Z for Zachariah

[Katy]

Hallo out there. Does anyone have any great resources for teaching the novel, 'Z For Zachariah' please as my rather stale materials need to be enlivened by some new ideas or approaches.
Hoping to hear from someone...
happy teaching! ;)

[Unregistered]

Hi,

You've probably stopped checking here, but I am a new teacher and would be very grateful to learn some of your "old tired ideas." Would you be amenable to sharing them?

Thanks,

Lisa

[Stuart Little]

have you tried http://www.google.com? type in your novel and there should be a list of activities. if there isn't, any "old" strategy for reading a novel/book should work.

i like to read the novel i'm going to teach first so i could plan. i like to give three new vocabulary words (you know, make the kids write 'em down from the board, make them make a sentence out of them, have them hunt for it in the novel, or have them hunt for the words in your classroom) for each chapter. i also like to do some sort of hands-on activity with them even before reading the book - my "anticipatory set."

for example, we're about to read, "freckle juice." i'm going to bring the ingredients stated on the book to make the students think that it's actually that in the drink (onion, pepper, etc.) when actually it's a famous jamaican drink called "the mix" (pineapple juice, mango juice, etc.) and have each student try it - of course they wouldn't have to but they'll end up wanting to try because of peer pressure. i'm also going to mark my face with blue freckles with a blue marker before the students come to my class.

anyhoot, any creative idea will work. you know your students best!

[Unregistered]

sry i cant help u but i just wanted to say that Z for Zachariah is the most boring book ever

[Unregistered]

I understand about needing fresh ideas. I have one writing assignment that students enjoy for Z for Zachariah. I let them write a short story from third person omniscient point of view. They create a story about Loomis and Edward in the lab before the bombing begins. They must give info about the setting and use dialogue to help establish the characters. They can use material from the original text to help start the details. Then their imaginations can take them away. I have them edit, proofread, and write a final draft. We usually exchange stories in small groups for reading enjoyment or read some of them aloud. Students seem to enjoy telling the full story that they haven't actually read all of the details about in the novel.
Penny

[Unregistered]

what website can i go on to read freckle juice online

[Unregistered]

my kids have had success researching the effects of atom bombs, especially reading the memoirs of people to have survived hiroshima. it's intriguing to them. additionally, we've looked at the novel as it relates to survival as a theme, the meeting of basic needs, and a connection to dr. seus's butter battle book. there have been some very spirited discussions as to what ann should have done with loomis; the girls thought the book was going to be a romantic happily-ever-after, while the boys thought she should just shoot him and get it over with.

[Unregistered]

Z is a fab novel. It's appropriate for a range of abilities as the structure and language of the novel allows it to be read easily whilst allowing higher attainers to be streched interms of its subject matter. Fits in well with the 'School Under Siege' project that most people are familiar with. If you're not the basic idea is that the pupils arrive to your lesson and you have an announcement to make (you can big/act this up as much as you want.) Scare them. Tell them mobile phones need to be switched off etc. Then break the news that they have been quarrentined inside the school until further notice. A whole range of writing tasks can stem from this. Personal writing of letters and diaries, instruction writing for a 'break out' plan, persuasive writing for items they wish to be on an essentials grocery list. Etc etc. Great novel!

[A student]

Hello, I'm a student! I probably don't belong on a teachers board so I won't post much but I just wanted to say: While I didn't read Z for Zacheriah in my classroom I think it is by FAR the best book ever!....Um, yeah I kind of just wanted to say that, Robert C O'Brien died during the last few chapters and his family finished it according to what he told them. I wonder if he planned to make a sequel?

[Unregistered]

Hi to all the teachers out there!
Presumed to be one of the classics, Z for Zachariah is monotonous, badly written and aging text that should be left to collect dust. I don't know what student would actually enjoy or even gain anything from such a book based on little fact or reality. The plot line has questionable structure and is so out dated it will provide your allready bored students with just another assignment on which to put off till the night before the due date. So please as a student under going the terrible curse of reading and responding to this trash I advise you not to put students through such torture. If you want them to learn to appreciate great literature give them great litereature to appreciate. Don't leave tnem to stew on this filth.

[Unregistered]

Hello Lisa I had the same problem! My kids would give up, and I don't know how to get them into it. My friend Dan also teaches "Z for Zachariah". He told me how to get the kids into it. If you have a small ball and though it to whoever wants to read. If no wants to then u just pick someone. But before the same kid can read again everyone in the class has to have read. Now my kids like to read in class. It worked for me and i hope it works for you too.


Sincerely
Matt

[mrs. desty]

i need chapter reviews can anyone gimme any?

[A Student]

Hi to all the teachers out there!
Presumed to be one of the classics, Z for Zachariah is monotonous, badly written and aging text that should be left to collect dust. I don't know what student would actually enjoy or even gain anything from such a book based on little fact or reality. The plot line has questionable structure and is so out dated it will provide your allready bored students with just another assignment on which to put off till the night before the due date. So please as a student under going the terrible curse of reading and responding to this trash I advise you not to put students through such torture. If you want them to learn to appreciate great literature give them great litereature to appreciate. Don't leave tnem to stew on this filth.
Hello? I'm over here! I liked it!

[Unregistered]

Hi there i go to St Patrick's College Kilbirnie in Wellington New Zealand. At the moment in English we are doing "novel study". For our novel we read "Z for Zachariah". I found it a great read. In class our assignment is to write another chapter for "Z for Zachariah" after Ann leaves Mr.Loomis in the valley.

[Unregistered]

I just finished reading this novel. While it does not have any vocabulary boosting, it could be a good book to start off the reading for non-academic students who are struggling. I am going to have students write epilogues, deleted scenes etc, but it's also good for different types of writing such as narration, first person etc.
It's a great place to start research on environmental awareness, especially with the war going on.

[Unregistered]

Hi,

I'm subbing for a class tomorrow and I haven't read the book. I was wondering where I could find a summary of what happens in every chapter. Than I could at least understand the novel to a degree and help the students out.

Thanks :)

[pupil]

sry i cant help u but i just wanted to say that Z for Zachariah is the most boring book ever

that's definatelyx wrong! i'm a german pupil and 13 years old. Im reading 'z fr zachariah' in english.......it's little bit difficult to read but that doesn't matter! i think the book is very (in german: spannend) or great! i makes fun to read it. now im on page 91 of 194 and i have to read it all and write a summary then^^ please, TEACHERS! DON'T LET YOUR PUPILS READ THIS BOOK IN 2 WEEKS!!!! IT'S TOO DIFFICULT! ^^......

kati

[Unregistered]

umm... well actually i am a student... but we read that book and the way that our teacher did it was really cool. She split up the class accoring to our lexiles and then assighned us a book to read and a packet. it was really kinda fun... well with in the group the kids decided what we had to read up to and who would do what page in the packet. then the next calss we would got together in the begining with our group for about an hour and then we would discuss the chapters we had read. it was good i thought b/c when you are with your class mates you seem to discuss it more and then that means that you will get the students... like myself, to get more out of it... p.s i am in 8th grade.

[Steve]

I'm studying this book now with a few classes, and I'm just wondering if most other teachers realize that the story is told by an unreliable narrator: that Ann is an oversensitive, neurotic, self-centered and basically immature teenager, and she fails to make any effort to understand Mr. Loomis in a rational and adult manner--namely, by TALKING to him openly!

The first-person journal style of narrative is highly effective for expressing the theme of the story because readers will make the same mistake as Ann UNLESS they do what she fails to do: that is, unless readers attempt to sympathize with Mr. Loomis, understand his point of view, and interpret his behavior in a way that is NOT biased by neurotic fears.

The novel is basically about the problem of failing to communicate with others, and not trying to sympathize with and understand others despite their different ways of thinking. Loomis is a very rational and practical scientist who lacks the sensitivity and patience to deal with Ann's emotionalism and childishly extreme behavior. Her irrational actions in running away and refusing to be friends with him (the last man on Earth!) then push him to be extreme in turn in order to force her to come back. This results in a worsening cycle of misunderstanding, making her think that her fears about him are confirmed and he must be crazy.

One of the many tragic ironies in the story is that Loomis begins to take extreme measures (i.e., trying to wound Ann with a rifle!) right when Ann is thinking that maybe his behavior is partly her own fault and she should be friendlier with him (by talking an hour a day while she stands safely in the road!). She's still nuts, but this plan of hers was at least suggested the possibility of compromise and their gradually coming to understand each other better. But she is too late: her irrational behavior has already driven Loomis to become extreme also, dooming both of them.

The crabapple tree is probably an ironic allusion to the Tree of Knowledge in Eden. Ann picks a bouquet of flowers from it while fantasizing irrationally about a church wedding with Loomis, making it symbolic of their getting married, raising children, and continuing the human race. The fact that Ann does NOT pick any apples from the tree and ends up passing it again while trying to hide from Loomis suggests that her failing is through a LACK of knowledge. Unlike Eve, she remains ignorantly innocent and childish, living a fruitless self-preoccupied fantasy life and interacting only with herself (via her diary). Unlike the first man and woman, who gained knowledge of each other and went on to create the human race, Ann chooses NOT to understand Loomis, and she leaves Eden to die alone in a wasteland.

[Unregistered]

Her irrational actions in running away and refusing to be friends with him (the last man on Earth!) then push him to be extreme in turn in order to force her to come back.

Ann runs away from Loomis because he tries to rape her. How is that irrational?

[Unregistered]

I know that the message is old but this may be helpful for someone. The 8th graders that are reading this novel now loved it very much but were very disappointed in the ending. A great activity is to have the students re-write the final chapter to their specifications. Many of the students were more than happy to re-create the ending. Thanks!!

Hallo out there. Does anyone have any great resources for teaching the novel, 'Z For Zachariah' please as my rather stale materials need to be enlivened by some new ideas or approaches.
Hoping to hear from someone...
happy teaching! ;)

[Unregistered]

z for zachariah is actually the most boring book ever! i could sum it up in a few words - people die, girl stays alive, girl finds man, man is not nice! the end. we have been arguing with the teacher to let us read a good book, but she is detemined to put us off reading for life by making us suffer incredible bordom at the hands of the evil author who wrote it!

[unregistered]

What I don't understand is why ann leaves?? Why wouldnt she stay and fight for her home?? I do not understand why she would let Mr. Loomis stay & take over the place she has lived in for her whole life?? I think the author wrote this book very unrealistic & totally idiotic! Plus they made Ann's character so odd and unbelievable that it made the book boring & hard to read?? Does anyone know when the author died?? Because I belive that the ending was the worst part of the book, and I can't help but think his family must be responsible for the horrible ending of this book!!!

[Unregistered]

I need to know when the author died??? i was wondering when the author's family started to finish the ending of the book. Because the writing style changed, but I don't exactly know when?? could someone please help me????

[Mlz the Unregistered :)]

No idea how old this thread is, but I googled "Z for Zachariah" and just happened to come across this chatboard and decided to give my two cents worth.

My name is Mlz, and I'm a 13-year-old student attending school in Eastern Canada. I've just recently finished reading this book as a class assignment... and having it being something I normally would not pick up in a libary or at a book store, first protested the idea of it. The back of the book made the story sound bland and I wasn't looking forward to it at all.

When I started reading it though, I found it to grow gradually more and more interesting (and I've noticed most of my classmates have felt the same way). After about 2 weeks of slow reading and the rest of the class being on Chapter 10, I had finally finished reading ahead in class ((But shhh! That's a secret because I wasn't supposed to!! ^_^;;)).

That simply goes to show how much I throughly enjoyed this novel. I've never done that before in class with books either, probably because most of the time I'm a fairly well-behaved student and well.... my English teacher is fairly strict on the "no reading ahead" thing.

I found the novel was brought alive with vivid images of what was happening and I couldn't help but feel and immediate hate for Mr. Loomis ((and the millions of questions and summary's we have to do on each chapter... but that's besides the point :P)).

All in all, as a student who would normally avoid books like this... I found it well rounded for teens and young adults alike who are both lovers of this genre and haters. A good choice for a class read, both interesting concepts and a good read.

Definately reccommended for book reports. ((With y'know, minium questions... can't be to hard on the kids ^_~))

[Steve]

"Ann runs away from Loomis because he tries to rape her. How is that irrational?"

The problem with judging Loomis is that all the information about him is provided to us by Ann and is colored by her point of view. Viewing what he does as attempted rape is her perspective.

But if the circumstances are considered more objectively, what happens can be viewed as mainly a misunderstanding, with Loomis making some wrong assumptions about Ann's wishes and how he should take the lead in their relationship.

Consider the following:

Before Ann even meets Loomis, she is already paranoid that someone who comes to the valley will try to control her. This leads her to hide in the hills when Loomis first enters the valley. She doesn't answer when he calls out in the hope of finding another survivor, and she doesn't stop him from swimming in a radioactive stream.

All her actions here are foolish. She thinks that she can watch a man from a distance through binoculars and judge whether he is trustworthy or not. How is that possible?! Can we read in a person's character by looking at his body language, clothing, and facial expressions? The only way she can learn about him is by meeting him and communicating openly with him, which NEVER really happens--because she never lets herself trust him enough to talk openly to him!!

Also, Ann's thoughts about Loomis swing so quickly from one extreme to another that (if we try to evaluate her ideas objectively instead of just accepting them) she seems pretty irrational and childish.

When Loomis gets sick, Ann's paranoid fear suddenly turns into worry, and "the idea that he might die makes [her] feel quite desperate." She doesn't write it in her diary, but she probably senses that he might be the last man alive. It's like a glimmer of a realistic understanding of her circumstances. But, as her diary shows, she is NOT really capable of a realistic and practical assessment of their situation.

When she starts to care for Loomis in her house, within 4 days she is fantasizing about marrying him the following year--with a church wedding, no less! She writes, "I thought, when Mr. Loomis recovered from his sickness, there was no reason why we could not plan to be married in a year....The whole idea was thrilling. I thought I might even wear my mother's wedding dress." Wait a second! Just a few days earlier, she was hiding in the hills in fear of this guy. She STILL doesn't really know him. Yet, she's now planning their church wedding?!! Doesn't that seem a little unbalanced and out of touch with reality?

Then it occurs to her that "Mr. Loomis had not indicated the slightest interest in any such idea." So it seems at this point that Ann has a definite romantic interest in Loomis (albeit in quite a childish and idealistic way), and she is hoping for signs of Loomis being attracted to her also. We can also be pretty sure that Ann's expectations of how Loomis should SHOW interest in her are correspondingly immature. That is, she probably expects him to act romantic in conventional ways, perhaps something like a gentleman suitor in a Jane Austen novel!!

Isn't it possible (even probable) that her behavior with him would SUGGEST her feelings even though she is too shy and inexperienced to talk about them openly? Couldn't some of her behavior seem to him flirtatious, or hesitant attempts to start a romantic relationship?

For example, she prepares a nice dinner and tries to create a romantic setting. In doing this, she regrets that she has to use oil lamps instead of candles because she took the candles to her cave hideout (which also reminds us of her paranoia a short time before, and might make us wonder how sensible her dramatic change in attitude is).

She reads and plays the piano for him during the worst stage of his sickness, and holds his hand; and his later description of hearing the music as he was "floating away" suggests that her care for him saved his life. It seems likely that Loomis feels during his sickness that a relationship is developing between them. When he mentions how nice it was to hear her playing, she feels like hugging him.

However, at the same time, Ann's feelings about Loomis start to swing back towards fear of him. She hears him talk about Edward in his dreams and hallucinations, and she suspects Loomis killed Edward. She keeps wondering, "should I ask him about it?" But of course she NEVER tells him her fears or asks him directly about Edward--not until the very end, when it is too late for her to trust him. She prefers to continue her usual method of guessing Loomis' character on her own by just observing him and interpreting his behavior in her diary!

....

[Steve]

...

Not bringing her fears out in the open, they fester and grow. Little things about his behavior start to seem like signs that he is a domineering person. She is bothered when he seems to scold her for going to church instead of planting corn--i.e., for being foolishly sentimental instead of practical. Ann thinks in paranoid fashion that his voice sounds like it did when he was talking to Edward in his hallucinations.

She cannot handle it if there's even a hint of disapproval in his voice. She does not know how to deal with his different opinions, and they probably also don't fit with the romantic ideas of him she had in mind during his sickness. The fear of being controlled starts to come back.

Then she stupidly asks to borrow the safe-suit to go get library books from Ogdentown. Why does she ask this when she already has good reason to believe that Loomis killed a man for trying to steal the safe-suit?! It is obviously something he is protective of, and he's likely to be sensitive about someone wanting to use it. Is she testing him? Perhaps she foolishly believes that his reaction will show something about how trustworthy he is. Or perhaps she is just, as he says, "foolish and shortsighted."

As Loomis gets better, he gives more and more practical advice to her about things they need to do to plan for the future. All of his advice is wise and beneficial for both of them, but Ann grows increasingly uncomfortable just because she's paranoid that he is trying to take control--something that she resists even though, in fact, he is older and a lot more practical, experienced and knowledgeable.

As she gets annoyed by his watching over her farm work and giving directions, she starts to think that she does not really know him: "he had seemed attractive and friendly. But since his recovery, I had felt that I did not understand him at all....Nor did he seem to have any curiosity or interest in me."

So she tries to get to know him better by making awkward efforts at small talk, asking him about his past. Despite their situation of perhaps being the LAST COUPLE ON EARTH, she still seems to want to go through the old customary dating rituals of getting to know someone and then deciding whether or not she likes him!! Loomis, on the other hand, is a SCIENTIST! He is very practical and rational, with no interest in being romantic. From his point of view, it must seem obvious that he and Ann have to be partners and have children.

When Ann's questions about Loomis' past finally lead her to ask (hesitantly) if he was ever been married before, his response is, "I thought you were coming to that." Ann writes that he also "looked at [her] in a queer way."

What is Loomis probably thinking here? We can't know for sure, but I think he has seen signs of Ann's romantic feelings for him AND her shyness with him, and he probably assumes that she WANTS to start a love relationship but is nervous about it--because of her youth and inexperience. Perhaps he has been waiting patiently for her to actually TALK ABOUT their relationship.

When he "grabs" her hand and asks, "Why did you ask that?" he is probably trying to make her be open with him about her feelings so that they can become more intimate.

But he misinterprets Ann's nervousness. Meanwhile, she misinterprets his behavior, seeing it only as strange and fearing that it's another sign that he's trying to control her. Finally, in her nervousness, she loses balance and, afraid of falling toward him, throws up her other arm and hits him in the face.

He then becomes very quiet, and as she leaves he reminds her that she held his hand once before (when he was sick).

I think it's also important here to note what Ann writes about her own reactions: "I told myself it was not really so important. It was the kind of thing the girls at school used to tell about after they had had a date."

This one comment puts their situation briefly in the right perspective: they are a man and woman trying, however clumsily, to start a physical relationship; and Ann is just like an inexperienced girl on a first date who isn't sure what to do or expect. And, as she says, "It's different when there's no one to turn to or tell about it."

What she fails to realize is how different it is when the man and woman in question might be the last two people in the world. Doesn't this situation require a lot more understanding and openness, and a lot less immature concern about romantic ideas or social conventions??

Because of Ann's fear of being controlled, she ends up deciding NOT to trust Loomis or view his behavior as "normal." She thinks his holding her hand was different from when she held his: "There is a telepathy that goes with such things. When he was holding my hand, I could tell that he was taking charge, or possession....He was trying to control me."

The problem, though, is that Ann is NOT telepathic, and her empathy for Loomis is EXTREMELY LIMITED.

The next day, he compliments her about her farm work. Then in the evening he asks her to read and play the piano for him again, which he enjoyed greatly before. But she is uncomfortable and becomes increasingly nervous because of her fearful imaginings about him. When she suspects he isn't listening to her reading, she thinks it is strange and "wrong" of him to make her read. Yet, it's very possible that he just likes to hear her voice. She even thinks of this: "The sound of a voice can be soothing." She also writes that she told herself she was "making up problems" (which is probably the exact truth).

Anyway,...shortly after this comes the scene when Loomis goes into her room at night and tries to lie down with her.

This is not something he does like a stranger. He has been with her a month. She has shown affection for him and romantic interest. He probably interprets her nervousness as shyness and inexperience. And, perhaps most importantly, he is a practical man who is keenly aware of the fact that the two of them are probably the last people on Earth, and they need each other.

Under these circumstances, I do not think what he does is attempted rape. He is just trying (as the more experienced, mature, and practical one of them) to take their relationship to the next level--where he thinks it must inevitably go. He's trying to get past the awkwardness she feels.

Certainly he SHOULD have talked to her more openly about his own feelings and expectations about their relationship. But the unfortunate fact of the situation is that BOTH OF THEM ARE TERRIBLE AT COMMUNICATING. She is too emotional and indulgent of her personal feelings or imaginings; whereas he is too dryly rational, scientific, practical, and impersonal. Bad luck.

The result is a misunderstanding, not a bad man's attempt to rape a good, innocent girl.

....

[Steve]

...
To judge Loomis' character fairly, one should also consider other facts about his behavior:
1) He never blames Ann for letting him swim in the radioactive steam--even though she could have prevented it (and SHOULD have done so!!).
2) He remains calm and rational even when he is facing his own death (Ann admits she could not do this herself. She would probably be hysterical!)
3) All the instructions he gives her are sensible and practical, and they sometimes show how foolish and shortsighted she is by comparison (for example, when he tells her how to get gas for the tractor and why she shouldn't just cut a V belt in the process).
4) After she runs away, he TRIES to get her to return to the house and be sensible--acting "more like an adult and less like a schoolgirl."
5) In the end, when Ann walks away in the safe-suit, Loomis LETS HER GO!! He even tries to direct her towards a place where he once saw birds circling. If he were insane, a killer, or unscrupulously self-interested, he would kill her (as he killed Edward) and keep the safe-suit. But he is NOT a murderer. His behavior suggests strongly that he feels great GUILT for killing Edward--NOT the way conscienceless murderers or crazy killers usually feel. In fact, of the two of them, he is definitely the more rational and reasonable person.

His behavior at the end is also NOT what Ann expects. Because of her paranoid and twisted understanding of him, she fully expects him to shoot her in the back. Yet, although her assessment of him is proven wrong here, she does not reevaluate her view of him. She's already lost in her own fantasy of herself as a righteous heroine taking revenge on her antagonist and going on to find another valley with children in it for her to teach.

And so ends the human race--as a result of misunderstanding, lack of empathy, self-preoccupation, and a FAILURE TO COMMUNICATE OPENLY!!

[Unregistered]

this book was great

[Unregistered]

i'm currently doing a speech on this book
it is very interesting and gripping and keeps you caming back for more
this book is a great read for those who need something to read even for young people
i am 14 and i have read the book and i find it facinating it is a great book
thankyou goodbye

[Unregistered]

i'm currently doing a speech on this book
it is very interesting and gripping and keeps you caming back for more
this book is a great read for those who need something to read even for young people
i am 14 and i have read the book and i find it facinating it is a great book
thankyou goodbye

i am 14 too and i think that this book is awesome
i am doing a topic in english and we have to read z for zach and i think is is a faboulas book for all ages i recomend this book to anyone who is looking for a good fictional book to read
thankyou unregistered
Tayler Gillespie
Cowra NSW Australia

[Unregistered]

For what it's worth, if any other teachers stumble across this thread whilst looking for teaching ideas, I am currently trying to put together a scheme of work for 14 year olds based ojn the book. I am starting with a "choose your own adventure style activity offering the students the choices Ann has to make and leading to some collaborative writing work, then doing the usual stuff through reading and using the debate about Ann above to stimulate discussion about narrative etc. The students will have to write an evaluation of the opening chapter and a continuation of the novel for their assessed outcomes, though that is in my department's scheme rather than my own decision. I'll have a look back here while I'm teaching it, and if anyone expresses an interest I'll post more details.

[Unregistered]

Hi,

I'm interested in further ideas regarding Z for Zachariah. I enjoyed reading Steve's take on the book and it gives me some great questions to ask my students.

I plan to do an introductory activity to build anticipation. Then I would like to read a couple of chapters out loud and have the students do roles similar to literature circles. Because it is early in the year, I want to keep more control over the groups. When we are all reading the same novel, I can use large group, small groups, or individual work. I can train my students for later in the year when they will work in literature circles and each group is reading a different novel. I envision the students reading individually and discussing in small and large groups. I am hoping to end with some sort of activity choice linked to Multiple Intelligences.

[Unregistered]

Does anyone have a spech on z for zachariah about its themes please email me at meowmix_3@hotmail.com or send it over msn thank you

[Unregistered]

Hii...can anyone write me a script like a dialogue between edward and loomis while the war is going on, and edward is asing loomis for the radiation coat thing....i need it very urgently by any means rite now...can u mail it to me on fatema_r14@hotmail.com.....please...i'll appreciate it!!! pLEASSSSSSSSSSEEEEEEE...am so confused...fanxxxx...

[Unregistered]

Loomis is a grown man. Ann is a 15-year-old girl who's never had a date. If Loomis expects her to become his mate, he should court her. He should not come in and attempt to rape her He should not frighten her with guns. he should not lock up the tractor keys and try to control her. He should not lock up the store, or set traps for her, or shoot her in the ankle. He's a nutcase.

The Valley is Ann's, not Loomis's. He is a guest. He NEVER behaves like one. He never speaks to her with kindness and consideration. First he is sick; then when he starts feeling better, he starts acting imperious. Such men offend everyone they meet--and frighten young girls, especialy when they feel them up and try to get into bed with them. Attempted rape is definitely a deal-breaker when it comes to relationships.

Fighting back against a rapist is the only rational thing Ann can do. Indeed, every girl who's ever read this book wondered why Ann considered killing sweet old Faro instead of Loomis. Her regard for human life is really touching--a regard which Loomis obviously does not share, as witnessed by his willingness to kill Edward and rape/maim/enslave Ann.

how old are you, Steve? You don't seem to know much about girls at all.

[Unregistered]

I am teaching this to my year 9 students. They love it...really.

If anyone has any resources for teaching the book, I'd be grateful for any help:

ljg.hereford@gmail.com

Thanks. :)

[Unregistered]

hello im a student and my teacher just had us read this book.
she had some cool ideas. One of them was since the writer set up for an easy sequel she had us make up a sequel and write the first chapter in the diary format Ann uses in the book. She let use pick to narrate as Ann continuing her journal or as Mr. Loomis starting a journal of his own.
I hated this book though cuz if Ann had any sense she would have shot Mr Loomis!

[Unregistered]

Ann should have tried to talk more to Mr. Loomis but i think steve is just as crazy as mr loomis cuz he tried to rape and shoot her! and the crabbapple tree to garden of eden thing doesnt really work steve becuz in the religon that believes in the whole eden thing believes that after adam and eve picked the fruit they were banished to the wastelands like Ann. So in my opinion the author was thinking about adam and eve but he had already written that when she picked it it was spring so there were no fruit just flowers so he had her pick flowers hence being banished to the wastelands. Boo-ya! im a genius!

[Theo-Physist]

YEEAAAAAAAA this book kinda blows. SPOILER FOR ANYBODY OUT THERE, guy goes nuts tries to rape her fails then tries to kill her she steals his suit and escapes with him still on the hill, looking on as the last other human in his knowing walks on to find other existance. SHE IS HOPEFUL

[Unregistered]

Ann runs away from Loomis because he tries to rape her. How is that irrational?

I agree with this comment.

I'm a middle-aged Scottish secondary school teacher. My pupils engaged with the text. They and I agree that Loomis was depicted as the ultimate control-freak. He's both a murderer and a would-be rapist.

Ann embraces life by leaving the valley and moving on.

[Unregistered]

...
.....4) After she runs away, he TRIES to get her to return to the house and be sensible--acting "more like an adult and less like a schoolgirl."...


Aren't you missing the point that - as an adult male - he should know better than trying to overwhelm a girl who has barely turned sixteen? (Nice of him to wait until she was of age, wasn't it?)

Any sympathy that we might have for Loomis ends when he attempts to maim and imprison Ann. There is no textual justification for any other reading.

[Unregistered]

Loomis is a grown man. Ann is a 15-year-old girl who's never had a date. If Loomis expects her to become his mate, he should court her. He should not come in and attempt to rape her He should not frighten her with guns. he should not lock up the tractor keys and try to control her. He should not lock up the store, or set traps for her, or shoot her in the ankle. He's a nutcase.

The Valley is Ann's, not Loomis's. He is a guest. He NEVER behaves like one. He never speaks to her with kindness and consideration. First he is sick; then when he starts feeling better, he starts acting imperious. Such men offend everyone they meet--and frighten young girls, especialy when they feel them up and try to get into bed with them. Attempted rape is definitely a deal-breaker when it comes to relationships.

Fighting back against a rapist is the only rational thing Ann can do. Indeed, every girl who's ever read this book wondered why Ann considered killing sweet old Faro instead of Loomis. Her regard for human life is really touching--a regard which Loomis obviously does not share, as witnessed by his willingness to kill Edward and rape/maim/enslave Ann.

how old are you, Steve? You don't seem to know much about girls at all.

I totally agree with you.

[Unregistered]

What exactly is the climax of Z for Zachariah. I am between several ideas...

[ErickCVice]

what do you do ? .

[Unregistered]

okay that helps a lot.. geez ppl if I want something from u u keep talking about so much stuff I know this is one of the realllyyyyyyyyyyyy long old replies now and if anybody checks it would you pleaseeeeeeeee give a correct answer to it and not try to talk around it.

Now I need a character sketch/profil from Ann Burden or John R. Loomis does anybody have one or not?

[Steve]

I think those who condemn Loomis and find him utterly unsympathetic are missing a very important point about this story:

It's about the last two survivors of the human race after a nuclear war. The context of the story is a war that has nearly wiped out all life on the planet. In such a situation, doesn't it occur to you that there has been a pretty major breakdown in human compassion, understanding, and reason? Also, doesn't it seem that the relationship between Ann and Loomis represents on a small scale the relationships among different cultures and nations?

In other words, they represent the LAST CHANCE for human beings to understand each other and work out their differences. In this situation, what makes the most sense? Should they speak frankly to each other about their feelings and expectations, try to control their own emotions and be open-minded, and try to reach an understanding? Or should they distrust each other, each expecting the other to conform to a particular subjective idea of "right behavior" in their situation (Ann wanting a romantic courtship, while Loomis takes for granted that they must be a couple).

Even the title implies the importance of Loomis as THE LAST MAN. This is what Ann says she assumed about "Z for Zachariah" in her children's Bible alphabet book.

So, there's a very simple matter to consider: If they are the last two people, what is necessary for their survival and the survival of the human race? Obviously, behavior such as refusing to communicate or have any relationship, or using violent force to resolve matters, does NOT have the best results!! It results in isolation and extinction.

A lot of people who write on this site (especially among young readers) seem to have the opinion that Ann should just shoot Loomis because he's "a murderer" or "a control-freak," and "it's HER valley." These are pretty emotional reactions that come from identifying completely with the narrator and probably making no effort at all to see beyond her limited perspective (or only a very minimal effort to do so).

These reactions also seem to me very similar to the attitudes that people have towards an "enemy" during a time of war. I don't think this similarity is coincidental; rather, it's a parallel the author intends us to see. Nations often come into conflict for reasons like these--that is, people think their freedom is threatened, or that they have more right to lands and resources than certain other people have. Perhaps a conflict like this caused the nuclear war in the background of the story that left Ann and Loomis the last two humans on Earth.

Such harsh judgments of Loomis' character, without any attempt to understand his perspective or sympathize with him, are also very like the prejudice of people towards enemies in a conflict. People just hate and demonize their enemies instead of trying to understand their enemies' point of view. And if people think that way even on just one side of a conflict, how can any understanding be reached and disastrous conflict be avoided?

The point is that human beings are complex, not simple; and there is never just ONE WAY of seeing things. This story presents Loomis ONLY FROM ANN'S VIEWPOINT, and it is a natural affect of this that readers are strongly tempted to sympathize with her.

I believe the diary format of the novel is is a narrative device used by the author to show readers how easy it is for us to become extremely biased against someone without even realizing it (as Ann does), and to show how fatal this one-sided perspective can be.

The ONLY really sensible solution for Ann and Loomis is for them to TALK RATIONALLY AND OPEN-HEARTEDLY with each other. They BOTH fail to do this--for different reasons.

[Steve]

By the way, someone wrote that she couldn't understand why such a loving and compassionate person as Ann could kill her dog. This is one of the incidents in the story that shows Ann is in fact NOT loving and compassionate, but extremely self-centered, emotionally unbalanced, and out of touch with reality.

As for Loomis being a "murderer," I wrote a lot earlier about evidence of his good character and reasonableness. His resort to extreme behavior (trying to wound Ann to make her stay with him) results from desperation when he is faced by her irrational refusal to have any relationship with him. It is not representative of his usual behavior. Also, if you really think he is a murderer for killing Edward, try to put yourself in his position. What would you do? Would you let Edward leave with the only protective suit to visit family who are certainly dead? Would you trust Ed to come back for you?

Edward wasn't listening to reason or thinking clearly. He was overcome with fear for his family; and if he found them dead, he might've even become suicidal or wandered witless until he died himself--leaving Loomis to die gradually of starvation back in the underground lab. Edward forced Loomis to take action to save his own life, and Loomis' nightmares about it attest to the guilt he bears. He's not a murderer--just a survivor who did what he had to in order to survive.

One more thing. The "attempted rape" scene seems to be a particularly touchy aspect of the story. This incident is obviously a central one in determining people's attitudes towards Loomis and their sympathy for Ann. But I think people are too inclined to have a knee-jerk emotional and moral (politically-correct) attitude about it. If the story is discussed in a middle school classroom, it is probably very difficult for any male to voice sympathy for Loomis without being hated by the females in the class and condemned for the indefensible attitude that rape is okay. On the other hand, any female who tries to understand Loomis might be automatically judged by others to be slutty or a traitor to her sex. In any case, attempts to sympathize with Loomis' viewpoint are bound to draw harsh moral criticism.

But a moralistic attitude (especially one that condemns someone utterly for particular behavior) is very narrow-minded and restricts an understanding of the novel to Ann's perspective only. As stated above, I think the author intends for it to be difficult to sympathize with Loomis because the whole story is an exercise in THE NEED TO TRY OUR UTMOST TO UNDERSTAND OTHERS EVEN WHEN THEY SEEM TO BE OUR ENEMY.

And, as I explained in an earlier blurb, I think there ARE good reasons for sympathizing with what Loomis does. The circumstances are far from being clear and unambiguous. (1) Always remember we only have Ann's version of events, and her assumptions about Loomis' intentions. (2) He has been living with Ann for a month while she nursed him back to health. (3) During that time, she has daydreamed about marrying Loomis, and she has shown her romantic interest in him. (4) Just before the "rape" incident, she raised the subject of whether Loomis was ever married and then acted extremely nervous when he took her hand. (MAYBE this led him to judge that she was too shy to say what she really wanted, OR she was naively afraid of sex. And then maybe he decided either that she WANTED him to take the lead or that he HAD TO take control. However he interpreted her behavior, WE CAN'T REALLY KNOW.) (5) After she fled the house and said she wanted no relationship with him anymore, he tried to reason with her, saying she should come back to the house and stop acting like a childish schoolgirl (which seems a good indication of how he views her behavior).

As I wrote before, of course I agree that Loomis acted inappropriately. Of course he should have been more sensitive about Ann's immaturity, spoken to her more frankly, and allowed her to get to know him better and perhaps love him--or at least allowed her time to accept the necessity of their being a couple. But people often make bad judgments, and the point of this story is not to show how easily we humans sympathize with and understand each other--it shows the opposite: how hard we find it to do this. He is a scientist, not a romantic; and he knows that he and Ann are the last two people in the world.

One thing for sure about this story: it is great for creating some heated debate. :-)

[Steve]

If I accept Ann's viewpoint completely and view Loomis as just a threatening, homicidal "control-freak," the message of the novel seems to be that humanity gets destroyed by the male desire for control or domination. When Loomis recovers from his illness, Ann is right to feel that he is starting to take charge of their lives. And when he tells her to stop being childish, he is really thinking that she should just accept his authority without question.

Ann then appears to be utterly good: innocent, idealistic, and sensibly cautious. In standing up to Loomis, she shows strength of character, moral dignity, and independence.

But I don't think this is a good interpretation of the story.

Firstly, the story, the characters, and the theme seem too simplistic. It is an uncomplicated struggle between "good" and "evil," with no ambiguity at all in how we should understand the characters or their conflict. The idea that the desire for control is destructive could make a good theme; but the conflict is presented in such a way that this desire for control is all on one side and identified with the male desire for power over a woman. By extension, it also seems suggested then that the war which wiped out humanity probably also resulted from a male desire for domination over others.

Personally, I think this is a pretty narrow and simplistic understanding of human conflicts. Although it's true that a conflict CAN be caused by one party's aggression, MOST conflicts probably result from competing desires or interests and a failure to achieve understanding or compromise. Also, it is generally true of ANY human conflict that viewing it as a struggle between good and evil reflects only the perspective of ONE SIDE. In ANY case, it is certain that people on each side regard themselves as being "good" or "in the right." Moreover, it is incorrect to think that the desire for power is a distinctively masculine characteristic, or that women have no aggressive or competitive inclinations.

On the other hand, if we make ourselves QUESTION Ann's judgment and TRY to understand Loomis sympathetically, the story, its characters, and its themes become much more complex and meaningful. It's NOT a conflict between a good person and a bad one, but between two basically good people who fail to understand and trust each other. Extended to the broader conflict that destroys the world in the story, it is suggested that disaster results from an all-too-common failure in understanding brought on by biased, self-serving judgments and single-minded pursuit of personal interests.

Secondly, there is much in the story that suggests Ann's behavior is irrational and her judgment of Loomis is wrong.

If she is a compassionate and sensible person, WHY DOES SHE LET LOOMIS SWIM IN CONTAMINATED WATER, just watching from a safe distance even while thinking that she COULD warn him? She chooses to let a stranger die rather than take a chance that he MIGHT be a threat to her. What could be more selfish? She kills her dog later for the same reason.

Her actions in these instances also show that she is NO DIFFERENT FROM LOOMIS in being willing to take another's life to preserve her own. In fact, she seems even LESS morally justified than Loomis was when he killed Edward, since Loomis does NOT directly threaten her when he first arrives; she has no logical reason to fear him at this point. In contrast, Edward's attempt to take the protective suit was a direct threat to Loomis' survival; and he felt at that moment he had to choose between Edward's life and his own.

I listed before some of the other evidence of Loomis' good character:
- He never blames Ann for not warning him about the contaminated water; rather, he blames himself for not being cautious. A selfish and unreasonable person tends to blame others for his hardships, not accept his own responsibility for them! And this is even a life-or-death matter!
- He stays calm and rational despite knowing that he will probably die, whereas a self-indulgent and undisciplined person would become despairing or angry. He shows that he is emotionally balanced, rational, self-controlled. Ann admits to herself that she would NOT act the same way, suggesting her contrary tendency to react emotionally and LACK reasoned self-control.
- When they meet for the last time and Ann expects him to kill her like he killed Edward (revealing for the first time her suspicions and fears), Loomis DOESN'T KILL HER. Instead, he immediately breaks into tears and wants to explain what happened, but he knows that she could never trust him now after everything that has gone wrong. This shows pretty clearly he suffers so much guilt about killing Edward that he cannot do it again, even at the risk of his own eventual death.

Moreover, Loomis knows that keeping the suit and protecting his own life is NOT the main concern anymore. Either way (whether he kills her and keeps the suit or lets her take the suit), he knows that they are both doomed.

So, if we think about the times Loomis shows he is a rational, responsible, and ethical person, it should make us question WHAT DROVE HIM TO ACT IN SEEMINGLY IMMORAL OR IRRATIONAL WAYS? It's not normally his character to be selfish, domineering, and violent.

ANSWER: probably a combination of factors, such as: being highly rational and practical (scientific) in his way of thinking; being in extremely desperate and traumatic circumstances (for a long time believing himself the last human on Earth); and having to deal with the immature and highly irrational character of Ann when he finally finds another human being with whom to start a new life (and maybe save the human race to boot).

[Steve]

Maybe he misinterpreted her feelings about him. Maybe he was too impatient to resolve the tension between them and establish the relationship he viewed as inevitable. Maybe he thought she was just nervous about sex, and after doing it they'd be able to get on with their lives together. Maybe he was feeling particularly lonely and needy.

Ann never finds out WHY he did what he did, since she never asks him or tries to understand. She just condemns him and makes the absurd decision that they can't be friends anymore (even though they're the last two people on Earth).

He tries to reason with her and asks her to return.
When she persists in her irrational behavior, he starts resorting to extreme measures: he tries to force her to compromise with him by depriving her of what she needs (locking the store), and finally by shooting at her to wound her so she'll have to stay with him.

Though this is extreme and irrational behavior, the situation he tries to create would be very similar to the one when Ann was caring for him before. Ann had viewed Loomis as a threat until he was weakened by sickness, and then she cared for him; but she only felt comfortable with him as long as he was too weak to be any threat--that is, as long as SHE had the power and control.

Structurally, it seems unlikely that this parallel in the plot is accidental. Just as Ann felt secure when Loomis was weak and under her control, it seems now that Loomis wants to gain control over Ann by putting her in the same kind of physically weakened and needy position. What does this mean?

1) It at least suggests a similarity between them in that they BOTH like to feel in control of their relationship, or think they need control in order to feel secure.
2) If the reader accepts Ann's view of Loomis, what Loomis attempts could seem a twisted version of the earlier situation: whereas Ann was "unselfishly" caring for Loomis while he was sick, Loomis wants to injure Ann on purpose in order to gain control of her. But this interpretation DOESN'T FIT with all the facts of what happened: she was at least partly RESPONSIBLE for his radiation sickness, and she LIKED it when he was weak and in her control.
3) Another interpretation of the parallel situations is that Loomis realizes the parallel also. Maybe he is trying to recreate a similar situation in which one of them would depend on the other. Maybe he not only wants to force her to stay and talk with him but also thinks that she will trust him over time as he nurses her back to health. To someone in these desperate circumstances, such thinking might seem rational. After all, the first time one of them had to care for the other, it seemed to bring them closer!

Personally, I think he just wants to make her stay at the house again so that she'll have to talk with him and be "reasonable"--but, in any case, he's clearly not thinking very rationally himself at this point if he believes shooting her will help win her over to his way of thinking!

Another possibility is that when she persists in her hatred of him, he begins to view her as a threat like Edward was. This attitude might have even started as a petty sort of revenge, treating her the same way he feels that she is treating him: as an enemy. Or perhaps he only starts to view her as an enemy when she shoots at him in turn as he approaches her hiding place in the woods guided by her dog. He seems shocked by this attack, fleeing in a panic back to the house.

Once the shooting starts, Ann's feelings of distrust and animosity become firmly fixed; and the two of them enter a state of virtual war--analogous to the war that wiped out their world. If I remember correctly, just before Loomis first shoots at Ann, she is considering trying to be more friendly towards him. My view of this is that she is finally starting to be reasonable, but it's too late: Loomis has now given up on her capacity for reason and has decided to resort to force.

After war breaks out between them, there is probably just one last chance for them to reach an understanding. This is when Ann offers to meet Loomis to discuss a truce if he will come unarmed. What Loomis does here seems very important in judging him. He TRUSTS HER and goes to meet her unarmed. For all he knows, she might be waiting in ambush and planning to shoot him as he approaches. But he seems to trust her so that they can FINALLY talk openly and try to reach an understanding.

It is bitterly ironic that she throws away this last chance for their cooperation and survival, just using the offer of a parley as a ploy to steal the protective suit--as a trick to gain power for herself. In other words, the possibility of mutual understanding (the thing most important for survival) is sacrificed for what she selfishly THINKS serves her own interests. Thinking she doesn't NEED Loomis, she looks out only for her own interests; but the irony is that the two of them need each other desperately. By acting selfishly, they doom themselves and their posterity.

Isn't Ann's choice here essentially the cause of practically all human conflict? People forgo chances for mutual understanding (perhaps even scorning diplomacy) because they think they can only get what they want by force, or only force will give them security. Wrong. Only understanding and trust between people can give them real security.

Ann sacrifices everything for revenge and to pursue a fantasy that there is another valley somewhere with children waiting for her to teach them. Unable to handle the complexities of a real-life relationship with Loomis, she prefers to look for the unreal, wish-fulfilling relationships seen in her dreams. As she walks away into the barren radioactive landscape, she is still clinging to childhood dreams of a future career that have become absurdly unrealistic in a world where the society she knew has been completely wiped out. She and Loomis (the last man, "Zachariah") are all that's left of that society. But she is lost in her fanciful and self-indulgent imaginings and completely out of touch with the tragic reality of the world she lives in. In her last meeting with Loomis, she even thinks of herself as being like a heroine in fiction--oblivious to the monstrous differences between her reality and any fictional world she's familiar with.

[Steve]

Another thing that seems important to consider is that ignoring someone or refusing to have a relationship with them is also a kind of violence--a use of force.

It is like one country's government refusing to recognize another country's leaders as legitimate and having no embassy in that country. It could also resemble a trade embargo or economic sanctions against a country in order to punish its government or try to force it to change.

Loomis' use of force is a reaction to Ann's use of force in breaking off relations with him. Her treatment of him is particularly harsh when one considers the simple fact that THERE IS NO ONE ELSE FOR HIM TO BE WITH! She seems to condemn him to living alone without love or a family.

In a way, this threat of being left alone to die is also the same one that he faced earlier from Edward.

[Steve]

I'm a middle-aged Scottish secondary school teacher. My pupils engaged with the text. They and I agree that Loomis was depicted as the ultimate control-freak. He's both a murderer and a would-be rapist.

Ann embraces life by leaving the valley and moving on.

I find it amazing and rather disturbing that so many readers of this story fail to see that it is told from a one-sided, biased perspective, but instead just take for granted that the narrator's viewpoint (and their own viewpoint through identifying with her) is the only valid one. It is disturbing because applying the same outlook to relationships in the real world is bound to lead to similarly biased and unsympathetic judgments about others.

It seems even worse if teachers actually ENCOURAGE students to accept Ann's views unquestioningly, since it is tantamount to encouraging self-righteous absolute moral judgments and an uncritical acceptance of one's own opinions about others.

Sadly, no one who disagrees with my attempts to understand Loomis has tried to explain the details in the story that I think raise doubts about Ann's reasoning and show Loomis' good qualities. Rather, people only respond by repeating Ann's general interpretation of Loomis, referring to the few incidents of his extreme behavior (without attempting to explain his character development), and dismiss him offhandedly as a "nutcase," "control-freak," "murderer," and "rapist."

First, he is definitely NOT a murderer. Killing Edward cannot be justly called murder because of the traumatic and morally complicated circumstances in which it happened (i.e., in the aftermath of a nuclear war that probably wiped out all but 3 people on the planet). Many readers who comment on the story here seem to ignore this background as if everything took place in an ordinary social context where ordinary rules apply--just as Ann tends to assume! As with Ann, perhaps this outlook is more comforting for these readers than the prospect that life and the world as they know it are over.

Anyway, as far as Edward and Loomis knew, they were the last survivors and they had the only means of now travelling safely in the radioactive outside world: one prototype of a safe-suit. Loomis wanted to take that safe-suit to look for his family, and Edward was afraid of losing the only means of escaping their laboratory when the food ran out. Edward was irrational in assuming that his family could have survived the radiation, and he couldn't be counted on to return with the safe-suit. If Edward took the suit, there's a good chance it would have been a death sentence for Loomis. Loomis caught Edward trying to leave and threatened him with a gun, but Edward apparently tried to leave anyway. How can you call this simply murder? Loomis was clearly defending his own life by killing Edward. Similarly, if 2 survivors of a shipwreck are in a boat at sea and one tries to take all the food for himself, the other has no choice but to either fight or die.

Even if Edward had stayed in the underground shelter with Loomis until the food ran low, there would have probably come a time when they had to fight for control over the one safe-suit. The only way that could've been avoided would've been if they had trusted each other completely. What would you probably do in such a situation? If you and a work acquaintance were the last ones alive with one safe-suit between you, are you sure you'd be able to trust each other absolutely and not act emotionally or instinctively to ensure personal survival?

So much for "murdering" Edward. Moreover, IF he is a murderer, why DOESN'T he kill Ann at the end? If she plans to leave him and she'll probably die soon anyway (of starvation or radiation sickness), it would make sense for him to value the safe-suit more than her life. If she takes it and dies with it, the suit will be lost and wasted; whereas if he kills her and keeps the suit, he can make good use of it to visit towns or cities sometimes to get books or useful items. Why should a callous murderer care about killing one more person to serve his own selfish interests?! Why should he let a fool like Ann waste the invaluable, irreplaceable safe-suit?

At least three factors make this situation at the end of the story very different from the situation when Loomis killed Edward: (1) Loomis' survival doesn't depend on having the safe-suit anymore; (2) he already suffers a lot of guilt over killing Edward; and (3) he thinks Ann is the last woman on Earth and is desperate for her to stay with him. Moreover, when she reveals what she suspects about Edward, Loomis probably understands for the first time the main reason she has distrusted him; and he sympathizes with her.

A murderer? No, he's just human.

As for being "the ultimate control-freak" and a "would-be rapist," how can you explain his seemingly very reasonable and responsible behavior when he first meets Ann and finds out she let him swim in contaminated water? Are control-freaks and rapists normally that mild, equable, and self-restrained, accepting of their fate even in the face of imminent death?

When he gives her practical instructions and advice as he recovers from sickness, is he trying to take control of her or just being practical? How can you trust Ann's interpretation that he's asserting control even though she was paranoid about a stranger trying to control her even before Loomis arrived in the valley? Even though she allowed him to be poisoned because of this paranoid fear? Even though she only felt it was safe to help him because he was weakened by sickness?

The fact is that as Loomis becomes healthy again, Ann simply reverts to her original paranoid fear of him as a man with the potential to threaten her if he wants to. Basically, what she fears is any POTENTIAL threat, not real threats that manifest themselves.

As for his "attempted rape" and later actions to force Ann to return to him, these do NOT prove he is either a control-freak or a would-be rapist, since all his actions are understandable under their circumstances (as I've explained in detail). Can you refute these possible expanations of his behavior that I've offered? I think it's difficult to do so when the only evidence available is Ann's interpretation. Basing your jugments on that just ignores that her individual viewpoint is open to interpretation at all.

[Steve]

TRY to put yourself in Loomis' shoes. As a scientist, he knows that the self-contained weather system of the valley is a phenomenal rarity and that there is probably nowhere else left on the planet that can support life. He believes that he and Ann are the last two humans and they must get down to the business of making a new life together as well as they can. But Ann is an incredibly naive and self-deluded young woman who still clings to childhood dreams about her future and believes that her relationships with others should still adhere to social and romantic conventions. Here she is with the last man on Earth in a situation where they HAVE TO cooperate in order to survive and continue the human race, yet she still dreams of marrying Loomis in a church wedding and frets that he might not be attracted to her, then struggles with doubts about whether she knows him well enough and whether she can trust him. She finds fault with him for not seeming interested in her personality, as if she could just dump him and find someone else if he doesn't give her enough attention! She tries to make small talk and asks about his background as if she needs to know more about him to judge if he's a suitable match, and she feels so nervous when he just holds her hand that she stumbles and hits him in the face.

Given Loomis' knowledge of their dire situation, he must have little patience for Ann's silliness. And we readers are only getting a bare glimpse of her foolish ideas through her diary. Loomis probably sees a lot more evidence of her irrational thinking and behavior. Moreover, Ann is NOT a child. At 16, she is a young woman and past the age at which many girls have become sexually active or even married. In Western society, it used to be common for girls to wed at 13, and that probably still happens in some cultures. In our culture, people of that age or in their teens need to be taught in schools about safe sex and the dangers of unplanned pregnancies (which happen often enough). Ann is NOT typically innocent or naive for her age; she is extremely and irrationally naive, especially given her post-apocalypse circumstances. What her behavior suggests is that she has lived a VERY sheltered life with a conservative upbringing, and she is very likely deluding herself about the reality of her situation. She WANTS to believe that the world hasn't changed and normal society is continuing somewhere. At the end, she even goes off to try to find the place in her dreams where children are sitting in a schoolroom waiting for her to come and teach them.

You claim that she "embraces life by leaving the valley and moving on," but that is an absurd view of her actions. She doesn't even take with her the cart of supplies that Loomis needed for his travels, or the tent he used made of the same protective material. She has made no practical preparations for surviving outside the valley apart from securing the safe-suit, so it's no surprise that her diary entries soon end after she leaves. She doesn't embrace LIFE at all!! She embraces her deluded romantic fantasies. And, unwittingly, she recklessly embraces her own death and the end of the human race.

She is like a woman who rejects a man's advances, declaring proudly and scornfully, "I wouldn't sleep with YOU if you were the LAST man on Earth," while ignoring the fact that he actually IS the last man on Earth!! And then she marches off into a nuclear wasteland to find Mr. Right and a satisfying career. LOL. If her stupidity didn't have such tragic consequences, it would be laughably ridiculous.

[Steve]

I think it probably makes the story more interesting for students if it is taught based on the interpretation I've argued for above. It is more challenging for students to understand the text this way, and it makes reading it very much like solving a puzzle.

Two general approaches could be taken, but for both of them the novel needs to be divided into sections for analysis: (1) Loomis' arrival and sickness; (2) Loomis' recovery and Ann's estrangement from him (returning to the cave); (3) the war between Ann and Loomis (from the point he shoots at her until she kills Faro; (4) Ann's ploy to steal the suit, their last meeting, and Ann's departure.

TWO GENERAL APPROACHES:
1) No mention is made of the idea that Ann is a biased narrator until the class has finished reading the story. All through the story, there should just be factual questions about Loomis and Ann, without explicitly directing students to doubt Ann's reliability. But the questions SHOULD draw attention to things that raise doubts about her reasoning, fairness, and objectivity. At the same time, the students should be trying to understand Loomis' reasoning and how he perhaps views Ann.

Example Section 1 questions:

ABOUT ANN:
Why is she afraid when she sees Loomis approaching? Is her fear reasonable?
Is it reasonable for her to hide when he enters the valley? Would you do this?
Is it possible to judge a person's character by watching from a distance?
Why does she feel tempted to answer when Loomis calls out? Why doesn't she respond? Should she have answered him?
Why doesn't she stop Loomis from swimming in the contaminated water? Should she have done something? Is she responsible at all for his sickness?
When she cares for Loomis, is she still afraid of him? Why or why not?
If you were in her position, would you think of possibly marrying Loomis?
What do Ann's thoughts here suggest about her character and way of thinking as a 16-year-old?

ABOUT LOOMIS:
What can be deduced about Loomis' character based on what he says and does. Consider:
- the way he calls out when he first enters the valley.
- his response when Ann says she should've stopped him from swimming.
- his attitude about having possibly fatal radiation poisoning.
- his manner with Ann while she cares for him.
How does Loomis seem to feel about Ann?
What does he seem to think about their relationship?
What does he seem to expect of her?
What does Loomis have nightmares about?
What do the nightmares suggest about his character?
Why did he think it was necessary to kill Edward? Do you agree or not?
What was Edward's state of mind, and could he be trusted to return?
What would you have done in Loomis' situation?

Students should have to evaluate Loomis' character in detail BEFORE they read about Ann's fears when Loomis starts to get better, and definitely before they read the "attempted rape" scene. This way, their judgments about his behavior will NOT be clouded by what he later does or by what Ann fears. The first evaluations of Loomis thus provide a baseline against which Ann's and our later impressions about him can be measured.

Example Section 2 Questions:
How does Loomis probably feel about Ann's piano playing? Why?
Why does Ann ask Loomis if he was ever married before?
Why was he expecting her to ask that question?
What could he be thinking about Ann's intentions or feelings at this time?
Why does Loomis hold Ann's hand? What does this suggest about his feelings?
After she stumbles nervously and hits him, why does he remind her that she held his hand once before? How does he seem to feel about what happens?
How can we explain why Loomis goes to Ann's room at night?
- Is it reasonable for him to think she MIGHT accept him coming to her?
(Are there any romantic stories in which a man and woman live together for a while, their attraction to each other is suggested but not spoken of, and then one night the man goes up to her room, she welcomes him, and they make love?)
- Is it possible he knows she's awake and waiting?
- Has she given him any signs of romantic interest in him?
- Is there any reason he might decide to approach intimacy this way instead of discussing it first?
- Why doesn't Ann tell Loomis right away to leave her room? Why does she wait for him to climb onto her bed?
- What do you think would have happened if she had just told him to leave?

If Loomis knows that Ann is afraid of him and unwilling to make love, WHY would he assume that he can force her to do it and that they could then continue to live together on good terms? Does such thinking fit with the character of a dispassionate scientist or with his calm manner earlier facing his own possible death?
...

2) A second approach would be to ask students up front to constantly consider while they're reading whether Ann is a reliable narrator or not. This should make them skeptical of her viewpoint from the start and TRY CONSCIOUSLY to evaluate her attitudes and judgments critically each step of the way.

A parallel journal or log could be kept by students making notes about Ann's views and behavior, with little notes concerning whether her ideas and actions seem reasonable or not.

In a separate column, information about Loomis should be noted, and students should evaluate whether they think Ann's interpretation is correct or not. Also, the notes about Loomis should indicate whether information about Loomis is based on a quote, a description of what he does, or Ann's opinion about him. Students should of course understand very clearly that Ann's views about should NOT be taken for granted as reliable or valid. We have to try to decide for ourselves whether she judges him fairly and correctly, if there is ambiguity about his thoughts and behavior, or if she seems clearly mistaken about him.

-----------------

Whatever way is chosen for studying the novel, I think it is essential that many questions are raised about Ann's reliability or objectivity as a narrator, and that students TRY to understand Loomis based on exactly what he says and does--not based on what Ann thinks about him. If students are allowed to read the story without doing this (i.e., uncritically), the authoritative voice of the narrator will very likely influence them to accept her view of everything without question--and they will end up, like many readers in this forum, merely hating Loomis like Ann does and claiming she should've simply killed him! Then the whole point of the novel will have been missed.

[Unregistered]

I remember reading this book for fun and wondered why it was never taught when I was in school. I got a lot more out of it than I did (some of) the books that were assigned. :-)

[StuTeach23]

Google was no success, all you find their is information about the book.
You can make up your own stuff though!

~StuTeach23

[Unregistered]

I read this book when I was is school about 18 years ago (Croesyceiliog Comprehensive in Cwmbran, South Wales). It made an impression on me then, and i've read it many times since. Steve, you make some excellent points regards Loomis, it's just a shame that the author is not with us to hear his view points. I too have made the mistake in always read the book through Ann's eyes, and by reading a lot of view points on here today, have realized that there are two sides to every story.

[Unregistered]

Z for Zachariah is one of the most interesting books my language and literature class has read so far. It took us a month to finish because we read together as a class (46 of us to be exact)and had to share, but it was all worth it.
We are now required to submit an assignment and choose two of the eight activites given to us.
1. Diary Entry from Mr Loomis point of view
2. Conclusion- what happened when Anne left Burden Valley
3. A WANTED poster
4. A newspaper article on an event in the story
5. A letter to a friend or a character in the story expressing what you thought of the story
6. A comic strip
7. A Plot outline
8. Illustrate a setting in the story
Hope this helps.
Big fan, Papua New Guinea

[Unregistered]

What I don't understand is why ann leaves?? Why wouldnt she stay and fight for her home?? I do not understand why she would let Mr. Loomis stay & take over the place she has lived in for her whole life?? I think the author wrote this book very unrealistic & totally idiotic! Plus they made Ann's character so odd and unbelievable that it made the book boring & hard to read?? Does anyone know when the author died?? Because I belive that the ending was the worst part of the book, and I can't help but think his family must be responsible for the horrible ending of this book!!!

the person who wrote the ending was not the original author because he had died. his family finished it for them

[Unregistered]

The one who wrote Z for Zachariah (Robert O'Brien) did not finish writing the book. His family did, because he had died before it was finished and published. Thats probably why it is a little confusing

[Unregistered]

What exactly is the climax of Z for Zachariah. I am between several ideas...

The climax is when John aims his gun at Ann and tells her not to leave the valley with the suit or he will kill her.

The falling action is when Ann turns her back to John and leaves the valley with the safe suit to search for other survivors.

[Student]

I'am a student however I have been assigned to read this book and hannas suitcase, we are also assigned to compare and contrast the 2 books and the effects, both negative and positive, of what war does to peoples health, mentality and social life.

Some new methods to try are to maybe make students draw pictures that have juxtoposition between 2 different wars and how different they are.

Thank you and if you would like to comment on this info please email me at:

ilovemischabartonandfinalfantasy@hotmail.com

[Unregistered]

Z For Zachariah is by far the most interesting nvoel i have read when it comes to human survival whether it be alone or in a group. It demonstrates the struggle they must take in daily life, the improvisation humans will use when in doubt and of course the insanity humans can show when put under stress demonstrated through Mr. Loomis activites.

Although he was dead before he could receive and awards he has completed this novel and I am dissapointed to hear there is no sequel to this book as the ending is inconclusive allowing a wide range of ideas and a gap for a sequel.

Yours Sincerely,

A 14 Year Old Student.

[Unregistered]

Hi
I'm a first year out teacher desperately trying to engage myself (let alone my year 8s) with this novel. All I can say is THANK YOU 'STEVE' (whoever you are) for giving me an interpretation that is far beyond anything that anyone else has. All the resources I have are sooooo simplistic and I have hated this book.
Unfortunately I was an advanced reader when I was my students' age (father is a literature teacher) and find it hard to engage with teen fiction at all.

As a side note, my students in general are tolerating the novel, but are not particularly engaged - even the top readers in the class.

[Unregistered]

My question is how to introduce the book to my year 9 students. Do you find it best to focus solely on the book from start to finish, or to tackle it concurrently with other topics?

[Unregistered]

This book is so stupid. I had to read it over the summer for school and I made it through the first 6 chapters and had to put it down.

[Unregistered]

this book is wicked

[Steve]

THANK YOU 'STEVE' (whoever you are)

Thanks very much. I'm happy that someone finally found my comments about the story interesting instead of condemning me as "immoral" because I don't dismiss Loomis completely as a "rapist" and agree he should simply be shot. Simplistic and judgmental thinking abounds. Ironically, that is exactly the problem that the story tries to draw attention to.

I thought the story was very simplistic and dumb also until I realized that the narrator is unreliable and that the whole story deals with the need for people to get past their self-centered views (irrational fears, especially) in order to understand others.

Ann is paranoid from the start and only concerned about protecting her own safety at any cost, and that is certainly the main cause of misunderstanding and conflict between her and Loomis. It amazes me that others fail to see how irrational she is. Does she think she can CHOOSE to be friends or not with this stranger who wanders into the last habitable valley on Earth? If she decides she doesn't "like" him for some reason, what will she do? Hide from him all her life despite having to share the same small valley, and despite the probability he is the only other human she will ever meet? It's absurd.

The ONLY reasonable thing for her to do is TRY to make a good life together and hope for the best--NOT let groundless fears guide all her decisions! She should let herself be motivated mainly by compassion and the desire for companionship, not self-interested fear for her own safety and comfort.

Besides, what ultimate safety can there be for her in staying alone in her valley or wandering off alone into a radioactive desert? The kind of perfect safety she craves can only be found in complete isolation from others; but what good is that? It's a sad comment on the human race if that is the only way we can feel safe from one another.

Burden Valley is the last chance for humanity's survival, and the last two humans have to find a way to live together. If they don't "like" each other for any reason, there's nowhere else to go and no one else to turn to for companionship. It's the world in small. We're used to thinking that we can just ignore people we don't like or kill enemies to get our way. But with modern weapons and population pressures (and now the problems of climate change as well reducing available resources), we need to find a way to share this planet amicably before we destroy it and/or ourselves completely. I suspect that Ann's family name, "Burden," suggests the characteristics that interfere with human compassion and threaten our survival as a species: the burden of egotism, perhaps. Or maybe the name suggests that she and the valley with her family's name carry the burden of humanity's survival.

Anyway, I hope your classes turned out all right. Two other stories that I think have similar humane themes are Jeanne DuPrau's The City of Ember and The People of Sparks.

[Rory]

I am a parent of a student who is readying this book. My child’s assignment is to create a map of the Valley, however he is having some serious issues trying to piece together enough detail to create it accurately. I also have had trouble with finding enough detail to advise him in the correct way to set up the map. I was wondering if there is some way to find enough detail or a map I may review in order to advise him of the information he must look at to complete this assignment.
P.S. As I had to read the book myself, to help my son, I must let you know that I also found the book extremely boring, neither myself nor my son enjoyed reading this book, also as the original author did not get the chance to finish it. I think it lost alot in the switch and should not be taught if we are trying to keep a waning interest for these students who already find school boring and a waste of time.

[Unregistered]

I started the book yesterday and finished it about half an hour ago. It was reccomended to me by a friend and I must say that I thought the book was really good. I'm a thirteen year old. Every year in school in English class we read a novel and I will definetely suggest this novel as the one we read this year. The only thing I didn't like about the book is that it doesn't seem to end. There could be a sequal but unfortunately there isn't....I would've liked to have found out what happens to Ann after she leaves the valley and whether or not her dream comes true. It would also be interesting to find out what happens to Mr Loomis. My bet is that he'd go mad. Bonkers. Cookoo. Crazy. Y'know, that sorta thing. Anywho, just thought I'd let everybody know.

[AussieJim]

Mate
I feel like I've had my head up a certain other orifice for all these years.:(
If you don't mind I'm going to copy all your ideas and use them as teaching aids in future.
It's not a nice realisation, but Loomis is the more reasonable of the two at the end. You are completely right. Politically incorrect (or at least unfashionable) but right.
Oh, by the way the word you were looking for was effect (noun) not affect which is a verb.;)
Thanks for making me realise that I've been taking Ann's perspective as the only one.
Jim

[Z for Zach fan!]

You can try and make the students write a short summary about what happens in the book. You can also make them research about the nuclear war and then make them present it in front of the class!

[Spartan KC17]

Hii...can anyone write me a script like a dialogue between edward and loomis while the war is going on, and edward is asing loomis for the radiation coat thing....i need it very urgently by any means rite now...can u mail it to me on fatema_r14@hotmail.com.....please...i'll appreciate it!!! pLEASSSSSSSSSSEEEEEEE...am so confused...fanxxxx...

I believe that YOU should read the book to finish your homework, i find it can be very useful.
Anyway, I also did an assignment about Z for Zacharia very similar to this.
The radiation suit is the only in the world, and Edward wants it. Keep in mind that the suit has never been tested, so neither of the two know if it will truly repell radioactive particles. If it didn't work, then Edward would die and the suit would be lost forever, however, if it had worked, then Edward may have abandoned Loomis to die in the mountain lab. The author hints that Edward was shot by tellings us through Ann that there were three bullet-shaped holes in the suit when she examined it. Though she is not POSITIVELY sure if they are bullet holes, she thinks of Loomis as a murderer. We also don't know if Loomis had shot Edward out of greed of wanting the suit, or out of defense from Edward taking it, which makes quite a difference in the story.
The dialog is yours to create, so it can be whatever you wish; Use the info above to help write. I refuse to write your homework for you, and anyone willing to should rethink their actions. Next time, DO IT!!!

[Unregistered]

look,
i'm in japan
im doing long distance education
this ****************S
i cant find a map oonline
whats your problem
im bonding with my cousin who is visiting, i just want to finish and tlak to my friends on msn
STUPID GIRL
good on you lauren

yeah bye

GET A MAP

[Steve]

Thanks very much for your comment, AussieJim.

I'm very happy if the notes I posted earlier are of any help in making materials.
I hope they work well with your classes and encourage some stimulating discussion. :-)

Cheers, mate.
Steve (in Victoria, BC)

[Unregistered]

Where does mr obrien stop in the book because I heard his family had to finish the book.

[Unregistered]

I recentely read this book myself.

I am a twelve year old boy.
I don't think they she should shoot him becasuse they might or MAY be the last human beans on the planet and if they are ... why do they live on? Without any other human life-forms, there should be no will to live on anyways.

You need to socialize .. doesn't anyone agree?

[Confused!!!]

HELLLOOOOOO can anyone tell me where in z 4 zacahriah did Mr C'Obrien stops because he died so basically he couldn't finish it cos he dead.

[Unregistered]

A few points:

1) I think you like the sound of your own voice
2) I would not like to be the only other person living on the planet with you (solitude and extinction of the human race would be preferable - If Loomis had kids they would turn out to be into domestic violence, rape, murder and the like. What a wonderful world!)
3) Serial killers can be quite rational. That is how they can kill so many people without getting caught. Should someone just sit down and have a nice chat with them about how they are really feeling? (Over a plate of fava beans and a nice Chianti...)

Now be quiet nut job!

[Steve]

A few points in answer:

1) I have just written here to discuss how this story is interpreted. I've written a lot because of the brief, sarcastic responses to my first queries about viewing Ann as an unreliable narrator. As mentioned before, none of the critics of this interpretation have responded thoughtfully to the evidence I've outlined. They just assume Loomis's worst actions are representative of his whole character; and, like Ann does most of the time, they look no further in trying to understand him. However, even Ann is more critical of herself than these readers are in judging her, since she briefly considers at times whether she is being unreasonable.

2) Preferring "solitude and extinction of the human race" to sharing the planet with someone else is insane. It makes nice rhetoric, but only lunatics or passionately self-absorbed people could actually act on such feelings. It's also quite a selfish viewpoint, since one would be choosing to end not only one's own life but all possible future lives, as well as making all human history come to nothing. As for Loomis's suitability as a husband and father, I've already shown evidence that he is more reasonable than Ann. But even if he were a monster, Ann would have had an influence over her children also, and in time the children might have risen against their tyrannical father; and then the human race could have continued. I just point this out to show that a choice to kill oneself (also what Ann's choice amounts to) is extremely foolish.

3) Loomis is not a "serial killer" or psychotic. In her reasonable moments, even Ann realizes that Loomis had to kill Edward in order to survive. There was only one safe-suit, and Edward could not be trusted to return with it in his distraught frame of mind (crazily hoping that his family might still be alive). Also, when Ann decides to kill Faro to protect herself, she thinks, "It makes me feel as much a murderer as Mr. Loomis. Now there are two of us in the valley." In fact, though, she is more guilty of killing unjustly than Loomis is. Loomis really had no choice, since he would certainly have died if Edward had taken the safe-suit. On the other hand, Loomis never tries to kill Ann or drive her out of the valley; all he wants is for her to return and live with him--to "act more like an adult and less like a schoolgirl."

When she refuses to have ANY relationship with him whatever (even to talk with him), his desperation drives him to take extreme and irrational measures. But he is still not beyond being reasoned with. When Ann writes a note saying she's "tired of hiding" and wants to talk, he trusts her and risks his own life by going to meet her unarmed. Doing this shows that he is still more capable of trust than she is. Finally, at their last meeting, when she openly accuses him of murdering Edward, he acts as if he suffers a lot of guilt and remorse over Edward's death, and he chooses NOT to kill her. However, even though this behaviour proves her assumptions about him were WRONG, Ann proceeds with her insane plan to leave the only known habitable valley.

Again, if Loomis were really a conscience-less killer and rapist, as some find it comfortable to think (in their simple "good vs. evil" conception of the world), WHY doesn't he kill Ann at the end and keep the safe-suit for his own use? Why would he let her take away the only means of leaving the valley (e.g., to gain useful tools and books from nearby towns)?

Finally, consider Ann's own interpretation of Loomis. It is biased from the start, but there are occasional glimpses of sympathetic understanding. Even before Loomis's arrival, she is afraid that any stranger who comes to the valley might be crazy: "suppose he was crazy? Or suppose it was someone mean, or even cruel, and brutal? A murderer?" After letting Loomis swim in a poisoned river and continuing to watch fearfully from a distance, she thinks, "This man is a stranger, and bigger and stronger than I am....He can do whatever he likes, and I will be a slave for the rest of my life." She starts out being paranoid that Loomis will try to dominate her.

After Ann runs away and refuses for a while to have any relationship with Loomis, he starts to lock things up. At first, she explains this according to her longtime fears of being controlled: "I knew that he had a compulsion for taking charge of things." There is little evidence of this view of him, though; and it ignores his recognition that the house is hers, so she should want it back.

But then she considers another view of him: "perhaps, in a way, these new things he had done were my own fault. It seemed that the more I stayed away from him the more determined he was that I come back. Perhaps I could yield a little. There are people who cannot stand being alone; perhaps he was acting from despair."

This is a far more reasonable explanation of Loomis's behaviour than the view that he is just a psychotic killer and rapist! This sympathetic view also has the advantage of fitting with his behaviour throughout the story, not just his most extreme actions.

By the way, in case it isn't obvious, sarcastic comments and personal criticisms aren't very informative and useful as critique or a response to others' views.

[Steve]

My child’s assignment is to create a map of the Valley, however he is having some serious issues trying to piece together enough detail to create it accurately....I was wondering if there is some way to find enough detail or a map I may review in order to advise him of the information he must look at to complete this assignment.
P.S. ...I also found the book extremely boring, neither myself nor my son enjoyed reading this book, also as the original author did not get the chance to finish it. I think it lost alot in the switch and should not be taught....

There are fairly detailed maps of Burden Valley and the surrounding area at: http://www.geocities.com/stavros1000/temporarypreviewfile.html?1214787273453

I put these online partly because I think it is not a good use of students' time to find all the scattered descriptions in the story and piece them together--especially if efforts are spent on this rather than on the more important issue of understanding Ann and Loomis. The map has relatively minor importance. Also, if map-making is of interest, maybe it would develop the same skills more efficiently if students were given a partial map with just a few areas that need filling in based on information in specified chapters.

Some people have observed that the writer unfortunately died before finishing the story, and they seem to think this results in a flawed ending. However, this view ignores the fact that the writer explained his intentions to his family so that they could finish the story as he'd planned. At most, then, the change of author resulted in a slight change in the writing style but NOT in the content. It seems pretty presumptuous of people to assume they know better than the writer's family how the story "should" have ended.

The ending of the story is important to its meaning. It is not in any way faulty. What's faulty is the judgment of the main character, Ann. Those who find the ending unsatisfying probably assume incorrectly that Ann is "good" and Loomis is "wicked," and they look for a more satisfying end in which she either kills him or gets to keep the nice green valley for herself--instead of heading out into a dead wasteland to an uncertain end. They would like to think that a sequel could show Ann finding another habitable valley.

But the only realistic view of the story's ending is that Ann is going to die because of her foolishness, leaving Loomis the last man on Earth. If there were any sequel, it would have to be about Loomis. I think one idea for a sequel would be to tell the story from Loomis's perspective, from the time of the war until after Ann leaves the valley. It would probably end with Loomis either going mad and killing himself or else slowly growing old full of tormenting regrets about his failure to understand Ann and deal with her reasonably.

[Unregistered]

Okay, having read through all Steve's (many) posts, I find myself having to ask: how do you justify him trying to SHOOT HER so he could maim her and thus keep her prisoner? That's what we call being a sociopath--I don't care if they ARE the last two people on Earth; if one of them is going to be that much of a nutbar, he doesn't need to breed.

(Also, would there really be much point in them having children when there would likely be no one for those children to pair up with as adults? Or were they to form some sort of giant incestuous commune?)

I really am quite disturbed by his utter condemnation of a fifteen-year-old girl. I pray he A.) never dates, and B.) never has children.

[Unregistered]

Okay, having read through all Steve's (many) posts, I find myself having to ask: how do you justify him trying to SHOOT HER so he could maim her and thus keep her prisoner? That's what we call being a sociopath--I don't care if they ARE the last two people on Earth; if one of them is going to be that much of a nutbar, he doesn't need to breed.

Thank you! I couldn't agree more. I have been appalled by the twisted interpretation, but it has creeped me out to the point where I felt unable to respond.

[daksta]

i am 13 years old and i need to do a 350 word book review? can somone help

[Unregistered]

Steve, although you raise some interesting points and a refreshing way to look at “Z” I have to disagree with you.
After reading a little about O’Brien (or Robert Leslie Conly) I’ve come to the conclusion that he intended the reader to sympathise with Ann. He was Catholic, a nature lover, a poet, loved playing the piano and was very fond of children. The character of Loomis (the very name is sinister) is a scientist and part of the war machine. After re-reading this book I couldn’t help feeling how anti-science (even anti-knowledge) it was. Loomis is portrayed as controlling and exploiting nature with his way of intensive farming compared with Ann’s nature loving low-tech approach. Ann imagines him looking like a poet with his long hair as he first arrives but he burns her poetry book. Ann has the ability to play the piano, which Loomis liked but couldn’t do. Ann is very religious and naïve while Loomis appears the opposite. It seems to me that this book is just an old-fashioned heavy handed morality tale. I know you are arguing for an unreliable narrator but the fact that Ann is the narrator – the heroine seems to also contribute to my theory.
Here is an excerpt from The Guardian, written by Sarah Hall, which I found interesting:
“Loomis is quite plainly intended to be read as a villain: a murderer, a would-be rapist and a usurper of land. He is "the last man on earth", desperate to prevail and procreate. The circumstances are as mitigating as they might possibly be, but the message is clear: under no circumstances is such behaviour acceptable.
Loomis's introduction of conflict, dishonesty, industrialisation and dispossession to the fertile green valley echoes the greatest ills of American settlement. Ann nurses him through his first period of sickness, brings him food and later arranges a simple trade bargain. She is turned upon and driven out. It is, in essence, the story of the continent's first people.
Until the last moment, Ann gives Loomis the benefit of the doubt, honouring their agreement, dividing all their food equally, even as he plots against her. Unknown to Loomis, Ann has a gun, a .22, and she is an excellent shot. At any point she could end her suffering, defensively, ridding herself of her tormentor. But her morality, her civility, is such that she cannot even shoot the dog Loomis uses to track her. At the end of the novel, Loomis attempts redemption. As Ann is leaving in the stolen radiation suit, he directs her west, where he has seen birds circling and there might be other life. Faith is present in the novel, but, it offers few practical solutions to Ann's problems, only hope.
O'Brien resists the temptation to proselytise. And he does not complete the biblical full circle. His characters' names belie their final roles. Loomis is sinister, a male representation of human demise, one who instigates disaster. Ann Burden is a girl sorely put upon. As the TLS neatly concluded in 1975, she is an Eve who refuses to begin the whole story over again. This is eschatology for kids.”

[Steve]

My first attempt to post maps on a Yahoo webpage failed for some reason, so I'm trying again with the Weebly site below (which is far easier to use also). I hope the site works this time and is helpful.

http://valleyofburden.weebly.com/index.html

[Steve Infidel]

What impresses me most among recent posts here is the one by a 12-year-old who wrote, "I don't think she should shoot him because they might be the last human beans on the planet....You need to socialize."

The rest of you are hopeless--happy in your simplistically moralistic universe of clearcut "good" and "evil," blissfully ignoring any evidence to the contrary no matter how it is explained to you.

Oh, well. Perhaps sarcasm would be more effective.

Ann is a saint. Loomis is an evil sociopath. This should be perfectly obvious to everyone, and I can prove it no matter what anyone else says.

- It's true that when Ann sees Loomis approach, she hides in fear of a man she hasn't even met and has no cause yet to fear. But that is not paranoia; it's perfectly reasonable to expect the worst of strangers.

- When Loomis takes off his mask and shouts out, "Haaay," like someone cheering at a ball game (22), seemingly full of hope to hear another human voice, his cry is actually the maniacal one of a twisted, unemotional, psychotic sociopath.

- Ann feels a powerful urge to answer Loomis's call, run to him, cry, and touch his face (23), but it's a darned good thing she suppresses such dangerous emotions as the desire for human companionship. He might've killed or enslaved her right then. It's much better that she let him be answered by silence.

- To ensure her own safety, Ann does nothing to stop this potentially evil stranger from bathing in a radioactive stream. So, what? She is not to blame for this at all; she has to look out for number one.

- When Loomis then gets radiation sickness as a result, Ann shows her amazing kindness when she decides to care for him. Sure, she waits 3 days while making excuses to herself that she "can't be sure" the stream is deadly (complete absence of life in it might mean nothing, after all); and then she has a sudden desperate fear that the stranger is the last man and she will be alone forever if he dies (45). But her motives for helping him are still completely altruistic, and she's absolutely right to blame him in the end because he never thanked her for helping him. Yes, she later thinks that her last words to Loomis were "childish" (248), but she's obviously wrong in thinking anything negative about herself.

- It's true that right after Loomis swims in the creek Ann worries because she thinks she "could have stopped him" (26); and later she reveals guilt feelings, telling Loomis, "I wish I had warned you" (101). But she is obviously silly to feel this way and not at all responsible for what happened. It just shows how good she is that she even feels guilty for something that wasn't remotely her fault. As she says, she couldn't possibly have prevented what happened unless she had risked her life by showing herself (26)!

- Loomis knows he could be facing death, yet he remains calm and doesn't blame Ann at all for what happened; he just blames himself for being careless. But this doesn't show he is reasonable, fair, or emotionally well-balanced. He must be crazy.

- Ann is impressed by Loomis's calmness in the face of death and thinks she herself would be hysterical (52). But this doesn't mean Loomis's rationality should be admired. On the contrary, we approve much more of people who tend to react emotionally and panic in a crisis. Everyone knows that reason and self-control are very bad.

- Though Ann hides in a cave in fear of Loomis on May 26th, a few days later on June 3rd she thinks there's no reason they couldn't get married in a year (81). But this is not silly, irrational, or deluded, indicative of a weak grasp of reality or an overactive imagination. Rather, Ann is just a normally reasonable 16-year-old and much more sensible really than a scientist about twice her age could be expected to be.

- Ann nurses Loomis for a month (from late May until late June), at first feeling thrilled to have company again (54-55). She dresses up for him (55), cooks him healthy meals that he thinks are "Amazing" (55, 68), takes pride in helping him (71), and watches a sunset with him as he rests his hand on her shoulder for support (71). She offers to play the piano for him, which makes him seem "extremely pleased, almost excited" (73); and afterwards he thanks her, saying, "This is the best evening I ever spent" (74). She dreams of marrying Loomis and having children, and she makes a bouquet of apple blossoms for his sickroom (81). He asks to go fishing with her, and she offers to show him how to do it (85). She tries to create a romantic dinner atmosphere, regretting she took her candles to the cave because oil lamps "did not look as romantic" (88). She stays close by him during the worst stages of his fever, washing his sweat-soaked pajamas and providing clean ones (108), rubbing his body with handkerchiefs soaked in alcohol (110), comforting him in his delirious fears and nightmares about Edward (112), changing his pajamas and bedsheets for him (130), and feeding him when he starts to recover (134). Later, he tells her that her piano-playing stopped a feeling that he was "floating away" (138), suggesting that her companionship saved his life; and when he first says he heard her playing, she feels like hugging him (137).

BUT WHY WOULD LOOMIS FEEL ANY ATTACHMENT TO ANN, OR PRESUME THAT SHE MIGHT FEEL ANY AFFECTION FOR HIM? That's ridiculous. Aside from her private imaginings about marrying him, and maybe dressing nicely sometimes, and the occasional romantic dinner atmosphere, playing the piano for him, and changing his clothes, none of her behaviour could possibly suggest she feels any intimacy with him. A shared sunset is nothing special, and walking to the pond together to go fishing is nothing like a date. Whatever romantic feelings she actually had, she hid them so well that he could never have suspected anything.

[Steve Infidel]

- It's true that Ann represses or hides her feelings much of the time, and sometimes this is clearly due to fear for her own safety. When Loomis first arrives in the valley and calls out, she represses a strong desire to answer and run to him (23). When the dog Faro finds Ann's hiding place, she doesn't hug him the way she feels like doing because she fears Faro will betray her (35). When Loomis says an evening with her playing the piano was the best he'd ever had, she says, "You mean since the war" (74), as if she's afraid to accept openly any feeling of intimacy between them. She wishes they could get married, but she can't bring herself to tell him her feelings (101). When he starts recovering from his fever and says he heard her play piano, she wants to hug him; but she represses the temptation and just sits down by his bed instead (137). When she hears Loomis taking his first steps again, she feels like running into his room and applauding; but she restrains her impulse, telling herself that he doesn't want her approval (147). But Ann is absolutely RIGHT to control her feelings in all these instances, and the results are much better than they would have been if she'd done otherwise!

Just imagine. If she'd run to Loomis when he first called out, they might have felt happy right away to find companionship again, and Loomis never would have gone swimming in the poisoned creek. If she'd cared more about her feelings for Faro than her own safety, it could have weakened her by making her trust feelings of affection at other times also, like when Loomis said he'd had the best evening ever. She might've thanked him for the compliment and said she felt the same way, with no doubt disastrous consequences. Think of how horribly quickly they could have become close if Ann had told Loomis her hopes to marry him, or if she'd allowed herself to hug him when he was recovering from fever. Yes, it is much better to repress potentially harmful affection for others and instead indulge really beneficial feelings like FEAR OF THE UNKNOWN or FEAR OF POTENTIAL ENEMIES.

- One might think that a scientist like Loomis would know what he's talking about when he says that it's against the odds for a "meteorological enclave" like the valley to exist (56). But we shouldn't give any credit at all to his opinion. When Ann later has a dream about children waiting for her in another valley, that is much more reliable. Also, it's not important that Ann's family went in the same direction as she does (south and west), or that Loomis travelled ten weeks across the country, finding "no living thing--no people, no animals, no trees, not even insects--only gray wasteland, empty highways, and dead cities and towns" (57). That's no reason at all for Ann not to trust her dreams and be hopeful.

- Oh, yes. And the story is clearly "anti-science" because Loomis is a scientist and he's entirely evil. Also, everything to do with science is shown to be evil. Like the tractor, the guns, the safesuit, and the waterwheel Loomis designs to generate electricity. Evil. Evil. Evil. Admittedly, Ann is "really glad" when Loomis tells her how to get gas for the tractor (71); she's a good shot with a gun and uses one to defend herself; when Loomis designs a waterwheel generator, Ann thinks "It would be nice to have a refrigerator again" (84); and Ann ends up using the safesuit herself to leave the valley. But that doesn't mean any of this technology is beneficial. If Loomis has anything to do with it, it must be inherently evil. I've also heard that some people think evils such as human conflict tend to result from faults of human nature, or from people's failures to understand one another; but that's silly. The real problem is just that science and technology are evil and ruinous in themselves. And science must also be evil because it's against religion, which is why Loomis doesn't go to church.
- We know that there could be other survivors of the war in other miraculously protected valleys because Ann has dreams about children somewhere waiting for a teacher. Sure, these could be wishful imaginings caused by the extreme conditions of living in the wilderness and fearing that she can't survive any longer in her own valley; but surely these particular dreams must be true. We can just tell that they are special visions, particularly since Ann is a nice Christian person suffering unjustly and deserves to be helped in some supernatural way.

- It's true she had different dreams before in different situations, but those dreams weren't really meaningful. For example, her hopes and dreams all year that a man would come to the valley and they could raise a family together (36). Or the dream "that it was [her] father in the tent, sick, and then that her whole family were there again, in the house" (44), which made her realize her loneliness and start fearing that Loomis might die. That dream wasn't important, and it certainly didn't suggest any connection between Loomis and having a family again. Or her happy daydream next to the crab-apple tree about marrying Loomis the following year and having children together. We shouldn't think of that as a good dream, either. Obviously, it's much better that she puts all her hope in a dream valley rather than the miraculous one she's already in, and that she goes looking for people in dreams instead of working on a relationship with the last man whose existence is certain.

This mainly just deals with the first half of the book. More sarcasm later maybe, if you're lucky.

[Steve Infidel]

By the way, what that Unregistered person wrote about O'Brien's likely views as a Catholic and about an interpretation by Sarah Hall is utter rubbish. Not a bit of it makes the slightest sense in relation to the actual story, and blanket acceptance of such ideas merely shows a near complete inability to think critically. Some of the statements by this blogger are really absurd, such as to claim a writer's love of music proves anything about his intentions in a particular novel. As for the claim that Loomis is portrayed as exploiting nature like an industrialist, try to back that up with ANY strong evidence from the story. Ann is thrilled that he shows her how to get gas for the tractor. Is that supposed to represent Loomis's destruction of nature? What about when Ann drives the tractor? And how is his design for a waterwheel generator supposed to show destructive industrialization? Ann approves of that also, and hydroelectricity is one of the cleanest types of energy. Most or all of the things Loomis suggests about farming are things Ann has already thought about or planned to do; and part of her annoyance stems from his presuming to instruct her about work she understands better than he does.

A "murderer"? I've explained umpteen times very clearly why Loomis is NOT a murderer, showing that even Ann understands why he had no choice in killing Edward. She sees the reasons, but she ignores them because of the paranoid fears she had even before meeting Loomis. Furthermore, he clearly feels guilt about killing someone; and he proves her wrong about him when does NOT kill her as she expects (even though she is stealing the invaluable safesuit). Many people are impaired in their reasoning, unfortunately.

Ann certainly does NOT "give Loomis the benefit of the doubt." That is utter crap. From the moment he enters her room and she runs away, she believes she can never trust him again. IT IS LOOMIS WHO GIVES ANN THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT!!! When she asks to meet with him to talk on the condition that he come unarmed, HE TRUSTS HER AND GOES UNARMED TO THE PLACE SHE SAYS. But she exploits his trust only to deceive him so she can steal the safesuit.

No, Loomis is not interested in any absurd and melodramatic "redemption." His behavior at the end is in keeping with his character throughout the story. He never had any intention of killing Ann. He just wanted her desperately as a companion, and her refusal to have any relationship with him drove him to take irrational and extreme measures. The guilt he shows at the end of the story for killing Edward is the same feeling he has shown repeatedly in delirium and nightmares. Conscienceless murderers don't have nightmares. Why would he want to add guilt for another killing, and why would he kill the last woman in the world if there were the remotest hope she might return? At most, he might have wounded her and taken her home, which would probably have been the best outcome for both of them. But he probably realizes finally that it is hopeless to try to force her to stay with him.

Your silly idea that he tries for redemption is based on countless misinterpretations of the story, including the assumption that Loomis alone is to blame for the failure of their relationship. Try reading the story about 5 times more, and look for all of the instances of Ann's self-doubt. She considers sometimes that she might wrong in her thinking. But, as with most people, it's almost impossible for her to really accept her own faults and overcome them. Only after two weeks of shunning Loomis does she begin to think that maybe she's being too extreme, and by then it's too late to take a more moderate course because Loomis's desperation is about to make him extreme in turn. That's a great example of a common cycle in human interaction.

And do you even have any understanding at all of the device of an unreliable narrator? If you can claim that the heroine of a story is likely a reliable narrator just by virtue of being the heroine, you're really clueless. Have you ever read Gulliver's Travels? Wuthering Heights provides an example of an unreliable narrator who is NOT the main character. Ann is clearly unreliable if you read the story at all critically and understand how naive she really is.

In response to those who lamely challenge me to justify Loomis's shooting at Ann, I NEVER made any claim that his actions are JUSTIFIED. That is a ridiculous reduction of my views to absurdity, or a kind of straw man argument. You pathetic simpletons who think only in black and white terms assume that if I find fault with Ann, that must mean I think Ann is the "villain" and Loomis is the real "good guy" in the story. Get a brain, please. Loomis's actions are an UNDERSTANDABLE reaction to the circumstances of being one of two survivors of a horrific nuclear holocaust, miraculously finding a companion and a safe place to begin a new life, starting to feel a close bond with Ann, and then being suddenly, irrationally, and it seems permanently rejected by her. Ann's behaviour with him is without doubt childishly unbalanced, irrational, and maddening, and it is NOT typical of any 16-year-old I've ever met. She is an ultra-conservative and repressed self-described "hillbilly," and it's no wonder she was unappealing to high school boys in Ogdentown or that the only time she ever had a date was ONE TIME when she was 13.

Oh, and all you "Unregistered" or anonymous bloggers, show a little courage and integrity by putting your name to your words.

Go ahead, throw some more of the same obtuse criticisms without any intelligent consideration of the different views you're responding to. If I see ANY well-considered response with specific textual support and page references, it will be a shocking first. But why should teachers need to bother with such things?

If you teach that irrational fears and self-serving delusions like Ann's are justified, or that there's no need to understand the viewpoint of an antagonist, you are the ones who are unfit to raise children or teach them.

[Steve Infidel]

Here again are some detailed maps of Burden Valley in Robert C. O'Brien's Z for Zachariah which an earlier post referred to but didn't deliver.

Enjoy.

http://valleyofburden.weebly.com/index.html

If you spot any errors or omissions, please comment.

[Steve Infidel]

His characters' names belie their final roles. Loomis is sinister, a male representation of human demise, one who instigates disaster. Ann Burden is a girl sorely put upon.

There are better interpretations of the meanings of these names.

The name "Burden" does not just refer to Ann but to the whole valley, Burden Creek, and Burden Hill. Rather than thinking that the name just suggests Ann has to bear difficulties, it makes more sense (and is backed up explicitly by the text) to view the name as referring to the burden of responsibility borne by both Ann and the valley for ensuring the continuation of life on Earth, including the human species. As Ann puts it, "I was the one, or one of the two, who might keep it [the planet] from dying, for a while at least" (96). She sees herself as having this role.

The idea of the valley fulfilling this role also is stated at various times, such as here by Loomis: "we've got to plan as if this valley is the whole world, and we are starting a colony" (152).

As for Loomis's name being sinister and representing demise, that's a bit of a stretch. Has it occurred to you that a looming threat is often an illusion, something imaginary, or a threat that does NOT actually materialize? Check a dictionary!

LOOM: vi 1: come into sight in enlarged or distorted and indistinct form often as a result of atmospheric conditions 2a: to appear in an impressively great or exaggerated form b: to take shape as an impending occurrence.

LOOM: n: the indistinct and exaggerated appearance of something seen on the horizon or through fog or darkness; also: a looming shadow or reflection.

These meanings are certainly relevant to the story. Consider that Ann THINKS LOOMIS IS A THREAT BEFORE SHE HAS ANY EVIDENCE OF IT, and even despite evidence to the contrary (such as his obviously eager call when he first enters the valley, yearning for human companionship).

From Ann’s viewpoint, Loomis is often a LOOMING threat. It is mainly her groundless fear of him that makes the looming threat seem to manifest itself in his clumsy attempt to make love with her; and her extreme reaction to this then results in his desperate efforts to make her return home.

During his sickness she feels such strong affection for him that she thinks of marrying him, creates a romantic atmosphere for dinners, prays desperately for him to live, and wants to hug him when he starts recovering. What changes her feelings is NOT anything he does but simply the return of the paranoid fear she has always had of being "enslaved" by a physically stronger man. Added to this characteristic fear is her growing distrust of him because she knows he killed Edward--even though she also KNOWS he probably acted in self-defence. It is these groundless fears which make her nervous with Edward as he gets stronger and tries to go further with the intimacy they shared while he was sick--the feeling of attachment that was also responsible for bringing him back from the brink of death.

If she had not been unreasonably afraid of him, this story could have had a happy ending. She would have continued feeling happy in his company, waved to him from the tractor (instead of feeling oppressed), and read stories and played the piano gladly (without wondering if he was listening, or fearing he was "creeping up"). And she might have accepted him in her bed, or (at worst) scolded him for being impatient and told him they would have to get married in church first; and he would probably accept such a demand despite its absurdity.

Admittedly, it is rather disturbing to think of the "incestuous commune" that would have to result if they made a colony together. But there is no choice in the matter; it is better than letting millions of years of evolution go to waste; and, for those who believe the Bible story, it's no different from the way human history started the first time.

Anyway, Loomis is always mainly a threat that LOOMS in Ann's imagination more than a real threat to her. Even when he is at his worst, driven to desperate extremes, he is NEVER the insane murderer she imagines, and he doesn't want to make a slave of her. He is just insanely desperate to get her back.

[Steve Infidel]

This site might be helpful for planning an exercise writing alternative plots for this story. Links to materials are provided also.

http://www.readwritethink.org/lessons/lesson_view.asp?id=5

[Unregistered]

Okay, I must thank you for a very entertaining morning. This is one of the novels that I use in my eighth grade classroom that the majority of the students find interesting, readable, and worth recommending to their friends. I love to read, but much of the teen fiction leaves me cold. However, I was able to enjoy this book (with its faults) like many of my students. I have had students in other classes come and ask me for a copy of the book because of the buzz among their friends. I've gotten some good ideas for writing assignments (I, too, have grown to despise the mindnumbing summaries and endless questions that can take the life out of reading enjoyment). All of the discussion that this book has generated has confirmed my thoughts that it is still worthwhile and interesting. If adults will take the time to defend positions, sometimes at length, on this work of fiction, then it's a good read.

Someone in earlier posts mentioned that students (8 and 9 years old!) were bored by the story. Well, this book may be within the students' reading zone, but I can see why the story line would not appeal to children of that age. I would gently suggest finding some text with a more age appropriate theme.

Steve--you are brilliant. Even though I don't agree with you, I find your comments extremely interesting and entertaining as well as thought-provoking. Thanks for taking the time to write your posts.

[Unregistered]

Umm... do you need help with different ways to have kids do book reports or do you need a new technques on how to prepare the students for the test? Well I have both! so in advanced YOU WELCOME.
Different Book Report Ideas:
1. Have them make a 3-D setting (in a shoe box) of the way they think the main setting of the book looks like then have them explain it while they present it (or have them write an explanation of why they think the main setting looks like the way they made it.)
2. Have them and other students make up a "talk show" about the book, asking questions about the story,and what they thought about the books
3. Have them and one other student make up questions, to ask each other, of what they thought were important things that happened in the book
4. Have them make up a time line of important things to that happened in the book then illistrate it
5. Have them do a summary of the book in puppet show form

New Techniques on how to Prepare for Tests:
1. Give them almost everything that is on the test in their notes to study, that way they do not get confused
on what to study, and they study the wrong thing
2. Have each student give what they think is important and should be on the test, then make up the test

WELL WERE THOSE GREAT IDEAS OR WHAT?!?!?!?! SO I HOPE I HELPED, IF NOT PLEASE SOME ONE USE ONE OF MY IDEAS ANYWAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! HOPE IT ALL WORKS OUT FOR YOU <3 YOUR LITTLE BIG HELPER

[Carsrule14 =)]

I am a stuuuuudent in year 9, we have had 2 read this book and write about it............ to be honest this is isn't 1 of the worst books i've read but it isn't the best either...........



It has hardly any action at all and is quite boring....... i can't believe some people when they say that " i could not put the book down" because as i said before there is hardly any action except from the rape part which wasn't really interesting either.

I now have to write about the themes of this book and i am finding it hard 2 find out what the themes are


can any1 help me plz????

[Unregistered]

Booooooring! Booooooring!!!! Booooooooooring!!!!

[Unregistered]

Hi to all the teachers out there!
Presumed to be one of the classics, Z for Zachariah is monotonous, badly written and aging text that should be left to collect dust. I don't know what student would actually enjoy or even gain anything from such a book based on little fact or reality. The plot line has questionable structure and is so out dated it will provide your allready bored students with just another assignment on which to put off till the night before the due date. So please as a student under going the terrible curse of reading and responding to this trash I advise you not to put students through such torture. If you want them to learn to appreciate great literature give them great litereature to appreciate. Don't leave tnem to stew on this filth.



I agree with you on this 1

[Unregistered]

hi steve, your maps of burden valley are still not working can you make one that work plz? i need to make the map for homework and i need help thank you

[Steve]

Here's a tip that could be helpful to students with homework:

1) First, try reading the story.

2) If you don't have any ideas about it, try reading AND thinking at the same time.

3) Still having trouble? Make sure you turn off the TV, MP3 player, video game, cell phone, or any other distracting techno-junk around you.

4) If you still don't have any ideas, try the above repeatedly until thoughts begin to form.

5) If you have to make a map, try scanning through the story to find descriptions of the valley. Think of it as a kind of treasure hunt and puzzle. Put together the bits of information to form a picture of the valley.

6) Don't be so pathetic that you beg others to do your homework for you. Try to develop the ability to think for yourselves.

7) Before asking for ideas about the story, read over everything already posted in this discussion thread and/or do some research. A library visit might be a good idea, too.

Good luck.

[Unregistered]

Well your kinda correct but i do belive that mr lommis took things to far

[Steve]

"Well your kinda correct but i do belive that mr lommis took things to far"

They both go too far. That's obviously the problem.

[Shlesha]

Steve, I agree 100% with you. Loomis is definitely not as much in fault as Ann. They needed to just put their thoughts aside and talk :)

[rah07]

Hi,

The new way to be a person to post a thread over here is really shown by the thread poster. He is really a person to rely upon.


Sim

[Unregistered]

She doesn't even take with her the cart of supplies that Loomis needed for his travels, or the tent he used made of the same protective material. She has made no practical preparations for surviving outside the valley apart from securing the safe-suit, so it's no surprise that her diary entries soon end after she leaves.

She does. Read chapters twenty-five and twenty-six again.

[Unregistered]

I am writing this at the tp of Burden Hill. I am wearing the safe-suit. I have already taken the cart and my supplies...


[...]once I had stolen the wagon there would not be time to stop at the pond, but I knew there was a device inside the wagon that would purify water...



[...]I dropped the shafts and found the place where my supplies were hidden, and uncovered the sack. I put it and the bottle of water inside the wagon, pulled the wagon right to the borders of the deadness...

[...]Then I did not bother to put up the tent...

[jackie]

srry no help i just want to say read it and you will learn and then you can write your own. OK! byy now
JACKIE

i need chapter reviews can anyone gimme any?

[EHT Eagles]

I LOVE THAT BOOK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Sorry. I read Z for Zachariah in class last year and enjoyed it very much. The whole thing with Loomis coming into the bedroom and almost killing the girl really got my peers going into the fan fiction department. I think the simplist thing to do is to just have a class discussion about each part or chapter. Just ask what they think of the potion read, what is going to happen next, and make sure they understand everything up to that point. I always have a lot to say and class disucssions really get students thinking in different ways once they hear their clasmates.

[Steve]

Yes, at the time I wrote she doesn't even take the cart, I forgot she had it. Sorry about that. If she had neglected it, it would have been one more sign of her folly.

But having the cart makes little difference because she cannot know how to use all the equipment properly. The fact that she doesn't even bother to put up the tent on the first night doesn't bode well. She is reckless, and it is her character to act more on feelings than careful reasoning.

In contrast, when Loomis first approaches and enters the valley, we see him moving slowly, making careful tests, and even sleeping in the tent on his first night in the valley. He explains to Ann later, "The tent is radiation-proof" (58). When she says, "But there's no radiation in the valley....You've learned that," he replies, "But at first I didn't trust it" (58). This kind of caution is probably what has kept him alive so long while travelling in the suit.

Loomis went on various successful expeditions from the lab near Ithaca (63), and then he travelled for 10 weeks through dead wasteland before finding the valley (57). During all of those trips, he must have been as careful as we see him being when he first arrives in the valley. Yet then even he makes a mistake when he assumes Burden Creek is the same river that his earlier tests showed was uncontaminated.

So, of course he would not trust a teenager with no scientific training to use the suit correctly, and it surely doesn't inspire confidence in her careful reasoning when she suggests borrowing the suit to get some novels from the Ogdentown library. He explains, "The idea of taking it to get some novels--it's too foolish to consider. If you took it out and something went wrong, I could never get it back" (150). He is correct in saying, "except for ourselves, that suit is the most important thing in the world," since it is the only way they can ever travel outside the valley.

When Ann foolishly ventures out of the valley in search of a place she saw in her dreams, she's had no instruction about how to use the equipment and there is no way she can figure it all out by herself. She walks until she's too exhausted to go on and then doesn't bother to put up the tent. Her trip has only just begun, and she is already being careless.

Though she is hopeful when she continues the next morning, her emotions are hardly a good measure of her reasoning or her chances of success. Barring some sort of miraculous good fortune, I think it is clear she will certainly die unless she returns to the valley and makes peace with Loomis.

[Unregistered]

Just to reply to the last comment, this morning i read my 2 home educated children, who are aged 10 and 11 boys, the first 5 chapters of Z for Zachariah and then had lunch break. It is now the end of lunch break and as i am just finishing reading these comments my children are sat next to me saying "Mum, hurry up and finish on the computer we want to read the rest of the book," to which i keep replying i will be one minute as i am just looking up some ideas for some projects to do with the book. The reply i get is "Hurry mum we can't wait we want to read the rest, it is so good." So I am sorry if i have dispelled your myth that this book is boring to kids as obviously you are very very wrong. It is a great book that i read during my years at school and although i must admit it i did find it a little boring at the time, it must have had an impact on me as all this time later i still remember it and have read it 3 or 4 times since i left school and enjoyed it immensely on these occasions. So now i am going to go and finish reading the book to them and let them enjoy it as much as i did.

[Unregistered]

Sorry this reply was not to the last comment it was to a comment on page 1 of how boring the book was!!!

[Unregistered]

For what it's worth, I read this book at school probably 23 years ago (I'm 36 now). The image of the man in the suit pulling the cart has always stuck with me, as has the ambiguous feeling that the ending left me with. I didn't especially enjoy the book at the time, but I have read a lot of books since then and very few have stuck in my thoughts the way this one did.

It's a very worthy book. I think I'll seek it out and re-read it before too long.

[Jemelet]

okay, i read the book several times, i dont have the book any more. you can only reborrow a book so many times before a librarian says no. i did not realize at that point that i would use it for my related material.
i have been through over 4000 sites on 12 different servers. i am only looking for the ONE quote and i still havent found it. i dont care whether someone critisises me or not. all i want is the bit where she talks about the "attempted rape". its attempted so long as she didnt want him sexually. i dont need an explanation, i just need the one paragraph. can you please post it. thats all. thank you.

[Unregistered]

jamelet u must be the ugliest **************** on earth always posting notes u stupid slut go **************** a donkey then post a note about that ayy

[Unregistered]

Reading all the reviews and considering all the facts, Ann and Mr. Loomis were in fact were different, both age-wise, and mental-wise. Ann was a girl around 16, so Mr.Loomis, a male scientist, considers himself to be more superior than Ann. Couple of reasons: She was a girl, she was young, and she did not appear to know many things about the world. In some ways, Mr.Loomis's interpretations were correct, however, some, were completely wrong. Examples: She waited until she could completely figure out who he was before she even dared coming in front of him ; She helped him get better and definately made an impact on his health after his foolishness to swim in the creek. (Also note, he had a geiger counter, and other scientific equipment that could have been used to check if the creek was radioactive. She, however, had nothing but the simple thing called COMMON SENSE to know that that creek was dangerous... why? Because there are no living things!)and she also farmed and did hard work and basically mananged EVERYTHING and yet, he critisizes her about not planting the crops on time. I agree that he was worried, however, he could have said it in a nicer way or even asked if he could have helped her in any way possible ( I doubt there was, but if he had offered, then maybe Ann would know that he was not trying to boss her around and indeed, he was worried.) Mr.Loomis never dropped hints about how he appreciated his work. Girls, or any human beings in fact, like to be appreciated rather than bombarded about how you need to do this and that and time's running out or whatever. Also, if Mr.Loomis wanted to continue their relationship (which in my opinion never started) then he should have either flat out told her or dropped hints. But, no. Let me just rape her and then she will know that I like her. That... right there , was in fact, NOT a good idea. Another reason Ann is smart is because she never, not even once accidentally told Mr.Loomis about the cave. And in the end, when she truly did need it, then she definately had it as a resource. Some people might argue that Mr.Loomis was "nice" because he tried to get Ann back to the house, but in the end, what does he do, shoot her. Even if it was to just incapacitate her, he should not have shot. That definately makes her want to go even more away. All in all, she did a good job stealing the suit because he was taking over HER valley and I don't think anyone would like that. One thing I have to give Mr.Loomis. He didn't try to kill her when she left, but other than that... he was a mean person with no sense of appreciation or being nice to others. Ann was the good one and definately the opposite of what Mr.Loomis thought she was! (: Hope you enjoyed my character analysis...

[Unregistered]

I had to read Z for Zachariah in school and remembered getting to write a final chapter in the story. I know it doesn't seem like a star activity, but this book really doesn't "end" and I enjoyed the activity enough that I remember it ten years later.

[Unregistered]

ive jst read this in school & its the worst thing you could ever read.
ive now got 2 write a textual analysis on the theme of fear throught out the novel portrayed by setting, characterisation and key incidents and its sooo boring and therefore a mission and a half
i would recommend to any1 who wants to read it TO NOT because most of its saying how she does the farming and wants 2 hav kids with loomis then when he tries 2 rape her she goes bush and leaves
its the most pointless waste of time ive ever wasted