Blog Summary

The posts from this week brought up some new ideas as well as talked further about the things that we had discussed in class.

Robert brought up the interesting idea of Ned and Mary being successors to Harry Powers and Ned's mother. Mary did go to America, unlike Ned's mother, and Ned accomplished more than Harry Powers ever did, so in a way, they both did go beyond their respective predecessors. This may also be a contrast between the characters of Mary and Ned's mother, as his mother did not have the strength to leave her current man behind in order to procure a better life for herself. Along with this comes the idea of Ned being in love with his mother. Jasmine introduced the idea of Ned perhaps having an Oedipus complex, which would explain his resentment of his father and his priority for his mother, which was so extreme that he lost his life in the pursuit of her freedom. Jasmine also says that Ned may be attracted to Mary only because she is similar to his mother. Thomas ties in to this, stating that Ned's fascination with Mary is purely fascination, and nothing else. This is supported by the fact that Mary did end up leaving Ned to his fate when he refused to do as she asked and flee to safety.

Ned began to act very irrationally at the end of his tale in his attempt to free his mother. Holly defended his actions, saying that Ned was tired of lies and hiding, and this is a direct reference to the very first line that he writes. She says that he wants to do something, and let everyone know him, and that is why he is so intent on publishing his narrative of his life. Tate, however, argues that Ned had let his success go to his head, and begins to believe that he is invincible. As a result of this overconfidence, he says, Ned ends up being caught and dying. Ashley expresses her frustration at his lack of rational thinking and judgment in the last bit of the novel.

The idea of right and wrong has been discussed extensively throughout the novel, and was brought up once again in this weeks blog posts. Abby talked about the gray areas in the definition of right versus wrong, and how she thinks that Ned just bit off more than he could chew in terms of trying to do right by everyone. Ryan also defends Ned, saying that his actions were justified. However, like I said in my post, the reliability of Ned's account is not very good. Ned's justifications may just be to make himself look better to his daughter.

Madolyn brought up the issue of Ned's morals, and argued that his morals did not change and that he did what he had to do in order to survive. She said that since this novel is written in the retrospective view, Ned will have a consistent moral background with which he justifies his actions. In the end, the question of how right Ned was in thinking he was doing the best for his family ends up being unanswered, and the fate of his mother remains unknown.

Blog post summary

Matt Meyers

Some similar themes discussed previously in class reappeared in this week’s blog post. One of which is the reliability of Ned Kelly. Can we trust Ned and all that he says? Preethi seems to say that Ned is probably portraying himself in a more positive light so that his daughter does not view him as the evil man most other people would say he is. He often exaggerates his stories so that he can appear as more of a hero. Madolyn also acknowledged the one-sided viewpoint of Ned Kelly. She believes that we cannot make any judgments about Ned Kelly’s morals changing due to the fact that his morals and his expression of those morals take form through his own eyes. He does not recognize any transformation in those morals and does not allow the reader to see a change if there is any at all.

Another common theme discussed previously in class is whether or not the morals of Ned have changed. Ashley writes about how she is disgusted by Ned’s performance in the final pages of the book. He now has moved from the “defensive” and onto the “offensive” as he actively seeks out “traps” to take revenge. She seems to argue that Ned’s morals have changed. He now wants to kill rather than only committing murder when he was left with no other choice. Jasmine argues, on the other hand, that Ned’s actions toward the end of the book only reaffirm his morals. Jasmine holds that Ned puts his mother above all and everything else and that he is willing to do whatever possible to set her free. By throwing his own life and others lives away in an attempt to save his mother, Ned stands by his moral of protecting his mother no matter the cost.

The point of right and wrong also made its way into this blog post. Abby argues that Ned undergoes an internal struggle as he has to choose who he should stand by because he cannot help everyone. These complicated decisions seem to give substance to the belief that a “gray area” exists between right and wrong. Is there just one right and one wrong answer? Abby does not think so. Ryan’s argument in which he compares Ned Kelly to Andrew Jackson only reaffirms Abby’s position. He holds that a blurry line exists between a hero and villain, between right and wrong. According to Ryan, most of the time people are a mix of right and wrong, and therefore, we cannot truly judge them as being one or the other.

A common theme exists where everyone seems to agree that Ned’s actions towards the end of the story were erratic and irrational. However, some, like Tate, claimed that he was just plain arrogant, while others, like Holly, seemed to believe that Ned was simply tired of hiding and of all the unfair treatment he had received. He knew that he was going to be pursued for the rest of his life, so he figured he might as well go out sending a message to the public.

Other new themes appeared in this blog post as well. For instance, Thomas analyzes the “love” between Mary and Ned. He questions whether it is true love and believes it to be more of a lustful relationship; they did have intercourse the first day they met, barely knowing one another. Jasmine’s viewpoint seems to support the notion that Ned does not really love Mary. Rather, she suggests that Mary’s resemblance to his mother sparks his attraction. Robert further implies that his mother’s similar attitude, actions, and looks seem to parallel Mary, attracting him to her, just as Harry Power found attraction in his mother. The user Craw (I do not know who this is) further claims that Ned is a fool and has the mind of a child concerning love. He believes himself to be in love so easily and fails to question the intentions of Mary.

Love and Kelly

This topic isn't necessarily specific to just this portion of the book, but it's interesting to me throughout the novel. Before Mary, Ned's mother is the only woman he has ever loved. I guess what gets to me is how quickly Ned seemed to be head over heels for a woman he knew nothing about. Also, Mary was the first woman he ever met. It just seems kind of off to me that love came so easily for him. They fell in love at first sight and even though she had a baby Ned moved forward with her without even stopping to ask questions. Have you been married? Whose baby is this? Why are you so eager to be with me?
Those all seem like relevant questions to me, but Ned was not raised to be skeptical of other people's intentions. That willingness to trust anyone who shows an interest in his life is Ned's downfall; he's Achilles heel. Throughout the novel, Ned made this same mistake over and over again. Insanity is doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting different results. I understand the naivety in youth, but Ned was still letting people "pull wool over his eyes" deep into his twenties.
How easy he fell in love seems to be a prime example of this to me. As a 19-year-old, I am more skeptical of love's intentions than Ned was at 26. Maybe it was because of his lack of experience, but Ned's love life reminds me of middle school romance.

Out of Character

This last section of the novel has completely frustrated me in terms of Ned Kelly's character. Like I said yesterday in class, I really don't like the correlation between Ned and Annakin, or really with any other "larger than life" hero/villain, just because I feel that since Ned is from a poor country and background, equating him with them is slightly ridiculous. He doesn't need to be classified as a hero or a villain, because as we said in class, ANYONE is going to have a different view from the person sitting next to them.

But as I said, with regard to Ned's morality, this last section of the novel has thron me through a loop. Ned is now purposefully searching fo rrevenge against the traps. This is a big transition from when he was merely trying to defend himslef from their injustices. Then, he was taking the defensive side. Now he is launching an offensive against them. This is odd to me, because it really seems out of character from what the whole rest of the book has demonstrated to be his character. True, he fought Wild Wright and others, but those were still relatively for defensive purposes. On page 320, he even says that he is now "stewing in [his] own juice and plotting what revenge [he] would take upon them higher ups who so oppressed [them] all." He is no longer about focusing on defending himslef, as he was when he shot at Sgt. Kennedy. Now he is actively searching for them so as to destroy them. This bothers me, because like I said, it seems very out of character for him.

How reliable is Ned Kelly?

There has been a lot of doubt about the accuracy of Ned Kelly's account in this novel. Though he is usually portrayed in a good light in this novel, he himself is writing this account of his life for his daughter. Because it is for his daughter, Ned naturally, whether it is on purpose or not, makes himself sound better than he is. This creates doubt about the credibility of this whole narration.

I think that Ned does exaggerate many details. He portrays himself as the underdog many times, however he usually comes out of the fights he gets into with who he says are bigger and stronger men victorious. This is especially true in the case of his fight against Wild Wright. Ned says he is very nervous as he sees Wild Wright with "legs like adjectival fenceposts [and] his arms like thighs" (185). Though the story of the actual fight is not narrated by Ned himself, it is narrated by Joe Byrne, who is one of the most loyal followers Ned has had. Even if Joe did not exaggerate at all about Ned's boxing prowess, he did not say anything about Wild Wright's bulk and how evenly matched the two were. This comparison comes solely from Ned, whose best interest is to portray himself as the victim in this situation.

This is only one case in which Ned exaggerates to make himself look better. One such example is the letter that Sgt Kennedy gave him as he was dying. I think that Ned did dwell on the letter in order to redeem himself from the murder that he had committed, especially since Kennedy had only been trying to surrender. I think that he does feel guilt, but exaggerates it. The sentence where he says he has nightmares about killing Kennedy was awkwardly inserted in an unrelated passage (255). I think he realized, as he was writing, how little remorse he had shown so far. The sentence about his guilt was almost an afterthought, but was written with the intention to show Ned in the best light possible.

Ned is writing to his daughter, and this influences his writing immensely. His daughter is most likely going to grow up hearing bad things about him. This is most likely going to be the one positive account she will get of her father, and the way this is written reflects that.

Ned's Morality

As much as I’d like to blog about something other than the heroic or villainous quality of Ned Kelly’s character, this ambiguity is essential to the novel. As it is so important, I would like to make a few things about his morality clear.

First, this novel is not written by Ned Kelly; therefore, if we wanted to judge the actual character of the Ned Kelly, we would need historical information outside of this book. Since we have only this work of fiction, I am going to assume we are judging the character of Ned Kelly as he is portrayed in the novel, as we judged the purely fictional characters of Wieland and Clara.

Second, this novel is written retrospectively by the character of Ned Kelly. This is one reason it is difficult to imagine his morality changing, because he writes his history from his present perspective, and thus from the views of his present morality. As he remembers his childhood and looks back on his own history, it seems reasonable to assume if he imagines his morality incongruous, he himself would acknowledge it. So for one, at least as far as we have read, he has made no indication of a perceived shift in his morals.

Third, a change in morals (if one occurred at all) cannot be attributed to the environment. It is true, the situations Ned Kelly is presented with are morally convoluted and he is assaulted with difficult options that test his convictions continually. I think though, that one’s moral convictions, if they are indeed one’s moral convictions, are unwavering, despite the difficulty of the circumstance. To me, the difficulty of the decision within Ned Kelly is a conflict of what punishment is deserved (to him or to unfair opposition, such as the government) and what compensation and benefit is due to him and his family. As far as that goes, I do not think he has compensated those morals at all.

And finally, I think a lot of us (myself included) are inclined to project all of our own sense of morals into Ned Kelly’s character because he exemplifies a few characteristics of those morals (honesty, filial and family dedication, etc.), and so we assume he adheres to other common moral beliefs such as the belief that murder is always inexcusable, which he has not explicitly nor implicitly confirmed. In truth, he demonstrates consistently that he is prone to violence. Ned Kelly fought Patchy Moran for insulting his father (16), he concocted “gruesome punishments” for his uncle (47), and he fought the Handsome Man for insulting his mother (88). In fact, when he was only 15, he threatened to kill Bill Frost (108-109), and ended up shooting him in the gut (123) soon after. Though he very obviously feels remorse and regret about having had to kill, he also recognizes the inevitability of the decision, and does not think himself as someone who has compromised his morals.

Father-Daughter, Mother-Son Relationship

I have been waiting to express my feelings about the relationship between Ned and his mother for a while now, and I would love to see if anyone can relate it to one of the larger themes we have been talking about in class. ( like family, masculinity, father-daughter relationships etc. ) I believe that when Ned's father died in his heart ( when he discovered the red dress) and when he actually died, Ned developed an emotionally incestuous relationship with his mother. He and his mom both raised the children, took on the worries for supporting the family and performed hard labor to keep up the land just like a husband and wife would.

He is protective of his mother to an unhealthy degree, to the point where he is going to jeapordize his own life to get he out of jail and as a result abandoning his wife and unborn child (p321). This is not an attack on his morals changing, because I think he has always been this obsessive about his mother. He should realize that as a mother she would want him to go on and live a productive life, but he does not see her as a caregiver he sees her as this flawless creature who means the entire world to him. His brother comments on his undying love for his mother on pg 195, he call their mom Ned's girl. Then on I feel like he only like Mary because he reminds him of his mother, they are both described as slender with dark hair and pale white skin, then they both have children by the same man! I think he alludes to his mother on p. 213 when he says, " Her lips were so wide and very nicely shaped I never saw the like of her before she were so wonderfully familiar. Hmmm I wonder what familiar means lol!

The True History of Grey Areas

In class we touched on the development of the conflicts facing Ned; in some senses conflicts at the beginning of the novel were possibly more trivial (i.e. Ned's fight at school) but perhaps more significantly the shift in conflict has also transitioned from good vs. bad to more (as we suggested in class) "adult" conflicts of bad vs. a little less bad or good vs. a little more good.

In one form of adult conflict Ned is torn between upholding his loyalties to his gang, Mary and his daughter, his mother, and his own moral code. Physically speaking it is impossible for Ned to assist all of these outlets of people, and this physical conflict, as one can imagine, creates at least some level of internal conflict, though it may be under the surface of the text. On one hand Ned's sense of honor (or arrogance) drives his unrealistic desire to help everyone. However, he seems to disregard the fact that each group or person he wants to assist needs much more than just his help; his mother, Mary, and the boys are all looking to him to be a continual source of stability and support, not just a a temporary helping hand. Perhaps Ned doesn't seem to recognize that his attempts to keep a foot in every door so that he can come to everyone's rescue may create a situation in which he cannot in the end help anyone, including himself.

These ideas seem almost paradoxical: honor and loyalty are functioning as the basis for conflict. I think this irony sort of presents an interesting thought and parallels one of the central themes of the book, a theme which is in some ways counter to a lot of adventure stories. Again and again the book seems to emphasize the grey area between right and wrong, not only in the debate of hero vs. criminal but also in these internal conflicts Ned faces: "Who deserves my loyalty most?" and "How will I uphold my moral duty?" I think this is a really interesting concept since we often think of adventure stories, cowboy and Indian tales, as having a good guy and a bad guy (the Disney structure). I think it's really notable that a novel heavy with action and adventure (which generally provides for heavy external conflict) is able to very poetically unmask characters' internal conflicts and perhaps even more significantly emphasize that the line between right and wrong may not always be as marked as many traditional adventure stories much suggest.

Ned Kelly's Death Wish

In this last section of the book, it became harder for me to decipher Ned's purpose for his cryptic actions. Obviously he has two underlying main goals: to free his mother and to survive to see his family in San Francisco. However, it seems as though Ned, who usually is rather bright and ingenious in thinking of original plans to get his desires accomplished, goes about things this time in a roundabout and illogical manner. He becomes inspired by The Moniter, a seemingly invicible ship, and decides to build crude suits of armor for himself and his gang and take on the police force. Ned previously has seemed to me to above all else, intelligent. I don't understand how this half-baked idea appeals to him; does he really think 4 men wearing plates of scrap metal can take on an entire police force and win? Furthermore, he never explains what will happen if they win? Does he expect all of Australia to suddenly proclaim his a national hero? This strategy in no way is helpful towards getting his mother released from prison or to ensuring his survival so he can see his daughter and wife.
In my opinion, it's important to analyze the thoughts and motivations behind Ned's sudden switch from cautious to bold. Throughout the book, Ned has constantly been misunderstood. He has been jailed countless times for crimes he didn't even mean to commit and accused of being a million things that he is not. When he tries to publish a letter stating the true intentions of his actions, that too is bungled. I think Ned is tired of living behind a screen of secrecy and lies. In short, Ned is tired of hiding. He feels a profound need to come out into the open; therefore, when he sees the image of The Moniter, a large powerful ship standing tall and proud in the open, he is strongly affected. At least, whatever the outcome of this new plan, he will not have to hide and skulk around any longer. His deeds will be completely visible, to be observed and judged by the public for real.

How Arrogance Killed Ned Kelly and Destroyed His Goals

The next-to-last parcel of this tale commences with Ned learning of the birth of his daughter (336). His excitement at her birth is evident and it can be assumed that he desperately wanted to be able to see her and help raise her. Further, Ned has mentioned on numerous occasions that his ultimate goal in all his crimes and actions is to have his mother freed from prison (306). Knowing these to be Kelly's goals, I was surprised to read that he planned to build suits of armour for he and his men and fight the police rather than retreat and keep himself alive so that he might one day see his daughter and witness his mother's release from jail.

We have talked extensively about Ned's morals and his likable personality, but it is his arrogance in the final pages of the story that I want to focus on. After Kelly and his gang retreat to the Bogong High Plains (338), one would think that they would try to lay low. However, Ned gets this idea of an unstoppable suit of armour and decides that he can make himself invincible. I feel like this is a point in the novel where Carey is trying to show us that all Ned's successes with the Kelly Gang have gone to his head. Ned uses the metaphor of a "dragon" collecting its scales when talking of making the armour (340), which shows his growing arrogance. His letter on page 342 is further evidence of the power Ned feels he possesses. This sense of invincibility is ultimately Kelly's downfall when he decides that he and his men can defeat an entire squadron of policemen with their fantastic armour. Despite the fact that he is putting his ultimate goal (freeing his mom) and hopes of seeing his daughter in jeopardy, Ned abandons these goals to fight the police in what he undoubtedly perceives to be his finest hour. After his defeat and capture, he requests that his mother be freed just before he is hanged (368). This wish is not honored, and our hero/villain/who cares? dies an arrogant and unfulfilled bandit.

Ned Kelly is their Andrew Jackson

Bear with me, but this post is in defense of my belief that every hero is also a villain. I think it helps us try to analyze whether or not Ned Kelly is a hero by putting him into American terms that we are familiar with. This way the whole 'culture' difference is rendered a non issue. I found that the American Ned Kelly was most similar too was Andrew Jackson.

There are some pretty strong parallels between Ned Kelly and Jackson. Both are considered to have had strong morals and were fiercely stubborn about living up to their own moral codes.

The parallels begin in the fact both Ned and Jackson are considered patriots against colonial rule. For Ned, he is fighting British Protestant oppression upon Catholic Irish. He and Powers steal from the rich and Ned later kills policemen. For Jackson, he was a patriot during the Revolution fighting against British oppression. During the war Jackson is captured and ordered by a British officer to clean his boots. Jackson refused and received a scar on his head from the officer's sword.

The parallels continue with both Characters' love for family:
For Jackson, he loved his family and America more than anything and would never compromise either of the two. He was considered a 'gentleman' by the ladies, but was notorious for being an overall badass and always fighting for what he believed in - even if that meant risking his own life. Similarly, Ned Kelly spends the entire book striving to maintain his family's honor and resisting colonial rule and is ready to fight to defend his values at any moment. For example, when Ned's father is insulted for wearing the dress, Ned immediately picks a fight to send the message such talk will not be tolerated. Also, anytime anyone of his sisters or mother are double crossed by men, Ned Kelly sends a similar message to them...for Bill Frost it just happened to be a bullet. Jackson also happened to be overly sensitive about a woman in his life, but in his case it was his wife. Jackson pretty much married a woman while she was still married to another man, and so he constantly was hated on by other politicians and nobles. This drove him INSANE, especially when people insulted his wife directly. Jackson was so serious about upholding the honor of his wife he tried to kill the people who insulted her. It is important to note that duels back then were considered "affairs of honor". One duel left him with a bullet permanently lodged in his body. From then on, Jackson's reputation would preceded him. Similar to Ned Kelly and Harry Power.

Jackson never really had a family besides his wife, as he was born poor but raised by rich relatives. He never really fit in and got a lot of crap from people for being an outsider. For him, America was his family. Jackson was so devout in his love for America that he threatened to declare war on South Carolina and kill everyone in the State Govt in they ever succeeded. His passion and willingness to fight to the death for his 'family' kept the union together until Lincoln.

There are many more similarities between the two characters but I don't feel like giving a history lecture. The important thing to note is that both men were headstrong, passionate about similar morals, and quick to fight to defend said morals. It is in my opinion that the two are so close it may be easier to define Jackson as a hero/villain instead of Ned. This is where it gets tricky, because although I love Jackson I still can not decide if I think he is a true and total hero. This is why it is important to realize that hero's are also villains. Although Jackson did really great things for America and his family, he often did them in very immoral ways. Returning honor to his wife is a great story, but doing it by dueling and fighting everyone who insults her is not exactly taking the moral high ground. Moreover, Jackson preserves the Union on multiple occasions by either threatening people or actually killing them (reference Jackson's kinda-sort but not really authorized attack on the Seminoles and Spanish in Florida, and his threats to South Carolina). It becomes difficult to declare someone a hero by performing noble actions through dark methods. For me, I have settled around the middle....Jackson is a hero for the great things he did for America, and because he stuck to his beliefs and morals in order to pursue what he thought was right. However, he is also a villain for the amount of blood he shed. He is a villain to the families of the lives he took. He is a villain to the American political system for bending the rules. Jackson is both in one, and depending on the issue he floats between the two titles. For Jackson, when stuff needed to get done, he did it, while knowing sometimes you gotta break eggs to make an omelet - to me, there is something noble in that, and that is why I choose to lean towards both men's heroism.

How deep is Ned's Love?

Is Ned really in love with Mary or is he just infatuated with her, infatuated with the idea of being in love. Ned hadn’t kissed a girl in all his life and when the moment arrived he was twenty four years old, well passed adolescence. How long had his hormones been in a frenzy waiting for any stimulation from the fairer sex? And when he met Marry he didn’t have to wait long to go from first base to home plate. Matter of fact Ned hit a home run in the bottom of the ninth with the bases loaded in game seven of the World Series.

This intense and primal experience seems to overwhelm Ned Kelly, he speaks of love within their first meeting. Yet he doesn’t know her favorite color, band, book, whether she is conservative or liberal, if she can cook. I don’t doubt that Ned thinks he is in love, but I believe him to be under the influence of a serious dopamine rush. The fact that she’s easy on the eyes doesn’t hurt either. The early stages of most relationships are blissful; it’s the latter episodes when things sour. Once you really learn who a person is and how they think and respond to things. When they start to aggravate you with their mundane rituals, that’s when one has to decide if the pros outweigh the cons and it’s worth the trouble.
Mary is only seventeen; she isn’t even fully developed, mentally, psychologically. What I mean is that a person transforms throughout their lifetime with experiences and the wisdom that comes along with those experiences. She may not be the same person in five years. Maybe that’s looking too far into the future, but these kids are making major life decisions with little or no thought, acting on impulse and emotion. Not a good move.

If I were Ned I would like to consult Maury Povich on one of his DNA “Baby Daddy” Episodes. Mary seems to be a little on the promiscuous side. At seventeen she has a baby with a married man and seduces Ned in a single night without even knowing his middle name.

“In the case of Ned Kelly and Marry Hearns… Ned you are ______the father.”

"the passing of the torch..."

throughout the story there seemed to be this parallel of sorts not only between Ned and Harry Powers, but also between Mary Hearn and Ned's mother. the similarities between Ned and Harry Powers has been previously discussed in class on several occasions pertaining to whether or not one views Ned as a hero or villain. i dont want to go back into the particulars as to whether or not he is or isn't a villain/ hero, but rather focus on the comparisons of Ned's and Mary's relationship relative to that of Harry Powers and his mother. the first two people i want to focus on is Ned's mother and Mary. Although Ned thinks highly of his mother, it is known that she is basically prostituting herself and running an illegal alcohol business out of her home in order to provide for her children. although some may say that she was simply doing what she had to do, it is still, in my opinion, indicative of a not so respectable woman. when Ned is first introduced to Mary by Fitzpatrick in the story, he brings her a dress, which she gladly takes, and later on we see that her and Ned end up having sex. something that immediately comes to mind as a parallel is when Harry Powers would bring Ned's mother dresses and other gifts, which would then be followed by sex, as evidenced by Ned remarking of seeing "a mans feet sticking out from under the covers" when he awoke the next morning. it also comes out later in the story that Mary Hearn not only has a child, but the child's father is a married man, which she knew all along. this speaks volumes of her character in my opinion and her and Ned's mother can clearly be placed into the same category. also there seems to be comparison made by Ned about he & Harry Potters prices on their heads. Ned almost seems to brag about the fact that there was only a 500lb pricetag on the head of Harry Powers, while he himself had a pricetag of 800lbs. (pg.286) this seems to signify the "passing of the torch" from harry to Ned, as if to imply that because there is a higher price tag on his head, that he has surpassed Harry's previous notoriety. one simple aspect that i wanted to address is the general shift in the story. once, Ned's mother and Harry are both imprisoned, we never really focus on them anymore except for the occasional mention that Ned makes of wanting to get her out. the rest of the story seems to focus on the relationship of Mary and Ned. because of the previously mentioned similarities between the four characters, this is why i feel that Ned's mother has been replaced by Mary and Ned himself has taken the place of Harry Powers. another reason that Mary has surpassed Ned's mother is because she manages to overcome her enviroment and make it to america where we are led to believe that she is doing fine. this is in direct comparision to Ned's mother who never makes it out her impoverished circumstances. although i say "passing of the torch" im not implying any continuence of sorts, because we learn that Ned is killed in the end, which is certainly not something that is to be esteemed, but the fact that he achieved and even surpassed the infamy of the once acclaimed bush ranger Harry Powers, shows that Harry is old news and Ned is what "hot" so to speak.

Blog Comment Summary

There were two topics in particular that Group A seemed to have a good deal of interest in after reading Group B's posts and discussing certain aspects of this book in class. The first popular topic was whether or not Ned Kelly was a hero. Both Holly and Caroline commented on Allen's post and agreed that it doesn't really matter if Ned is hero or a villain. Holly states that we can't know Ned to be a hero or otherwise since he's the narrator, and Caroline wonders what the true definition of a "hero" really is. In a different comment, Ashley also subscribes to the belief that Ned is neither hero nor villain. Abby and Julie, on the other hand, posted comments proclaiming Harry Power as the criminal and Ned as the hero.



The second major theme in this past week's blog comments was the examination of Ned's morals and actions. Preethi, Jasmine, Ryan, and Madolyn all agree that Ned has a strong moral code that he has stuck to throughout the book. Preethi questions the credibility of his report about his morals and actions, stating that he might be curbing the truth to look good for his daughter. Jasmine sticks by Ned (and Mrs. Kelly), commending him for being true to his beliefs. Both Ryan and Madolyn feel that Ned is morally sound, but might still fall victim to bad deeds based on his situation.



Aside from these two major themes, there are several more comments that do not fall into either of the first two categories. Kristel commented on Morgan's post and agreed upon the importance of horses in this novel and stated that they were a symbol of social status for the characters. Robert asserted that Ned was not trying to be political or start a war, he simply wanted to protect his family. Maria agrees with Jamie's post and speculates about Ned's relationship (or lack thereof) with his daughter. Craw disputes the assertion that Ned is a fool, stating that he simply sees the best in people.

Some of the main themes of last week’s blog post are as follows:
Significance of Horses: Morgan brought up a good point about the significance of the horses. She explores how vital the horses are to the lives of Ned and his family. They sometimes seem as if they are more important than money. People are fined or jailed numerous times in the book in relation with the horses. Ned states that “it were them horses that slowly brung [him] back to life God has made no other creature so beautiful there is no feeling to equal the surging of a good horse galloping across the plains”(133). This is a very spectacular statement in regards to something that walks on four legs and eats hay.
Hero or Villain?: Allen suggests that it does not matter whether Ned Kelly is a hero or villain and there would be no way of distinguishing him as either. But what we do know is that Ned Kelly has participated in some illegal acts including, killing someone’s cow, shooting Bill Frost and luring people into a trap with the police. This does not necessarily make Ned immoral. It also does not make him a hero. Either way, this question should not affect the reading of this novel. We see a specific turning point in Ned’s character. David points out that after Ned is released from prison, it seems as if he has decided to live a more peaceful life (save his feelings toward Wright) until Dan is threatened by Cons Flood. Then, despite the opposition of his mother, he decides to steal Whitty’s horse and risk going to jail again. David pointed out a good fact that Ned did not avenge his own sufferings at the hands of the police but put his freedom on the line for his family.
Ned’s Luck with Women: Jamie points out an important topic of Ned’s love life. She highlights the statement Ned makes about never kissing a girl even though he is old enough to be a married man. It is important to remember that this novel is written as a story to his daughter. This then stirs up questions about her mother and what the relationship was like between the two of them. Thus far we have seen interaction between Ned and two female counterparts (Caitlin and Mary.) Jamie then goes on to point out the impact of his parents on his love life. His parents are not exactly parents of the year being that Ned’s father was in trouble with the law and his mother was a prostitute.
Morals: This, in a way, goes back to what I summarized about the “Hero/Villain” complex. His morals are what seem to make him into the character that we either love or hate. Roman brings up an excellent point about Ned’s ethics. “Is Ned Kelly’s ethical behavior, within himself, which would make him a much stronger hero, or is merely a reflection of his belief that what he has been taught?” Roman suggests that the latter would imply that he was dependent upon the ideas-thoughts-concepts of others rather than his own, which makes the individuality aspect of his character much less admirable.

Blog Summary 9/24

In the posts for this week, there are a variety of different themes but one reoccurring point is Ned’s morality and values. Roman brought up the question of whether Ned’s morals were based on his own convictions or rather those of his mother and what was expected from his Irish heritage. He asked if anyone had seen any examples of Ned actually depending on his own ethical standards, without the influence of anyone else. David mentions how Ned’s desire to avenge the sufferings of his family’s when they are threatened sheds a positive light on Ned’s character. This brings out the idea that Ned does have morals and convictions and, though they get him in trouble with the law, he is not necessarily a bad person. A good quote from Batman: “Ned begins to fit the cast of a person who is legally a criminal, yet has his own peculiar moral code that dictates the crimes he commits.”
 

The idea of Ned being a hero or a villain comes into question several times. Ned was compared to both Voldemort from Harry Potter by Allen and Darth Vader by ReadingJusticeX.  This correlates with the discussion of Ned’s morals. Some students seem to think highly of Ned’s convictions, despite how they often get him involved with the law, yet others see them as a slippery slope that will eventually lead to a destructive ending. 

Has Ned transitioned from being a hero to a villain?  ReadingJusticeX talked about how Ned’s character was sliding down a slippery slope that placed him in a more villainous light. Yet is there darkness within Ned, or is it just hardness and bitterness from his circumstances? In this same vein, Allen brings up a point that it doesn’t matter whether Ned is a hero or a villain; it should not affect the way we read the novel. 

Another theme of the blog posts was the naivety of Ned. Batman went as far as to call Ned a fool for how he interacted with his situations. He doesn’t really seem to see his situations or their potential consequences for how they really are.  Matt talks about the sympathy he has for Ned because of how easily he is tricked and manipulated by others. Ned trusts others too much and that gets him in trouble; his innocence is dwindling.

Ned Kelly's Morals

In our class discussions, a main focus has been our attempt to categorize Ned as good or evil, as villainous or heroic. While it is tempting to pick a side on this issue, I think that we should look at it from a less absolute point of view. Rather than seeing Ned as simply good or evil, we should examine his moral values closely and individually. In doing so we can find that Ned certainly has a strong sense of morals, but he is forced to adapt them to the life he lives and use them in ways that may be unusual, but certainly not villainous.

Ned’s family values remain central to his moral composition throughout the book, and he adamantly defends his family in several ways, allowing us to examine how his morals adapt as he matures. At an early age, Ned seems intent on preserving his family pride. When Patchy Moran, who was much bigger than Ned at the time, slanders his father, Ned takes on a bravery and aggression that we only see in him when his family is being threatened. Later in the book, he takes on the role of the father himself, and feels it is his duty to provide for his family in a more material way. He tries to take care of his mother’s land so that he can ensure that she and his siblings are comfortable and well fed. If anything threatens his family, whether it is hunger or his mother’s lover, Ned does not think twice about doing whatever he has to do to stop it. Finally, the books opening lines, and the fact that Ned’s intended audience is his daughter, show his love for his family and his fatherly affection. We first see this side of Ned’s love for his family when Grace is born, and he says “I held our precious baby in my arms her eyes so clear and untroubled. She looked me frankly in the face and I loved her as if she were my very own” (27). Comparing the way that Ned thought of his sister when he was 11 with the way he speaks to his daughter as he writes the book shows that his affection and love for his family has not changed.

For these reasons, it doesn’t seem that Ned’s morals deteriorate or alter in their core values, but they do become more realistic. He realizes that, as an Irishman living in Australia, living an honest farmer’s life is nearly impossible, and certainly won’t keep him out of trouble with the police. This realization doesn’t effect a change in his morals, however, it simply causes some of his values to take precedent over others. For example, he shoots Bill Frost not because he wants to, but because Harry tricks him into believing that that is the only way he can defend his mother’s honor. Ned never abandons any of his moral values; instead, he realizes that, in the environment that he lives in, he will sometimes be forced to choose one of his values over another.

My Little Pony

We've yet to discuss the significance of the horses in this book, though there is probably some mention of them on almost every page. Its obvious that they are more than work animals or a form of transportation. For many of the characters, especially Ned, they are a measure of a man's worth, and at times, seem to be more important than money.There are countless times in the book where people are jailed or fined over offenses related to horses, or are unable to carry on their livelihoods with out a horse. When discussing the herd that Tom Lloyd was assembling, Ned notes that "it were them horses that slowly brung [him] back to life God has made no other creature so beautiful there is no feeling to equal the surging of a good horse galloping across the plains (181)." It is important to mention that this is the point in the story in which he was hell-bent on finding Wild Wright and fighting him. In this instance, the horses serve as a type of therapeutic relief from the stress of his daily life.
Many of the good memories that Ned speaks of involve horses. There are many times in the book where he talks about his mother and makes a note about how wonderful riding skills. On page 180, we see that he also uses horses as a way of bonding with her. He describes how they like to talk about horse breeds and their bloodlines. Ned also has a relationship with Harry Power's horse Daylight that is comparable to one that he would have with a sibling. On pages 133-135, he reminisces about his travels with the horse, and the prank that Daylight had played on him by running away the night before. He describes the horses actions in such vivid detail that one might think him a person instead of an animal. It seems that in Ned's world, horses are just as important as people.

Harry Power is a manipulator/user and must be overcome by Ned

At the start of the novel, it was widely thought that harry power would take Ned Kelly under his wing and mold him into a bushranger. This is absolutely true. Mrs. Kelly gave Harry Power 15 quid to take Ned and show him the ropes. The funny thing about this situation is that Harry Power does not need money especially money from someone so poor. Harry can easily stick up some rich people, but the point is that he took the money as respect for Mrs. Kelly because he was fond of her or at least in earlier part of the novel. However, we learn on page 88 that Harry is getting it on with a landlady at some establishment. It seems like these women to Harry were only used for when he got tired of robbing people and decided to take a break. We don't know how many other women Harry has this relationship with but at least he doesn't feel anything special for Mrs. Kelly. We see Harry using Ned too when Ned thought he had really killed Bill Frost. Ned became almost like a willing servant to Harry because he thought Harry is the only one who can save him, yet we learn that Bill did not die from R.R. McBean. Harry took advantage of Ned's weakness and used him as a slave. In fact, Harry Power has only shown how much he is a villain and not some folk hero who steals from the rich and gives to the poor. His only concern is his best interests. Ned is in his early 20s now, yet he is still not a man. He is too trustworthy of others. I think that Ned will have to kill Harry Power before he can become a real bushranger.

This is Greta!

Just as King Leonidas led his men to fight the Persian forces, a task which required the ultimate sacrifice, Ned has chosen to do the same against his oppressors. Leonidas and Kelly know that if the corrupt dictators go unchallenged and unpunished they will continue their treachery and further the suffering of their people. Granted the Spartans never faced the harsh treatment the Irish did, they very well would have if they had offered the gift of “land and water” to Xerxes. The foundation of my argument is that the two protagonists are doing something necessary for the survival of their people. They are aware of the potential dangers and realize they may die in their efforts. They want to show their individual societies that “it can be done”, if the oppressed unite and act as one against injustice.
Ned didn’t want it to come to this. He was satisfied manifesting all his shortcomings and misfortunes into his anger towards Wild Wright, using the fight as a cathartic means for all his frustrations (188). But the Cons and the Squatters continue to pour it on, until he can’t take it anymore. They stole his horses, they beat up his brother, they get his sister pregnant then she dies, his baby sister dies, Jem’s bald and hurting, his dad’s dead, everyone’s accusing him of stealing livestock, his mama’s rocking the cradle, there’s too much going on in Ned’s head. It’s time for some action.
So now Ned is going to fight a battle he is destined to loose but his intention is to create a war his people will win

He Were in Love Like a Bushranger With His Gelding

We know from the first sentence of the novel that the premise on which Ned Kelly is writing is as a father relating his life story to his daughter; yet, we are 169 pages into the novel and still have not heard much of anything about Ned’s romantic life. Because Ned is writing down, in detail, everything about his immediate and extended family and significant events in his life (including his emotional respond to them), it can be assumed that this father/daughter relationship was not a close or intimate one (as he has apparently never shared any of this with her before). This raises the question of how Ned came to have a daughter. Was she a product of a sexual escapade that mirrors Ned’s nomadic, unstable lifestyle as a bushranger? Or does Ned eventually mature sexually and fall in love?
At this point in the story, Ned sees himself as a man, but recognizes that he has been lacking experience on the subject of romance. “…my last hope of youth was stripped away I had never kissed a girl but were old enough to be a married man” (168). Peter Carey offers the reader only a few tidbits of information about Ned’s possible love interest/marriage. He foreshadows that the location of his daughter’s conception would be at Eleven Mile Creek (50) and references the meeting of himself and his daughter’s mother (“…it were [Alex Fitzpatrick] who introduced me to your mother” (150)). Additionally, we get a glimpse of the sole interaction (thus far) between Ned and a female interest as he spends time with Caitlin when he is waiting to be reunited with Harry Power at the “human boy substitute’s” home (112). Her impact on him is seen in his hesitance to leave without a proper farewell, reasoning that “I suppose it were the girl that done it to me” (114).
If it turns out that Ned does not end up a married man or settling into a fatherly role in the typical family homestead, I believe this may have a lot to do with the influence of his parents’ unstable relationship. Throughout his childhood, Ned is receiving an extremely distorted view of what marriage and love really are, as his mother was dreading the return of his alcoholic from jail (34). Furthermore, after the death of Ned’s father, his mother engages in prostitution and is financially dependent on a myriad of suitors. Despite this, however, I personally believe that Ned has the capacity to overcome this influence and develop a true affection for someone (although perhaps his lifestyle as a criminal/bushranger may, in the end, prohibit the formation of a stable marriage). In contrast with his often rough exterior, Ned has exhibited his ability to be tender and affectionate (most notably perhaps in aiding with the birth of his sister (27) and in dealing with his female siblings in general), which could eventually be translated into a romantic relationship.

The Basis of Ethical Behaviour in Ned Kelley

A question I have been considering as reading this book thus far is the origin of the ethical character that I believe we agree Kelley had as a child, and that (at least) I believe he still has.

In class, we considered the influence of a socially constructed ethic distributed throughout the Irish community and through his family, and I believe I brought up the possibility of Kelley’s mother being a significant source of pressure on Kelley’s ethics.  My question is whether the source of Kelley’s ethical behaviour is within himself, which would make him a much stronger hero, or is merely a reflection of his belief that what he has been taught to be good is good.  This would imply that he was dependent upon the ideas-thoughts-concepts of others rather than his own, which makes the individuality aspect of his character much less admirable. 

A strong example of the prominence of the socially constructed ethic is found on page 144.  When Mrs. Kelley is asked by Hare & Nicholson why she would not accept a monetary bribe, she answers “Then you’re as ignorant as a heap of dog manure.”  I believe the fact that she responds with an ad hominem, while implying the answer is very obvious, points to the fact that she really does not understand why she does not accept the bribe, struck by the slap to what she believes an immutable truth, not a self determined ethical standard.  If that is true, the answer to Hare & Nicholson is indeed dead simple.  She does it because she is Irish, born and bred.

Two lines of dialogue later, the characters in that conversation discuss the importance of a parent’s example on the children, ethically.  They seem to all agree it is very important.

However, when Mrs. Kelley marries the American, Kelley shows a variance in ethical standards between him and his mother by refusing to play along with his horse theft plans.  Mrs. Kelley’s response, of how tough life was for her, implies that she is going against her ethics because of necessity of support, albeit a concept of lesser ethical importance that traitor-ness, so perhaps while Kelley shows the shouldering of an ethical burden instead of depending on his mother, he is still following the ethical standard she taught him earlier.

What I don’t see, however, is a parallel situation where I can judge whether Kelley values his own ethical opinion above that of either Irish /family ideology or necessity, which we see gouvern his mother.  Has anyone seen anything of that sort in the text?

>.>… I mean Kelly >.<

Hero or Villain and Why It Really Doesn't Matter

I've spent almost an hour now sitting in class listening to people discuss whether Ned Kelly is a hero or a villain, and what that means, and how it is defined, etc. I am here to say that it doesn't matter whether he is a hero or villain and that there would be no way of pegging him as either one.

I'll start with the fact that he is the protagonist and that we have been given a fairly good explanation of his childhood or lack there of. Ned is portrayed as a character that is relatable, he is human. We see bits and pieces of our own moral struggles within his story. Because of this he could blow up all of Australia and we would still Be nothing more than disappointed in his poor decision making. It would be very hard for the book to convince us, at this point, that he is evil. Using Harry Potter as a parallel, in the 6th book, we are told all about Voldemort's past, however, it is very clear from the beginning that Voldemort is evil. He hurt animals as a child, manipulated other children, etc. We do not see him as something human, we cannot relate to him in any way. Ned Kelly may never appear to be the villain in our eyes because of the way the book has presented him from the start.

This does not mean that he cannot be a criminal and it also doesn't make him a hero. He has done plenty of things that were illegal (though not necessarily immoral) and while he seldom does things that are immoral he is never punished for the immoral things when he does do them (shooting Bill Frost, killing someone else's cow, luring people into a trap with the police). The police on the other hand are portrayed as being very immoral, assuming they even have morals.

As far as the whole Robin Hood figure thing goes, at this point in the story it seems like that may be a bit of folklore and exaggeration. Is he a good person? Yes, he seems like he has very set morals and that he usually follows them. Is he a hero or a villain? No, and whether he is or isn't should not affect the reading of this novel.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Location:Raleigh St,Chapel Hill,United States

Is Ned Kelly but a fool?

Ned Kelly is unbelievably naïve and lacks the ability to empathize with a situation that isn’t his own. This fact is made rather clear as we see the decisions he makes. During his imprisonment, he refuses to believe the young officer when he tells Kelly about the police’s habit of mistreating people after they have served their purpose. I’m not sure why he wouldn’t believe the man, especially considering what he had seen of the police earlier in the book. All clues suggested that the police where selfish and corrupt especially the way they had treated Ned’s family. They had been going to his mother every morning to find Ned and Harry, with no regard for her family or its wishes.

After he gets out of prison he seems surprised by his aunt’s betrayal, and can’t seem to understand why someone would sell out their family for 500 pounds. Allow me to repeat: he doesn’t understand why a few poor people would betray the family’s moral code for 500 pounds (a huge sum for the time) when they know they won’t get caught. This begins to explain Ned’s development into whatever he becomes in the later pages of the book. He begins to fit that cast of a person who is legally a criminal, yet has his own peculiar moral code that dictates what crimes he commits (see: Mel Gibson in the Mad Max series). His aunt blames Harry’s capture on Ned, which ruins his relations with his family at first, but then just his extended family.

He gets a job with the police because no one in the area would hire a traitor, and during this job he gets taunted as well as threatened by the Quinns who the constable offers to throw in jail if Ned can bring them back to the police station. During the trial to determine the Quinn’s sentence, Ned tries to foolishly reveal the constable’s plan to imprison these two men, and the judge will have none of it. For some reason young Ned thought his pubescent word would carry weight in a British court against a British employee. Instead he loses face with both his family (for getting the Quinns in trouble) and his tentative alliance with the police is destroyed. Prison time follows, and hopefully his ridiculous time in prison will lead to some maturation.

The turning point

Prior to his three year imprisonment in Pentridge Gaol, Ned’s association with Harry Powers had gotten Ned in prison several times. After his second imprisonment, he tries to stay away from trouble, even working for the police. However, an attempt to help his friend Wright makes him in trouble with the police again. Constable Hall lies at court, causing Ned to be unjustly imprisoned for three years on the charges of stealing a horse that was not yet legally stolen. After his release, it was interesting to note that Ned’s experience in jail would continue to affect him as he tries to stay away from trouble and Eleven Mile Creek as much as possible. (180) Instead of hating the police and attempting to have revenge, he actually fears the police and only turns his anger towards Wright. For the next two years of his life, Ned lives a peaceful life, always avoiding the police instead of being bitter towards the police force. Despite all the injustice done towards him, Ned never attempted to avenge himself. His whole peaceful life is driven both by a fear of being put to jail and a chance to live a lawful life free from trouble.

However, Dan is threatened by Cons Flood and Ned immediately leaves his peaceful life in response to Cons Flood’s threats. He is willing to steal Whitty’s horses despite the possibility of being put to jail, an action he would never undertake during those two years of peace. It also is ironic how Ned’s mother completely opposes Ned’s desire to steal horses. (200) Before his three-year imprisonment, it was his mother who wanted Ned to steal the horses and it was Ned who had opposed the idea, not wanting to do anything unlawful. This time, it is Ned who plans to steal the horses and it is his mother, who had been much affected by his imprisonment, who begs him not to. She never pleads for her husband, George King, to stop stealing horses and yet she begs Ned not to. The obvious reason for her seemingly contradictory reactions is that she cannot bear to see her son in jail again. This seems to indicate that Ned’s imprisonment had a much more lasting effect on his mother than it had on him. The reason for Ned’s sudden desire to break the law when his brother comes riding to his sawmill though he had been trying to stay away from all possible trouble only minutes before is very simple-to avenge all the sufferings his family had endured. He never really bothered to avenge his own sufferings at the hands of the police but when his family is threatened, he immediately reacts. This sheds much light on Ned’s character. As an individual, he ultimately desires to leave a peaceful life away from trouble and the police. However, he is immediately willing to cast this all aside whenever he feels like his family is threatened.

From Anakin to Darth Vader: A Progression in Ned Kelly's Character

In the beginning of this novel Ned Kelly was a father, provider, and a hero to us all. In the beginning of the book we see that at an early age that it was his "job to replace the father" (41). Ned seems to be the upstanding guy that every story needs. To me Ned was someone that I was rooting for to face, and overcome, all the obstacles that stood in his way from achieving happiness. The author, Peter Carey, skillfully puts us in the mindset that Ned is the one that we can rely on in this novel. Unfortunately as the book begins to progress, so do the characteristics of our valiant Ned Kelly. With the introduction to Harry Power I believe that Carey begins placing our hero down a very slippery slope, that will soon show our hero turning into the dastardly villain that we all have been hesitant to admit to seeing the characteristics of. I believe that Harry Powers purpose within this novel is to somehow unlock, or push, the moral boundaries that have been set for our protagonist. Taking under the wing of a Bushranger not only showed me that Ned's morals could be shaken, but that there was actually some sort of darkness within him that would allow the silence/destruction of his own conscious. Now in the current parts of the book we see that our hero has taken aid, and befriended, the police within his local community. The very people that beat, embarrassed, and incarcerated him and his family members are now the ones that he looks to for help (part 6). I can not help but see that Ned has fully broken down and accepted the hands of the dark side as his friend. I could see him under the wings of the Bushranger, but becoming teammates for the side that we as the reader were rooting against I believe to be inexcusable. My prediction is that our hero will not be a hero in our eyes much longer. The transition from Anakin to Darth Vader is a quick one.

Ned's Growing Up

As we have already seen, Ned Kelly is a static character. He is constantly changing throughout the novel. This is especially evident through the exploration of masculinity with in the novel. At the start of the story, when Ned is just a child, we are introduced to very concrete ideas of what it means to be a man: strength, violence, etc. Throughout our more recent readings, we have been introduced to more abstract ideas of masculinity, as Ned begins to grow up, through the idea of the man providing for his family, the act of owning up to your own responsibilities (pg. 135), and the taboo placed on selling people out. The contrast between Ned's character and characters such as the Quinn's and the McCormick's (pg. 166) continue to portray Ned as an epitome of masculinity.

In my anthropology class we discussed the idea of becoming an adult being more defined on cultural terms, rather than on a more general scale. Taking on this perspective, and looking at True History as a coming of age novel, we see that Ned Kelly experiences a series of events, and undergoes changes that aid in his development as a human being. Knowing that he will become an infamous bushranger, we are still able to see truly virtuous and admirable traits in Ned. I think that a different background and upbringing would have lead Ned down a better path. Going back to the "coming of age" idea, It seems that Australian culture, during this specific time period, defined "adulthood" in very different terms than we do in modern American Society. The focus on physical strength in the novel definitely makes it seem like things such as chopping down a certain number of trees in a day, being able to build a fence/dig fence posts, play a large role in reaching adulthood.

A Break in Ned's Character?

I was very surprised while reading parcel 6 to find the first true break in Ned's morals. We have discussed lengthily in class how, even though they are not the same morals we use, Ned always operates off of a firm, unwavering notion of what's right and what's wrong. I had assumed up until this point that become involved with the corrupt regime of policemen and government-funded slackers that rule his world would be an inviolable law in Ned's books. However, after he is unable to find employment, Ned reluctantly decides to work for Constable Hall and crew. I acknowledge the reluctance with which he accepts this position, but still feel shocked that he would even consider joining forces with the police officers, even to build a fence.
I was willing to excuse this on the basis that Ned really did need a job and no one else would hire him, but then Ned uses police protection to win a fight with his uncles! At the suggestion of his new "friend," Constable Hall, Ned starts a fight at the pub and then runs back to the police station. When he gets there, Constable Hall tells Ned to go hide in the back while he finishes the fight - this is the Constable Hall who is normally "caged in his office by his own fear" (159) - and Ned obeys the order. I don't know if Carey put this part in the novel because he knew at one point the real Kelly worked for the police and he had to work it in, or if he had other motivations, but I felt majorly let down by our outlaw-hero while reading this account. Hiding behind policemen? I'm ashamed of Ned.

Blog Summary and Discussion Questions

Blog Summary and Discussion Notes 9/22/10

As a class we are very focused on the nature vs. nurture argument that presents with any criminal case, but especially in a case like Ned Kelly’s. Holly led a strong charge for the nurture side in her post, claiming that if Ned had been raised in different circumstances, especially if he had not been sold to Harry Power, he would have become a better man. Thomas, however, felt that the upbringing Ned received was at least an average one – his parent’s instilled in him a sense of morals and family, and his dad taught him how to survive in a harsh world. Roman feels that, given the nature of the society Ned was in, he actually did grow up to be the most contributive member possible – by breaking the law.

The society of Australia at the time is starting to occupy a distinctive form on our blog. As Yu pointed out, the horrid conditions that the poor, like the Kelly’s, live in play a major role in their identities and life choices. Status and wealth, as Morgan and Ashley relate, are closely tied to land. Having land means having the ability to support oneself away from the government. It represents the real life implementation of the do-it-yourself masculine ideal we discussed at length in class. The fact that Ned spends his entire childhood lusting after any land he can get, and pouring his sweat and blood into the unyielding soil of his family’s selection, but then ends up becoming a nomadic bushranger is both a large irony and a serious cause of his hatred for the government.

The true Nature of Ned’s character is a point of curiosity for our group. The beginning of the book and our limited knowledge of Australian history paint Ned as the most law-defying and dangerous outlaw to exist in a country originally populated by criminals. However, the first handful of parcels reveal many softer sides of his nature. His interactions with his siblings, especially his younger sisters, his vows to protect his mother, and the incident with the young boy in the river, all point to a kind and morally sound individual. Carey will do his best in this novel to make us fall in love with an outlaw, and I am very curious to see if any of us manage to resist.

Questions for discussion on unblogged section (approximately parcels 3,4,5,6)

Is Harry Power a real criminal? We mentioned how he is not always feared by those he arrests. However, how about the way he acts with Bill Frost? And what about the way he tricks Ned into thinking he’s a murderer when you can tell it’s eating Ned up on the inside?

Ned is “unable to kill” (132) at multiple places in the book. He has the opportunity to kill both Frost and Power at times when he hates them both, but he doesn’t. Where does he draw the line? What do you think will lead him to kill in the future?

Propriety – Ned can’t let Tom Lloyd go to prison for his own failings, so he gives himself up. On the other hand, he refuses money, the thing his family needs most of all, so as not to be a traitor. We know how much he loves his family, so what does this say? What would you guys do in that situation?

Ned “befriends” a couple of policemen in these parcels. What do you think about his relationship to Fitzpatrick? What about his relationship to Constable Hall? Can any policeman be trusted in this world? What do you think about Ned’s ability to trust a policeman even after everything he’s seen happen in his life? Is he too trusting?