Category: Blog ENG 409

In the three sections that we read for class, the main focus was the effect of empathy on the reader. More specifically what type of story/narrative needs empathy and what the best way to use it is. For some writings, empathy is incredibly important in getting the point across and getting readers to feel the way they need to feel to fully grasp the story and all the content. But is empathy a good skill to use in legal and law writings or will it sway people in the wrong direction?

If too much empathy and feeling is found in a legal writing, it can be considered influential and biased and give off the wrong image. For instance, when giving testimony or final words in the court room, just the right amount of feeling will get empathy from the jury which will sway results from one side to the other. By telling a story with enough emotion that it emotionally and physically changed the person, could easily make someone believe that one person is innocent when they are not and vice versa. But further out, if the transcript or a review of a case has too much empathy, it might be considered that the writing or writer believed more in one side then the other, which can negatively influence the reader.

This theory can apply to legal systems outside of the court like getting support and votes on certain laws or politics. If you can get the right people to feel enough emotions then you can get them to support almost anything whether it worthy or not. A person feeling strongly a certain way towards a certain thing will most likely get them to further act on it. It is essentially mind control, but with emotion.

Write a post in which you use Abbott and Keen to describe the concept of the masterplot or stock story. Then use these concepts as a lens for analyzing at least one masterplot or stock story that we encountered in our reading so far: what stock story? what are its characteristics? how is being deployed in your chosen example?

The most obvious masterplot/stock story that I was able to pull out from Arthur & George was that of the common individual who was wrongfully persecuted for a crime. Most often, this whole scenario is caused by some sort of prejudice against the individual in question. While the main example of this situation in the book, was of George who was charged with slaughtering farm animals and harassing his own family. Along with this, there were some possibilities of him being a part of a gang. George’s case was synonymous with the others that were referenced as Arthur’s other people that he ‘rioted’ and fought for. Any time he read about a case that he found to be misrepresented or felt like justice wasn’t served politically correctly (prejudice), he stepped in. All these cases were similarly structured which is why they can be considered a masterplot. It starts with an individual who does not quite fit in and is a little different from everyone else. The local police keep an eye on him for any suspicious behavior as he grows up. A violent and unexplainable crime happens around where that individual lives and the police consider him a suspect just to be safe and because they have always been watching him. As evidence starts coming in, the police start to influence/see a connection that leans more towards the individual which leads to the decision that it has to be them. Then the individual goes to court and even though the evidence is kind of circumstantial, they are found guilty and put in jail. This narrative/ masterplot applies to George and many situations, not even just those that are in this book, because it is common tale. Very similar to the underdog type story. Additionally, on some stories, there is a hero (in this case it was Arthur) that comes in protesting and testifying for the individual and helps them get to the freedom that they deserve. While all these stories are parallel, they have some differences which makes them unique and exciting including the individuals, the crimes, and the more specific details.

Arthur Conan Doyle relies heavily on this case of George Edalji to bring him out of the slump that he has been in after his wife’s death. Even to the extent that he does not listen to anything else that anyone has to say. As he is interviewing individuals, even as they seem to disagree with what he says or say something to go against his objective, he only hears what he wants/needs or justifies himself. While he might entirely be right, through some of the interviews and investigative activities that he has conducted, he is not helping his own case. Especially when he talked with Captain Anson, who was almost successful in convincing him that he might be misguided on his journey to prove George innocent. There were a few incidents where Arthur would be alone with his own thoughts and he start to reconsider his choices before settling on justification.

A huge point that Arthur focuses on is the prejudice and obvious focus that the police had on pinpointing George as the criminal. But in doing so, he intently focusing in on one individual, Royden Sharp, and then did exactly the thing that he claimed the police did. He seemed to have fit the evidence that he found/discovered around Sharp to shift the blame to him.

The confidence that Arthur has in George’s innocence can be sometimes vicious and extreme. He is unsatisfied with the results of the Committee reconsidering and demands more from them, in either reward or full innocence and being able to return to work. While I think it would be nice for this to be because Arthur honestly wants George to get the justice he deserves, but I am positive that he wants to keep on advocating because he is ‘addicted’ to it. It is something to entertain himself and give him something to concentrate on. This confidence also has effected George in some sense because while he was determined to have some sort justice from the whole situation, mostly being allowed to work as a solicitor again, once the report from the Committee he seemed much more interested in getting higher retribution than he previously wanted.

George and Arthur’s stories have drastically changed each other and how they approach certain events, especially in the case that they both share an interest in. George has been more interested in retribution for the 3 years he was in jail while Arthur wants to gain an ending to a tale that he has created from a real-life-person.