The characters of Mrs. Elton and Emma are extremely similar: they both are overly concerned with outward appearances, place too much value on social status, tend to treat others as their play things, and are quick to judge. They think very highly of themselves and hold themselves as pinnacles of their societies. The two women are so similar one could argue that if their positions were reversed, they would hold the same positions in the story. However, for all their negative similarities, it is the small differences that makes one superior to the other—not only as a person, but as a friend.

Although Mrs. Elton tends to believe herself to a member of gentile society, her manners and mannerisms are a cheap limitation: she has a tendency to place herself on an equal footing with others who are social superior to herself. Although a biased source, quickly Emma judges her to be a vain and self-satisfied who attempted to be superior, but “with manners which had been formed in a bad school [and] drawn from one set of people” (213). Further evidencing the low origin of Mrs. Elton’s manners is how impressed she is by Mrs. Weston’s and Mr. Knightley’s manners: Emma takes their manners for granted and to her, it seems obvious that their manners would be impeccable because of the society of which they are members (218). Mrs. Elton also oversteps herself by referring to people by their given or Christian names without honorifics—even when they are of a superior social class like Mr. Knightley—while Emma would never even consider this even though the families are long-term friends and nearly equal (218).

Emma, unlike Mrs Elton, is aware that her family’s status in society is that of “the younger branch of a very ancient family” whose landed property is relatively small (108). Although she has a tendency to be snobbish and exclusive, she is able to put these feelings aside when pressured by her friends to do what is right. When the middle-class Coles were in a position to invite Emma to a dinner party, she almost gleefully prepared to rebuke them for being so presumptuous, but when the invitation actually came, she allowed the Westons to convince her to attend without argument (163). Even though she believes in the exclusivity of her class, she realizes that it is not practical to insulate herself from the other classes when she should be accepting of them. However, her egalitarian views do not extend beyond casual relations: she was very quick to refuse Mr. Elton’s advances on social status alone, and even though she was correct to do so, she did not see that the relationship she tried to create between Mr. Elton and Miss Smith was similar to Mr. Elton marrying herself. According to Emma, Mr. Elton only proposed to “aggrandize and enrich himself,” and although he “understood the graduations of rank below him [he was] blind to what rose above” (107). This evidences Emma’s flaw in oversimplifying the lives of others through her habit of lumping the middle-class into one rather than seeing it as stratified.

Mrs. Elton is very insecure about her background and tends to speak frequently of her brother-in-law’s estate comparing every aspect of it to Hartfield and claiming as its equal; however, as Emma points out, those with wealth are not impressed with people who are equally wealthy, so Mrs. Elton’s comparison serves more to show how little societal standing she has. She also judges others of similar backgrounds harshly: mentioning a family that lives near Maple Grove who are an annoyance “from the airs they give themselves” without realizing it is the same way others view her (244).

Emma is very blind to the thoughts and the feelings of the people around her to the point that she projects all of her own feelings onto people and then expresses shock when she is wrong. Events like her blindness regarding Mr Elton’s advances, her insistence that Miss Fairfax is in love with the happily married Mr. Dixon, or her belief that Miss Smith was superior to the Martins show just how little she understands the core personalities of the people around her. However, although she can be strong-headed, she does accept correction—mostly by Mr. Knightley—when she is wrong, so her weakness is less glaring than it could be.

Emma and Mrs. Elton play off each other well: they both have similar personalities and levels of intelligence, but where Emma is born rich and gentile, Mrs. Elton’s only claim to high society is a sizable dowry and a wealthy brother-in-law. Emma and Mrs. Elton are both flawed individuals, but Mrs. Elton has all of Emma’s flaws but few of her good qualities, and Mrs Elton’s one-dimensional nature is such that she seems incapable of growing as a person; however, Emma does learn from the lessons she receives, albeit slowly, and respects the opinions of others; therefore, although both individuals have their flaws, Emma would make a far better friend.

Bookmark

Notes:

1. Page Numbers are for the Riverside Edition edited by Lionel Trilling

Eliot directly questions the purpose of organized religion, but is less emphatic in questioning God, and tends to not refer directly to God (both literally and figuratively as the word “God” appears twenty-four times throughout the entire book, and most of these are general expressions.) Thus, the book is an impartial observer of the way religion is practiced and the way God is evidenced in the popular beliefs rather than a direct attack on the validity of religion and the concept of God. Eliot is very careful to never attack the existence of God, so even when Silas feels betrayed, he keeps his faith in the existence of God, but he believes that “there is no just God that governs the earth righteously, but a God of lies.” Silas gains a “shaken trust in God” which quickly assures that the existence of God is never questioned by Marner or any other inhabitant of Raveloe or Lantern Yard. This allows Eliot to focus on the way characters believe in God through the practice of religion rather than the deeper theological issue of the existence of God.

Eliot observes that even within Christianity the interpretations of God are very different. She states that Marner “was quite unable, by means of anything he heard or saw, to identify the Raveloe religion with his old faith,” but even within Raveloe, Eliot illustrates different modes of belief: one a God of precise laws and moral absolutes and another impersonal, parental God. These beliefs coexist within Raveloe because the focus of the community is not on how religious one is — “to go to church every Sunday in the calendar would have shown a greedy desire to stand well with Heaven” — but on how one behaves.

Within Raveloe, the popular interpretation of God is of the impersonal yet parental God — an interpretation very different from Lantern Yard’s belief in an active God. Alongside their belief in a Christian God, Raveloe’s beliefs incorporate some elements of paganism such as the belief in and desire for charms. Even with a faith in God, these people want a little extra assurance that things will be better for them, and they are willing to look away from Christianity and God to find it. Eliot uses these folk beliefs to demonstrate that the inhabitants of Raveloe are not entirely convinced of God’s manipulation of events and they do not share Lantern Yard’s belief that God is active in their lives, so even though the inhabitants of Raveloe trust in charms, they would never have drawn lots to determine a person’s guilt because Raveloe’s God as an almost deistic god who creates and judges, but one who is not actively involved in day-to-day matters. God to Dolly is not entirely Deistic because she allows that he may have guided Marner to Raveloe to care for Eppie, but she and the other lay members of the community are not concerned with God or religion beyond a secondary experience.

Eliot seems to suggest that this view is the correct view of religion because she warns against placing too much faith in God as do the inhabitants of Lantern Yard. She argues that once one places too much faith in God, God is in a position to be blamed for any negative event in one’s life rather than focusing on human causes. Silas Marner was betrayed by his friend; however, the lots and God decided for the community that he was guilty, so Marner believes he was betrayed by both his God and his friend because he was assured that God would reveal the truth (he even declares “God will clear me” three times.) Had the lots turned the other way, his faith would have remained, but Marner is placed in a position where his faith in God is destroyed because of the Lantern Yard belief that God is responsible for all actions. Marner eventually regains his faith in God saying to Eppie that he believes that “God was good to me” in delivering her to him, but he never fully regains a personal belief and faith in God. God remains on the outside of his life because Marner can never fully trust in him again.

Eliot warns that focusing too much on God can retard a person’s life and places one at a disadvantage in this world. The negative effects of this are demonstrated by the inhabitants of Lantern Yard’s quick belief in Marner’s guilt and their inability to see that William Dane had manipulated events. The negative traits of this are contrasted with the positive aspects of life in Raveloe where the community gathers at the Rainbow and interacts with each other rather than just with God.

Bookmark

Madison Washington represents the human face of a slave: his every attribute reflects the fear abolitionists felt when faced with the images of Nat Turner. Washington is presented as being “[t]all, symmetrical, round, and strong [with an] appearance betokened Herculean strength; yet there was nothing savage or forbidding in his aspect [and a voice] full and melodious” (28). Later, he is shown to be a good Christan man who, after attaining his freedom, risks his own life to free his family from captivity. He is always presented as being in command of himself, eloquent, and a leader of men. This melodramatic point-of-view leaves the reader with no choice but to sympathize with Madison Washington and by extension all good people who happened to have been ill-fortuned enough to be born both black and into slavery.

While one can feel pity for Madison, slave characters like Babo illicit no sympathy for themselves, but they raise philosophical questions about the effects of slavery on the individual. Melville never suggests that Babo was ill-treated or abused as a slave, and only describes him as a “small Negro Senegal [who spent] some years among the Spaniards” (93). It is obvious from the story that Babo is vastly intelligent which begs the question: why should someone as intelligent as Babo be confined to an institution of slavery and what happens to such an individual? Melville answers both parts of the question by stating resolutely that such a mind would not be held within an cage no matter how gilded, and that one such as Babo, while being moral to a point, would quickly leave his morals behind to achieve his freedom.

Babo does have some good qualities aside from his intelligence. If we can accept the word of Delano even when he was a captive Babo was instrumental in “pacifying his more ignorant brethren, when at intervals tempted to murmurings” (46). This interpretation of Babo is further illustrated when during the deposition it is revealed that the “Negresses of age” had to be restrained so they could not have “tortured to death, instead of simply killing, the Spaniards slain by the command of the Negro Babo” and that Babo “with his own hand, committed no murder” (102). Babo was twisted enough by slavery that he had the bones of Don Alexandro mounted on the ship’s bow, but he was not so far gone that he would treat the whites as they treated slaves.

While Babo is not entirely corrupted by slavery, he is twisted enough that he, personally, is beyond pity; however, with his actions he shows how the institution of slavery can twist even the most intelligent mind and force it into doing brutish things. Madison Washington represents an attempt by abolitionists to avoid the Nat Turner stereotype of the slave, but the character of Babo embraces this stereotype and Melville simultaneously condemns the actions taken while he shows that individuals such as Nat Turner are heavily influenced and corrupted by slavery itself, so that only by withdrawing individuals with such proclivities from the institutions of slavery, can one be safe from their innate internal rage on a widespread basis.

Superficially, Cereno is sick with a fever, but one can also read between the lines “only the sour heart that sour sickness breeds made [Cereno] serve Babo so; cutting Babo with the razor ” (77). Quite obviously the cut is self inflicted by Babo; however, had Babo been a normal slave the same incident would have caused a similar reaction from his master. The “sour sickness” that Babo speaks of is not entirely Cereno’s illness, but the institution of slavery that demands one exert his control over the entirety of another’s being. This interpretation of Cereno’s supposed action is illustrated by Captain Delano’s remark that, “this slavery breeds ugly passions in man!” This comment can be expanded to encompass both Babo’s “punishment” and Babo’s actual actions aboard the ship.

Abolitionist literature used characters such as Madison Washington and Babo to question the political and philosophical effects of slavery. While the former is a respectable individual who the reader can feel sympathy for, the latter is vile and demented, but forces the reader to question the aspects of slavery that would twist such an individual.

Bookmark

The first important information is how the wars end for our protagonists. In Inman’s case he deserted to return home because he had gotten too weary of the fighting and killing. However Odysseus returned home after a successful campaign against the City of Troy after 12 years, although long since wearied of the war he had nevertheless staid until the end. The difference here though can be attributed to cultural differences between the time “Odyssey” was written and “Cold Mountain” was. Although the differences are cultural they are also important to the story as it gives the main antagonist force their reason(s) for pursuing the Protagonist. In Odysseus’s case the main antagonist is Poseidon God of the sea Poseidon causes Odysseus to become lost at see in retribution for his vanity. However in Inman’s case he is chased and finally killed by the Home Guard for deserting the army.

Another large difference is in the personalities of Penelope and Ada, Ada was rather weak when she had no one to lean on but Penelope was able to keep everything together even as it fell apart around her until her husband returned. Without her husband Penelope was able to prevent major damage to her family by the suitors and in the process keep herself from falling into melancholy or being forced to choose a new husband. Ada on the other hand was unable to keep the house and farm or even herself in good condition, she fell far into melancholy to the point of neglecting her own physical needs. It was not until Ruby came into Ada’s life that she was able to overcome her melancholy and start functioning as a person again. The valiant wife bravely awaiting her husbands return is far from what “Cold Mountain” has to offer, yet even still the longing for the return of loved ones is a main theme of both stories.

Both stories go into great details of the challenges each protagonist faces, yet these are not important to the overall picture. No one would think about adding a Cyclops to the American south east just as no ancient Greek would create a hero out of a deserter. Although the details of the events are different they have the same effect of portraying the great obstacles the protagonists had to face before returning home. These obstacles allow the reader to see just what the protagonists are made of and get a look deep into their psyches.

Unlike Inman who died after returning home, but not before impregnating Ada, Odysseus survived and was happily reunited with his wife and son. Again the difference here could be construed as differences in literary styles between the two times, by the time “Cold Mountain” the “triumphant return and all is okay” ending was long since a clich” of literature and the contemporary audience doesn”t really believe the endings anymore. Instead “Cold Mountain” ends with the triumphant return and untimely death of Inman, followed by all is okay. For the readers of the “Odyssey” Odysseus was a hero of mythical proportions to have him end in anything but a triumphant ending would have been demoralizing to the audience. Yet Inman’s death did not prevent a happy ending, in fact if anything it adds even more happiness to the story because it allowed Ada to continue her life as she had grown accustomed and instead of losing a fianc” she gained a daughter.

Upon Odysseus’s return he had to battle the suitors to be able to be reunited with his wife. In Odysseus’s case Penelope had no attachment to the suitors who tried for her attention, so was quite happy when they were removed from her life. Inman in a situation similar to Odysseus had to figuratively battle with Ruby for Ada’s attention. In Inman’s case he could never have won the battle for Ada’s attention without driving a wedge between him and Ada. Ada had begun to so heavily lean on Ruby for support that without her Ada would probably have been unable to live without the emotional support she provided and not resent Inman for coming between them.

Although the ending and beginning are different the story in form is the same so at least in this way “Cold Mountain” and “The Odyssey” are literary cousins. The lessons they teach are also similar but the characters themselves could not hardly be anymore different. The characters of “The Odyssey” show strength in all things before, during and after tragedy, yet in “Cold Mountain” the characters are rather weak, having to fall to the bottom before picking themselves back up. Although it is possible to excuse all differences in the way the characters behaved on the differences of the ancient Greek and American culture, it shows just how far our society has come in terms of role models. Deciding modern culture is the sole reason for the differences portrays modern society as distancing itself from heroic portrayals of historical characters and instead of glorifying them they are portrayed as people with failings and character flaws but in the end being able to overcome them. This leaves us with only one option, first to realize that our society has progressed to the point where heroes are not all that one needs to see in life and thus modern society has realized that even normal people can do admirable things and secondly to decide that “Cold Mountain” is indeed a modern reincarnation of “The Odyssey” but that no longer are god-like men the only ones capable of being heroic.

Bookmark

In several belief systems (voodoo in particular) the idea that the feelings of an individual can be transmitted through objects are prevalent. In Tia’s case the emotions range from sadness, to joy, to anger to desire, and food is used as the median. The idea that her emotions can have such a large effect on the people around them is by realist ideals silly at best, however the exaggeration does give the book its place in literature. It is not important that Tia’s tears could not have made the guests cry it is rather the idea that Tia’s emotions were so powerful as to affect the people around her. The same idea can be said of the quail dinner scene, the enormous blanket or the volcano at the end of the story.

This idea that realistic elements can have a magical, spiritual and fanciful elements is what makes magical realism different than other literary forms. The story is not all fantasy but at the same time it is not all realistic. Instead the story finds a happy medium between the two and as a result becomes a story ala Paul Bunyan or Davy Crockett. While it would be hard to argue that the events in any of these three stories are all true they have just the right balance of fantasy and reality to make the supreme decision rather difficult. This inability to define what is “real” and what is fantasy is what makes the genre enjoyable. Although I still think the book is scatter-brained.

Bookmark

The first form of light and darkness is knowledge; this is the representation of the characters ability to see beyond the surface of things and to truly understand them. The very first example of this is spoken by Oedipus at the beginning of the play when he says, “I must bring what is dark to light” in reference to the mystery of Laios’ death. This is the first and most obvious example, and it sets the stage for the use of light and darkness to represent knowledge throughout the remainder of the play. Repeatedly, Sophocles refers to the fact that Oedipus is blind to the truth just as Teiresias is blind to the world. Teiresias charges Oedipus, “but I say that you, with both your eyes, are blind!” he makes the reference not to his physical state but to his mental state. Teiresias also says: “you do not even know the blind wrongs you have done” referring to Oedipus’s unknown incestuous relationship and the murder of his father. To be blind could also mean unknowingly done or forgotten. The knowledge that is lacking from most of the play is the knowledge of one’s self. Oedipus is obviously intelligent but he lacks the knowledge of his past which, for the Greeks, meant he also had no future. Oedipus was able to answer the Sphinx’s riddle because he was intelligent enough to detect the undertones of the question, that morning, noon and night referred to the stages of a man’s life not a literal day. Yet Oedipus was unable to detect the undertones of his own life: he was blind to the many clues and hints to his origin. The lack of knowledge is the path to his downfall, for all of his intelligence he was unwilling to step aside and follow the advice of those who knew what was happening.

The use of light and darkness to represent truth is also an important part of the play. The first example is when Oedipus says to Teiresias as they argue: “You child of endless night! You cannot hurt me or any other man who sees the sun”; in response, Teiresias just says “True.” Oedipus’s claim is not that Teiresias would be unable to hurt of kill him because of his blindness but rather that he cannot hurt Oedipus with his falsehoods. This exchange can be restated as Oedipus calling Teiresias a liar and Teiresias retorting by saying that if he was lying, Oedipus would be able to tell if Oedipus actually knew the truth. Although in the beginning of the play Oedipus denies Teiresias’s accusations, later as he begins to comprehend the events surrounding his birth he say: “I’m not sure that the blind man cannot see.” Oedipus is not referring to physical blindness but admitting that Teiresias may actually be telling him the truth. Sophocles use of light and darkness to portray truth would not have been seen as metaphorical to his original audience as it is seen today, but would have been part of the lexicon of his contemporaries.

The physical blindness of Oedipus is the outward display of his prior inner state, unable to see the world around him for what it really was. When Oedipus eventually blinded himself, he fulfilled the numerous prophecies in which Teiresias declared that Oedipus in which Teiresias declared that Oedipus wold become as blind as Oedipus had declared as Oedipus had declared Teiresias to be. In the beginning of the play as Oedipus argues with Teiresias. Oedipus says, “You sightless, senseless, witless old man!” In response, Teiresias makes his first prophecy: “there is no one here who will not be cursed you soon, as you curse me.” Teiresias second prophecy occurs as he is leaving the palace and calls Oedipus a “A blind man, who has his eyes now.” Upon the death of his wife/mother, as Oedipus blinds himself, he says “Too long been blind to those for whom I was searching from this hour go into darkness!” He speaks of both knowledge and physical blindness. He blinded himself in an attempt to return to the darkness in which he had previously lived, for although he had before lacked knowledge of himself, his life was peaceful. Upon blinding himself, he was able to return to a state where he could not see the evil he lived in and the misery he caused.

After Oedipus realizes the truth, but before Oedipus rushes into the palace, he says “O light, may I look upon you for the last time.” The light he speaks of refers to several things: light in a physical sense as he has already cursed himself to be blinded, light as in goodness because this is his last moment before knowing all the evil he committed, and finally the light of knowledge as he sees the meaning of all that came before.

The three forms of light and darkness take on an extremely important role in the play and almost become another character. The subtle use of the words in their different forms give the reader subtle hints about the truth of the play. Sophocles weaves an extremely well-portrayed story in which he declares that just because a ruler can see the world around him, it does not guarantee that the ruler understands what is happening, and, in turn, that kings are not all-knowing: they are just men.

Bookmark

“The Metamorphosis” was published in 1915 and written during Europe’s slide to World War 2, during this time Austria-Hungry began persecuting the Serbs who they feared because of growing nationalism movements in Bosnia: newspapers were closed, student leaders arrested and the military was given a large amount of control in the country. After the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand in 1913 Serbs were suddenly the pariahs of Austria-Hungry.

The Serbs had been previously a minority throughout Austria-Hungry but were mainly located in the Bosnia and Herzevogina. However the Serbs in other areas of the country would have overnight become repulsive to the whole of Austria-Hungry, with the countries government, religious leaders, and everyday people calling for the destruction of the Serbian nations to the south of Austria-Hungry.

The different entities in this struggle can be directly traced to characters in “The Metamorphosis.” The chief clerk is a suspicious man, and can represent the whole of the Austria-Hungry government, they allowed the persecution and punishment of innocent Serbs. The renters can be seen as Germany, Britain and France, they would not help the Serbs but instead stood aloof from them passing judgments one way or the other. The cleaning lady is Russia, although supposed to be on the Serbs side instead Russia caused as much trouble for the Serbs as they helped, they also were there to help sweep up the mess the Austria-Hungarians caused.

Gregor’s family represents the different feelings of the people of Austria-Hungry towards the Serbs. Gregor’s father represents those who depend on the labor that Serbs can provide but despise and fear them. Gregor’s mother represents those who are indifferent either way only stepping half-heartily in when they feel things have gone too far. Gregor’s sister represents the rest of the population of Austria-Hungry at first outside the petty squabbles but eventually succumbing to the pressure from the other sources. Gregor or the average Serbian would have found themselves to have changed from a under valued minority that provided the unwanted jobs to suddenly becoming a pest or infestation, valueless to all others.

I think in light of Kafka’s view on totalitarianism that this theory is valid. Had this story been written 20 years later then another interpretation would be that Gregor represented European Jews and the descent of Nazism and antisemitism, because this story can be easily reinterpreted to focus on any disenfranchised group it lends credence to my theory. However there is also a problem with this idea, a story that is too broad can be reinterpreted many different ways, and none of them can be assured the “real” meaning. Unfortunately short of time travel there is no real way to know for sure what was going through Kafka’s head as he wrote this story.

Bookmark

Jesus thrown everything off balance. It was the same case with Him as with me except he hadn’t committed any crime and they could prove I committed one because they had the papers on me…of course…they never shown me my papers. That’s why I sign myself now. I said long ago, you get a signature and sign everything you do and keep a copy of it . Then you’ll know what you done and you can hold up the crime to the punishment and see do they match and in the end you’ll have something to prove you ain’t been treated right. I call myself “the Misfit” because I can’t make what all I done fit what all I gone through in punishment.

The quote can be taken to mean many things, but there are two possibilities that are the most convincing.Either “The Misfit” was not guilty of a crime when he was punished or was indeed guilty and did deserve the punishment, but, as a psychopath generally does, he reasoned that his crime was not a “real” crime.

The most obvious option is the first one which, if you know Flannery O’Connor’s writing, makes it the most questionable. The Misfit says that when he was sent to the penitentiary he was “buried alive.” Because the atmosphere of a penitentiary in the time the story is set (1940′s rural America) was like that of a medieval dungeon—men would be sentenced to prison for years to live with abuse guards and inmates alike and suffer the mental trauma of living in a stone box—often men would come out worse than they went in, and the effects on a innocent man would be compounded even further. The Misfit never admits to committing a crime, but he also never denies it. This can be explained away by assuming that he was not actually guilty of a crime, but spent years in prison with people telling him he was guilty. Eventually, this would have worn down his own mental defenses and convinced him that he was guilty; however, his inability to name this crime could be his way of denying a crime took place while appeasing the”head doctors” who would do their best to convince him of his guilt.

However, some psychopaths would do anything to convince themselves that they did not commit a crime. In the very beginning of the story, the grandmother reads a news article and comments that her son should read “what it says [The Misfit] did to these people” and comments that “I couldn’t take my children [anywhere]…with a criminal like that loose”, so it seems that The Misfit is not innocent, but a rather vicious killer. Further, The Misfit comments “[it] ain’t right I wasn’t there [when Jesus raised the dead] because if I had been there I would have known [if it was possible to raise people from the dead and] I wouldn’t be like I am now.” He did not really think murder was a crime because death is the end and there is no heaven or hell. He also mentions that he was an undertaker for a time, and says to the grandmother that “there was never a body that gave the undertaker a tip.” This (aside from being part of Flannery O’Connor’s “black”humor) is his way of rationalizing what he is doing: he is just an undertaker.

Another piece of evidence that suggest he is guilty is his comment that “Jesus thrown everything off balance,” which could be taken as Jesus was innocent but people said he was guilty, and punished him as such. The Misfit acted in a calm and dispassionate manner until he began talking about religion and forgiveness, so he may have been innocent of the crimes he was punished for, and sorry for the crimes he had committed after escaping. However, this comment can be taken to mean many things, including that Jesus allowed the thief on the cross to be forgiven of his sins and made him innocent rather than guilty, but this leads to the possibility that The Misfit was indeed guilty of his original crimes, but in The Misfit’s mind he was not guilty because Jesus made him innocent again.

The biggest piece of evidence for The Misfit’s guilt is how easily he seemed to send the family to their deaths. However, his comment when the grandmother recognized the was “it would have been better…if you hadn’t [recognized] me” and he told her he “would hate to have to [kill her].” O ‘Connor describes his eyes as being “red-trimmed and pale and defenseless looking” signifying that maybe he was not a cold blooded killer, but would just do anything not to go back to the penitentiary.

The Misfit was not a good person, that much is certain, but the question is was he driven to be the way he was because of his own experiences or was he just a cold-blooded murderer who thought he was an “undertaker” killing people to balance out the ones Jesus raised from the dead. However, with no direct evidence of the original crime the reader is left to guess endless possibilities and scenarios including things as absurd as having The Misfit kill his father who was dieing from the flu in the hopes he would be raised from the dead. Although The Misfit did not look like a killer (described as hiving a scholarly appearance) and obviously did not enjoy killing the family, he was a murderer regardless of whether he became one from ones committed to him or his own inability to grasp the finer points of being human.

The original quote by itself seems to say The Misfit is innocent, but in the context of the story it could mean anything. As the story unfolds it is left up to the reader to decide whether he became a killer because of his own unjust experiences or his nature. Then to decide if it even matters.

Bookmark