Despite the fact that this story does have a rather O Henry feel to it, in the end it just falls short.
Although those of us not wearing the ring may fail to grasp the depth of his feelings for it, we can not deny them. I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.
I’m sure that doctor’s wouldn’t amputate a perfectly good finger so it probably was a more a matter of how much instead of if the finger would be amputated. Still, once off, that ring should have been kept and preserved AT ALL COSTS.
There is historical precedent for this. I believe it was Lord Raglan {and I stand to be corrected on this one} who lost his arm to cannon-shot at the Battle of Waterloo - as he lay in the hospital tent, and the surgeons were carrying the remains of his newly amputated arm away {this, you will recall, was long before the days of anaesthetics}, he called them to bring it back, as it still bore his wedding ring. Corporal Battle, for my money, is a bloody fine man, and I would be proud to shake his hand.
The Mermaid, I was also thinkin git’s got an O Henry vibe going on. I submitted this yesterday to “News of the Weird,” not because it made me giggle hysterically, but because this guy just couldn’t catch a break.
Way I figure it, he’s going to have his grandkids rolling on the ground with laughter when he tells them how he lost his finger as a young man.
I think many of you are missing the point. One minute this 19 year-old Marine is fighting in combat. The next, he is an amputee with a ticket home to his wife and entitled to a disability check every month for the rest of his life( deservedly so ). I think he made an excellent (and very American) choice.
Right, but your father has to explain “No, I’m married. I wear my wedding band on my pinkie because…”
A person who wears one on the ring finger of their left hand doesn’t have to, everyone sees it and assumes they are married. You may be able to wear your wedding band anywhere else you like, but you wouldn’t wear a ring on that particular finger unless you wanted everyone to figure you were married.
I’ve got no issue with the kid, it’s his finger. I certainly don’t want people telling me what I can and can’t do with my fingers.
I’d second blowero’s WFT? though. I was surprised the doctor didn’t just say, “Don’t worry, son. We’ll keep that ring in one piece for you.” Then snip the ring and go to work on his finger. I’ve known plenty of EMT’s in my area that did…
I guess that is the difference between young love and mature love. TheLadyLion has developed a small, crusty rash on her ring finger lately and she always tends to develop water blisters if she doesn’t dry under the ring after washing hands. I suggested she take the ring off for several days, at least a week, and find out if it may be causing the rash. She asked if I’d be okay with it. All I could say is that I wouldn’t have suggested it if I wasn’t. The ring has sentimental value because the gold came from a ring of my mom’s but that takes a backseat to something causing TLL discomfort.
I really feel bad for the marine but a ring is just a symbol.
I don’t see it. A man wearing a single gold band ring on any finger, I’d assume its a wedding ring. And I thought the ring was a symbol of love between partners, not a signal to strangers to explain their marital status.
What about platinum bands, silver bands, and white gold bands? Sounds like you’d be wrong a lot… Let’s not mince words here, because I don’t want to insult your intelligence. You wear a wedding band on the ring finger of your left hand, the vast majority of people in our culture do it, so let’s not pretend as though this is a new, radical concept we’re just beginning to understand. Your father may be an example of an exception, but he is certainly an exception, not the rule.
If you’re from another culture, with different practices and symbols, I can understand. If you’re an american, it’s just disingenuous to act as though you don’t understand.
Are you married? Take your ring off and put it in a drawer in your bedroom and leave it there. It’s just as much a symbol between partners in a lockbox or at the bottom of a river.
Your wedding band is your way of announcing to the world, everyone who sees you, that you are married. It symbolizes your committment by broadcasting it to those who see you. There are many interpretations of the symbolism, but reality of life time, it’s a sign that you’re married for other people to see.
~shrugs~ I don’t really have a cite other than personal experience. The men in my ex-husband’s company weren’t allowed to wear wedding rings. (This was the 3/7 Cav based in Ft. Stewart in the early 90s) Maybe it was specific to certain MOSs?
I understand, I just don’t see that it should be that big of a deal. I guess I’m wrong, it is a big deal - at least to you. Got it.
I think it should be up to the couple how and if the ring symbolizes anything, not up to the culture at large. But that’s my opinion, and you apparently disagree. Got it.
You do realize that men wearing wedding rings is a recent fashion?
If somebody dies to defend the flag itself, then yes, I question that decision. In a war situation, every life lost is a resource lost, and you can’t afford to waste valuable resources on a piece of cloth.
If you’re talking about the values the flag stands for, then no, it’s one of the noblest sacrifices I can imagine. But a symbol and what it represents are different things, and someone who doesn’t know when the symbol has outlived its usefulness is generally a moron.
But in this case, I’ll cut the guy some slack because he’s heavily wounded, not to mention younger than I am. God knows how I would act in that situation.
It’s not that big of a deal, I wasn’t saying that he has to leave his wife now and can never be married because he lacks the appropriate finger. Really.
It can be, I’m not trying to say that it isn’t. Obviously you don’t even have to wear a ring at all. All I’m saying is that it’s common practice to wear a wedding band on that finger in America. Battle is an American, he had a ring, and he wore it on that finger. There is the possiblity that he chose that finger at random at the wedding, having been unaware of the common custom. I doubt it though.
If by recent you mean 55 years ago, yes. Once again, I’m not saying he’s screwed forever, I’m just saying he can’t wear the ring on that finger any longer, even if he had it. Maybe another finger works just fine for Battle, but since the ring started on that finger, and another ring was a bad idea, I’d hate to see how he deals with another finger.
Keep in mind, we were already discussing the body scarring, life taking, un-sacrificable importance of the ring itself(To Battle). Both are ridiculous in my opinion, it just sounds odd to discount the history and tradition commonly associated with it here, but maintain a finger slicing dedication to the symbolic virtues of the ring itself.
As I said before though, he can have whatever he wants cut off, it’s his finger.
Part of the military culture is self-sacrifice in the name of a higher principle. In the Marine Corps, this is inculcated so strongly that Marines willingly put their lives at risk to retrieve their dead from the battlefield. Entirely nonstrategic, some might say symbolic, but self-sacrifice is such a key part of their ethos that giving up any part of oneself is seen as an honorable act. Especially, I would think, as a symbol of a principle, such as marriage.
Yes, it seems stupid and pointless to a lot of us. But that’s one of the reasons Marines think they’re made of better stuff than a lot of us.