Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Lizzie Borden - Villain or Victim?
In this unit we will be examining how evidence is connected to claims. In her short story, The Fall River Axe Murders, Angela Carter weaves fact and fiction to construct an argument that Lizzie Borden killed her father and stepmother. What is the most convincing evidence she provides to substantiate her claim? Can you determine if it is fact or fiction? And, does Carter succeed in convincing you that Lizzie is an axe murderer?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
25 comments:
Throughout the story, the author develops the character, Lizzie, to be very strange and introverted. The emptiness from her mother’s death and her extreme sense of isolation make her appear as if she could harm others or even herself at any moment. The most convincing evidence that Lizzie actually did kill her parents, in my opinion, was the author’s detailing of Mr. Gordon killing Lizzie’s pigeons. Her father spoils her and “pays for everything she wants;” however, he “killed her pigeons when his wife wanted to gobble them up.” This reveals the idea of Mr. Gordon, in essence, choosing his wife over Lizzie. The author then concludes the story by depicting the image of Old Borden cleaning the axe that he used to kill the pigeons, followed by Lizzie picking up the axe and weighing it in her hands. This is evidence that Lizzie may have killed her parents out of revenge. It is hard to determine if this story is fact or fiction; however, the specific details that the author provides make the story very believable, which is why I am convinced that Lizzie truly is an axe murderer.
Throughout the story, Angela Carter portrays Lizzie Borden in a very unique way. Carter references Borden's numerous amounts of clothing and the fact that Lizzie would get whatever she wanted, this "whatever" being granted by her father. Carter tries to describe Lizzie as almost isolated, which seems to be caused from her mother's death. In addition, the author every now and then throws a phrase in there such as "Lizzie Borden will murder her parents" to try and get the reader to think that Lizzie did indeed kill her parents. The main source of evidence Carter uses is when Mr. Borden kills Lizzie's pigeons, due in part to their constant "cooing" and the fact that Mrs. Borden wanted to make a pie out of them. It then tells of Lizzie going and picking up the hatchet her father killed the pigeons with and "weighed it in her hands." This is perhaps the only piece of hard evidence Carter sites. Its extremely hard to determine if this is fact or fiction because it is based on one person's account of an event versus another person's. Even with this Carter does not have me convinced that Lizzie Borden killed her parents. There is not any true factual evidence, other than a possible motive, that could be proven in a court of law and the story is basically Carter trying to slander Lizzie Borden's character to make the reader believe she did it.
I don't agree with Sydney's statement of the author giving specific details when it comes to this story. The author Angela Carter is well-known for her "wicked wit, her interest in the surreal and the fantastic," which is why some of the "details she portrays could be constrewed as false. Also, Carter was born in 1940, and wrote this version of the "Fall River Axe Murders" in 1986. This whole topic of discussion occured in 1892, how would Carter know specific details about Lizzie Borden and the murder of her parents? The huge gap if time makes me as a reader trying to be portrayed skeptical. Also, the only bit of hard evidence is that Lizzie's father killed her pigeons, which indeed might give motive but that is the only piece of evidence. Nothing else except character descriptions of Lizzie are brought up and how can we even be sure these descriptions are accurate if the writer is 94 years late? For those reasons, I disagree with Sydney in the fact that the author gives specific details to support that Lizzie Borden was indeed an axe murderer.
Though I am not fully convinced that Lizzie Borden killed her father and stepmother there is sufficient evidence to assume she did. Lizzie Borden portrays a peculiar isolated woman. Since the death of her mother, she seems to be stuck in her own world. Her father tries to make things better by spoiling her and always having her way. Her father probably does this since she is the youngest and she took her mother’s death hard. Who wouldn’t take their mother’s death hard? Anyone can understand Lizzie Borden for being isolated, but then again she is a grown woman. Though her father treats her as is she was still a little girl. The most convincing evidence that provides a substantial claim that she really killed her father and stepmother is when her father kills her pigeons. This sparked Lizzie Borden’s anger. First of all she does not seem sane by the way she goes and talks to Miss Russell regarding the man she says she sees outside her room at night and how her father will be poisoned. Second, her father whom she loves very much married again. She can easily take this as her father getting over her mother and as a result she can become frustrated and angry. Since, Lizzie Borden reserves herself from everyone, this one particular event of her pigeons being killed explodes inside and she feels she has to do something about it. Carter reiterates one the day that Lizzie Borden killed her father and stepmother with an axe. Though there is evidence to see her as a murderer I am not quite sure she did it.
Carter's article alone is no where close to convincing me of Lizzie's guilt. Consider the fact that Carter wrote this story, story as in historical FICTION, in 1986 close to 100 years after the events that she was writing about transpired. With the time difference and the fact that it is a piece of fiction in mind, can we be absolutely sure about Carter's characterization of Lizzie Borden. We can't without being sure of Carter's sources, the same goes for Carter's accounts of Lizzie's conversation with her friend Ms. Russell. The only piece of evidence that Carter provides that could be easily proved is the fact that Lizzie's father killed her pigeons. Even this, however, is not solid evidence. Basically I won't believe a word of Carter's article without reading the primary source materials that she used for myself. Without the primary sources I'm not about to believe a story as absolute truth about something that occurred in 1892.
Although Doug’s comment differed completely from my original perspective, I actually agree with a lot of what he is saying. It was interesting that he brought up the significant difference in timing between the supposed crime and the writing of the story. This is a detail that emphasizes the fact that this story is historical fiction. It is the details of fiction stories that make them interesting; therefore, several of the details that we find to be significant in proving Lizzie’s guilt may be made up or simply over exaggerated. Another important detail that Doug brings up is that the reader is unaware of Carter’s sources; therefore, we are not able to truly speculate as to whether the story is fiction or fact. Although stating sources would take away from the creative flow of the story, it would add validity to the claims that the author makes in the story. I believe that my belief in Lizzie’s guilt is more so a result of my creative imagination and ability to believe easily, rather than a consideration of analytical thinking.
I agree with John in that there is not a lot of concrete evidence to conclude that Lizzie Borden really killed her father and stepmother. For starters she did not live when this incident happened. If this were to be a case today the only official evidence that would be against Lizzie Borden would have to be having her father kill the pigeons and as a result she would avenge by killing them. Now this seems a little absurd because even though she was mad that she had a stepmother there is no reason why she should have killed her father. It seems more like someone needs to be blamed for the case and therefore Lizzie Borden serves as the scapegoat. There is no actual evidence stating that someone saw Lizzie Borden kill them. People are assuming she did it just because of everything that she was going through. It seems like she needed more help to recuperate her mother’s death. She was never married and this as well can cause her to look isolated as Carter makes her look. Though there are several reasons why Lizzie Borden could have murdered her father and stepmother, there are not enough official evidence to conclude she committed it.
I believe that Lizzie Borden's motive for murdering the Bordens is closely related to the events that happened prior to the murder. After the death of the first Mrs.Borden, the atmosphere within the family had grown quite tense, and the family was in many ways splitted. They Borden sisters owned the front part of the upstairs floor while the the Borden couple possessed the rear part. Meals were eaten separated on many occasions. However, the clash did not escalate until Mr.Borden killed Lizzie's white pouter pigeons which she loved from the bottom of her heart. Carter draws a parallel between the killing of the Borden couple and the killing of the pigeons by mentioning that they both used a hatchet to kill. Although that is the most convincing evidence she provides, it does appear to me as a fact since it is merely Carter's words, which carry less credibility than words of a witness. Personally, I do not find Carter's evidence very convincing despite the fact that it does sound as if it is a real story. I also disagree with Sydney's claim that the author provides specific details to convince the readers. Carter's judgments are purely based on assumptions rather than true evidence. Her evidence are in no way convincing to me.
Lizzie Borden seemed to live a very mysterious life. When a person is introverted and mysterious after losing a birthmother, people initially begin to wonder what goes through his or her mind. Now, having a father that has moved on to a stepmother, you may begin to think about the effects that it may have on a child. The most convincing evidence, however, supports the Angela Carter’s claim that Lizzie Borden killed her father and step mother was the fact that she had motive to kill. Her father, who gave her any and every little thing that money could buy, one day decides to kill the pigeons, that she really cared about. Lizzie had a passion for poor, helpless things. The father did not just go so far as to just kill the birds; he chopped off their heads and prepared them as a meal for Lizzie’s step mom. It almost makes me understand her justification for killing her father and step mother. Lizzie may have had a positive feeling of getting what she wants as a spoiled brat to all of a sudden having her step mom eating her beloved pet pigeons. Carter convinces me with her claim because the facts that seem reasonable to me almost provide her with a good justification for doing it.
Dougs comment on timing has a good point, but can you really completely disagree with everything an author says not even looking at the author's sources either. Thats like reading a textbook and saying that you will not believe it because it doesn't make sense to you. Haven't we all to some extent questioned a textbook (whether science or history), but we dismissed our questioning because its a textbook, and it MUST have legit sources. Why read this and just decide that you will not believe a word of it. Are you saying that you believe everything is a lie, or that you are just not sure?
From beginning to end, Carter alludes to death, oftentimes uncorellated to the Bordens. Such an example is when Carter describes the house neighboring the Bordens to be as "narrow as a coffin." Through this, Carter intends to set a mood dark enough, allowing for the message that death is amongst or near the Bordens. Moreover, Mrs. Borden, is described to have her hair "curled up like a dead squirrel," further referrencing death, in an even closer association to them. Carter however, blatantly foreshadows the murder that Lizzie will commit. The murder that Lizzie is then acussed of committing is substanciated by the fact that her father decapitated her turtledoves, which meant a lot to her, while her mother wanted to make a pie out of them. As Carter remains mysterious about Lizzie's actions after she finds out about the decapitation of her turtledoves, it is inferred, through the image of Lizzie picking up the axe and weighing it in her hand, that she did something with it more than that. To that effect, Carter then presents the fact that "her hands and feet twitch in her sleep; the nerves and muscles of this complicated mechanism won't relax[...]," which has an implied meaning that she may be affected, traumatized if you may, due to her actions. It is very difficult to determine wherther is it fact or fiction. The evidence presented is very vague, but full of suggestions that lead the reader to assume a number of things. It is also very difficult to prove the validity of her evidence, because in reality, there are few would literally kill their parents for the death of a pet. However, Carter's suggestions do lead to a very successful connection of Lizzie being an axe murderer.
Both John's and Doug's arguments seem viable. However, the question in play is wherther or not Carter convinced YOU, as a reader not accounting for the fact that Carter is a fictional writer, that Lizzie is an axe murderer. Reading Carter's story without having read the short blurb about her first, provided me with an unbiased opinion in trying to determine wherther or not the story is fact or fiction. I believe that now having read both John's and Doug's arguments in favor of fiction, my belief has shifted likewise. It also appears as though everyone is agreeing that her main tipping point was when her father decapitated her turtledoves. An act as such is unreal, further leading me to believe that that act in its own is fiction and Lizzie never really did murder her parents.
I think the most convincing bit of evidence is the language used to describe Lizzie Bordens' behavior; she is described as almost having a mental disorder. She is not able fathom the correct response to the death of her birds, and lashes out. The author paints a picture of a disturbed woman with difficulties bonding with others and reacts violent when the only thing she has bonded with is removed. If she did do it, and I’m not totally convinced then I do not believe that she was in full possession of her faculties.
As Sydney says the author depicts Lizzies’ father picking the mother over lizzie, however this is purely a construction of the author and we cannot substantiate the motives or aims of Mr Borden. The stiff and cold description of the house suggests that love and warmth are not common, and also passion. Thus I do not think that Lizzie did it. Isela makes some good point especially those about Lizzies’ feelings towards her fathers and the actions he takes. The facts do not support the hypothesis that Lizzie did it, although we may have a gut feeling on the subject there is normal proof and we have to be careful not to falsely accuse someone because our “gut” tells us one way or another.
Some of the evidence that supports the claim that Lizzie Borden killed her father and stepmother includes her mother's death, her isolated life, and her pigeons' death. In a way, her mother's death and her isolated life might have led her to become a depressed person who could hurt anyone. She even seemed like one who had mental problem. Moreover, as a spoiled child who got everything from her father, she would get extremely upset if things did not go the way she wanted. For instance, her father's killing her beloved pigeons would have hurt her so much, and the fact that the birds were eaten by her stepmother implies how her father chose his new wife over her. Thus, to some extent it makes sense for Lizzie to kill the two as a revenge. However, these claims were made based on assumptions, which are not convincing and reliable at all. Due to her vague evidence, Carter fails to convince me that Lizzie is an axe murderer. Also, I agree with Dough and Sydney on that the story was a historical fiction due to some exaggerated details included to make the story more entertaining and interesting.
It is clear that Lizzie Borden had quite a disturbed upbringing. However, I believe that is was the death of her pigeons that drove her to murder her father and stepmother. It sounded like her relationship with her father was not that bad when she was growing up but it was her stepmother that really contributed to her anger. I think Lizzie was insanely jealous of her stepmother because most of her life she was so used to being treated like royalty by her father. Once her father killed her pigeons so her stepmother could eat them, however, it was the last straw for this poor messed up girl. I am lead to believe all of this because of the fact that Carter brought up the point that if LIzzie's real mother hadn't died when she was younger then most likely none of this would have happened.
After reading this story, the reader can say that Lizzie was a weird isolated girl who had a lot of anger built up. Her sister was different from her and was weird too, some say that her sister was more weird than what lizzie was. I believe that Lizzies anger came from her father when he decided to kill her pigeon. This made a feeling of anger and hatred began in Lizzies heart. This probably was the reason why Lizzie killed her parents supposedly. For the most part Lizzie lived a normal life in the hot summers in the country, but she is a spoiled girl who doesnt get her way one time, and in the end decides to kill her parents as a reaction.
I agree with sydney when she states taht when her father killed the bird cleaned the axe off, then lizzie picked it up, the glare in her eyes showed a hatred for something or someone. I believe that this reaction was her way of showing how much the loss of her animal was to her and that she was determined to pay back her parents for doing such a harsh thing. Also the author does refer to lizzie killing her parents many times. These are the things that i agree with Sydney on.
This story alone does not allow the reader to conclude anything, however we have a pre-existing bias as I know I was told that Lizzie Borden had a similar trial as O.J. Simpson. Before I have even read the story I assume that Lizzie has in fact killed her father and step mother. I resemble some of the possible jurors in the trial transcript posted in the external links. Angela Carter uses an incredible amount of detail in her story, which was written many years after the trial, and this descriptive detail and I think that this type of writing takes away from the story if Angela Carter is in fact trying to accuse Lizzie. I expect this type of writing when one is trying to avoid admitting that something is wrong. At the same time it is that very same detail that allows Angela Carter to tie in a few other smaller instances in Lizzies life. I think the premise of the story is true or non fiction, but the actual writing and descriptive detail is fiction.
I have to disagree with doug on the matter of the validity of this story. When I read this story, I was fully convinced that Lizzie murdered her parents. Carter presents more than enough background information on not just Lizzie but the entire family. We get to see into the family's troubled past and it is clear how they all met their fate. Carter uses such a strong voice that I find it almost impossible to disagree with her.
I agree with Doug's perspective to begin with and now I am going to just bring up something I noticed that I found very interesting. On pages 178-179, Angela Carter introduces the character of John Vinnicum Morse and almost immediately says, "Write him out of the script." (179) This is interesting to me because he is not a fictional character and in reading the trial transcripts he was one of the last people to really engage Mr. and Mrs. Borden in fact I believe he was there the day of the murder. An interesting fact about this man is he is the brother of Mr. Borden's first wife (I found this in the first trial transcript posted on blackboard on page 100 on the adobe file) and yet he is written out of the script. I have not completely formulated my thoughts on this subject but it is most definitely something to think about.
Angela Carter repetitiously puts into our mind that Lizzie Borden has killed her father and stepmother. However, none of the “evidence” that she
gives is hard; it is all circumstantial. Angela Carter develops Lizzie’s character as one consumed with craze and isolation. Yet, it seems almost over the top. She constantly tells the reader how crazy Lizzie is and
compliments the claim with a story. Wouldn’t people notice if Lizzie was as outwardly abnormal as Carter claims? It seems as though Carter is being
hyperbolic in order to prove her point. As pointed out earlier The Fall River Axe Murders story was written nearly 100 years after the crime was committed. It is very difficult to differentiate what is fact from what is fiction. We are not sure what testimonies were given at the trials or any
other information other than what Angela Carter has provided. If I had to take any piece of evidence that most clearly shows that Lizzie most likely did it, it would have to be the conversation she had with Miss Russell.
The conversation demonstrates with certainty that Lizzie is indeed crazy.
To believe that a man has been standing outside the house every day for several years is ludicrous. Then she even insinuates that she believed the
man had an axe. In my mind this shows that Lizzie was indeed crazy enough to commit such a crime without a good reason. However, I cannot say whether Lizzie has committed these murders. Angela provides only the evidence she wants us to see and no concrete evidence that could really
persuade me to any degree of certainty that Lizzie did indeed kill her father and stepmother.
I have to disagree with Stephanie and agree with Doug. Any good piece of persuasive writing will use a strong convincing voice in order to persuade you into their train of thought. The over the top discriptions and stories have to be doubted. Carter is a fiction writer. Much of what
she has written could be made up or recreated using her imagination.
Nothing written can be guaranteed. While I do believe that Lizzie Borden killed her parents, this story is not the reason. I am merely convinced because of the information and provided in class by Ms. Evans. This story
could be very fictional and nothing here in my mind could prove her guilt
or innocence.
Lizzie Borden's character is developed throughout the story, the author's view is clearly portrayed within her words. We, the readers are given selected background information of Lizzie so that we form the same view as the author, that it was Miss Borden who committed the murders. The background of Lizzie Borden in general, for me, provided the most convincing evidence that she was guilty of the killings. The fact she was continuously depressed and unsatisfied with life, and furthermore bottled-up her emotions created a lot of hostility towards those around her. This coupled by the fact she was relatively spoiled by her father provides for a plausible explanation, that she was not satisfied with was she was getting.
Through these techniques of immense description of Lizzie Borden's life and mannerisms I was convinced by the the last page that Lizzie had committed the murders, even before we were told about them.
Angela Carter repetitiously puts into our mind that Lizzie Borden has killed her father and stepmother. However, none of the “evidence” that she gives is hard; it is all circumstantial. Angela Carter develops Lizzie’s character as one consumed with craze and isolation. Yet, it seems almost over the top. She constantly tells the reader how crazy Lizzie is and compliments the claim with a story. Wouldn’t people notice if Lizzie was as outwardly abnormal as Carter claims? It seems as though Carter is being hyperbolic in order to prove her point. As pointed out earlier The Fall River Axe Murders story was written nearly 100 years after the crime was committed. It is very difficult to differentiate what is fact from what is fiction. We are not sure what testimonies were given at the trials or any other information other than what Angela Carter has provided. If I had to take any piece of evidence that most clearly shows that Lizzie most likely did it, it would have to be the conversation she had with Miss Russell. The conversation demonstrates with certainty that Lizzie is indeed crazy. To believe that a man has been standing outside the house every day for several years is ludicrous. Then she even insinuates that she believed the man had an axe. In my mind this shows that Lizzie was indeed crazy enough to commit such a crime without a good reason. However, I cannot say whether Lizzie has committed these murders. Angela provides only the evidence she wants us to see and no concrete evidence that could really persuade me to any degree of certainty that Lizzie did indeed kill her father and stepmother.
I have to disagree with Stephanie and agree with Doug. Any good piece of persuasive writing will use a strong convincing voice in order to persuade you into their train of thought. The over the top discriptions and stories have to be doubted. Carter is a fiction writer. Much of what she has written could be made up or recreated using her imagination. Nothing written can be guaranteed. While I do believe that Lizzie Borden killed her parents, this story is not the reason. I am merely convinced because of the information and provided in class by Ms. Evans. This story could be very fictional and nothing here in my mind could prove her guilt or innocence.
Angela Carter uses her poignant writing style to paint Lizzie Borden as a young woman with many psychological issues. By doing so, the reader is led to believe that Lizzie murdered her parents. The most convincing piece of evidence to me is the reality that it was most likely Lizzie who burgled
the house the day when her parents went away. Carter suggests that there was no outside intruder by telling us that when Lizzie was questioned about the incident, “She did not know. She could not remember” (181). Clearly, Lizzie had an array of psychological issues. Carter describes her
visit to a psychiatrist suggesting that she has delusional daydreams and nightmares. This, coupled with her built up angst for her stepmother provides substantial evidence to support the accusation of her slaying of her parents. Carter tells us, “This stepmother oppressed her like a spell” (188). Carter presents the incident with Lizzie’s father killing her pigeons for Mrs. Borden to eat as the last straw that drove Lizzie to commit the gruesome murders.
**I recognize that we can hardly call this story purely factual. However, the question was whether or not Carter convinces us that Lizzie killed her parents. Given the information that Carter gives us, it is hard to say that we cannot accuse Lizzie of these murders. I disagree with John
because he fails to believe that Lizzie’s psychological condition is
evidence. Although this story is not fact, it seems unlikely that Carter invented Lizzie’s psychological disposition. The environment in which she grew up in combined with specific events that took place in her life lend testimony to Lizzie’s guilt. It is hard to believe that someone not
living in the house would use the Borden’s axe to commit what would be two random murders. If someone other than Lizzie wanted to kill either Mr. or Mrs. Borden, why would they do it in the manner in which it was done?
In Angela Carter’s The Fall River Axe Murders, Carter never describes the murder of Old Borden and Abby. The author does, however, weave in stories of the crime. Perhaps the most persuasive evidence placing the crime in Lizzie’s hands are the casual one-liners Angela weaves in to her dialogue. The diction and syntax, however, are the most powerful part of Carter’s argument. Carter begins her short story by describing how everything “quivers under the attack of white, furious” sun. Not only does this description set the tone for the rest of the story, it will later come up as a description of Lizzy Borden. Similarly, Carter sets up the story background in such a way that the reader is compelled to believe that Lizzy Borden committed the murders of her parents. From describing Abby as the “fat, white stepmother whom nobody loves” to describing Old Borden as a man to whom “forclosures and evictions are meant and drink” Carter paints a story in which Lizzy is simply a crazed spinster doing the world a favor by ridding it of “the living embodiments of two of the Seven Deadly Sins.”
***I think Sydney and I both picked up on the language and background the author used to manipulate the reader into believing that Lizzy Borden was the axe murderer. While I agree with Sydney that some of the evidence is quite convincing, I would not go so far as to say that I am convinced that Lizzy Borden is the Axe Killer. Rather, I am only convinced that Angela Carter writes very persuasively. When reading a blatantly biased short story, such as The Fall River Axe Murders, it is important to understand that the author is biased to prevent falling into their literary traps
I think that the greatest claim that Carter makes is when she tells of the story when Lizzie is in her friends house and she was talking about the burglary. It seems like Lizzie is going insane because she is seeing visions and figments of her own imagination. It is a fictitious incident because we don't know if Lizzie was going insane or not. Yes, she does convince me that Lizzie killed her parents because I think that she was trying to say that Lizzie was going insane and that she had been going insane since the killing of her two doves. Also, she keeps stating that Lizzie will murder her parents in their sleep.
I would have to agree with Isela about how Lizzie had a significant reason to kill her parents and in this story we see that Lizzie just might have. One thing that most of my fellow classmates write about is the two doves and how they lead to Lizzie's eventual murder of the parents. In this we find Lizzie hating her parents more and more because those doves were her only friends. She was a lonely girl and not happy. Also she was going a little insane by the end because of the supposed burglary in the house.
I believe that the story was being looked at from another man of the family, who knew exactly where the minute details could not have been known by somebody out side of the family. An example is when the writer said that the man knew exactly where the money held in the socks was at and how the man knew that the only way to know that Lizzie’s room ran through her fathers. So this proves that someone close had to be in the house to know theses details. I agree with Alex when she said that the view was somebody was in the house of importance. This is because the reader only knows that the details are very specific and only would be known by somebody close to the family.
Post a Comment