Killings, by Andre Dubus, is a tale about a father, Matt Fowler, who must come to terms with the murder of his son, Frank Fowler. The story begins at Frank's funeral where we find his father a depressed, angry, and empty man. His wife and children are equally distraught from the recent event. Frank was shot and killed by his lover's ex-husband Richard Strout who has yet to be prosecuted, leaving him free to roam the streets and haunt Frank's family. Throughout the story we watch Matt struggle with his internal desire to avenge his sons untimely death. This conflict evolves from a mere idea, to a fully premeditated plan to murder Mr. Strout.
There are many clues and signs along the way that display that Matt is a moral and conscientious man who is hardly capable of murder, while Richard Strout is quite the opposite. We see little to no signs of remorse from Frank's murderer--it seems he committed the crime out of his own selfishness without much thought or deliberation. The thought of seeing his ex-wife with another man was too much for him to bear, and he felt entitled to some sort of revenge--this being the murder of her new lover. Though on the other hand with Matt we are able to clearly see his self doubt and confusion. While he feels that to do away with his son's killer would take away from some of the pain his family is subject to, he is clearly uncertain wether the solution to their grief could really be solved this easily. As if the pain that they have been caused could never be so easily eliminated. He wants to do the right thing for his family, but he is uncertain if he is capable, or even willing, to do so.
After the second killing is committed Matt has many thoughts of guilt such as his worry of the pain he will have caused Richard's new girlfriend, and the imagery he sees while he lays in bed with his wife of leaves and snow falling to represent time passing over this man's makeshift grave. Immediately following the moment that Matt pulls the trigger to end Richard's life, he explains a feeling of complete isolation to life as he knows it to this point. It is at this point that we get the sense that this act may not have provided Matt with the reparation and satisfaction that he had expected to come of it, and even more so that he now feels more lost, deflated, and lonely than he had before. The price of lifelong regret that Matt will now have to pay is even higher than the adverse fate of Richard.
Kendall,
ReplyDeleteWhat you describe, the beginning of the tale and what establishes some background info, is called EXPOSITION. This is put very clearly: “Throughout the story we watch Matt struggle with his internal desire to avenge his sons untimely death. This conflict evolves from a mere idea, to a fully premeditated plan to murder Mr. Strout. You may want to point out that this conflict, which is both external and internal, serves as the main source of tension.
When you write, “There are many clues and signs along the way that display that Matt is a moral and conscientious man who is hardly capable of murder” I assume you’re going for Structuralism. Am I right? Also, what you describe here is CHARACTERIZATION, so you may want to get the term in there (it’s what showcases Matt’s inability to murder)
“We see little to no signs of remorse from Frank's murderer--it seems he committed the crime out of his own selfishness without much thought or deliberation. The thought of seeing his ex-wife with another man was too much for him to bear, and he felt entitled to some sort of revenge--this being the murder of her new lover.” Definitely possible, but consider point of view here , and the order in which the plot is revealed. Is the narrator biased toward Frank ? If so, this might explain why Richard Strout seems to be a character with whom we wouldn’t at all sympathize.
“Though on the other hand with Matt we are able to clearly see his self doubt and confusion. While he feels that to do away with his son's killer would take away from some of the pain his family is subject to, he is clearly uncertain wether the solution to their grief could really be solved this easily. As if the pain that they have been caused could never be so easily eliminated. He wants to do the right thing for his family, but he is uncertain if he is capable, or even willing, to do so.” You’re doing a good job explaining the conflict, but you’ll want to set it up as a paradox (even if you’re doing reader response, you can still deal with paradox – Matt’s simultaneous desire to remain moral and humane AND to kill.
“It is at this point that we get the sense that this act may not have provided Matt with the reparation and satisfaction that he had expected to come of it, and even more so that he now feels more lost, deflated, and lonely than he had before.” Is this a resolution to a paradox, then? You’re drawing a conclusion, but not putting it in literary terms. Is this just the resolution of the story’s main conflict?
“The price of lifelong regret that Matt will now have to pay is even higher than the adverse fate of Richard” --- deal with irony here.
I'm not sure whether you're trying to do a close analysis using structuralism or New Criticism. Even if it's going to be reader response, you can deal with paradox and irony since they are clearly at play in the story. However, you'll need to really expand in terms of naming signals, codes, etc., and I would suggest pairing that sort of analysis with "gap" analysis -- doing so would make this skew much more toward reader response.
However, if you want to do New Criticism, you need to name the paradox and solve it very clearly (and early). I don't think you're doing N.C because you don't deal with ambiguity, denotation/connotation, irony etc.
Some very interesting ideas, and I think you're going to put this together in a thoughtful way. Your first task is to frame it very clearly as N.C or R.R.
Hope the feedback proves useful!
A