Libby, Emily, and Jubilee all have to endure months of not knowing the fates of their loved ones who are at war. In their situation, is hope a positive force, or is it a liability?
The late Harvey Milk famously said, “I know that you cannot live on hope alone, but without it, life is not worth living." I can’t imagine giving up on a loved one who was off fighting, although I can only surmise how difficult it would be to remain optimistic if one followed the news and reports were not encouraging. For Emily, I expect it was easier than for Libby or Jubilee because Jonathan observed that she was geographically removed from the battlefields. And he spared her the worst details when he wrote to her.
But there was fighting near Libby’s home and she mentioned the ongoing troop movements. So hearing the cannons, etc. and seeing wounded soldiers, including Jonathan, would make it easy to fall into despair and lose hope. But, as Milk so aptly opined, hope makes life worth living. It wasn’t until the war had been raging for several years, she stopped hearing from Peter, and she learned of disease tearing through the Army prison, that she gave up. By then, she had survived so much and was quite beaten down, not to mention her developing feelings for Jonathan. To some extent, I felt that her determination to face the fact that Peter was most likely dead was motivated by a desire for relief – from despair, disappointment, sorrow – and to escape from it all. A burgeoning relationship with Jonathan represented a new kind of hope for her – for a future, including children, she thought had been taken from her and Peter. But giving up was the mistake, as it turns out. So no, I don’t think hope is a liability . . . unless you let it be robbed from you.
I do think it was a positive force and helped them survive their days believing things would get better. The flip side is that Libby might have allowed herself to act on her feelings but, had she, her guilt when her husband returned would have over ridden the pleasure.
I think hope would be vital to the lives of the family whose loved ones are at war. Without hope, there’s nothing but despair. How can anyone survive that for such a prolonged period? But I’ve always looked for the positive in every situation so that could just be me looking at the world through my rose-colored glasses.
It was so difficult to communicate so probably seemed kinder to give positive news
I felt that hope was a positive force in the story, it was what allowed each character to continue through the difficult days. Even though there were times where hope was not even a part of the story, resilience settled in and hope came back in a different way.
I think that hope was a positive force in this book and motivated Libby to help Jonathan, and also to protect him.
Without hope, what else do you have? And especially in times of war when so little information made it back to the soldiers loved ones… I think they really tried to keep hope in their hearts, even if it seemed more realistic to give up.
I actually admire their ability to have hope. I’m not sure I would be able to - I’ve been accused of being a “glass half empty” gal plenty of times. Especially in this kind of war - there were weeks and months of not knowing or hearing anything, and no expectation that they would hear from their loved ones. Can you imagine? Without hope, I’m sure that situation would be fatal. It’s not like our contemporary wars, where email and phone calls keep us going.
Hope is what fuels survival so no not a lability but a positive influence for all they endured while not knowing their loved ones fate
I think when you give up hope, you give up on life. As long as Libby, Emily, and Jubilee had hope that their loved ones were alive, they had a reason to live. Hope is powerful force that helps people survive unbearable situations.