Crime Poetry Practice Essay 1
'Explore the view that justice is always served in crime poetry'
Plan
Including 'The Ballad of Reading Gaol', 'Porphyria's Lover', and 'My Last Duchess'
1. YES; by the written law, Wooldridge should be executed in BORG, and there is an
argument that anyone who murders should die themselves. Justice is different at
each time and while we may not see Wilde's punishment as just today, it was with
transient justice.
2. NO; Wooldridge's treatment was unjust, his trial lasted only two minutes, even
though petition for a reprieve gained many signatures. 'Each man kills the thing he
loves'. Wilde's own situation we know is unjust. Does remorse change our opinion of
the criminal, to the extent where it should result in a reduced punishment?
3. NO; Wilde says 'Some strangle with the hands of lust', links overtly to PL. Speaker in
this poem is therefore guilty of a Deadly Sin, as well as obviously committing
murder, yet he seems to escape punishment as justice is noticeably absent 'yet God
has not said a word'
4. YES; by the conventions of the time, the speaker in PL potentially restores justice by
killing a woman guilty, we presume, of a social crime and exerting power over a
man. Also in My Last Duchess, the killing the Duchess was justified if she cheated on
him, and perhaps a way of ensuring the order of the country, with her lack of
monarchial traits.
5. NO; but this woman was the peak of innocence, kind and lively, and there's no
evidence for her adultery, only through the Duke's paranoia which we can't trust
due to unreliable narration. Browning's time setting is important, as even a
contemporary reader would see that the man was in the wrong, something
unprecedented at the time.
Response
In crime poetry, the question as to whether justice is always served is a source of
intense debate among critics. Focusing in particular on Oscar Wilde's 'The Ballad of Reading
Gaol', in addition to Robert Browning's 'Porphyria's Lover' and 'My Last Duchess', we
struggle to see any distribution of justice, however the contemporary view must also be
considered.
Indeed, in 'The Ballad of Reading Gaol', the criminal which the poem centres upon
(Charles Thomas Wooldridge), committed a brutal 'pre-meditated' (according to Judge
Hawkins) murder of his wife with a cut-throat razor, and therefore even now, we cannot
deny that this man deserves retribution, which is achieved principally with capital
punishment. The beauty of crime literature is that we are able to make judgements for each
individual case as to whether capital punishment is deserved, and in this case it's difficult to
refute that Wooldridge should die, regardless of any remorse he may feel.
In any case, it's indisputable that a contemporary Victorian would openly support
this man's punishment, as Victorians took particular pleasure in witnessing what they
absolutely perceived as justice: executions by the state, especially for a crime committed on
the open street, and not behind closed doors as with the speakers in Browning's poems, with
whom a citizen could essentially turn a 'blind eye'. Even with Wilde, while we certainly do
not see his homosexuality as a crime today, it was by the law, which was of course influenced
by the views of the common people, a transgression against the state, and so deserving of
punishment. This highlights the extremely transient nature of justice, which means we can
possibly only judge a crime by its defiance of the written law at the exact moment it was
committed.
However, constantly changing justice is the very reason why we sympathise
incredibly with Wilde; just one year after his release in 1897, two years hard labour was
declared too harsh a punishment, and this really emphasises the tragically bad luck for such
a talented, relatively young man in Wilde. Even with Wooldridge we have to question
'Explore the view that justice is always served in crime poetry'
Plan
Including 'The Ballad of Reading Gaol', 'Porphyria's Lover', and 'My Last Duchess'
1. YES; by the written law, Wooldridge should be executed in BORG, and there is an
argument that anyone who murders should die themselves. Justice is different at
each time and while we may not see Wilde's punishment as just today, it was with
transient justice.
2. NO; Wooldridge's treatment was unjust, his trial lasted only two minutes, even
though petition for a reprieve gained many signatures. 'Each man kills the thing he
loves'. Wilde's own situation we know is unjust. Does remorse change our opinion of
the criminal, to the extent where it should result in a reduced punishment?
3. NO; Wilde says 'Some strangle with the hands of lust', links overtly to PL. Speaker in
this poem is therefore guilty of a Deadly Sin, as well as obviously committing
murder, yet he seems to escape punishment as justice is noticeably absent 'yet God
has not said a word'
4. YES; by the conventions of the time, the speaker in PL potentially restores justice by
killing a woman guilty, we presume, of a social crime and exerting power over a
man. Also in My Last Duchess, the killing the Duchess was justified if she cheated on
him, and perhaps a way of ensuring the order of the country, with her lack of
monarchial traits.
5. NO; but this woman was the peak of innocence, kind and lively, and there's no
evidence for her adultery, only through the Duke's paranoia which we can't trust
due to unreliable narration. Browning's time setting is important, as even a
contemporary reader would see that the man was in the wrong, something
unprecedented at the time.
Response
In crime poetry, the question as to whether justice is always served is a source of
intense debate among critics. Focusing in particular on Oscar Wilde's 'The Ballad of Reading
Gaol', in addition to Robert Browning's 'Porphyria's Lover' and 'My Last Duchess', we
struggle to see any distribution of justice, however the contemporary view must also be
considered.
Indeed, in 'The Ballad of Reading Gaol', the criminal which the poem centres upon
(Charles Thomas Wooldridge), committed a brutal 'pre-meditated' (according to Judge
Hawkins) murder of his wife with a cut-throat razor, and therefore even now, we cannot
deny that this man deserves retribution, which is achieved principally with capital
punishment. The beauty of crime literature is that we are able to make judgements for each
individual case as to whether capital punishment is deserved, and in this case it's difficult to
refute that Wooldridge should die, regardless of any remorse he may feel.
In any case, it's indisputable that a contemporary Victorian would openly support
this man's punishment, as Victorians took particular pleasure in witnessing what they
absolutely perceived as justice: executions by the state, especially for a crime committed on
the open street, and not behind closed doors as with the speakers in Browning's poems, with
whom a citizen could essentially turn a 'blind eye'. Even with Wilde, while we certainly do
not see his homosexuality as a crime today, it was by the law, which was of course influenced
by the views of the common people, a transgression against the state, and so deserving of
punishment. This highlights the extremely transient nature of justice, which means we can
possibly only judge a crime by its defiance of the written law at the exact moment it was
committed.
However, constantly changing justice is the very reason why we sympathise
incredibly with Wilde; just one year after his release in 1897, two years hard labour was
declared too harsh a punishment, and this really emphasises the tragically bad luck for such
a talented, relatively young man in Wilde. Even with Wooldridge we have to question
