The idea of being apathetic or not no longer holds its original definition of being ignorant or caring. Instead, it has become a choice between involving ourselves or not. We, as humans are born to be selfish; deep down we put ourselves before others, but that doesn’t mean there are no people in this world who refuse to care for others. Although literature can trigger emotions with the power of words, can it really ultimately lead us into taking action? Almost all plots in literature strive to teach us a lesson regarding human nature. However, that “message” can be broken down into a thousand different meanings from the way humans think differently. It is still unclear as to whether or not literature can influence our actions, …show more content…
In Arthur’s perspective, he was unaware of what Ted was going through; moreover, he had no control over Ted’s emotions and his decisions. I believe the message the author was trying to convey was – it is useless to care for something or someone as an outsider simply because we have no control over someone else; there is no point for caring when there are two completely different situations. If Arthur decided to interfere with Ted’s plan, would it really lead to a good result? Ted was already in immense pain, I believe that letting him live would only torment him further. Relating back to The Step Not Taken, the point of the essay was to help someone regardless of fitting into what society perceives as “normal”, but the example from The Other Side of the Bridge is telling me that caring wouldn’t make a difference anyway, so why bother? I begin to develop uncertainty over which side I should choose. After all, humans created literature. As people, we all possess different opinions; some stories may say that I should care and other stories state the opposite. In the end, literature is still limited to an extent where they have the ability to impart a meaningful message, but how they are interpreted solely depends on the