I’m the King of the Castle Essay

Qn In her after word, the writer talks about the iniquity for I think I evil-of Hooper. What do you think the novel says about the character of evil in people?In my perspective, I do not believe that people atomic number 18 born evil. Evil is undisputedly an arbitrary term whereby different people have different scope of what evil is. Susan knolls definition of evil is that of Hooper -being sadistic and afflicting harm in others, as seen in Hooper. Yet, I feel that Hills definition of evil is instead cynical and biased. Hill should not even relate Hooper to evil in the first place, as the child is still growing up and does not spot how to differentiate between sincere and bad, and the fact that he does not receive any love and care sort of make him an emotionless person.Thus strictly describing him as evil is somewhat biased. I think better adjectives to describe him are probably contumacious and unfeeling. In my essay, Ill first prove that Hoopers cruelty is due to his omit of fundamental love and care and that it is due to some circumstances that drove him to be who he is. Secondly, Ill prove that Hooper cannot be really blamed for his evilness, and lastly, Ill counter opposing arguments put across and further reinforce on my motion.Firstly, the fact that Hooper is cruel cannot be denied. Yet, cardinal essential take into consideration that it is the environment and external influences that led him to be evil. Hooper is born into a dysfunctional family. His mother died when he was very vernal, and that deprived him of mother-love, which is often idea to be very important and influential during a childs growing phase. In addition, Hoopers situation is made worse due to lack of fathers care and understanding. Hooper is thus deprived of any love and care, which any other normal child would have gotten. Thus, he could only flexure to being evil, probably to attract attention from his only kin, which is his father.Hoopers hostile attitude towards Kin gshaw indeed makes readers feel indignant. However, the crucial train here, which I feel, is why Hooper is so mean towards Kingshaw. It is a fact that all living beings need companionship. Hoopers cruelty towards Kingshaw could be a way he shows esteem. Well, we never know for sure how some people choose to show affection. And cruelty could be how Hooper chooses to show. Furthermore, Hooper has never ever experienced the true feeling of love and care.So most probably, he doesnt know anything about love. So, that explains why he thinks cruelty is a form of affection. Taking for instance the case of ailing pets. Veterinarians and pet lovers, in a bid to stop their precious pets from suffering more pain, put them to sleep. This, irrefutable, is a cruel thing, but it is a way pet lover show their affection towards their pets. Now, are their actions really evil and inhumane? I, basically, think this action is not a cruel thing, but rather, something piteous as it helps to alleviate th e pets pain.Basically, this sentence sums up that the fact that I do not believe that people are born evil, but rather it is nurture, rather nature, that turns people evil.In addition, Hoopers actions, to me, can be justified as being selfish rather than evil. We all know that Hooper is possessive. He wants Warings to himself and does not xerox any attempt drive away redundant people living in Warings. His actions are certainly more of Selfishness than Evilness. The fact that Hooper is merely a young child further accentuates and explains why he is so selfish. Afterall, young child are more self-centered and possessive. This can be illustrated by the fact that a young child only accepts their parents full, unscattered love and concern, and more often than ever, news of the arrival of another child, only make them fret about the amount on concern they would receive. Thus, Hoopers selfishness is somehow understandable.On the other side of the coin, Kingshaw is undoubtedly kind. Criti cs have commented on Kingshaw as having natural goodness. Now, the question is, if people are born evil, then why is Kingshaw still so kind? Kingshaw has been inundated with taunts and torments from Hooper. Yet, there is still this tinge of kindness inside him that made him remain good right from the start, albeit he did harbour some ill intentions of harming Hooper initially (had only to move his handso that he would topple through the well of the stairway, chapter 2). So, if people were to born evil, then, why is Kingshaw still benevolent? Therefore, my motion, that people are not born evil, is further reinforced here.In conclusion, Id similar to state that it is nurture, not nature, that made Hooper evil, and that people are certainly not born evil. Perhaps one simple analogy one to reinforce my point is that when an adopted child commits a crime, the ones he would blame are definitely his foster parents and not his natural parents. Why? Because its nurture rather than nature, t hat makes one who he is. With this, I end my essay.