|
|
Snow Falling on Cedars David Guterson
Chapters 19–21
Summary: Chapter 19
Back in the courtroom, Dr. Sterling Whitman, a hematologist
(a blood specialist) from the mainland town of Anacortes, testifies
that the blood on Kabuo's fishing gaff is human blood, type B positive. This
type matches Carl Heine's and is relatively rareonly ten percent
of white males are type B positive. Kabuo, on the other hand, is type
O negative, so the blood clearly did not come from him. Though he
does not say it explicitly, the prosecutor, Alvin Hooks, clearly
implies that the gaff could be the weapon that caused Carl's head
wound.
Under cross-examination from Nels Gudmundsson, however, Dr.
Sterling admits that he did not find any bone splinters, hair, or skin
on the gaffremnants that one would expect to find if the gaff had
been used to inflict Carl's head wound. Dr. Sterling says that it
is more likely that the blood came from a minor wound the coroner found
on Carl's hand. In addition, he states that a full twenty percent
of the Japanese population has B positive blood, so the blood on
the gaff could have come from any of a number of the island's Japanese
residents.
After the morning recess, Army First Sergeant Victor
Maples, who trained Kabuo's regiment in hand-to-hand combat during
the war, takes the stand. Sergeant Maples testifies that Kabuo demonstrated
an incredible expertise at kendo during training, which impressed
the sergeant deeply. In fact, Kabuo was so good at kendo that Maples
asked Kabuo for instruction in the art. Maples tells the court that
he believes Kabuo's kendo skills could be used to kill a man far
larger than himself. Perhaps most damning, Maples believes that
Kabuo was not only capable but also willing to inflict violence
on another man.
Summary: Chapter 20
The narrative flashes back to September 9, 1954,
about a week before Carl's death and two days after Kabuo showed
up too late to purchase Ole Jurgensen's land. Carl's wife, Susan
Marie, is at home. Kabuo stops by to talk to Carl about the sale
of Ole's land. As Carl and Kabuo discuss the matter outside, Susan
Marie reflects upon her courtship with Carl. She remembers how she
learned to take pleasure in her sexual attractiveness when she was
about seventeen, and how at twenty she used that allure to pursue
Carl.
Carl comes back inside and explains to his wife that
Kabuo has asked to purchase the seven acres of land his father originally
tried to buy. Carl is not sure how to act: he wants to do what is
right, but his dislike for Japs makes him reluctant to sell the
land. Also, Carl does not like the way Kabuo reacted when he said
he had to think the matter over; he gets the impression that Kabuo
expected Carl to hand over the land to him immediately. Susan Marie
says nothing more about the matter, believing that it is not her
place to probe her husband's past. When Carl leaves, Susan Marie
thinks about their marriage, and realizes that it is based only
on sexual attraction. She worries about what will happen when their
desire for each other fades.
Summary: Chapter 21
The narrative returns to the present, resuming its account
of Kabuo's trial. Susan Marie takes the stand to testify about the details
of Kabuo's visit on September 9. During Nels
Gudmundsson's cross-examination, she admits that she was not physically present
during Carl and Kabuo's conversation about the land. Additionally,
Susan Marie concedes that Carl told her he had in fact given Kabuo
some reason to hope that the seven acres would be available for
purchase. During Susan Marie's testimony, the blizzard raging outside
knocks out the electricity in the courtroom.
Analysis : Chapters 19–21
This section provides new depth to the character of Susan
Marie Heine. Up to this point, we know little about Susan Marie.
Her muted reaction to the news of Carl's death suggests that she
has a stoic outlook on life. Similarly, in saying that she always
knew that Carl's death would happen like this one day, Susan Marie
demonstrates the same kind of passivity in the face of uncontrollable
forces that characterizes so many aspects of life on San Piedro.
Her relationship with Carl is based only on sexual attraction, so
she never fully understands her husband. She does not share the
wounds of war and hatred that have plagued Carl, Horace, Ishmael,
Kabuo, and others. Susan Marie respects Carl's privacy about his
past but also accepts that their relationship must always be limited
as a result. Her ability to persevere after losing Carl suggests
that such limitations are the compromises that must be made to function
in a world governed by chance.
From Susan Marie's testimony we learn that Carl faced
a dilemma in deciding whether to sell the land to Kabuo. In his
conversation with Susan Marie, Carl admitted his reluctance to sell
the land to a Jap like Kabuo. Rather than blame his mother for
cheating the Miyamotos and then sell the farm to others, Carl tacitly blamed
the Japanese for forcing him to abandon his land to fight in the
war. In this regard, Carl resembles Ishmael, who blames the Japanese
for Hatsue's rejection of him.
The testimonies of Dr. Sterling and Sergeant Maples show
how the prosecution attempts to distort the evidence toward a guilty
verdict in two ways. Sergeant Maples's testimony is largely insubstantial
and circumstantial, as Alvin Hooks attempts to twist the fact of Kabuo's
martial-arts skill into a stereotype of Japanese men as violent
and murderous. His argument is not factual and attempts to play
solely on the jurors' prejudices. The hematologist's testimony, in
contrast, is based on fact, as the blood type found
on the gaff is indeed somewhat uncommon. However, Alvin Hooks fails
to mention that fully twenty percent of people of Japanese descent
have this blood type. When Nels Gudmundsson makes us aware of this
fact in his cross-examination, we realize that Hooks likely omits
it on purpose. He has reported the facts only selectively, attempting
to hide this bias behind the guise of science. In these testimonies,
then, we see that Kabuo faces not only sensationalism and stereotyping,
but also insidious attempts to contort even rational arguments in
a way that makes him appear guilty.
  Help |
Feedback |
Make a request |
Report an error |
Send to a friend
|
|