Characterisation and language features concerning the values of retributive justice, power, and integrity are used by Saville in Felony (2014) to comment on the idea of telling truths and issues of self-reproach and social justice. Carl and Julie’s differing truths on guilt and punishment, as articulated through their depiction and verbal expression, are placed in opposition to the value of retributive justice by Saville. The characterisation of Ankhila as marginalised and her dialogue with Jim informs a cultural discourse on the value of power, which Saville uses to highlight the issue of social justice. Through having Malcolm confess the truth, Saville shows that remorse triumphs over fear in influencing the protagonist’s unforceful value
…show more content…
The value of retributive justice is represented by Saville in Carl’s language portraying his truth that guilt is enough of a penalty and Julie’s characterisation and protest depicting her truth that family is her first priority. When urging Malcolm to not confess his crime, Julie says ‘I might not seem like a good person, but I have to be a good mother.’ (Saville). By employing language features to contrast the terms person and mother, Saville shows the two as mutually exclusive. The punishment of Malcolm is detrimental to Julie’s children as it will deprive them of their father; she chooses to prioritise her role as a parent, believing she must care for her boys at all costs. However Julie does not allow Malcolm to escape his guilt, instead blaming him for the difficult decision she had to make, ‘You did this to me.’ (Saville). ‘Prison is …show more content…
Jim asks Ankhila ‘Don’t you want to know [who ran into your son]?’ (Saville). The question forces her to declare a position and, through the employment of negative language in don’t you, expresses clear opposition towards a negative response. Jim’s opinion is conveyed as feeling that yes is the only correct answer. If something is so intuitive in his mind, the only reason Jim would ask Ankhila is if he felt she would answer the opposite way. Ankhila’s startled and unsure response along with the excusing of herself to avoid any prospect of further discussion on the case (Saville) suggests Jim’s suspicions are correct, Ankhila does not want to know who ran into her son. The omission of desire by Saville is intended to portray Ankhila as finding the prospect of bringing someone to justice undesirable, a process requiring her to maintain contact with the police. This suggests an adversity towards the police which, being she is an innocent party, must be due to distrust. Such an interpretation is supported when Saville characterises Ankhila as unwilling to come into opposition with Jim; never answering the police officer’s questions negatively by either responding favourably, as above, or avoiding the question, something she does when she asks Jim, ‘Can I think
The value of retributive justice is represented by Saville in Carl’s language portraying his truth that guilt is enough of a penalty and Julie’s characterisation and protest depicting her truth that family is her first priority. When urging Malcolm to not confess his crime, Julie says ‘I might not seem like a good person, but I have to be a good mother.’ (Saville). By employing language features to contrast the terms person and mother, Saville shows the two as mutually exclusive. The punishment of Malcolm is detrimental to Julie’s children as it will deprive them of their father; she chooses to prioritise her role as a parent, believing she must care for her boys at all costs. However Julie does not allow Malcolm to escape his guilt, instead blaming him for the difficult decision she had to make, ‘You did this to me.’ (Saville). ‘Prison is …show more content…
Jim asks Ankhila ‘Don’t you want to know [who ran into your son]?’ (Saville). The question forces her to declare a position and, through the employment of negative language in don’t you, expresses clear opposition towards a negative response. Jim’s opinion is conveyed as feeling that yes is the only correct answer. If something is so intuitive in his mind, the only reason Jim would ask Ankhila is if he felt she would answer the opposite way. Ankhila’s startled and unsure response along with the excusing of herself to avoid any prospect of further discussion on the case (Saville) suggests Jim’s suspicions are correct, Ankhila does not want to know who ran into her son. The omission of desire by Saville is intended to portray Ankhila as finding the prospect of bringing someone to justice undesirable, a process requiring her to maintain contact with the police. This suggests an adversity towards the police which, being she is an innocent party, must be due to distrust. Such an interpretation is supported when Saville characterises Ankhila as unwilling to come into opposition with Jim; never answering the police officer’s questions negatively by either responding favourably, as above, or avoiding the question, something she does when she asks Jim, ‘Can I think