consideration of the work itself as an independent entity.
Analisis dilakukan dengan mengusung pendekatan new criticism yang mengacu pada M. H. Abrams yang dalam bukunya A Glossary of Literary Terms/ Seventh Edition (1999) menjelaskan bahwa analisa sebuah karya sastra menitikberatkan pada teks dalam karya sastra itu sendiri.
1
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION
A. Background of the Study
Each person must have experienced a dream during the sleep. Some
people even have their interest of dream. An psychological expert, Dr. Clayton E.
Tucker-Ladd (2004), who had been licensed as a Clinical Psychologist by the
Illinois Department of Professional Regulation for 34 years and registered for
many years with the National Register of Health Service Providers in Psychology,
in his book Psychological Self-Help said that the interest of dreams has already exist even since the Babylonians, when people at that time had “had a Goddess of
Dreams” and “book for interpreting dreams.” Dr. Clayton E. Tucker-Ladd also
explained that “there was a thought, as we do now, that dreams satisfy some of
our psychological needs and change our mood” and “dreams have led directly to
great novels, musical compositions, scientific discoveries, and political military
decisions” (2004: 1581). Therefore, dreams have – or are considered to have –
some meanings in human life, as what Clayton E. Tucker-Ladd stated in his book:
But while we hardly know more about the meaning of our dreams than the Babylonians 5,000 years ago, it is possible that dreams reflect our traumatic memories, our needs, and our unconscious "thoughts." So, dreams are thought to tell us something about ourselves we did not know (2004: 1582).
Dreams, as being thought to tell us something about ourselves we did not
know, therefore, are expected to give us more new knowing that probably will
2
alternatives about what we have to next. However, in order to give more objective
about what the dreams’ meaning, Tucker-Ladd didn’t let his opinion about dreams
stand alone. He quoted some other psychological experts’ opinion defining what
the dreams are. One of them is an opinion from Scarr and Vander Zanden’s
Understanding Psychology (1984). It is said that
Many more unpleasant emotions, especially fear and anger, are expressed in dreams than pleasant emotions, although sexual arousal is frequent during dreams (Tucker-Ladd, 2004: 1583).
Though the way of fear and anger expressions are not mentioned exactly
in Scarr and Vander Zanden’s opinion, people usually got what they call a
nightmare – that usually contains fear and anger. Interestingly, Tucker-Ladd put a
thought by Chollar (1989) in his book that mentioned that “Nightmares occur
more often in sensitive and creative people.” (2004: 1583). Another opinion that is
quoted was derived from Robert Cartwright and Lamberg (1992) that said that
“our dreams reflect our major conscious emotional concerns. In effect, our dreams
underscore our current problems, rather than hide or erase them,” continued with:
The dream content, while symbolic, can, with a little thought, be easily associated with the things that are consciously worrying us tonight. The mind supposedly searches our past to find a person, situation, or symbol that fits the feelings that are pressuring us during our sleep. It is as though bad dreams are telling us: HEY, PAY ATTENTION TO THIS PROBLEM!” (Tucker-Ladd, 2004: 1584).
He also quoted Freud’s thought (1967) that said “dreams were venting
our emotions or fulfilling our unconscious wishes” (2004: 1582) and ended his
quotation with Langs’ (1994) idea that believed that “dreams are giving us
3
unconscious mind to give us its wisdom about handling emotional situations.”
(2004: 1584).
Learning from those definitions and opinions of dreams, though there is
also a thought of the current science suggesting that “dreams do not have much
meaning” (Tucker-Ladd, 2004: 1582), it will be better if we concern about our
dreams that might to tell us something that we did not know or help us handling
emotional situations, as Dr. Clayton E. Tucker-Ladd reminded us:
In general, however, I would assume it is less dangerous to cautiously explore the possible implications of our dreams (and daydreams) than to assume that dreams have absolutely no significance or utility at all (2004: 1598).
David Sherman’s The Junkyard Dogs is a work of military fiction that brings the reader a portrait of real-world conflict of Vietnam (circa 1968). The
author has claimed that his novel delivers a kind accurate and realistic portrayal of
the lives of Marines who serve as Combined Action Platoon in Vietnam since the
author is a former CAP veteran who have been there – not just who make it up,
who do their research or who have served. The plot of the novel is served
dynamically but with strong intimate conflicts that Corporal Socrates, the main
character, has to deal with. Interestingly, among the revolving of the plot, the
author implanted the story with several dreams of the main character that likely
gave any important role toward the novel’s structure. The reviewer Mike McPhail
on his review in http://www.milscifi.com (2009) said that the readers, through
main character’s dreams, supposed to “learn of his past and how it shaped his
4
However, so far, the writer hasn’t found any scientific research that tries to find
out and explain it scientifically.
Standing between the opinions that said that dreams have several
possible implications and have no much meaning or significance and on the lack
of scientific research related to the main character’s dreams in David Sherman’s
The Junkyard Dogs (2008), trying to investigate the relation between the main character’s dreams and the main plot of the story in David Sherman’s The Junkyard Dogs (2008) is interesting yet challenging and giving some advantages about knowing the role of those main character’s dreams to the main plot of the
story and enriching the scientific research related to the topic chosen in this thesis.
B. Problem Formulation
There are three problems revealed in this study. They are listed as
follows:
1. How is the plot described in Sherman’s The Junkyard Dogs?
2. How are the main character’s dreams described in Sherman’s The Junkyard Dogs?
3. How do the main character’s dreams represent conflicts in the plot
5
C. Objectives of the Study
Through the three problems that are revealed, the writer tries to describe
the plot of the David Sherman’s The Junkyard Dogs (2008), followed with an effort to describe the main character’s dreams. After those steps are done, the
writer is going to find out that the main character’s dreams represent conflicts in
the plot development in Sherman’s The Junkyard Dogs by correlating the valuable elements in the dreams with the valuable events in the plot of the story.
D. Definition of Terms
In this part, the writer will derive some words used in this analysis to be
defined in order to guide the readers in understanding this thesis. Also, the writer
will clarify the meaning of some terms that are used in this study in order to avoid
misunderstanding on reading this thesis.
Candace Schaefer and Rick Diamond in the book The Creative Writing Guide (1998) stated that the main character or protagonist is “the central character on whom the story focuses and with whom we identify” (Schaefer,
1998).
Dream, in Concise Oxford ENGLISH Dictionary 11th EDITION on CD-ROM (2004) is defined as a series of thoughts, images, and sensations accuring in the mind during sleep.
Robert Saunders Dowst in his book The Technique of Fiction Writing
(1921) wrote that conflict
6
between man and his environment or Nature, conflict between man and man, and conflict between opposed traits in the same man (1921: 52).
Candace Schaefer and Rick Diamond in the book The Creative Writing Guide (1998) stated that plot is
7
CHAPTER II
THEORETICAL REVIEW
A. Review of Related Studies
Bert O. States (1992: vol. 2, No. 4), in his journal The Meaning of Dreams in www.asdreams.org stated that dream is a product of human thought and has strong personal connotations for the dreamer. He said that the
interpretation of dream sometimes faced problem – that interpretation usually
“amounts to a translation of the literary text or the dream report (what is left of the
dream) into highly specified meanings (1992: vol. 2, No. 4). He said that there is a
possibility that “the cause of a dream meaning something may be the
interpretation rather than the dream itself” and there is “no guarantee that it hasn’t
caused the dream to mean something it doesn’t mean” (1992: vol. 2, No. 4). States
explained that dream is just like life, both random and orderly. He added that
dream is random respecting what might happen next, but it is “orderly respecting
the persistence of a personal energy that continually repeats itself, thus achieving
a kind of self-unity” (States, 1992: vol. 2, No. 4).
Furthermore, States said that dreams “do not add, or give meaning to our
lives" but “instantiate meaning that is already there”. On the other words, he said
that dreams are “simply a repetition, under different conditions” (States, 1992:
vol. 2, No. 4). His journal stated that dreams are continuation of his bad and good
8
be interpreted because dream is “an imaginative condensation of experience”
(1992: vol. 2, No. 4).
He continued to say that dream fabricates images, no matter how realistic
or life-like they may appear to be. He agreed with Ernest Hartmann that dream
will “connects thoughts, images, memories, wishes, fears, in new ways
(Hartmann, 1991: 25), though some of them are quite bizarre. States argued that
the dreamer is “both author and reader” who “tells the story to himself, in a
manner of speaking.” Therefore, there is a difference between “experienced
meaning” and “the kind of meaning derived from interpretation.” He said to the
reader that dream “invariably tells the truth about our emotional life” and
someone would dream about “things whose meaning we already know in an
emotional and preconception sense.” What people brought directly into sleep was
derived from the day’s experience” Then, States concluded that “a dream is a
dream” (States, 1992: vol. 2, No. 4).
By this thesis, the writer agrees with States’ conclusion that a dream is a
dream. However, the writer will try to figure out the correlation between the
dreams content experienced by the main character and the valuable events in the
plot of David Sherman’s The Junkyard Dogs.
B. Review of Related Theories 1. Theory of Plot
For examining the plot, the writer uses reference theories of plot derived
9
M. H. Abrams, in his book The Glossary of Literary Terms: Seventh Edition published in 1999, said that
A primary interest of structural narratologists is in the way that narrative discourse fashions a story—the mere sequence of events in time—into the organized and meaningful structure of a literary plot (1999: 173).
He also described what a plot is, as the following:
The plot (which Aristotle termed the mythos) in a dramatic or narrative work is constituted by its events and actions, as these are rendered and ordered toward achieving particular artistic and emotional effects (Abrams, 1999: 224).
Also, Abrams reminded that “a plot is distinguishable from the story—
that is, a bare synopsis of the temporal order of what happens” (1999: 224).
Further, he explained the distinction between them. “When we summarize the
story in a literary work, we say that first this happens, then that, then that”
(Abrams, 1999: 224). He continued to explain that a plot can only be derived:
When we specify how this is related to that, by causes and motivations, and in what ways all these matters are rendered, ordered, and organized so as to achieve their particular effects, which a synopsis begins to be adequate to the plot (Abrams, 1999: 224)
Abrams also quoted a theory of the typical plot from German critic
Gustav Freytag, with his book Technique of the Drama (1863), that came as a pyramidal shape, “known as Freytag's Pyramid” (1999: 227). There, plot is said to consist of a rising action, climax, and falling action (1999: 227). It is said also
that critics of prose fiction as well as drama also echoed the various pattern of
Freytag’s pattern, stated as the following:
10
between Hamlet and Claudius, in which Hamlet, despite setbacks, succeeds in controlling the course of events. The rising action reaches the
climax of the hero's fortunes with his proof of the King's guilt by the device of the play within a play. Then comes the crisis, the reversal or "turning point" of the fortunes of the protagonist, in his failure to kill the King while he is at prayer. This inaugurates the falling action; from now on the antagonist, Claudius, largely controls the course of events, until the catastrophe, or outcome, which is decided by the death of the hero, as well as of Claudius, the Queen, and Laertes. "Catastrophe" is usually applied to tragedy only; a more general term for this precipitating final scene, which is applied to both comedy and tragedy, is the denouement
(French for "unknotting"): the action or intrigue ends in success or failure for the protagonist, the conflicts are settled, the mystery is solved, or the misunderstanding cleared away. A frequently used alternative term for the outcome of a plot is the resolution (Abrams, 1999: 227).
He also quoted another explanation related to the plot:
Many, but far from all, plots deal with a conflict; Thornton Wilder's play Our Town (1938), for example, does not. In addition to the conflict between individuals, there may be the conflict of a protagonist against fate, or against the circumstances that stand between him and a goal he has set himself; and in some works (as in Henry James' Portrait of a Lady) the chief conflict is between opposing desires or values in the protagonist's own temperament (Abrams, 1999: 225).
Robert Saunders Dowst, in his book The Teqnique of Fiction Writing
(1921), explained that
A plot is that its events function together as a unit. There is some connection between them other than chance, and that connection lies in the intimate relation between the events of a story and its characters (1921: 49).
He wrote that there are two essential elements of a plot. Those elements
are the “interaction, then, between incidents and characters, arising from the unity
of the whole conception” and that “several incidents of the story possess climactic
value, in that each event should have influence in forwarding the story to a
11
Since a plot is made up of incidents which influence and are influenced by the characters, and since the story must move to an end, a plot presents a problem. What will the persons do? if the emphasis is on personality ; and what will happen ? if the emphasis is on the event (1921: 50).
He continued to say that
Problem, in this connection, means conflict between opposing forces, which gives the various events and situations of a story any dramatic value they may possess. It follows that there are three basic plot-themes, conflict between man and his environment or Nature, conflict between man and man, and conflict between opposed traits in the same man (1921: 52).
He also stated the further explanation about the relation between events
in the plot, in the view of the writer of the story.
Starting with some basic conflict, which will be his plot, the writer can devise situation after situation in which the struggle will become more and more acute, until, finally, it will become so serious as to involve all the 'elements of the story (1921: 61).
Therefore, Dowst provided more explanation that
Each major situation of a story derives its dramatic quality from the opposition of incompatible motives or forces that endows the story's plot with its dramatic Quality (1921: 62).
Related to the plot theory and descriptions derived from M. H. Abrams’
The Glossary of Literary Terms: Seventh Edition published in 1999 and Robert Saunders Dowst’s The Teqnique of Fiction Writing (1921), the writer can figure out the connection between Abrams and Dowst theories. David Sherman’s The Junkyard Dogs is a kind of narrative work. Therefore, related to Abrams’ theories of plot, the writer finds out that the story contains “meaningful structure of a
literary plot” (Abrams, 1999: 173). The structure of the plot is constituted by its
12
particular effects – the artistic and emotional effects” (Abrams, 1999: 224). Those
events must be have connection – that lies in the intimate relation between the
events of a story and its characters (Dowst, 1921: 49) – and relation as the result
of causes and motivations (Abrams, 1999: 224). Therefore, the writer also realizes
both Abrams and Dowst agreed that plot of the story deals with problems or
conflicts of the main character. Dowst said it was about what will the person do
and what will happen (1921: 50) means there is dramatic quality from the
opposition of incompatible motives or forces (1921: 62). The main character may
face three basic problems. Abrams would say they are conflict between
individuals, conflict of a protagonist against fate, or against the circumstances that
stand between him and a goal he has set himself (1999: 225). Similarly, Dowst
said they are conflict between man and his environment or Nature, conflict
between man and man, and conflict between opposed traits in the same man
(1921: 52). Therefore, the writer will say they are conflicts that caused by
opposed motives between the main character and other characters, the
environment, and the other motives in the main character itself.
Since those events – that contains climatic values in the interaction
between incidents and characters –, function together as a unit (Dowst, 1921: 49),
then the story must move to en end (Dowst, 1921: 50), starting with some basic
conflicts until the so serious conflicts as to involve all the elements of the story
(Dowst, 1921: 61). Means, the emotional effects happen during the story must
have a structure that lead the starting conflict into the final conflict. Refers to the
13
suitable for this study can be drawn into several parts. First is the exposition that provides background information needed to make sense of the action, describes
the setting, and introduces the major characters. Then the exposition then is
followed with rising action (complication) that contains several conflicts of the main character. These series of conflicts develop into the climax (the greatest tension). Then, there is the crisis, the reversal or "turning point" of the fortunes of the protagonist. The crisis is followed with the falling action (from now on the antagonist largely controls the course of events). The last, there is the resolution
(when conflicts are settled, the mystery is solved, or the misunderstanding cleared
away).
2. Figures of Speech or Rhetorical Figures
The writer will use figures of speech or rhetorical figures to relate the
main character’s dreams with the valuable events in the plot of the story.
M. H. Abrams, in A Glossary of Literary Terms/ Seventh Edition (1999) stated about language used as the comparison for two other things, like quoted
from his book that allegory, as Abrams quoted in his book from Goethe, is stated
to “transform the phenomenon into a concept, the concept into an image” while
symbolism is used to express “the phenomenon into idea, the idea into an image”
(Abrams, 1999: 313). For the figure of speech called hyperbole, Abrams
explained it as “bold overstatement, or the extravagant exaggeration of fact or of
possibility” that is used either for “serious or ironic or comic effect” (Abrams,
14
3. The Interpretation of Dreams
The writer will use some thoeries of interpretation of dream from Freud’s
The Interpretation of Dreams (1913) to help to find the relation between the main
character’s dreams and the valuable events found in the plot of the story.
Freud (1913) said that “most of the artificial dreams contrived by poets
are intended for such symbolic interpretation” (1913: 81). It supports Abrams’
theory of symbolism that will be used in the analysis. Freud also said that dream is
“a kind of secret code, in which every sign is translated into another sign of
known meaning, according to an established key” (1913: 81-82). The writer will
find the keys or clues found in the dreams then will relate them with the text in the
plot of the story. Dream, as Freud said, also consists of “series of notions, which
may be designated as the "background thoughts" of this part of the dream” (1913:
86). That background thoughts that some times pictures all the troubles of waking
life (Freud, 1913: 113) will be related to the text in the plot using Abrams’ figures
of speech since “what has occupied our minds during the day also dominates our
dream thoughts” (Freud, 1913: 147).
C. Theoretical Framework
Abrams’ (1999) explanations and definitions about plot are used as the
base to gain more understanding of plot in fiction. Therefore, the various pattern
that is based on Freytag’s pattern, as described above, would be used to describe
15
theory that are combined with Freud’s theory of dreams are used to find the close
correlation between the valuable elements in the dreams with the valuable events
16
CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY
A. Object of the Study
The subject or the work of literature that is examined in this study is The
Junkyard Dogs, a work of narrative fiction that is written by David Sherman, a
Former Marine and CAP veteran. It is the first revision and printed-on-demand by
Createsspace in the year of 2008.
The novel tells a story of a single Marine squad as part of the U.S.
Marine Combined Action Platoon ordered to settle in Vietnam. They are sent to
Khung Toi, a Vietnamese village and having an order to work with the local
South Vietnamese militia called Popular Forces (PF). Together, the Marines and
PFs form CAP (Combined Action Platoon) Whiskey 8, keeping the villagers safe
from the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese Army (NVA). The conflict arises when
the a stranger who comes together with an unknown lieutenant gives order to the
three of the Marines (Socrates, Captain Hook, and Sneaky Pete) to get involve in a
secretive and mission-by-mission mysterious project to assassinate NVA cadre in
villages other than their own. The corporal Socrates who is disturbed by the
project tries to backtrack it, since they aren't supposed to tell anything about the
missions that has no proper authorization. Instead finding the expected answer or
explanation, they find documents detailing a planned NVA major attack against
17
B. Approach of the Study
New criticism, that was prominent in American literary criticism until
late in the 1960s, insists that
The proper concern of literary criticism is not with the external circumstances or effects or historical position of a work, but with a detailed consideration of the work itself as an independent entity (Abrams, 1999: 180).
The attention of analysis is turning from background, sources, and
biography to the “detailed analysis of "literary texts themselves."” Sometimes,
new criticism is called "the words on the page" (Abrams, 1999: 180).
Thus, the principles of the New Criticism are “basically verbal” and “to
analyze the meanings and interactions of words, figures of speech, and symbols.”
“Explication”, or “close reading” is the distinctive procedure of a New Critic. It
gives “detailed analysis of the complex interrelations and ambiguities (multiple
meanings) of the verbal and figurative components within a work.” The essential
components of any work of literature “is conceived to be words, images, and
symbols rather than character, thought, and plot” (Abrams, 1999: 181).
The new criticism approach is used in analyzing Sherman’s The
Junkyard Dogs because as comparing the valuable elements in the main
character’s dreams with the valuable events in the plot of the story, the writer
takes some words from the text stated in the novel and compared words within the
18
C. Method of the Study
The study analyzes one of David Sherman’s literary work, The Junkyard Dogs (2008), by using library research as the method of the study. The data are divided into two categories. The primary data was taken from the novel The Junkyard Dogs (2008) itself while the secondary data were taken from some supporting books and some appropriate information from websites in internet.
They are M. H. Abrams’ The Glossary of Literary Terms: Seventh Edition
published in 1999 and Robert Saunders Dowst’s The Teqnique of Fiction Writing
(1921). All data would be used to help the writer answering the questions stated
on the problem formulation.
In this analysis, the writer took some steps that were done systematically.
The first step in analyzing the object of the study was by reading and trying to
understand the work itself. After reading and comprehending the content of the
novel in detail, the writer tried to figure out the interesting thing in the novel,
which made the novel distinguished from others. The step was followed by
choosing the topic related to the interesting thing: The Main Character’s Dreams
as The Conflicts Representation in the Plot Development in David Sherman’s The Junkyard Dogs.
As it had been achieved, the writer formulated the problems that were to
analyze the plot of the novel and the interesting point, the main character’s
dreams. Therefore, the writer set the last problem that tried to find that the main
19
The Junkyard Dogs by correlating the valuable elements in the dreams with the valuable events in the plot of the story.
The analysis began with the analysis of the plot of the story. By
describing how the plot of the story developed, the writer solved the first problem.
The second question was answered by focusing on the analysis of how the main
character’s dreams described in the story. Afterward, in order to solve the last
problem, some strong elements found in the description the main character’s
dreams meaning was tried to be analyzed and compared using figures of speech
that were found in the former analysis.
The writer would compare the dream content to whatever is going on in
the main character’s life around the time of the dream, considered to the several
emotional events from the day that would combine to form a composite
happening, object, or person in the dream. Then, the writer found the
"psychological conflict" that referred to the situation where there are strong
motives or needs and barriers or resistance to fulfilling those motives or needs.
Then, the writer made a feasible relation from the main character’s dreams that
involve figures of speech. The finding would be related to the text in the plot
before the main character experienced his particular dream.
The finding of some crucial points as the result of the analysis would be
put in conclusion. The conclusion was made to show the relation between each
20
CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS
A. The Plot of Sherman’s The Junkyard Dogs
To draw the plot structure of the story, the writer will draw the plot
development as the following: First is the exposition that provides background information needed to make sense of the action, describes the setting, and
introduces the major characters. Then the exposition then is followed with rising action (complication) thatcontainsseveral conflicts of the main character. These series of conflicts develop into the climax (the greatest tension). Then, there is the
crisis, the reversal or "turning point" of the fortunes of the protagonist. The crisis is followed with the falling action (from now on the antagonist largely controls the course of events). The last, there is the resolution (when conflicts are settled, the mystery is solved, or the misunderstanding cleared away).
The exposition begins with the third-point-of-view narrator’s introducing of the major characters: Socrates, Captain Hook, and Sneake Pete. The narrator
also tells the setting, which is set in Khung Toi village, and the squad’s home
base, Fort Cragg. The narrator explains that those major character are Marines
working with Vietnamese militia named Popular Forces, “Three of the five
Popular Forces who'd spent the night on patrol with the three Marines had already
dropped out and gone home” (Sherman, 2008: 1). The duty of the main character
is also revealed, “The photo caption said only that he was a Marine corporal,
21
appearance of the major characters telling that “they were young men, these
Marines of Whiskey 8, their average age was 19” (Sherman, 2008: 13). Therefore,
there is a part of the story introducing other characters, Lieutenant Convoy and the
stranger, who will lead the main character, Socrates, into the conflict:
"Corporal," Lieutenant Convoy said, "you see that man over there? I want you and those two men of yours to talk to him. Listen very carefully to what he has to say. I'm not telling you what to say or do, just give him a listen and then make up your own minds. Understand?"
Socrates looked thoughtful while the lieutenant was talking. He nodded just as thoughtful when he was through. "Yes, sir."
"Then do it."
"Aye aye, Sir." Socrates looked at Captain Hook and Sneaky Pete where they stood watching and jerked his head at them. They followed him to the stranger (2008: 16-17).
By this part, the main character’s initial curiosity is started. Socrates
believed that the stranger was civilian. He was questioning the stranger’s authority
to him.
The stranger continued toward the gate. Socrates hesitated a second, then followed. He had a feeling this stranger was a civilian, no matter he was in a uniform. What was this man's authority, if any (2008: 17)?
Then the curiosity rose into Socrates’ mind when he was explained that
his meeting and conversation with the stranger was secret and wasn’t supposed to
tell to anyone.
"This conversation is top secret. You are never to divulge to anyone what we talked about. You are never even to tell anyone you talked to me. If anybody ever asks you about me or this conversation you don't know what they're talking about. Do you understand?" (2008: 19).
Socrates affirmed the request and this would result his another conflict
later. He was told that there is a mission to kill VC cadre. His doubt revealed but
22
His curiosity made him into a conflict when he was ordered to go but he
wanted to know more about the stranger. He asked the name but he didn’t get an
answer. From here, the main character’s conflict shown as he demands more
information about the stranger but realizes that there is no one can answer and he
doesn’t know what to do to get more information; so he keeps his curiosities about
who is the stranger and what the stranger’s authority to him in his mind, until his
first dream’s coming.
Therefore, the plot of the story revolves into the rising action (complication). In here, the writer finds that the initial conflict of the main character with the stranger revolves into further and larger conflicts. In the rising
action, the main character has to deal with events and actions that lead him into
conflicts against himself, against other characters, against his beliefs, and against
circumstances that stand between him and a goal he has set himself. First conflict
that he has to deal with is the unknown letter which is sent to him containing such
order. Socrates found the letter said "Dump your PFs and meet me on the trail a
hundred yards east of Nghia Toi at 2000 tonight" (2008: 61). His mind was
coming into hesitation whether he had to obey the letter, that he assumed came
from the stranger he met before, or to lead her men into the routine patrol at the
same time. Besides, he wanted to know more about who the stranger was and
what the stranger want from him. Finally, his motive to get more information
about the stranger became stronger, so he decided to do as what the letter said. He
cancelled the patrol and dumped the PFs who were in his fire team. Tank, who
23
knew none of the Marine corporals ever canceled a patrol after it started” (2008:
63). Other men who were in his fire team were Captain Hook and Sneake Pete,
who would go along with him to meet the stranger. Together with Captain Hook
and Sneake Pete, Socrates met the stranger as mentioned in the letter. Therefore,
his conflicts with the stranger arose as he asked
"Who the fuck are you," he demanded. "You don't need to know who I am. Get in."
"We aren't going until we know more than we do" (2008: 64).
However, the only information he got was that the stranger’s name was
“Mister Smith” (2008: 65). Socrates believed the stranger was lying but he wanted
more information and realized that he wasn't going to get any more until they
went with this Mister Smith. He got into the passenger seat to find what Mr.
Smith wanted. His question answered when Mr. Smith gave them a secret mission
order that they had to follow, to kill a Viet Cong political cadre. Mr. Smith said
that
There's a main force company been working east of here, harassing the Marines there, hurting the locals. Couple of days ago half of that company ran into a Marine platoon and got the shit kicked out of it. They're looking for a place to hole up while they get some replacements. A cadre is in this area preparing the villes to receive them. Our intelligence tells us he's in that hoots tonight. You're going there and terminate him" (2008: 66).
At this point, Socrates couldn't think of anything else, not even a good
objection to following Mr. Smith's orders (2008: 68), so he decided to go ahead.
Socrates felt that the mission was strange. Mr. Smith ordered not to take any
document while Socrates knew that he, as Marine, “always take documents”
24
Another, Mr. Smith told them to terminate the target with extreme prejudice,
cutting off his balls and stick them in his mouth (2008: 68). Socrates didn't feel at
all comfortable about it because going into an area where there wasn't any fighting
going on, to find and kill a specific man that wasn't in retaliation for the bad guys
doing it to Marines then mutilate his corpse, that he felt more like assassination,
was something that he'd never heard about that. He believed that a Marine, a
warrior, had job to kill enemy soldiers, not to assassinate them (2008: 69-70).
Getting here, Socrates had several unsolved problems; he wondered the
answer for what the quite they were doing and several questions wrapped up in his
thoughts:
Why mutilate the body if it wasn't in retaliation for the bad guys doing it to Marines?
Who was this "Mr. Smith," this stranger? What was his authority to give
them missions? Lieutenant Convoy had told them to do what he said―if
they were willing. But who was Lieutenant Convoy and what was his authority? He said he was on temporary duty with 5th CAG, but what was that duty and who was he on loan from? Who did he report to above CAG (2008: 70)?
However, so far, he didn’t get the answer and he didn’t know what to do
to answer the question. He wanted to turn back and scrap the mission but he
wouldn’t get any answer about his questions. What he could do just to follow
what Mr. Smith asked, wondered to find answer there.
One of his unsolved questions made him killed the target without
emasculating. However, Captain Hook did it for him, complete the mission. After
the mission completed, Socrates “had no more answers than before” (2008: 73)
25
After that, Socrates found his conflict against the environment. He
wanted to talk to Captain about the mission they had done. He went to skivvy
house to get Captain Hook for talking. However, he didn't have a chance to talk to
Captain Hook the rest of that day because there was too crowded in the skivvy
house to talk about their secret mission.
Another day, finally he got a chance to talk to Captain Hook. He got his
conflict with Captain Hook when he talked about the mission, hoped that Captain
Hook would give him answers to his problems. Instead of getting an explanation,
he got a frustrating answer from Captain Hook. He started by saying
"I don't understand why he wanted us to cut him." "'Need to know'," Captain Hook quoted.
It was a frustrating answer that didn't answer anything (2008: 89).
Socrates tried to ask another question and again, he got Captain Hook
had different opinion.
"Who the hell is Mister Smith?"
"Spook." That was all Captain Hook knew, all he cared to know. Mr. Smith gave him another opportunity to kill VC, and that was the only thing of importance (2008: 91).
Now he was stuck again in the situation that he didn’t know what to do to
answer his problems.
Next, Gunny Bryl came to Fort Cragg, said that Socrates and Captain
Hook are wanted at CAG HQ. Gunny Bryl allowed Sneake Pete went along with
them. Their going to CAG HQ was interrupted by Mr. Smith that has waited them
in Jeep parked on the side of the road. When he asked Socrates and his men to
come with him, Socrates decided to “bite” his request; he wanted to get his
26
fuck's going on, Mister Smith, or whatever your name is" and Mr. Smith had
another thought.
"I'll tell you on the way. Get in."
Socrates wanted more information so he stood his ground and tried to think of the first question to ask.
Mr. Smith noticed his hesitation and asked, "If you don't get in, how are you going to explain what you're doing out here?"
Captain Hook got in the back of the Jeep, Sneaky Pete climbed in with him. Socrates hesitated for another second, then got in the passenger seat. (2008: 121).
Socrates hoped getting answers on their way with Mr. Smith. However,
instead of getting the answer, Socrates and his men got their second target – Mr.
Smith said he was a major – to kill (2008: 121) and Socrates
saw no way out of this at the moment, therefore he must know everything he could to increase the odds of him and his men getting in to accomplish
the mission―and back out alive and unharmed (2008: 124).
Just after Mr. Smith explained what they had to do to complete the
mission, Socrates’s mind rejected. His mind said that he “gotta go out of this whole business” (2008: 124) but still, he couldn’t find a way to fight against the situation and still hoped he would find answers after completing the mission and
went back to Fort Cragg.
On the way to complete the second mission, Socrates faced a conflict
against himself. When he reached the target, he found a woman slept aside the
target. It distracted his heart when he
27
While he thought about that relationship, Captain Hook shot the target
for him. He decided to turn away, left Captain Hook to emasculate the major.
When they came back to Mr. Smith, Socrates faced conflict with the stranger.
"You didn't tell us there was a woman there," Socrates said. His voice was harsh, accusing.
"Did you complete the mission?" "Yes. Now answer me."
"Would it have made a difference for you to know? What, would you have asked if she had any diseases so you'd know if it was safe to gangbang her?" (2008: 128-129).
Getting no any answer, his tension arose, made him started to take an
action toward Mr. Smith.
Socrates snarled and grabbed for him. It was a long reach because he stood on the passenger side. Captain Hook pulled him away before he made contact (2008: 129).
As Mr. Smith drove them to Whiskey Company HQ, Socrates brought
himself into the next dream.
Mr. Smith dropped them off near the entrance to Whiskey company
headquarters half an hour after dawn. He said asked them to see Gunny Bryl that
would arrange them for transportation back to the Junkyard. Then, Socrates
thought of Gunny Bryl would give some answers to his unsolved problems.
"Let's go find him," Socrates finally said. He wanted some answers. Lieutenant Convoy would have at least some of them. Socrates needed to know what the authorization for these missions was. If Mr. Smith wasn't going to tell them anything, surely Lieutenant Convoy would. He didn't know where the officer was, but that was okay. There was a proper procedure for seeing an officer, go through the chain of command. That meant start with Gunny Bryl. The gunny could tell him where to find Lieutenant Convoy (2008: 137).
He only found a clerk instead of Gunny Bryl. He got his conflict with the
28
Lieutenant Convoy was around but the clerk said that he never heard of
Lieutenant Convoy. The clerk asked them to wait Gunny Bryl in the mess hall but
Socrates didn’t want to wait that long so he asked about Sal, a clerk at 5th
Combined Action Group, but the clerk said that Sal rotated back to the World last
week. Socrates hadn’t any choice instead of waited Gunny Bryl. Then he went to
the mess hall. There, he got another conflict with Captain Hook when he asked
"I want to know what the fuck it is we're doing out there," Socrates said. Captain Hook swallowed.
"Killing Cong," he said, then took another mouthful.
Socrates muttered something unintelligible, Captain Hook didn't care or didn't want to talk right now (2008: 139).
When he got a talk with Gunny Bryl, the Gunny said that he didn’t know
about Lieutenant Convoy and asked them to go back to Junkyard. Therefore, there
was a new problem added into Socrates’s mind, wondering who Lieutenant
Convoy was (2008: 140).
Next, while Socrates was wrestling with all unsolved problems, his fitful
sleeping drove him into another dream.
When he woke up, he got another conflict with Captain Hook. He found
the strange of Captain Hook. He started to ask
"Problem, Captain Hook?" "No problem."
"Why are you standing there looking out the window? We've got PFs keeping watch, they'll let us know if anybody's coming through the wire." Captain Hook shook his head, that wasn't why he was still up, staring out the window.
"You're usually the first one of us to rack out. What's happening?"
29
Socrates’s intimate relationship with Captain Hook was so close and he
felt that “having Captain Hook in his fire team was one of the best edges he could
think of” and wondered about “what would life be like without him around?”
What made Socrates so distracted is that “he didn't want him to transfer” but
“Captain Hook didn't want to talk about it now” (2008: 152). Therefore,
Socrates’s problems were now being more complicated than before and
Now he added the complication of Captain Hook transferring to his concerns about Mr. Smith and his strange missions that they weren't supposed to talk about (2008: 152).
When his problem of wondering Captain Hook’s willing to transfer was
delayed, his conflict with Captain Hook about Mr. Smith revealed when he was in
argument with Captain Hook. When he asked who Mr. Smith was, Captain Hook
answered
"He's a spook."
"Right, at least that's what he wants us to believe. But he doesn't tell us a damn thing."
"We're killing Cong."
"One more time; that's what he wants us to believe." "He says they are."
"Right, he says. How do we know he's right? How do we know he knows it? He always says not to take any documents because he already knows who they are and what documents they have. Have you ever heard anyone else say something that dumb? How can he know what documents they're carrying?" (2008: 163).
Their argument continued until Socrates blinked because ”that wasn't a
point he'd expected Captain Hook to challenge him on” (2008: 164). Again,
Socrates found a stalemate for all his problems.
Another day, Socrates faced another event that stroke his mind and
30
exactly the same method he twice used in his strange missions. Then, when he
looked at the death Seller Sam in coffin, he “suddenly realized he didn't know
what to do” and “didn't know what was expected or acceptable” (2008: 179). He
wondered “what the hell were they doing here in the whole insane business of
war?” (2008: 184). Then his thinking stumbled and he faced conflict against
himself when he thought about the nature of war, about killing, about the right and
wrong, and about recovery from the madness caused by war. He realized that he
was getting too close to that edge from which there is no recovery but couldn’t
find a way or didn’t know what to do to deal with that (2008: 184-186).
Then, this stumbled mind added the list of all unsolved problems that
Socrates had until his next dream was coming.
Next, Socrates faced conflicts against the chain of commands. Another
day, Gunny Bryl visited Fort Cragg to pick up one of the Marine to R&R.
Socrates wanted to talk with Gunny to ask about Lieutenant Convoy. However, he
got no any answer but pressure from Gunny Bryl not to ask about Lieutenant
Convoy anymore.
"Don't say anything," he said as soon as they were far enough from the Jeep. "You don't know nothing, you never saw no one, nothing happened. You got that? Now I don't want to hear another damn word from your from anybody else about some damn lieutenant who doesn't exist" (2008: 205).
Next, Socrates faced another pressure from Sergeant Slaughter. Not long
after Gunny left Socrates alone without even having any chance for him to ask
any question, Sergeant Slaughter called him spoke cryptically.
31
even go nowhere one night last week. That's a crock of shit." He spat onto the ground at his side and scuffed dirt over it. "Only you do know something, but you ain't supposed to say nothing about it. That's a crock of shit, too. There's something everybody seems to have forgotten. That's I'm the man in charge here; that means I'm responsible for every swinging dick in this unit and what he does. I could get my ass hung out to dry for something nobody wants to tell me about, something everybody says isn't happening and I don't have a clue what it is.
"Socrates, nothing better happen." He turned and walked away (2008: 206).
He thought that that seemed like his day for people were walking off
without giving him a chance to say anything and that’s like they thought he was
somebody and he didn’t have any idea who it was they think he was (2008: 206).
Those two strange pressures made him filled his mind with more complex
problems, without any solving from his earlier problems.
A couple days later, Socrates met Sergeant Slaughter, asked for
permission to go to CAG to find Lieutenant Convoy to ask him what's going on.
After some effort, he got it. He was driven to Whiskey 8 Company HQ first for
waiting a truck that would drive him to CAG. However, Captain Vitale called him
before his going. Again, Socrates got another pressure not to find Lieutenant
Convoy when he asked permission to go to CAG. Captain Vitale said
"You heard me. You're looking for someone you'll never find. And even if you did find him, he wouldn't tell you anything. Now go back to the Junkyard. Dismissed."
"Sir," he swallowed to moisten his throat, "by your leave, sir. I'm going to CAG."
"No you're not. There's no one there for you to see. You're on your way back to the Junkyard. Dismissed." Captain Vitale picked up some papers from his desk and looked at them (2008: 209).
He tried to ask any further information in different way of saying. He
32
"Sir," his voice cracked, "what do you know about my story?"
"Nothing. There is no story. There is nothing to know because nothing has happened, because certain people don't exist. Now get out of my office and go back to the Junkyard before I get pissed off." He returned to the papers on his desk (2008: 209).
Then, Socrates went back to Fort Cragg without knowing what to do to
find Lieutenant Convoy to ask him about what's going on; until he dreamed again.
Socrates planned something to get answers from Mr. Smith. He asked
Captain Hook for support and Captain Hook with him.
Next, Socrates and his men met Mr. Smith again. They were driven to
somewhere about twenty five miles from Khung Toi, where Socrates had no idea
of what direction they were. He tried to challenge Mr. Smith because he felt tired
of Mr. Smith’s wasn’t giving any clear information about what they did.
"What town?" "Need to know."
"I'm tired of that 'need to know' shit."
"I don't care what you're tired of. That's the rules." (2008: 221)
Mr. Smith then gave them another target to kill. However, when Mr.
Smith parceled out the silenced weapon, he found he faced a conflict.
He didn't want to do this, but he had no idea where they were. If he didn't do as Mr. Smith said, he had no way of explaining to anybody what he and his men were doing there wherever there was. (2008: 223).
However, when he reached the target, he froze at what he saw. There are
three children and a middle-aged woman, that it must the target’s child and wife.
He had to finish the mission but his mind rejected it. But again, Captain Hook
shot the target for him.
33
Captain Hook didn't freeze. As soon as he saw Socrates wasn't moving he held his pistol above the face of the man and pulled the trigger. There was a low pop, the man twitched, and his eye welled with blood.
It was too late, one of the three children on the bed was waking up. Socrates had to move. He sprayed quickly. The three children and a middle-aged woman. (2008: 223).
Just before Captain Hook was about to emasculate the target, Socrates
stopped him. He didn’t want Captain Hook to emasculate the target. He wanted
documents, hoped to get answer to his problems.
He put the light down and gripped Captain Hook's arm before he could open the dead man's trousers.
"No," he rasped. "We don't cut this one."
Captain Hook looked at him in the low, red light, shrugged, and sheathed his knife.
Socrates was trembling when he stuck the canister back in his shirt. "Documents," he said, "I want documents this time. I need to know who this man is." (2008: 223-224).
Finally, they the documents and went back to meet Mr. Smith. When
they came back to Mr. Smith, Socrates started executing his plan. Then, the next
conversation with Mr. Smith was the last and final conflict with him. He found
that he was really confident now in fighting the curiosities that Mr. Smith hided
before. He also found more plain explanation about his other problems. Started
with the Socrates’ asking to Mr. Smith
"Let's start with your name." "Mister Smith, you know that."
"Cut the bullshit. I mean your real name."
Mr. Smith didn't answer immediately. He considered Socrates for a long moment, but his eyes kept drifting back to the shotgun pointed at his middle. Finally he said, "Peterson, Fred Peterson." (2008: 225).
The investigation continued and he found information that the stranger
34
missions were to kill Viet Cong, and the last victim was a political cadre of Viet
Cong (2008: 226). He also get more information about who the stranger was, that
he was the agent in a multi-district area that nobody acted in his districts without
clearing it through him (2008: 227). Fred Peterson also explained his chain over
Marine. He said
"I'm not in your chain of command, that's true. Your chain of command goes up through CAG to Three MAF, to FMFPac, to the Commandant of the Marine Corps, to the Secretary of Defense, and from there to the President. Somewhere along the line there's a side trip to MACV in Saigon. Mine goes on a different route and winds up somewhere else before it reaches the White House, and never goes through MACV. We've got this thing called Project Phoenix. Mostly what Phoenix does is gather intelligence on local Vee Cee infrastructure. When we know enough we neutralize that infrastructure" (2008: 227).
Socrates demanded the more plain explanation between him and his men
to the Project Phoenix. Peter Peterson explained
"Somewhere along the line someone in my chain of command got together with someone in your chain of command and got permission for us to use you as operatives."
"Why us?"
Peterson shook his head. "Not you in particular. Marines." "I say again, why us?"
"Because when I was told to use Marines, I checked on who was available in my districts. Your names cropped up." (2008: 227).
Afterward, Peter Peterson told who Lieutenant Convoy was. He said that
Lieutenant Convoy represented Socrates’ higher-higher and admitted that
Lieutenant Convoy was exists, though not in a way he can be easily found (2008:
228). Peterson also said that he was just like Socrates, got orders verbally from his
immediate superior, not written.
Finally, Socrates got the answers for some parts of his entire problems.
35
Peterson had the last word on the trip back. "Remember, your superiors, at least up to company level, don't know what you're doing. If you tell them, it's going to come out like you're doing it on your own. You could find yourselves in a world of shit if you say anything more than you already have." (2008: 228).
Then, Socrates had to read the documents they had found to find out who
the target they had killed was, whether he was VC (2008: 229). He wanted to read
the documents but he mustn’t be recognized by other Marines, so he and his men
went to banana grove where no Marines would be there (2008: 239).
Therefore, they translated the documents and found that the target they
had killed was a captain of 143rd Independent Viet Cong Battalion (2008: 240)
and there
was an order for a combat operation The 143rd Independent Viet Cong Battalion was to attack a village that had a Combined Action Platoon. They were to destroy that CAP to the last man, both American and Vietnamese (2008: 242).
However, Socrates wondered if they had translated the letters right,
meant of an operation order for a battalion assault on Fort Cragg. He wanted to
tell Sergeant Slaughter about this but faced two problems. First, they didn’t know
for sure that the combat operation was going to be in Fort Cragg. Second, he
wondered how they were going to tell Sergeant about the attack because will be
called as UA, on unauthorized absence, and that would be a court martial offense.
Then, his conflict was now became a couple stronger. They were about to be
attacked by a whole battalion and they couldn't say anything to anybody and they
were going to die (2008: 244). He kept his biggest conflict that came along with
36
From this point, the plot of the story turns into the climax (the greatest tension) or “the point at which the protagonist decides how to resolve a conflict or
faces those conflicts” (Schaefer, 1998). It started when Socrates found that there
was sure about what would happen to him and all Marines and PFs.
He pulled out the orders and his translation and hunched over them to read again, checking various words in the dictionary. He did it several times. It always came out the same, even if a few words did change their exact meaning. Someday very soon now, the 143rd Independent Viet Cong Battalion, consisting of three companies of 125 or more men each, was going to attack CAP Whiskey 8, consisting of eleven US Marines, one US Navy corpsman, and a 35 man Popular Forces platoon (2008: 255).
Finally, he couldn’t think anything else to do except told Sergeant
Slaughter about the upcoming Viet Cong assault. That was when they have just
finished drawing the night's patrol routes. He got Sergeant Slaughter and said
"We've got a problem" (2008: 259). Then he continued to explained very firmly
"I have reason to believe that sometime in the next few days, Charlie intends to hit the Junkyard, assault Fort Cragg, in battalion strength, for the purpose of wiping out the Junkyard Dogs and returning Khung Toi village to their control" (2008: 260).
He gave the sheets paper containing the operation order to Sergeant
Slaughter but Sergeant Slaughter wasn’t so sure about the meaning. Then Hank,
the Vietnamese was asked to translate it for them. Hank translated and said
37
He made Sergeant Slaughter sure that it was from the Vee Cee captain.
The startle information about the upcoming Vee Cee assault made Socrates and
other fire teams became more aggressive in their patrol.
They stayed close to Fort Cragg that night. The three patrols acted more as mobile listening posts than they did as their normal, aggressively patrolling selves. None of the three patrols went more than a half mile away. (2008: 263), and
Nobody spent the rest of the night in his cot, they all took defensive positions around the perimeter, maintained a one third watch through the darkness; one out of three men awake and listening. (2008: 263).
Therefore, the Marines were forced to be more ready than before.
Socrates went to see Sergeant Slaughter, ready for assistance he could offer.
Sergeant Slaughter gathered his all Marines and PFs, gave them the first strategy
to counter the upcoming assault.
"That's the first shit. Get it done, then I'll give you more. Anyone else?" There were no other questions. "Then do it."
They did it. (2008: 265).
The Marines asked for the available reinforcement from the
higher-higher but vain, then they tried to draw the next plan to confront the upcoming
assault (2008: 267).
The situation changed into “chaos for a few moments” (2008: 273) until
the Marines were really facing the initial of major attack (2008: 275). Therefore,
the war began. The tension increased in a time, somehow.
38
Next, the brutal attack from the Viet Cong turned the situation into
critical with the Marines hadn’t gotten the reinforcement support yet (2008: 284).
What they’re trying to stop the advanced enemies remains unsuccessful.
The next salvo hit and almost instantly the four Marines and eleven PFs able to bring their rifles to bear in that direction, fired at the still advancing VC. Captain Hook fired a burst from his machine gun before he had to duck from an RPG coming at his bunker. The advance from the west was slowed down but not stopped. (2008: 285).
As the Vee Cee’s assault advanced, the plot is now coming to the crisis, the reversal or "turning point" of the fortunes of the Vee Cee companies.
Then situation got worse as the Vee Cee got their full-power attacking,
“when they were less than a hundred yards away, the Junkyard Dogs found out
where the third company was” (2008: 285) and the assault was getting harder to
overcome. “Now, from that close range, a hundred rifles and automatic rifles
blasted at the northwest side of the fort,” “Chickenfucker could no longer stand up
to see where his rounds hit either, so he stopped firing” (2008: 286). Even, the
Marines had known that the Vee Cee “couldn't be fired on at all because the
105mm rounds would hit in the hamlet, injure the people, destroy their property
(2008: 287).
The critical situation continued and Socrates felt of scare surrounds him,
he “noticed the abating of the death-roar that surrounded him and unglued himself
from the wall” (2008: 287).
Therefore, as the Marines couldn’t give any significance attack any more
