Ê.ôèëîë.í. Äçþáåíêî À.È., Âîïèëîâà À.Ð.
Ïåäàãîãè÷åñêèé èíñòèòóò Þæíîãî ôåäåðàëüíîãî óíèâåðñèòåòà,
ã. Ðîñòîâ-íà-Äîíó, Ðîññè éñêàÿ Ôåäåðàöèÿ
THE IMAGE OF A CRIMINAL VS. THE IMAGE OF A DEFENDANT: THROUGH THE AUTHOR’S EXPERIENCE INTERPRETATION
The sphere of law and justice with its incontrovertible evidences and thoroughly checked facts seems to be absolutely incompatible with the world of fiction which centers around thought-up, fabricated things that are vital for the plot evolution. We can’t but notice a trend in the modern English literature of the writers’ creating the images of criminals and defendant that have strong resemblance to the authors’ life experience and social background. Thus, we can suppose that the whole perception of these characters is being drastically altered making the contemporary readers change their viewpoints, for instance, towards the image of a criminal who is usually prejudiced against being subconsciously an evil in the eyes of an average reader. It is of a special interest to examine the evolution of these very images in the books by the writer, who himself was convicted and served a sentence for the committed crime, which was a perjury and the prevention of judicature – by Jeffrey Archer.
For the further examination of the evolution of the discussed images it is necessary to dwell in short on the basic points of the plot structure of Jeffrey Archer’s work “A Prisoner of Birth”. The story opens up with the episode in which the protagonist – Danny Cartwright – makes a marriage proposal to his sweetheart, and then they go to the local pub to celebrate it with her brother, who is also his best friend. There they come across four young men. After a squabble they burst into a fray and one of those four men wounds fatally the brother of the main character’s wife-to-be. Danny is accused of the crime and is jailed. There he finds a new friend, Nick Moncrieff. They are peers and look so much alike that other convicts and the stuff take one for the other. A few days before Nick’s release he is killed by mistake instead of Danny, but everybody thinks it is Danny who is dead. Thus, the main character pretends to be Nick in prison and then in the outside. He has to solve his friend’s problems concerning property and inheritance. At the same time he puts into practice his plan of retaliating against the murderer of his friends and his associates.
Here we come across not only the confrontation of the two people: the one who committed the crime and the one who had to pay for it. It is a struggle between justice and injustice, in a wider sense – between good and evil. Good (personified in the image of the defendant) has to bear humiliation and suffer from fighting for the truth and, eventually, to show its ability to survive in the modern society. Evil (embodied in the image of the criminal) remains unpunished but only for some short period of time.
J. Archer made a pragmatically right choice by depicting a representative of the upper-middle class as a criminal and an ordinary worker as a defendant. A wrongly convicted arouses not only sympathy but also bitterness and despair in the readers since it is hard to imagine the way this character can prove his innocence. On the contrary, the criminal provokes rage and indignation that are a common reaction to the impunity.
The prison Belmarsh in South-East London where J. Archer being accused of a perjury and sentenced for four years of imprisonment spent the first three weeks of his imprisonment is the scene of the second part of the novel that is headlined “Prison”. There one of the key events of the book happens. The defendant meets Nick Moncrieff who becomes his close friend. Unlike Danny Nick is from a well-to-do family; he is literate and learned. He starts teaching Danny reading, writing and manners, and Danny hopes the jury will treat him more favorably if he looks more refined. Besides, Nick noticed the main character’s faculty for quick learning and his aptitude for algebra and logic that will become essential outside the prison: “You’re every bit as bright as I am”, “and when it comes to maths, you’ve become the teacher” [1]. The punishment of Nick doesn’t seem fair since there wasn’t enough evidence against him as in the protagonist’s case.
Here we can compare the book with the author’s personal experience that he describes in his other work “A Prison Diary”. The main difference is that in “A Prisoner of Birth” the author shares his experience between Danny and Nick and, as we can assume, this is the reason for making these two characters have the same values, abilities and be so much alike. What’s more, J. Archer even makes one character lead the life of the other. In “A Prisoner of Birth” the things that happen, people the main characters meet and the sensation they experience are close to those that the writer experienced himself in “A Prison Diary”. In his biography Archer wrote how hard it was for him to stay locked in knowing he was sentenced for the crime he hadn’t committed, and he often thought how he would have spent his time if he had been with his family then. He was deep in thoughts about his past life when he had been able to see his wife, children and friend every single day and realised how much he missed all that. The protagonist of “A Prisoner of Birth” was constantly thinking about his fianc?e Beth who was faithful to him and did everything in her power to clear his name despite all the difficulties. If we compare “A Prisoner of Birth” and “A Prison Diary” we will notice that the image of Beth is a prototype of Archer’s wife Mary.
From the very first lines of the book the main character, Danny Cartwright, arouses sympathy. The author doesn’t give a direct description of the defendant, but a reader forms an opinion about him according to his manner of talking and behaving. Danny is a representative of a working class: “I’m a Cockney, but my grandfather was Irish” [1, 104]. He has no education and can’t ever read or write. A reader can guess about his background mostly by the extracts of the direct speech. It is characterized by usage of substandard vocabulary, omission of sound [h], simplification of syntax, usage of [n] instead of [?]: “Why would you want to remember of this dump ? [1, 98], “Is ‘e any good?” [1, p. 98], “What are you scribbli n ?” [1, 98] “And you got eight years for that?” [1, p. 115], “How come you don’t get no letters?” [1, p. 115]. Even the barrister pays attention to the lexical and stylistic peculiarities of the defendant’s language during one of their meetings: “Alex was almost shocked by Danny’s language. He’d never heard his client swear once during the past six months” [1, p. 81].
Now the defendant has to clarify the situations he has never experienced before (the lawsuit with the relative of a murdered friend, some serious matters concerning real estate and capital), and he not only gets rid of all these problems with success, but also puts into practice the plans to revenge on the criminal and the person responsible for all his miseries. We see the main character improving himself and changing, and later appears a man that was difficult to imagine. Yet, he is a kind-hearted man whose main values are family and friends. He doesn’t crave for wealth and impact – the main thing for him is to be with his people. Honour and dignity mean to him a lot, as well. It is important for Danny to remain honest, and this fact makes him differ from the criminal. That is why this character declines his lawyer’s offer to plead guilty which would shorten his sentence considerably.
The direct description of the other important character – the criminal – is also omitted, but the way he reveals himself is enough for a reader to form an opinion about him. The criminal Spenser Craig is a successful barrister who has first-hand knowledge of the procession and investigation. He shines an uncomfortable light on the defendant by changing in his testimony the succession of events which happened that fatal night, but the changes are so slight that nobody can suspect him. Besides he talks his friends who are also concerned in that crime into giving false testimony. The criminal takes care of his reputation but most of all he is afraid of losing his freedom. He challenges the acceptable standards of behavior in order to keep his position in the society. This character is an archetype as he proves to be a man without any ethical ideas, i.e. a typical villain. He is a ring-leader of an incident; he withstands the main character in his fight for freedom, and after that follows him till the court finds the real murderer guilty. Honor means nothing for this person. Having sent an innocent behind the bars he doesn’t feel remorse, and the court is not able to denounce him for a long time. The criminal possesses a great capability of winning over other people. Unscrupulousness, shrewdness and mendacity of this character strike a reader.
It is a well-known fact that person’s speech is a marker of his social status. If we analyze the criminal’s speech we will find out that he belongs to a higher social class than the defendant. We can draw this conclusion judging by the usage of more complicated syntax, quotes from Latin that this character is sure to have learnt at university, rich vocabulary: “And how much will you be contributing to this little enterprise?” [1, p. 384], “<…> especially as we didn’t part on the best of terms. Mea culpa.” [1, p. 204].
The defendant and the criminal treated women differently. The relationships between the defendant and his fianc?e are based on devotion, mutual understanding and respect. In the criminal’s life there was one who he wanted to be together with, but as soon as she turns him down he tries to convince everyone she is not his cup of tea. Her decline was more a smack in the eye than a crush of hope for a happy life together. The concept of friendship of these two characters differs, as well. For the defendant the friends are those who he stands for and takes care of. For the criminal they are those who he spends great time with. The criminal and his friends know one another for ages and such an incident is the first test for their relationships. While reading we ask ourselves if they will manage to conceal the truth about what happened on the scene of crime? Despite the fact that Spencer managed to convince the court of his not being guilty for a considerable period of time and avoid punishment, it the end he has to take responsibility for the crime.
To sum it up, it should be pointed that the defendant and the criminal belong to the different social classes, having different backgrounds, educational levels and ambitions, but one can’t help noticing that they are rivals equal in intellect and quick wit, which makes the narrative more exciting and unexpected. The defendant transforms from a simple young man into a shrewd avenger. His life was predictable and still before, but now he runs his own destiny and that of others. However, he manages to keep safe all the qualities and values that have always been important for him. On the contrary, it becomes more difficult for the criminal to keep cool and remain self-confident. He can’t but think about his being denounced someday. The events described in the book show how it feels to lead the life of another man (like a defendant) and to live in a constant fear of exposure. In the image of the defendant (as well as in that of his friend Nick Moncrieff) we can discern the traits of the author himself. The image of a criminal is more a personification of everything that blocks the way of justice.
The list of references:
1. Archer J. A Prisoner of Birth / J. Archer. – New York: St. Martin ’s Press, 2008. – 501 p.