I have shed part of my disguise in the robing room of the Bailey. Robes off. Collar and cuffs undone; my medium-length blonde hair – tied back in a ponytail in court – released from its bobble; just a little mussed up.
I am more feminine, rid of my garb. With my wig on and my heavy-rimmed glasses, I know I look asexual.
The opening paragraphs of the novel are entirely comprised of Kate Woodcroft, a British barrister, describing her appearance. She commences with that absurd wig that the Brits still insist on wearing within the courtroom before moving on to her black patent leather shoes, collarless tunic, black jacket, and skirt (or trousers on some occasions). All this cataloging of external wear leads relentlessly toward the big reveal that an actual not-unattractive woman is hidden inside the judicial garb. At first glance, this quote and the context surrounding it seem like it is all about feminism. It is only upon closer scrutiny that the scene takes on the tone of a revelation. More specifically, it is the revelation of a truth that has been deliberately disguised. The opening scene of the book which reaches its climax with this quote is a warning to the reader: things are not what they seem. The novel will pursue this theme relentlessly throughout.
“The truth is a tricky issue. Rightly or wrongly, adversarial advocacy is not really an inquiry into the truth. Advocacy is about being more persuasive than your opponent. You can win even if the evidence is stacked against you provided that you argue better. And it’s all about winning, of course.”
These words from Justin Carew are conveyed to the reader via Kate Woodcroft’s recollection. It is the result of a memory from a classroom lecture heard alongside fellow students fresh out of law school. Carew’s efforts at continuing education for eager young lawyers are part of that overall thematic concern with appearances. The judicial system in free and democratic societies like England and America carries this reputation built over time as being a system operating on the value of seeking justice above all else. What Carew says about the judicial system and the law in general within the framework of a public setting is certain to be far different than what he is suggesting here to aspiring attorneys. The novel will explore which is the truer accounting: whether the judicial system is really about justice or whether the entire system of law enforcement is ultimately all about winning the verdict your side seeks.
“We all adjust the truth from time to time. Look at what we do in government: manipulating statistics; putting a positive spin on things; omitting figures that undermine our arguments; pushing the envelope. Look at what we do with Budget statements – all that double accounting. Look what Blair did with the Iraq dossier.”
This conversation is not actually about governmental lies, but personal ones. And yet, the sudden pivot to Big Lies on the part of the government feels less like a deflective tactic on the part of James than it may seem. It is popular to assertively state that political figures have no real influence over one’s life because politicians come and go in our lives taking their relative ownership of power with them. The reality is that they do influence their constituents deeply in more subtle ways. The pivot James makes from the personal to the political is representative of the public at large. He is personifying the broader reality that those who support politicians tend to reflect that person or party’s character. A politician one supports is given far more leeway to behave irresponsibly, unethically, or even legally than a politician one opposes. The quick pivot by James here is representative of how easy it is and how often it happens that one own’s personal code of behavior becomes easier to corrupt when one is supportive of the same type of corruption in their leaders.
