“Killings,” by Andre Dubus presents the very controversial topic of “an eye for an eye.” Dubus has readers ask themselves whether murder could be considered justifiable in the case of Matt Fowler killing Robert Strout, the man who murdered Fowler’s son Frank. Dubus really challenges readers by creating Matt Fowler’s character in a favorable light. While reading the short story I did not have any difficulty in feeling sympathetic and somewhat supporting Matt’s actions, while I felt very little sorrow for Strout. I believe Dubus does this on purpose to really have readers question their ethics.
While reading the story, another controversial debate came to mind. The death penalty will always be a a very opinionated and heated topic. One side to the debate is that no human being should have the right to legally end another human’s life. The other side is that justice should be served to people who have committed murder through the loss of their own lives. Matt Fowler was acting through this mindset, believing his mind would not be at rest until his son’s murderer was also dead. Matt’s actions in the end were extremely illegal, and in my opinion do not serve justice. So how is the death penalty justifiable? I think this question can easily rise from this short story.
I found it interesting how many tragedies Dubus had to endure throughout his life. I believe “Killings,” directly connected with Dubus’ sister’s rape. The incident affected him throughout his life, and I am sure he wanted revenge on his sister’s rapist. Possibly, the story was a way for Dubus to deal with his thoughts and ethics in relation to his sister’s tragedy.
No comments:
Post a Comment