“An eye for an eye would make the whole world blind.” (Mahatma Gandhi). Although it is normal for people to feel the need to take revenge on something wrong or unfair that has been done to them, it very really pays off in the end. An example of a revenge that did not pay off at the end is the short story Killings by André Dubus. In the short story, Matt’s revenge of the murder of his youngest son, Frank, shows that revenge does not always bring happiness to life and he gradually realises that revenge may not be the answer to seek justice.
Initially, Matt seeks revenge for the murder of his son, Frank, and is ready to do anything to get justice. Frank got killed by Richard Strout in front of his own family: “Strout came in the front door and
…show more content…
Matt being hesitant to kill Strout can be first be seen when “Strout closed the suitcase and faced Matt, looking at the gun. Matt went to his rear, so Strout was between him and the lighted hall […]” (60). Matt does not want to stand in front of Strout and make eye contact with him. In contrary, he always stands behind him and avoids eye contact with him. This is a conflict between his desire to shoot him in the face for revenge and being afraid to shoot him by hiding behind him and not showing himself to Strout. He then says an unplanned lie: “it’s the trial. We can’t go through that, my wife and me. So you’re leaving. We’ve got you a ticket, and a job. A friend of Mr. Trottier’s. Out west” (60). Matt lies that he is going to bring Strout out of town when he is actually going to kill him. Matt not wanting him to know the truth shows that he is not willing to accept the fact that he is going to kill him and does not want to admit of being a murderer. Matt is also hiding the evidences of his acts which shows that he is not willing to take the consequences of his acts, unlike Strout who took the consequences of his acts and did not try to hide the evidence of killing Frank. Therefor Matt is not going to kill Strout by the same way of his son, Matt is hesitant to fulfill his wishes. At the end of the short story, his wishes does not get …show more content…
After killing Strout, he still cannot believe that he did kill him: “the words had no images for him, he did not see himself doing what the words said he had done; he only saw himself on that road” (64). Matt does not want to admit his acts and that he is a murderer just like Strout. When he realises what he did, he gets told by his wife that he cannot tell his kids what he did: “’We can’t tell the other kids’, she said. ‘It’ll hurt them, thinking he got away. But we mustn’t’” (64). Matt now realise that he is trapped with this secret and the feeling of being a murderer. Matt feels trapped inside himself and he cannot show his emotions to others. He is now trying to hide his emotions: “he shuddered with a sob that he kept silent in his heart” (64). This sentence shows an oxymoron since the word: “sob” and “silent” are contradicting each other. After his revenge, Matt is now stuck with this secret and cannot tell anybody about what he did.
In conclusion, this short-story is about how Matt realises that revenge is not always the answer, and that taking revenge can have its negatives. Matt excepted to get happiness by taking revenge on Strout for killing his son, but in contrary, after his revenge, Matt realises that revenge was not the answer for him, since he is know forced to keep this secret with himself and must live with the guilt of having killed somebody for
Matt Fowler’s thoughts transform into revenge as a way of healing for his family. He plans the assassination of Richard Strout. After months of planning, Matt waits for Strout to get off work: “when Strout came around it alone [the building], [sic] Matt got out of the car, giving up the hope he had kept all night (and for the week) that Strout would come out with friends” (Dubus 112-113). Ironic symbolization: Matt Fowler didn’t really want to kill Richard Strout: however, he had to protect his family and avenge the murder of his son. One murder ultimately justifies the second murder within the mindset of Matt. The story concludes with not only two murders, but also with the insinuation of the second murder being justified by Matt and Ruth
Mattie Ross is not a typical country girl, but rather a very typical quest type hero. Just like any other quest hero, she possesses the drive to accomplish her goal, the brains as to how to accomplish it, and the reason to embark on such a dangerous quest. Mattie wants to avenge her father’s death, Franks Ross, after Chaney shoots him in broad daylight, while he was just trying to help Chaney. When Frank is trying to talk to him, “Tom Chaney raised his rifle and shot him in the forehead, killing him instantly” (10). Mattie is devastated with this news, and sets out to find Tom Chaney, and kill him herself, or watch him be killed. She goes to Fort Smith and starts asking around for information regarding Frank Ross, her father. When Mattie looks for deputy marshals for the job, she picks Rooster Cogburn for the job, because she hears he is the one that will shoot Chaney on sight, and not just try and talk. Another way that Mattie is the hero is that she does not give in when Rooster and LeBeouf tell her to go back across the river, and they tell the ferrymen, ‘“Slim, take this girl to town and present her to the sheriff. She is a runaway. Her people are worried nearly to death about her. There is a fifty-dollar reward for her return”’ (136). LeBeouf is unquestionably telling a story about this, just to get Mattie to stay, whe...
When Bonnie first spots Matt, he is in disguise and it becomes a critical moment in the book showing how even if Matt looks different she could still determine it was him. Bonnie’s faith led her to keep searching for Matt even if she was not certain it was him. “ The first Mariner’s game of my life, Bonnie thought, and I’m missing the best part, because I’m on a wild-goose chase after a kid with black hair and glasses who looks a little bit like my brother. But she didn’t look back”(Kehert 157). There are also a lot of visionary tactics that are used to capture all of the emotions in this
experiences with revenge what his actions caused. It shows that getting revenge is never the
The story begins in a small town in America. The Fowler family is faced with the burden, frustration and pain of having to bury their twenty-one year old son, Frank. The inward struggle faced by Matt Fowler, his wife, and family drives him to murder Richard Strout, Frank's killer, in order to avenge his son's murder and bring peace to himself and his family. Matt faced a life-time struggle to be a good father and protect his children from danger throughout their childhood. Dubus describes Matt's inner ...
There is no question that the love Matt had for Frank was the motivation to kill Richard Strout. The story ends with two physical killings and a moral death as well. Vengeance comes at a very high price, death.
For the first six years of his life, he lives in a small house on the edge of the poppy fields with Celia, a cook working in El Patrón's mansion. One day, he is discovered by two children (Emilia and Steven). Matt is so overcome by longing for other children his age that he smashes the window and jumps out. Never having experienced pain before, he was unaware of the danger in jumping barefoot onto smashed glass. The children carry him to El Patrón's mansion to be treated for his injuries. The people there treat Matt kindly until Mr. Alacrán, El Patrón's great-grandson, recognizes him as a clone.
Matt is no longer with us today because the men who killed him learned to
In response to “The Cask of Amontillado” by Edgar Allen Poe, revenge can get the best of everyone. Like most individuals, I too have found myself once glaring from the sidelines annoyed. It takes a lot to make a calm person like myself resentful, but similar to Montresor, it is possible to become so aggravated that a revengeful plot begins to form.
The first reason Matt's father should not have left Matt alone in the cabin is because Matt was not prepared to be left alone. He was only 12, and a bear could have
However, Matt Fowler had different reasoning for his actions. After burying his twenty-one year-old son who was just on the cusp of graduating college, he finds that Strout, his son’s murderer, has been released on bail pending trial and until then he has resumed his normal life. Watching his wife not only mourning the loss of their son, but also having to see the killer in daily activities, has caused a mental and emotional strain on their life. The affect on Fowler’s family that Strout is walking around free and seemingly unconcerned is one of the main reasoning that is posed when Fowler and his friend Willis T...
First, Matt and El Patron's experiences and backgrounds differ dramatically. El Patron is an unloved orphan, who, through careful manipulations and deceit, became one of the most powerful men alive. Everybody at the Alacrán estate treats Matt like he is less than human, a disgusting animal. María treats him kindly most of the time, but as if he were
...y. With Matt killing Stout before he could sit trial he saved the court time and effort of either convicting him of his crime or looking like imbeciles by letting a murderer off the hook. Matt did what any father would do to avenge his son and should not be charged with any crime for avenging his youngest son's death.
In modern times, phrases such as “an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind,” are commonly used. Also, the mere word revenge holds negative connotations as it is seen as immature and unnecessary. The theme of revenge uses archetypes to develop ideas without having to reiterate their meaning. According to the creator of the term, Carl Jung, “archetypes are defined as being a collectively inherited unconscious idea, pattern of thought, image, etc., universally present in individual psyches.” (Dictionary) The Count of Monte Cristo, one of the novels that pioneer this theme, tells the story of a man’s quest for revenge on those who betrayed him. This man spends 14 years of his life imprisoned because of his betrayers, but he manages to escape to avenge his suffering. In the novel The Count of Monte Cristo, Alexandre Dumas uses the archetypes of the byronic hero, the betrayer and the old sage to demonstrate that one’s suffering doesn’t give them the right to seek revenge on those who have failed them.
Taking revenge is a bitter sweet thing. I have always thought that people should always get what they desire, whether it be a grade, a smile and hug or in some cases, revenge. When I was in high school there seemed to be someone always trying to get me in trouble, they would say things that wouldn’t be true or do things to make me look bad. The fact that I never seemed to do anything to them would make me mad and wonder what I could do to get them back. Revenge would usually come in some sort of verbal put down or I would try to physically hurt them. It always seemed when I would get the revenge right away I would feel really good but as I thought about what I did, and what they did to me I would always feel guilty or wish I would have never done anything to them in return.