Gordie Vance

I found it interesting to see Gordie Vance’s reaction to Hammerfall. We have so far seen plenty of pages filled with people acting irrationally or inappropriately because of the idea of the comet hitting Earth, justifying their actions with that “end of the world”-type inevitability. Fred, most obviously, has his (icky) way with Colleen, later appealing to Eric Larson by asking, “Wouldn’t she be dead now? Already?” (LH 245). Yet Vance seems to be the single character who is put off of an irrational act by the fact of Hammerfall. Rather than taking his life as he had planned, and writing it off to the idea of “I would have died anyway”, he instead chooses to live (without even giving any regard to the odds of that).

I felt that Vance’s treatment of the comet in this way stressed how the “the end is near” mentality brings into view the revelation that none of the characters actually believe it is truly the end. They all act as though they will survive/will be the “last man standing”. The end is near – but for others, not for them. They are so sure of imminent destruction, yet many of them seem to also be surprisingly sure of their own survival (or at least act in a way that shows they think their odds are good enough to make it worthwhile for them to head for the hills). For example, consider Harry Stimms charging 250,000 for the car that Hamner buys, to hopefully be of use to him “just in case”, when/if he makes it through Hammerfall (LH 298). Stimms operates on the assumption that he has a chance, just as Loretta in packing her nylons had done (and we all saw how well her odds and survival conviction served her).

This discrepancy in turn seems to pose a string of questions. If destruction/death is inevitable, what shall the course of action be? Shall we lie down where we stand and accept our fate, or should we continue to act as we normally would under harsh circumstances, packing food and seeking shelter and moving as though the inevitability will pass us by? Why, for that matter, do we have this need to carry on? Do humans naturally resist not so much change, but acceptance? (For example: the American Civil War, failing of Prop. 8, etc.) Vonnegut’s Cat’s Cradle comes to mind, where at the end the people captured Bokonon, “placed him at their center, and commanded him to tell them exactly what God Almighty was up to and what they should now do. The mountebank told them that God was surely trying to kill them, possibly because he was through with them, and that they should have the good manners to die. This, as you can see, they did.”

By nympheline

I think Andy Warhol is possibly the most insightful life-commentator that I know of.