Pat Barker author of Border Crossings uses a variety of literary techniques to enhance the readers understanding of child criminals and how society deals with these children. Barker utilises the techniques of flashbacks and dialogue to illustrate that morals can change, while the use of minor characters explores the idea that children criminals are victims of circumstance, while dialogue and juxtaposition exposes the subjectivity of truth.
Barker’s effective use of flashbacks and dialogue explores the idea of morality, morals people have, morals which when under circumstance can change.Upon meeting Danny as an adult Barker immediately uses a flashback to take us to Toms meeting with Danny as a child, the meeting after which Tom concludes that Danny is in denial, believing in his own innocence. We then see Tom as a child taking part in an activity which if under different circumstances could have put Tom in Danny’s position, a child criminal, like Danny, Tom denies himself the truth, “it started as a joke. A cruel joke, yes, but still a joke. Whose idea was it to put frog spawn into Neil’s wellies?He couldn’t remember.
Jeff’s he thought, but then he needed to think that. ”(Page 63) Both children were put in a position where they were afraid; due to this fear they protected themselves by committing an immoral act. However there were different circumstances in which Tom was saved and his act, forgotten. He is seen as innocent, the dialogue and flashback highlights this.
Making us question morality, and that although we set our self-standard to be morally innocent, dependant on circumstances those morals can change.Barker introduction of Minor characters, along with the use of juxtaposition allows us to analyse the idea of child criminals being the victims of circumstance. Michelle and Ryan are introduced as the “other” patients that Tom treats. Both immediately juxtaposed to Danny, Michelle and Ryan being from a low-socio cultural background, where being abused by family and abusing them back is normal. Were Danny is from rural England were his home life and behaviour is rare and when discovered immediately picked up by the media while Michelle and Ryan go unnoticed.
Like Michelle and Ryan, Danny was abused by those close to him, his father. However unlike the other children he does not use this as an excuse, he saw his father as a hero, someone to live up to. While Michelle reacts to her abuse by acting violent, biting the nose of her mother’s boyfriend after being raped at the age of 8, while Ryan due to his daily abuse of him being pushed down the stairs etc makes him unaware that his action are seen as criminal, he doesn’t think of his actions as cruel or a way of “revenge” it’s just a way of life.Along with dismissing his father as an excuse for his crime Danny also has a conscience which in turn comes with morals, in particular moral circles “he was talking about Moral circles, the group of people (and animals) inside the circle, whom it is not permissible to kill, and the others, outside, who enjoy such immunity.For Danny’s father, dogs, cats and most people were inside the circle. Chickens, convicted murders, rabbits, enemy soldiers, farm animals, enemy civilians(in some circumstances), game birds, children(in uniform), burglars, if caught on the premises, and Irishmen, if suspected of being terrorists and providing the appropriate warnings had been given, were outside” (page 125).
Lizzie was a person whom he was not permitted to kill she was inside the circle but due to his circumstances his morals were pushed and he became the victim of circumstance. Barkers use of juxtaposition between Bernard and Elspeth Greene, along with their dialogue allows us to explore the different perceptions of truth, it subjectivity and vulnerability to manipulation.While Bernard views Danny through rose-tinted glasses, a boy who shows improvement in the process of rehabilitation, wanting to make something of himself beyond his “jail time”, mimicking Bernard’s behaviour and actions, Bernard’s naively taking pride in this mimicry, believing that he is having an impact in improving Danny as a person. Elspeth Greene however views Danny as being manipulative, having the ability to mesmerise those around him in order to get what he wants, describing him as “a bottomless pit.He wanted other people to fill him, only in the process the other people ended up drained.
”(Page 164) upon Elspeth’s introduction Tom immediately dismisses her as a person of importance viewing Bernard as the one with the “power”, telling his wife to fetch him tea and answer the door for guests, seeing his study as powerful, but when entering the kitchen with Elspeth for tea, this is where the power lies, now seeing the study for what it is, a playpen, only a delusion of ower. Bernard is a perfect portrayal of truth being subjective; he warps his own truth in order to believe that when releasing the criminals from his school he has changed them in some way positive, protecting him from believing he is harming society by putting the boys into regular society.Elspeth, also a portal of truth being subjective, warps her truth into believing that she has had no effect on the boys, protecting herself from failure if her students are to commit crime again. Barker use of two characters in the same situation having highly different opinions, highlight that dependant on our knowledge experience or personal protection, truth is highly subjective, and easy to manipulate.
Pat Barker effective use of flashback and Juxtaposition illustrate the subjectivity of morality and truth while the use of minor characters explore the idea behind child criminals and whether they are in fact only victims of circumstance. Leaving the audience in question of what drives children to crime because there is so many components that can never be fully answered or be answered with total accuracy due to the subjectivity of the truth and morality behind the answers.
