Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
About the Writers' Blog
- Mary Ramsey Evans
- Richmond, VA, United States
- Welcome to the ENG 241 American Literature Blog. This blog creates a space in which students will begin to explore and discuss assigned texts outside the classroom. I will post a question/topic for discussion on selected dates (see class schedule) and you will be required to post a 300-word response. These responses should be written in standard English with proper grammar, punctuation, and spelling, and demonstrate intellectual curiosity, a substantive understanding of the reading, and integration of your ideas with those of the author. Responses are due at the beginning of class on assigned days. Late responses will receive no credit. (Note that the blog will automatically stamp each entry with time and date.)
18 comments:
From looking at the first volume of the transcript from the trial, Angela Carter includes many factual details in her account of “The Fall River Axe Murders.” In the first few pages of the transcript a detailed account is given of the events leading up to the murders. It describes the relationship between Lizzie and Abby Borden as one of hate resulting from a controversy over property in which Abby received property from Mr. Borden and thus caused Lizzie to become spiteful towards Abby. It also mentions how Lizzie began calling Abby Mrs. Borden instead of mother. Carter describes this account verbatim in her account of the murders. Another piece of factual information that Carter uses from the trial transcript is the event of Lizzie attempting to purchase prussic acid from the doctor. Angela Carter does use her personal creative writing techniques in “The Fall River Axe Murders” to persuade the reader Lizzie is the murderer but Carter also uses factual information that can be seen in the trial transcripts in order to build her claim of Lizzie as the murderer.
Without a doubt Angela Carter uses her cleverness to move fact from fiction in the Fall River Axe murders. She uses information that was on the Thursday's Affray: No Clue Yet as to Its Perpetrator article. Carter uses the fact that the murderer must have known his/her way around the Borden household. Carter clearly uses this by stating that the house was like a maze. Also, there is a mysterious burglary that occurred. Carter uses this to her advantage to make it look like it was Lizzie behind it all. Even though, the burglar is unknown, Carter twists it in her story to make it believable in that Lizzie was the burglar. Carter uses the information very well because she uses most of it, but distorts it so that Lizzie would be seen as the one at fault. Though Carter does not take the readers through the crime, she uses information such as the maid living in the attic, the burglary, Mr. Borden killing Lizzie’s pet pigeon and the details to describe Abby’s physical characteristics.
Like, John mentioned, Carter also used the fact on how Lizzie came to call her stepmother Mrs. Borden. It is clear in the articles that Lizzie was jealous of Mrs. Borden. This is a part Carter does not manipulate at all because it is a reason as to why Lizzie would want to kill her stepmother. As a result it plays an effective role in Carter’s short story because it could have been a cause for Lizzie to slaughter her mother. Carter does not include the fact that whoever killed Mr. and Mrs. Borden must have been strong to have instantaneously killed them. She obviously, wouldn’t include this because she portrays Lizzie as this mentally and physically-ill thirty year old that is treated like a girl; it just wouldn’t fit with the picture because Lizzie is not seen as strong. But overall, Carter uses a lot of the facts from the actual trial, leaving bits and pieces out to make it look like Lizzie is the killer.
I think Carter skillfully intertwines factual evidence in her work of
fiction to create a very believable account of the Borden murders. For
example, Carter uses the uneasy relationship between Lizzie and her
stepmother as a base upon which to build the claim that Lizzie is facing
internal conflict and frustration. In “The Fall River Axe Murders” Carter
details the arising of the negative relationship between Lizzie and her
stepmother by mentioning Mr. Borden, to whom Lizzie is very closely bound,
giving Mrs. Borden the rights to some property. This angers Lizzie so much
that from then on she refers to her stepmother, not as mother, but as Mrs.
Borden. A New York Times Article entitled “Lizzie Borden in a Faint”
details this exact account including both Abby and Lizzie believing “that
something should be done for them by way of dividing the property;”
however, this did not occur. The way in which Carter uses facts to
illuminate her fictional account of the Borden murders allows the reader
to side with her tendentious argument.
Isela made an interesting comment about the way in which Borden includes
factual evidence but twists it in order to shine the spotlight of guilt on
Lizzie and validate her claim. Although the article entitled “Thursday’s
Affray: No Clue Yet as to Its Perpetrator” did not specifically mention
Lizzie as being the culprit for the burglary that Carter mentioned as
happening in the Borden household, it contained minor details such as “the
house was like a maze” that Carter pieces together to support her thesis.
Carter uses this information to narrow the suspects for the murder and
later point the finger at Lizzie, because only someone familiar with the
household would be able to easily navigate through the house to commit
such crimes. By creating a base of factual information with added support
of fictional details, Carter translates mere evidence into a convincing
claim.
Angela Carter's uses "facts" from what I can only imagine as early speculation that arose after the murders and leading into the trial. I think that Angela Carter's skill lies in the facts that she excludes from her argument in her short story. She fails to mention anything about the trial of Lizzie or for that matter she does not really incorporate a large number of facts into her story. The articles that I read were the last three on the list from the website and were written on June 16th, 18th, and 20th. The titles of the Article's were "Hopeful", "Guilty or Not!" and "Not Guilty!" and the order of these titles corresponds with the order of the dates. All of my information on the trial, excluding the trial transcripts, comes from these articles at the end of the trial, after all the evidence and witnesses have been presented. In all of the articles the authors continually repeat that the prosecution had nothing to go on but circumstantial evidence and that nothing really fit together. Also from my articles I learned that the police officers could not keep their stories straight or similar. From the articles we also discover that there was no apparent ill-will in the household between Lizzie and Abby, and that people did not think that Lizzie was crazed or odd, but that she had an unusual amount of self-control and that it was peculiar that chose to be close to Mrs. Russell. Besides those attributes Lizzie is consistently described by the community as a model christian. Carter's choice to exclude these facts of the actual events tells the reader that unless they do the research on the subject that they can be completely misled by a very descriptive story based on an event that occurred. One other interesting thing that I found was that Carter wrote out John Morse because as I discovered in "Guilty or Not!" he had established a legitimate alibi. Carter utilized many of the unsupported arguments made by the prosecution and made them into facts and hinted at the occurrence of certain events that were later proven wrong.
I agree with Isela's last comment that Carter melds the facts of the trial with her own fiction to try and make Lizzie out to be the murderer and at the same time Carter also hides certain information. From what my articles said, the prosecution only had circumstantial evidence, so in order for Carter to prove Lizzie's guilt she would have to remove all of the information that might potentially destroy her argument. Carter makes the story feel so legitimate if the reader has no prior knowledge of the trial of Lizzie or the event itself, when the story is in fact fiction. Carter is able to convince the reader of the legitimacy of her story through careful attention to descriptive detail and throwing in implicit motives for Lizzie killing her parents, such as incest might have occurred with Lizzie's father. All in all Carter is a convincing writer even with her lack of actual evidence to support her story.
After analyzing a number of the articles, it is evident that Carter astutely places facts in the right places to weave out her argument, coercing it on the reader. For example, one of the articles mentions that the murderer had to know his ground, which points that the assailant had to have been someone within the Borden household. This is further reinforced in the same article, by Bridget's account that she had seen no one neither leaving nor entering the house. At another instance, another article comments on Lizzie's emotional shift from indifference to "terribly ag[ing]," during the inquest, which accounts for Carter's version of the lack of "weep[ing]" to "chang[ing] colour" (190), and later her "hands and feet twitch[ing] in her sleep" (190). Carter further uses more leading evidence, such as the suggestion that one of the articles made, which is that the underlying purpose of the crime was money, which Carter uses to her advantage in "accusing" Lizzie of the murder. Things of the sort prove how well Carter uses facts, along with her fictional premises, to lead the reader to conclude her own argument.
I agree with Colin on many accords; Carter does certainly use many of the "facts" to substantiate her arguments, however, she also fails to include facts that would be damaging to her argument. However, I do not agree in calling unsupported facts facts, as given the nature of the word unsupported, they cannot be constituted as facts, but rather assumptions. Therefore, I would say that Carter takes these assumptions and turns them into facts for her benefit.
In Angela Carter’s “The Fall River Axe Murders,” Carter attempts to tell convince the reader that Lizzie Borden murdered her parents. Carter, however, fails to use proper, validated evidence to support her claims. One of Carter’s central arguments, Lizzie killed her parents because she hated her stepmother, Carter claims that Abby Borden “oppressed her like a spell” (188). In The New York Times article, “Bridget Sullivan a Witness,” Bridget testifies that in her three years employed by the Sullivans she “never saw or heard anything out of the way in the family relations.” Furthermore, the prosecution failed to produce any information that could link Lizzie to the crimes. The murder weapon was never found, and evidence of burning a blood-stained dress, as Miss. Russell claimed she witnessed following the murders. Essentially, the prosecution had a very weak case against Lizzie Borden. Consequently, when Carter attempted to take “evidence” from the case and weave them into her story, she ended up with a weak and unsubstantiated argument that becomes even more evident and more of the trial transcripts and newspaper articles are examined.
* Although John examines evidence from “the first few pages of the [trial] transcript,” which give a “detailed account of the events leading up to the murders,” he fails to fully explore the trial transcripts to create a better picture of the events that preceded the Borden murders. Although the prosecution describes the relationship between Abby and Lizzie Borden as strained and spiteful, Bridgett, the live-in maid, claimed that she “never saw or heard anything out of the way in the family relations.” Although the prosecution can make claims about what transpired in the Borden household, it is very difficult to refute the accounts of someone who, for all intensive purposes, was a member of the family. Similarly, Carter argues that Lizzie’s attempted purchase of prussic acid was to poison her mother and father, even though Lizzie claims it was to polish a seal-skin bag. Although the Bordens were ill on the eve of their murders, the doctors could find absolutely no evidence of poison in the bodies of the deceased. Carter uses small fragments of information from the trial to piece together her version of the events that led to the axe murders. Carter fails, however, to examine all of the evidence and as a result, she leaves out many significant details that null her argument. Although it is acceptable to exclude information when attempting to write a fictional narration, as Carter has done, the reader must remember the intentions of the writer so as not to become biased when investigating the true events leading up to the event in question.
After reviewing the trial transcripts and several newspaper articles, it is evident that Angel Carter's story contained many facts, even though her story is fiction. The major plot point in the story turned out to be fact, while the intricate details must be fiction. For example, there is the burglary that occurred sometime before the murder. Carter took this piece of real evidence and carefully weaved it into her fictitious story so she could use it to her advantage. Another pieced of real evidence that Carter used in her story was Mss. Russell. Lizzie may not have even said those things about the dark man to her, but Carter again took something that was real and relevant in the case and weaved it into her fictional story. Carter was able to almost manipulate the facts in conjunction with some imaginative details to support her claim that Lizzie Borden murdered her father and stepmother.
Even though Carter took many pieces of evidence and used them to her advantage, I agree with what Colin said: she did leave out many pieces of factual information that could change the readers views on the situation. In the articles by The Fall River Herald, the police and the reports were pinning a dark skinned man as the probable culprit, not Lizzie. Of course, Carter, as well as many others, may have put full blame on Lizzie but one must know all of the facts in order to come to that sort of conclusion, but Carter left many key facts out. She was mainly focused on getting her point of view across to the reader than helping them come to their own conclusions about the murders.
After reading a few of the transcripts from the trial of Lizzie Borden it is easy to conclude that Angela Carter used many factual details when regarding Lizzie's lifestyle, likes, and dislikes. However in her short story she exaggerates on some subjects and always infers that Lizzie killed her parents. Some factual information that Angela Carter did use was the fact that Lizzie used an axe to kill her parents and that Lizzie did try to purchase a toxic poison, but was denied the sale. Although Angela Carter does exxaggerate many things she still does use factual information to support her main claim that Lizzie Borden committed the murder.
I agree with John we he talks about how Agela Carter in "The Fall River Axe Murders," when he states how Carter was able to use factual information such as commiting the murder of her parents and how her relationship with her parents were. He also talks about how the girl Lizzie was trying to buy some poison which I also found intriguing. Why else would someone buy some poison. Although Lizzie had an excuse to purchase the poison I believe taht she had a greater use for the poison and that was to murder both of her parents.
After reviewing the transcript, i believe that Angela Carter is a master of manipulation. She skillfully intertwines fact and fiction throughout her story in order to make the reader believe that Lizzie is without a doubt guilty. These transcripts mention a burglary that had occurred at the house a few years prior to the murders as well Lizzie's problems with her stepmother (or at least a conflict that had occurred between them). There is also a close family friend named Miss Russell who testified at the trial. However, while she added all of these facts, she also twisted them in a way to make the reader believe that Lizzie committed the burglary as well as hated her stepmother and that Miss Russell viewed Lizzie as a crazed lunatic.
I agree with Stephanie. While carter did put a lot of factual evidence into her portrayal of the Borden household, she also left a great deal of information and evidence out. Stephanie points out that the police suspected another person for killing the Bordens, not Lizzie. Carter leaves out a lot of information like this because it would complicate her argument. She wanted to prove to the reader that Lizzie Borden killed her father and stepmother with an axe on August 4th, 1892; all information that didnt point to the conclusion was therefore, omitted.
Angela Carter uses a few facts backed heavily with fiction in her short story 'The Fall River Axe Murders' to persuade readers of Lizzie Borden's guilt. Carter's story is loosely based around factual events, such as the burglary before the murders. It is a fact that it did take place, although no one had been caught. Carter uses this story in particular to point a finger at Lizzie, claiming it was her, or her apparent split personality, who had committed the thieving. This is a good technique used by the author, because there is no possible way of knowing, it implants an idea into the reader's head which forces them to have preconceptions about Miss Borden.
Carter is able to portray Lizzie as an unstable in her story, using factional examples with fictional coating. Despite there being no evidence of any mental illness held by Lizzie, Carter continually suggests as such throughout the story. It is this ‘fiction’ that forms the main basis of her argument despite being fiction.
I agree with Colin, in that Carter failed to mention important facts surrounding the trial. The author omitted important facts, namely the mental state of Lizzie. People around Lizzie thought she had an abnormal amount of self control for example, contrary to Carter's main argument.
I disagree with what Derek commented on in connection to Angela Carter using many factual details. Carter does have some factual details but based on the articles written, there was no ill-will between Lizzie and Abby and Lizzie was not insane. Bridgit even says in the article that she never heard anything between the two that would constitute bad blood in their relationship. Also, Lizzie is described by her peers and friends in the one newspaper article as very lady-like and shower her with praise. From these descriptions in the newspaper articles we can see that Angela Carter uses her creative tactics and fictional information to bring further suspicion to Lizzie as the killer.
Carter appropriately matches Lizzie’s distant personality to reports from
The Boston Herald. One article described Lizzie as being indifferent to
people around her as she grew up. Another article from the The Boston
Globe describes the incident when Lizzie attempted to purchase prussic
acid. Being a suspicious event, Carter successfully uses this accurate
detail to point an apprehensive finger at Lizzie. Carter describes how the
whole family became ill. She mentions natural food poisoning as the
culprit but purposely leaves this incident vague to tie back into Lizzie’s
curious attempt to purchase acid from a local drug store. A New York Times
article talks of the prosecutor, Mr. Moody, and his mentioning of a
tension between Lizzie and Mrs. Borden. Carter describes this same tension
to create a motive for the murder of Mrs. Borden. Major details that were
left out of Carter’s story were events immediately before and after the
murders of the Bordens. Given Carter’s sharp writing style, inclusion of
these details would have been particularly effective.
In response to what John said, I agree that Carter successfully used the
factual incident of Lizzie attempting to purchase prussic acid to throw
suspicion on Lizzie. However, I think we need to be careful about the
detail concerning the tension between Lizzie and Abby. While one
newspaper article from The New York Time highlighted this tension, I read
an article covering Bridget Sullivan’s testimony that said just the
opposite. In her testimony, Bridget told the counsel that there was no
such tension in the Borden household. Having lived there for a few years,
she seems to be a more credible source than random hearsay among the
townspeople.
I believe that she succeeded in the purpose of writing this half true story. She provided a drama and purposely left out major details to create a drama. Just like Hollywood. Maybe after reading all of the articles she still had it in her heart, somehow, that Lizzie killed her parents and she wanted everyone to agree with her. Her feelings may have come from the fact that there was definitely controversy about the validity of the articles that some authors produced. This comes from the fact that articles supporting Lizzie just happened to be related to her. Family tends to support family and would lie about them, but they also family tends to know most about other members. It is hard to tell if family members were lying. Also, how the parents were killed was a HUGE part of the murder in the house. From the picture of Lizzie, she doesn’t seem too small of a person, but she doesn’t seem to big either. The person who did the murders must have to be extremely strong. Stronger than Lizzie could have been.
I think that Carter does use quite a bit of factual evidence to support her argument. In the article I read it was talking about the possibility that the Borden couple may have been poisoned, just like in the story. Lizzie is found trying to purchase poison the day before the murder in both the story and real life. Much of what Carter presents to the reader is fictional, like knowing the thoughts of Lizzie and saying that the girl was menstruating. These are facts that no one would know. These are private facts because only Lizzie would truly know what she herself is thinking. Carter describes the relationship between Lizzie and her stepmother Abby pretty well in that she just used the actual story for it. So as you can see, not everything in Carter's argument is completely farcical and she does have some substance to her argument.
I agree with a lot of my fellow students in that Carter tries to mold the information to try and form her own argument of the situation so that it can fit the fictional evidence of her argument. Also I agree with Colin in the statement that Carter did leave out much of the information that would actually convince the reader of the possibility of Lizzie's innocence. Carter, like many others, tried to form stories and arguments that may or may not have been factual to convince people of Lizzie's guilt in the murder of her parents.
I forgot to state I also agreed with John, because he was able to talk about how Angela Carter was able to describe the murders of both of Lizzie Borden’s parents. Also Angela Carter exaggerates when Lizzie was asked why she had an axe, and Lizzie’s response was for her pigeons. However Carter does not mention that and portrays Lizzie as the killer.
The purpose of Angela Carter’s essay is not to tell the facts of the murder. Carter attempts to prove that Lizzie is guilty in The Fall River Axe Murders. Whenever an author eliminates the truth and inserts opinion or inserts judgment, they must convey to the audience that these accounts are not based entirely on facts. Carter uses fiction to fill in the gaps where facts do not support her account. She does an excellent job presenting both the factual and fictional information in the same manor. This presentation makes it hard for readers to interpret what is true and what is her take on the events. The factual evidence that she provides does go directly on toward supporting her claim that Lizzie is guilty. She omits some of the facts that are used to in the articles to clear Lizzie of her guilt. In one of the articles about the true events, the robbery that Carter talks about is mentioned. However, the article never mentioned that Lizzie was a possible suspect, while Carter portrayed Lizzie as the only suspect.
Derek was correct in saying that Carter exaggerated every from the trial that would make Lizzie appear to be the murderer. The transcript from Bridget Sullivan’s interrogation states that there was never a foul word between Lizzie and her step mom Abby. However, Carter tells us in The Fall River Axe Murders that Lizzie and her mother had a rocky relationship after her father started to include Abby’s name on his properties. Lizzie started to call her Mrs. Borden instead of Mom. Angela Carter takes the liberty to tell readers how Lizzie was feeling when there is no way to actually know.
Post a Comment