Table of Contents
Literary Analysis Essay:
In “Twelve Angry Men” by Reginland Rose there are many different topics, but some of them play more important roles than other. As an example of such a significant element may be a relationship between 3rd and 8th Jurors. This essay is going analyze interrelationship between protagonist and antagonist of “Twelve Angry Man”.
Without knowing the character there is no opportunity for analyzing, so before discussing relations between 3rd and 8th Jurors it would be important to let reader know the character and personality of these two Jurors. First of all it is necessary to mention that Juror #3’s vote does not base on reasonable doubt, but on his personal relationships with his son. As it is known from the play when his son was 8, he attempted to escape a fight and his try was successful, that is why Juror #3, whose name stays unknown, decided to treat his son in an offensive way, to make a man out of him. The quote “You ever hear a kid call his father sir?” proves his point of view clearly. When Juror #3 was a child he was calling his father “Sir”, so here he means that amount of respect provided by son to his father significantly reduced. Furthermore can be guessed that his father also treated him in an inappropriate way and Juror #3’s relationships with his father affect relationship with his son as well as the decision of his as a Jury in this case. Here Juror #3 shows how American system of Jury goes wrong.
However Juror #8, whose name is Davis, is an absolute opposite of Juror #3. Mr. Davis tries to use his logic and puts his personal life aside. Juror #8 has got a reasonable doubt and in act one even when he stays alone he does not step back. And for sure Juror #8 is an example of perfect, fair jury, and he is an example of ID personality.
127 our experts are availableright now
After being familiar with an identity of both jurors it would be logical to start analyzing a connection between them. As it already was mentioned in introduction part the element itself is not just relationship between any two jurors, it is relationship between protagonist and antagonist of the book. Here comes question: “How can protagonist and antagonist have any relationship between each other”. However relationships does not mean only similarities or positive aspects between related to both personalities. Relationship includes general treatment of characters towards each other. Their points of view are completely different and when Juror #8 stays alone after first vote he does not show any kind of disrespect towards other members of Jury court, instead, as it already has been mentioned, he has got a reasonable doubt and only wishes “fair game” in order to find truth, however after Mr. Davis brings several evidences proving that boy may be not guilty, some jurors change their vote and after this moment Juror #3, who is aggressive by personality, becomes even more aggressive. And it is understandable reaction, because he believes that boy is guilty but cannot ensure others as he does not have any evidences. After Davis calls Juror #3 “sadist”, Juror #3 shouts “God damn it! I’ll kill him! I’ll kill him”. In a few seconds Juror #8 asks “You don’t really mean you’ll kill me, do you?” Here reader understands how Juror #3 is emotionally unstable towards people and specially Juror #8. More exact, in some way he hates Juror #8 for reasons provided before. However in comparison to Juror #3, Mr. Davis does not provide any personal hatred towards Juror #3.
In conclusion it now clearly proven that relationships between protagonist and antagonist are usually negative, but negative is not always coming from both characters. But it also would be right to mention that without such a rioter the play would not be able to catch reader’s attention and fortunately Reginland Rose knew it and his work “Twelve Angry Men” got famous all around the world.
Reflection:
In my opinion this analyzing project was really successful because I try to not make mistakes I have done in previous projects, and my works become better and better. I attempted to not have any grammar mistakes, but with such amount of it is pretty difficult to mention each of them. Also I was using a lot of synonyms instead of tautology, furthermore I included a lot of conjunctive adverbs. Generally project was very successful.
