Across generations, language barriers, and cultures, there is one question that has stood the test of time: l Does the intention of our actions really matter if our Do our actions have the effect of further marginalization or oppression of those around us? Jamie Utt addresses this issue and the arguments surrounding it in his article “Intentions Don’t Really Matter.” Utt expresses the idea that “the impact of our actions can be profound and far-reaching. And that is much more important than the question of our intention.” It leads readers to think about how their intentions, good or bad, can lead to undesirable and in many cases “oppressive” (Utt) outcomes. Continuing his position, Utt mentions how, even in everyday life, we hear people apologizing for the outcome of their intentions "over and over again: "I never meant any harm..." "That doesn't mean anything. was never my intention..." » Juan Martinez, in his collection. short story Best Worst American, explores a similar subject in "Roadblock", "Big Wheel Boiling Hot" and "Northern". Martinez explores how, even though characters have good intentions, their intentions can still cause harm and destruction. "Roadblock," the first short story in Martinez's collection, tells the story of a nephew and an aunt, Molly, who live together because everyone else in their family was killed in four separate plane crashes and unrelated that left them both on the brink. of emotional chaos. After living together for a while, they begin to resent each other. Soon the aunt starts plotting against her nephew and showing her anger. Unexpectedly, the couple welcomes a neighbor boy whose family, they thought, was going on a trip. Later, they realize that the boy's family was killed in Colombia, before he arrived in America. Say no to plagiarism. Get a Custom Essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”?Get an Original Essay With good intentions in mind, the narrator and his aunt move in together with the goal of being a support structure for each other the other and “to console oneself”. » (1) after “the rest of [their] family died in four separate plane crashes that took place – improbably, impossibly – within months of each other” (2). However, ten years later, they had been “living together for some time and the tension was beginning to show” (1). Due to the time spent together at work and at home, the narrator's aunt had begun to develop "feelings of anger and frustration" (1) towards him, which led to his inevitable destructive behavior. Initially, the narrator's aunt's destructive behavior is directed only at her nephew. The first line of the short story exposes the reader to his behavior when the narrator says that “lately [his] spinster aunt set fire to [her] personal possessions” (1). Although Mollie's behavior is relatively new, the narrator also tells readers that "before the pyro bits, she would write household advice with magic markers." She wrote on the walls […]” (1) and that “today she drew a little cartoon on the front of the oven [where] a stick figure is led to a guillotine and decapitated” (2) . Although the idea of ​​the narrator and his aunt living together might have been good at first, the aunt resents the narrator living with her and destroying both her things and the feeling that he is welcome in her home . While this is an overall example of good intentions leading to destruction in "Roadblock",there is also another example in the interactions of the aunt and nephew with the Colombian boy. When the narrator and his aunt first saw the little boy, he was wearing a polo shirt. shirt and jeans. » (3) Over time, Molly noticed that the little boys' shirt had started to wear, so "Molly brought home another polo shirt that had been brought back to the store and since forgotten and gave it to the father [of the boy], who nodded, smiled and said something that sounded like thank you (3) » I would say that the initial interaction with Molly and the narrator is what allowed the family who cares for the boy to feel comfortable asking a stranger to care for the child, especially on such short notice. The narrator tells the reader that “the father asked [him] the day before […] [then] he brought the child on Saturday (4)”. Although taking in a child who needs someone to look after him seems like a noble thing to do, it is later revealed that the child's real family was killed during a roadblock before coming to the UNITED STATES. Therefore, their good act of taking in a child had a devastating consequence: the child was abandoned and left with two adults who are not capable of getting along let alone caring for a child together. In "Big Wheel Boiling Hot," an anonymous director of a newly opened dinner theater attempts to find "additional investors" (149) to purchase more musicians, dancers, and costumes. Meanwhile, Karen, the theater owner's girlfriend, tries to put on the show "How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying." After the director succeeds in securing additional financing, he discovers that Karen is a raging alcoholic with the inability to manage her money effectively. After she and Mark, the theater's owner, separated, he stopped paying the theater's rent. Eventually, Karen absconds with the money intended to pay the performers' salaries and what remains of the donations made to the theater. In the course of the plot, two good intentions arise, both ruined by one. person. When Karen started the theater, she wanted to bring the arts to Orlando. Something that would positively impact the lives of many people and broaden the cultural horizons of the community as a whole. Additionally, when the director realized that the production needed a larger budget to finance "the five additional dancers, the live cello, the string ensemble quartet, the percussionist, [and] the improvement of costumes” (149), he “looked around him.” for additional investors” (149) to ensure the success of the theater. He even “talked to [his] manager at Blockbuster” (page number) who “ultimately agreed that a community event like this would be good for our branch” (page number) and donated money . Both of these individuals were very involved in the successes and failures of theater, so they both acted with good intentions. However, what was initially Karen's good intention turned her and the director's intentions into a disaster. After Karen was burdened with theater responsibility, she began drinking "oversized water bottles" (154) filled with "vodka" (155). The more Karen drank, the more her good intentions slipped from her grasp and the more she felt “deeply offended, deeply worried, [and] deeply stressed” (155). It reached the point where she could no longer manage the financial side of the theater and could no longer pay the rent, and the theater was in danger of being "closed" (156). Once she realized how deep a hole she had dug herself, Karen left with all the money. At this. 2017