Some of Us Had Been Threatening Our Friend Colby

Barthelme’s “Some of Us Had Been Threatening Our Friend Colby” fuses the bizarre and the mundane. The text interweaves humor and darkness, creating a narrative space where the conventional boundaries of tone and subject matter blur. The story’s themes include the delicate nature of friendships, the compelling influence of group dynamics, and the rigidity of societal norms that often govern people’s actions.

The structure of the story, unfolding from the perspective of an anonymous narrator, further amplifies its distinctive style. The narrator, together with their friends, is planning an execution for their mutual friend, Colby. They approach this undertaking with the same casual manner one might use when organizing an everyday social event. This jarring juxtaposition of the severity of the act with a nonchalant backdrop generates an atmosphere of profound absurdity, a style that has become a distinctive feature in Modern and Postmodern literature.

Barthelme’s story manifests prominent traits of Postmodern literature as it veers away from traditional storytelling norms. Rather than following the classical progression of a clear beginning, middle, and end or offering an intricate exploration of the characters’ personalities, the narrative is marked by fragmentation, pervading uncertainty, and layers of irony. The execution planning in the story is treated as a business venture, illustrating Postmodernism’s inclination to question and challenge the dogma of authority and grand ideologies.

Moreover, the story exhibits a self-awareness and recognition of its own oddity, intended to consistently upend reader expectations. This element of metafiction is a typical characteristic of Postmodern literature, further emphasizing Barthelme’s contributions to broader literary conversations surrounding Postmodernism.

Delving into the themes, Barthelme presents a critique of Conformity and Groupthink and the ethical implications of collective decision-making. The group’s careful planning of Colby’s execution while blatantly disregarding its morality paints a picture of how group dynamics can lead to horrifying outcomes. They casually discuss logistics like hiring a band, setting a date, and ensuring that the execution is “tasteful” while disregarding the moral component of their decision. This portrayal suggests an examination of larger societal structures where horrific acts are committed under the guise of protocol and procedure.

The story lacks a traditional plotline, revolving around the deliberations and planning of the impending execution. Despite this, Barthelme maneuvers the narrative to maintain tension and reader interest. The inciting incident, climax, or denouement is never explicitly defined. The text withholds the nature of the incident in which Colby went “too far.” The narrator also fails to describe the climactic execution, relating only minor details of the day, such as “[i]t didn’t rain, the event was well attended, and we didn’t run out of Scotch” (Paragraph 8). These elements further underscore the story’s nonconformity to conventional narrative structures.

Despite the lack of character development, Barthelme uses each character’s role in planning the execution to reveal their personalities. The members who fret over the “tastefulness” of the execution show a preoccupation with social etiquette, reflecting their inability to comprehend the gravity of their decision. Similarly, Victor’s concern over whether an unpainted gibbet would “look kind of ‘raw’” further illustrates how absurdly trivial concerns mask the horror of the situation (Paragraph 3), underlining The Absurdity and Banality of Violence.

Another significant element is the narrative’s impersonality. Barthelme leaves characters underdeveloped, naming them only when necessary and refusing to provide a motive for their actions. This detachment magnifies the contrast between the group’s casual attitude and the gruesome act they are organizing. It also draws attention to the collective behavior, allowing an exploration of group dynamics and mob mentality.

The narrative’s point of view enhances the themes of depersonalization and desensitization. Using the first-person plural perspective, Barthelme creates a sense of unity among the conspirators, reinforcing the theme of herd mentality and groupthink. This perspective also anonymizes the narrator, making them interchangeable with any group member, thereby emphasizing the collective over the individual.

Barthelme’s narrative tone is detached, employing understated humor, irony, and matter-of-fact diction to discuss a bleak scenario. Despite the macabre plot, the tone is reminiscent of an event planning committee, highlighting the Dehumanization and the Erosion of Individuality often inherent in group dynamics.

The understated humor in the story, used in contrast to the dark undertone, functions as a vehicle for Barthelme’s critique of society. By highlighting the banality of evil—the idea that terrible deeds are often committed as part of mundane routines rather than by innately evil individuals—Barthelme exposes the normalization of violence in society. The text forces readers to recognize that the absurd scenario presented is not as far removed from society’s functioning as it first appears.

The story uses the setting—an unspecified, mundane, everyday world—to amplify its subversive message. Barthelme strategically withholds the specific time and place, making the narrative feel simultaneously familiar and strange, thereby magnifying the absurdity and unsettling implications. The non-specific setting is essential to Barthelme’s narrative. By stripping the story of identifiable background features, Barthelme achieves a sense of universality, implying that such a scenario could occur anywhere. The mundanity of the setting contrasts starkly with the extremity of the plot, amplifying the story’s absurdity. This further suggests a critique of the routine and bureaucracy embedded in modern society that can dehumanize and harm individuals. By withholding a detailed backstory or rationale for the execution, Barthelme focuses readers’ attention on the group’s actions rather than Colby’s transgressions. This narrative choice implies a critique of societal norms, particularly how a collective can be complicit in violence under the guise of maintaining order.

The story also leans heavily on irony, as demonstrated in the narrator’s assertion that although hanging Colby is illegal, “we had a perfect moral right to do so because he was our friend” (Paragraph 2). This statement underscores the often irrational nature of group dynamics, as the friends decide that their affection for Colby justifies their decision to kill him. The pervasive irony used in the story serves multiple purposes. It heightens the situation’s absurdity, making the narrative humorous despite its subject matter, and provides a vehicle for Barthelme’s social commentary. Ironic statements often reveal the contradictory attitudes within the group, such as their concern for Colby’s comfort while planning his execution. The author forces readers to question their perception of what is normal and acceptable, promoting a critical reflection on societal norms.

The story concludes without an explicit resolution, only obliquely referring to the success of the execution. Barthelme uses this narrative ambiguity to heighten the story’s surreal and disturbing atmosphere, inviting readers to consider the characters’ motivations, the moral implications, and Colby’s presumed death. The narrative’s open-endedness, thereby, reinforces its critique of societal norms and group dynamics.

Ultimately, “Some of Us Had Been Threatening Our Friend Colby” uses unconventional narrative techniques and a deceptively casual tone to expose societal conventions and the often unsettling nature of group dynamics. Barthelme’s ability to both emulate and challenge traditional storytelling forms contributes to his legacy as a pioneering figure in Postmodern literature.