Eplication of Andre Dubus’s Killings

Andre Dubus’s “Killings” is a very interesting look into the psychology that goes on after a person has been killed. The story discusses the ramifications of the original murder, the subsequent actions of “justice,” and finally what is left when it is all said and done.

Dubus’s “Killings” is a very clear example of how one family deals with the death of their youngest son. The entire story is written in a very disconnected method. Throughout the entire story Dubus never takes a side, never shows emotion or empathy towards anything. I feel this has a very important impact onto the actual story. Throughout the story, every time one of the killers refers to what they have done, there is never emotion in that person’s reasons. When Strout is talking to Matt, Strout’s only response is, “He was making it with my wife.” There is no pleading in that statement, only cold fact as if in that situation it was accepted by society. Then when Matt is explaining to Strout why they were leaving the town, Matt made the whole scenario out to be for his wife’s good. There is no real emotion in that statement, just sort of a, “This is how it has to be done.” Dubus’s style emphasizes that.

Although the story is very devoid of emotion, Dubus hint’s at emotions just out of reach. The most prominent hint is Frank and Mary Ann. Every time that either Frank or Mary Ann is mentioned, there is some great emotion accompanied with the person. Frank’s surrounded by love for Mary Ann and for her kids. He also shows a great protection for her kids. Mary Ann shows love for Frank and sadness/anger towards Strout. The story also contains a full circle of emotion. It begins with the funeral, an obvious source of sadness. From there, the sadness seems to vacate the story until the very last paragraph. It ends with Matt crying into his wife’s breast. I think Dubus did this to make the disassociated feelings that surrounded the murders even more apparent.

With the name “Killings” Dubus has already started his statement about these specific murders. If he were to use a phrase such as murders for the title, there would be an instant empathy towards the victim. Although he wants you to feel a little empathy towards Frank, I believe Dubus’s main point was to show the futility of enacting revenge. Throughout the whole story there is a motif of revenge that is masked behind the word justice. Since the earliest days of written record, there has been a philosophy, which has no become just a proverb, which stated, “An eye for an eye.” The whole idea behind this philosophy was that whenever a crime was enacted, the exact same crime was to be enacted upon the guilty party. As in the title exampled, if person A poked out person B’s eye, person A would have his eye removed. That idea of revenge is prevalent in this story. Rather than let what society has deemed justice, take it’s course, Matt decided that he could not wait any longer. Together with his friend Willis Trottier, Matt thought out a well calculated plan for murder.

Dubus’s plan behind making the narrator so disconnected was to get the reader to think. Too many times emotions have clogged up our morals and ideas. It is one of the oldest struggles, logic versus emotion. In this case Dubus decided to