A Defense of Ung's Choice of Title

I believe that the title of Ung's memoir "First They Killed My Father" is completely appropriate due to the clear significance of her father's death. While Ung was close to her sister Keav, Keav's death did not mark the major change and turning point in Ung's outlook and character. I agree with Taylor that Ung, at such a young age, would perhaps not recognize that Keav was the first to be killed, for she died of an illness rather than assassination. The murder of her father was the final step in the completion of Ung's loss of innocence and all hope that her life could revert back to what it was in her childhood home. Although Ung was suffering from starvation and grueling conditions, Ung's father was constantly there for her to lean on and gave Ung the strength to continue on--Ung believed that as long as her father was around, her family could stay together and survive. When Ung's father is murdered, Ung's character changes, for she now desires to murder others. Ung has lost her "safety net" and all her remaining faith. Because of the magnitude of this death in Ung's life, I believe it is fitting--even if not completely factual--for the author to name her memoir after this crucial moment.

Defending the Title: First They Killed My Father

At least one person's blog, as I've only read one so far, argues that the title of Ung's blog is not accurate, as Loung's sister, Keav, dies first. However, I wholeheartedly support Ung's title. The narrator of this memoir is Ung as a young child. She takes us through the experience in the present tense, describing the action and emotions in the events rather than reflecting on them. In a simple child's mind, "they" did not kill Keav. Keav died from sickness that would not have occurred had she not sufferred the abuse of the Khmer regime. For the 6 year old Loung to come to the conclusion that the Khmer indirectly killed her sister is unrealistic and inconsistent with the tone of the memoir. In her mind, though she is well-aware of the Khmer abuse that led to millions of deaths by dyssentery, Keav died from sickness.
It is only when the soldiers come and directly take her father away that the young Loung can admit the direct connection between the soldiers and her family member's death. She had long been aware that her Pa worked for the old government and was constantly paranoid of someone discovering his connection to it. Thus, Loung could blame noone and nothing else but the soldiers for her Pa's death; he was not hanging onto his life when the soldiers came for him.
Ung's title is in the same tone the entire memoir is in: a young child's observation. The title is incredibly effective; from the moment you look at the cover an image of a young girl watching these overwhelming events around her take place comes to mind. In order to remain consistent with the thought process of young Loung, the author made the title, too, a simplistic yet heartbreaking observation. I, personally, prefer this title to, "First My Sister Died From Dyssentery Caused by Their Abuse."

In her novel First They Killed My Father, Loung Ung effectively elicited pathos from her readers. The emotional response Ung creates is very strong. Her fluid, and descriptive writing partnered with the horrors she described thoroughly moved me. At points I am amazed at how successfully Ung's presents the events of the novel through the innocent eyes of her five year old self without losing any valuable information. Futhermore, Ung's humble tone throughout the novel only enhanced her ability to evoke pathos.
I would also like to say that have no problem with Ung titling her novel First They Killed My Father. Although Keav did die first, the Khmer Rouge did not directly kill. They did cause her sickness, but no member of the Khmer Rouge personally killed her. On the other hand, soldiers from the Khmer Rouge did in fact murder Ung's father. In addition, I believe her choice to use "father" as opposed to "sister" in the title makes the book more appealing because it has a profounder affect on the reader. Her father is the one watching over her and protecting her, however her sister is merely her close friend.

Narration in First They Killed My Father

While reading this novel, I paid close attention to narration and if it was believable in the lens of a 5- year-old girl's world and perspective. I might have had too critical an eye while reading the novel, but my impressions of her narration were that she strove to show her descriptions and what happens to her through the eyes and mind of a child, yet included adult insight. I'm not saying this is a bad thing, for a novel that is written only with a young girl's thoughts in mind would most likely be a simple text with not much intellectual depth. I could not help but notice how in tune Loung was to her emotions and what exactly they were and what caused them. In some passages I wondered, could Loung actually be thinking this? Is this too complex a thought for such a small mind? At the same time, Loung acknowledged the "5 year-old" world by describing images through the eyes of a child while also evoking the naivete and oblivion a child experiences when faced with serious or complex situations. Often, I found that Ung used the child perspective, thought process, and words or the insightful, intellectual one depending on which one was most appealing to pathos. In other words, whichever perspective sounded more pitiful and and was most likely to draw a tear from the reader's eye or a shiver of disgust, Ung used. As I noted I was very critical in observing the narration and it is unrealistic to have a novel completely based on a child's mind. I believe Ung's narration was very good as she desired to tell her story through the eyes of her former self. 

Bookseller of Kabul Original Post (just a little late..) and comparison of the two books

Aisne Sierstad classifies the story as a novel so she is able to incorporate her personal opinions and Western bias in order to elicit the intended emotional response from the reader. The audience notes these opinions, responds to them emotionally and eventually accepts them as truth because of the numerous examples that support her notions. In her descriptions, pathos is utilized effectively and her diction is logical and powerful. Her opinions are presented in a way that convinces the audience that the life of the typical Afghan woman is one of serious oppression and there need be societal reform to allow the females freedom of heart and mind. 

In Bookseller of Kabul, I found that the descriptions were often less effective though because of the heavy amount of poorly constructed historical content. The historical information, while relative and important, often felt very "listy" and you felt like you could skim it very quickly and get the gist. After reading a very lengthy and boring passage with unnecessary amount of historical detail (structured so that you felt you could barely breathe), the well-written descriptions that followed did not have as great an impact because I felt like i was drowning in dry information (i'm being a drama queen). 

In First They Killed My Father, the historical information was presented in a concise and comprehensible manner, and i feel like I even managed to retain some of the history (which is quite an accomplishment for usually it goes in and right back out). Also, the brevity of this information kept me engaged and made the descriptions all the more powerful. I enjoyed first they killed my father much more than the Bookseller of Kabul for this reason. 

First They Killed My Father

I started reading searching for as much information about Pa as I could, because I, probably because of the title, thought he would not be alive for a large portion of the book. In analyzing Pa through Loung Ung's perception we see only the image of a perfect father. While she loves all of her siblings and her mother, she shares anecdotes in which they make her angry or do something wrong (like the coconut incident). Pa, however, escapes any and all blame regardless of the fact that he makes all of the choices that ultimately determine the future of the family. I think Pa's perfection in action contrasts his newly corrupt mind and jaded nature. We're able to see through flashbacks and the remnant's of his true personality, the extreme degradation of Pa. Since Loung Ung views life in a very clear cut manner (right and wrong, good and evil) Pa's spiritual and mental death is undeniable and even harsher than it might have been if she'd truly understood the circumstances.

No, First They Killed Keav, not your Father

When I was reading the book, I was pretty confused. Now I am no longer confused, I just disagree. Ung titles her book, "First They Killed My Father". However, when I was reading the book, I was confused because first Keav dies, and then Pa dies. When I was reading, I allowed it to slide, thinking that maybe there was a mistake or that later on in the book, Ung would say that Keav actually never dies and that a misinterpretation had occurred. But, now that I look back on the book, I feel that I can say with conviction that Keav was killed first, not Pa. Pa was probably killed by the hammer of a Khmer Rouge soldier as Ung describes, but really, Keav was killed by the Khmer Rouge regime. Keav died from diarrhea, but she had diarrhea because of her malnourishment caused by the Khmer Rouge. If the Khmer Rouge had not starved her along with all of the other Cambodians, no one would have died in the attempted Communist regime. 

Even though I thought that the book was well written, touching, moving, etc., I felt that the poor choice of title took away from the book. I felt that by not writing that Keav died first, Ung ignored all of the Cambodians who suffered and died indirectly from the Khmer Rouge soldiers. Physically attacking someone is not the only way to kill that person, and I believe that Keav was KILLED by the policies and actions of the Khmer Rouge. In my opinion, the title of the book should be, "First They Killed Keav". 

Can anyone else come up with a better word for how Keav died other than being "killed"? Please, because it might change my opinion of the title, because if Keav was not killed, then Pa would really be the First One Killed

First They Killed my Father Reaction

Although a number of others have already discussed description in Loung Ung's book, I also want to touch on the subject because of its prevalence in the novel. Ung undoubtedly uses continuous description in her writing; however, while sometimes too much description can be tiring and unnecessary, this description is different due to its underlying purpose. Every object, event, person, or journey that Loung Ung describes feels purposeful to the writer. I truly believe that the immense details are crucial to the novel. While I am often one of those people who drown under too much description, this was not the case when I read Ung's meaningful description. In addition, the book includes description not only on Ung's personal experience, but also on the history surrounding her story. However, unlike in the Bookseller of Kabul, in which the history seems to be very separate and segregated from the rest of the text, the history that Ung includes is meshed into the rest of her writing. Rather than seeming as if Ung just added the history passages because they were necessary for the reader to understand the background of the story, which is a necessity, the history did not stand out to me as an addition, but rather part of the surrounding story. Additionally, Ung not only focused on her family, but also many other people entirely unrelated to her. She goes into detail on many other individuals such as the monks and other girls who she does not even know, rather than keeping her writing entirely personal. However, this inclusion makes her story more powerful and even more interesting that a young girl could know so much about the people who are not directly around her. Finally, I feel that Loung Ung's writing has so many levels. It's hard for me to explain exactly what I mean, but her writing feels extremely deep to me and became even more developed the more I read. The writing evokes pathos in continually deeper and more touching ways, that really impact the reader. This pathos is a new kind in the way that it causes a bad feeling in one's stomach, and brings tears to reader's minds and a feeling of shame when putting down the book, as some others have said.

Loung Ung's Title

We all know that Ung's book is remarkable and a great read, but there is no use in going on about its greatness for a couple paragraphs so let's get right to the reason why Loung Ung chose the title "First They Killed My Father:" Loung's father knew from the time that the Khmer Rouge took over Phnom Penh that he would eventually be annihilated regardless of his actions. 

Ung's father is the smartest character in the book, and even with his immense amount of intelligence, he can not avoid the fate he knows he must face...death. 

With his initial spiritual death, the father and in turn Ung's family begins to die a slow death. Therefore, Ung's title is accurate: "First They Killed My Father."

Ung's Next Book Ought to be a Textbook

The description that Ung employs in her story is mind-blowing; its been a very long time since I've read a story so riveting and emotional. Most authors, including Ung, use description as their primary rhetorical device to connect their readers to the story, but so many miss the mark and aren't able to illicit the emotional response they're looking for. Seierstad attempted to use description in the Bookseller of Kabul to illicit pathos from the reader, but instead managed to alienate most of her audience (at least in my class). However, Ung's descriptions are able to not only engage the reader in the story but to make them feel emotions that they never saw coming; there were moments during the story where you feel bad for putting the book down. She didn't promote the connections between the readers and the characters, she forced it; when she described the murder of her mother and younger sister, the majority of readers probably started thinking about their own mothers and siblings. First They Killed my Father should be a textbook for how to properly employ description; every story ever written should be this emotionally powerful.

I LOVE THIS BOOK.  Usually, I get really bored when I read and procrastinate as much as possible... not with this book. Her descriptions were so vivid that I actually felt like I was there. I felt like I was part of her family. Whenever someone got killed or hurt, I wanted to cry. I would think about how I would react in certain situations, and I feel like I would react the same way that her and her family did. That just makes her narration more realistic, even though some of the images she describes are shocking. The book was really sad, but it teaches you a lot about loyalty and ethics, and how much you are willing to sacrifice for the ones you love. This is one of my favorite books. I love it. 

Reflections on First they Killed my Father

Overall I really really enjoyed this book. I felt that I could empathize with Loung Ung and really felt her sadness. The imagery she uses throughout the book sets the scene for the reader and helps him or her see through Loung's eyes.
One particular image that Loung uses a lot throughout the book is the color red. This color seems to symbolize the happy childhood that Loung was never able to truly have. Loung repeatedly brings up the color red in the narrative, as a sort of reminder of what her life was like, and also it serves to help her hold on to possibly having a better future. I like the way this prevailing image ties together certain parts of the story.
Laura said this too, but I also noticed how Loung's use of similes reinforces her young authorial voice. I find this very effective and it also gives clear descriptions to the reader about what she is seeing, furthur allowing the reader to see through her eyes.

First They Killed My Father -- Descriptions and Photos

I read First They Killed My Father for the first time two years ago following Loung Ung’s visit to MKA. While I remember I had thought it was a fantastic narration two years ago, I was able to appreciate it even more reading it a second time, keeping an eye out for the for the rhetorical techniques she used and for the parts that stayed with me over two years.

In my opinion, the most prevalent and powerful of Loung’s rhetorical techniques was her constant use of similes. When a child innocently describes killings, explosions and starvation using “like” or “as,” or with any kind of description for the matter, it is not something you easily forget. Child-Loung has a strong affinity for extensive description, and that is why her narration is so clear and so memorable. Two descriptions in particular that I remember in detail from my previous reading are when Loung tries to stick as much brown sugar to her finger as she possibly can when her family comes across a pot of it, and when Loung looks in horror at the caved-in skull of her friend Pithy who had been sitting next to her. Loung’s affinity for simple color descriptions also contributes greatly to the eerie effect that comes from Loung’s narration in the “innocent” eyes of a child.

My favorite part of this memoir was the set of family pictures Loung includes in the middle of her narration. Reading this memoir a second time, I found that I had forgotten many of the writing’s smaller events and descriptions, but to my surprise I could remember all of Loung’s family in detail simply by looking at the photographs. I’ve spent more time than I can remember looking at the photos one by one and identifying her relatives in my head. These pages of pictures are really what have made the memoir come alive for me. By vividly visualizing Loung’s family members suffer through each ordeal, I feel so much more attuned to Loung’s family and the torment it went through when the Khmer Rouge were in power.

(Something of an “Easter egg”: When Loung says, “The gods look like you!” to her Pa on page 110, she really means it. Look at the picture of her family at Angkor Wat on the bottom of the second photo page. When I looked at the face of the man standing behind them I honestly thought he was Loung’s father, but he’s actually a stone statue of a god. Please look! It’s really cool.)

First They Killed My Father

i have wanted to read this book since the summer after i read her second book "Lucky Child." what i love about Loung Ung's writing is her ability to write in the voice of a child as well as an adult. the reader experiences the child voice all throughout the book until the epilogue when you can distinctly hear a change from child voice to adult voice. it's really rather impressive, and a very strong talent to have to use as a literary device. writing in the voice of a child puts the reader in her her situation better than if she wrote it as an adult because she experienced the war as a child. so if she used an adult voice there woud have been a incontinuity in the book and the reader would not have been as emotionally impacted by the story. and it's important that the reader get the true sense of the situation because this is such an important even to understand.

some sections of the book where i was particularly struck was when she took a sick day and was crawling around for food and stopped to poke the bulging skin on her feet and where she was nearly raped. in the first scene she speaks so matter of factly, so innocently, that it makes the actions all the more appaling. because the matter of fact tone shows to the reader that this kind of thing is part of her everyda life and that is absolutely horrible. it's not just one bad thing and then it's over, it's perpetual, it's her life. and that is very emotionally affecting for me at least. and in the other she speaks frantically. she explains how cambodian culture added another element of fear because sexuality is private. courting is private and sex is not a topic discussed publicly. that being the case the experience seems even more frightening for this poor little girl.

Loung Ung drew out many emotions from me and i absolutely loved this book.

First They Killed My Father

Since no one has posted yet about First They Killed My Father, I figured now was as good a time to start as any, so here it goes:
Let me start by saying that I absolutely loved this novel. I think Loung Ung's narration (in the voice of a young girl) makes the story more powerful since she experienced the war beginning at age give. In a way, Ung's present-tense narrations makes her pain and suffering more real to her audience. It seems as though her narration is her therapy - her voice is oftentimes relaxed or calm when discussing extremely difficult situations. I cannot imagine what her loss feels like, but I sensed her emotions through her writing. She definitely appeals to pathos, and, occasionally, logos (her historical citations within the text). However, her historical quotations bring about some questions: Why did the Khmer Rouge rise to power uncontested (or so she portrays it)? Was it right to run, or should they have lived with Ung's uncles (who survived the war)? My biggest question is the book's title: First they Killed My Father. Her father didn't die first; Keav did. Weren't the Khmer Rouge just as responsible for Keav's death as that of Ung's father?

What is most remarkable to me is her recollection of detail - markets, soldier's facial expressions, things that five-year-olds don't normally recognize or even take into consideration. However, under her circumstances, it seems as though everything in Ung's life was magnified - loss, pain, absence of love and joy. Although her book is an extremely emotional one, it teaches the readers a great deal. Since (I am guessing) her audience and intended discourse community are Caucasian, perhaps American, and did not experience the Cambodian civil war firsthand, her novel sheds a personal light on problems we see on the news, in magazines, and assume will never happen to us. Loung Ung probably thought the same thing living in Phnom Penh. I marvel at her will to survive and her determination to reunite with her family.

description

so now that im in the blog im gonna catch up on my posts.
the use of description in Bookseller is pretty minimal. but what i most saw was when Seierstad referred to women as burkas. that use of description, and i must add, metonomy, really got the point of women being objects across very well. it was a very clever use of that literary device and furthers her thesis of the book, that women in Afghanistan are treated as objects and are below men in that society. she writes av=bout long burkas, short burkas, fat burkas, skinny burkas, but in spite of all the differences, women are not worth more than a burka in that culture.

messed up posting

so this is what i was supposed to post a way long time ago but i messed it up and posted it somewhere else. so im gonna post it now haha.

what i find the most intriguing about this book so far is the vast difference between the Sultan you see with his family, and the Sultan you see in public. When i read about Sultan dealing with the devastation that the constant civil war seemed to bring to his store, i really want to sympathize with him, however when i remind myself about how he treats the women in his family, particularly Sharifa who had no idea about Sonya coming to take her place. it's not fair to her and it's not fair to Sonya. the only happy one was Sultan and he does not deserve it.

so basically, what's most fascinating for me is that you can both love and hate the main character in this book.

• • 
    

Greetings!

Finally, I've been invited to our planet of blogging! Well, I finished Bookseller a while ago, but these are my lingering impressions. I normally delve into books savoring that sensation of immersing myself in a whole other world, and I am transported. Opening Bookseller filled me with this expectation - that by being transported through literature, I would better understand a place of the world that we as Americans have learned to associate with oppression and jihad. 

So what I found disconcerting was the pervasive sense that Seierstad was an outsider, judging the lives and characters in Afghanistan with a Western eye. And so transitively, this is what I  felt like- an intruder. I was constantly aware that I was an American peering into a world incongruous with my own.  Was this her intention? To further separate two cultures that are in such conflict in our world?