Turgenev Reflection

In The Execution of Tropmann, Ivan Turgenev writes about his experience at the execution of an accused murder in Paris in 1870.  He explains his opposition towards capital punishment and why it’s wrong.  But to get his point across as to why it’s wrong, he writes in a very non-aggressive tone, but he does so successfully.  Turgenev used vivid imagery about what he experienced in Paris to show his opposition towards capital punishment.  He described how the people he was with before the execution were very anxious as to how the “performance” would go, how the crowd of civilians yearned to see their fellow man die, and how Tropmann may have been the calmest person in Paris that day.  But these all represented key factors as to why Turgenev thought this was wrong.  He could sense how the officials whom he was with had also questioned whether putting a man’s death up for display was right.  He also showed the crowd was like an entity that thrived on the misfortunes (as Turgenev would describe them) of others.  He left very subtle points throughout the text that would further progress his point of view, but these subtleties became a hackneyed theme throughout the text.  He led the readers to a very anticlimactic ending through these subtle images that made me think “get to the point already.”  But what I thought was the most important element in his essay was the use of imagery.  He described every detail so well that it would be hard for the reader not to place themselves besides the characters and events in the text.  But he used the imagery to give the readers a mental vision of how he wanted them to see the execution.  He gave the reader little choice but to follow his path through the execution, thus arguing his point successfully by manipulating the reader, without ever making a blatant argument, which gave his non-aggressive tone justification.  His purpose was obvious.  He wrote a persuasive narrative about execution.  His intent was to persuade his readers to understand that capital punishment is wrong because of the spectacle that people in his time romanticized.  I, however, am not against capital punishment, but I agree with what he is saying was wrong about it.  I understand why he thought that the idea of a “performance” is wrong, because death should not be a form of entertainment.  But that does not mean that we should be without it.  This essay was written 140 years ago and the same cultural attitudes do not apply to the present.  People today rarely will witness an execution, and if so not for entertainment.  So no, I do not agree with Turgenev’s outlook on capital punishment, but I do understand and agree with his opposition towards the idea of an execution being a form of entertainment.