Sorry this is late, I had trouble posting earlier
I would have to say that Bigger was responsible for his actions for the most part. Even though it was society that partially caused his fear, it was Bigger who let his fear get the best of him. It is possible for a person to put fear aside and not give in to it and Bigger failed. Throughout the entirety of book one, Bigger has demonstrated his ability to express his fear and anger in violent outbursts and I would say that is very possible to prevent such events. At the end of book one, Bigger kills Mary in an event that was entirely preventable. For example, if Bigger hadn’t hung around and groped Mary, he wouldn’t have any reason to be hiding from Mrs. Dalton. Also, if Bigger had paid attention to what he was doing and calmed down, he would not have accidentally smothered Mary.
-Willy Steers
…Go Saints
2 comments:
You say a couple of times that it is possible for people to not give in to fear; how? Can't a fear be so great that it is consuming? Does fear consume Bigger? At one point in the novel he complains that he "does not have a wider choice of action"; is that the case with Mary? Why? why not? Enjoy the snowday--Mrs. Holst
In tense a/o fearful situations, it is certainly possible for people to make rational decisions. It has been seen many times, especially in a situation like combat. Fear can be consuming, but only if you let it happen. It's all mental.
I would say that he did have a wider choice of action because he could have not tried to smother her, leave the room, and lie.
Post a Comment