In “All the Pretty Horses” there is a lot of discussion of violence being a necessary evil and that how we deal with this violence is what ends up deciding whether we live or we die. This is seen in all of John Grady Cole’s adventures throughout the book. In “The Yellow Birds” a discussion of violence somewhat similar to ATPH comes up.
Sterling is a great soldier in the book. He has a lot of accolades at a very young age and commands the group with great authority and has no problems killing whatsoever. His response to Murph’s question of “what’s it like out there” is methodical and precise, “Remember your fundamentals and you’ll be able to do what needs to be done. It’s hard at first, but it’s simple. Anyone can do it. Get a steady position and a good sight picture… and squeeze. For some people it’s tough after, but most people do it when the time comes…Just gotta dig deep, find that nasty streak.” THAT is what I think makes Sterling the successful soldier that he is. He has the nasty streak, he is the guy during battle who will curse and scream at the enemy and will have an unstoppable intensity. I would argue that someone like Sterling would be the best soldier, the one who deserves the most recognition, because he approaches violence in the best way. I would take him over a higher ranking general without a lot of field experience any day. It is a scary thought that in the army the most violent man ends up being the best leader but maybe that is what the author is trying to show us, that the maniacal man who curses the enemy and likes killing people is the one who all the soldiers will admire and that that is a very disturbing thing.
January 15, 2013 at 5:20 pm
I agree with you that Sterling can be very methodical and a bit cruel, especially when he practically attacked Powers for reassuring Murphy’s mother. However, I do not think he likes killing people. I believe that he feels it is necessary and an unfortunate outcome of war. War can change people, and maybe he was never like this before. War brings out the animal nature of humans with our defense mechanism.
Sterling has no problem saying what he wants, but at the same time, he is humble since he does not wear his badges around the soldiers. He does not see himself as superior, only as a lookout for his men, and I feel perhaps that is why soldiers look up to him. It would be very odd if his men simply liked him because he had a penchant for death. Sterling is a complex character who has many sides, including a few that he conceals.
January 15, 2013 at 9:04 pm
“War does not determine who is right; only who is left” – Bertrand Russell
I can tell you right now that Sterling will survive the whole book. I don’t necessarily think he likes killing people, but he has a side of him which certainly does not mind it. I think the quote used Bennett is really the best way to understand how well suited Sterling is for this environment. For him, its about efficiency. If finding a nasty streak is the most efficient way to stay alive, then Sterling is going to find his nasty streak. Despite the psychological issues that become clear in chapter 3, Sterling is the best suited soldier for the war. You could make an argument that he is a terrible person, but Murph was a good person and he is dead while Sterling is alive. He reminds me of Captain Willard from Apocalypse Now. Clearly there is something wrong under the hood with both men, but both of them are a cut above the rest when it comes to staying alive. And in the end, the most important thing is that they are alive – not whether they did the right thing along the way.
January 15, 2013 at 10:31 pm
I don’t know if I necessarily believe that the most violent man
ends up being the best leader. I think people who relish and
enjoy violence are irrational, and while it may be easier for
them to pull the trigger than others, I don’t think this makes
them a better tactician or a better motivator who can relate to
his men who are probably quite apprehensive about ending someone
else’s life. Having a penchant for destruction would probably
lead one to do some rash things that could get his fellow squad
members killed, and while Sterling is certainly an excellent
motivator and has more experience than the other men, I don’t
know if I would necessarily take Sterling over someone who is a
little more calculated, but then again many of the things
Sterling does could actually be quite calculated, and there
could be a method to his madness as he is an experienced soldier
and one who seems to know all the tricks of the trade. In
general however, I’d probably choose an experienced leader with
a calm demeanor, just like I’d rather have Peyton Manning as my quarterback as opposed to Michael Vick, because while being instinctive and violent by nature could lead one to quicker decision making, I don’t think it necessarily leads to better decision making.
January 16, 2013 at 9:41 pm
I’m also not really sure if Sterling enjoys killing people in general I think his hate for the enemy is what makes him so steadfast in battle. I know sports aren’t the same as war but I feel like you could connect the two. In most sports, more than half of the actual game is mental. You can’t be afraid to win and even if you’re going up against someone that you know or someone that you don’t, you have to be ready to crush them in competition if you really want to be a good athlete. Basically you have to want to win badly enough to not care about the feelings of the person you are up against. Obviously war is much more intense then a sports event but I think it is this same reason that makes Sterling such a good leader. He’s not afraid to win and he keeps his emotions out of everything he does.