Category: Good and Evil

Lawrence Block once said, “Dangerous thing, giving humanity the knowledge of good and evil, and the capacity to make the wrong choice more often than not.” This quote is signifying that, because man has the capability to understand good and evil, it allows for society to prepare its citizens to make more wrong choices than right. Anthony Burgess was a comic writer and he was known for using satire, especially in one of his most popular novels, A Clockwork Orange. Burgess uses the language formally known as Nadsat, which translates to “teen,” and this specific style of language is portrayed in A Clockwork Orange. Anthony Burgess’s childhood was not the best, specifically because of his cruel stepmother and the fact that he was severely bullied in school. Around his town, Burgess was known as the “Manichee,” which means that he connected both good and evil to society. Something that had a huge impact on Burgess’s life was the Great Depression, and having grown up during this time, made him see things that most people would never see in their lifetime.

During the 20th century, when Burgess wrote, the Korean War, Cold War, and Vietnam War were all taking place, and these events are significant because it influenced the way that Burgess thought and later, impacted the style in which he wrote. Anthony Burgess is the author of A Clockwork Orange, Shakespeare: A Biography, and Revolutionary Sonnets and Other Poems, and A Clockwork Orange focuses on conveying the necessity of good and evil in humanity. This novel is about four teenagers who think their purpose in life is to continuously commit violent crimes all throughout the city that they live in. The main problem that Alex, the protagonist, faces is getting into trouble with the law. A Clockwork Orange explores the themes of an individual’s place in society versus their freedom of choice, and the necessity of evil in humanity. Anthony Burgess’s novels focus on regular people who end up having to decide between good or evil, and Burgess highlights the significant role that that fundamental choice of freedom has on an individual’s life, but more importantly, the effect it has on society. The importance of having the freedom to choose, the necessity of good and evil in society, and the role that an individual’s conscience plays in their own life are three topics that Anthony Burgess’s works focus on. A literary phenomenon that occurs during the 20th century is that evil seems to prevail, and cross culturally, others are trying to protest for peace. Having the liberty to decide between good and evil is foundational to humanity, and it is what every individual must choose between when making a decision.

In A Clockwork Orange, Alex, Pete, Dim, and Georgie all display the effects in which the choice of evil has on them physically, also highlighting the importance of the role that an individual’s conscience plays in their life. The four main characters in this novel are known for committing violent crimes such as rape, theft, illegal drug dealing, murder, and so much more, which gives them a bad reputation in society. The violent actions of people can have a greater negative influence on good people than one might think, and it is our responsibility as human beings to protect our society, as well as ourselves, from conforming to the evil ways that others are acting. Alex is the one droog that is affected most by his evil actions because he is tested mentally, emotionally, and physically during his time in jail. The characters in this novel were raised in a way to where they believe that being evil is normal and a way to express themselves, therefore, letting them think that it is acceptable behavior in society. Alex believes that people like to commit evil acts simply because they find pleasure in doing so, same with people who like to do good acts. In chapter four of A Clockwork Orange, Alex is having a nightmare and is awoken by the sound of his doorbell to find his behavior advisor at his front door, coming to confront him about his violent actions that he had recently committed. Alex says, “The next morning I woke up at oh eight oh oh hours, my brothers, and as I still felt shagged and fagged and fashed and bashed and my glazzies were stuck together real horror show with sleep glue, I thought I would not go to school” (Burgess, A Clockwork Orange 39). Alex constantly has to choose between good and evil in his everyday life, but he has been so conformed to the evil acts that his friends choose to do, that he does not even think twice about doing something good. Burgess divides evil into two categories, moral and nature inspired, highlighting that each are powered by someone’s surroundings and personal experiences. Burgess claims that sometimes human beings are naturally evil, and do not need any outside encouragement for their actions. A Clockwork Orange is excellent at revealing the evils of the world that we live in, and Burgess suggests through his protagonist that one can rebel by choosing evil over good. The actions of others impact everyone in society and the way that it functions, along with influencing an individual’s mental state.

In Shakespeare: A Biography, Burgess talks about the most popular plays written by Shakespeare, and highlights on how Shakespeare used his characters in his plays to show the role that good and evil has in society at the time. In addition, Burgess expresses how the mental state of Shakespeare was impacted by the things he had seen in society during the time that he was writing. Shakespeare’s plays are known for incorporating violent acts and they also portray good and evil through different elements and characters. For example, in Macbeth, Shakespeare expresses good and evil by light and darkness, as well as having some of the characters commit murder. Shakespeare shows the powerful grip that evil can have on an individual, and ultimately, he shows the consequences that it brings to society when violent actions are not stopped. In the section titled “home,” Burgess says, “The plays of Shakespeare have much to say against the evils of social ambition, but they are merely plays, entertainments for a couple of idle hours; they are not considered and sober testimonies of their author’s convictions” (Burgess, Shakespeare: A Biography 17). While Burgess is saying this, he is talking about how Shakespeare was a socially ambitious man, and that he was influenced by his family and society. Burgess uses Shakespeare’s plays to represent how social ambition can get the better of people, to where they would do anything to be accepted in society. Focusing on the word “entertainments” in the quote, Burgess is enlightening us on the fact that evil acts are simply entertainment for some people, signifying that an individual’s self-indulgence can get the best of them. The characters in Shakespeare’s plays are given the freedom to choose between good and evil, however, it depends on their conscience and reasoning if they will ultimately decide to be good or evil. Burgess uses Shakespeare’s plays to show his audience that society depends upon having both good and evil in it, evil to a certain extent, in order to function.

In Revolutionary Sonnets and Other Poems, the poem O Lord, O Ford, God Help Us, Also You explores the role that evil has in society and the domination it has on humanity. This poem is about new beginnings, specifically starting a new year, and conveys to the reader that it is best to leave behind everything in the past and look forward to what is ahead. The poem goes on to say how humanity has turned to the dark side and is bringing evil everywhere man goes. Burgess says, “Man’s gobbled up the soil and also hurled his poisons in the water and air, hell is a fact and no mere Sunday scare, America as Eden’s dead and gone, the devil rides, and so on and so on. Men we thought bug are now revealed as little, conniving and contriving, mean and brittle, power-hungry merely, greedier than us, vindictive, ignorant, pusillanimous, liars, vulgarians, and ugly too” (Burgess, Revolutionary Sonnets and Other Poems, O Lord, O Ford, God Help Us, Also You 37). This quote shows that man brings violence everywhere and that a person can try to start with a clean slate but end up going back to their old ways if they were evil before. Evil actions committed by man instantaneously have a ripple effect on society and one of society’s biggest arguments is the battle of defending an individual’s freedom to act and securing those this may harm. One universal truth that Burgess displays in A Clockwork Orange is that every person has been through circumstances where some of their past actions have come back to haunt them, making them regret what they did, big or small. Regardless of an individual’s situation, the foundational right to have the freedom to choose should always be given.

In conclusion, having the liberty to decide between good and evil is foundational to humanity, and it is what every individual must choose between when making a decision. The actions of individuals, both good and evil, create a ripple effect on society and has the powerful force to set the standard for what society accepts “appropriate” behavior to be like. Anthony Burgess’s A Clockwork Orange, Shakespeare: A Biography, and Revolutionary Sonnets and Other Poems excellently convey the essentiality of having a society that has both good and evil in it, in order for it to function. Without good and evil in society, humanity would never be able to understand what it means to have morals, standards, and ethics. Furthermore, the nature of good and evil in humanity effects our emotional, social, and non-verbal communication.

Do you really know whether you are good or bad since you are born? It is always a question that whether human is good or evil. However, another Chinese philosopher, GaoZi, believed that human nature is neither inherently good nor inherently evil but rather a “blank slate” that could be conditioned in both directions. Humans are fundamentally good because of what human actually is, the education they have, and the society they are in.

Basically, human is a creature that evolved from the apes. We are not different from animals after getting rid of the factor of culture. Apes are animals that hunt for living. We are more advanced than apes but still have a similar motive as our nature. We were born to hunt to survive like other animals. It is us whom have evolved in such a manner that we have created society. Cultures are all based on if we can get enough food to support us for survive. As a type of animal, it is instinct that human will try to get enough food with anyway they can. In the ancient period, people had a concept that some animals represent evil, and they always kill other animals. But nowadays, the concept is changed comparing to the past. People started to understand those “crimes”. “Wolf Totem”, which is a book that describes a story of a Chinese student who lived in Inner Mongolia. Those wolves in the story were smart, cooperative, and brave. They are very similar to human. In the book, those wolves were forced to kill sheep that villagers raise because of the cold air wave. While those villagers hated those wolves, they also understood those wolves. Every time someone died, they put the body on the grass outside for wolves. In addition, the Chinese student in the book also got a baby wolf from their nest. The baby wolf was intelligent and pure. It kept its docile under enough meat the student provide, and he never bites any sheep or dogs. Throughout so many years, some people believe they are different from animal, but this is not the fact. There is not any evil animals, and human is not an exception.

What caused the big difference between Jack and Piggy is the different education. In the book “The lord of the fly”, William Golding did not elaborate on jack’s family history. Jack didn’t mention his parents or relatives like Ralph and piggy, but we can guess what his family life was like in England. Jack is an entitled person who argued to be chief simply because he was the head of the choir, he claimed to be the leader. Jack is also aggressive and selfish. But what causes that was jack’s family education. Jack’s characteristic suggested he may have been respected by his parents and grew up in a household where he was largely “the boss”. Jack’s parents might not be very strict on him, and they allowed him to do everything he wants. To comparing, Piggy seems to be more timid. He grew with his aunt and received good education. His aunt told him many truths of life and mentioned his diseases like asthma. Under that kind of family education, he become a rational person with timid. Although in the beginning, jack seems still had his human nature. He already changed a lot comparing what he really was since he born, and in that situation he shows how he was changed. He killed Piggy and Simon, and he also tried to kill Ralph. On the other side, piggy mentioned his aunt and when will they get rescue a lot. He wanted people to remember the truth society, and He tried to pull Ralph towards reason and logic. Overall, the reason why Jack became evil and Piggy kept good is the education. They were both good since they born.

The society is also a big determinant of why people may change from good to bad. In the book “The lord of the flies”, most people were not evil. They followed Ralph and trust they can be rescued. Even when they joined Jack’s group, they only killed pigs which is not actually a bad thing. We can say they changed since they killed Simon randomly because the storm. They trusted Jack and did everything he wants them to do. There are basically two reasons they started to do that. The first one is, there are already most of people joined Jack’s team. Psychologists have spent decades studying the power of social influence and how it affects people’s opinions and behavior. Specifically, social influence refers to the way a person change itself for suiting the whole society. Most of us often got social influences in many forms. For example, a student could change his selection when he found that all other people chose another option. The second reason is, they found that Jack already became the only leader on the island. His cruel let not only Ralph scared but also other people. They are scared of being punished and killed if they stop follow Jack. The pressure and the fear they were having making them bad people. There is another example of fear causes obey. Luke in “The Society” acted the same as Jack’s followers. When other “Guard” followed Campbell, Luke still trust his girlfriend and Allie. He did not want to follow Campbell for revolting, but he had no choice. They will beat him if he refuse, which is what Jack also did when he caught the twins. He beat them first then let them to be the guard of the turf.

To conclude, human which is a type of animal is good,but it may be changed by acquired factor like education and society. This shows how important for people to have a good education and society. No one is bad originally but how they changed.

From the beginning of time, humans have wondered about our purpose. Where do we come from? Why are we here? What are we meant to do? We are constantly seeking answers for things and in the past, people would just turn to the supernatural, claiming that unknown supernatural forces had created everything. While we are still religious now, we no longer blindly believe in just our sole religion whether it be Islam, Judaism, Hinduism or Christianity, but pair it with certain aspects of natural science, typically through our education in school. However, as time has progressed, we have made more technological advances and we have more theories on how we, as humans, came to be, in addition to certain aspects of how our earth came to be and how it works. Because of this, many sceptics as Richard Dawkins and Steven Weinberg believe religion to be tearing humanity apart, blaming the supposed delusion of a superior being to be responsible for the acts of evil.

As a religious person, I initially thought that I should be disagreeing with Dawkins’ claim that ‘religion produces more evil than good’, but upon closer inspection and weighing the benefits and consequences that it brings for our society as a whole, I would have to say that I agree with his claim. In this context, I have defined evil as an act (or several acts) that causes harm – whether it be phycological or physical – to oneself or others. Needless to say, I do believe that religion comes with its advantages. Essentially, religion is the belief in a god – or in some cases several gods – and the morals and rituals such as prayers that come with it. In most religions, there is scripture to guide and educate believers on what to do and what not to do as well as some religious leader whose main job is to make sure their followers are on the right path. In Islam there are Imams, in Christianity there are priests, popes and clerics, while in Judaism there are rabbis.

They make sure their followers are on the right path and help guide them properly as well as educate them about the religion. However, one cannot deny the fact that on several occasions, the gap of power between the leaders and followers has led several leaders to fall into the hands of corruption due to the negligence of the original morals of the religion in place of the beneficiaries of the institution’s power or income, and ultimately, failing to be a role model for their followers. For example, several church leaders in Singapore had embezzled 34 million US dollars’ worth of church funds in 2017 while another reverend gained wealth by taking goods from his followers as payment for personal gain. In addition, the concept of being thrown into Hell is occasionally used extensively to imprint the fear into some with the purpose of making sure that believers do not even consider doing what they are told is wrong. The methods can vary from constant repetition of warnings from parents, to events such as the Hell houses that were shown in Dawkins’ documentary. Since religion is introduced at such an early age, it could potentially prevent or avoid young children’s individual morality, belief and viewpoints from developing, making them reliant on the sole words of their religion as they remain blind to other forms of reason. Similarly, the depictions of Hell and what happens to sinners could physiologically scar children in a similar fashion to Jill Mitten.

As Dawkins mentioned in his documentary, religion presents believers with the feeling of solidarity. With so many having people sharing the same faith, this only serves to reinforce their beliefs. This may seem beneficial since it fosters the idea of group identity and having a community which cares for those that are like minded and makes its members feel like they belong somewhere. However, this sense of a group identity can create a divide between other religious groups, creating a feeling of separation between the groups has already resulted in disputes and conflicts, ultimately leading to wars breaking out when it gets out of hand, causing many casualties and innocent lives. This has been a problem in the past, present and even in the foreseeable future. One of the most infamous examples of these conflicts would be the attack on the World Trade Center, better known as 9/11. While researching the question of whether religion produces more evil than good, I find that 9/11 is one of the terrorist attacks that is referenced the most alongside the more recent attacks of the Islamic State (ISIS ).

In an interview, Dawkins had claimed that those who carried out terrorist attacks had done it since they believed by doing so, they would be fast-tracked to a martyr’s heaven. On the other hand, Robert Pape, a professor of the university of Chicago had studied 315 cases on suicide bombing and terrorism act, coming to the conclusion that there was little correlation to religion and more to do with land, politics and power. In addition to the 9/11 attack, ISIS is causing harm to all sorts of people who disagree with their ideals and beliefs. They have beheaded numerous journalists and prisoners of war, killed at least half a dozen men who were accused of being gay and destroyed various religious building with suicide bombing attacks, resulting in several of deaths and casualties. The main point is, they have done all these horrific deeds, and have claimed it all to be in the name of religion. Quite similarly, religion had costed thousands of lives in the middle ages as the Crusades, which were political and religious wars, were fought for around 195 years. In 1099, the Crusaders carried out a massacre on the Muslim and Jewish inhabitants of Jerusalem only sparing a few as long as they left Jerusalem and claiming the Muslim holy sites as important Christian sites by renaming them. In this case, the Crusaders had also claimed it to have been justified by their religion as their battle cry had been ‘Deus Vult!’ meaning ‘God wills it’ while Pope Urban II had ordered a retaking of the holy land, claiming that Christians were under threat while Muslims were evil, promising those who fought would be forgiven for their sins. Another disadvantage which religion brings in to the issue is the fact that the holy scriptures had been written tens of thousands of years ago. In addition to the fact that there has been multiple revisions of scriptures such as the bible, with about 2000 different varying translations, the language that is used within such scriptures which are meant to guide the lives of believers are often vague, or too (complicated, confusing), ending up in misinterpretations, leading to misguided hatred to opposing ideas or contradicting ideas. In cases of contradiction, how does one know which is ‘correct’?

The problem is, they take a chance. Due to the vague wording, they are twisted to suit one’s personal interpretation of the holy scriptures claiming the misinterpretations as the word of God. A common misunderstanding would be the verse ‘I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me.’(Philippians 4:13). Taken out of context, this could mean ‘I can do anything in the name of Jesus Christ’, or oversimplified to ‘live boldly, believe in yourself, and be confident’. However, in context, Apostle Paul was on the verge of death, and was trying to convey that he was able to be content with his given situation and was able to press forward through the strength that Christ had given him. Another instance of misinterpretation exists within the documentary itself. Paul Hill, who claimed that his actions were justified by scripture, decided that cold blooded murder would be the right thing to do as it was done to punish a doctor for having an abortion clinic. As another Christian minister and Paul’s defendant, Michael Bray claimed that Paul Hill had done it out of love for the doctor. With this mindset of thinking, by blocking out all sense of logic and going solely on the supposed words of the scriptures. With all that being said, it is important to acknowledge that religion is not all evil. As previously mentioned, the statement has merely claimed it is ‘more’ evil. Meaning, there are indeed positive outcomes of religion, one of them being that most if not all religions have certain core ethical considerations as to how we should treat one another, resulting in the encouragement of being kind, treating parents with absolute care, and the discouragement of stealing, abuse, rape or murder whenever we please.

Numerous religious organizations are often responsible for charities or doing charitable things while encouraging their followers to do so as well. For example, one of the five pillars of Islam are to donate a portion of your money to the poor, while one of the 10 commandments are to honor your parents. In conclusion, yes, I agree with Dawkins’ statement which claims religion causes more evil than good after judging the evidence from both past and present events. While religion does have its benefits to society as it provides the base moral guidelines, basic moral codes and manners can be easily replaced by an ethics or morals class. On the other hand, I feel as society’s current situation illustrates heavy consequences due to corruption within certain religions and disputes between religions, ultimately costing more lives than it ever should. Furthermore, I believe that overall, religion produces more evil as the majority of the positive values are intangible.

For centuries, humans have been fantasizing with the idea of eternal life and staying young forever. Vampires are creatures frozen in time with superhuman powers, so it is no surprise that they are at the center of many creative minds. However, as time passes by, the vampire character has changed to keep up with its contemporary audience. According to Vučković and Pajović’s essay: ‘The Evolution of the Vampire from Stoker’s Dracula to Meyer’s Twilight Saga,’ “the reasons for the flourishing of the vampire in literature are found in the context of the situation, contemporary science, religion, and psychology” (2).

Bram Stoker’s Count Dracula is an evil, meta-human susceptible to light and garlic, sanguinarian vampire, while Stephanie Meyer’s Edward Cullen is a good and meta-human, but almost invincible vampire who refuses to consume human blood. Count Dracula’s and Edward Cullen’s share numerous superpowers: Super strength and speed, the ability to read minds, and immortality. Shapeshifting is one of the only powers Edward Cullen does not possess but there are other creatures in his world who shapeshift. In contrast, through the years the vampire weaknesses have vanished to the point that modern vampires cannot be killed. Count Dracula is easily killed by a stalk to the heart or exposure to sunlight; he needs to sleep during the day in a dark coffin away from any light to replenish his powers.

Moreover, Dracula’s powers are diminished by the smell of garlic, fire or a Christian cross. To enter a home, Dracula needs the homeowner’s permission, so he uses his mind control superpowers and seduction techniques to convince his victims to invite him in. Whereas, Edward Cullen’s skin glows in the sun, does not need to sleep and cannot be harmed by garlic or crosses. Meyer’s vampires can only be killed when other supernatural creature removes their heads and throws their bodies in the fire. Perhaps just as humans do, mythological characters also undergo evolution. Darwin’s theory of evolution as it is explained in Peter J Russell, “Biology: Exploring the Diversity of Life” states that evolution provides organisms with inheritable traits that make them stronger than their previous generation (52). Stoker’s Count Dracula can consume animal blood but needs human blood to survive while Meyer’s Edwards Cullen is capable of surviving by consuming animal blood. Dracula enjoys hunting and killing people for their blood; in the final chapters of the novel, Dracula hints to revenge as one of his reasons for killing people. In “Can the Vampire Speak? Dracula As A Discourse Extinction,” Attila Varagh points to Dracula’s consumption of human blood as a mean to absorb and assimilate a foreign culture (233). She was refereeing to the fact that Dracula felt like he did not belong in society and his human blood consumption was more out of anger than survival. On the other hand, Edward Cullen and his family made the choice of surviving only in animal blood. Human blood smells very appetizing to the Cullens and every day they must fight their urge and desire for it. Furthermore, Edward Cullen values human life above all and the Cullens lifestyle can be compared to veganism. If it is wrong for humans to kill animals for consumption it should be wrong for vampires to kill humans to consume their blood. Many philosophers think of veganism as “an expression of good moral character” (Alvaro, 766).

By choosing to abstain from human blood, Edward Cullen’s character can be described as an individual with high morals who makes the conscious decision of not harming humans. According to Vučković and Pajović, “the vampire is a mythological creature who since it first appeared in literature, has been standing in the middle of two words: Good and Evil” (2). Evidently, Count Dracula is unambiguously evil while the members of the group of trying to destroy him are good. Even though Dracula is the main character of Bram Stoker’s novel, it is easy to guess from its first pages that good would prevail against evil and the monster must be destroyed at the end.

While Count Dracula hunts and kills humans without remorse and gets great enjoyment for his evil acts, Edward Cullen believes himself a monster and is constantly fighting the battle between good and evil on his head. Edward and his family’s choice of not harming humans have made them outcast from other vampires who do not share their ethics and appreciation for human life. Edward believes that vampires are inherently evil, “I don’t want to be a monster,” (Meyer,123) he tells the human he loves when some ruffians are after her and all he wants to do is killed them. He defies the nature of the evil vampire because he wants to be genuinely good. Moreover, religion plays a big role in the context of both vampires. In Brand Stoker’s Dracula, there are numerous references to Christianity, one of the main characters is save by a crucifix when Dracula attacks him. Conversely, the references to religion in Twilight explains the belief of the vampire being harm by a crucifix or holy water were a mere superstition of the past. The fact the Count Dracula is harm by religions symbols assures the audience that he is evil while the presence of religious symbols around Edward Cullen and his high moral standards reassure the audience that he is a good vampire.

Although the vampire has been portrayed as evil since its appearance in literature, the evil vampire who used his superpowers to dominate human society is now the ethically conscious vampire who uses his super powers to protect humans. Count Dracula and Edward Cullen may have their superpowers and strengths in common, but they are very different in their choices of life. In brief, Count Dracula made the decision to be evil and kill humans for their blood while Edward Cullen made the decision to be good and protect humans. Vampires no longer belong in nightmares or horror literature, nowadays they are considered almost human and have found a place in romantic literature.

“The town where she lived had to be kept clean and sweet, but people everywhere were lustful and evil and degraded, and needed to be watched; the world was so large, and there was only one Strangeworth left in it” (Jackson 5). In the short story, The Possibility of Evil by Shirley Jackson, Miss Adela Strangeworth appears to be an innocent and helpful old lady, but in reality there is much more to her than what meets the eye. Miss Strangeworth feels responsible for preventing the possibility of evil in her community, but she doesn’t realize that she is actually the one who is causing harm. While her intentions are good, her execution is not. Although Miss Strangeworth means well and only wants the best for her town, the anonymous letters that she writes, which are based on suspicions and not facts, are pretty questionable. Miss Strangeworth is not entirely evil nor entirely good, but it is no question that her letters do more harm than good to the recipients, and in a larger sense, the town as a whole.

At the beginning of the story, we are introduced to a happy, friendly elderly lady who seems to be loved by the entire town. This is supported by Jackson describing how, “Walking down Main Street on a summer morning, Miss Strangeworth had to stop every minute or so to say good morning to someone or to ask after someone’s health” (Jackson 2). We can see that Miss Strangeworth is popular and well-liked by the people in her community and we can assume that she is greeted by every person she sees. The fact that she takes the time out of her day to ask about people’s health shows that she actually cares about the people in her community. In addition to being well-liked, Miss Strangeworth is also admired for the roses in her garden which she loves. Miss Strangeworth seems to be very important to the town and the other inhabitants of the town seem to be used to her presence as well as her habits, except for one — her habit of criticizing the people in the town via anonymously written letters.

“Mr. Lewis would never have imagined for a minute that his grandson might be lifting petty cash from the store register if he had not had one of Miss Strangeworth’s letters. Miss Chandler, the librarian, and Linda Stewart’s parents would have gone unsuspectingly ahead with their lives, never aware of the possible evil lurking nearby, if Miss Strangeworth had not sent that letter to open their eyes” (Jackson 4). This is a great example of how Miss Strangeworth feels like she’s really doing good. She thinks that she is protecting her town from evil but in reality, she’s the root of the evil in her town. This specific quote makes Miss Strangeworth seem like a hero more than a villain, but later on in the story, it is revealed what sorts of things that she writes about in her letters. She sees herself as a sort of saint who is fending off all of the evil and bad things that may attack her town, but in all honesty, she would have done more for her town by minding her own business and just letting people deal with their own issues.

It’s not really the fact that she writes the letters, but it’s how she writes them that makes her evil. One example is when “she wrote on a pink sheet: Didn’t you ever see an idiot child before? Some people just shouldn’t have children, should they?” (Jackson 4). It’s bad enough that the child she is referring to is only 6 months old, but she was also the one who assured Helen Crane, the child’s mother, that all children develop at different paces. This not only shows how cruel she can be because she is literally judging a baby, and by extension the baby’s young parents, it also shows how two-faced Miss Strangeworth is. One second she’s reassuring and comforting a young mother and the next she’s sitting at her desk writing horrible things about a child. Even just thinking these things is already evil in some way, but actually writing this down and sending it to the family to read shows how ruthless Miss Strangeworth can be. Nothing will stop her from doing what she believes is right.

We can’t label Miss Strangeworth as totally evil because although her actions have caused much harm to various people, she only did what she did because she believed that her town needed it. All she wanted was to save her town from evil. Of course this doesn’t justify her actions and in no way does this make her a good person, but there is a part of her that is good. By definition, Miss Strangeworth is a morally ambiguous character — neither entirely good nor evil. She is just an old lady who wants to protect her town, but doesn’t choose the best way to do so.

The theme of good versus evil within the novel, Salem’s Lot by Stephen King, seemed straightforward at first. Indeed, the vampires are a clear manifestation of evil, that big, bad, devil worshipping, drink your blood kind of evil. However, it becomes apparent that many people within the town itself are evil as well. This blurs the lines between good and evil. After all, people are supposed to be good and vampires are supposed to be evil in this kind of story. It is not that simple as it turns out. The story goes on to say that true evil is not mindless and without intent. True evil can only exist at the intersection between free will and choice.

The obvious evil in the story is the vampires’ actions. They are killing innocent people, but it is not for their own gain. “O my father, favor me now. Lord of Flies, favor me now. Now I bring you spoiled meat and reeking flesh. I have made sacrifice for your favor” (3.431). Barlow states he works for the Lord of Flies, which is also known as Satan. Barlow is doing the Devil’s deeds and recruiting more minions. Satan is the father of evil, so Barlow working for him would make Barlow’s intentions evil as well. It is not immediately clear if Barlow is acting with free will. Once a person has been turned into a vampire, they are forced to do evil deeds. There is no such thing as a good vampire since they will blindly follow orders from Satan’s minion, Barlow. “And in the awful heavy silence of the house, as he sat impotently on his bed with his face in his hands, he heard the high, sweet, evil laugh of a child – and then the sucking sounds” (7.215). Danny Glick, someone who has been turned into a vampire, has now changed from the good to the bad. He has lost his innocence of being a child and now carries out the Devil’s dirty work. Danny did not deserve to become a vampire, but other townspeople do.

At first glance the reader may assume that the townspeople are good, but this statement is far from true. This is where the line between good and evil becomes blurred. Many of the townspeople have dirty secrets they keep from everyone else. Some of these secrets could be seen as evil. Sandy McDougall has an ugly secret of her own. “I’ll tell Roy he fell off the changing table, she thought. He’ll believe that. Oh god, let him believe that” (3.44). Hitting your kid and lying about what happens is evil. Sandy McDougall is already an evil person before turning into a vampire. It is wrong and disgusting to hit your kid, especially a newborn. Obviously, this is not as evil as carrying out Lucifer’s bidding, but all evil is evil regardless if it is lesser or greater evil. One might make the argument that the greatest evil is a despicable act done onto the innocent. And, what could be more innocent than a baby?

What could be more evil than the vampires? Well, it could be argued that the townspeople are actually more evil than the vampires. This is because the townspeople have something that the vampires do not. The townspeople commit evil deeds with their own free will, while vampires do not. The vampires will commit monstrous acts, but it isn’t necessarily evil since there is no free will or evil intention involved. “Then, gone. But not before he saw, or thought he saw, a look of desperate unhappiness on her face” (12.212). When Susan was turned into a vampire she lost her free will. Susan was unhappy since she could not control herself from attempting such heinous acts. Susan was not an evil person at heart, she is just being controlled by a force greater than herself. The townspeople are more evil since there is free will behind their actions. They are committing lesser evil acts, but nonetheless they are choosing to commit them. There is no greater force making Sandy McDougall hit her baby. Sandy McDougall is not being controlled by Satan. She is the one who chooses to abuse her baby.

The townspeople have brought this terrible consequence onto themselves. The many lesser acts of evil done by the townspeople are made plain to the reader; sexual perversions, adultery, child abuse to name a few. Barlow, the vampire, is a symbolic punishment for the people who had secretly been carrying out these dark acts behind closed doors. This mass loss of faith in God led to the attraction of Barlow to the town. “If a man dethrones God in his heart, then Satan must ascend to his position” (492). Perhaps Satan sensed this and sent the vampire to take over the town, and claim it for his own. The townspeople being the true evil in this story has caused the destruction of their own town. The vampires symbolically represent the townspeople’s evil secrets coming to life.

In this story, you can not say the townspeople are good and that the vampires are evil. It is just not that simple. The lines between the concept of good and evil in this story are blurred. Being a vampire is far from good, but it is not truly evil either. A monstrous and violent act even committed randomly cannot be truly evil without the free will and intention. A shark, for example, that attacks a swimmer is a violent and random act. But, one would not call the shark evil as it is just doing what a shark will do. In the same way, the horrible deeds of the vampires are just those things that vampires do. The acts might be evil, but are the vampires truly evil? The theme of the story, good versus evil, is not just about good guys versus bad guys. Rather, the theme of the story explores what that definition of evil might actually be, and how these lines defining it are faded and blurred.

Work Cited

1. King, Stephen. ‘Salem’s Lot. Cemetery Dance Publications, 2015.

“You never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view… until you climb into his skin and walk around it”(Lee 189). This means you can’t judge a person about what they are and what they stand for, you have to understand where they are coming from and what they really like within themselves not what other people say. Scout and Jem finch the main characters in Harper Lee’s To Kill a Mockingbird. They learn good vs evil in this world and human nature. People are naturally good until they meet a perspective of evil. It’s not good people vs bad people it’s the clash between good vs evil within characters. People do the opposite of what they are supposed to do.

In To Kill a Mockingbird there are three major examples that support good vs bad in their society and I will talk about them. Jem and Dill are faced with the findings of evil and racism during and after the trial. Mr. Cunningham has always been a good person and was a friend of The finch’s, but one night he had chosen the evil side and wanted to hurt an innocent man. Cunningham was still a man. Boo is more Protagonist than an antagonist. For a long time of the book, everyone thought Boo was the neighborhood villain who wanted to do no good for anyone or the community. In the end, he ends up saving Jem and Scout’s lives, usually, villains don’t do that.

Jem and dill are faced with the findings of the evil of racism during and after the trial. ‘Jem was suddenly furious. He leaped off the bed, grabbed me by the collar and shook me. ‘I never wanna hear about that courthouse again, ever, ever, you hear me? Do you hear me? Don’t you ever say one word to me about it again, you hear? Now go on!’ (247).This shows that Jem is having lots of emotion towards the fact that Tom Robinson lost the trial. He’s so caught up on the evil part of white men and that they can’t defend a black man because of the racism in the south, Therefore he breaks down on Miss Gates. The next evidence shows that Dill was mad at Mr. Gilmer and how he was talking about Tom Robinson. Dill had lots of feelings towards the trail and Tom. It made Dill angry how he was treated so badly. “I don’t care one speck. It ain’t right, somehow it ain’t right to do ’em that way. Hasn’t anybody got any business talkin’ like that–it just makes me sick’ (199). Dill hated how white people treated black people so disrespectfully in the south and when Mr. Gilmer said negative things about Tom, Dill came right back at him.

One night Mr. Cunningham chose to betray Atticus and made a big mistake. He chose the evil side and wanted to hurt an innocent man. ‘I looked around and up at Mr. Cunningham, whose face was equally impassive. Then he did a peculiar thing. He squatted down and took me by both shoulders. I’ll tell him you said hey, little lady,’ he said. Then he straightened up and waved a big paw, ‘Let’s clear out,’ he called (154). Atticus saw something different in this scene, he saw that Mr. Cunningham made a mistake, but everyone makes mistakes in their lives. He was a good friend of Finch’s and Atticus. He thinks Mr. Cunningham did the right thing and he knows that he should’ve not messed with Atticus and tried to get Tom at that time. Mob’s are made up of bad people that want to do malicious things, but here Atticus shows why this one mob is still a person. ‘He might have hurt me a little . . . but son, you’ll understand folks a little better when you’re older. A mob’s always made up of people, no matter what. Mr. Cunningham was part of a mob last night, but he was still a man. Every mob in every little Southern town is always made up of people you know. . .’ (157). Atticus is trying to explain to Jem that mobs are bad people, but they’re human beings like everyone else in their society. Mr. Cunningham being a mob shows what he believes in and how they should be treated ( referring to black people).

The last example of good vs evil in To kill a mockingbird is that Boo is more protagonist than antagonist. For a long time of the book, everyone thought Boo was the neighborhood villain who wanted to do nothing but trouble. In the end, he ends up saving Jem and Scout’s lives. Usually, evil people don’t do that. “Scout, I think I’m beginning to understand something. I think I’m beginning to understand why Boo Radley’s stayed shut up in the house all this time… it’s because he wants to stay inside’ (Lee 117). Seeing the negative and terrible things that happen in Maycomb, staying inside didn’t seem like a bad decision. The one time he does come out is for a good reason, saved Scout and Jem from the death of Bob Ewell. The last Important example is when Boo saves Jem and Scout. Boo has a couple of gifts for Scout when she walks Boo home. Boo gave Scout a couple of good-luck pennies, some dolls, and jewelry.’ Mr. Ewell was tryin’ to squeeze me to death, I reckon…then somebody yanked Mr. Ewell down…’ (Lee 165). Boo is more protagonist because he’s the saver of Maycomb and know one had to deal with Bob Ewell anymore. Bob had made a key decision to kill a bad person to save two good people’s lives in order for the town of Maycomb to be a little better.

Throughout the book, Jem and Scout are believing in the goodness of everyone and learning the values of each person has. When Tom loses the trial the true evil prevails within the town and affects Jem to the max. He believed in the goodness of all people. Scout has trouble trying to comprehend what is all happening still but still believes in goodness. End of the book Boo shows true color about himself when saving the children from Bob Ewell. At the end between different sides the best shows. Goodness will prevail when unexpected but it’s good for the people. I think testing people whether there good vs evil to the limit can show what will come to the truth and see if they can stay truthful on what they stand for.

Sundiata: An Epic of Old Mali and Macbeth both provided readers with an inside look at how prophecies and the role of fate help determine the outcomes of one’s action. Alongside the prophecies exist magic and sorcery that further influence’s one’s decision to be good or evil. In Sundiata: An Epic of Old Mali, a king named Soumaoro abandons his morals in order to instill fear into his people. In Macbeth, a soldier turned king also relies on black magic and sorcery to consolidate his power. Throughout the works, both characters will try their hardest to alter their prophecies and ultimate fate. Although Soumaoro and Macbeth exist in different genres of writing, they both share an evil demeanor and they show how a prophecy can result in their own downfall.

In Sundiata: An Epic of Old Mali, sorcery plays a huge role in the West African society of Mali. Sorcery can be done by witches and sorcerers as a means of doing good or evil. Early in the story, a prophecy is outlined by soothsayers in the chapter, The Buffalo Woman, on page 6, the soothsayer says, “for she will be the mother of him who will make the name of Mali immortal forever.” This refers to the child the king must have with the Buffalo woman and one day, their son will unite Mali. In the chapter, The Baobab Leaves, on page 45, it says “We have consulted the jinn and they have replied that only the son of Sogolon can deliver Mali.” The Buffalo Woman’s son, Sundiata, is a product of the prophecy and he is the force of good that exists within the prophecy since it will be his duty to defeat the evil king Soumaoro. As a result, Mali will be united under his rule, as per the words of the Jinn, the natural spirits. Sundiata’s counterpart, and another user of sorcery and magic, is none other than the evil King Soumaoro who possesses the role of evil in the prophecy. In the chapter, History, on page 41 it says “Soumaoro was an evil demon and his reign had produced nothing but bloodshed. Nothing was taboo for him” This refers to Soumaoro’s evil demeanor that drove him to conquer others, his disregard for human life and self-arrogance only produced a negative effect on others. As long as he is unharmed and winning, he has no care or remorse for others. This is seen in the chapter, History, on page 41, where it says, “His greatest pleasure was publicly to flog venerable old men” His cruelness plays into the prophecy and Sundiata’s ultimate fate to defeat him and unite Mali, it also shows Soumaoro didn’t accept others who were seen as wise.

Much like Sundiata: An Epic of Old Mali, the play, Macbeth, portrays how a prophecy can lead to one’s downfall. Sorcery makes an appearance throughout the play through the form of witches, apparitions, and weird acts. Sorcery leads to the prophecy told to Macbeth in Act I, Scene 3 when the witches greet Macbeth they say “All hail, Macbeth! Hail to thee, thane of Glamis! All hail, Macbeth! Hail to thee, thane of Cawdor! All hail, Macbeth, that shalt be king hereafter!” These titles all refer to the positions Macbeth will hold in the play, information that no one could have known unless one looked into the future or used magic to find. Sorcery is also seen in Act II, Scene 1, it says “Is this a dagger which I see before me, The handle toward my hand? Come, let me clutch thee.” This refers to the dagger apparition that Macbeth sees, further tempting him to kill but at the same time messing with him by showing him the pain and guilt that may follow. Further in the play, Act IV, scene 1 shows more magic through the brewing of a potion that will further manipulate Macbeth and further fulfill the prophecy.

The evil king Soumaoro derives his power from several sources that further develop the idea of sorcery in the story. As mentioned earlier, in the West African society there existed earthly spirits known as jinns. In the chapter, History, on page 41, it says “Soumaoro was not like other men, for the jinn had revealed themselves to him and his power was beyond measure” This refers to the amount of power Soumaoro possessed because he had a personal connection with a jinn that could grant him and be with him during his evil endeavors. The power he receives from the jinn makes him feel invincible and unstoppable. Soumaoro also has several fetishes that also helped him consolidate his power. These are shown in the chapter, Soumaoro Kante, the Sorcerer King, on page 39 where Balle Fasseke, the griot, saw “The walls of the chamber were tapestried with human skins and there was one in the middle of the room on which the king sat; around an earthenware jar nine heads formed a circle” The human skin, skills, owls and other fetishes create fear within people and these items have a special connection to Soumaoro that empowers him. On the physical level, Soumaoro got powerful by conquering and killing others, such as the nine kings whose skulls he kept.

Like Soumaoro, Macbeth also gained his power on a spiritual and physical level. As mentioned earlier, Macbeth as told a prophecy that on the spiritual level, empowered him and provoked his ruthless actions. Part of Macbeth’s power, or his grab for power, was influenced by his wife, lady Macbeth. In Act 1, scene 7, Lady Macbeth says “Art thou afeard To be the same in thine own act and valor As thou art in desire? Wouldst thou have that Which thou esteem’st the ornament of life,” She says this to a contemplating Macbeth who is split between his options. He has been given the chance to be a king, a position the prophecy has outlined for him. Through this speech, she questions his manhood causing violence and desire for power to brew within him. To actually gain power Macbeth must commit the sinful act of killing, as seen in Act II, Scene 1, in which he says “I have done the deed. Didst thou not hear a noise?” This refers to Macbeth’s act of killing the reigning king, Duncan. He even goes as far as to kill Duncan’s servants and blame the murder on them. The true power is finally given to Macbeth in Act II, scene 4, “He is already named and gone to Scone To be invested,” as this moment Macbeth is king, but as the play goes on he will have to kill to try and alter the prophecy and soaking is hands deeper into a bucket of innocent blood.

In Sundiata, Soumaoro broke several moral values to strengthen his power and show his dominance. In the chapter, History, on page 41 it says “He had defiled every family and everywhere in his vast empire there were villages populated by girls whom he had forcibly abducted from their families without marrying them.” This shows Soumaoro broke basic morals, such as kindness, respect, and trust in regards to his people because he acted as if they weren’t people. He treated them like they had no choice of their own, instead, he forced his evil and ruthless tactics on top of them in situations they could never benefit from. His immoral behavior strikes fear into his people. Not only did he break morals by mistreating his people, he even portrayed no respect towards his own kin, as shown in the chapter, History, on page 42 it says “Soumaoro abducted Keleya and locked her up in his palace,” This refers to his kidnapping of his own nephew’s wife, an act that will turn his nephew against him and result in his downfall.

Like Soumaoro, Macbeth broke moral values so he could gain his power, maintain his power, and in the end, these values would play into his final despair in Act 5. When he gained his power, he lost his humbleness that he portrayed in earlier scenes. In Act 1, scene 7, Macbeth says “We will proceed no further in this business. He hath honored me of late, and I have bought Golden opinions from all sorts of people” Here Macbeth questions why he should kill Duncan, a man who has rewarded him. He cannot help but cherish king Duncan. However, later on in the play, Macbeth no longer showed respect for others. Starting with the killing of Duncan and later on, with the killing of Banquo and Macduff’s family, acts he used to leverage his power by hurting others. Also, in Act IV, scene 1, it says, “Macbeth shall never vanquished be until Great Birnam Wood to high Dunsinane Hill Shall come against him” This plays into Macbeth’s overconfidence a trait that would make him feel invincible and higher than everyone else. Macbeth will eventually be let down when he is defeated when Birnam woods comes to Dunsinane and he is killed by Macduff, a man not born from a woman. It’s only until the end that Macbeth realizes he was blinded by the prophetic words of the witches, all long he was being played and he allowed himself to be caught in the game.

In both Sundiata: An Epic of Old Mali and Macbeth, Both Soumaoro and Macbeth are quite similar because of the way they acted when they were given opportunities to seize power. Both characters allowed their power to dictate the way they treated others and in doing so, they each abandoned moral values. Both characters are also similar because of their deeper connection to sorcery and magic that influenced their decisions to take part in evil ruthless doings that would result in the harm of others. Both characters were also apart of prophecies that they constantly tried to alter in order to maintain and consolidate the power they had been given. However, it is important to remember that once a prophecy has been made, nothing can be done to change it. Every action they took just played into the prophecy at hand and in both Soumaoro and Macbeth’s cases’ all of their actions eventually resulted in their downfall and ultimate defeat, Soumaoro by Sundiata and Macbeth by Macduff.

The web of our life is of a mingled yarn, good and ill together. Such has Shakespeare’s notion remained part of history throughout medians of literature, plays and films to this day and this was no different during the period in which Harper Lee’s tale To Kill a Mockingbird and Guilmero Del Toro’s epic Pan’s labyrinth were set. Both narratives explore the idea of Evil Versus Good by challenging its demeanour and coexistence through the portrayal of innocence in characters such as six-year-old Scout Finch in To Kill a Mockingbird and eleven-year-old Ofelia in Pan’s labyrinth. By illustrating a world in which the characters are forced to confront the violence and malevolence of a power corrupt society during the early 18th century it explores the lengths to which humans would go to survive therefore defining their natural human instincts into the division of Good and Evil. This exploration of Good and Evil can be seen in the novel To Kill a Mockingbird which recounts the adolescence of young Scout and Jem Finch living in Maycombe, Alabama as they observe the false accusations of rape to an innocent African American man, Tom Robinson. The Film Pan’s Labyrinth follows the life of Ofelia, who is transferred to a rural military base during the Spanish Civil war in Northern Spain. As Ofelia witnesses the grim realities of war she escapes this through a fantastical world, but merely a distant mirage.

Lee and Del Toro highlight and criticise the concept of Good versus evil through an array of language and film techniques depicted using characterisation, symbolism, narrative point of view, which enriches the interpretation of this concept allowing audiences to understand and sympathise with characters. Both Lee and Del Toro approach the theme of Good versus evil from the perspective of a child protagonists depicting that innocence is born first, and with the exposure to the cruel world, in To Kill a Mockingbird Scout is counselled by her good role model of a father Atticus, whereas in Pan’s Labyrinth Ofelia’s only parent dies in which she is left to fend for herself in a fascist society.

Both creators use the stylistic feature of narrative point of view to enhance the idea of innocence by highlighting and captivating the perspective of an innocent character, so that the audience may understand their point of view. Lee opens her narrative using elevated and complex language including brethren, dictum and impotent fury to depict the scene of the narrative with explicit description. In contrast to Lee, Del Toro enriches this narrative device with film techniques and camera angles, which can especially be seen through the opening scene of Ofelia’s dying body. As Ofelia’s death seems to reverse, seen through the blood drawing back into her body, the narration of an unknown male voice, most likely to be Pan’s, begins to narrate the story of Princess Moana. In concurrence with this narration, the camera zooms into Ofelia’s eyes, which is symbolic of the audience entering her body and witnessing the reversal of her death in which at first is the birth of Princess Moana. After depicting the scene, both authors similarly foreground the idea of innocence through the perspectives of young girls. Lee places the narration within the perspective of six-year-old protagonist Scout Finch. Because this character is six years old, Scout can be considered an unreliable narrator. Scout’s innocence leads her to misinterpret certain events, including when Dill states “get us a baby”, Scout believes that God drops them down chimneys. Lee intentionally uses a child narrator, to enable the audience to experience the books events through fresh eyes. Ultimately, with the perspective of an innocent character, Lee allows the audience to create their own opinions. Likewise, Del Toro uses a child narrator, through eleven-year-old Ofelia. Her innocence and curiosity is specifically depicted through the fantasy world she explores throughout the narrative. Del Toro never verifies this fantasy world, which can be seen at the ending when Captain Vidal does not see the fantastical faun that Ofelia is talking too. This is done intentionally to allow the audience to remain confused and question whether the fantasy world is real or not. Both authors emphasise the idea of innocence through the narrative point of view, although it is Del Toro who also adds emphasis into the idea of evil and good through this literary device. Whilst most of the film is seen through the perspective of Ofelia, several scenes are seen through the perspectives of Captain Vidal, Mercedes and the doctor. Del Toro incorporates certain actions and behaviours in these scenes to depict the nature of the character. This can be understood through the cruel punishments of torture Captain Vidal enforces on the rebel soldiers, depicting that Captain Vidal is evil. In contrast the scenes with Mercedes portrays her kind and caring nature especially towards Ofelia. Del Toro employs these perspectives to depict the perspectives of evil, good and innocence, empowering the audience to choose a side. Because most of the film is perceived through Ofelia, Del Toro desires the audience to choose Ofelia, hence innocence. He then kills Ofelia to display that innocence cannot exist in a world of evil and good.

Both authors have illustrated a world in which the audience can be reminded and informed about what the world used to be. They share a mutual purpose in entertaining and captivating the audience through hidden symbols, which have been used to enhance the filmography and storyline to keep the audience engaged and provoke certain emotions. Both authors portray the idea of innocence, evil and good through the symbolic means of objects and animals. Del Toro depicts the idea of innocence through the rose presented in Ofelia’s story and the fantastical underground world. During the film, as her pregnant mother rests Ofelia tells the story of a rose which blossoms every night on top of a tall mountain, and if attained by men can offer eternal life, however it has never been taken as it’s thorns are poisonous. Ironically, she tells this story to her unborn brother, another innocent character, the innocent protecting the innocent. The symbolic meaning of the rose is a metaphor for Ofelia’s life and her potential journey into adulthood, however her journey into adulthood is replete with fear and pain and so she escapes womanhood. Ofelia never makes it to this rose or potential womanhood as she dies. This is symbolic of Ofelia avoiding the adolescence she must grow into, and with it the responsibilities of being an adult. Being raised with little parental guidance, Ofelia’s instinct is to run back to the innocence she was born with, in which Del Toro alluded with the pain free underground fantastical realm. Not only does Ofelia’s innocence stop her from reaching womanhood, but the thorns on the rose represents the men which poison the world of women with war and misogyny, alluding back to her evil stepfather and the soldiers around her, a depiction of the evil in her world. Lee depicts the idea of innocence through the mockingbird, hence to kill a Mockingbird is to destroy innocence, implying that the characters of Tom Robinson, Dill, Boo Radley, Scout and Jem Finch are identified as the novel’s mockingbirds and the innocent. Similarly, both Lee and Del Toro prompt the audience of these concepts throughout the narrative. In Pan’s Labyrinth, the rose is mentioned in Ofelia’s story and the Ofelia’s many encounters in the fantastical world symbolizing her innocence reminding the audience of her innocence many times. Alike to Lee’s narrative the symbolism of the mockingbird is reminded many times by certain characters including Miss Maudi Mockingbirds don’t do one thing but…sing their hearts out for us. That’s why it’s a sin to kill a mockingbird and Mr Underwood the senseless slaughter of songbirds. Both Lee and Del Toro keep these symbols hidden and do not add emphasis onto it. In doing this it allows the audience to keep engaged and curious about the idea of innocence.

Characterisation is used by both Lee and Del Toro to portray the evil, good and innocent in the respective narratives. Although both Lee and Del Toro use young unreliable characters, it is Lee who gradually develops the progress of her main protagonist. Scout begins the novel as an innocent six-year-old, with no knowledge of evils in this world. As the novel proceeds, Scout encounters evil portrayed through the events of Tom Robinsons trial, an example of racial prejudice. However, it is her father’s wisdom which assists in Scout’s mitigation and understanding of evil. Lee uses this character development to symbolise that a person can survive the evils in this world, through the good in this world. This representation of evil, good and innocent is heavily contrasted in Del Toro’s film. Ofelia’s presence in the film also conflicts with evil around her, however in the form of fascism. Ofelia’s character development can be seen through her encounters with the fantastical world. As she visits it more and more, her sense of reality begins to diminish which leads her to her untimely death, embarking on a statement that innocence cannot exist. Little description is exposed by Lee about Scout’s appearance. However, she can be depicted as an outgoing, rough and curious child and is described to be bigger’n than the average first graders. Ironically, Scout’s last name is Finch which happens to be a small bird much like the mockingbird, this irony was used to symbolise Scouts innocence. Del Toro depicts Ofelia as a lover of books and fairy tales which can be seen through her reading and the bedtime stories she reads to her little brother. Her innocence is especially depicted through the naivety in imagining a fantasy world. Both Scout and Del Toro share a common thread in curiosity, an innocent trait which can be seen through Scout’s inquisitiveness where are the hymn books, and Ofelia’s curiosity to further explore the fantasy world. Both authors explore ideas including fascism and racial prejudice in the form of evil, consequently they too characterise certain characters to portray evil. In Lee’s narrative, Bob Ewell can be defined as the evil in which Scout, her family and Tom Robinson encounter. His character is displayed to be a self-serving sociopath Atticus was leaving the post office when Mr. Ewell approached him, cursed him, spat on him, and threatened to kill him. Through his misdirected feelings towards Tom Robinson, Lee depicts the evils of racism. In Del Toro’s film evil is depicted through the characterisation of Captain Vidal, a direct representation of fascist ideology. His obsession with rules and regiment can be seen through his cleanliness of his boots, time management and mannerisms. As Ofelia tries to escape the repression that surrounds her through her fantasy realm, Vidal tries to control her and those around him through violence and fear. Lee and Del Toro’s characterisation assists the audience through description, behaviours and actions to understand and depict who is good, evil and innocent in the respective narratives.

To Kill a Mockingbird and Pan’s Labyrinth both use the stylistics features of narrative point of view, symbolism, characterisation and other film and literary techniques to explore the aspects of Evil, Good and Innocence through ideas such as fascism and racial prejudice.

Harper Lee’s To Kill A Mockingbird depicts a range of themes like bravery, the law,racism,social inequality and so on. All of which she put in a way that all themes relate in one way or another, but I think the main theme in To Kill a Mockingbird is good and evil.

This book shows the early life of the writer Harper Lee, who lived in the south and through the 1930s, which was the time of the great depression and also when discriminatory laws, strict social codes and segregation where put to places.The laws were also called the jim crow laws which influenced the way Afican-americans lived and socialized with the whites. Some of which were seperate drinking foutains and restrooms and the fact that interracial mariages are illegal.With that being said, this just goes to show how seperated the whites are from the blacks simply because of their skin colour.

In the book, Lee describes Maycomb as a little town still steeped in prejudice and racism. The theme of good and evil starts from when Scout and Jem approach life innocently believing in the goodness of all people, thinking everyone is as good and just and adheres to the same values as their father Atticus does, not knowing that they are yet to face very racist and evil people ahead of them.The realization starts during Tom Robinson’s trial when the kids are bitterly disappointed that the jury which was made up of their mere townsfolk convicted the obviously innocent Tom Robinson. A line from chapter 22 describes how hurt Jem felt after this. He said “Atticus how could they do it, how could they?” Then atticus replies saying “I don’t know, but they did. They’ve done it before and they did it tonight and they’ll do it again and when they do it seems that only children will weep’’. This shows that Atticus isn’t really shocked about the verdict because he knows full well how racist the jury are. Jem and Scout held a strong belief in the goodness of all people, but this trial made them rethink his understanding of human nature.This outcome ends up giving him great sadness, grief and discomfort because of the true reality of racism and the fact that Tom never gets justice.There is also a quote that scout says in the book which is “Tom was a dead the moment Mayella opened her mouth and screamed” which just means that even if the black man is obviously innocent, the people always take a white woman’s word.

During the trial, Attcius opted to address the jury and everyone present one last time. He then proceeds with a speech that made him one of the most notable heroes of literature.He starts by reminding them that this case is a very uncomplicated one and is as simple as black and white’’.Atticus preceded by saying that all men are equal irrespective of their race,background or social status in the society because people like Walter Cunninghams are treated badly by the society because their current financial status. He talked about how the whites always have this evil assumption that all negroes lie and all negroes are immoral beings.It is wrong to judge a book by its cover.He says”But this is a truth that applies to the human race and to no particular race of men.He says this to further prove the point that all men are created equal and anyone whether he or she is white or black is capable of being immoral and practicing immoral acts like Bob Ewell who is a drunk.Finally he did say he knows that all men are not equal in the sense that me will make more money in life or will have better opportunities but it doesnt change the fact that all men are born equal.

In conclusion Harper Lee added the theme good and evil in the book simply to tell readers that the ability to be either good or evil does not depend on one race or skin, but the type of person you are.