In the book Monster, our main character, Steve is on trial for, eligibly, assisting in the murder and robbery of Aguinaldo Nesbitt. Steve is found innocent in the book, which can be agreed with as a good verdict. To clarify why the verdict can be considered as a “good” verdict we must look at who Steve is and what did he do. Steve is a considerably good person who gets wrapped up in a bad crowd and makes a bad decision. As for his involvement in the crime he didn’t actually do anything to help. To emphasis on Steve’s character I want you to think of people in jail. You see thugs, thieves, murders, and people who break the rules for their own benefit or desires. People who would do what they did again or worse. Steve contemplates who he is based on his one bad decision. Does that sound like a person who would kill, steal, or destroy multiple times and feel no remorse? Steve doesn’t deserve to be in jail …show more content…
If he were to want to be part of the robbery he would have stayed close or gave some sort of signal telling King and Bobo nobody was in the store. His involvement was virtually non-existent as all he actually did was go into the store. He didn’t look for anyone let alone police officers. If he had and told them people were in the store then he would have been attributed with assisting in their crime. Contrary to the information given, people believe Steve should have been found guilty. Their reasoning is similar to the statement; Steve had participated in the crime making him guilty. This could be considered sound logic except, for the fact that Steve’s role was not fulfilled nor did he stay to collect any money. Should someone be credited for something they didn’t actually do? Some may say yes, but they only believe this in the sense that this is a crime or bad situation not an award or some sort of positive situation. If it were that case their tunes would change
In the novel Monster the main character is Steve and he is in court and jail for being accused of a murder and robbery. I believe that Steve is innocent in this particular case. The main reason why they are seeing Steve so differently is because he black. I agree with what Steve's defense attorney said which was “the jury already knew their opinion as soon as they saw him walk in.” They saw an African American troubled teen walk into the courtroom who looks like he knows something. In addition, in court they barely let Steve tell his side of the story. I think he had nothing to do with this robbery/murder. He seems like he was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. Steve says to O’brien “ aren’t you are innocent till proven guilty.” Surprisingly
One reason I believe that Steve is guilty is because of his journal. In Steve’s journal he says, “Anybody can walk into a drugstore and look around.”(115) This proves that Steve was helping to be a lookout in the crime, which means he was an accomplice, and that he was in the drugstore when the crime happened. “It was me, I thought as I tried not to throw up, that had wanted to be tough like them.” Steve also writes in his journal (130). Steve is writing that he wanted to be tough like King and his friends. This proves that he wants to be like King, which might have influenced him to help with the crime. Steve also writes in his journal, “I knew she felt that I didn’t do anything wrong. It was me who wasn’t sure.” (148). Steve wrote this after talking with his mother. Steve is doubting his own innocence, if he is doubting his innocence, then is he really innocent?
Matt meet’s his new teacher for the first time,”‘ Learning is fun!’ said Teacher. ‘I’ll bet you’re a smart boy. I’ll bet you learn all your lessons fast and make your mommy proud of you’ […] ‘He can read a bit, though.’ ‘Reading is fun!’ Teacher said in a hearty voice.”(71). During this quote, Matt has just met his new teacher who tells him to call her “Teacher.” Matt notices how she acts a bit off or different than other people he has met. Most of the dialogue in this quote comes from Teacher and some of the words are from Tam Lin speaking for Matt since Matt still hasn’t spoken yet. This is indirect characterization for Teacher. In this particular quote, the author is using the method “speech” to show the teacher’s feelings towards teaching. Earlier in the book, the author also uses Matt’s thoughts to characterize Teacher as being a little bit weird. From this quote we can figure out that Teacher is very excited and optimistic based on the amount of exclamations she uses. We know that she is very cheerful based on the way that she talks about how learning and reading are
Hammond states this to Dr. Wu in the chapter, Bungalow. In this quote Hammond refuses to face the reality of how unsafe his park is, even though countless amount of evidence is set in front him. Not to mention he also refuses to believe that the dinosaurs have found a way to breed despite of the scientists’ precautions. Between his stubbornness and old age we observe that Hammond is actually out of his mind. Later on, after the island is in pieces and most of the staff is dead, Hammond still believes that he still/should build another Jurassic Park. Though in the beginning the novel vilified Nerdy, Hammond emerges as the real villain of the story with his abuse of the scientific power. This quote helps you understand who the real protagonist and real antagonist are. Nerdy was just a pod in the author’s game, to figure whose fault is. (Jurassic Park by Michael Crichton. Chapter Bungalow)
I just met the other guy before the robbery went down." What Bobo stated, was that Steve was involved in the crime. Yes, that may not be enough evidence to be sure that Harmon was truly involved in the crime, but then why were all of the rest of the testimony almost exactly the same by saying that they knew Steve, and that he was supposed to be the lookout but got no signal. Furthermore, on page 262 Petrocelli implies in her final statement “ But yes. Mr. Harmon was involved,. He made a moral decision to participate in this “get over.” He wanted to “get paid” with everybody else. No matter how many moral hairs he can split. His willingness to check out the store, no matter how poorly he did it, was one of the causative factors that resulted in the death of Mr. Nesbitt.” In Petrocelli final statement she makes a good point, Steve was involved in the crime. Even if he was just the lookout. O’brien seems to say that there wasn’t a signal in her final statement, but even so, that still doesn't imply that Steve wasn't in the store that
“You can remember anything, whether it happened or not…”. This is a quote repeated throughout the novel: Freak the Mighty for a reason. Freak the Mighty is a bittersweet, heartwarming, and melancholy story about two boys who find friendship by helping each other to accept their differences. Kevin Avery, also known as “Freak”, is a child suffering from Morquio syndrome; he becomes friends with a boy named Maxwell Kane, who possesses a learning disability, and is “bursting out of his shoes”,Accordingly, we know that Max is extremely tall, and big for his age. Freak has the body the size of a kindergartener, but an intellect as wide as the world. Max carries Freak around on his shoulders, and together, the inseparable pair is called “Freak the Mighty”.
Steve’s thoughts and emotions created a justification in his mind for his violent and harassing behaviors. According to his tapes, he sees himself on the good side, doing bad only to bullies and people who deserve it. He sees himself as loyal and caring. He believes that he has an agreeable and openness to experience personality when in reality and based on his external personality traits, he is the exact opposite. His behaviors caused harassment to many, created a sense of tension within the workplace and created separation between the workers. His neuroticism, extroversive and conscientiousness personality relates directly with his intentionally violent behaviors.
Saul from “Timebound” with his murdering, changing timelines, and evil plotting, he really fits the description for “monster.” I would say that Saul is considered a monster not because of appearance, but because of his actions in demeritorious ways. It states on page 130 that, “When I told him that we needed to just go to Angelo and tell him before someone else discovered the same violations that I had….And all the while, he kept hitting me. Saul never hit me before. Even when he was really angry, he would hit the wall or break something, but never” (Walker). Based on the quote, Saul is a monster because he had no control over his rage that he repeatedly hit Katherine which he had never done before hence the quote, “Saul never hit me before.”
Invisible monsters discusses the concept of queer masculinity. The protagonist is a woman, but there is no difference between her and her brother. Consumerism is not feminization because it ruins both men and women. Men witness a process of emasculation because of consumerism and themselves. In Invisible Monsters, Palahniuk achieves equality between men and women. We are not sure who is female or who is male. Shannon's boyfriend is a gay, her brother is a transexual and her friend is a transexual as well. Man should know that woman is not the enemy, she is his partner in disaster. In order to find his identity as a male, Shane converts himself into a woman. Shannon's reaction and her brother's reaction towards consumer America is different as night and day. Shannon gets rid of her beautiful image as a model to regain her life before consumerism. Shane or Brandy dances to another tune as shown in the novel:
Although some may say that Maurice Sendak’s Where the Wild Things Are is inappropriate for children, this book should not be banned because the author uses a wild child’s journey to create a metaphor for dealing with anger that every child experiences through consequences and how parents’ love for their children is unconditional. In this book, Max is sent to bed without dinner for being disruptive and causing mischief. As a consequence, his mom sends him to his room without dinner. His anger transforms his room into a jungle as he heads out on a journey to where the wild things are. Upon arrival, Max is greeted by the wild things as they intimidate them with their inhuman features. These characters
In Monster Steve is on trial for felony murder, while his lawyer Kathy O’brian, is trying to show to the court that Steve is a young American kid that was in the wrong place, the prosecutor Sandra Petrocelli is trying to dehumanize Steve and make him out to be a “Monster” in front of the jury. The prosecution try to separate King and Steve as criminals and not as Americans by associating them with known criminals. They jury is supposed to look at the defended without biased judgment, but instead some of the jury have already made their decision on the case, “I don’t know why we’re wasting time. He’s as guilty as when I first laid eyes on him” (52). Steven and his lawyer not only have to win against the prosecution but also win against
The second reason that he should be jailed is the fact that he proceeded to run from the law after the robbery . Instead of turning himself in,
Meg (Margaret) Murry is not like any other twelve-year-old girl. She is upset with just about everything but most of all she “hates” herself. She thinks that she is an “oddball” and that is why nobody likes her. Meg isn’t that great in school either; she can only do math but that doesn’t matter because the teachers mark her down for doing the problems “in her own way.”
A monster awakens in my stomach, a storm starts brewing ready to erupt inside me calling me, signalling me to feed it. It calms down for now, but it hasn’t finished yet, it was just the calm before the storm, a signal that I should feed myself. I try to stand up and forget about it, forget about that sensation of wild array of flavours and textures that piece of bread created in contact with my tastebuds two weeks ago. It is only then that I realise that I cannot get up, my legs feel weak and my body fails to abide by my commands. The feeling starts again, only this time it’s the monster eating away at my inside.
Randall Adams is the epitome of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Randall met David when he needed a ride to go get gas, he did not however imagine that he would unintentionally be set up for murder. “I kept telling them what happened and they didn’t want to believe me” Randall said. David shot a police officer and killed him and then blamed it on Randall. When eye witnesses described a man that looked like Randall and David knew he could get away with the crime. To me none of the eye witnesses were very trustworthy, but when that’s the only thing you have to go on then you have to take what you can get. This relates to a recent tragedy that happened in my family. My cousin, Ronnie, was accused of raping his step daughter Shyanne. No one believed him except for the people that matter like the jury and the judge. Shyanne somehow got all of the court to believe her based on her statement and with the help of her grandparents who believed her. I do not think there was much evidence in the case but statements from the