Hi Guys,
This is a body paragraph I did comparing Twelve Angry Men and Montana 1948. The prompt was about how the two texts present the challenges in achieving justice. I know that the paragraph is really too long but since this is my first comparative writing for quite sometime, I wanted to write a detailed one so I can get back into the groove of things. Anyways, I'll really appreciate any feedback and improvements which could be made to make it better.
One thing I didn't put in was the socio historical context and how it relates to the topic of my prompt in the two texts. If anyone knows how it could fit into the paragraph, please show me how it could be added in.
Thanks
Twelve Angry Men and Montana 1948 are placed in worlds consisting of individuals who want to seek the truth. However as both Twelve Angry Men and Montana 1948 through their respective authors Rose and Watson emphasize how the justice system is flawed, the latter fundamentally showcases how the substantial use of prejudism triumphs over the justice system. In Twelve Angry Men, Rose's depiction of Juror 3 as the antagonist in the play in which prejudice drives many of his actions evinces how distractions hinders the functioning of the justice system. Rose demonstrates Juror 3's bias and pre-conceived perceptions through the eyes of Juror 8 proclaiming him as a "sadist" possessing of a "very excitable" personality. Furthermore, Juror 8's reminder that "It's not your boy. He's somebody else" highlights how Juror 3's jaundice impacts not only his own feelings, but more significantly, as a result, the way the justice system works. Throughout the text, irony is a highly applied literary device utilized to show how one character's comment is completely opposite in meaning later in the novel. In the beginning of the text, Juror 3's idea of looking only through the "facts" of the case insists that he has no negative attachments with the defendant, but conversely afterwards exclaiming how the defendant should be placed "into a chair"; a chair "where he belongs" reveals that he is not verily excogitating the case through the evidence conferred, but subsequently, enlightens the proposition that his sole intention is to convict the young defendant no matter what, thwarting the truth and thus, accentuating the fragility of the justice system. Similarly, the adversary's attempt to being "reasonable" implies how one's past does not affect the outcome of such an important case. In spite of this, the protagonist's weighted description of Juror 3 as "a self-appointed public avenger" reinforces otherwise, illustrating that in truth, since his prejudism is so strong, he is unable to see "a proven murderer" and his own son as two different people which consequently tampers with how the justice system works to acquiring justice. Overall, Rose's characterization of Juror 3 as a man to whom prejudice influences massively to his predominantly non-reversible "guilty" stance on the defendant ultimately signifies how the justice system is altered succumbing to distractions and therefore, poses problems of justice being achieved. Starkly contrasting this, Watson's representation of Wesley Hayden, featured as an ambivalent but also, complex character like Juror 3, to which prejudism is the inherited attribute which sets him aside from the rest of the persona's in the novel as seen by his dislike towards Native Americans epitomizes how prejudice surpass' the justice system. Deviating from Juror 3's discontent for the youth coming from his personal experiences, Wesley Hayden instead vents out his resentful feelings for Native Americans due to them being "ignorant, lazy, superstitious and irresponsible". His antics against the Indians is constantly seen through the perspective of his son, David Hayden who he first witnesses his father's racism "when [he] was seven or eight" which underlines his long term dissatisfaction for Indians and thus, his unwillingness to change which reflectively showcases how prejudice still, even back then is a dominant feature of one's mentality which propels certain characters in the text. Paralleling this from Rose's portrayal of the defendant symbolizing Juror 3's own son, who, as a result of not being able to dismiss his vexation he has for him, isn't able to excogitate the case as impartially as some other jurors did prompting the message that he is not able to let go of the past, Watson conversely demonstrates how Native Americans are seen as lesser citizens. The symbol of the moccasins insinuates the lower class, something that Wesley does not want David to become as "he'll be[come] as flat-footed and lazy as an Indian", which coherently shows Wesley's prejudism towards the Native Americans and such that it is formidable to the justice system. Substantially, Wesley's depiction of a prejudiced fellow who sees no good in Native Americans ultimately undermines how prejudism is placed above the justice system and hence, is an indication of such as the case with "Twelve Angry Men" in which the justice system is faced with distractions which hampers the way the justice system operates, proposes the difficulties of justice ever prevailing. Fundamentally, Rose's Twelve Angry Men and Watson's Montana 1948 emphasize how achieving justice has it challenges due to the flaws each respective justice system has, but also show how each text through the detrimental aspects of prejudism by characters in their respected novels downgrades the justice system.
Home
Help
Search
Login
