Throughout the novels – Iain Bank's 1984 The Wasp Factory and Lionel Shriver's We Need to Talk About Kevin from 2003 – the authors describe the protagonists as subversive outsider figures, as they each have only one friend – Frank's Jamie, to whom he can easily say: "I killed a few rabbits" (Banks, 1990 p93) despite his usual secrecy, and Kevin's Leonard, whom he threw "rubbish on the pavement with" (Shriver, 2011, p307). It is suggested to readers that young murderers Frank and Kevin are outsiders due to their innate evil; however, the reader is also asked to challenge this claim, with the possibility that the characters are victims. Although it is hinted at more subtly in the novels, it is the strongest argument, as close analysis clearly reveals that Kevin and Frank are victims – of their families and of society. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”?Get the original essay The protagonists of both novels can be seen as inherently malevolent boys, due to the age at which their immoral behavior begins. In The Wasp Factory, Frank decided at just 5 years old that he “wanted to kill Blyth then and there” (Banks, 1990, p. 43) when his cousin “burned down both of our hutches” (Banks, 1990, p. 43 ). Barely a year later, he killed Blyth in the most “gruesome” manner (Banks, 1990, p. 47) and described his murder as “thrilling” (Banks, 1990, p. 48). This suggests that his “pleasure” (Banks, 1990, p. 48) for destruction was innate in him, as he was too young to have been fully socialized to violence. Therefore, "the protagonist's violent tendencies" – as described by Rob Myers – are of his own creation, born from what the Nature versus Nurture debate cites as "the evolutionary roots of human behavior". Further evidence of Frank's wicked nature is found in his two other murders – that of his younger brother, Paul, and another cousin, Esmerelda. After Paul, he never showed remorse, he only “played my role” (Banks, 1990, p89) of “the tortured child who blames himself” (Banks, 1990, p90) to deceive others, without no apparent desire to confess, suggesting that he was completely lacking in morality and unaffected by the pain he created for his father, who 'ruminated' at length (Banks, 1990, p90). With the murder of Esmerelda, he thought “calmly” (Banks, 1990, p. 114) about how to orchestrate it, without worry or uncertainty about whether or not he should carry it out – when the idea comes to mind, he feels with conviction that he must do it, explaining that it was “simply something that had to be done” (Banks, 1990, p. 113). This uncompassionate response to the cruelty of his mind indicates, as Banks puts it, that he does not "possess a sophisticated moral framework within which to place" his "violent thoughts," leaving him to act accordingly. The Daily Telegraph claims that Frank has "an obsessive personality", suggesting that he feels compelled to translate his thoughts into action, driving him to commit serial murders. Similarly, in We Need to Talk About Kevin, Shriver introduces Kevin. as "born not very interested in things" who "doesn't really take into account the reality of others or their feelings", which, according to her description, is "evil". This is reflected in the incident of his birth, when he shows "a lack of enthusiasm" (Shriver, 2011, p96) and "disgust" (Shriver, 2011, p96) towards his own mother, as if her existence did not satisfy him. Her dislike of Eva quickly escalates, and she notes that at only a year and a half old, he“strikes me in the wrong eye” (Shriver, 2011, p121). As Janet Phillips notes, he was "malicious from birth" and "an extraordinarily horrible child" before he was socialized, demonstrating Kevin's innate malevolence. This is a characteristic for which he alone is responsible, like Frank; thus making the protagonists victims of nothing other than their own nature. Kevin's serial offenses are also similar to Frank's. While his murder is concentrated in a single episode, Kevin attacks many other people in other ways throughout his life, emphasizing the pleasure he finds in being the perpetrator. From an early age, he rejects his nannies, who say he “pulls… his hair… very hard indeed” (Shriver, 2011, p122) and they think “he knows it hurts” (Shriver, 2011, p122). 2011, p122). This indicates that despite his early awareness of pain, he deliberately provokes it, suggesting that he enjoys hurting others, as child and adolescent psychiatrist Alan Ravitz puts it: "this child wanted nothing more than to wreak havoc ". Also early in his life, five-year-old Kevin “encouraged” (Shriver, 2011, p220) his eczema-stricken nursery schoolmate, Violetta, to “rake his upper arms” (Shriver, 2011, p218). until she was “covered in blood”. (Shriver, 2011, p218) – an act of defiance of the most grotesque nature. This seemed to please Kevin immensely, who left the nursery that day with “eyes… sparkling” (Shriver, 2011, p220), indicating that the bloody scene had left him immensely satisfied. This shows the evil in him so consistently early in his life, as it does in Frank from The Wasp Factory, that it seems he cannot be a victim of outside influences – evil is his obvious natural state. It is clear that the central families of both novels play a crucial role in the protagonists' deviance, making them victims of their upbringing – and lack thereof. Frank's mother in The Wasp Factory is the most significant because she "deserted" (Banks, 1990, p. 135) the family "almost immediately after my birth" (Banks, 1990, p. 135) and is therefore absent from his childhood and took no part in Frank's life. education. It is Agnes who provokes his resentment towards women, both because of her abandonment and her "waiting" (Banks, 1990, p135) and "presumptuous" (Banks, 1990, p135) nature, which he experiences during his brief return. According to psychologist William Pollack, studies have shown "that many boys experience problems due to separation from their mothers' care too early," which is evident in Frank, a boy acting out what Banks describes as " psychotic” and “harm”. mental beliefs. Furthermore, recent studies of British families highlight that "there is considerable evidence" that children "with an absent parent" are "more likely" to become involved in "anti-social behavior" such than violent crimes. These studies show that Frank's violence was the result of his mother's abandonment, thus proving his position as a victim of his situation. As a result, in We Need to Talk About Kevin, Eva does not provide a particularly positive mother figure for Kevin, despite her physical presence during his infancy and later childhood. It's natural for children to learn basic behaviors from their mothers, as they are their primary socialization, and Kevin clearly picks up many of Eva's harsh traits. In particular, Kevin's violence is undoubtedly a learned skill, since at age 6 he is thrown "halfway out of the nursery" (Shriver, 2011, p229) by his own mother. Studies show that “violent behavior is learned” and often “early in life”, in “observing the people around them,” which suggests that Eva’s actions influenced Kevin’s massacre “Thursday” (Shriver, 2011, p14). Additionally, Kevin seems to associate this act of violence with love and honesty, as he describes it as "the most honest thing you've ever done" (Shriver, 2011, p204), which therefore shows that he considered violence to be an effective form of violence. communication, which led to his murders – as Ezra Miller, actor of Kevin in the film We Need to Talk About Kevin, explains, “he wants her to really face” the reality of their relationship. That the role of the mother is linked to the violence of the protagonists is indisputable, which therefore makes the marginal figures of Frank and Kevin victims of their family situation. In addition, both novels indicate the role of society in the brutality of the protagonists, victims of cultural norms. This can be seen in The Wasp Factory, as Frank's brutality is clearly a result of what he is exposed to. This socialization process is clearly demonstrated by Frank's keen interest in "war" (Banks, 1990, p23) and his knowledge of what constitutes "a good war" (Banks, 1990, p23), which is the result of its television programs. on wars. This easy access a young boy has to viewing such violence is incredibly damaging, as research suggests that "viewing violent scenes" causes "adolescents to behave more aggressively", which, according to Dr. Jordan Grafman, “could make aggression more “acceptable.” Furthermore, most programs about war depict soldiers as heroes and impeccable examples of masculinity, which undoubtedly appealed to Frank – who as a child “used to fantasize about saving the house” ( Banks, 1990, p. 24) if there was a “fire”. » (Banks, 1990, p24) – and his interest in heroism. Added to this is Frank's underlying desperation to conform to the male gender stereotype, due to his "unfortunate handicap" (Banks, 1990, p14) – which he later discovers is his natural state – leaving him to feeling inferior in his masculinity. As Jackson Katz and Jeremy Earp argue, the media “presents male violence as a normal expression of masculinity”; proving that Frank's interest in war is based on strengthening his sense of masculine identity. Furthermore, Frank is marginalized by society, due to his different behaviors and his relationship with Eric, the boy who "set the fire" (Banks, 1990, p62) and eats "pet dogs" (Banks, 1990, p62). They would “run away from me…scream rude things from a distance” (Banks, 1990, p62) and give him a “funny look” (Banks, 1990, p63) if they were near him, as they instantly assumed that he “ stood up.” the same stuff” (Banks, 1990, p62) as his brother. This led Frank to limit his “brief visits to town to a taciturn minimum” (Banks, 1990, p62) and to remain isolated on his island, where he had “assurance and security” (Banks, 1990, p180). This demonstrates how Frank feels he is being treated “cruelly” (Banks, 1990, p. 180) by the world and that he believes others and the culture around them have a negative effect. This greatly supports his belief that he “had to” (Banks, 1990, p. 112) commit the murders of his family members, particularly that of Esmerelda, whom he felt with certainty was protecting her from “the "insidious and perverse influence of society". » (Banks, 1990, p111). This also explains why he killed Blyth and Paul: they were strangers to the island. Blyth had been raised far from the island and Paul was the son of a stranger, as his mother never explained. No doubt Frank believed they were inherently under the influence.