For the last post of this novel, discuss with your classmates through this blog whether or not Griffith’s demise was indeed justified. Support your ideas and theories with evidence from the novel. Remember to make the entry a discussion; questions are welcome.
81 comments:
I think it was justifiable. Griffin was rpbbing and killing pepole for no reason other then to create fear
robbing sorry
I am looking more in-depth answers here. Look deep, don't generalize and give me these round about answers. I want specifics; details, examples, demonstrate your understanding of the novel and the various points made within it. Think of this blog as an online Socratic Seminar. If you could dig deep with "The Cask of Amontillado" you should be able to delve deeper into The Invisible Man.
I think that Griffin’s demise was perfectly justifiable. He had already killed and injured several people and had the intentions of killing and injuring many more in his reign of terror scheme. Griffin had escaped capture several times before and after escaping had continued to rob, hurt, and kill people so I believe that once they finally got him nailed down it was fitting that he was killed. His death meant that there was absolutely no chance that Griffin could escape in the future and hurt anyone else.
Yes and no. Although i would like to lean towords the thought that it was for the best. He would have most likely went on to hurt more people and struggle inwardly for the rest of his life. However, no one deserves to die such a death as that. Even thought they did not mean to necessarily kill him, it was still wrong to beat him to death. Also, how do we know that he wouldn’t have changed given the chance to become excepted into regular society? because i think that that was what the entire problem was. he just wanted to fit in somewhere and when he couldnt he got extreamly ticked, and hurt others.
I think Griffin's demise was not justifiable. In my opinion, although he caused the invisibility himself, Griffin could not help that he was different. Despite the horrible things he did throughout his life, Griffin was just like each and every one of us. He wanted to be accepted as a person, so when he wasn't he took steps to feel contentment. I think he, like all of us, made mistakes, but I believe in second chances. In a way, killing Griffin represents killing those who are different. So I do not think his demise was justifiable.
I don't think Griffin's demise was justifiable. Everyone makes mistakes, we're only human. Griffin made many mistakes in his life, he could've changed for the better but he didn't. Someone like Griffin needs help not death. He seemed like the type of person who really needed to see what he was doing and how it was effecting people to change his ways. I don't believe anyone, no matter what they have done in the present or past, should be killed, not even if they have a court hearing. If they did something really bad, life in prison I think is enough.
I think Griffin had what was coming to him and what happen to him was fair. He was planning on starting a reign of terror and killing innocent people for no reason whatsoever. He needed to be stopped, and that was the way that was chosen for him.
Griffin’s demise was very justifiable. He was a crazy man who would do anything to gain power for himself. He killed people, stole, destroyed people’s houses and lives, enslaved Marvel, and even stole from his father and didn’t care when he killed himself. He also wanted to make others lives miserable, just so he could have power, and wanted to kill anyone who opposed him. He was a terrible person, and the world was better off with him removed from it, even if he was brutally beaten to death.
Reponse to Leah's post,
I absolutely disagree with Leah's arguement that the killing of Griffin was wrong. He may have felt different but he had no one to blame for that but himself. She states that when he wasn't accepted Griffin toke steps to feel contentment. If I read the same novel she did, then those steps included hurting, robbing, and killing innocent people without remorse. These acts of unjustified violence by Griffin is absolutely unacceptable by my standards.
In a way I think that Griffin's demise was justifiable but on the other hand I don't. Yes Griffin did horrible things such as killing people and robbing them but he did not deserve to die like that. Even though the people didn't know at the time they killed him they shouldn't have been beating on him like that. They should've let Griffin live and given him some other sort of pushiment such as life in prison. Instead of killing him they should've just gave Griffin the chance to try to change and better himself. Really all Griffin wanted to do was to fit in with others rather than being an outcast. His pushiment should not have been death. I believe there were many other ways Griffin's demised could have happened so he wouldn't have been killed even though he might have deserved it in the end.
Response to Leah's post,
I absolutely disagree with Leah's argument that the killing of Griffin was wrong. He may have felt different but he had no one to blame for that but himself. She states that when he wasn't accepted Griffin took steps to feel contentment. If I read the same novel she did, then those steps included hurting, robbing, and killing innocent people without remorse. These acts of unjustified violence by Griffin are absolutely unacceptable by my standards.
Ignore prior response to Leah
I do not think that murdering people justifies murder but he more or less deserved it. He felt that everything he did(killing, robbing, enslaving) was just something that had to be done in return for his own pitiful life. The situation could have been handled better but the townsfolk are not a t fault for killing him because he was invisible and they could not see the extent of his injuries. Griffin brought his own death upon himself because of the absolute terror he inspired in the people. They killed because they were afraid of what he was.
I agree with Candace on this one. Though I doubt he possesed the ability to change. he had had sucha rough life and he felt that what he did was right and that there was no other way. Even if he had not been killed and had been given a chance to restart his life, he was so deranged that he probably would not have changed.
I agree with Jamee on this one. I think that it was wrong for Griffin to be killed and that he is the kind of person who needs to be shown the mess he left behind him. Even though he made huge mistakes I really don't think death was the right solution. As Jamee said Griffin needed help and that's what should've been done.
I think it was justifiable. The Invisible man (Griffin) was killing many people and he had a horrible plan to create a Reign Of Terror. He was using his gift of invisibility all wrong and he deserved to suffer the consequences that came with his mistakes. But at the same time i think it is not justifiable because all Griffin wanted was to be excepted and when he was he was betrayed, for example by Kemp.
Response to Caleb: I agree with your comment fully. If Griffin was not killed he would just keep killing, there was almost no stopping him if they did not capture or kill him.
I think it was very justifiable because he was terrorizing innocent people. All he wanted to do was create fear and no one should have to be afraid of being attacked by someone they can't even see. If he wasn't killed would have kept killing more and more people.
I agree with Britt DeNeen that Griffin had to be stopped because if he didn't he would had kept killing innocent people.
This is so tricky for me. I could be swayed either way on how justified Griffens demise was. My first instinct is that it is. but then that ' i feel so bad for him' starts to kick in. He was just trying to fit in although it wasnt very efftective. He just got shut out time and time again. Can you imagine being so lonely, with no one but your self to talk to b/c no one else could accept you? The is someone for everyone right? Not Griffen. I truely feel for him. Then if i set all of my emotions aside i realize that He was so harsh and selfish. He made many terrible descions (or mistakes?) He murdered, arsoned, and so many more harmful things. He deserved what he got. Also in the other men's defense that had beaten Griffen up so badly he died. He was invisible so they had no inkling of what they were pulling on or beating. This truly is rough but in the end i do think that Griffen's demise was justified.
This is me commenting on Jenna Feights opinion.
I do agree with her. Griffen was totally wrong to be doing what he was doing but it was caused by a massive build of up unreleased feelings. He was so alone in the world and he thought that it would be easier to just be invisible then to go on being who he was. That is sad. Then when no one could accept his invisibility i think that was the last straw. Griffen just went crazy.
As a response to Candace. I agree. It was very hard for me to decide on whether or not his demise was justifiable. I ended up thinking it was wrong, but I went through the same things you said in my mind. Although he may have continued to do wrong, he also may have had something happen in his life to show how he was living was wrong. I think you made some good points.
Yes. Griffin was very dangerous and obviously very smart and strong. He was mad at the world, and personally I think he was a little insane. Would I want a crazy, invisible person walking around in my town? Definitely not. I usually don't think people deserve to die, but Griffin did. He discovered something and used it in all the wrong ways. All he wanted to do was scare people and steal things from them, and he was also breaking into peoples houses. All things that are not right.
No, Griffin's death was not justifiable because it was the same society that killed him, that drove him unto insanity, which lead him to commit murder. When Griffin first came to the town, he was a normal person, well, a little eccentric in actions, but the town's people know nothing of his true from. It wasn't until they found out his secret of invisibility did he start to retaliate against them and cause trouble. Sure, at first he wanted to scare people, but think about it, wouldn't you? He was just being childish, not evil. What made him turn to crime was when the town made him an outcast. So, I feel that his death was not justified because they (the town) drove him to crime by making him an outcast. If they hadn't I feel he might not have done so.
IMHO, I cannot fathom killing another human. No matter how involved, simple, or how mean the person was to me, I could never bring myself to do it. If I did, somehow, manage to kill someone, I would think I deserve death. Griffin’s demise was very justifiable. I don’t thin the stealing contributes to my reasons though, it was the killing that grinds my gears.
Well said Caleb. Good....good...
I think in the end he got what he deserved honestly. The things he had done towards the end of the book were unjustifiable like killing Mr. Wicksteed for no reason almost no reason at all. I believe that If u take a life for no reason then you deserve to die as well with out question. He had just done so many evil things throughout the book in addition to that as well. His future plans were more sinister than what he had already done, proving that he intended to kill and hurt others so that he would be made famous. He didn't deserve to live any longer, he could have done so many great things with his power but he had lost all value for human life.
Brit, how can you say that when it was society that turned him into the monster he became? That's unfair to Griffin! He didn't ask to become a freak. Yes, he did experiment with invisibility, but I don't think he planned on murdering people or going crazy.
In response to Caleb:
I agree with Caleb 100%. It was fitting that he died because of all the horrible things he had done. In the future he wanted to do worse even, so he got what he deserved in the end.
I think that in the perspective of human society the killing of Griffin was completly justifiable. He was killing and robbing people, but it is human soceities fault we pushed him too far by not accepting him. Griffin should of known he would of never been accepted but since they pushed him too that point, killing him was the option they had left.
Caleb brought up a good point when he said, "I believe that once they finally got him nailed down it was fitting that he was killed." I agree with that but the people that kiled Griffin are just as bad as him in the end. It doesn't make them any better by finally getting rid of him. They could have done something to make Griffin a better person. Maybe use his invisibility for the good.
in response to Caleb, I completely agree he could not be allowed to do as he pleased just because the world did not accpet him for his invisbility. It was his fault in making himself invisble.
Griffin's death was justifiable. He manipulated people to get whatever he wanted. If he had been nicer to people from the start they wouldn't have disliked him or wanted him dead in the first place. No good would have come from him staying alive, although he was a geneous he would have been so involed with trying to bettering his life through science that he wouldn't have used his knowledge for good. Also he was pretty much dead from the start, no one could see him and he couldn't reverse it, the people that killed him did everyone a favor.
I believe that Griffin death was justified in the fact that he was going mad with thriving power. He thought he was invincible because he was invisible. He had to be stopped in some way so he didn't murder. Killing him maybe wasn't that best way to go, because now he can't tell of his amazing discovery. I also believe that killing him was out of being afraid of his difference in the world. His ability caused him to go crazy for power, but his difference from the world was his ultimate downfall.
Griffin’s demise was justifiable in most respects. By making some of the choices that he made during the novel Griffin chose to corrupt and destroy his moral character. He was able to rationalize murder to the extent that he didn’t have a problem with killing innocent people and was prepared to repeat the offence. Someone who could rip apart people’s lives with such a guiltless ease could not possible expect mercy from his fellow man. If he hadn’t been trying to practically take over no one would have wanted him dead in the first place. Basically his death was the consequence for his actions. Even if he had lived what quality of life would he have had? One must assume that if he had lived at some point in his life he would have come to regret what he had done. Between remorse and total social isolation he would have had nothing to live for, after a while Griffin would be tired of his senseless self-centeredness.
On the other hand at no time in Griffin’s life was the world kind to him. Because of his being an albino and later his invisibility Griffin never really fit into the world. But that is no reason to make the choices he made. Life’s tough, get over it. Even though Griffin had always seen the down side of society he was in no way forced to turn out the way he did. He still had choices and needed to stop blaming the world for his problems. Just because you had a hard life doesn't mean that you can kill people without normal punishment.
I disagree with Allison Griffith...
Because he could have ignored the way society treated him because he was albino. Instead he let people judge him and became insecure about his differences. Also people didn't just start not liking him when they found out he was invisible, they thought he was shifty when he wore his trench coat & bandages. It was his actions that led people not to like him, not his appearance.
Griffin's demise was very well justified. After his invisibility came about, he went around robbing and killing people for what it seemed to be no reason other than to hide his power. That is completely not right, justice had to be done. Let's just say someone from Bedford had the capability of becoming invisible. Once they had this invisibility they just went around killing people and robbing homes and stores. I'm sure that the people of Bedford would want that person dead or atleast put in jail with the knowledge of no possible escape. His demise was justified.
Griffin's demise was very well justified. After his invisibility came about, he went around robbing and killing people for what it seemed to be no reason other than to hide his power. That is completely not right, justice had to be done. Let's just say someone from Bedford had the capability of becoming invisible. Once they had this invisibility they just went around killing people and robbing homes and stores. I'm sure that the people of Bedford would want that person dead or atleast put in jail with the knowledge of no possible escape. His demise was justified.
Sorry about my first one, I forgot to put my name. :)
I agree with Shelly. Griffin put himself in danger from the start by making himself invisible and no way to reverse it. How was he going to survive anyway? He should have been nicer to others and maybe they would have helped him, but he put others in danger it was time for him to go.
I don’t think, in real life, that any death is justifiable. The gift of life is too precious for someone to just rip it away. Even though Griffin did oodles of bad, awful things, there’s always an opportunity for change. Griffin let Kemp into his life and trusted him with his secret. Kemp could have tried to help Griffin see what good he could do instead of bad. The people could have imprisoned him instead of just killing him. They had him pinned down so it wouldn’t be that difficult to capture him and put him in jail. Griffin deserved a suitable punishment for him crimes, but I don’t think death is a suitable punishment for any crime.
I think it was in a sense but not in another. Griffin doesn't deserve to die. He deserves a second chance as does every human being, because we all make mistakes. But on the other hand, if the would have captured him and tried to turn him back visible, couldn't he just escape and start his reign of terror all over again out of spite? I think the only way to end it completely was to kill him, but i would never want to do that and if it all came down to my decision, i wouldn't kill him.
Although I agreed with Shelly, Julie made a very good point to life being too precious to just be ripped from him. He could have changed if given the chance.
I agree with both Allie and Candace, no one should be killed just because the killed others. Also i don't he would have changed even with the chance. So it was probably for the best, but i still could go either way no matter how many times the subject is brought up.
I agree with Jamee. Everyone does make mistakes. If someone would have offered him some guidance it could have truly helped him. I also agree with Jamee that no matter what, no one should be killed.
And i agree with Hillary too, i wouldn't want a crazy invisible person anywhere near where we live! But who's to say he won't change? I hate these questions, and crazy socratic seminars online.
In response to Allie's comment...
I agree with her that the situation could have been handled better. Griffin could have been spared his life by maybe being locked up in some mental institute or something along those lines. I also agree with her that Griffin brought this (his death)upon himself by abusing his powers.
In short terms, Griffin had it coming to him. His demise was very justifiable. There is no right reason to kill people. He was the reason for his own father's suicide. I don't understand how he could even live with himself after that let alone kill other people. He was out of controlled and needed stopped.
In response to Jenna Feight...
You should not fear something you can not see. You should only fear fear itself. He had no right to do the things he did to those people.
I think that it was justifiable because he had gone crazy. He was killing people and he would have kept going if they didn't do something. If they did nothing they couldn't have stopped him later.
I think that his demise was justifiable in a sense, but only after what he did. If he hadn't killed people and robbed them, then I think that his invisibility would have been accepted among the public. But he should have shown the public in the first place to stop their harrassment of his ideas. In another sense, he was already persecuted in his life becuase he was an albino. Perhaps he thought that if he turned himself invisible that he would be more accepted.
I agree with Brittany DeNeen. He needed to be stopped before he went out and started a reign of terror. He was going to kill people for no reason and that isnt justifiable so why should that happen to them and not him.
Response to Kirsten's comment:
I agree with her. He was using this wonderful gift all wrong and maybe if he had used it in another way then he maybe would have been accepted.
I understand that "death isn't a reasonable punishment" but Griffin clearly didn't care much about death. It said in the book that at one point he wanted to die, and if you don't really value life then do you really deserve one?
Griffin's demise to me was, in a way justifiable. In today's world, if someone commit's a crime, they get punished for it. When people kill, they sometimes face the death penalty anyway and society today tells us that this is a fair punishment. Sure, we all feel sorry for him because the only reason that Griffin did these things was because he felt outcasted and different. But in my eyes, there is no excuse for the crimes that he committed and he deserved to be punished.
As far as I'm concerned nobody won in this novel and sure Griffins death was justifiable but others died too, Kemp pretty much got his house destroyed, and many a town are now growing a lot more grey hair. It was a pretty entertaining story, probably because I read it in two days. To me it showed some similarities to Napoleon Dynamite... just a two month chunck out of some guy's life.
I agree and dissagree with Juli. I agree that any death isn't justifiable but only if it was an innocent death. You honestly can't expect to kill people, steal iteams from people, and wreck people's homes and get away with it. Maybe if life were like "The Grinch who stole Christmas" we would all see that he had a good heart and all get over it. But if i knew that someone with that kind of capibility were let free, I would move as far away as possible from him and it would be extremely difficult to think of him as anything but a killer and a thief.
I feel that Griffin's demise was most definitely reasonable. The man had killed and robbed innocent people. He didn't have any intention of stopping at any time either. He planned to terrorize the entire town. It appeared that the only way to stop him was to bring him to death.
I have a slight disagreement with Alex's post. I'm not saying that I think death should be the punishment for everything, but wasn't it justifiable in this case? How would the people have locked him up or punished him in another way with him being invisible? I'm not saything that there wasn't a way to do it different but wasn't it (this is slightly terrible to say) easier to just kill him? However at the same time were the people even trying to kill him or were they just trying to get him to stop because they were scared?
Griffin’s death was justifiable. He was killed for the safety of the innocent. He chose to be a murderer and he paid that price. He basically condemned himself to death by making that decision. I don’t think the police had any other option.
I agree completely with Hillary's response, he may not have meant to bring any harm, but he did and it was out of control and causing alot of problems for the town.
I believe that his demise was perfectly justifiable. He let his power go to his head, and he was robbing, injuring and killing innocent people for no reason whatsoever other than that fact that he knew/thought he could get away with it, but in the end he finally got caught. What he was doing to those people just wasn't right. I believe that he got what was coming to him. I mean, he threatened the town and all its people. Crazyness, is about the best word for it, or madness would do just fine.
I think that his death was definately justifiable.
I agree with Brit that he needed to be stopped and that was the best way because there would have been no other way to stop him forever.
i believe that Giffins death was justifiable. griffin had killed and injured many people just for his own personal gain.Just because he didnt want to be figured out does not mean he needed to kill or tie up someone. he ws planning on spreading the Reign of Terror. Had he not died he would have terrified and then dominated every towm that he could. Killing him was the only way to terminate his reign of terror plan and save many lives. Putting him in jail would not solve the problem because he could find a way to escape.
i disagree with Leah. I think the griffin did deserve death. He had a choice to make and he did not have to kill people to get want he wanted. All he had to do was find someone to trust and talk to. Had he found Kemp in the beginning he would not have had to kill people. he may have been different but his actions spoke louder than his appearence.
The moment that you begin to justify death is the moment that you become more and more like Griffin himself. Murder is not something that you can justify, something you don't have the right to justify. They might have had some conceived notions of justice and right and wrong, but in the end they gave into the basic instinct of destroying what they fear and hate. The same thing that Griffin had done. If you justify his death at their hands, you must also justify his crimes, because that is exactly what he did. He took the one thing that he could not wrap his mind around, he took the hatred he felt, and the pain of being alone and he turned it against the townspeople.
Griffin's demise was right to me. He had run long enough, and his plan was obsurd to kill everyone. If he would've lived longer or gone through with the plan things could've gone bad, fast! Catching Griffin was the best thing for everyone including himself. He wasn't going to reverse his thinking and spread fear like he wanted, he was going to kill and bring fury all over the place.
There are some reasons that Griffin's death was the right thing yet also the wrong thing. The police could have drug him into jail and locked him up there and leave him to his studies to find a way to become visable again and free him, and just hope that he doesn't continue to be a madman, but if he doesn't find a way than he'll be doing life without parole. Also for his death being the right thing, like everybody said, anyone that is going around killing and robbing deserves to die themself.
I'm gonna have to disagree with Leah, because he could have been a nice invisible man. He should have told people what he was trying to accomplish and maybe even make money for what he has discovered possible, not be all creepy and secretive about it. He was not just different he was nuts.
Responding to Amy Miller's post. I agree with her because she talked about both ways of his death being right and wrong.
Yes I think griffins death was justifiable. Man is not meant to have as much power as griffin had. I believe that he (like any other man)could not handle the power that had been given to him and it made him become savage. He murdered, wonded, and stole. If a normal person (meaning one that is not invisible) did all of those things would he not be sentenced to death? The same justice should go for an man, no matter what the cercamstances.
I do not agree with allison G...
Everyone has a choice, when the town made him an outcast he had two choices. He could murder and steal or he could turn his life around by apologizing for stealing by returning the money and set off on a regular life. Just because this man is invisible does not mean he should get special privilages. Any man that does wrong should face the consequences, invisible or not.
I agree with Alex Stroup
I would have definitely not wanted the job of doing Griffin off, but it had to be done, he was enough of a brilliant man that he would've found some way out of any kind of imprisonment.
In response to Allison Griffith. Griffin was a terrible man long before he came to that town, and even before he was invisible. He stole from his father, and he stole from the man that owned the costume shop, and even tied him up. Griffin was not a good man before he came, to that town, and he was stealing from the people in the town.
Yes, Griffin's demise was justifiable. He had planned on doing quite a bit of damage to the world, claiming he wanted to start a "Reign of Terror" (which I immediately connect back to Hitler). Someone with intentions such as he did, with the advantage of being invisible to those around him doesn't deserve to have a life. If he had given the people of the town a different choice, other than to hunt him down and kill him (or face the consequences of a new ruler with terrifying intentions), then I could see his death being unjustifiable. But in reality, he gave them no choice. He was murdering people when he felt he needed to do so, and destroying properties, stealing whatever he could get his hands on, and plotting to do more of all of the above by making himself ruler, too. The man was out of control and possibly insane. With that, plus the murder, terrorizing, property damage, and Griffin's need to steal what he wanted or needed, him being gone could only be positive for all the people of the town - he wasn't being hunted down for selfish reasons. In addition, at his last moments, Griffin was trying to kill Kemp. If Griffin hadn't been killed then, Kemp would have been, which brings in the factor of simple self defense. One or the other was going to die. All things considered, Griffin's death was definitely justifiable.
Response to Jamee's post;;
I see where you're going with the whole no human deserves to die, no matter what they've done. But Griffin made himself practically inhuman, with all the murders he planned, and all the terrible things he wanted to do. I dont believe Griffin was up for help, especially because they can hardly get near him without getting hurt, and containing him was completely out of the question, I think.
IMHO = In my honest opionion
I'm not really sure what to put if I agree with what someone said.
Further more, Caleb, I agree with you. My set of moral standards appears to closly mimic yours and I feel his actions were completley unfit and, well, dare I say it, stupid.
I think his death was justifiable because he was a hazard. He was legally insane and homicidal. The people didn't really mean to kill him either, but still they did the right thing in the end.
It was not entierly his fault that stealing and other petty crimes was for a time his only means of survival. With time Griffin may have found a way to coexist with the other, but anger blinded the people of England and the show of violence against him was completly uncalled for. Griffins brutal killings were in no way excusable but that doesnt mean that the answer to murder is more murder.
In response to Alice's post, I understand where your argument that it was the society which drove him to insanity, but a sensible man like Griffin should have had the self control to maintain a stable head and not act upon violent impulses to solve his problems.
Post a Comment