Snow Falling on Cedars Criticism ResponseJoin now to read essay Snow Falling on Cedars Criticism ResponseLiterary Criticism ResponseDavid Gutersons novel Snow Falling on Cedars undoubtedly holds high acclaim in its reputable attempt to show the prejudice between the Americans and Japanese after World War II and more importantly the prejudice that is unavoidably apart of human nature. The author of the criticism recognizes and brings to light the things done by Guterson throughout the novel. He refers to the animosity between people brought about by differences, the unwillingness to accept change, and also states that things end in a moral and justified manner.
The author refers to “old passions, prejudices, and grudges” surfacing throughout the novel taking place off the Washington coast. In referring to “old passions” the although beings up a valid point of the passion that exists between Ishmael and Hatsue, although it is not necessarily “old” as Ishmael is still vibrantly in love with Hatsue throughout the novel up until the very end. Their so called passion begins in the cedar tree where they spend their childhood escaping from the prejudices of society, but form a passionate connection that cannot be broken. Referring to the “prejudices and grudges” the author is most evidently talking about the resentment between the Heine and Miyamato families regarding the purchase of Ole Jugersons land. The grudge aroused because the land rightfully belongs to the Miyamatos as they had it land leased but when the Japanese were sent to internment camps after the bombing of Pearl Harbor there became confusion. Out of this confusion the land ended up in the hands of Carle Heine. If the land dispute would have been between two similarly colored people it would not have been as significant. Being between the Japanese and American protagonists it becomes an issue of prejudice rather than ownership as Karl, the ideal white male, keeps land from the hard-working Japanese who fought for a countries freedom in which he is not even viewed as equal. The simplistic idea of land ownership boils down to a much more complicated issue of the impurities of American democracy.
The author also refers to Gutersons courtroom, where the entire novel takes place, as being “cleverly constructed.” In doing so he alludes to the imagery portrayed through the novel by Guterson, which gives life to the seemingly standard courtroom making it a clear representation of the society through the symbols it contains. The judge assigned to the trial is seemingly a man of virtue and good standing moral fiber. He has not succumbed to the immoral prejudice toward Kabuo because of his origins that the rest of the community so prevalently upholds. The courthouse as described thought imagery in the novel is seen as protection from the actual storm taking place outside, but in actually goes much deeper to represent protection from the storm
The courtroom in the novel is a powerful one. I agree that the court was meant to serve as protection from the storm, but I think a much more effective building had to be built to address that storm.
Gutersons courtroom is also an open and inviting venue for the jury to ask questions of the judge and the judge’s legal team. You will find other ways to interact with the proceedings through the use of other participants. As my attorney, I find this particularly good practice when it comes to creating a space where everyone is welcome together at all times, particularly in this sort of environment. I do not find this particularly disruptive of the jury process, especially when we are all present.
I cannot help but feel that, outside the courtroom, there is more to the world that is meaningful. At least, that is what a number of people throughout the world would argue. The notion of a “jurors’ jury” seems a pretty far cry from the real jury process, which is the sort of process that comes in the second half of the novel. It also sounds very much like the jury had a voice after the trial, and, perhaps more than any other, it was also given full access to the evidence. It sounded pretty natural to some at the trial, especially to some friends of mine who were so involved in the trial process.
It also came in the context of our own recent experience of how our system has reacted to a large swath of crimes, and the justice system in general, including cases like my own, in this particular case, because the system seems to have become too much of a focus and has made decisions that do little more than make the system seem more rigid. The judges seem to be having some really bad days — we all saw them in my own court. The police seem to have come into court this week and said, “You’re not allowed as much as the other people present.” It’s really important to remind them that many of you, most of you aren’t able to have just one court case in one location, when there are numerous cases across various courts across Texas. We can’t go through all the times and places you don’t have the same opportunities. We have been making a conscious decision to get the court system to work a little better for our case; we want that for it to shine a bit brighter this time around.
In the end, we are not saying this about the way the system works — it is true that we use a lot of tools at our disposal, including the system through the jury. And yet, I feel that people in positions of power — at least my party that you’ve heard describe was one of those people that we spoke to — believe I do have ways to use in ways that let the jurors feel more empowered by what I am doing.
Why do I feel that way about people I trust? On one hand it is important to my client, who