Reaction Paper: Deconstruction of “Thank you, Ma’am”

          Have you ever tried to steal someone’s wallets just because you need money to buy things you wanted? Well, in that case, it’s hard to refrain doing devilish thins especially when you are eager to have that but has insufficient money.

          In reading the story “Thank you, Ma’am”, comparing to the deconstruction, there are lots of situations that contradicts one another. One contradiction when Mrs. Jones took the boy home after he tried to snatch her purse. In the real world, it is impossible for those victims of snatching to bring home the snatchers and treat good manners. Supposed to be, Mrs. Jones must influence the boy not to show that there is always someone for us to depend on. Another is that teaching the boy wrong from right. It’s not good for Roger to be disciplined in a solid way or even punished him of what he has done. He’s still at the minor age and can be a good person by teaching him in a slow manner.

          I like reading the story because it gives a moral lesson that digs up my heart. It shows not to judge people with their outside personality. The most part I like best is that when Mrs. Jones gives a chance to know the boy better and be able to know Roger’s purpose of snatching the purse.

          The story is quite complicated. Lots of lessons can be learned from it. And in relation to that story, still, stealing is not a proper way of sustaining our needs. And if you’re going to ask me whether I like the story and even it’s deconstruction, or not, well, I would say that both has a lesson-catching contact.