Contradictory to what my title is, I feel Richard wasn't doing these things to get attention. One must realize the age in which Richard was when he first burned down his house- 4 years old. At 4 years old, most don't realize the danger of fire unless it's presented to them directly. Assuming Richard had never experienced the danger and hazard of a fire, he would not have properly known what would have happened. Until he "Experimented" and experienced this, he couldn't know. The broom sticks didn't set anything ablaze and he didn't see the fire going out of control with the curtains...until he actually did it. It was then that he knew fire was bad.
As we read deeper into the story, we see Richard is a "bad boy"-he craves rebellion and dislikes living by other's rules, except when it comes to subjects that could threaten his life (i.e. "white" people and such). He submitted when needed, but one quickly sees that he loves doing things he shouldn't do, rebelling, etc. Maybe Richard does this because he wants the attention he lacks, but the environment he lives in doesn't produce a need to (His friends don't seem to have both parents). One almost does crave what they don't have and sometimes acting out is the only way to express those needs.
Personally, I think it's too premature in the story to decide accurately. Right now, it's a situation where the question could straddle the fence and one could argue either point with a plethora of evidential points. Being as young as we have known Richard to be (Between ages 4 and 9), a cry for attention and being who he wants to be is both plausible. I will remain impartial to such decisions until there is an amplitude of evidence to sway me in one direction.
No comments:
Post a Comment