So I think the whole question and answer thing worked pretty well last time so here's another one:
At the end of the story, Red shares his ideas about Andy's escape. In there, he believes that one day Andy just happened to notice the weakness of the walls, and later, somehow suddenly discovered the sewer pipe. He basically thought that Andy's escape was based on a lot of dumb luck. Do you guys agree with Red's idea? In other words, do you think that the circumstances of Andy's escape were pure luck, or do you think he had actually thought out a plan beforehand, at least to a certain extent?
Stupid Getty... I had already posted a question of my own mixed in with refuting you and arguing more with Montgomery but oh well... I'll just copy and paste my little thingy onto here too so that people actually see it.
ReplyDeleteCOPIED AND PASTED FROM OTHER BLOG POST FROM LAST CLASS!!!! PLEASE LOOK AT OTHER BLOG TO SEE WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT IF CONFUSED. READ MY QUESTION AND RESPOND TO THAT ALONG WITH DAN'S. CAPS LOCK = CRUISE CONTROL FOR COOL.
I was reading and noticed something very interesting, which was that right after Andy escapes from prison and the three months after this took place, Warden Norton "lost the spring in his step" and retired from the prison angry and unhappy. I saw the word 'spring' and it immediately made me think of how Alex thought that the ShawShank Redemption was about hope, and how this was also the Spring season story from the entire book. This made my train of thought continue, and I'm interested in what you guys think about this too, but it doesn't seem to make any sense to say that Norton lost his hope when Andy escaped him. A more fitting word would be his power or his control, and yet this doesn't seem to go along with the theme of Hope and Spring. Maybe I'm over thinking that but oh well.
On a second note, Dan's rewording of "full of himself" to "a leader" seems to be another way of Dan saying "I was wrong, but I'm going to pretend like I knew what I was talking about". I don't think that you can fairly change the phrasing of being full of oneself to being a leader, because as Dan mentioned, Andy helped other people through his good personality and his helping-hand, and while this can be seen as leadership, it also has nothing to do with him thinking that he is better than anyone else. Andy takes pride in the fact that he helped dozens of men pass their high school equivalency tests, and also, when Norton threatens Andy and uses the library against him, it is evident that people realize how much it means to Andy that even in a place as awful as ShawShank he is helping others out. To say that Andy is a leader, yes, I can agree with that, but that is completely different from being full of yourself and the attempt of a connection between the two that Dan made is nonexistent.
Sorry Dan.
Yeah... so overall I really loved the book guys I think we should keep Stephen King and definitely finish all four seasons. Don't forget to respond to my question about the spring in Norton's step.
As a summary here, Andy is a pretty cool guy, doesn't afraid of anything, and all in all I am not disappoint with this book.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSorry the blog pooped itself while I was typing that it and pasted 3 times :\
ReplyDeleteCool story, Anthony. Don't worry, I still accept you as a person. :D
ReplyDeleteTo answer Dan's question, I don't think that Red was correct in his assumption. From the way Andy does what he does- methodical and clean- it doesn't make sense that it was simply dumb luck. Luck could have had a part in it, but overall I believe that Andy was going to do this for quite some time, and did. He asked for many posters to cover up the hole. A hole like that wouldn't be dug just to see where it leads. If Andy didn't know better, it could have led into the kitchen or something. Then he would be in a bad situation.
If anybody had looked up a picture of a rock hammer, those things are pretty small. Digging a hole big enough to fit a body through with an instrument that size is a daunting challenge, but Andy took it on because he had a plan. Everything Andy did in the prison was a cover, tailored to meet who he was. He spent a lot of time alone so he could chip away at the walls. He would need a lot of time, so he would have to plan out when he would start digging. Hitting the wall would make sound, if not from the initial hit then the concrete crumbling and Andy having to transport it away from his cell. In any case, there would be noises. His background hobby in geology is perfect, he could get the rockhammer easily and produce things he found, possibly while digging, and nobody would suspect a thing because no prisoner wanted to associate himself with Andy.
He was a clean cut person. His fingernails were always cleaned and trimmed. He was educated, and knew how to use the education to his advantage. So, yes, Andy did plan his escape and he executed it flawlessly. He even explained how he planned his false identity even before he was arrested. That says something.
For Anthony's question, I think your interpretation is just a bit off. You're looking at it from the warden's point of view and how his loss of power is more the theme there than hope. Look at it from the prisoners' point of view, the people who really need the hope more than the warden. The prisoners have hope when he retires because he was a terrible warden. Ultimately, Andy leaves the prison a better place. It has a great library, the bad wardens left, and now there is the ounce of hope that an innocent man can escape prison in the case of Andy Dufresne.
But I agree, we should read the rest of the stories. I liked RHaSR a lot and agree completely with Anthony about Andy.
If you guys needed clarification Andy is a pretty cool guy.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Dan's question:
ReplyDeleteI see Nick's point of view when he says that Andy was a smart guy. He most definitely was intelligent enough to come up with such an elaborate plan. But I also think that good luck had a lot to do with it. In the beginning of the story, all Andy faced was extraordinary bad luck, landing him in jail. It was only a matter of time before Andy had a turn around with great luck. His knowledge in geography helped him to discover the possibility of digging through the wall, and his access to the library most likely gave him the blueprints. The rest of it was a combination of hope and luck, though. Who knows what was through that wall? Or when the guards would spot him? All those years, around two decades, without the guards thoroughly examining the room in a place of esteemed convicts sounds like a lot of luck to me.
And I agree that we should continue Different Seasons, like with the parts that have movies.
But the coolest guy in RHaSR had to be Andy.
Andrew, Andy could not get blueprints of the prison in the library - that is classified information. Andy just happened to come across the blueprints from somebody in administration, being the cunning person he is.
ReplyDeletePertaining to Dan's question, I'd have to disagree with Nick and concur with Andrew's succinct explanation. While I think Andy's clever thinking and perseverance played a role in his escape, it cannot be denied that luck played a huge role in Andy's escape. Don't forget that at the beginning Andy was not focusing on escape. Everything turned out the way it did because luck initially provided Andy with opportunities, and he took advantage.
Take the wall, for instance. The wall in Andy's cell astonished him, as it was unusually weak. Andy never planned on encountering such weak walls, but as luck would have it that's the way things turned out. I know that, in the movie at least, Andy obtained his rock hammer because of his geology hobby - tunneling out of prison with such a tiny tool would have been ludicrous. As Andy was engraving his name in the wall, he noticed how large chunks would fall out with ease. I don't know if that's exactly what occurred in the book, but it was something in that vein. Andy got lucky on many other occasions too, such as having access to blueprints and actually having a possible escape through the wall. Remember, at first Andy didn't know what was behind the wall - it could have led to the warden's office for all he knew. I know that Nick used this point as an argument for why luck didn't play a major role, but let me explain.
Red mentioned that Andy wasn't absolutely sure of his escape plan, considering the great amount of risks and gambles. Such an operation would have ordinarily ended up in failure, but Andy was fortunately never discovered. It was also mentioned that, because the plan was so likely to fail, Andy was partly doing it just for the thrill - the excitement of seeing how long he could go on without being caught. Any part of the plan could have failed, but Andy had to try. Before Andy saw the blueprints, he actually did not know where the path would lead him - he had to go for it anyways, though, because it was his only chance, and it provided a thrill because of the risk and danger.
I'm sure there are many other examples of Andy encountering fortunate conditions, but I sort of have the plot of the movie and the novella mixed up in my head (I watched the movie as I was reading, and the the two are actually quite different). While I disagree with Nick that luck wasn't a major part of his escape, I agree with him that Andy's own abilities were a big help. He just used those abilities based on the foundation of his escape - lucky breaks.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteLike Anthony, I encountered some blog-poopery.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Anthony's query, I think you're sort of clutching at straws. I don't see the spring in Norton's step as being connected to the season of Spring. Looks like a coincidence to me.
ReplyDeleteOk so I'm not even going to respond to Steady's question because he just completely tried to tear me apart and I think he needs a catnap. Plus, everything's basically been said already.
ReplyDeleteBut on the other question, I have to take the middle road. Nick definitely has a valid point, in that everything Andy does is methodical and clean. He just doesn't seem like the guy who leaves anything up to chance. He thought everything out meticulously before going to prison, having a friend set up a fake ID, and making sure there would be money left over for him when he came out. When he talks about the money he left in Buxton, he constantly says how he is worried that they would build something right on top of it, and he must have known the possibility of that going in. I think that knowing that, he would have realized that he had to cut his stay short to ensure that nothing like that happened. I believe that Andy could have easily done some research before he went to Shawshank, finding and looking through blueprints or construction records. And I know that Red said Andy had found the weakness of the walls by accident, which has been pointed out. However, Red says that was his "educated guess," and I think that should be kept in mind, that it was an inference. Although he knew Andy well, he still didn't have any definite proof of what exactly happened.
I do have to add, however, that there was most likely a bit of luck that went along with Andy's planning. For example, he got lucky that nobody decided to look behind his posters, and that he was able to befriend Red, who was able to get him the tools he needed. There is no doubt that there was some luck involved, but that still doesn't mean that he didn't think it through beforehand. I mean, no matter how well he planned it out, he still couldn't have planned it perfectly to guarantee its success. The odds were just stacked against him way too much.
And Andy's a really cool guy.
I disagree. First of all, I think what Red says is generally true. He is portrayed as sort of the wise elder figure of the prison who seems to be pretty informed on all happenings. He is also Andy's best friend and knows Andy better than anybody, so if there is anyone who should know what Andy does, it is Red. If Red says Andy accidentally found out about the weakness of the walls, it is probably true. As mentioned, Andy had an extremely limited knowledge of Shawshank before he went in. Things such as the strength of walls or blueprints are not things that people can find anywhere in a limited amount of time. Shawshank is an extremely strict and punishing facility, and it has been made clear that prison breaks are prepared for. The best opportunity Andy would have to find out about blueprints would be after he went into Shawshank and gained favor with the guards. Andy would not be able to know about the walls beforehand because nobody had noticed it before - when Red was describing all the famous escapes in Shawshank history breaking through walls was never mentioned. Andy wouldn't even know if breaking through his wall would lead to the sewer pipes because he did not know which cell he would be in before he went to Shawshank. Andy might have been planning to escape the whole time, but he could not have known the exact plan before all of those fortunate circumstances arose.
ReplyDeleteThere is one other note that hasn't yet been mentioned. When Andy was on trial, he blew his chances of being found innocent because he portrayed his personality as cold and aloof. If he had shown any emotion he could very well have been found innocent by the jury. If Andy were really capable of such incredible foresight and preparation, he would have realized his glaring flaw which was hindering his case. Instead, he overlooked it and took a chance with the jury by acting like himself, resulting in his life sentence. In this case Andy took a gamble which had an unlucky result.
Me vs. The World.
Montgomery -
ReplyDelete"I know that, in the movie at least, Andy obtained his rock hammer because of his geology hobby - tunneling out of prison with such a tiny tool would have been ludicrous. As Andy was engraving his name in the wall, he noticed how large chunks would fall out with ease. I don't know if that's exactly what occurred in the book, but it was something in that vein."
Sounds like you didn't read and only saw the movie.
Me against the World.
Then your understanding of what I said is wrong. The circumstances by which he discovered the weakness of the walls were never specifically detailed as they were in the movie, so I had to use the movie as the example. The fact that you don't realize this makes it sound like you're the one who didn't read.
ReplyDelete"I think that his initial intention might have been to do no more than to carve his initials into the wall where the poster of Rita Hayworth would soon be hanging. His initials, or maybe a few lines from some poem. Instead, what he found was that interestingly weak concrete. Maybe he started to care his initials and a big chunk of the wall just fell out."
ReplyDeleteIt NEVER says how Andy did it from Andy's own point of view. The closest we get is Red making a guess that Andy was writing his initials or copying down a poem. Only the movie shows Andy carving his name. We never know for sure what Andy did in the book because all we have are Red's guesses: he could have carved his initials, carved his name, copied some lines of poetry, or anything else. Of course I wouldn't know if exactly what Andy had done was carve his name, but it was most likely something in that vein.
Pay attention to the reading next time. :)
The fact that you texted me in order to try and make me feel stupid when you were horribly wrong shows how stupid you are (I do not doubt that you read, I was only making a joke, but now you must learn from your mistakes).
ReplyDelete"Andy got interested in rocks. And the walls of his cell. I think that his initial intention might have been to do no more than carve his initials into the wall where the poster of Rita Hayworth would soon be hanging. His initials, or maybe a few lines from some poem. Instead, what he found was that interestingly weak concrete. Maybe he started to carve his initials and a big chunk of the wall just fell out."
You said in response to my text message "Red guessed he was carving the initials and then noticed how easy it was you nerd"
"No he didn't say that in the book I'm posting what Red said on the blog right now"
Sorry, but you lose.
Don't mess with the pros kid.
ReplyDeleteBy the way nice quote where'd you find that?
I used that quote before you in my argument. I don't know why you used it since it actually proves you wrong. :s
ReplyDeleteHow does it prove me wrong you said that "As Andy was engraving his name in the wall, he noticed how large chunks would fall out with ease. I don't know if that's exactly what occurred in the book..."
ReplyDeleteand also that "No he didn't say that in the book", referring to Red guessing that Andy first discovered the possibility of tunneling by carving his initials. Red did guess that he carved his initials and you should not have had to have referred to the movie in order to make your point.
"No he didn't say that in the book" means that Red never says Andy wrote his name. RED DOES NOT KNOW HOW ANDY DID IT. He only guessed that Andy was carving his initials or carved a poem. In the movie they show how Andy does it for a fact. That's why I mentioned how in the MOVIE Andy carved his name, but I don't know how he did it in the book, but whatever he did was similar to carving his name.
ReplyDeleteBy the way that isn't the quote that either of us used. It was the one in the book that I was typing as I told you that I was typing what Red said right now.
ReplyDeleteWe are analyzing the book not the movie so you should have used facts from the movie which never stated that Andy did it, only that Red guessed that Andy did it which you denied. You said that the details in the book were never specifically mentioned which they were, just instead of it being fact, it was narration which I'm assuming was not used in the movie. Therefore, the movie had to change the book in order to get the same point across.
ReplyDeleteAnd now you're going to get the last word in because you still think you're 100% right for some reason, and meanwhile I will be at a Jazz ceremony thingy for the new Superintendent so have fun lol
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't deny that Red guessed that Andy accidentally broke the wall because that was my original point. My original point still stands and now you're nitpicking on the wording to imply that I didn't think Red guessed Andy was carving his initials, but you know that is wrong because I already had typed the quote which proved contrary. How Andy broke the wall was NOT specifically mentioned, which I should not even have to explain. Two possibilities guessed by Red =/= a description portrayed as fact of how Andy broke the wall. The movie is the only source that uses fact and that is used to get the book's point across since the book cannot say how it happened, which is why I used the movie as an example and said we don't know what happened in the book, but it was similar to what happened in the movie.
ReplyDelete"The movie is the only source that uses fact and that is used to get the book's point across since the book cannot say how it happened..."
ReplyDeleteYou're typing without even thinking about what you're saying. How can a book not say what happened? That's ridiculous because the book can say anything it wants through narration, action, or dialogue. The book did not give an exact description because it did not want to, not because it couldn't. The movie took one of the liberties that it is allowed to do by changing the story slightly for more appeal.
The fact that you have now mistyped twice is enough of a case for me to argue that I am not "nitpicking", simply correcting your mistakes in my opinion.
That "in my opinion" came out awkwardly in my last post, but you know what I mean.
ReplyDeleteYou should understand that Red is the narrator of this story. Whatever information we learn is limited to Red's perspective. Sure the author can say whatever he wants, but the author is actually not the same thing as the narrator. Nobody is going to read his book if he makes everything as blatantly obvious as you want. If the author wants to stick to his method and keep Red as the narrator, he can't let Red know everything in the world. If you think characters within the story should be able to know everything just because they are the narrator, you're sorely mistaken. So yes, the book cannot supply us with the information as to what exactly happened because the author would like the story to be realistic, without having Red becoming God.
ReplyDeleteThis has gone from a discussion of whether Red knew how Andy found out about the wall (which I was right about) to you misunderstanding things and trying to catch me on them. That would be nitpicking.
"The fact that you texted me in order to try and make me feel stupid when you were horribly wrong shows how stupid you are."
ReplyDelete"You're typing without even thinking about what you're saying."
"The fact that you have now mistyped twice is enough of a case for me to argue that I am not "nitpicking", simply correcting your mistakes in my opinion."
umad
z
ReplyDeletehey this is for school I need help on this question..
ReplyDeleteWhy did Andy get access to the prison blueprints?