Walter dean Myers monster why is James king the actually monster Counterclaim Argument format
Counterclaim: While James King is portrayed as a monster in Walter Dean Myers' novel "Monster," it can be argued that he is not actually the true monster of the story.
Argument:
1. Self-defense: Throughout the novel, it is revealed that James King was involved in the robbery that led to the death of a store owner. However, it is also revealed that Steve, the protagonist, was not directly involved in the robbery and did not have criminal intent. This raises the question of whether James King was acting in self-defense or under duress during the robbery, making it arguable that he is not the true monster.
2. Societal influences: James King comes from a disadvantaged background and is influenced by negative societal factors such as poverty and limited opportunities. These factors can contribute to individuals making poor choices and engaging in criminal behavior. It can be argued that James King's actions were a result of these societal influences rather than inherent evil, making him a victim of circumstances rather than a true monster.
3. Lack of intent: Throughout the novel, it is suggested that James King did not intend for the robbery to result in the death of the store owner. This lack of intent to cause harm challenges the notion that he is a true monster. While his actions may have had tragic consequences, it can be argued that James King did not possess the malicious intent typically associated with being a monster.
In conclusion, while James King is portrayed as a monster in "Monster," it can be argued that he is not actually the true monster of the story. Factors such as self-defense, societal influences, and lack of intent challenge the perception of James King as a monster and suggest that his actions were influenced by external factors rather than inherent evil.