Hooper is utterly immoral and depleted of conscience, unable to feel quilt or pity, although one can argue that the underlying causes, as well as the effects of that can evoke the reader’s sympathy for the boy.
Susan Hill (born 1942) is an English writer, known for her fiction and non-fiction novels, typically written in a descriptive gothic style. “I’m the King of the Castle” is considered one of her notable works, for which she was awarded the Somerset Maugham Award.
In “I’m the King of the Castle” Susan Hill explores the topics of evil, power and bullying, and digs deeply into children’s psychology as she tells a story of the 10-year-old Charles Kingshaw, bullied to death by his peer Edmund Hooper. Kingshaw, lonely and misunderstood, fights …show more content…
“He could not have imagined the charm it afforded him, having Kingshaw here, thinking of things to do to him.” – (page 25) Hooper sees his bullying as a game of forcing Kingshaw to do things by making the boy collide with his worst fears, which he quickly discovers. He enjoys dominance and possession, and seems to consider Kingshaw an obstacle to his solitary actions, but also a source of entertainment. As the title suggests, “I’m the King of the Castle” is a tale of dominance and control. Despite Kingshaw’s temporary moments of power, during which he thinks those very words, it is clear from the beginning that Hooper is the King. He is manipulative, harassing Kingshaw, forcing him to obey. Having no barriers, no conscience, no pity, he enjoys being cruel, having power.
Edmund Hooper grows up in isolation, lacking sensible connections to people, as his relationship with his father is cold and unaffectionate. Throughout the novel, Susan Hill raises the critical question whether it is our background that shapes our personality and mentality, or merely our genetics.
“(Joseph Hooper)… For he knew that he had failed, from the very beginning, to ingratiate himself with Edmund.” – (page …show more content…
Sympathy, being a question of personal consideration, can be felt merely because Hooper lacks conscience, and thus is unable to control his evil. Edmund Hooper definitely deserves sympathy, Edmund Hooper who cannot feel selfless happiness, a feeling that without any words can explain the meaning of life when one no longer can see it for oneself; Edmund Hooper who cannot establish social connections with people. Ironically, sympathy is just another one of the feelings Hooper himself is unable to feel.
However, this analysis brings up another, more basic question yet; what is evil? Can a living being that simply follows its instincts be evil? Is a lion evil? Is a spider? A crow? Maybe the expectations we have of humans are higher, based on our social norms, and thus a predator is not evil, but a predatory human is. Where is the barrier, the boundary between the good and the evil? Is Edmund Hooper evil, Hooper who bullied his friend to death and felt nothing but satisfaction? Is Edmund Hooper evil, Hooper who is just a child, shaped by his life and
Susan Hill (born 1942) is an English writer, known for her fiction and non-fiction novels, typically written in a descriptive gothic style. “I’m the King of the Castle” is considered one of her notable works, for which she was awarded the Somerset Maugham Award.
In “I’m the King of the Castle” Susan Hill explores the topics of evil, power and bullying, and digs deeply into children’s psychology as she tells a story of the 10-year-old Charles Kingshaw, bullied to death by his peer Edmund Hooper. Kingshaw, lonely and misunderstood, fights …show more content…
“He could not have imagined the charm it afforded him, having Kingshaw here, thinking of things to do to him.” – (page 25) Hooper sees his bullying as a game of forcing Kingshaw to do things by making the boy collide with his worst fears, which he quickly discovers. He enjoys dominance and possession, and seems to consider Kingshaw an obstacle to his solitary actions, but also a source of entertainment. As the title suggests, “I’m the King of the Castle” is a tale of dominance and control. Despite Kingshaw’s temporary moments of power, during which he thinks those very words, it is clear from the beginning that Hooper is the King. He is manipulative, harassing Kingshaw, forcing him to obey. Having no barriers, no conscience, no pity, he enjoys being cruel, having power.
Edmund Hooper grows up in isolation, lacking sensible connections to people, as his relationship with his father is cold and unaffectionate. Throughout the novel, Susan Hill raises the critical question whether it is our background that shapes our personality and mentality, or merely our genetics.
“(Joseph Hooper)… For he knew that he had failed, from the very beginning, to ingratiate himself with Edmund.” – (page …show more content…
Sympathy, being a question of personal consideration, can be felt merely because Hooper lacks conscience, and thus is unable to control his evil. Edmund Hooper definitely deserves sympathy, Edmund Hooper who cannot feel selfless happiness, a feeling that without any words can explain the meaning of life when one no longer can see it for oneself; Edmund Hooper who cannot establish social connections with people. Ironically, sympathy is just another one of the feelings Hooper himself is unable to feel.
However, this analysis brings up another, more basic question yet; what is evil? Can a living being that simply follows its instincts be evil? Is a lion evil? Is a spider? A crow? Maybe the expectations we have of humans are higher, based on our social norms, and thus a predator is not evil, but a predatory human is. Where is the barrier, the boundary between the good and the evil? Is Edmund Hooper evil, Hooper who bullied his friend to death and felt nothing but satisfaction? Is Edmund Hooper evil, Hooper who is just a child, shaped by his life and