IB English Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil Chunk #3 Response

Theme: In Savannah, Everything Changes, Everything Stays the Same

“Six months after his acquittal, Jim Williams sat down at his desk to make plans for his first Christmas party in eight years. He called Lucille Wright and asked her to prepare a low-country banquet for two hundred people. He hired a bartender, four waiters, and two musicians. Then he took out his stack of index cards and embarked on the most delicate and satisfying task of all: compiling his guest list” (Berendt 370).

I think that this quote is a good example of a theme Berendt repeatedly mentions throughout the book. No matter what events occur, Savannah remains the same. Jim Williams was tried a record-breaking four times for the murder of Danny Hansford. After he is acquitted, does he move away? No. He chooses to remain in Mercer House. Williams even continues his old tradition of the annual Christmas party. Other than the absence of Danny Hansford’s less-than-delightful presence, there is little different in Mercer House. Williams even calls up his usual caterer and compiles his guest list, acting the whole time as if the past eight years never happened. This attitude extends beyond just Williams to the entire city of Savannah. The city and its inhabitants do all they can to preserve things as they are. They remain isolated; insular and voluntarily cut off from the outside world. Things have been a certain way in the past, so they should always be that way. I also think Berendt is a good observer of this as an outsider (at least initially) in Savannah’s society. He is able to describe this characteristic in a way that other outsiders, such as myself, can read about and better understand it.

IB English Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil Chunk #2 Response

Theme: Corruption of Authorities

“Some weeks after the guilty verdict was handed down, Bobby Lee Cook received an envelope from an anonymous source in the district attorney’s office. Inside was a copy of the police report written by Corporal Anderson on the night of the earlier incident. The report contained the statement: ‘We did find a fresh bullet hole in the floor.” It contradicted his sworn testimony at the trial” (Berendt 236).

I think that this quote exemplifies Berendt’s continued theme of the corruption of Savannahian authorities. The background for the above quote is that Spencer Lawton was Savannah’s District Attorney and the prosecutor in the case against Jim Williams, and that Bobby Lee Cook is defending Williams. Lawton called Corporal Anderson to testify that the bullet hole found in the Mercer House floor several months before the murder was not fresh. This would have meant that Danny Hansford did not fire a Luger into the floor in anger and that the whole “angry outburst” incident was staged by Williams. Since said incident was several months prior to the actual killing, it would have meant that Williams had planned out Danny’s murder in advance. Lawton made this theory the central argument in his case before the Georgia Supreme Court.

However, the report in the quote shows that this testimony, and hence theory, were false. This meant that Lawton conducted serious legal misconduct in his persecution of Williams. Since Lawton had lost his previous case, perhaps he was extra determined to win this one, even if it required circumventing the law. This corruption is made evident by the quote, and provides a key example of Berendt’s continued theme of the corruption of Savannahian authorities. Previously in the book, Berendt had told of how, during Prohibition, when alcohol was illegal, Savannah was still “wet”. This implies that the authorities knew about Savannah ignoring the law, but chose to not prosecute them. Furthermore, Berendt discusses how many parties take place in Savannah are loud and disturb the neighbors, implying that they are likely breaking noise ordinance laws. Again, the authorities do nothing. On top of all of this, local law enforcement (with the occasional exception of a rookie) is blatantly stated to allow Emma Kelly, the “Lady of Six Thousand Songs”, to drive over the speed limit. And, at this point in the book, Berendt makes it clear that this corruption of Savannahian authorities includes both the lower-ranking police officer and the higher-ranking District Attorney.

Does anyone agree or disagree? I did not actually notice a part of the book where these legal authority figures are portrayed as positive, non-corrupt figures, but it would be great if someone else did and let me know where it is.

IB English Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil Chunk #1 Response

Foreshadowing: Jim Williams

“…I keep pistols in strategic places. There's a Luger in the rear library, another in a desk drawer in my office, a third in the Irish linen press in the hall, and a Smith and Wesson in the living room. I've also got a shotgun and three or four rifles upstairs. The pistols are loaded.

‘That's four loaded pistols,’ I said.

‘There's a risk, I know. But I'm a gambler’” (Berendt 21).

I think that this quote shows foreshadowing. Although Berendt’s book is technically classified as nonfiction (and even this is debated), he makes use of several techniques commonly seen in novels, one of which is foreshadowing. The above quote discusses how Jim Williams keeps many (loaded) guns in his house for protection. However, based on what the readers see of Savannah, this is not entirely necessary. For example, Joe Odom never shuts the doors to his residence. Even if a firearm deterrent were needed, one or two guns would be plenty. Since Jim Williams has all of these guns in his house, the chances that he will use a gun at least some point in the story seems likely. In addition, Williams admits that it is a risk, but he is a gambler. Unfortunately, a gambler will eventually run out of luck. Due to all of this, I think that there will be a tragic accident involving Jim Williams and his gun(s) somewhere later on in the story.

Does anyone agree or disagree with my opinion? In addition, since the book is “nonfiction”, do you think this part of the book is germane to today’s debates about gun control?