Jared and Lee were swapping pens with each other in class, and to my knowledge they were trying each other’s pens out to see how they wrote on paper etc etc.
Until one of the two – I’m not altogether sure who – forbade the other to use a specific pen, or had grown tired of the whole activity altogether and requested that it stop.
The other continued. We shall call this person the Antagonist. Understandably, I will name the person whose pen was captive to the Antagonist the Protagonist.
The Protagonist quickly devised a scheme. He exclaimed, “Give me my pen back!”
The Antagonist, for reasons I can only hypothesise about, chose to issue an ultimatum to the Protagonist:
“Just after I write something on your book.”
The graffiti of the Protagonist’s book was clearly out of the question. But it was made clear to the Protagonist that the Antagonist was not going to simply return his pen to him (perhaps because he did not understand Protagonist’s clear and simple need and desire for his pen, and for his worldly possessions to remain unadulterated), the Protagonist devised an even more intelligent and potentially successful strategy to ensure his pen’s safe return to him.
He swiftly kidnapped one of the Antagonist’s pens. Now the Protagonist’s purpose in doing so became clear very very quickly:
“Give me my pen back, or I will break your pen!”
The Protagonist had chosen not to change the status quo by simply imitating the tactics of his new-found rival and capturing one of his pens – oh no! The Protagonist had concluded to himself that threatening to wilfully cause the Antagonist’s pen to become faulty would improve the situation in his favour.
Threatening to break your rival’s pen could possibly help him or her understand the sanctity that is the function and possession of a pen. They could realise that not having the use of a particular pen is as good as that pen being broken. They would return you your pen not only because they value the possession and the use of their pen, but because the respect and sympathise with the value you bestow on yours. Now all of this reasoning is based upon the assumption that your rival finds the operation and possession of his (or her!) pen particularly important.
Threatening to break your rival’s pen could also be a very effective method of conveying the important you place on the state of your possessions. It could help them realise that the importance of a pen is just as great as devoting a textbook or exercise book entirely to the extension and sovereignty of your education. It could also aid them in understanding that content inserted into such a book that is intellectually foreign to the book’s intended author renders it as valuable as a broken pen. Again, all based on assumption.
The Antagonist did not release the Protagonist’s pen from it’s sick and twisted capture upon the utterance of the Protagonist’s threat and its subsequent pressure, (suggesting that the importance the Protagonist bestowed upon his book was not mutually shared) and wrote on his exercise book:
“Gay.”
The Protagonist snapped the Antagonist’s pen. I don’t know what state the pen is in now – it has probably been disposed of, due to the obvious lack of spare pen bodies the average person is equipped with to salvage a pen’s ink assembly which is acknowledged to be difficult to render useless with bare hands.
Why did the Protagonist snap the Antagonist’s pen when the purpose in doing so was most likely to help his enemy understand the importance of his exercise book and the possession of his pen?
A pen was wasted, a book was defaced and the method which the Protagonist employed to protect his book and secure his pen was unsuccessful, to be non-judgemental.
—
Jared snapped Lee’s pen because he wrote “Gay” on his exercise book. Or textbook.
I don’t need to apply any more contextual interpretation of this event.
You decide who was really the Antagonist.
EDIT :: Or if there even WAS an Antagonist.
