Hellos and Detective Work This week’s readings are short who-dunnits (murder mys

Hellos and Detective Work
This week’s readings are short who-dunnits (murder mysteries? suicides?) You will have to do your best to figure out one of the two mysteries and back up your conclusions with evidence from the story you are discussing (try to quote directly from the stories–that is the best evidence). A typical posting should be about 350+ words long and, when appropriate, incorporate documented quotations from the readings.
Discuss one of the following:
1. In the Luisa Valenzuela story “All About Suicide,” who kills whom?
That may seem simple enough, but the story is very tricky. What makes it tricky? What leads you to your own conclusion? What doubts do you have about your conclusion and why?
Finally, what is the point of the story? This last question is very tricky.
2. Akutagawa’s “In a Grove” is like a murder mystery, but this mystery has a twist: three potential suspects actually claim to be the lone killers. Make a case for one of the three versions–the bandit’s, the wife’s, or the samurai’s. What evidence do you have (from their testimonies or the testimonies of others) to support your conclusion? What are some of the problems with the side you’ve chosen? Consider why each seems to claim guilt. Also, what do we actually learn from the side testimonies? Are they even relevant, or do they just add to the confusion? Why are they included?
Finally, what is the point of the story? This last question is very tricky (and I would not be too surprised if the answer was similar for both stories.
3. Please answer the prompt in no less than 10 sentences. Would you pull the Trolley lever? Why or why not? Explain your reasoning. Your reasoning should make use of specific examples
4.
A. Reply to this discussion. A typical response will be about 250+ words for each reply.
Hi Everyone,
My name is Je Wo. Ryunosuke Akutagawa provides us with testimonies and confessions in his mystery story “In a Grove.” I will be analyzing his piece as objectively and unbiased as possible through the eyes of an outside investigator. Rather than defend a certain viewpoint, I will be poking flaws in the different accounts and ultimately picking the best explanation and culprit for the murder/suicide. As a caveat, I must state that we know for a fact that testimonies can be erroneous when recounting events even when the witness means well. I only have these different accounts of the story to work with and will be filling in the voids through cross examination of the accounts provided and unfortunately, some speculation given the invested interest of the parties involved.
The story of the medium providing us with the victim’s own account adds to the wonder of Akutagawa’s work, but I will not be considering it in my analysis as said medium did not directly observe the actions with his/her own senses. The same can be said of the old woman’s testimony who speaks highly of her daughter and son-in-law. People have complex personalities and they may be inconsistent especially amid violence, rape, and death. A vague and biased judge of character from a grieving and worried old lady is irrelevant to my investigation.
I will be assuming that the confession of the woman at the Shimizu Temple is in fact Masago, the wife of the victim. She seems to hold herself accountable in her confession about murdering her husband. Her shame stands out. This shame of having been “dishonored” is present in all 3 confessions including the medium’s. According to her, she aids in the desired death of her husband who is resentful toward her for being a victim. I have no way of verifying her own suicidal attempt to stab her own throat or throw herself into the pond at the foot of the mountain, but I do know that she feels guilty for what happened to her. I will speculate here that the point of her confession is to further punish herself for the atrocities that have happened to her and she no longer has anything to live forward to. Her honor is ruined. She is distraught. Perhaps the punishment will be the ending of her life which she looks forward to.
From an investigative standpoint, the robber Tajomaru’s confession seems to provide us the most details and some that can be verified by the other accounts. The robber mentions, “I killed him, but not her.” (Akutagawa) Unlike my emotional assessment of the wife, here we have a seemingly stern and self-proclaimed criminal who confesses to a murder and “a satisfaction of his desire” with the woman. We can speculate that he was not lying when he mentions that the wife did in fact provoke him with her promise to marry him if he kills her husband. Reasoning can tell us that both her and her husband might have wanted the latter’s death after such shame and dishonor. She used the robber to kill her husband and ran away as her desire for this criminal was never there. We come back full circle to her confession. Perhaps she did have guilt over her husband’s death. Maybe it was through Tajomaru’s sword, but she sought punishment for herself as well. She is guilty, but not directly.
The difficult sword fight Tajomaru speaks of in his confession is verified by the apparent “battle……because the grass and fallen bamboo-blades had been trampled all around” (Akutagawa) that was assumed by the woodcutter witness. It is never verified through Tajomaru himself that he fell off the horse per the policeman’s testimony, but perhaps the sword fight had him injured him. The proposed murderer also admits to taking the sword, bow, and arrows from the dead samurai that the Buddhist priest had observed on the victim before his death. Considering the limitations of my investigation, I still conclude that the best explanation for the samurai’s death is murder in the hands of the robber Tajomaru.
Works Cited:
Akutagawa, Ryunosuke. “In a Grove.” Canvas, Uploaded by John Corbally 2, August 2017, https://ilearn.laccd.edu.
B.Reply to this discussion. A typical response will be about 250+ words for each reply.
Hello, my name is Jea short.
In the story “All About Suicide” by Luisa Valenzuela, Ismael kills the minister. The tricky thing is the story didn’t exactly say Ismael killed the minister and there wasn’t much detail about the whole situation. It just said “The act of putting it to his temple and pulling the trigger – another act, immediately following the previous one. Bang. Dead. And lsmael coming out of his office (the other man’s office, the minister’s) almost relieved, even though he can predict what awaits him.” (Valenzuela) This makes it seem like Ismael did kill the minister in his office and left the office when he was done. He had already planned it by leaving the gun in a place he knows and was ready to act. But at the same time was he was nervous with that act of killing. Before going through with it he thinks about what will happen if he does kills someone and what would happen to him after. When in the office Ismael pulled the trigger quick without even taking a second to think or change his mind about what he was doing. This was the conclusion that was made with the information that was given. The doubts are what if all of this was just a thought and he didn’t really kill the minister. What if what was being said was about what Ismael was thinking of doing to himself and the outcome of what would happen if he followed through with it. What was said here “First he grabbed the revolver that was in a desk drawer, rubbed it gently across his face, put it to his temple, and pulled the trigger. Without saying a word. Bang. Dead.” (Valenzuela) could have been talking about what Ismael was going to do to himself. At the same time, it doesn’t say anywhere Ismael pulled the trigger on himself, but it could just be a thought to him, don’t know for sure.
Work Cited
Valenzuela, Luisa. “All About Suicide.” Canvas, Uploaded by John Corbally 2, August 2017, https://ilearn.laccd.edu.