Shifting Narratives of Freedom and Imprisonment
By Christie Culp

A search of an online Welsh-English dictionary produced a possible translation for the word “rape”. The Welsh verb Treisio, means to violate, force, or to rape. Although this is a modern dictionary, it seems possible that in a World War II era such a word may not have been utilized in Welsh language at the time. If Esther knows there is no word for “rape” in the Welsh language, then what word would she use to tell herself of this in her mind? Would this likely be an English word (since Esther is one of the few who speaks English)? Could it have been the author’s intention to force the reader to speculate what word/description of her attack she told herself in her thoughts? Esther is relieved when she is certain Colin has left Wales, so that she can live as though the rape never occurred. By suppressing this traumatic event, does she gain a sense of empowerment? Could her motivation to suppress it be to retain a sense of honor? I am reminded of the phrase: “Blokes…Sensitive about their bloody honor as any girl about her virtue!” (page 163, Mary to Esther).
Schiller points out to Karsten on page 152, “Tell me again. Who are we protecting in these letters of ours?” By not disclosing the nature of his injuries in his letters home, does it appear that Karsten is protecting his mother from further anguish, or is he protecting himself? By not revealing his injuries, does he gain some “freedom” from his imprisonment in a German POW camp?

Kyle Miller
What do you make of the aspect of loyalty within The Welsh Girl? As readers, we see demonstrations of overwhelming nationalism and traces of failing allegiance. We are placed in a self-proclaimed nationalist town with a protagonist that wishes to flee. Esther wants to be taken away. This is contrasted to Karsten, whose main motive is to get home. When the German POW’s hear the planes overhead they think of “faith in the Leader” while Karsten envisions the wings taking him home.
What do you make of the scene of page 180? Through the chapters, we witness the emerging relationship between Karsten and Jim. In this scene, the reader is informed that Jim destroyed the planes that Karsten had made for him. Psychic distance is close with Karsten and the reader sees what is going through his head, but not with Jim. What do you suppose Jim’s reasoning was when destroying the toys? Was he simply teased into it? Where does the character of Jim’s loyalty lay?

Tanya J. Thomas
February 10, 2009
Lying Letters

Karsten discourages his fellow prisoners to hide their complaining in their letters, saying it is “the only way left to protect them” (137-138). Yet when letters start arriving from home, the men now suspect their loved ones of doing the same thing (145). Karsten has a short conversation with Schiller about this and, “realizes he can’t say for sure anymore who is protecting whom” (146). When Karsten reads the much anticipated letter from his mother, we get a look at a letter from the outside.  She writes, “I have let it be understood—not so much a falsehood as an assumption I’ve not contradicted—that you are injured. And who’s to say not? You have spared me the details of your capture, and I think I know my boy well enough to say if you were wounded you’d spare me that worry, too—don’t even begin to deny it” (151). How much is it protecting someone to deny them the truth? Or to ignore it? I think Karsten’s mother would want to be spared the humiliation of knowing her son is completely injury-free(not spared worry that he is wounded) yet she wants to believe he would lie about that to her so she can believe he was captured only because of some physical wound. Is it protecting her to keep up the disillusion? Is protection from such reality the best thing?