Yellow Jackets

AFTER CHOOSING SIDES, WILL PETE’S LUCK RUN OUT TOO?

Pete knew he was entering dangerous territory. Capture was likely. Death would not come as a surprise. Yet, as B-John said, “If the graveyard dog isn’t right there snapping at your heels, it wouldn’t be worth doing or any fun at all.” 

It was 1947, and seventeen-year-old Pete Forsythe had just arrived in the seemingly sleepy town of Van Horn in southwest Texas. Abandoned by his mother, the Chicago-bred teen went about adapting to life with his stuffy, well-to-do aunt and uncle.

In the years immediately after World War II, it seemed the whole country was experiencing growing pains, as was Pete himself. Soon boredom, frustration, and rebellion lure him to a gang of veterans struggling to recapture the normalcy of their pre-war lives by returning to the thrill of midnight horse-thieving raids on nearby ranches. Led by the enigmatic B-John, the group opens up a world of danger, mystery, and adulthood to Pete, while shining a light on secrets the townsfolk would rather keep to hushed whispers.

Torn between childhood and adult life, big city and small town, Pete is left to his own devices to determine whose version of morality is correct. He soon realizes no one is as good or bad as they seem in Van Horn.

A character-driven coming-of-age thriller, Yellow Jackets bluntly explores post-World War II rural America while leaving readers to wonder if Pete’s luck will run out.

*****

The story is a 'coming-of-age' for the main character. There is opinion offered about events from both the 'onlooker' characters and the 'doer' ones. The point of the story is: Can our main character and 'The Reader' let go of the issues caused by everyone's actions and move on without trying to "Make everything all rite". An observation is made, are the bad guys 'bad' because of their experiences in the war? Was their 'bad nature' what got them through the ordeal? After participating in a war, at what level do Veterans have to comply with rules that they fought to protect? The 'Rules' of war are not the same, so is living through the ordeal any excuse for them to live by their own rules when they return home? The story ponders the question- Are people's nature changed by experiences or is their reaction to events just their true nature being exposed? What is the mechanism that makes us all react differently to 'like' experiences? 

*****

The story is a 'coming-of-age' for the main character. There is opinion offered about events from both the 'onlooker' characters and the 'doer' ones. The point of the story is: Can our main character and 'The Reader' let go of the issues caused by everyone's actions and move on without trying to "Make everything all rite". An observation is made, are the bad guys 'bad' because of their experiences in the war? Was their 'bad nature' what got them through the ordeal? After participating in a war, at what level do Veterans have to comply with rules that they fought to protect? The 'Rules' of war are not the same, so is living through the ordeal any excuse for them to live by their own rules when they return home? The story ponders the question- Are people's nature changed by experiences or is their reaction to events just their true nature being exposed? What is the mechanism that makes us all react differently to 'like' experiences? 

Reggie Thornburg lives, ranches, and writes in the North Platte Valley between the Sierra Madre and Snowy Range mountains of southeast Wyoming.