Gregory by Panos Ioannides - Book Report/Review Example

Literary Research Paper The wars in Greece have a tendency in other parts of the world to fall out of notice, despite the tremendous brutality and bloodshed they engender. This is particularly noticeable in the lack of much information in the West regarding the history of the island and its inhabitants or serious study into the literature and arts of recent (last 100 years) producers. While these wars and smaller-labeled ‘uprisings’ have had impact on world events, often pulling in stronger countries such as the United States, Great Britain and until only recently the nations of the Soviet Union, the chaos and violence that occur as a result have long-lasting, often life or death, consequences for those who have taken part (Stern, 1975). Although racial tensions between the Turks and the Cypriots have always proven difficult to manage, which is highlighted in the short story “Gregory” written by Panos Ioannides in 1963, the choices made by the individuals within the short story serve to indicate that these tensions might not have reached such violent proportions had a few different choices been made on either side. The short story itself is simple enough to summarize. A narrator soldier tells his thoughts and feelings as he follows his orders and performs his duty. The tension involved in this job is revealed from the beginning lines of the story, “My hand was sweating as I held the pistol. The curve of the trigger was biting against my finger” (648). Although he has obviously held a pistol before, the concept that his hand is sweating around it indicates that either he is in a very warm climate or the presence of the pistol is creating a strong conflict within the man holding it. That the latter interpretation is probably correct is immediately reinforced by the idea that the trigger was ‘biting’ against his finger, fighting against him, injuring him and making him decidedly uncomfortable. The task he faces is made difficult not only because his orders are to execute another man, difficult enough in itself, but also because the man he is ordered to execute is an innocent, a friend and a man who had saved the narrator’s life only a few days earlier. In trying to relate the difficulty of the task in front of him, the narrator illustrates the various aspects of both his own life as the unit’s designated executioner and what that has done to his own psyche, but also the aspects of Gregory’s life that make it so difficult for the narrator to squeeze the trigger. Most of these attributes were brought about based upon individual decisions made by each man over the course of several days or perhaps even weeks or months. The executioner has earned his title through a series of similar cases in which his unit was ordered by Headquarters to kill a particular hostage as retribution for the murder of a soldier from his side. Throughout the story, Ioannides is careful not to provide identifying clues as to which side either soldier serves so as to increase not only the audience base, but also to bring into focus the concept that this is a natural process of war and can happen to any soldier in any war. While it was not necessarily a task he had selected for himself, “It was not the first time that I had to execute a hostage in this war. I had acquired experience, thanks to Headquarters which had kept entrusting me with these delicate assignments, Gregory’s case was precisely the sixth” (648), his ability to complete the job undoubtedly ensured he was continually selected as the designated hit man. “Even though the soldier was given the order to execute the prisoners, it was his choice to act them out” (Eulo, 2007). However, just because he could do it didn’t mean his decision to follow through on his orders left him unscathed. As he tells his readers, “The first time, I remember, I vomited. The second time I got sick and had a headache for days. The third time I drank a bottle of rum. The fourth just two glasses of beer. The fifth time I joked about it, ‘This little guy, with the big pop-eyes, won’t be much of a ghost!’” (648). While these statements indicate the narrator had felt a profound sense of guilt at his cold-bloodedly murdering another man, particularly one that is unarmed and surrounded by enemy soldiers and therefore has both no means of escape and no friendly faces to give him a helping hand or brave face, they also indicate that he was becoming hardened to his task and feeling perhaps less than human in his ability to see others as little more than objective objects he had to deal with. However, evidence remains that a sense of guilt continued to nag at him even then, as he tries to ignore his fears of ghosts returning to haunt him throughout the rest of his life. Although the other soldiers that had been executed are presented as little more than a catalog list of the executions the narrator has performed, with only one taking on any true human proportions, there is much that distinguishes Gregory and this execution as something completely different. Already, the reader has much more information about Gregory than they have been given about any of the other executions this unnamed narrator has mentioned. There is a name and a brief description of his stoic expression as he faces the executioner’s gun. “Facing me, Gregory trembled. His whole being was beseeching me, ‘Don’t!’ Only his mouth did not make a sound. His lips were squeezed tight. If it had been me, I would have screamed, shouted, cursed” (648). This juxtaposition of Gregory’s reaction to what the executioner felt his own reaction would have been indicates a strong core to this other soldier, an unwavering courage that is lacking in the narrator himself. This concept is also highlighted by the narrator as he faces his victim, “But why, dammit, when the day came did I have to start thinking that I’m not so tough after all? The thought had come at exactly the wrong time and spoiled all my disposition to do my duty” (648). The decision to follow his orders and execute Gregory is shown to cause a severe mental crisis on the part of the narrator as he finds his sense of friendship, loyalty and duty to protect the innocent are all violated by this single act of violence. Gregory, perhaps intentionally named after the great Pope from Cyprus who managed to avert war in many instances (“Gregory II”, 2007), epitomizes the idea of a true innocent in battle while also upholding the shared bonds and responsibilities of friendship toward his captors. His innocence is demonstrated in many ways, such as in his repeated failure to try to escape from those who are fated to murder him: “He was a silly fool – we had smelled that out the very first day Headquarters gave him to us. The sentry guarding him had got dead drunk and had dozed off. The rest of us with exit permits had gone from the barracks. When we came back, there was Gregory sitting by the sleeping sentry and thumbing through a magazine” (648). While the soldiers consider this to be incredibly stupid, Gregory himself proves to be quite practical in his decision, “Where would I go in this freezing weather? … The barracks where I used to be are like a sieve. The wind blows in from every side” (648). In finding comfort in such hostile circumstances, Gregory displays not only a deep innocence regarding his precarious situation, but also a loving and forgiving heart in that he does not consider the soldiers around him to be enemies. Even on the day before his death, he is given yet another chance to escape by being sent to the river to do laundry alone while the rest of the camp met to discuss whether there was any way to avoid carrying out their orders. He chooses not to escape because he is content where he is and believes he is in the company of friends. In addition to his general innocence regarding the rules of war, Gregory fails to recognize his danger because he considers himself to be in the company of good friends. He tells them, “Those who eat from the same mess tins and drink from the same water canteen … remain good friends no matter what” (648). His numerous good services to the men further warm him to their hearts as he makes them a tasty dessert, sews their clothing for them and does their laundry. As he tells them about his girl back home, the problems he has had with his mother and other family members, the enemy soldiers begin to realize that Gregory and his people are actually not quite so different from themselves as they had thought: “We used to listen and nod our heads, not saying a word. But sometimes, as he was telling us about his mother and family problems, we couldn’t help wondering, ‘Eh, well, these people have the same headaches in their country as we’ve got’” (649). In this interchange, it is difficult to see Gregory as a prisoner instead of a fellow comrade in arms as he talks easily and freely with the other guys. He devoutly believes in the bonds of friendship and brotherhood making it difficult or impossible for him to take seriously the deadly rules of war. “The decisions Gregory made affected the soldiers that he befriended and had a negative and final impact on his life” (Eulo, 2007). As a result of his choice for friendship over war, Gregory dies in the betrayal of those beliefs he held most high. As a result of his decisions to stay and to befriend the soldiers, the order to execute Gregory has a rather more profound effect upon the men in the enemy camp than others who have gone before. Most of the others are able to distance themselves somewhat from the action, “Well, of course. The right thing to do is to save your skin. That’s only logical. It’s either your skin or his” (649). They have the luxury of placing everything on the emotionless objectified footing of a logical equation. However, the narrator of the story has the additional burden of knowing that, had it not been for Gregory, he would most likely be, at the very least, a very sick man right now following the sting of a scorpion. Although he recognizes Gregory’s actions for what they are, the true-natured actions of a good friend, he cannot accept this because of what it means of his own character in his decision to carry out his orders. “Now, Mr. Gregory, you are going to pay for your stupidities wholesale. Because you didn’t escape the day the sentry fell asleep; because you didn’t escape yesterday when we sent you all alone to the laundry – we did it on purpose, you idiot! Why didn’t you let me die from the sting of the scorpion?” (650). The narrator is not so much angry at Gregory, but at himself. He cannot disobey his orders but neither can he completely face the concept of what he is about to do. Had it not been for Gregory, he wouldn’t even be alive to carry out the execution orders. “The result of his actions affected him physically and mentally. The negative effect of the decision changed his attitude and the way he viewed the world around him forever” (Eulo, 2007). The narrator is so confused about his own actions that he can’t even fire off a straight shot, only managing to wound Gregory twice before emptying the barrel into him as he collapsed forward, clutching at the narrator’s legs. Toward the end of the story, the narrator tells his readers, “His hands were frozen and wouldn’t let my legs go. I still have their imprints, red and deep, as if made by a hot knife” (650). This statement reveals not only the length of time it took before the soldiers became fully aware of what they had done, but also the suggestion that the executioner will be feeling those hands around his legs forever, always carrying the guilt of his betrayal and forever hearing the final words of his friend as he screamed “I hate you!”. In the end, it becomes apparent that regardless of the decisions made in times of war, there is no hope for the innocent. Those who choose to follow their orders and perform their duties to their nation, such as the executioner/narrator did, are forced to sacrifice an essential portion of their soul that helps them to realize they are human. If they do not, the burden of guilt placed upon them, like that of the narrator, weighs their feet down like lead, cutting into them with hot metal and leaving invisible injuries that will never heal. However, choosing to make the best of a situation, enjoying the benefits of a given location, making oneself useful and enjoying spending time and conversation with new friends made on the enemy lines proves to be equally disastrous as Gregory discovered. The message is clear – in war, there can be no good decisions and no hope for escaping unscathed. Works Cited Eulo, Joseph. “Choices.” Joe’s Journal. (February 2, 2007). March 21, 2007 “Gregory II Cyprius.” Encyclopædia Britannica. (2007). Encyclopædia Britannica March 21, 2007 . Ioannides, Panos. “Gregory.” Discovering the Many Worlds of Literature. Stuart Hirschberg, Terry Hirschberg (Eds.). New York: Pearson, (2004), pp. 648-651. Stern, Laurence. “Bitter Lessons: How We Failed in Cyprus.” Foreign Policy. N. 19, (Summer 1975), pp. 34-78. Read More