The Murder of Harvey Groves in A Jury Case :: Jury Case Essays

The murder of Harvey Groves in A Jury Case The idea, you understand, is that two men have crept up to the lonely little mountain house in the late afternoon, George Small creeping ahead with the heavily loaded shot-gun in his hands, really being driven forward by Cal Long, creeping at his heels, a man, Luther explains, simply too strong for him, and that, at the fatal moment, when they faced Harvey Groves, and I presume had to shoot or be shot, and George weakened, Cal Long just touched George on the shoulder. The touch, you see, according to Luther's notion, was a command It said, "Shoot!" and George's body stiffened, and he shot. (4) In this passage, the narrator reports--based on Luther's account--what he thinks happened the night George and Cal went to Harvey's house to get revenge on George in Sherwood Anderson's "A Jury Case." At first glance, the reader can easily believe this somewhat interesting, plausible scenario. However, if we analyze the details and "known" facts in the events surrounding the killing of Harvey Groves, we realize that this passage constitutes a "loose" interpretation grounded in a misconception of George. Put simply, there is evidence to suggest that Luther fabricates this scenario to showcase his storytelling abilities. First, let's examine the facts of this "case." But what, you might wonder, qualifies as a provable fact? For this story, we will assume that any claim made by the narrator that could be backed up by an eye-witness is true. Thus, we know that when Cal enters George's house the night of the murder, George's wife, also in the house, observes them as they drink whiskey. She sees George swell into anger and break two chairs. She also views George as he grabs his shotgun and heads off to Harvey's with Cal. Consequently, in the next few days, she, an eyewitness to the events in her home, goes around, "telling every one that her husband and Cal Long were going to kill someone" (5). Moreover, we know that Harvey Groves is in fact murdered--since his body is found by someone--however, we don't know much about the occurrence of his murder since no outside witness observes the murder--unless, of course, the observer is involved in the murder. The Murder of Harvey Groves in A Jury Case :: Jury Case Essays The murder of Harvey Groves in A Jury Case The idea, you understand, is that two men have crept up to the lonely little mountain house in the late afternoon, George Small creeping ahead with the heavily loaded shot-gun in his hands, really being driven forward by Cal Long, creeping at his heels, a man, Luther explains, simply too strong for him, and that, at the fatal moment, when they faced Harvey Groves, and I presume had to shoot or be shot, and George weakened, Cal Long just touched George on the shoulder. The touch, you see, according to Luther's notion, was a command It said, "Shoot!" and George's body stiffened, and he shot. (4) In this passage, the narrator reports--based on Luther's account--what he thinks happened the night George and Cal went to Harvey's house to get revenge on George in Sherwood Anderson's "A Jury Case." At first glance, the reader can easily believe this somewhat interesting, plausible scenario. However, if we analyze the details and "known" facts in the events surrounding the killing of Harvey Groves, we realize that this passage constitutes a "loose" interpretation grounded in a misconception of George. Put simply, there is evidence to suggest that Luther fabricates this scenario to showcase his storytelling abilities. First, let's examine the facts of this "case." But what, you might wonder, qualifies as a provable fact? For this story, we will assume that any claim made by the narrator that could be backed up by an eye-witness is true. Thus, we know that when Cal enters George's house the night of the murder, George's wife, also in the house, observes them as they drink whiskey. She sees George swell into anger and break two chairs. She also views George as he grabs his shotgun and heads off to Harvey's with Cal. Consequently, in the next few days, she, an eyewitness to the events in her home, goes around, "telling every one that her husband and Cal Long were going to kill someone" (5). Moreover, we know that Harvey Groves is in fact murdered--since his body is found by someone--however, we don't know much about the occurrence of his murder since no outside witness observes the murder--unless, of course, the observer is involved in the murder.

Forest Life Changes the Characters in As you like it, do you agree? Essay

In Shakespeare’s As you like it, we find the characters attempting to escape the court. What they specifically are escaping from are the ‘briars’ of the ‘working day world’. The imagery of briar bushes specifically enacts a form of entanglement; that the world of the court is entrapping and the people in it are reflected as such. What is ‘comely envenoms him that bears it’, highlighting a reverse polarisation of morality, that what is good is a hindrance in the world of the court. This is paralleled by what Touchstone (who represents the court as a jester, whom were always in the service of the court) says; ‘The sweetest nut hath the sourest rind’. Indeed, the usurper is viewed as the rightful ruler of the court whereas the rightful ruler is branded an outlaw. So the characters escape to the forest in order to cleanse themselves of ‘th’infected world’ (Playing upon the previous mention of ‘envenoms’ as a form of physical affliction that requires cathartic release). One can argue that the characters do respond to the forest, and their characters change as such. One particularly significant example is how Shakespeare constructs the forest as a place of alternative knowledge; Duke Senior finds that the ‘winds are his councillors’ and that the ‘trees shall be my (his) books’, that they find ‘sermons in stones’. This highlights the homiletic edification that occurs when one engages with nature, and indeed, this is paralleled by the discourse expressed between Rosalind and Celia in Act I, where they comment on how fortune (A product of the court) and nature (Of the forest) are at odds with one another; ‘Fortune reigns in gifts of the world/not in the lineaments of natu re’. The escapism of the forest is further expressed when the gentlemen become ‘merry men’ and ‘brothers in exile’ highlighting how they are able to ‘fleet time as they did in the golden age’, with the ‘merry men’ alluding exclusively to the notion of ‘Robin hood’, who represents an active rebellion against the court, suggesting an underlying romanticisation of what it is to be an outlaw. Indeed, defying social norms appears to be what the forest epitomises, and as such, Rosalind even changes all perception of her by becoming ‘Ganymede’, she essentially dresses up to become someone different. Finally, we find the two main ‘villains’ of the story; Duke Frederick and Oliver have a very quick change of heart from the forest, which in both cases turn out to be spectacular examples of Deus Ex Machina, both being equally contrived but portrayed as legitimately woven into the story. So in that sense, the forest is a healing force. However, there is an argument for the opposite; that the forest is exactly the same as the court and no significant change occurs. One of the biggest examples of this lies in the speech of Lord 1 regarding the murder of a deer. The deer are portrayed as ‘native burghers’ in their own ‘desert city’, who retreat ‘from the hunters aim’ into a ‘sequestered’ ‘languish’. Jaques remarks then about how the foresters are the ‘mere usurpers’ who ‘kill them up/in their assign’d and native dwelling place’. This is particularly significant because a parallel is drawn between the deer and the foresters, the deer is escaping usurpation in much the same way the foresters are, this is further enhanced by the fact that the deer has a ‘leathern coat’, a deliberate wording by Shakespeare to highlight the parallels it has with its human usurpers. This usurpation is shown elsewhere in the book, R osalind who buys the shepherds ‘passion’ (Livelihood) because it is ‘much upon her fashion’, suggesting a transitory or arbitrary desire, devoid of consideration for the fact that the shepherd derives his survival from his flock. Indeed, she wishes to ‘waste her time’ here, rather than use it for any meaningful purpose. Other aspects of the court are also filtered into the forest to enact a distinct lack of change. The notion of the ‘merry men’ and ‘brothers in exile’ is immediately undermined by the fact that the duke is referred to as ‘your grace’, implying that the hierarchy of society is still in place, despite their attempts to gloss over it. Indeed, the very nature of them dressing up as foresters when they are in fact ‘gentlemen’ enacts the nature of the ‘painted pomp’ that is alluded to when referring to the court. The word ‘pompous’ implies a level of self-importance and unnecessary grandiose, which is ever present in the forest; ‘to blow on whom I please’ (IE, to do as I wish). Conventionally in the pastoral, the return to ‘reality’ (In this instance, the court) is forced due to the ephemeral nature of Arcadia. However, at the end of the play here, we find that the characters easily cast off their ‘disguises’ as if they had never left, willingly returning to the court, signifying that there must have been little difference between the two worlds, and emphasising the fact that the court has been a constant throughout the play. One of the most famous quotes of the play, ‘All the world is a stage’ is particularly significant here also. Throughout the story, the ‘motley coat’ (Emblematic of the fool) has been alluded to, and it represents the ‘players’ and by extension, the audience as a whole. If we are all ‘players’ as in a play, with ‘their exists and entrances/and many parts’, then we are all fundamentally acting like the foresters all the time, we all are part of the same outcome. Indeed, at the very end, we all are ‘sans teeth, sans taste, sans everything’, emphasising the fact we all end up subjected to time and age, no better for our experiences in life. This is particularly ironic of course, because earlier on in the story, the forest is described as having ‘no clock’, but it is infact time that undoes all as expressed in this passage, enacting the futility of escape and the absence of any change in outcome fro m action. Finally, we have the ephemeral nature of the escape for the audience. As alluded to in the preceding paragraph, the audience are ‘players’ and actors in the play to, but do they change? At the very end, within the epilogue, Rosalind breaks the fourth wall, essentially undermining the experience of the play, returning the audience from the ‘forest’ (The imaginative space of the play) to the ‘court’ (Reality). She directly remarks upon the fact that it is a play, that it is a constructed narration and further commends it to be watched by the friends of the audience (Cementing the notion of ‘realism’ in the fact that the play is a commercial enterprise at heart, not a creative escape).

The Universal Declaration Of Human Rights - 3323 Words

With the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), the concept of human rights has gradually become one of the most commonly accepted universal norms, referred to in United Nations resolutions, national constitutions and regional and international treaties. Even so, human rights violations occur on an almost daily basis in countries around the world. The term seems to be at the forefront of contemporary political discourses, with its meaning at most times remaining unclear. In theory, human rights serve the sole purpose of protecting the inherent dignity of all representatives of the human family (UDHR 1948) However, there is much disagreement when it comes to theoretically justifying that each human being has rights by virtue†¦show more content†¦This will then serve as a basis for my main argument that human rights are socially constructed and do not exist outside of the realm of politics. This will then feed into the second part of the question where I shall discu ss the prioritisation of community values over an alleged universal foundation. Structure The first part of the essay will concern itself with a more genealogical approach by looking at early philosophical origins of human rights and how these evolved over the years. With this I seek to outline the fact that while efforts to institutionalise human rights were initially a reaction towards global injustice and oppression, in contemporary politics they are used to create power relations, and implicitly, inequality. This will provide a good basis for the second part in which I will look at the incompatibilities within the theory- religion versus Rawls consensus based theory. Analysing the multitude of frameworks with their different ways of approaching and grounding rights underlines and reinforces the fact that there can t be a universal foundation for human rights. The third part will deal with the fact that trying to ground rights into one universal foundation creates an exclusion of those who are different and how we can seek to move away from this problem. Natural Law and Natural Rights The origin of the modern rights discourse is that of natural law dating back to antiquity. Plato was one of the first advocates for a universal