In “As you would have told it to me (sort of) if we had known each other before you died” by Jonas Hassen Khemiri, the reader is given a morbid glimpse of a twisted reality of the life of an unnamed man. Ambiguity floods the pages of this story and a result, we are able to extract many valuable insights regarding it. The title at first glance is confusing with its being filled with hypothetical conjunctions and past tense verbs. Upon completing the story, however, one can draw what exactly this title means. Though it is, of course, up to interpretation, I believe that the title provides us with even more awareness as to who the narrator is. The “...If we had known each other before you died.” tells us that the Katja, the female main character …show more content…
The importance of this is that the majority of the story makes it appear as if the unnamed man was dating Katja, when in reality it was much more sinister. Patterns are found quite frequently in this story, one of which provides the reader with an interesting portrayal of Katja, who is, again, the narrator. On almost every page, Katja says something along the lines of “I don’t know” or “I don’t remember.” What these likely means is that Katja, with her not actually knowing the unnamed man personally, is hesitant and nervous to reveal what is truth and what isn’t. On the third paragraph of page four, Katja says “I don’t know how long” and “I don’t know what” on a few different occasions, supplying us with even more examples of her unclear speech. Lastly, the unnamed man goes almost the entire process of being arrested and jailed believing it was all a prank orchestrated by his ‘friends.’ Although the reader never truly learns if the unnamed man had any actual friends, he still goes through his trial and further processes believing that they were just doing this as some sort of joke for his ‘bachelor party.’ The sheer extent to which the unnamed man believes this is
I am reading Rough Country by John Sandford and I am on page 396. This book is about Virgil Flowers a detective working a murder case in northern Minnesota . He has narrowed down his suspect list to two people and is starting to realize why the killer did what he did and how he did it. Virgil discovered that some people have been withholding information from him and it helps clear up who his number one suspect should be. In this paper I will be questioning and connecting.
This quote shows how Steve’s roll was diminutive and that the reason Steve would be accused of murder would be because his acquaintance are a negative influence. Also if Steve had never even been involved with these people Steve would not have been accused of murder. So, Steve’s role in the robbery with the people in the robbery can make pedestrian judge that Steve is full of malice because of the people he hangs out with.”
At this point, the speaker's newfound empathy toward the killer prompts his diatribe about American support of capital punishment. He begins with a hypothetical portrayal of an audience chaotically discussing the meaning of the word "kill," each person exclaiming "how they spell it" and "what it means to them." Subsequently, he recounts a story about insensitive reporters at a hanging, followed by a claim that "we throw killers in one grave / and victims in another. We form sides / and have two separate feasts." While the speaker may seem to be utilizing the description of the audience and the story of the reporters in order to denounce the mindset of his peers, he is in fact condemning his own former mentality. By denying five times that he is a witness, the speaker avoids the guilt that results from involvement in the death of another man. Through his repeated use of the phrase "I am not a witness," he essentially enables and catalyzes the execution of the killer, dismissing his humanity and conforming to the opinion that he deserves to be killed; however, once the speaker recognizes his fault and his conformity to this mindset, the tone of the poem suddenly shifts. The speaker's empathy for the killer reaches its maximum when he fully understands the pain of the condemned and finally sees the killer as his equal, which prompts his own admission of guilt and prior indifference: "I am a
The narrator murders an old man who he is meant to be taking care of. He claims to have nothing against the man and says that he loves him. Regardless of this, he finds the mans filmy, vulture-like eye to be disturbing and thinks this is a valid enough reason to kill him. Montresor feels insulted by his colleague, Fortunado and believes that it is now his duty to end his life. Both claim to not have anything against his victim other than one small detail, being either and eye or an insult, and feel that they are justified in wanting them dead.They both meticulously plan out what they are going to do to their victim long before they carry out their actions. Neither the old man or Fortunado had any idea that their murderer had any reason to want them dead and had no way of anticipating what was doing to happen to them. The narrator smothers the old man with his mattress, chops up his body, and stuffs him in the floorboards. Montresor leads a very d...
Jim’s feeling of loneliness has a big impact on his view of Alena. If Jim met another girl that day on the beach, and who was not as attractive he would have acted very different. Jim was very vulnerable at that moment and needed som...
The criminal justice system of the 1950’s can be described as very impartial and flawed, the story doesn’t tell the reader what crime was committed, but it does imply that the misfit may have hurt his father.... ... middle of paper ... ... Although readers can assume so many symbolic coincidences throughout the story, we must face reality, symbolism doesn’t prove the existence of supernatural powers among us.
Through his poem, Ogden recites the tale of a Hangman who emotionlessly slaughtered an entire town. At first, they watched on “[out] of respect for his Hangman’s cloak”. Soon, as he took the life of another to “test the rope when the rope is new”, the village learned to part way “[out] of the fear of his Hangman’s cloak”. The opportunity presented itself time and time again, but only one person spoke against the murderer and was executed for doing so. The rest gave
Firstly, at the end of this story, the narrator’s illusions are the most powerful pieces of evidence for his madness. It is his two illusions that betrays him and imposed him to confess the crime. His first illusion is the beating of the old man’s heart which actually did not exist. Initialy, exactly as he portrayed "My head ached, and I fancied a ringing in my ears, it continued and became more distinct", the ringing he heard haunted him ceaselessly. Then he "found that the noise was not within his ear", and thought the fancy in his ear was the beating of old man’s heart. Because of the increasing noise, he thought the officers must hear it, too. However, in fact, everything he heard is absurd and illusive. And it proves that the narrator is really insane. Next, his second illusion is the officers’ "hypocritical smiles" which pushed him to completely be out of control. Losting of his mind, he called the officer "Villains". Apparently, he was confused and falsely thought "they were making a mockery of his horror" which irritated him intensively. Consequently, he told all the truth and "admitted the deed" in order to get rid of the growing noise. Therefore, the above two pieces of evidence both reveal the truth that the narrator is absolutely insane in contrary to what the narrator tried to tell us.
In retelling the story of his friendships to Noble and his experience of death row, Earle does not outright makes his disagreement for the death penalty known. Earle informs the audience of the reasons why his friend shouldn’t be put to death, and the transformation he has made in the past twelve years. Earle recalls his story while he visits Noble in prison. Earle will be allowed to visit with Noble for six days spanning a two week time frame. These two friends are allowed to visit about past events and say their final goodbyes before the execution of
identity if he knew that he couldn't escape from it: "I think now that if I had
The story starts out with a brief introduction from the criminal. He describes how he feels completely sane, and tries to contradict any opposing views. Giving several reasons to explain his claim, the man finally
To start off, Lara Jean has three sisters named Margot, and Kitty which is short for Katherine. Lara Jean has a father, but we are never exposed to his name and her mother passed away. Margot is the first born child, going off to college in Scotland, and is the most realistic of them all. “Margot doesn’t see the point in wondering. This is our life; there’s no use in asking what if. No one could ever give you the answers” (10). Margot doesn’t like to imagine what could of happened or what would of happened because she is very practical and doesn’t see
Critics pose interesting views concerning the identity and significance of the mysterious third murderer. Henry Irving provides an adamant argument as to how the Attendant could be the third murderer. Irving uses multiple cases in the story where, when interpreted a certain way, one can see how the Attendant is a prime suspect. This man's knowledge of and comfort with the structure and surroundings of the castle shows that he would be a valuable asset to the murderers.
This was her first response to the news of his death. She would not had grieved over someone she did not love. Even in the heat of her passion she thinks about her lost love.
With the absence of conjunctions, her sentences are given a simplistic, direct feel, as prominently demonstrated in the following quotation, “The Rosenbaums looked about my parents’ age, dressed smartly for dinner as my parents would have done, maybe that’s why I started chatting to them” (Deraniyagala 221). The lack of literary flourish within this quotation shifts the audience’s focus towards the physical development of the situation, thus providing a more tangible and uncomplicated comprehension of Deraniyagala’s life. However, this simplistic structure also allows the audience to develop more complex inferences regarding the situation by applying knowledge from previous chapters in order to develop a thorough understanding of the memoir’s claim. More specifically, Deraniyagala’s application of her parents’ characteristics onto other people demonstrates her gradual acceptance of what happened to her. Prior to this event, Deraniyagala was stubborn on remaining oblivious to the absence of her family, which was highlighted with declarative sentences; it left no room for misinterpretation, magnification, or sentimentalization.