Adam Seaton

PTSD

2/1/06

Host Intro: Ties into thriller, and normal life. Statistics, raise the stakes

1.) Who are the sources introduced?

What is the purpose/function of each of these sources?

  • Narrators
  • Kevin Knight: Gulf fighter, soldier; give the “soldier” a personal face, ties it in to a sympathetic face: Contrast to times when it didn’t exist. Bookends the essay, brings it back into context with a modern American
  • Jack Smith: ill formed opinions caused him to act out his anger. Contrast: this is what it was like back in the day. Illustrates discovery process, moves the narrative along, emotional link. Serves as the glue for the essay. “Hostage” to show how important this was to him. Also able to bridge to all of the other characters involved, even those who weren’t interviewed.
  • Robert Lifton: professional, “stunned” bringing home the seriousness of the experience; gives a more dispassionate side to Smith’s emotional discourse
  • Art Blank: “this is going to bankrupt…” again, contrast. Less sympathetic viewpoints; reluctantly
  • Wilbur Scott: testifies to the soundness of their strategy
  • Smith: money, triumphant
  • Tried to get his psychology

2.) What kind of questions elicited the given responses? Are they explaining types, or interpretation, etc.

“what was the worst thing that you recall from the Gulf war”

“how did you react…”

“who else was with you?” “What happened to him?”

What did you have to do to get your point across?

How did your conversation go?

“What was the result of the post-vietnam analysis board?”

“What did you do afterward?” “how did this affect the rest of your life?”

Explaining questions

#1 Knight: Present day, dramatization of a traumatic event. He serves as an “igniter”, in order to “elicit the story himself.”

#2 Jack Smith: Insider, able to explain both the course of the event, and the significance thereof. Also bridges with Knight. “He’s the human voice of the story.” Adamant, intense, dramatizes the events with his voice and testimony alone.

#3 Robert Lifton: Validates that there is something wrong; he’s a participant-observer. Remember, he’s an expert. Recreates moment of discovery of “Post-Vietnam Disorder” Corroborates Smith’s story

#4 Art Blank: Shows the double standard; “He’s brought in as a validator” that it was about money. He provides a completely external observer and confirmer of the fight.

#5 Wilbur Scott: DSM’s significance, describes importance of it as a strategic move. Outsider, no vested interest.

Arranged to maximize effectiveness

What were the obstacles? What were the challenges? Who were you trying to get to listen to you? Questions about motives. Why did you do (x)? (People ranting is never very interesting: the two worst things to listen to are other people’s dreams, and WHINING)

Start with <who, what, where, when> : easy to answer, and reloads the sensory data, allowing easier, more articulate, and more trustworthy answers to the question of <how, why>