Son of the Morning Star

male child of the cockcrow Star Analysis Evan S. Connell has a unique writing mien. While most stories are told from beginning to end, Son of the Morning Star Custer and The small Bighorn (North Point Press, 1984) begins with the aftermath of The Battle of the Little Bighorn. It is then followed by numerous events which led up to this action. Connell chose this non-linear writing style in order to distribute the details he finds most fascinating and interesting to share with his audience. Using the conclusion of the battle as the introduction of the hi tale creates a suspenseful t integrity.In the beginning of the story, the setting is the battle field which The Battle of the Little Bighorn had meshn place a few days earlier. de rangey sheriff James Bradley has led his troops to the land where they discover the corpses of which they believe are General George Armstrong Custers troops. Custer himself was nowhere in sight. Even after a riposte was offered upon his retrieval he could not be found. The deserted battle field raised questions and the men began to imagine what had happened days prior to their arrival.The rootage writes, While discussing the days events around a campfire most infantrymen predicted more unpleasant news (pg. 3) The troops discovered a womanhood 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 endorser is assumption details regarding to Custers entrance and also each oppositenesss fighting style Instead, Renos men dismounted 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 conduct of these whites, verbal expression they must subscribe been seized with panic worse than that which seized her own people. (pg. 7) As the plot approaches its conclusion, the subscriber is taken back to the aftermath of the battle and receives a tale told by a Cheyenne woman named Kate Bighead. She delivered a short story ab bring out the corpses she saw laying on the battlefield, one in particular she identified as General Custer She said two Southern 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 face was dirty. (pg. 422) Although the plot of this story does not have a chronological structure, it develops a more personal connection because the characters in the story are directly speaking to the audience as they give their personal accounts on the battle. For example, it had already been said that Reno was dead however, an outburst made by Reno himself is mentioned abruptly 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 wo rk, 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 chaos thither is meaning. The writing style presented in this story is untraditional which could possibly 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 little information on the context of Crazy Horse, formerly known as Curly. Curly did not reveal this manifestation to anybody until he was sixteen and ready to become 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 Crazy Horse. These entries come from the diary of Jesse Lee, Satur day, Sept. th, 1877. Everything is quiet and I think will remain so. Crazy Horses body was brought to this agency and put on a little platform, Indian fashion, on the hill overlooking the post, not half a mile away. (pg. 75) He also includes a background on chieftain 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 earlier age the boy was regarded more with sympathy than respect.So it appears that not through any legacy did he become a chieftain (pg. 376) Throughout the story, the audience develops an vagary of the motives of the indigene Americans during the battle. The reader becomes aware of what academic term Bull was thinking If Sitting Bull did indeed call off the attack it was not because of any lovingness for whites, who, he hated with abiding and impenetrable rancor, but because he understood how vindictive they could b e. If all the soldiers were slaughtered the whites would insist upon another battle (pg. 6) The audience was not totally 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 such(prenominal) kill-song (pg. 54) With the erudition given in the story, the reader concludes that the Native American leaders were fully developed human beings. Connell includes 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 frequentlyhe 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 G all was compared to other great leaders and his leadership skills are described by his people including Lieutenant Godfrey, He perceived Gall as a man of tremendous character natural 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 brainwave 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 spike 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 regarding his leadership and his behavior thus similar to that of Ben teens. Reno got demerits easily, roughly deliberately (pg. 40) He also writes, At least it failed to mollify the exasperated colonel because Reno found himself saddled with another charge (pg. 45) Although a great deal of this charm 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 captures the importance of The Battle of the Little Bighorn. Throughout the non-linear story, the reader is taken back and forth betwixt stories about Custers challengers and his troops. The authors objectivity is evident because the reader is given the opportunity to capture the battle from both perspectives. ? Before The Battle of the Little Bighorn, General Custer had celebrated many victories however, this battle ended in tragedy.Unaware of what ca utilize the downfall at Little Bighorn, many have speculated practicable causes of Custers defeat. These possibiliti es include Custers sanity, his confidence 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 discussion between an Indian and General H. L. Scott reveals a possible cause of this defeat.For example, Connell writes During subsequent conversations Feather Earring emphasized 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 asked Custer to promise that he would not fight the Sio ux. Custer promisedAfter we got through talking, he briefly left over(p) 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 onwards 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, instead of proceeding at once into the valley of the Little Big Horn, even should the remnant lead there, should continue on up the Rosebud, get closer to the mountains (pg. 255-256) Losing touch with reality Custer continues to explain his plan to attack, the combined forces would count coup on Sitting Bull, Crazy Horse, Galland all the rest (pg. 56) C usters 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 village 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 High Bear-who responded by drawing a knife. Another scout, invoking Custers name, jumped between them and managed to prevent a bloody settlement. (pg. 10) Not only was Renos lack of intuition a cause of defeat but it is also possible that his belli gerent temperament lead to Custers labefaction. After analyzing the attitudes and actions of Custer and his troops, the reader can infer 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 intuition 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 unbroken his promise to Sioux the entire battle could have been avoided. Custer and his five companies certainly underestimated their Native American opponents.