Summary Of Monster By Walter D. Myers

691 Words3 Pages

The difference between a truth and a lie is a very fine line. Throughout the book Monster written by Walter D. Myers, the reader experiences a slippery slope that leads them to believe the main character Steve Harmon was lying during his trial. However, this is simply what one believes. Because too many people, the truth is only what they believe to be factual. To commence, Steve has shown that he has the ability to lie in court. He claims “I don’t know what exactly happened, but I know I wasn’t in the drugstore that day” (Myers 229). In this case, the reader is left to assume that Steve was lying as he is sweating abnormally and very shaky. These are all signs that someone is lying. And if one is to believe Steve that means that Mr. Cruz …show more content…

He later says in this testimony that Steve was working on a film project on the day of the robbery. However, there is no video evidence from the day of the robbery. “Petrocelli: What was he doing on the afternoon of December 22nd? Did he show you a film of that day? Sawicki: No, he did not” (Myers 237). Steve may believe that he was not there on that day. However, evidence provided by Sawicki proves Steve was telling a false truth to some degree. Furthermore, some characters may be lying to themselves as to how they think others feel about them. At the end of the book, Miss O’Brien turns away from Harmon when he tries to hug her. “When Miss O’Brien looked at me after we had won the case, what did she see that caused her to turn away?”(Myers 281) Based on the title of this novel, Steve believes O’Brien thinks he is a monster. There is no evidence given to even know if this is true. In the end, it could be that she wanted to remain professional. To one's surprise, there is even more evidence to support that the truth is only factual when one wants it to …show more content…

Ernie believed that because he did not actually go off with the money that he did not rob the store (Myers 143). Ernie truly believed he did not do anything malicious. He felt that because he did not take anything from the store that he was not guilty. This is wrong; he had full intent of robbing the store and had hostages. He was lying to himself about his own crimes. The testimonials provided by the characters aforementioned raise an important question. Is Steve Harmon adding in or taking out dialogue to make himself seem less guilty to the reader?. It seems impossible that a 16- year- old would be able to perfectly copy word for word what everybody said and how others reacted during the trial. The reader is given the task of having to trust Steve when he does not even trust himself. It is plausible that Steve changed around some of the details of the trial in order to make himself feel like he did nothing wrong. Just like the evidence provided by the witnesses, there is no way to tell what is the truth, and what is a lie masquerading as the

Open Document