killer great victim has been one of the most enduring topics during horror and suspense hype, and it is this kind of relationship which in turn ties collectively three evidently distinct reports: Flannery O’Connor’s “A Good Man is difficult to Find, inches Joyce Carol Oates’ “Where Are You Heading, Where Were you, ” and Edgar Allen Poe’s “The Cask of Amontillado. ” In each case, the majority of the story consists of the fantastic talking to his victim(s), some of whom are unaware of their fate at the beginning of the conversation, although who gradually come to comprehend the killer’s true objective. The relationship which will develops among killer and victim (however brief) in each story reveals something about how criminals are cared for by culture, as persons, and within just society, as characters and archetypes. Looking at how each one of these stories meet and diverge in their remedying of the relationship between killer and victim is going to serve to illustrate how each story expresses and responses upon well-known notions of notoriety, values, and inevitability.
Flannery O’Connor’s story is the perfect starting point pertaining to considering the romance between fantastic and sufferer, because it truly duplicates the relationship between fantastic and victim in order to suggest that morality is a function of society, and in addition, that social influence is very strong that it can actually predetermine behavior for the point that this appears inescapable. In a to some degree telling approach, the initial relationship that appears in “A Very good Man is not easy to Find” is certainly not between great and sufferer, but rather mother and boy, because the account opens which has a disagreement among “the grandmother” and her son Mcneally. The granny wants to go to “some of her links in east Tennessee” whilst her kid is determined to take the relatives on a vacation to Florida, and it is this oppositional relationship that mirrors the eventual romance between the granny and her killer, the escaped convict who phone calls himself The Misfit (O’Connor 404). The 2 relationships happen to be linked, since although The Misfit is ultimately the one whom kills the grandmother, it can be Bailey’s decision to ignore the grandmother’s concerns about the Misfit that leads to her later death. Knowing that the romance between killer and patient in this tale is based upon the initial romantic relationship between mom and child is important, because the grandmother’s relationships with The Misfit increasingly take on the air of your mother conversing with her edgy son.
When the grandmother initial sees The Misfit, this wounderful woman has “the peculiar feeling the fact that bespectacled gentleman was an individual she understood. His deal with was while familiar to her as if your woman had known him all her life, inch and indeed, after her preliminary shock by recognizing him as The Misfit, your woman immediately commences talking to him as if she knows him (O’Connor 407). She explains to him that she simply knows that he’s “a very good man, inches and does not “look a bit just like [he has] common blood” (O’Connor 407). She goes on on, and although the girl with pleading for her life, her actual dialogue is that of a mother concerned for her son; upon hearing about The Misfit’s youth, the grandmother tells him to “think the greatness of it would be to stay down and live a comfortable life, inch as if The Misfit provides merely lost his way, and just ahead of she drops dead, she virtually says “why you’re certainly one of my babies. You’re among my own kids! ” (O’Connor 408, 413). The grandma cannot interact with The Misfit in any way other than a mother would connect to her boy, and that forces the reader to considercarefully what the story is saying about upbringing. Furthermore, this kind of consideration must extend to both the immediate family and world in general, mainly because while the grandmother’s dialogue can be couched in the terms of any mother talking to her son, The Misfit’s replies happen to be directed not really specifically with the grandmother, but instead the world that gave birth to him.
The Misfit will take each of the grandmother’s statements because an opportunity to think about his very own past and his place within just society, and he really does so in the position of any rebellious boy, questioning the received intelligence of his societal parentage. He refutes the grandmother’s entreaties to get him to pray, stating “I don’t want simply no hep,  I’m undertaking all right by myself, ” and recognizes the inequality inherent in human being society, proclaiming that this individual always indications things right now so that “you’ll know what you done and you may hold up the crime to the punishment and see do they will match and in the end you may something to prove you ain’t been treated right” (O’Connor 409, 410). In this way, The Misfit represents a son abandoned by the very same social organizations the grandmother cherishes, just like “good blood” and Christianity, because these types of institutions, far from encouraging him to become the “good man” hoped for inside the title, just serve to uncover the meaninglessness inherent in every area of your life due to the fact that most meaning, regardless of whether or not it says for by itself the imprint of divinity, is in the end the result of individual cultural development.
The Misfit recognizes that he is “ain’t a good guy, ” although he likewise “ain’t the worst on the globe neither, inches and thus his animosity is aimed at the society that raised and encouraged him to become the man that he is, aware that there may be “no real pleasure in life” yet unable to successfully attack the social organizations which make this the case (O’Connor, 408, 413). This is why he immediately shoots the granny just after the girl calls him one of her children; the grandmother can easily treat him like a son, and he can react to a parental number the only way he knows just how. In this way, the storyplot seems to suggest that the relationship between killer and victim can be not completely one-sided, as the victim will always, to some degree, end up being culpable in the larger social structure that created the fantastic in the first place (it is worth pointing out that this is definitely not to suggest that O’Connor is definitely “blaming the victim, inches but rather positioning some of the killer’s blame about society at large).
Where O’Connor’s account frames the killer/victim romantic relationship in terms of mother and child, Joyce Carol Oates’ brief story works with the relationship between a adolescent girl and a slightly old man, and uses this relationship to show how the notoriety surrounding killers is actually element of their electricity. Oates’ history follows Connie, a fifteen-year-old girl who have “a speedy, nervous having fun habit of craning her neck to glance into mirrors or checking other’s faces to be sure her personal was most right” (Oates 225). Once more, when the lady sees her eventual (implied) killer, “his face was obviously a familiar face, somehow, ” even though she has only found him once before, but where the grandmother’s glimmer of recognition features a mom recognizing what might be a long-lost kid, Connie’s identification stems from something else, and it is this kind of recognition that encompasses the story’s declaration regarding the method by which killers are glamorized within society (Oates 230).
Connie likes the fact that killer, Arnold Friend, is definitely dressed, “which was the method all of them outfitted: tight washed out jeans crammed into dark-colored, scuffed shoes, a belt pulled his waist in and confirmed how low fat he was, and a white pull-over clothing that was a little ruined and showed the hard muscle tissue of his arms and shoulders” (Oates 230). If he takes off his reflective shades, “his sight [are] like chips of broken glass that get the light in an amiable way” (Oates 231). The image of Arnold Friend is not so much a description of your singular person, but rather a personality type, and Oates does this in order to pull the reader’s attention to the fact that the killer, and in fact any killer, is a kind of superstar, if only for the fact that they can by description buck the criteria and traditions of contemporary society; in fact , Oates bases the character of Arnold Friend on the real-life Charles Schmid, the so-called “Pied Piper of Tuscon” who murdered for least three girls, and “had recently been someone to enjoy and copy  with mean, ‘beautiful’ eyes and an interesting way of talking” (Moser 19). The comparisons lengthen beyond Arnold Friend’s physical appearance. For example , they will both went a gold-painted car, and it offered as a means of enticing their respective victims; Schmid “cruised in a glowing car, looking for the actions, ” while Connie’s fair, aloof fashion is finally broken when ever she laughs at precisely what is written on Arnold Good friend’s car in which the fender is broken “DONE BY A CRAZY WOMAN DRIVER” (Moser twenty three, Oates 230). The connection is not of mere biographical interest, but rather helps to explain the ending of the storyplot, in which Connie is apparently enchanted in to going with Arnold to her implied death.
Connie’s fascination steadily gives approach to terror, but this kind of terror are unable to overcome the ability Arnold has already been imbued with. As Connie is seated, stunned, on