Palace Thief (The) by Ethan Canin ~ July Book Club Online

[bellamarie]

Yes, Halcyon, Mr. H., was talking of Sedgewick, and it appears from this statement, Sedgewick did not fare well with the press, keeping him from becoming president.  But then again, Mr. H., is the narrator, and could be once again puffing himself up, by assuming Sedgewick could have made it to the presidency.  He sort of leaves the reader to believe Sedgewick has been cheated out of the possibility.  I have more thoughts on this, but will wait til we get closer to the end to put them together.

[BarbStAubrey]

Halcyon he sure seems to live vicariously through his students doesn't he - my take on his myopia is that he lives such an insular life and is teaching with beliefs similar to the 1930s rather than the 1950s - Women may have had a paper doll type lifestyle but the men were making new things happen - even though they too looked like a uniform group the world was open to them to achieve as compared to only a few having opportunity to achieve greatness before WWII which could have been as a result of the long decade of frozen circumstances because of the crash of 1929 followed by ten years of depression.

Before WWII only 5% of the population had a collage education and if this is about the time after the war than we had returning soldiers cramming in collage and for some high school classrooms, sitting on the floor and in halls and on steps. After what they had experienced they were not putting up with myopic learning - everything had to be relevant.

I had not put it together just how insular he was - thanks for that - yes, like that bit on PBS of the goldfish jumping from its tank only the couple of times he leaves the campus he sure does not get further than making it to the tank in the store window much less to the bottled water on the truck nor the leap into the river.   

Now I am seeing another dichotomy - the story is told so that Mr. Hunderdt shows some envy, yet disdain and fascination for the world of business and politics - in one breath is sounds like he feels superior and in another he wants to feel his input was responsible for the success of these boys/men - and then on the part of the successful in business and politics, they see graduating from the school like a necessary step but only one step that is limited compared to other higher and more meaningful steps to success. Their own success as students or the success of their son as Sedgewick's Dad saw it, was all that mattered; not the life experiences of the teachers. As grown men, Sedgewick and his fellow classmates talk fondly with Mr. Hunderdt but it is more like he was a prop on the stage of their life.

Haha Sedgewick sure knows how to do it doesn't he - wine them and dine them which can be written off as a business expense since he includes a speech during the weekend and then when they are feeling relaxed having had a good time hit them up for a political donation. Sure trumps Mr. Hunderdt's attempt to obtain a big donation which again would be a tax deduction. Almost a repeat of Sedgewick topping Mr Hunderdt by making motions with his pants the first day in class - haha more of the sly maneuvers bull deer to bull deer during a rut.

As to "myopia kept him from fighting in WWII.  Which made me think of a bigger picture.  Maybe Mr. H. represents America." Sure would be typical of us through the 50s and the 60s wouldn't it - I am thinking back and I do not think we started to question or even examine any of the negative issues surrounding the war years or pre-war years - seems to me it was not till after Kent State that there were adults a generation removed who analyzed and spoke up so that by the time these men were being wined and dined by Sedgewick maybe only then would these questions be an issue. So that they all had a myopic association with the war believing only in the concept of the 'Greatest Generation'. Is that Mr. Hunderdt's legacy I wonder? 

 

[PatH]

There is one possible mention of gayness, though not one to be taken seriously.  Hundert calls Sedgewick to his office to discuss his poor performance:
"Sit down, boy."
"You're not married, are you, sir?"
"No, Sedgewick, I am not.  However, we are here to talk about you."
"That's why you like puttin' us in togas, right?"

[bellamarie]

Ah!  PatH.  That was a good find.  I had forgotten this.

OMG!  I understand how everyone says they go back and read this, and more things just pop out at you.  In the first paragraph he says, "This is a story without surprises."

Yet, it indeed is full of surprises.  Or maybe what I see are contradictions, all throughout the story.  He says, "Nor do I tell it in apology for St. Benedict's School, for St. Benedict's School needs no apologies."

The school did nothing wrong.  Mr. H., in fact was in the wrong, and should be apologizing to these students, parents, and the school. 

He takes the gun Senator Bell gives to him, if for no other reason than to feel important.  Then he goes on to tell Senator Bell, "It's my job, sir to mold your son's character."  Seriously???  I just about flipped out reading such a bold statement.  Kudos for Senator Bell's response, "I'm sorry, young man,"  he said slowly, "but you will not mold him.  I will mold him.  You will merely teach him."

Barb, Mr. H., is not only living vicariously through his students, but he is thinking his job is beyond his qualifications, and responsibilities.  He surely has a God like image of himself.  Narcissistic comes to mind here.

Narcissistic personality disorder is a mental disorder in which people have an inflated sense of their own importance, a deep need for admiration and a lack of empathy for others. But behind this mask of ultraconfidence lies a fragile self-esteem that's vulnerable to the slightest criticism.

This sure sums Mr. H., up in my opinion. 

A teacher can have an impact on a student's life.  I have had former students come to me years later, as adults, and tell me certain things I may have taught them, that helped them at some point in their life.  It is flattering as a teacher, to hear these things, BUT, in NO WAY would I a take credit for the outcome of who they become in life, or take credit for their successes or failures.  And, certainly I would never imagine, I would be the one molding a student's character.   The arrogance of his statement is so unbelievable! 

[Frybabe]

When I read Hundert' s remark that his job is to mold his student's character, I thought oh how snobby, British old school of him. Haven't I seen this attitude in plenty of BBC/PBS programs set at elite boarding schools and universities?

[Halcyon]

Bellamarie writes:  Narcissistic personality disorder is a mental disorder in which people have an inflated sense of their own importance, a deep need for admiration and a lack of empathy for others. But behind this mask of ultraconfidence lies a fragile self-esteem that's vulnerable to the slightest criticism.

I'm not sure I agree with all that.  I think teaching methods during that time period were a lot different and teachers were made to feel very powerful because of their education and position.  Barb said only 5% of the population had attended college before WWII.  That would mean to me that a lot of folks may have been intimidated by the higher education of a teacher.  Mr. H. did have empathy for Sedgwick.  After his meeting with the senator he ponders:  "I considered what it must have been like to have been raised under such a tyrant.  My heart warmed somewhat toward young Sedgwick."  And again on giving Sedgwick the benefit of the doubt in quizzes:  "...then I was merely trying to encourage the nascent curiosity of a boy who, to all appearances, was struggling gamely from beneath the formidable umbra of his father."  And again after his parents walked out when Sedgwick didn't win the garland of Laurel: "I believe I had my first inkling then of the mighty forces that would twist the life of that boy."

[ALF43]

Well, with a jet lag hangover I arrive here in hopes of making a startling observation.  Now I'm totally befuddled by Ginnie's first question.  A good one it is but the word to describe Mr. H  remains elusive to me.  Reading this novella, I had a sense that I had met him; listened to him, encountered him somewhere because his whole persona frankly bugs the hell out of me.

Pedln described him as dull and I hate apathy so I must agree with that description.  He strikes me as an uninteresting, monotonous teacher and as Ginny says “ his style is distance.”  I don't like people that dissociate themselves leaving an aloofness and a feeling of being remote. Yes, that's it, he is remote!
In my time we would giggle and call him an old fart.”  But I need to remind myself that he was young here when he first taught these boys, unlike any young teacher I've ever encountered who are just filled with animation and delight in teaching.
Pedln used the word JOY (lack thereof) and that's spot on.  He shows no bounce, no sense of gladness or delight.  If he weren't such a dolt I'd actually feel pity for him.
 Even with his detachment I have the feeling that he wants to be prominent, illustrious even arresting but he is not Yes, Ginny I think conflicted is a good word; having a tug of war with himself. 
I will pot this as it's a new computer and I do not wish to lose a post. 
Once again, my apologies for being late and getting behind in our discussion.  You have all brought so much here to address and we've just started.
 Does anybody else feel this way?

[ALF43]

Frybaby- yes, he does seems isolated in his own world and seems perfectly fine with that fact. Yes, who does he think he is molding anybody?  For crying out loud he's still wet behind the ears.  GRRR

Jonathan- I love it when you are in a discussion.  The thoughts that you bring cause me to sit back in my chair and really ponder. i.e.  The teacher of history finds himself caught up in it. Compelled to add his chapter. To set the record straight? The teacher of character is left puzzled by his own.

I ask, If the past is history and the future is a mystery how in the world can he expect to add his own chapter?

PatH- I agree with the assessment that he could have been gay.  It points in that direction. I don't want to monopolize so I will return for further comments on your posts.

I just reread Bella's comments and it struck a very big cord with me. 

[Jonathan]

Of course Mr Hundert was counting on the help of Shutruk-Nahhunte, Ozymandias and all the club of emperors to assist in the molding. A classical scholar, teaching the boys about ancient heros, handicapped by myopia. What an irony.

Did a kid like Sedgewick need help? At thirteen. This privileged kid, growing up in the shadow of power as Mr H puts it.

'these methods he's using are despotic'

'there are no women at all in this'

There are answers in this quote:

'...the hope that I could give to my boys the more important vision that my classical studies had given to me. I knew that they responded best to challenge. I knew that a teacher who coddled them at that age would only hold them back, would keep them in the bosoms of their mothers so long that they would  remain weak-minded through preparatory school and inevitably then through college. The best of my own teachers had been tyrants. I well remembered this. Yet at that moment I felt an inexplicable pity for the boy.'

Does that make us feel more kindly about Mr Hundert? Tradition means a lot to him.

[bellamarie]

Oh Halcyon, I do believe you have been a bit tricked by Mr. H.'s  over inflated ego, by his statements.  You realize he is feeling sorry for Sedgewick at these moments because he is judging the parenting skills, and he is judging the parenting skills because the Senator has put him in his place. 

He resorts to putting others down, to build himself up.  This has very little to do with time and era, this man is arrogant, and judges others with a measuring stick, he does not use for himself.  He makes poor decisions, breaks rules, cheats a student out of his rightful place in the contest, then cheats Sedgewick with a question not in the content of material required to know (because he refuses to call him out on his cheating), and then has the audacity to think how he handled it was fair, and goes on to put pity on Sedgewick for having parents he deems lacking.

Mr. H. Is truly gotten himself in a quandary, and is trying to find fault with others, to justify his own wrong doings.  He has overstepped his place, thinking he had more power, responsibility, and position as a teacher, and the Senator let him know this, with clarity. 

What really stood out for me was when the Senator called after the contest and confronted him about the question not being in the Outline, "now, I'm not asking you to correct anything this time, you understand.  My son has told me a great deal about you, Mr. Hundert.  If I were you, I'd remember that." 

This not only sounded threatening, but it made me wonder just what has Sedgewick told his father, to give him reason to make this statement?  Here, once again the gay issue could be an underlying thought. 

Alf, I'm right with you on your feelings about Mr. H.

[bellamarie]

No, Jonathan, it does not change my feelings about Mr. H.  His words don't match up with his actions.  He's not here to save the boys, they don't need saving, he is here to teach.  He seems to have himself intertwined, and is making judgements and decisions based on his alter ego, and possibly his weaknesses as a boy.  Where does he get off deciding what is best for them?  And does he feel pity for Sedgewick, who has parents attending his school activity, backing him up, giving him a good life, prominent in society, being proactive in their son's life, or.....does he feel pity for himself?  Why would he feel pity for Sedgewick?

This is a large leap of assumption on his part,    I knew that a teacher who coddled them at that age would only hold them back, would keep them in the bosoms of their mothers so long that they would  remain weak-minded through preparatory school and inevitably then through college.

So, as he sees it, the father or mother has no place, or good judgement, for what is best for their child, only he seems to know what is best.  Grrrrrrrrrrrrr.........  He really is annoying to me.

[Jonathan]

Mr Hundert is given a girlfriend in the movie, and I believe the author said he was very happy with the movie. The ambiguity in our story is unfortunate I think. And yet, at the end Mr Hundert says things like 'the boy had become an obsession for me', and 'I well knew the charisma of the boy'. This story is a puzzler. In the end each betrayed the other. There was something other than sex about this teacher/student relationship.

Welcome aboard, ALF. We need your wise head in this one.

[bellamarie]

Yes, Jonathan, Mr. H. admits he had an obsession with Sedgewick.  I don't know if it involved anything to do with sex, but he surely from the minute he saw him enter his classroom, allowed himself to alter his behavior, thinking, actions, judgement, morals, etc., etc.  Even in the end, he could not resist going to that rally, and yet it is just another set up, when he goes to speak on stage with Sedgewick, feeling all special to get recognition, only to see it was Sedgewick's final blow to him.

"My history teacher," he said, as the crowd began to cheer again.  Flashbulbs popped and I moved instinctively toward the front of the platform.  "Mr. Hundert,"  he boomed, "from forty-five years ago at Richmond Central High."  It took me a moment to realize what he had said.  By then he too was clapping and at the same time lowering his head in what must have appeared to the men below to be respect for me.  The blood engorged my veins.  "Just a minute,"  I said, stepping back to my own microphone.  "I taught you at St. Benedict's School in Woodmere, Virginia.  Here is a blazer."  Of course, it makes no difference in the course of history that as I tried to hold up the coat Sedgewick Bell moved swiftly across the podium, took it from my grip, and raised my arm high in his own, and that this pose, of all things, sent the miners in jubilation; makes no difference that by the time I spoke, he had gestured with his hand so that one of his aides had already shut off my microphone.  For one does not alter history without conviction.  It is enough to know that I did speak, and certainly a consolation that Sedgewick Bell realized, finally, that I would.

I saved the picture that appeared the following morning in the Gazette:  Senator Bell radiating all the populist magnetism of his father, holding high the arm of an old man who has on his face the remnants of a proud and foolish smile. 

From day one, Sedgewick knew he was in control of Mr. H., and began making him look like a fool.  As the teacher continued to make poor decisions, the student could see he had him in his clutches.  Mr. H., could not stay away from that rally.  He saved the picture, I think more so because he felt HE won the race, rather than Senator Bell.  I have no doubt, he saw himself as the factor, of who Sedgewick turned out to be.   Narcissistic indeed!  A very lost man. 

Sedgewick went after what he wanted in life.  He made no apologies for how he got it, and had no lingering guilt.  He was like a cat playing with a toy, the toy being Mr. H.

[ALF43]

I see him more as a man with an inferiority complex living vicariously thru his history lessons. Anyone with feelings of inferiority will ultimately belittle those more adept,richer, smarter and/or more privileged. To tear one down, he builds himself up. He's trying to take the upper hand with the kid, all time feeling inferior to him. Age old tactic I am well familiar with.
The kid's a bully as well. He's been spoiled rotten probably with everything money and his fathers position can buy. Daddy rules the roost, so here we build a bully mentality. I know kids like this and parents like this.

[bellamarie]

I see the inferiority complex, but he also has a need to be important.  To think parents are not capable of molding their own child, so he must do it for them, is incredible.  The arrogance of him, to tell the Senator, he must mold his son, was way beyond boundaries a teacher should step.

Gosh, so sorry for all my posts.  I was stuck in my house today with rain and cold temps, waiting for renovation to begin from my flooded basement, I feel I got over zealous to discuss this story.   

[Halcyon]

Bellamarie  This not only sounded threatening, but it made me wonder just what has Sedgewick told his father, to give him reason to make this statement?  Here, once again the gay issue could be an underlying thought. 

I wondered about that too.  Would Sedgwick do or say anything to get his father's approval?

[BarbStAubrey]

Huh - just hit me - as the old saying goes - Mr. H cannot win for loosing. Think about replacing the father with an unimportant father living in or close to poverty. Then, we have to question would an aversion of a man because of his status in life be any less morally corrupt for a teacher than being enamored with a man because of his wealth and importance.

We are often filled with censure toward a teacher who will not take the time to council parents whose child is disruptive in the classroom. Plus, there has never been a common measure of disruption. Each teacher seems to have their own expectations for behavior and only recently, within the past 20 or maybe 25 years has there been any agreed upon bar for corporal punishment. Even that agreement is skirted with children left in dark cold rooms without furniture as a so-called cooling off or time out space.

If Sedgwick's Dad was even fully employed but say a garbage pickup man or even a lineman with the local electric company and Sedgwick acted as he did in class he would be considered out of line if not a hoodlum.

As to Mr. H suggesting he was molding the boy, well what is it we the public want. If kids get into trouble and it makes the newspaper or girls become pregnant we want teachers to do something about it.  Nearly all social ills are placed on the doorstep of teachers as a job for teachers to address.  How we came to think this way I have no clue or when this all started because there is no logic when the hours a teacher in High School has a child in front of them is calculated and during that time they are expected to teach a curriculum of study. In that respect Mr. Bell, Sedgewick's Dad is correct, he pays the school to teach his son, and yet, most of us have expected that during their school time a set of values would be instilled.

We vaguely, innately think we know what these values are but parents never collectively or singularly create that list.  We depend on the school to list for us their moral based intentions that they expect to instill in the students. Then on top we all, schools and parents do not share a realistic list of values so that most kids are ill prepared for reality if they only learn what we are comfortable with as the basis of what students hear about and learn in the classroom.

As to teaching youngsters moral values associated with business or influence or social versus economic values that is the playground of an adult, we do not want to examine the various alternatives much less do we collectively have a clear idea of how to operate within the power dynamics even in an office much less the seats of power. Or if these are children expecting low income jobs, what are the values they should adopt that allows them dignity rather than feeling they are on the sidelines with the concept beggars have no rights to choice.

I just look at this story and think if Mr. H was visiting a Dad in a tenement or public housing, we would read this and say rah rah rah for him to want to mold the morality, if only the behavior of this Dad's 'Sedgewick'. And so now, I wonder if we judge the behavior of a character based on the status of others in the story.  Would we see the insular life of Mr. H as self-protective if St. Benedict's was smack dab in the middle of east L. A. or the South Bronx or where ever these days the poor, who are barely hanging on live?

OK, looking at him in that light I still see his 'need' is for the boys to share his ethereal view of history without helping them relate what they are learning to their lives or even a current worldview. So his teaching style is as if teaching art rather than the value of history that he so well champions when the curriculum is in flux.

And yes, Sedgwick was making a fool of him and he was not handling it well any more than if some young drug runner came to class with gold chains hanging round his neck and his pants hanging lower than is decent. That is when the issue of whose class is it comes into question, the teachers, or the students. That is when we become aware, there is no agreed upon code of behavior drawn up by both students and teachers. This story takes place during the time when we still see vestiges of the power-over model with those who are to obey still revolting if only with passive aggressive tactics.

OK I am ready to give Mr. H a break - he is incompetent yes, but I think he is doing his job. Maybe that is the sadness of this tragedy - they are all acting out in keeping with the power game that took place in and out of the classroom and probably still does.

[ginny]

Golly what wonderful comments, each one sparkles like a firework and so informative.. And they are all over the place as far as agreement, which is what one longs for.  Once my little guest has gone home tomorrow night I have printed these out and want to just sit and enjoy them in an easy chair. And address them then to do them justice.

Jonathan asks: Does that make us feel more kindly about Mr Hundert? Tradition means a lot to him.  Barbara is ready to give Mr. Hundert a break. I've felt kindly toward him all along, that's the enigma of the man. The tragedy.  Halcyon asked did he represent America, is he a metaphor for America. I do think he's an embodiment, but I don't know what for, yet. Sometimes I think retirement. Sometimes I think old age. Sometimes I think classics.  I'm hoping that your comments in this discussion will help clear the air for me.

Frybabe, I was stunned to see there IS a school, I'm sure not related, called  St. Benedict Catholic School in Richmond. That is actually a "Latin school," in that Latin is taught there from the first grade, yet the  Catholic faith  is predominant in their billing and their focus.  I would love to know what the school on the cover is, do any of you?

Sorry, Bellamarie, I did not see your "humiliation" remark initially, I was so struck I guess by some of the other things you said.  This one today: OMG!  I understand how everyone says they go back and read this, and more things just pop out at you.  In the first paragraph he says, "This is a story without surprises."

Yet, it indeed is full of surprises.  Or maybe what I see are contradictions, all throughout the story.  He says, "Nor do I tell it in apology for St. Benedict's School, for St. Benedict's School needs no apologies."

The school did nothing wrong.  Mr. H., in fact was in the wrong, and should be apologizing to these students, parents, and the school. 

I think the school did do something wrong in the form of it's...principal?  At the contest: Mr Woodbridge: "Ignore it, Hunderdt, or look for another job."

That was a crisis for Mr. Hunderdt. He's timid, he's withdrawing, his entire life is that school and what he thinks he's doing : molding character of tomorrow's leaders. What did he WANT? I keep asking myself. What did he want?

Here a moral dilemma not of his making asserts itself. And it's couched in no uncertain terms: comply or lose what matters to you most. And it's HIS glory day, the contest he's done for so long which is such a "big thing" in that school.

I agree on the surprises. Almost every page is a surprise. Why did he tell us there were none?

He's timid. The room is FULL of people, terrifying for an introvert without a role to play of command....This was wrong, it's all wrong, his contest is ruined,  but it was not his doing. Speaking up would have taken all he possessed and if he did it he'd lose everything he cared about. So instead he does a passive aggressive act,  he's got to stop Sedgewick, the only way he can.

Did he actually think it was OK, do you think?

Tell  us, honestly, what would YOU, (speaking to each of the group here at large)  have done in his shoes?

I'm not sure not being married is proof of gayness, is it? I don't see gayness here, at all. I see an ascetic.  A very repressed man who...as Barbara said about something else, and Andrea said,  lives vicariously thru not only his students, but for his teaching.
 
Halcyon, being in the 40's makes a world of difference, I did not remark on that when I read it. What an interesting statistic Barbara put here. It's also true that IN the 30's and 40's a lot of teachers were not as highly educated as we'd think.  I don't think that applies to Mr. Hunderdt, but he gives us no clue on that.

Welcome, Andrea!! Thank you for coming in from a long jet lagged trip, I agree with Jonathan we will enjoy your searing comments on this one. What is it about his personality that you find infuriating? He's not direct as you are,  he's really almost the opposite. But he doesn't lack conviction, does he?

I see Barbara swinging back now in his defense. What DO we expcect of teachers? Good points! Here is a man limited in friends, in social interactions (he lives in a spare room in the college, like a school boy tho he hastens to say it's not as if he was living with the boys as formerly, he's risen above that now,  he can put the bed back in the wall (did I read that right) and have an office. The man is timid, he's like a lot of scholars, obsessed with the past, which is probably more alive to him than a lot of his contemporaries till he meets Mr. Ellerby.

Pat's quote shows us what, I think, Sedgewick Bell is capable of, even as a young man. There's no telling what he told his father but I think we can guess with the "dress" remark Pat quoted.

Is Mr. Hunderdt  happy? I think he was initially.  He was ruling his own little kingdom and he ruled it for 41 years and tried ( in his own eyes) to do the job he felt he should do. After all, didn't he teach John Foster Dulles and Henry Stimpson and how MANY illustrious men? He has a proven track record. So he's not the belle of the ball socially. He has his work to which he is devoted. Anything else?

The author states in that interview in the link that he remembers best the martinets of his own education, he learned the most from them.  I've forgotten how he puts it but the ones who forced him to learn.  Yet he does not particularly recall them as great teachers.

So here's a man with modest ambitions, and modest accomplishments, thrown into a situation which was not of his making. He did not make Sedgewick cheat. He told the authorities. (This is beginning to remind me of some recent scandals). He was told to shut it or his livelihood. That, in its own way,  was a betrayal.

 Perhaps he's caught up a little too much in the glory of past students and in Hiram Bell, too.

It makes me wonder what IS a teacher?

What wonderful comments you all have generously provided for our thoughts, thank you so much!

Who is worse, Sedgewick Bell or Charles Ellerby? Who is the worst of the three, Sedgewick  Bell, Charles Ellerby, or Mr. Woodbridge? How about who is the worst here in the entire thing, Sedgewick Bell, Charles Ellerby, Mr. Woodbridge,  or William Hunderdt?



More when I can read again your incredible comments at leisure.

[Cristalle]

Well first I have to confess I read all 4 stories.  Guess that wasn't the plan for the group, but I didn't know. Besides I rather like the writers style; very straightforward.  The style is reminiscent of one of my favorite novels, called Kokoro by the Japanese author Natsume Soseki, published in 1914. 
The impression that I am left with of Mr. Hundert is that he is a person who cannot allow himself to be underutilized. He seeks engagement and interaction with others in order to feel alive.  This is especially revealed once retirement has been forced upon him and he finds himself completely at sea. Mr. Sedgwick Bell and Mr. Hundert are like north and south poles, attracting and repelling each other at the same time. They are 2 parts of the same puzzle. Mr. Hundert cannot help but be drawn into Mr. Bell's schemes because even if he  ends up being ill-used, be is engaged and involved. They each play the same role with each other again and again.  The mystery is why Mr. Hundert appears surprised at each outcome, when clearly he is drawn to being used. It is an effective partnership; a giver and a taker.

[bellamarie]

Ginny,

So here's a man with modest ambitions, and modest accomplishments, thrown into a situation which was not of his making. He did not make Sedgewick cheat.

While I think you are very generous with not placing any blame on Mr. H., and yes, I have to agree Mr. Woodbridge has accountability for saying, "Ignore it, Hundert, or look for another job." This entire situation was created by Mr. H.  He single handedly created this by cheating and giving Sedgewick and A, when he admittedly says he deserved a B, giving him a chance to be given the third spot in the contest.  Had Mr. H., not put these wheels in motion, none of this would have happened.  Sedgewick would not have been in the contest to cheat, Mr. Woodbridge would not have been put into a situation to make an instant decision on how to handle the cheating.

I do not see Mr. H., as a man with modest ambitions.  He has the highest ambition a man in his school would aspire to becoming, the Headmaster.

Barb, I appreciate, and respect your idea of the comparisons of entitled rich vs poverty lifestyles, and how some may decide Mr. H.'s involvement would have been seen differently, but....I have to say this story is what it is, and he was crossing his boundaries in so many levels.  I can't give Mr. H., a break.  He threw down this gauntlet from the day Sedgewick walked into his classroom.  He is the teacher, the authoritative figure, the person a thirteen year old student needed to not challenge him, rather than teach him. 

Sedgewick is a young cocky, entitled, not so intelligent, lacking in confidence, thirteen year old, new to this school.  He is coming in and needing to fit into a class that has already bonded.  A good teacher would have seen his needs, and met them as a teacher, by encouraging camaraderie, rather than ridicule.  Sedgewick did not ask to be singled out by Mr. H., he did not ask for Mr. H. to cheat and place him in the contest.  I can understand Sedgewick, as a teenager, his behavior is that of many boys his age, and can be understood.  As for Mr. H., his behavior is deplorable.  He keeps going back and forth with his conscious, yet he can't stop himself from engaging with Sedgwick.  His own words were, "the boy had become an obsession for me'  Sedgewick did not ask to be Mr. H.'s obsession. 



 

[bellamarie]

Ginny, 

Who is worse, Sedgewick Bell or Charles Ellerby? Who is the worst of the three, Sedgewick  Bell, Charles Ellerby, or Mr. Woodbridge? How about who is the worst here in the entire thing, Sedgewick Bell, Charles Ellerby, Mr. Woodbridge,  or William Hunderdt?

In my opinion from a teacher's point of view, from all the workshops I attended on the teacher/student relationships, and how to help build a child's self esteem, self confidence, and help them feel as much a part of your classroom as every other individual, and what boundaries you must not cross, and from a common sense approach in an authoritative position, hands down I feel Mr. Hundert is the worst.

He not only put this entire relationship with Sedgewick into motion from day one, but he continuously engaged in it.  He is a teacher, he lost sight of his responsibility and rather be a mentor, he became a challenger/contender, to his thirteen year old student.  For whatever reasons he chose to do this, it is unacceptable, and caused a snowball effect on other people's lives, not only his own and Sedgewick's, but everyone else involved from the student who earned his spot in the contest and was cheated out of it, to the students in the contest having to deal with what was happening, to the principal, and then later on it brought in the Senator, Ellerby, and others. 

You must understand your actions do affect other people's lives.  You can not play God with other people's lives.  Mr. H., took it upon himself to use a thirteen year old student to play games with, and made him his, "obsession."  Today, that could have gotten him fired, and possibly put in jail for abuse.  IMO.  If I seem too hard on Mr. Hundert, it's because I felt he was too hard on a thirteen year old student. 

As a teacher of thirteen year old students, I understand their vulnerability, their cockiness, their need for attention good or bad, and as a teacher it is my place to meet their needs, leaving my own needs out of it.  Plain and simple.  I have had many Sedgewicks to deal with, and I expect I will have others in my classroom, at the private school I teach.  I could never imagine ridiculing, cheating, and challenging any of my students and engaging with them the way Mr. Hundert did with young Sedgewick, under any circumstances.

[Dana]

Hi, I've been away, but was reading this discussion the last couple days.  Ginny mentioned the story last year in relation to Cicero's son in a piece we were translating, and I read it then.  From the time he cheated on his student Deepak and falsley awarded the prize to Sedgewick I really disliked the man.  I was so hit by Bellamarie's post about what a belittler and humiliator he was, I had not  recognised that when I read the story.  But OF-COURSE he was, and I think that's also why I disliked him so much....I agree with her comments wholeheartedly and I wonder about the author's comments that this is a story about a quiet man and the power of teachers to do good and how this is written in memory of one of his teachers......but then I remember one of my memorable teachers and how super she was to me and what a B---- to one of the poor and dumb kids in the class....
his story reminds me of the style and sentiments of an older British novel "To Serve them all His Days"....posh British boarding school, moulding  future leaders etc etc........so I see where people think it rings of an older time. That book was post WW1

[Frybabe]

Looking into the mention that alumni of St. Benedict's included Henry Stimson and John Foster Dulles, I see that neither one attended as school by that name. However, I did discover an interesting bit about Foster' s son, Avery. Avery converted to Catholizism and eventually became the first American Cardinal. He also founded the St. Benedict Center in Massachusetts.

So, back to our story. Why would the author claim such prominent men had been student's at St. Benedict's when it could so fact-checked and found false? I kind of like some accuracy in fiction when it involves real people and places. Especially when it seems so many people get their impressions of history from fiction and not from reading real historical accounts.

[ginny]

Welcome back, Nancy! We did post that information here in the discussion and in the original heading (about only the 50 pages) but you may have missed it. I'm sorry we haven't sent out our normal Newsletter but the change to a dedicated IP and the upgrade in software have thrown off our normal doings a bit. But you're back and with some wonderful input, so you've overcome it anyway! I haven't read the other stories, you and Bellamarie seem to be the only two who have, so far. Is any other interesting?



You said: Besides I rather like the writers style; very straightforward.  The style is reminiscent of one of my favorite novels, called Kokoro by the Japanese author Natsume Soseki, published in 1914.    I thought this was very astute.

It's also reminiscent of a classical author, to whom in fact Mr. Hunderdt compares himself twice. I was struck by that and wondered if anybody else was marking the style of the book, or had noticed the similarity,   and now you've introduced another author. I need to get a copy of that Soseki book, I never heard of it.

I would like to talk about why this book reminds me of that author, I think you'll be surprised. I think that perhaps things here are not quite as they seem, we have only Mr. Hundredt's narration for this and I ask again as in the heading, do we think he is a reliable narrator?

He seeks engagement and interaction with others in order to feel alive.

Brilliant. Excuse me for saying so. That's WHY he seeks them out.  I had been wondering.  I know several  noticed his living vicariously, is this the same thing? He's living this way   because this is his CALLING, as he says clearly in the heading quote: " I tell this story not for my own honor, for there is little of that here, and not as a warning, for a man of my calling learns quickly that all warnings are in vain..."

This is his vocation, his calling, his all. His entire life is here. Did he fail to be a perfect man? Is he saying, listen, I tried? Listen, in retirement, which is a real theme in this novella, I want it known.  Does his love for this vocation override (I know it doesn't for some) his mistakes in reacting to it?  Are we going to even allow him to feel good about anything in his career?

Does anybody here doubt how he feels about his work, his vocation? Does he routinely humiliate all the students, they seem to like him well enough, or is this his desperate attempt for control, a young, unseasoned teacher who feels empathy with what Sedgewick must have gone thru: had he experienced that himself growing up? Thinking of Mantel's Cromwell: those who live by the gun will go the same way?

Nobody has answered the question what would YOU have done in the same situation the first time Sedgewick cheated? What would YOU have done? These are very difficult questions, I realize that.

Frybabe, how interesting that connection, I wonder why the author chose those two. GOOD point, Frybabe: So, back to our story. Why would the author claim such prominent men had been student's at St. Benedict's when it could so fact-checked and found false? I kind of like some accuracy in fiction when it involves real people and places. Especially when it seems so many people get their impressions of history from fiction and not from reading real historical accounts.

So is Mr. Hunderdt a reliable narrator? Dr. Canin could certainly have checked those facts, of course this is an imaginary St. Benedicts not the real one but would the dates be wrong too? If so is Mr. Hunderdt sort of embellishing his career?

Dana, welcome! You had SUCH a negative reaction to Mr. Hunderdt initially  I hoped you would voice your thoughts, and here you are. You are the very person who can answer WHY.  I expect with your reaction you've thrown the book in the trash, but I wonder what your answer would be to why he's acted or reacted as he has throughout the story and  to the red item here today?   I agree with her comments wholeheartedly and I wonder about the author's comments that this is a story about a quiet man and the power of teachers to do good and how this is written in memory of one of his teachers...... I hope you stay tuned, I think that would make an excellent question itself, maybe for the end?  You were expecting Mr. Chips?  I have not read To Serve Them All My  Days, I've certainly heard of it. Is  it similar in theme to this?

Bellamarie, you said, In my opinion from a teacher's point of view, from all the workshops I attended on the teacher/student relationships, and how to help build a child's self esteem, self confidence, and help them feel as much a part of your classroom as every other individual, and what boundaries you must not cross, and from a common sense approach in an authoritative position, hands down I feel Mr. Hundert is the worst.

Thank you for answering the question of who was the worst. Here's one for you: did you attend these workshops in the '40's? I ask because teaching has changed, hasn't it? The methods courses have changed, even from the 50's and early 60's. Do you remember personally  the teachers of the 40's by any chance?  And Sedgewick Bell was not an elementary student, that's plain in the book if not the movie. He was a real challenge,  and they may not have been that many years apart in age initially.

 I liked Nancy's polar opposites analogy there, drawn and repelled.

Mr. Hunderdt must have something in his past which has triggered this reaction, just like some of you have teachers in your past this book and  theme have awakened to unpleasant memory.

 (Just for the record: there were some real monsters teaching in the 40's..real monsters and some of us encountered them. I don't think Mr. Hunderdt was one of them). I mean I have stories that would curl your hair. That does not make Mr. Hnuderdt right, it makes him human like the rest of us. 

 I can see you think, as do some others,  he's awful. I understand. We might like to make a list and see who is on what side.  I think  he MAY be intended to represent Everyman.  But that's still an unformed opinion. I do know that nobody...absolutely nobody.... is only one thing.

 I appreciate your opinion, and I really am loving the variety of conclusions everybody is expressing. The more diverse, so far as I am concerned, the better.


Way back at the beginning you mentioned you were" losing respect" for him. I have mulled over this since you said it.  The notion of "respecting" a fictional character never occurred to me. Now I'm wondering what is wrong with ME. hahahaha This one will be a really pivotal discussion for me. I'll be back tonight.

So we have the question of who was the worst. I am not sure we have looked closely at the characters of the people involved, maybe we should do that as we move  on to theme and plot next week? I hope we're just getting started, too, ALF.

And we have the  extremely difficult question in red here. The Lady (er  Question) in red.  While moral imperatives occur to each of us every day, they don't always come in such dramatic life changing form. What would YOU have done? (Remember the stakes as Mr Hunderdt sees them, not as we see them):  He's timid. The room is FULL of people, terrifying for an introvert without a role to play of command....This was wrong, it's all wrong, his contest is ruined,  but it was not his doing. Speaking up would have taken all he possessed and if he did it he'd lose everything he cared about. So instead he does a passive aggressive act,  he's got to stop Sedgewick, the only way he can. What would you have done in his shoes?

[PatH]

Ginny:

Do you remember personally  the teachers of the 40's by any chance?

I do.  I graduated from high school in 1948, so I'm Sedgewick Bell's contemporary.  I was pretty clueless back then, so nuances were lost on me, but Hundert's approach seems to me to be pretty standard for the time.  Especially in a private prep school for the sons of the rich, character molding would definitely be expected.  I had plenty of caring teachers, but there wasn't the emphasis there is now on figuring out a student's problems and helping him overcome them, and I don't think they had much training in the matter to help them.

[PatH]

Hundert failed miserably with Bell, though I think it would have taken a genius teacher to do anything much with him, but what kind of teacher was he for most of the boys?

He might have been a pretty good one.  He's a pretty dry stick, but he's passionate about his subject, and it's importance.  Study Roman history; the lessons you learn from it are what you need to be a good leader now.  If this passion shone through in his lessons, a receptive student would find him inspiring.

Dana remembers a teacher who was super to her, and awful to another student.  I remember my high school geometry teacher.  She was probably a nightmare for a struggling student, but if you could hack it, and were willing to do the work, she was amazing.  She worked us mercilessly hard, forced us to stretch our minds beyond what we thought possible, and never let up.  She taught me to think logically, with a side benefit of some inkling of the Greek world, and I've been grateful to her the all rest of my life.

[bellamarie]

Ginny, 

This was wrong, it's all wrong, his contest is ruined,  but it was not his doing.

I am terribly confused, because you keep pointing out "it was not his doing."  The entire mess started with him allowing Sedgewick to be in the contest, when clearly Martin Blythe earned that spot.  So this annual prestigious contest was ruined because of Mr. H.

He set this whole thing into motion.  This paragraph shows Mr. H., is still attempting to control Sedgewick, due to HIS personal judgements of Senator Bell as a father, which in my opinion is wrong.  It's as though he is determined to think he can "mold his character" because his father is lacking.

"I admit that I might have taken a special interest that term of Sedgewick Bell.  If I gave him the benefit of the doubt on his quizzes when he straddled two grades, if I began to call on him in class only for those questions I had reason to believe he could answer, then I was merely trying to encourage the nascent curiosity of a boy, who to all appearances, was struggling gamely from beneath the formidable umbra of his father.

You have to keep in mind that Mr. H., has only been at this school for a few years, he is a young teacher, and although he teaches this lesson, I do not see this contest as being, "HIS" but he certainly is going to make sure HE has control of WHO will get a spot in the contest by rooting for one certain student.

The fall term was by then drawing to a close, and the boys had begun the frenzy of preliminary quizzes for the annual "Mr. Julius Caesar" competition.  Here again, I suppose I was in my own way rooting for Sedgewick.  "Mr. Julius Caesar" is a St. Benedict's tradition, held in reverence among the boys, the kind of mythic ritual that is the currency of a school like ours.

In this paragraph Mr. H., admits he made his "first mistake."  I have to disagree with him, I felt his first mistake was to ridicule Sedgewick the first day he walked into his class, and he made many others before he altered Sedgewick's grade to boost him to the third spot of the contest.

"By the end of the narrowing quizzes, however, a surprising configuration had emerged:  Sedgewick Bell had pulled himself to within a few points of third place in my class.  This was when I made my first mistake.  Although  I should certainly have known better, I was impressed enough by his efforts that I broke one of the cardinal rules of teaching:  I gave him an A on a quiz on which he had earned only a B, and in so, I leapfrogged him over Martin Blythe.

So, Ginny to answer your question in red, what would I have done?  I would not have created the entire situation in the first place.  But, since Mr. H., indeed created it, and now has to deal with Sedgewick cheating, I would not have asked a question outside of the outline.  I would have let the contest proceed to the end.  Wait to see if Deepak Mehta would have won, Deepak was a very intelligent student and at some point I feel Sedgewick even with his cheat sheet would have messed up, so in spite of Sedgewick's cheating, and if by a chance Sedgewick did win, I would have given him the win. As far as I am concerned, Deepak and Martin knew the cheating going on, and it was not only Sedgwick doing it.  The principal said to ignore it, but he did not say, determine the winner by cheating, yet again.

You keep referring to Mr. H. as timid.  I have never gotten the impression he is timid at all.  This statement shows Mr. H., was thinking of his own aspirations in the outcome. "Having recently entertained my first thoughts about one day becoming a headmaster myself, I simply nodded when Sedgewick Bell produced the correct answer."

Years later at the reenactment of the contest both boys, now men, call Mr. H. out on his actions.  At least they let him know he cheated.  There are NO winners when someone first break rules to a contest, and Mr. H., broke the first rule by altering Sedgwick's grade. 

Ginny, No, I did not attend classes in the 40's nor did I teach in the 50's, 60's, or 70's, but it does not take workshops or any lesson plans or training, to teach you to be honorable, and to not cheat where students are concerned.  I think that is a given when you decide to choose a career in teaching or anything for that matter.  The argument of saying we have to look at the era of the story taking place, I feel does not hold weight, because I feel this is indeed happening today. I do not get the feel this story is taking place in the 40's, even though the author has placed it there. But it really would make no difference as far as I am concerned.  Cheating in the 40's is no different than cheating in the 21st century. We have a Sedgewick, Mr. H. and Mr. Woodbridge in every era. 

You ask if the narrator is believable?   In my personal opinion, I would have to answer an absolute NO!  He is all over the place.  He tells us there are no surprises, yet there are many, he wants us to believe he is an honest fair teacher, but in fact he admits to purposefully making alterations to cheat, not once but many times.  He cares about his students so much so that he blatantly tells a Senator, the father of Sedgewick, "he is to mold his son's character" yet as far as I am concerned Mr. H.'s character is in question, as is his motives.  He is so concerned for Sedgwick that he fails to see what harm he has done to Deepak or Martin, or even Fred Masoudi, who may have gone further in the contest had Sedgewick not been leapfrogged to be in it. 

I am certain we have all experienced horrible teachers, as well as great ones.  One teacher to one student, can be a nightmare to another.  That still has nothing to do with a teacher becoming "obsessed" with a student to the degree of altering grades, cheating, and jeopardizing your morals and character.

PatH.,  I have seen many Sedgewicks in my years of teaching, and it does not take a genius teacher to do anything with these type of students, it takes a teacher that is caring, willing to treat them with respect and fairness, include them in with the class, encourage camaraderie, rather than ridicule them and make them an obsession, and most of all don't cross personal boundaries by thinking you are the one who is to mold the character of any student.  Sedgewick is only thirteen.  You can't compare his actions to that of this teacher.  Yes, Mr. H., is young and inexperienced, so he is allowed to make mistakes, but he went beyond just making mistakes.  It does not matter if Sedgewick is in elementary, middle school, high school or college, as a mentor/teacher/professor, we are to treat all students at every age level, with respect and fairness.  It is our job to teach, NOT mold.  That is up to the parents to mold their character, whether we agree with their parenting skills or not, it is not our place to think we can take on their position as Mr. H. did.  While he was busy thinking he was molding young Sedgwick, what did his actions do to the other students in his class.  In the end we saw it bothered them enough, decades later to confront him on what he did. 

We can compare him to other teachers of decades ago, or teachers of today, but in the end....this story was about him and what he did.  Ultimately, I believe his lack of character, cost him his aspiration of being the Headmaster.  He can blame Ellerby for it, but he was at this school for decades, and Ellerby knew what Mr. H., had done by him confiding in him. 

[Cristalle]

Ginny has challenged us with the question, "what would you have done"?   I will answer this.  But first some more thoughts inspired by what others have written here.

Notice that we are never let down by Mr. Sedgwick Bell, he is consistent and predictable in his quest for success, glory and power at any cost. He has developed his old teacher as a reliable tool to help him succeed in school and later in his run for the Senate.  He has tested Mr. Hundert and finds him willing and able to sell-out time after time.  Why do we expect Mr. Hundert to be less consistent and predictable, and in so doing to vindicate himself and suddenly "do the right thing" when faced with his moral dilemmas? 

The reason why we are let down by Mr. Hundert is because of his position and commitment as a teacher. We hope and expect him to take the high ground because it befits his character as someone who is charged to foster character in the young. But he does not.  He lacks both the courage and the will to take a stand.  With his actions we see that he only seeks to bask in the shared glory of a win whether it was an authentic win or a cheated win. 

So what would I do?  I really cannot say what I would do in the heat of the moment. But I know I will be tested, because I have in the past.  Sometimes I make the difficult choice to take a moral stand, but not always.  What I will do in the future will be influenced not do much by when I have made the right choice, but how I have felt later, having not done so. 

[Jonathan]

But what a sad end for Mr Hundert. Asked to leave after forty years. What does he have to show for it? All he has goes into a suitcase or two, and his refuge is a rooming house. And the photo of him and his successful student. With a proud and foolish smile! Proud of what? Why foolish?

'Do we think he is a reliable narrator?'

I don't see this as a straight forward narration. I see in it a monologue of confessional soul-searching. I find myself hearing King Lear's lament. Or a Hamlet soliloquy on indecision. Something of the lament of a sorely tried Job. All very dramatic.

I believe I met a budding Mr Hundert a long time ago. In the 80s. At the Capitol in Washington. News from Moscow, that President Reagan had negotiated a treaty with the Soviet Union. The media was there in full force,on the lawn, taking the statements of a number of  senators. I was standing near Senator Carl Levin ( He has just retired after six terms.) when a young man came up and asked the senator for an autograph. In the book he happened to have in his pocket. Plato's REPUBLIC. A few questions from the senator and it turned out the young man was studying the classics and hoped to be teaching them some day. He got some fine complimentary and encouraging remarks  from the senator. Why should I remember that now?

Doesn't Mr Hundert go on and on how times were changing? And not for the better.

[BarbStAubrey]

The aspect of this story that I find unsettling is the dynamics between those in power and those who refuse to be victimized by the power.

I was taken with your sentence Nancy - "The reason why we are let down by Mr. Hunderdt is because of his position and commitment as a teacher."

To a student the dynamics in the classroom is, the teacher is the power force and so the word 'teacher' could be replaced by any who hold a power position and who have that position not by an equal process of elevating the most successful as in the winning team or even team member but the process is by appointment based on status, wealth, leadership skills etc. - Policeman, Senator, Bishops, Court Judges, and to a child their parents - unfortunately in the 1940s and 50s the concept of team did not include equal team like status between husband and wife and for some today that is still true. And so, like father like son was an easy leap for boys to feel a sense of entitlement.

I am also aware how much 'marketing' is used to sell the status of leadership and to maintain your place in that power position. e.g. its easy to see the marketing of politicians but the sublet marketing of the value of women and how in the 1950s and early 60s women were the butt of most jokes and were the pack mules carrying the burden of housekeeping with no respect given to a women who worked outside the home. To give Mr. H a wife would give him in this time a mantel of entitlement that would detract the singular focus on his life, 'sins' and moral values.

That said - I see how using Nancy's statement we feel let down by most who are in powerful and leadership positions. Wives expected more from their husbands, children expected more from their parents, the public expects more from the police and politicians, parishioners and church members expect more from the clergy and from Bishops as we all expect more from teachers and teachers expect more from their school principles.

The lack of support that Mr. H receives from his principle, who appears to put money and position ahead of cheating - regardless the trap any of us fall into - powerful leadership role or the victimization of power, either that puts our integrity on the line (as Sedgwick's integrity was diminished by Mr. H) On the line is our moral character, our personal integrity, our view of self and for some even our relationship with our God is wrapped up in how we act - to blame our loss of integrity on another is a cop out -

Like the story of Simon Wiesenthal, who after the freeing of Dachau was among prisoners taking a walk and many purposely destroyed the fields of grain growing along the roadside. Regardless the horror to his body and soul, Simon could not participate and his integrity was at the brink when he wrestled with hearing a Nazi soldier confess as he lay dying.

This is the integrity we hope to see among both those in power and those who are victimized by those who set the bonfire. The bonfire which we must walk through, that baptism of fire that gives us our view of our inner strength - Just as Simon Wiesenthal did not choose to be a martyr to his integrity while he was preserving his life as a prisoner, that is what Mr. H was up against - his work and St. Benedict's was his life -

As Jonathan says, "Asked to leave after forty years. What does he have to show for it?" Yes, he set bonfires but he also continued to live, swallowing and participating in an environment that was not based in the morality he was teaching but rather elevated was status and wealth.  Then when his life was given a new turn, he may not have seen it as freedom. He acted like an elephant whose chains are removed, or a caged tiger who is freed but remains in his cage, he cannot leave.

Over the 40 years his integrity is battered but he did stop the run away destruction of Sedgwick taking out Deepak. And as a tired old man with new vigor he thought he has another crack at seeing integrity at play and once again he quietly pulls the plug.

This one theme in the story I find powerful when we look at our own life. If we are cast in an oppressive situation would we be a martyr to preserve our own integrity or would we choose to live, doing incrementally what we could and if we find ourselves in a soul searching struggle would we act with compassion, silence and truth as did Simon Wiesenthal. 

[Dana]

What would I have done when Sedgewick cheated?   Would I  have cheated the guy who SHOULD have won out of his prize...I sure hope I would not have done that. Who knows, but that did upset me.  Perhaps more also because the guy was Indian.
....Suppose Deepak had been an American son of another equally powerful senator....what would he have done then, I wonder? 

[PatH]

The most damage wasn't done to Deepak, who did end up winning the prize when Hundert righted his first cheat with a second cheat by asking a question that wasn't on Sedgewick's cheat sheet.  It was done to the boy who would have been the third contestant if Hundert hadn't given Sedgewick the undeserved A on a quiz.  This rankled for the boy's whole life (sorry, I'm too lazy to look up his name--it's late).  Finally he gets a chance to ask Hundert about it, and his reaction to the answer shows that a lifelong hurt has finally been healed.

Damage was done to Deepak, though, since surely he was aware of the whole process, and even to Sedgewick, who almost got away with one more of the many cheats in his life.  I'm surprised it took so long for Hundert to realize that Sedgewick was cheating.  He must have seen quite a lot of cheating already, and Sedgewick's behavior was so striking.  Sedgewick probably cheated to get the temporary improvement in his grades, too.

[Dana]

...oops....I'm travelling and was responding the way I remember the story. I don't even remember the third guy, guess I should shut up till I've got the book in front of me!
 It's certainly a story that stirs the emotions, isn't it.  I wonder why.  I expect  it goes back to these years before puberty when,... if we were lucky...,  teachers were  powerful benevolent beings like our parents,... if we were lucky...,  ("in loco parentis" as my Latin teacher used to say), and so it's a let down  to accept they're "only human". Even in old age when we know better.  Amazing . 

[bellamarie]

PatH.,

The most damage wasn't done to Deepak,

I'm not sure if we can measure damage here, although I agree Martin Blythe does seem to have allowed this to affect his future years.  Deepak was the most intelligent student in the class, and knows he would have won regardless, so it's possible this would not have affected him as it did Martin, but he does have to live with knowing his wins were not earned fairly. How does one live with knowing that?

Once Mr. H., gave Sedgewick a question outside of the Outline, and Sedgewick got it wrong, he then posed the question to Deepak.  Deepak knew this question was not in the Outline, he also knew that Mr. H., knew that he would answer it correctly.  At the reenactment competition once again, Mr. H. poses a question for Deepak to win, knowing Sedgewick would not know it.  So Mr. H., has now included Deepak into a moral dilemma, does he answer these questions correctly, knowing it is out of the Outline, or does he not?  Once Deepak does answer the questions correctly, he becomes a part of Mr. H.'s cheating.

During these competitions, Deepak has no idea Sedgewick's grades were altered to be leapfrogged to third place, he has no idea Mr. H. is suspecting Sedgewick of cheating, so what must Deepak be thinking, knowing Mr. H., has given him questions out of the Outline?  Doe he think Mr. H., is cheating FOR him to win, and for Sedgewick to lose, not once, but twice, decades later?

Dana, Indeed it does stir up emotions.  As much as I would like to give Mr. H., a break, I am just so incredibly annoyed with his first day ridiculing Sedgewick at the blackboard.  He goes on to become obsessed with this thirteen year old boy, to the point he throws his good judgement, and character out the window.  What a sad man he became.

Jonathan, I agree, it is a sad ending.  Foolish smile...yes, he was played for a fool.  Proud... for some reason, I felt he was proud of Sedgewick becoming a Senator, and he felt he played a part in "molding his character" to help him achieve his successes in life.  He certainly didn't have much faith in Sedgewick's parents capabilities. 

As someone earlier mentioned,    "Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive. -    Sir Walter Scott (Marmion, 1808)

[BarbStAubrey]

Interesting - since I did attend a Benedictine parochial school called, of course, St Benedict's, all of a sudden I started to remember bits from his life and looked them up to be sure - you know how a character is not a mirror image but there are many similarities - well the similarities are there for Mr. H and St. Benedict.

Benedict leaves Rome to find the peace he needs and after a stint in a small village he needs more solitude and lives in a cave for 3 years - could we call the abode of Mr. H. isolated from the nearby village and similar in size to St. Benedict's 10 foot deep Cave.

Then Benedict is befriended by some nearby monks who ask him to be their leader - some are so jealous they attempt to poison him more than once. There is a myth that he was given a loaf of bread by the monks laced with poison and a blackbird swoops in and takes the bread. We have students (Sedgwick may have been their leader but other boys were with him) and there are teachers all attempting to take down Mr. H.

What really startles me is where St. Benedict lives in the 6th century, in the 15 century, a St. Charles Borromeo comes along and sets about reforming the monasteries and religious orders that had fallen into various abuses as a result of secular interference. Isn't it a secular viewpoint that Mr. Woodbridge succumbs to the potential power and gold of the student's parents; and when Charles Ebberly becomes head he initiates reform. 

Granted, the Benedictines reformed themselves over 400 years earlier and that is how we have the Cluniac Reforms. However, consistent even after reform, from the days when St. Benedict established his monasteries he included the study of Rhetoric that during his childhood school years was used to seduce people to vice. Benedict saw it could be used to chant and praise.  He established the practice that every meal would be accompanied by a reader and each word was considered so that it took time to read and understand each word of the reading. So of course Mr. H had to have his contests and it could be that the famous alumni mentioned (fact or not) were included because of their prowess as speech makers.

And finally, even I remember classroom prayer that copied part of the The Daily Office read by each Benedictine. Benedict's Rule has an entire chapter on how to close read and memorize the psalms. For us each morning we pledged to the flag and read aloud a psalm...  the end of psalm 25 seems so appropriate to our Mr. H.

15 My eyes are ever upon the LORD, who frees my feet from the snare.

16 Look upon me, have pity on me, for I am alone and afflicted.

17 Relieve the troubles of my heart; bring me out of my distress.

18 Look upon my affliction and suffering; take away all my sins.

19 See how many are my enemies, see how fiercely they hate me.

20 Preserve my soul and rescue me; do not let me be disgraced, for in you I seek refuge.

21 Let integrity and uprightness preserve me; I wait for you, O LORD.

22 Redeem Israel, O God, from all its distress!

[ginny]

Wow. I don't really know where to start.  However not being timid like Mr. Hunderdt (and yes I think he's timid, witness his response to Hiram Bell's..."my son tells me you asked him a question which was not on the list (page 173 in the paperback)...and he replies "It's a complex situation, sir."

That's timidity. He's afraid to say what really happened.

And the response? "I'm sure it is complex," Senator Bell said, "But I assure you there are situations more complex."  Amen to that, brother.

You've raised some good points. I'd like to address them one by one, it may take a while. I'll start with Bellamarie:

Bellamarie, you've made clear and very plain many times how you feel about Mr. Hunderdt and what for you is his egregious sin. We get it? I get it?  I don't agree but I get it. Here are some of the things I do respectfully disagree on:

1. Ginny, No, I did not attend classes in the 40's nor did I teach in the 50's, 60's, or 70's, but it does not take workshops or any lesson plans or training, to teach you to be honorable, and to not cheat where students are concerned.  I think that is a given when you decide to choose a career in teaching or anything for that matter.  The argument of saying we have to look at the era of the story taking place, I feel does not hold weight, because I feel this is indeed happening today. I do not get the feel this story is taking place in the 40's, even though the author has placed it there. But it really would make no difference as far as I am concerned.  Cheating in the 40's is no different than cheating in the 21st century. We have a Sedgewick, Mr. H. and Mr. Woodbridge in every era

The CHEATING drumroll here is not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about classroom management and atmosphere.

It's true "cheating"  or any other sin in the 40's was no different from today. Today we have bad teachers, the news is full of the more egregious ones. Being in the '40's is no excuse for sin. Moral slips happen in every era, and no person is exempt, not even the saints.

We know all that.

What we don't apparently know is today's teacher is suspended, yesterday's was not. If  you weren't there, you don't recognize the way classes were conducted.  That's why you say  I do not get the feel this story is taking place in the 40's. You're entitled to how you feel, but those of us who were there remember something else. So there IS something else you're missing and cannot judge. We also have experiences you can't judge  by today's standards, because things WERE different then, like it or not. 

How about Pat's quiet remark a while back? It lacked fireworks and has been overlooked. Let's revisit it again.

"Hundert's approach seems to me to be pretty standard for the time.  "

Yes I'd say that's true. Nobody is talking about his gross moral turpitude (as some see it), we're talking about how classrooms were administered. The way they were.  Let me give you a personal example of a high school in New Jersey and one of the best teachers I ever had. Like Dr. Canin, in my 12 years of public school, I think I had 2 good "teachers." One of them was my Latin teacher. Here's the way the class went down  in the '50's.

You stood when the teacher entered the room.  We did drills, rapid fire complicated Latin drills, going from one desk to the next in order, should you have missed one of the questions, you then rose and stood  next to your seat for the remainder of the exercise. That could take 20 minutes or more. You stood. Because you made a mistake. On Monday of every week, the students lined up against the blackboard.  Each student was then assigned a seat in the class in respect to his placement in the class, his numerical scores, from the previous week. Student #1 had the best seat, the one in the first row to the teacher's right. Student #2 had the second and so on, down to the last #38 or whatever.  Every Monday.

None of us felt humiliated, oppressed or psychologically ruined.  We just wanted a good seat. I remember this one because I had to stand up once but I have forgotten, lost to the past the other rigorous proceedings. We certainly had no roustabouts or disruption.  Nobody remembers this teacher  except with joy.   This was a wonderful teacher. I can hear the screams now of today's parents, parents of children for whom the SAT has had to have the scores adjusted up...is it 200 points, so that a 600 today was the 400 of the 60's.

Flash back to the '40's. Pennsylvania. Miss Thomas. I will name her. Elementary school. The bell rings to go home. Miss Thomas who I hope is safely roasting in Hell, begins the times tables. We sit with our hands folded on the desks. She walks down the rows, again one at a time. If you miss one she takes the ruler she carries (public school) and smacks you on the hands. Smack smack smack. You can hear it coming. Boy did I know my Tables. My father arrives in outrage to the principal. Nothing can be done. The admin stands behind this teacher because she has tenure. My father goes to her. If you strike my child you will deal with me. She does not strike me physically, passes me with the ruler, the hair pulling,  but from then on I am the object of ridicule in every area. EVERY area. I've blocked a lot of it out but I do remember the potholders.

Potholders, remember potholders? How you wove those pretty little strips and made a potholder? I did one. It was a coat of many colors. I did it for my mother which is why we were doing them but it did not follow  Miss Thomas's pattern. She held it up and mocked it. She hung it on the wall, a sort of Wall of Shame. The class laughed. Children are children. She said, and I will never forget it, pointing a finger at me, you may be smart but you will never be able to do anything with your hands. (She was right, actually, I never have been able to do any kind of handiwork whatsoever).

Back to school goes my enraged father. Nothing can be done, she has tenure. Those are only a couple of  incidents. I pass over her throwing a child out the window of a first floor classroom onto the pavement. I pass over what she did to another  child who couldn't speak until WE, the small children of her class intervened. At our own peril. And reward. Have none of you heard of the "dunce cap?" Do you think it's fiction?

I pass over because I have managed to put it out of my mind the rest of the outrages this monster perpetuated on the children, all the children,  of that class day after day.  I don't know what happened to her, if she "retired" early at the end of that year. People like her still exist but the schools no longer support them.Times have changed. In this case for the better.

She had tenure. In the 40's unless (and obviously sometimes in spite of)  the behavior was this kind of egregiousness, the admin supported the teachers. Forward to the 60's. How  many of us were told,  in the early 60's, don't send a behavior problem to the office. Deal with it yourself. If we see a group of behavior problems outside the Vice Principal's office coming from you,  we will have to reevaluate your ability to teach in our schools.

So we dealt with it. The disruptive, the "roustabouts." I would mention some of the things I did in my early days, which seem innocuous to me, but I'm sure would raise a hanging committee, but I've, like Mr. Hunderdt, until this story, never felt the need, and I'm too old to dodge stones.

I keep wondering WHY? WHY is he telling this because, contrary I believe to what has been expressed here, he's told nobody of altering those grades.

3. Bellamarie (I'm not picking on you, I'm just trying to address your many points). You said: He can blame Ellerby for it, but he was at this school for decades, and Ellerby knew what Mr. H., had done by him confiding in him. 

I don't think so. Could you give, please, the citation for this? All I see, and I may have missed something,  is  this, on the bottom of page 172 in the paperback:  "and indeed, when I confided in him about Sedgewick Bell's behavior and Mr. Woodbridge's response he suggested it was my duty to circumvent our headmaster and speak directly to the boy's father."

He wants somebody to know what happened, so he tells Charles Ellerby what Sedgewick did in cheating on the test, not what he, Mr. Hunderdt,  did. Until now (unless I have missed something) we're the first people he's told. Why?

I keep saying why? What does he WANT with this story? Why not swallow it along with all the other things one learns to swallow lest one get acid reflux and sleepless nights? This is a fictional character. We can condemn him or put his picture on the wall but I want to figure out  WHY he's dong what he's doing.

Mr. Hunderdt, of course "cheated." He began to give B's where a C was warranted (must be an objective test) and I'm struck by the words he uses here: compassion, words of empathy, words of encouragement. He focused on the wrong child, perhaps but maybe his intentions WERE good. Of course we know what the road to Hell is paved with (hopefully parts of Miss Thomas, but I digress). hahahaha

As far as workshops. In the states in which I taught at least 15 hours of education courses, methods courses, and a semester of practice teaching were necessary for a state teaching certificate. None of these courses ever mentioned discipline. Not one. 

Pat is right when she says, "but there wasn't the emphasis there is now on figuring out a student's problems and helping him overcome them, and I don't think they had much training in the matter to help them."

We were teaching, or trying to, the subject.

Then the 60's arrived. "I teach the child, not the subject" was proudly proclaimed. That's nice. Transformational Grammar (not to mention the "New Math,"  was adopted (and later thrown away)  over almost all of the nation. The result of the ill conceived and ludicrous Transformational Grammar approach (if you don't remember it, it was based on the hip hop patterns of street talk) is an entire generation of students who would not know an Indirect Object or an Adverbial  Objective from a hole in the ground. And they do feel the lack, go figure. This has caused the necessity for a slew  of books with titles like  "English Grammar for the  Beginning Latin student." Real damage was done, but HEY!

 THEN  the thinking began to be exactly what Hiram Bell asked Mr. Hunderdt: "What's the good of what you're teaching them boys?"

Will it get them a job? Will it allow for employment? And this has become the new mantra.  Have you noticed what has happened to the Vocational Schools of the past? Remember them? The students who did not fare well academically were put  on the Vocational track and  bussed to learn bricklaying? Car repair? They still exist but are not called Vocational schools. I'm not sure education has come as far as we would like to think in the US.   I realize this is a hornet's nest.

Sorry this is so long. I do wish I could write succinctly. Can I blame it on Miss Thomas? hahahaa

[ginny]

I intended the question on what would YOU have done had you been in Mr. Hunderdt's shoes when he thought he saw  Sedgewick Bell cheating the first time (I agree with Pat about the second time,  so reminiscent of Quiz Show and Charles Van Doren) but the first time as a litmus test. A  kind of proof that MAYBE Mr. Hunderdt's actions were not as egregious as we thought.

Look at the few answers we got. Thank you for them. It's a VERY hard question, isn't it?

Bellamarie: I would not have created the entire situation in the first place.  But, since Mr. H., indeed created it, and now has to deal with Sedgewick cheating, I would not have asked a question outside of the outline.  I would have let the contest proceed to the end.

Nancy:
So what would I do?  I really cannot say what I would do in the heat of the moment. But I know I will be tested, because I have in the past.  Sometimes I make the difficult choice to take a moral stand, but not always.  What I will do in the future will be influenced not do much by when I have made the right choice, but how I have felt later, having not done so.



Dana: What would I have done when Sedgewick cheated?   Would I  have cheated the guy who SHOULD have won out of his prize...I sure hope I would not have done that. Who knows, but that did upset me

Those are all good answers and honest ones, I think. It's  easier to talk about what somebody else did in a book than to  say what we would actually personally have done.

And Mr. Hunderdt only suspects. He says "Yet at the moment I felt an inexplicable pity  for the boy. Was it simply the humiliation we had both suffered at the hands of his father? I peered through my glasses at the stage and knew at once that he had attached the 'Outline of Ancient Roman History' to the inside of his toga."

He knew at once but it's still only supposition. Suppose he had spoken up. What did he actually expect the headmaster to do? How would they explain that to the parents?  What IF he had been wrong?

I would probably have stopped the contest. Not out of any kind of self righteousness or shining moral anything but because,  as my husband says, I am the oldest living  flower child and have never had the needs that Mr. Hunderdt has, poor man.  "The devil drives when the needs must?"  I really have done about a 360 degree turn on him from when we started, thanks to this discussion.

And it's only fear that kept him silent. Timidity. He's afraid.I see Nancy talking about courage. He'll lose his entire life and everything that means anything to him.

His proudest day at St. Benedicts? When he convinced the board that classics and history were important and he swallowed his fear and timidity and stood up and Charles Ellerby was elected to teach.

We need to look at Charles J (for Judas) Ellerby soon. Dante didn't place Cassius, Brutus and Judas in his lower rung of Hell for no reason. That's why I asked about who is worse?

We've had one answer to that one, so I'll ask again, who, in your opinion is worse: Charles Ellerby, William Hunderdt, Mr. Woodbridge or Sedgewick  Bell?  Why do you think so?

[ginny]

It's TERRIBLE to have to make up one day's postings, because I don't know how to do it except to post!

Barbara's post reminds me that even the saints, some of them, at one time did wrong. That isn't what she SAID, but it made me think of that.     I'm not up on all my saints, but I remember some of them clearly.


 Is this story of Mr. Hunderdt, which some of you have referred to as his "confession," his attempt at repentance? Is the fact he's trying to justify it somewhat (the endless string of empathetic and sympathetic words like "compassion," are really striking when you reread it) does that confer pardon? Who is he asking for it? Who is supposed to give it? Is this more Frank Sinatra: "the record shows...I did it my way?"

Does it make a moral difference if you intended well in your own mind and then did wrong?

I was struck in reading it the first time that I was glad I didn't have to judge him, but I feel no such scruples about Charles Ellerby. Or should I? Let's look at him next week, along with the style of the piece and the themes, lots to talk about.

What about the gun? Why did he take it? We have one comment on that.  Why did Mr. Hunderdt throw it away?

What's the big deal about the gun?  What could it possibly mean to anybody?

[PatH]

Wow, Ginny, your school experience was worse than mine.  Physical punishment was not used, and I was lucky enough not to get any teachers as bad as Miss Thomas.  I did have some poor teachers, but also plenty of good ones.  But even my beloved Mrs. Lane (the geometry teacher) didn't make you stand up for a whole class period.  She did, however, on days when she was particularly fed up, make students go over to the window, open it, and stick their head out to get some fresh air to clear their heads.  There was seldom just one, so misery had company.

[PatH]

Bellamarie, you're right, I can't really know which boy was hurt most by the cheating.  We know it rankled with Martin Blythe for years, but we can only guess about Deepak.