CR#1
When reading the “The Shocking Story of Approved Killing in Mississippi”, a line that really stood out to me was when Milam say “When we got to that gin, it was daylight, and I was worried for the first time. Somebody might see us and accuse us of stealing the fan”. The reason why this line made me stop was because that was the first time the killers took the time to show any type of emotion about the actions. They killed a boy, Bobo, and all they worried about was being accused of stealing. This shows a clear depiction of a “monster”. Since the reading was from the killers point of view, the line served a purpose to make this incident a normality in some sense. It was to ease the reader and take their attention away from the fact a murder just happened. The line also reminds me of how being a monster doesn’t mean you are scary looking or ugly, it’s your actions that define you as a monster. It particularly reminds me of a simple saying “Don’t judge a book by its cover”, in a way where these guys were plotting a murder meanwhile they might have appeared to be committing something of a lesser offense.
I am really happy you brought us to this moment in the article. It always strikes me hard that they were worried about getting caught stealing and not for kidnapping, torturing, and killing someone. I think you are right it speaks volumes about Milam and Bryant. I think though it might also speak volumes about the community they are in and about what Huiie wants you to feel in reading this article.
One thing: I don’t know that your close reading method is really an archaeological dig. I mean you choose one passage, which is good, but you more point out the discrepancy between what they think of as a crime and what they don’t think of a s a crime that this line reveals. You then discuss how that reminds you that monstrosity isn’t just about outward appearance. this last part is kind of a jump away from reading the text. I think while you’ve found a very interesting part of the article you are not thinking about this part as a part of how and why the article is constructed.
I mean you do talk about the perspective of the article and how that works to normalize the crime and humanize the perpetrators. But I am wondering if Huie meant for you to have exactly the reaction you had? To be appalled by their concern about being caught stealing.
Also the thing is they are telling this story to Huie after they have just gotten off the hook in a court of law. Indeed they have the consent of their society and judges, so it makes me wonder, are they right? are they right to worry about being caught stealing but not to worry about being caught killing since?