CR Post 3 – Monster Novel
O’Brien: “My job is to make sure the law works for you as well as against you, and to make you a human being in the eyes of the jury” page 25
I found this quote to be very relevant to much of what we discuss in class lectures. After reading this line from the novel, I could not help but to get the idea that Steve, who is the main character of this novel and is being put on trial, is supposed to seem like a “monstrous” criminal, is being represented by someone who gives off this feeling that she doesn’t believe his innocence at all. After reading this quote it appeared to me that O’Brien thought of Steve and the trial to be just that of an assignment, o win the case and to be done with it. As I kept reading on, I came across O’Brien, telling Steve as stop him from drawing the word “monster” on a piece of paper. “You have to believe in yourself if we’re going to convince a jury that you’re innocent”, I began to get the idea that although she may not believe that Steve Harmon is completely innocent, she will do whatever she can to help his case and allow the people in the courtroom to not view him as the monster that they are forcing him to believe he is. With this, O’Brien allows Steve to believe that there is hope for him and that he will not be seen as a “Monster” forever.
I think that you are right that O’Brien is a fascinating character with a very nuanced affective position towards Steve. As you work on your literary paper, I want to encourage you to think less about what O’Brien feels or who she is in the world (b/c she’s a fictional character) and think more about what the text is trying to communicate through O’Brien. 1) That would force you to talk about how we understand the nuances of O’Brien’s position via narrative devices and choices Myers make. 2) It would mean that you would have to posit a stakes about what it means to portray O’Brien this way or to bring up these complexities through the character of O’Brien (i.e. your interpretation) and 3) when you put 1 and 2 together you have a close reading based argument. You say the narrative does X and Y (narrative choice) through O’Brien in order to ultimately communicate (or challenge our ideas) about Z.