Son of the Morning Star

watchword of the break of day Star Analysis Evan S. Connell has a unique piece style. While some stories are told from beginning to end, Son of the Morning Star Custer and The small(a) Bighorn (North Point Press, 1984) begins with the aftermath of The competitiveness of the Little Bighorn. It is then followed by numerous events which led up to this betrothal. Connell chose this non-linear writing style in order to distribute the exposit he finds most fascinating and interesting to share with his audience. Using the conclusion of the dispute as the introduction of the narrative creates a suspenseful t unrivaled.In the beginning of the story, the setting is the bout field which The Battle of the Little Bighorn had taken place a few days earlier. Lieutenant James Bradley has led his troops to the cut back where they discover the corpses of which they believe are world(a) George Armstrong Custers troops. Custer himself was nowhere in sight. Even after a reward was offered upo n his retrieval he could non be erect. The deserted battle field raised questions and the men began to judge what had happened days prior to their arrival.The root preserves, While discussing the days events slightly a campfire most infantrymen predicted more unpleasant news (pg. 3) The troops observe a woman who was present during the battle and described to them what she had witnessed. The womans recollection of her experience opens up the story to a chronicle of the events which happened during the battle. The ratifier is devoted details regarding to Custers entrance and also each contrarys battle style Instead, Renos men set outed and formed a skirmish line. Then they began to retreat. They ran very fast, she said, dropping guns and cartridges.She was disgusted by the pass on of these whites, saying they must throw away been seized with panic worse than that which seized her own people. (pg. 7) As the plot approaches its conclusion, the contributor is taken back to the aftermath of the battle and receives a tale told by a Cheyenne woman named Kate Bighead. She delivered a piteous story to the highest degree the corpses she dictum laying on the battlefield, one in particular she identified as General Custer She said two southerly Cheyenne women were at the Little Bighorn and when the fighting ended they went to the battlefield.They saw Custer. They knew him wellthey recognized him even though his hair was short and nervus was dirty. (pg. 422) Although the plot of this story does non occupy a chrono analytic structure, it develops a more personal connection because the characters in the story are directly speaking to the audience as they turn over their personal accounts on the battle. For example, it had already been said that Reno was dead how ever so, an outburst make by Reno himself is mentioned shortly after. The major was swigging at a flask when DeRudio splashed by. What are you trying to do? Reno asked. Drown me before I am killed? (pg. 50) Evan S. Connells work, Son of the Morning Star is an extraordinary and captivating narrative. He has an acquiring mind and was not afraid to step away from the traditional form of writing. Behind the topsy-turvydom there is meaning. The writing style presented in this story is untraditional which could by chance lose the attention of the reader however, this was a valid decision. ? Based on its cover the reader might think that the entire story is about General Custer and his troops.Despite expectations, the audience actually catches a glimpse of both the lives of Custer as well as his opponents. The author gives the reader a tiny nurture on the mise en scene of batty Horse, formerly known as ringleted. Curly did not reveal this manifestation to anybody until he was sixteen and ready to arrest a warriorExcept for moccasins and breechcloth he rode naked. (pg. 67) The author also gives the reader the opportunity to read a few journal entries about weirdo H orse. These entries come from the diary of Jesse Lee, Saturday, Sept. th, 1877. Everything is quiet and I think will cover so. Crazy Horses body was brought to this agency and put on a little platform, Indian fashion, on the hill over looking at the post, not half a mile away. (pg. 75) He also includes a background on Chief Gall as well, providing facts about his birthplace and family. For example, he writes, He was not a hereditary chief. The family seems to have been undistinguished, and because his father died at an early age the boy was regarded more with sympathy than respect.So it appears that not by means of any legacy did he become a chieftain (pg. 376) end-to-end the story, the audience develops an idea of the motives of the Native Americans during the battle. The reader becomes aware of what seance damn was thought process If Sitting Bull did indeed call off the storm it was not because of any affection for whites, who, he hated with abiding and impenetrable ranco r, but because he understood how vindictive they could be. If all the soldiers were slaughtered the whites would insist upon new(prenominal) battle (pg. 6) The audience was not only given an idea of what they were thinking before the battle. The author also makes a point to include a song that the Indians wrote after they had defeated General Custer and his men, At that time the Indians did not realized they had fought Custerwhen they found out, they sang about him. David Humphreys Miller transcribed one much(prenominal) kill-song (pg. 54) With the erudition given in the story, the reader concludes that the Native American forgoers were fully developed human beings. Connell includes selective information regarding Chief Crazy Horses smart battle technique.For example, there are quotations given from a journalist At critical moments Crazy Horse would dismount before shooting He is the only Indian I ever knew who did that oftenhe didnt like to start a battle unless he had it all planned out in his head and knew he was going to win. (pg. 63) Chief Gall was compared to other great leaders and his lead skills are described by his people including Lieutenant Godfrey, He perceived Gall as a man of tremendous character inborn ability, and great common sense, a chief whose massive physiognomy reminded him of Daniel Webster. (pg. 375) The comments made about these two leaders in particular demonstrate their equality of humanity compared to Custers men. Not only does he give details about the lives of the Native Americans but Connell also gives insight on the lives of those who fought with General Custer. The reader is given an idea of the reputation and trial of Benteen. For example, In this, that major Frederick W. Benteen, Ninth Calvary when in command of the Post of Fort Du Chesne, Utah, was found drunkSpecifications 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th were identical, only the dates changed. (pg. 34) The reader also gathers information about Major Marcus Reno regardi ng his leadership and his behavior thus similar to that of Benteens. Reno got demerits easily, almost deliberately (pg. 40) He also writes, At least it failed to mollify the anger colonel because Reno found himself saddled with another charge (pg. 45) Although a great fill in of this piece is devoted to the lives and motives of the Native Americans, the author also takes time to write about Custers men as well.Including battle experience as well as family history, Connell enchants the importance of The Battle of the Little Bighorn. Throughout the non-linear story, the reader is taken back and forth between stories about Custers challengers and his troops. The authors objectivity is apparent because the reader is given the opportunity to capture the battle from both perspectives. ? Before The Battle of the Little Bighorn, General Custer had famed many victories however, this battle ended in tragedy.Unaware of what ca employ the tumble at Little Bighorn, many have speculated poss ible causes of Custers defeat. These possibilities include Custers sanity, his trustingness and other stereotypes. In the story, Connells collection of stories told by Sioux woman and other survivors give the reader ideas of what might have been the cause of this disastrous downfall. When looking back on the battle a countersign between an Indian and General H. L. Scott reveals a possible cause of this defeat.For example, Connell writes During subsequent conversations Feather Earring emphatic that if Custer had approached diplomatically the Indians would have gone back to the reservationsGeneral Scott observed that such a method of dealing with the hostiles had not occurred to anybody. (pg. 414) Shortly after this discussion more information about Custers skewed communication with the Indians is unveiled. If this miscommunication had never occurred the battle would have been avoided altogether.A Sioux chief gives his recollection on the events occurring prior to the battle He ask ed Custer to promise that he would not fight the Sioux. Custer promisedAfter we got with talking, he soon left the agency, and we soon heard that he was fighting the Indians and that he and all his men were killed. If Custer had given us time we would have gone out ahead of him, but he did not give us time. If we had gone out ahead of Custer he would not have lost himself not would his men have been killed. (pg. 415) The attack had been approved by his officers, however, there had been some objections.Some of his troops did not believe the plan was logical but Custers confidence does appear to take over his mentality. He ignores a suggestion made by Gibbon, Custer, or else of proceeding at once into the valley of the Little Big Horn, even should the trail lead there, should continue on up the Rosebud, get closer to the mountains (pg. 255-256) Losing touch with populace Custer continues to explain his plan to attack, the combined forces would count coup on Sitting Bull, Crazy Hors e, Galland all the rest (pg. 56) Custers plan includes a victory rather than an alternative in case of any misfortune, he left no room for the unexpected. Although Custers plan seemed a little unrealistic his stubbornness was not the only thing to lead to the downfall at Little Bighorn. Many troops give their comments regarding Major Renos choice of leadership, several military analysts believe Reno should have stayed there instead of doing what he did. They point out that his battalion so near the resolution would have engaged a great many warriors, thus allowing Custers plan to unfold. (pg. ) It is also mentioned that Reno had an altercation with one of the Indians which he encountered, Reno misunderstood a figure of speech, taking I as an insult, and threatened to shoot higher(prenominal) Bear-who responded by drawing a knife. Another scout, invoking Custers name, jumped between them and managed to bar a bloody settlement. (pg. 10) Not only was Renos lack of recognition a c ause of defeat but it is also possible that his hawkish temperament lead to Custers labefaction. After analyzing the attitudes and actions of Custer and his troops, the reader can interpret many causes that led to this disastrous defeat.Based on the strategic analysts comments, Reno could have used better instincts when leading his men into battle. It is possible that if the major would have had stronger erudition Custers men would not have suffered as much as they did. The reader can conclude that there was a sense of overconfidence made not only by Major Reno but Custer as well however, if Custer had kept his promise to Sioux the entire battle could have been avoided. Custer and his quint companies certainly underestimated their Native American opponents.