Requiem for a Leg

I have found these fictional readings to be a lot easier to read and enjoy than the non fictional texts. I think this fits in well with our discussion in class about what fiction may do that non fiction does not. reality is never as entertaining as fantasy so I think most people probably approach reading with that in mind-automatically thinking that something that is fiction will be entertaining and non-fiction, probably not as much. With fictional works, the writer can add in details that make a story more interesting or funny or make the entire topic a sort of folly, like in Requiem for a Leg. The entire premise of the story revolves around a dismembered leg. Further, the people on the museum side of the trial don't even have any idea of the significance of the leg. They want it simple because they think it is a cool"artifact" though they don't know for sure the time frame that the leg was still...intact? or who the leg originally was attached to, his tribe, or why the leg was even detached from the body. It points to how ridiculous and selfish the Americans are in just taking things (from the Native Americans) because they can, even if they really don't need or want it-they just want to have it. Though the story does turn situations like these into a joke, I do not think it makes people take all situations like this lightly.