How can one person decide to take a man's life? How can another man then decide to take a man's life in the act of revenge? Is there a difference to killing for the sake of killing or killing for the sake of revenge, or are they just two different shades of the same color? Many different people of today's society have differing views of what justice is, and how justice should be served to those who are guilty of such crimes as rape, kidnapping, or murder. "Killings", by Andre Dubus attempts to illustrate the life of the Fowler family after Richard Strout shoot's Frank Fowler. From the very beginning of the story, the seed of revenge is planted when Matt Fowler's other son, Steve says, “I should’ve killed him. He bit his lower lip, wiped his eyes Andre Dubus implies that the nature of revenge destroys a person as a human being and that the inner workings of today's justice system are severely broken. After Richard Shout shoots Frank Fowler, the Fowler family is left in what could be considered a state of depression. The family begins to deal with life without their son, which is no easy task. The Fowler family is left even more distraught when they found out that Strout would only be going to jail for a maximum of ten years, and that he was out on bail.
This tension between Ruth Fowler and Matt Fowler is showcased in the kitchen scene in the film In the Bedroom. When Matt walks into the kitchen, Ruth is still in the house, which she rarely left after her son died. Until this time, the Fowler family had not discussed the death of their son, and this was where that ice was broken. They began to blame one another for the death of their son. Ruth felt as if it is Matt's fault that Frank died, To Ruth, it was Matt that let Frank get away with "everything," and Ruth also felt that Matt was jealous of Frank's beautiful young lover. It was at this point where Matt says "Do you wanna know why our son is dead? Do you really wanna know? He went there not because of me....
Please join StudyMode to read the full document