I was talking with my mom today about books and I mentioned how I had just finished reading The Caine Mutiny, and how I realized that I had completely missed the point the first time I read the book.
(It’s a book older than dirt, so I hope I’m not spoiling it for anyone)
I read the book decades ago in junior high school and did a book report on it. I vaguely remembered different scenes such as the strawberry episode and the cutting of the towline. I also remembered the book had an amazing courtroom scene with an “Oh Henry!” ending, where the crew was vindicated and the crazy old man exposed for who he was.
But that’s all it was, a book about a mutiny that ended up being justified in a court of law.
Then I read it again a couple of weeks ago. I realized that the entire point of the book was contained within the brief drunken monologue of Greenwald, the lawyer/fighter pilot who defended the executive officer–the scene that ends with Greenwald tossing his drink in Maryk’s face. Because of that scene, nothing is black and white in the book, everything is subtle and nuanced; second guessing abounds, and and there is no clear “correct” answer. In fact, I realized that the Pulitzer Prize likely hinged on that precise scene.
Indeed, as a youngster I had missed the nuance and subtlety, and robbed myself of properly enjoying a great work.
Anyone else have a great revealing moment while reading a book they thought familiar?
I did not enjoy Hemingway the first tine I read one of his books (The Old Man and the Sea), in school. When I was older, I read “The Sun Also Rises” after a good friend gave me a copy for my birthday.
I later went back and read “Old Man” too. I loved them both.
Still not going to re-visit Conrad, “Heart of Darkness” was awful.
I was halfway through “Big Trouble in Little China” before I realized it was funny.
The exact same thing happened to me with “The Fifth Element.” Wasn’t until I saw the uber-gun that I realized it was comedy.
I also seem to have completely misread C.S. Lewis’ “The Great Divorce.” I thought it was emphasizing the hopelessness and eternity of hell, but, apparently, Lewis was trying to offer just a little, last, fleeting bit of hope, even to the damned. I thought the story was about people tantalized by a glimpse of heaven…and then turned away from it, most cruelly. But apparently, Lewis was trying to suggest that some of them actually make it to heaven.
I’ve not read The Caine Mutiny, but have seen the movie. From your description it sounds like it’s pretty close to the book. Although I thought Greenwald threw the drink in Keefer’s (Fred MacMurray) face, not Maryk’s (Van Johnson).
The first time I saw it, Greenwald’s scene with the acquitted Maryk and the other officers struck me about as you described. Basically, while he may agree that Queeg was unstable and that they had no choice but to take control when they did, he rips into them for letting things get to that point. Queeg had put in years in the Navy while the others were all in civilian life. And Queeg had talked with the others and asked for their help. Greenwald seems to think that Queeg’s years of service should have earned some respect, and that if the others had helped him rather than conspire that the whole situation could have been avoided. I always wondered if that scene had been tacked on to appease the Navy by portraying Queeg more sympathetically.
But the more I thought about it, the more I thought Greenwald was wrong. The thing is, the crew of the Caine did try to help Queeg. The helmsman warns Queeg that they’re about to cross over their own tow line, and he gets yelled at for his trouble. Another officer who’s been transferred tells Maryk, Keefer, and Keith that the mess boys ate the missing strawberries, and that he’d told Queeg all about it, but Queeg insisted on searching stem to stern for an extra key to the icebox that he’d been told didn’t exist. Queeg’s problem (part of it, anyway) was that he couldn’t accept help. Queeg couldn’t change, and there’s nothing the men on that ship could have done to head off the situation they found themselves in, except to go up the chain of command and have Queeg relieved (which they’re about to do until Keefer says they don’t really have the evidence they’d need).
So I really don’t like Greenwald’s final scene. If it’s there to cast Maryk and Keefer as co-villains and generate sympathy for Queeg, it’s a cop-out. And the denouement is not the time to introduce more layers about Queeg’s instability and his ability to seek or receive help from his crew.
It’s been years since I read The Great Divorce, but IIRC, only one soul - the man with the lizard lust demon - actually leaves Hell for Heaven. What I got out of the book was that the damned in Hell chose and continue to choose, their damnation. Sin is not an action but an ongoing rejection of God’s mercy. Which if memory serves, was sort of Lewis’ thing - the overflowing abundance of divine grace.
This thread is not about neat details like finally recognizing Steven Spielberg as the Cook County Assessor only after watching The Blues Brothers for the millionth time. Rather, this is about missing the entire point of a creative work.
Herman Wouk would have given my adolescent interpretation of his novel a D-, because I missed the point.
Kind of like reading Animal Farm without recognizing the beauty of the very precise craftsmanship that George Orwell put into it, and thinking it’s just a story of animals taking over the farm.
Queeg came to them for help and they turned him away. The XO at any time could have gone to Queeg and talked to him man to man. Had it not worked he could have done it again and again. Pointed out that HE caused the line to be cut…etc… Anyway…that’s what I would have done. I know it wouldn’t have been easy at all…but…
But Greenwald doesn’t cast Maryk as a villain at all. Just calls him stupid and his career is over. Same for Keith. And Keefer isn’t a villain but a coward as we see later.
And that final scene was fantastic. (Paraphrased) “While you were in school, Queeg was keeping Goring from wiping his ass with my mother.”
Edit: as for the OP…I think the point of Caine Mutiny is still being missed. IMHO it’s more a Coming of Age story than a story about the Mutiny. Or both or really…Coming of Age+Mutiny+ Hey I served on a Minesweeper this is what its about!
Your comments illustrate the beauty of Herman Wouk’s work: I also could not fully accept Greenwald’s comments. But they make the reader reconsider so many parts of the book. All the way through we are shown very convincing points of view, only to be shown an alternate point of view that puts the first in doubt, followed by a third point of view that casts doubt on the first two. In the end there is no clear answer to who was right and who was wrong, and this was all done with finesse.
Who hasn’t been in a situation that seemed to be an open and shut case only to have it torn to shreds piece by piece and left grumbling “if only you had been there, you would have understood.”?
See, I just don’t think that could have worked. If the XO had gone to Queeg and talked to him as you suggest, Queeg would have just called him disloyal. There were people who tried to help Queeg and he brushed them aside; what makes you think one more attempt would have been any different?
Of the three points of view presented, Queeg’s, Maryk and Keefer’s, and Greenwald’s, I find Greenwald’s to be the least informed. He wasn’t on the Caine and I don’t think his analysis of what the officer’s should have done would have worked. But it took me a while to realize its flaws; it was at least the second time I’d seen the movie (as I said, I’ve not read the book). That’s why I think it’s introduced too late. There’s not time for the author to work with that idea and to expose its flaws; Greenwald berates Maryk and Keefer, they act sheepish, and then it’s dropped.
I just watched the scene again at the link rowrbazzle posted. Greenwald does cast Maryk as a co-villain. He asks Maryk if it would have been necessary for him to take command during the storm if the officers had been more loyal to Queeg. Maryk says it wouldn’t have been. He’s wrong; no amount of loyalty would have helped Queeg at the time.
That’s not to say that the whole scene is without merit. Queeg does deserve sympathy. If it’s bad to serve under a mentally unstable captain it must be even worse to be a mentally unstable captain. I gather that would have been a fairly enlightened attitude to take toward mental illness at the time. And Greenwald is right to call out Keefer. He was the prime mover behind the events on the Caine, but kept himself removed enough to face no consequences.
One small flaw in Caine is how when the court is arguing that the Captain is by definition the superior ship-handler and the one who should be deferred to in the typhoon…hey D, how about bringing up how Caine cut his own tow-line, smashed into a pier (i think) either has no idea of distance (see yellowstain controversy) or is perjuring himself. etc…etc…I think that gives a bit more imperitive to the XO’s actions. A bit.
Vicki,Cristina, Barcelona, I realised only on a later viewing that Woody Allen was subverting the whole “Euros are so much more sophisticated” trope and the boring fiancé was actually a better bet. The Prince Now that I read it, its so obviously a parody.
In the Seventies, I refused to watch “Saturday Night Fever” because I thought it was glamorizing disco.
I totally misjudged the movie, but so did all the teenage girls who loved it. The whole point of the movie was that Tony Manero was a loser who was wasting his life.
To this day I am certain I’m missing a huge part of what Cool Hand Luke is about.
It’s a good movie with memorable scenes, but it is clear that there is depth to that movie that I’m just not seeing. There are writeups out there that explain, in a Cliff’s Notes kind of way, the symbolism, and the movie certainly is highly thought of.
Even as I enjoy watching it, I can tell that each scene was very carefully crafted and placed, for reasons that seem tantalizingly close but still evade me.
Wuthering Heights for me. It was assigned reading in high school and I scorned it as a crappy romance. Read it again in my 30s and realized it was the observation of a train wreck and a study in selfish destruction (and self-destruction).
According to my 9th-grade English teacher, Shirley Jackson’s “The Lottery” was supposed to shock me with its portrayal of modern Americans conducting a savage fertility ritual.
I was a history buff, and a sci-fi fan, and occasionally a horror fan. That idea was old hat to me. I was struck by the hypocrisy of the lead character: she was quite eager to sacrifice someone else, but she started bitching when her own name was drawn.
My teacher thought i had completely missed the point. Decades later, I guess I am still missing the point.
The first time I read the novel Logan’s Run, I was in junior high school. I was younger than most of the characters, so I was oblivious to the youth angle. To me, it was simply one more dystopian sci-fi story about people rebelling against an Evil Government.
After college, I re-read it. Now I was 22, older than most of the characters. The difference in perspective was spooky.
====================================
I have yet to read Pinocchio, but I have seen three different film versions. In the Disney version and the 1996 version, the scene with the carnival and the donkeys seemed weird and kind of pointless. It seemed to me a rather over-the-top warning against accepting candy from strangers.
Then, when I saw the 2022 version, with Roberto Benigni, I heard one of the men say, “Look at these boys. They didn’t go to school. They didn’t learn a trade. Now they’re only fit for donkey work.” And I suddenly understood. It was not random bad guys doing random evil deeds. It was an allegory of education and ignorance. The boys were reaping the consequences of their own bad choices. I now think that scene is the best part of the story.