Matthew Jackson
Ms. Sturm
English Honors II
Characterization Essay
19 December 2014
Theme Development through Character Interactions Throughout stories and novels, character interactions help authors develop the central idea within the work and how that concept relates to the real world. Character interactions such as those between mother and son, friends and friend, or two individuals that do not know each other bring out these concepts and idea located within the literary work. In the plays 12 Angry Men and “The Glass Menagerie” and in the novel Staying Fat for Sarah Byrnes authors use these character interactions to show conflicting motivations and different characterizations to bring out the main message of their stories. In the play “12 Angry Men,” the central message that is conveyed by different motivations and characterizations is the simple fact that people should go with what they think is right in life and not with what others are trying to inflict on them. Juror 8 and Juror 3 are the two contrasting characters within this play because they are both in the same scenario but each of them has different opinions and feelings. Throughout the play these two characters are seen arguing over an issue of whether or not the defendant is guilty which starts out with Juror 8 being the only person who believes the defendant is not guilty and Juror 3 feeling strongly about the defendant’s guilt. This differentiation between the two characters reveals opposite motives. The opposite motives between the two are that Juror 3 is emotionally drove while Juror 8 is rationally drove. “8th Juror [after a pause]: I don’t know. It’s a motive for him to be an angry kid. I’ll say that. 3rd Juror: It’s the kids, the way they are nowadays. Angry! Hostile! You can’t do a damn thing with them. Just the way they talk to you. Listen, when I was his age I used to call my father “Sir.” That’s right, “Sir!” You ever hear a boy call his father that anymore?” (Rose 17). This interaction between the characters is giving a detailed look at how the 3rd Juror is emotionally driven. He is emotional because of the fact that he had a son that disrespected him the way the defendant disrespected his father, which is why he is so “sure” that he is guilty. He is very bias in the fact. On the other hand, Juror 8 is very rational by showing no bias towards the defendant and is arguing the fact that he may not be guilty. This illustrates the concept of going with your own perceptions because Juror 3 is trying to convince Juror 8 of something that may not be true because of his own shameful past with his son. When Juror 8 goes against him, he is taking his own stand and demonstrating the fact that everybody should go with what he/she believe is the right answer, and not what everyone else is saying. Furthermore, the alternate characterizations of Juror 8 is seen as calm, thoughtful, and understand while Juror 3 portrays himself as a loud, hardheaded and stubborn individual. These certain traits reveal during an argument over the defendant’s knife. During this argument, Juror 8 decides to pull out his knife and stick it in the table when the other Jurors say that the weapon was a rare object that nobody has ever really seen before. In the process of this argument, and after seeing Juror 8’s knife, Juror 3 refuses to believe what is right in front of his eyes (Rose). Juror 3 displays his stubborn and hardheaded traits by refusing to accept the facts that are before his eyes just because he and his son had issues. Juror 8 exhibits his rationality by thinking outside of the box and showing others why his views could be correct and not theirs. This brings out the underlying message within the play by portraying the fact that people may have a more reasonable view and can possibly change things instantly. Juror 8 demonstrates that no one should hide their opinions and views just because it is not what the “it-crowd” wants. Throughout the play, “The Glass Menagerie,”