The Locket Analysis

the feeling I get when I read this short story is one of mystery. The author sets the stage for this right from the very beginning when she describes the locket as some sort of good luck charm. When one of the men says "That's a charm; some kind of hoodoo business that one o' them priests gave him to keep him out o' trouble."

Finally, Octavie was in the car with her father, they turned onto a long plain that led up to Judge Pillier's house. On the way there, an old gentleman placed his arm around her, he said "d o you not think that on a day like this, miracles might happen? When the whole earth is vibrant with life, does it not seem to you, Octavie, that heaven might for once relent and give us back our dead?" After he said that, she was very confused. That would be foreshadowing. The old man definitely knew something about Edmond before she did, he didn't let her know that

The locket being stolen was predictable because of Edmond's battles as a Confederate soldier. In the story there was only one known detail about a recent battle and it was in part one. There was a deceased soldier boy which implies that there was a recent battle. The text states, "Around his neck hung a gold chain and locket." and out of that information you can predict that is Octavie's locket. If it is Octavie's locket that means that the boy either stole it from Edmond as an enemy or an

In the letter, the priest said he had found a body with the locket around his neck making the assumption it was Edmund. This gave the readers a feeling that the assumption was true. Thus, everyone believed that he was dead and that there was no turning back for Octavia. It made everyone feel as if the story was over. The author tricked the readers as no one suspected at this part of the story that Edmund was still alive or that the boy from the campfire stole the locket from Edmund because he thought it was a good luck

The conclusion to this short story was interesting because in the end when Octavie thought about the boy that was found with the locket, she must have been thinking about if his family would ever know what happened to him. This ending keeps me thinking about if anyone would ever know he died. This ending ties the whole story together because it shows why the author described some things vaguely such as: the soldier lying in the ground with the locket, what happened in the battle, and the “children playing”.

The locket is a great short story about two lovers and one sent off to war (Edmund), while his significant other (Octavie) stays home and waits for his arrival. One tragic day she sees that Edmund’s body is in a casket. He has died. Judge Pillier helps her grieving. But her grieving may be enough for him to cheer her up. But is Octavie asking for more than she can bite off?

Edmonds love, Octavie had given him the locket. The locket had a picture of her parents in it which they had first given to her. Edmond always had the locket on during his days at war. He thinks that he

"'Ain't that a charm you got round your neck?' 'It must be, Nick,' returned Edmond with a smile. 'I don't know how I could have gone through this year and a half without it.'" As I had previously mentioned, the locket is Edmond's lucky charm. The man that had said nothing didn't have the luck from the locket, so he was unlucky enough to be killed. The reader is meant to believe that Edmond was killed with the locket on. This leads to confusion to how this could

The difference that stands out most to me, their philosophies on the way children need be taught, and treated as children. I do see that most of these philosophies coincide with the belief system that most of us have, and have not changed much after all these years.

In part two of “The Locket”, I was introduced to Octavie. When the locket was returned to Octavie, she grew depressed. Octavie thought she would grow old and alone

I thought John Locke had the deepest and most true statement/idea because it made common sense, people could relate to it, and it brought up new things about our lives that I never thought about. A major reason I thought Locke’s ideas were true was because it made the most sense. The experiences we go through I believe really do help make us the people we are. Another reason I agree with his ideas is because I can relate to what he is portraying. The choices we choose and things we go through can change us forever. For example, you experience a war and now you might think war is never the answer to our problems. However, I am not sure our minds start as completely blank, but with certain broad guidelines that still give us the choice

For starters, i was happy that Edmond was still alive. The story was mysterious. I thought that the guy in the beginning killed him for the locket but it turned out differently. I had a feeling that he wasn't dead because of some of the hints in the text. I was also happy because it turned out that he didn't lose the locket, it was stolen. The end just made me happy overall because all the mysteries unfolded.

As the novel ends, I'm left with a sense of surprise that there isn't more information on what happens to the narrator. Throughout the novel, you follow the narrator on quite a journey. Well, two different journeys. The suspense builds as the storyline progresses, and then we are left with an ending that doesn't give closure. Patricia Welch agrees, "This ending frustrates expectations of closure." (55) This is somewhat disappointing; however, this leaves room to imagine an ending through our own eyes.

I did not expect for Octavie to see Edmond again so clearly. She would still have her memories as well as flashbacks, but she truly imagined she was by his side again. It was a strong twist in the story to show that her love with Edmond was strong enough to preserve the life she wanted to have with him. In contrast the ending was not predictable. Edmond was only seen as living to Octavie based on her strong connection with him. Everyone else was slowly moving on from his death. These elements of the story made the conclusion surprising and

Important aspects of the story are unclear, namely Kahle’s ability to see auras, his military background and what his story had to do with Eli’s. At times, I wondered if some details and characters were forgotten in the course of the writing. Because of this, the story had a stilted, perfunctory quality that made it difficult to read and confusing to navigate. It read like a first draft, not a finished product. The end of the story never resolved the problems or questions set by the premise. I understand that this is the first book of a series, but a clear, resolved ending is more satisfying to a reader than a blunt one.