Andre Dubus’s “Killings” is a very interesting look into the psychology that goes on after a person has been killed. The story discusses the ramifications of the original murder, the subsequent actions of “justice,” and finally what is left when it is all said and done. Dubus’s “Killings” is a very clear example of how one family deals with the death of their youngest son. The entire story is written in a very disconnected method. Throughout the entire story Dubus never takes a side, never shows emotion or empathy towards anything. I feel this has a very important impact onto the actual story.
Throughout the story, every time one of the killers refers to what they have done, there is never emotion in that person’s reasons. When Strout is talking to Matt, Strout’s only response is, “He was making it with my wife.” There is no pleading in that statement, only cold fact as if in that situation it was accepted by society. Then when Matt is explaining to Strout why they were leaving the town, Matt made the whole scenario out to be for his wife’s good. There is no real emotion in that statement, just sort of a, “This is how it has to be done.” Dubus’s style emphasizes that. Although the story is very devoid of emotion, Dubus hint’s at emotions just out of reach.
The Essay on First Person Stories Jackson Dubus
Andre Dubus, Raymond Carver and Shirley Jackson have changed the landscape of contemporary fiction both culturally and stylistically. All three comment about the affect upon the individual whose life circumstances have caused them to act the way that they do. When reading their short stories you can't help but notice that Dubus and Carver have very similar styles. Their use of the first person ...
The most prominent hint is Frank and Mary Ann. Every time that either Frank or Mary Ann is mentioned, there is some great emotion accompanied with the person. Frank’s surrounded by love for Mary Ann and for her kids. He also shows a great protection for her kids. Mary Ann shows love for Frank and sadness / anger towards Strout. The story also contains a full circle of emotion.
It begins with the funeral, an obvious source of sadness. From there, the sadness seems to vacate the story until the very last paragraph. It ends with Matt crying into his wife’s breast. I think Dubus did this to make the disassociated feelings that surrounded the murders even more apparent. With the name “Killings” Dubus has already started his statement about these specific murders. If he were to use a phrase such as murders for the title, there would be an instant empathy towards the victim.
Although he wants you to feel a little empathy towards Frank, I believe Dubus’s main point was to show the futility of enacting revenge. Throughout the whole story there is a motif of revenge that is masked behind the word justice. Since the earliest days of written record, there has been a philosophy, which has no become just a proverb, which stated, “An eye for an eye.” The whole idea behind this philosophy was that whenever a crime was enacted, the exact same crime was to be enacted upon the guilty party. As in the title exampled, if person A poked out person B’s eye, person A would have his eye removed. That idea of revenge is prevalent in this story. Rather than let what society has deemed justice, take it’s course, Matt decided that he could not wait any longer.
Together with his friend Willis Trotter, Matt thought out a well calculated plan for murder. Dubus’s plan behind making the narrator so disconnected was to get the reader to think. Too many times emotions have clogged up our morals and ideas. It is one of the oldest struggles, logic versus emotion. In this case Dubus decided to side with logic rather than emotion.
It would have been too easy to paint out Matt as a virtuous vigilante, who was only acting out of good moral conscious. After all, his son was murdered and the man who did it was allowed to walk free. Instead Dubus wanted to point out that no matter how righteous one may feel we still live in a society of laws. Another tactic that Dubus used to point this out was his complete lack of description about the actual murders.
The Essay on Frank Dubus Story Movie
... more realistic human emotions than those that Dubus gives them in his story. All in all, these changes strongly justify Matt's actions at the ... and the planned murder was not planned so soon. Matt covers his tracks better than he does in the story. He wears the ... man is brutally murdered. A grieving mother sees the killer around town. The father decides to take revenge. This simple plot line ...
As in Strout’s case, Strout was dead in the span of one sentence with no description. This was used in order to make Matt seem less emotional. If Dubus had followed up with massive descriptions of blood and gore, Matt would have become a much darker character. This way the entire story spoke much louder than the one scene would have.
I’m sure that every father of a son that has been killed has looked at murder as an option. In the case of this story, Matt decided to use that option. He did it in a very cold and calculated way. He only showed emotion at the beginning of the story and at the very end, once the deed was done. This emotionless state helped to show what happens when people go on revenge, as apposed to waiting for proper justice. For this manner of revenge, Matt just furthered a cycle that may never end.
He took Strout’s life, because Strout took his son’s. Dubus was careful during the telling of this revenge story, to not show emotion one way or the other. His goal was to show an action, and left it up to us to judge whether it was correct, or incorrect. I feel that it was incorrect. Vigilantism is wrong when there are proper channels of justice to follow through. The point that brings this home is the fact that even after Strout is dead there is no feeling of relief or closure.
The pain will always be there, now accompanied with the fact that another life is gone. Viscous cycles like these cause some of the worst situations ever imaginable. If we all could just take an un-opinionated look at the situation, we might be able to avoid them.’ Thinking and Writing about Literature: A Text and Anthology.’ Michael Meyer. 2001. (566 – 578).
