To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee and A Stranger in the Kingdom by Howard Frank Mosher - Essay Example

? Comparison between the Two Speeches of the English of the Concerned August Comparison between the Two Speeches The two extracts under consideration happen to be two memorable speeches culled from the two celebrated works of literature that are To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee and A Stranger in the Kingdom by Howard Frank Mosher. There is no denying the fact that as is discernible even from a cursory perusal of the given two texts, both the speeches tend to be addressed to a court jury in the defense of two seemingly innocent individuals who happen to stand on the receiving side of law primarily owing to being affiliated to a specific racial group. Seen in the larger context of the plot, it is noteworthy that the two defendants whom the lawyers voicing the two specific speeches are trying to protect stand a potential chance of getting convicted owing to the jury possibly being biased with respect to their race and ethnic identity. Hence, no wonder, the two speeches are indeed moving texts that intend to persuade the jury against succumbing to the prevalent racial biases and prejudices. Yet, there is no denying the fact that both these speeches tend to differ in their structure, form and content, and the strategy they resort to while trying to move the conscience of the jury. While the speech mad by Atticus in To Kill a Mockingbird is expansive, elaborate and emotive, the speech made by Charlie in the defense of Reverend Andrews is more factual, terse and tactical. The speech made by Atticus in To Kill a Mockingbird does indeed have an organic structure with a beginning, middle and an end. The character of Atticus systematically moves about to make an impression on the jury by making his speech to be placed at the end of his systematic enunciation of the facts and the available evidence before the jury. This strategy has a twin fold advantage in the sense that it not only segregates the two pivotal issues involved in the concerned trial that are the technical aspects associated with the trial and the larger issue of racial bias that could have a detrimental impact with regards to the defendant. Hence, without any doubt, this approach allows Atticus to methodically and systematically bring to fore the simmering issue of racial prejudice in the court house, which was not only till now being sidelined or taken for granted, but is also bound to have a decisive impact on the trial. The character of Atticus astutely adapts one’s mannerisms and body language to suit the gravity of the situation as is evident from, “… he did something he didn’t ordinarily do. He unhitched his watch and chain and placed them on the table….” In terms of content, the speech made by Atticus could be regarded to be emotive, while at the same time being factual in the sense that it lays bare the incidence and prevalence of racism in the society of his times, while urging the jury to rise above such narrow considerations, so as to decide the case while taking into consideration the available factual evidence. Commensurately, while making this speech, Atticus comes out as an authoritative speaker who has a firm grip over the social undercurrents of his times as he says, “She has committed no crime, she has merely broken a rigid and time honored code of our society… ” While doing so Atticus rises above the role of an ordinary lawyer intending to protect one’s client to be a voice of reason and sanity, not only having a firm grip over the essentials of the law of the land, but also symbolic of an attitude that supports an objective and unbiased approach towards legal issues that he believes to be the guiding principle behind the law that he intends to uphold. It goes without saying that Atticus is amply aware of the mindset of his audience that is the jury and hence had tailored his speech to usher in a voice of reason and fairness into an opinion that had already been presumed to be calcified and crystallized, in an informal if not in a solemn manner. The speech made to the jury is marked by an animation on the part of the speaker that is restrained, natural and ideally suited to the situation in which the central characters are placed. Yet, in the overall context of the plot, it happens to be atypical in the sense that it pulls out the very dynamics of racial prejudice into an open courthouse, without trying to sound upright or self conceited. Overall the speech made by Atticus could be classified as being authoritative, moving, factual, poised and effective. In contrast, the speech made by Charlie in the defense of Reverend Andrews is bolstered with the intermittent ejection of factual evidence relevant to the case under consideration, while being sans any pretentions, any desire to sway the intended audience with its emotive force, or any intention to come out as being an authority with regards to the quintessence of the law of the land. It certainly needs to be mentioned that the speech made by Charlie is a fine example of the factual and evidence based defense evinced by a lawyer in favor of one’s client. Hence, it gets amply clear that the primary forte of Charlie in this speech is his confidence as a lawyer to be able to move the jury above the narrow constraints of racial consideration by the dint of factual evidence surrounding the case. Unlike Atticus, who ignored the essential personality of the defendant to elaborate on the much larger issues of racial bias and prejudice, Charlie continually belabors on the uprightness and dignity of the defendant, thereby evincing a much greater confidence in the fairness of the law. In case of the speech made by Atticus, the lawyer not only intends to present the factual evidence before the jury in a systematic and organized manner, but, also desires to put the weight of one’s identity as a member of the local community and a believer in the essential mores of the American law behind one’s client. In contrast, Charlie totally effaces one’s identity as a community member thereby nudging the jury to weigh the case in the light of the legal evidence, thereby coming out as an astute practitioner of law. Charlie certainly has a grip over the social mores governing the society as he says that, “The most unfortunate and dangerous thing about any kind of human intolerance is that you’ll find it wherever there are humans….” Hence, while Atticus coming out as a more seasoned individual and lawyer who tends to boldly confront the jury with the possibility of it getting swayed by the popular expectations and pressures, Charlie evinces the unyielding confidence of the youth, doing one’s best to strengthen his case with the quoting of the affiliated facts and evidence, thereby making racism an associated fact that could have a debilitating impact on the prospects of his client. It also needs to be mentioned that throughout his speech, Charlie betrays no attempt towards the usage of the appropriate body language and mannerisms, thereby relying solely on the power of the available evidence and the natural course of the law. It also gets amply clear that Charlie’s notion of equality is more factual and matter of fact while Atticus’ notion of equality as elaborated upon in his speech is more pragmatic, practical and indicative of a more mature state of mind. Overall, both the speakers evince an unshaken and deep confidence in the integrity of their cause and a desire to do their best to safeguard and protect the well being and integrity of their clients. However, the speech made by Atticus lays bare both the factual evidence and the larger social issues impending on it, while the approach of Charlie comes out as being more technical and systematic in a legal context. It would certainly be correct to say that both these speeches will continue to have a deep impact on the readers for the times to come. While the speech of Atticus is imbued with maturity and an authoritative confidence, the one made by Charlie impresses with its youthful exuberance and a systematic attention to details. On the one side Atticus uses one’s existence as a member of the local community to make the jury take a higher ground in the light of one’s integrity and commitment, while on the other side Charlie, effaces one’s social existence, to come out as a textbook lawyer, to commensurately make the jury behave as a legal entity required to decide upon the verdict strictly in the light of the available evidence. While Atticus in his speech presents a vision of equality that is pragmatic, and constitutional in its scope and intentions, Charlie places before the jury an idea of equality that is factually, technically and legally imperative. Atticus resorts to a tactical usage of body language and mannerisms to make his point, while Charlie subdues his physicality to highlight the factual details of the matter. Read More