Small Great Things

    by

    Picoult, Jodi

    Jodi Picoult’s Small Great Things (2016) explores themes of race, privilege, and justice through the story of Ruth Jefferson, an African American labor and delivery nurse accused of causing the death of a white supremacist couple’s newborn. The novel alternates perspectives between Ruth, the infant’s father Turk Bauer, and Ruth’s public defender Kennedy McQuarrie, revealing systemic racism and personal biases. Inspired by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s quote about doing “small things in a great way,” the narrative examines moral dilemmas and societal structures. The book has been praised for its thought-provoking examination of contemporary racial tensions and is being adapted into a film.

    The chap­ter opens with Ruth Jef­fer­son reflect­ing on her height­ened aware­ness of oth­ers’ gazes dur­ing her tri­al, com­par­ing it to her mater­nal intu­ition when her son Edi­son was young. Despite fac­ing for­ward as instruct­ed by her lawyer Kennedy, she feels the weight of stares from both hos­tile white suprema­cists and sup­port­ive Black com­mu­ni­ty mem­bers in the gallery. Her fam­i­ly’s presence—Edison and sis­ter Adisa hold­ing hands—offers a tan­gi­ble source of strength. Ruth employs breath­ing tech­niques from her nurs­ing expe­ri­ence to steady her­self, mir­ror­ing the calm she once coached labor­ing moth­ers to achieve, as she pre­pares for the tri­al’s inten­si­ty.

    Pros­e­cu­tor Odette Law­ton deliv­ers her open­ing state­ment, fram­ing the case around the death of infant Davis Bauer while strate­gi­cal­ly side­step­ping the racial dynam­ics of the inci­dent. She por­trays the Bauers’ request for a white nurse as a legit­i­mate exer­cise of patient rights, recast­ing Ruth’s alleged inac­tion as a venge­ful response to per­son­al offense. Odette accus­es Ruth of inten­tion­al neglect and vio­lent mal­prac­tice, cit­ing autop­sy evi­dence of bruis­ing. Her rhetoric paints Ruth as a mur­der­er moti­vat­ed by rage rather than a med­ical pro­fes­sion­al bound by oath, skill­ful­ly redi­rect­ing the jury’s focus from sys­temic bias to indi­vid­ual cul­pa­bil­i­ty.

    Ruth grap­ples with the vis­cer­al impact of the accu­sa­tions, feel­ing the jury’s scruti­ny like phys­i­cal pres­sure. Kennedy’s sub­tle reassurance—a hand squeeze and ear­li­er advice not to show vulnerability—helps her main­tain com­po­sure. Inter­nal­ly, Ruth coun­ters Odet­te’s nar­ra­tive by recall­ing her decades of com­pas­sion­ate care for new­borns, con­struct­ing an emo­tion­al bul­wark against the dehu­man­iz­ing por­tray­al. The con­trast between her self-image as a heal­er and the pros­e­cu­tion’s char­ac­ter­i­za­tion as a killer under­scores the chap­ter’s cen­tral ten­sion: whose sto­ry will the jury believe?

    The chap­ter cul­mi­nates in Kennedy’s rebut­tal, poised to chal­lenge Odet­te’s black-and-white fram­ing. While her full argu­ment is cut off, her open­ing lines hint at a strat­e­gy to recen­ter the case on sys­temic racism and Ruth’s pro­fes­sion­al­ism. The jux­ta­po­si­tion of both legal approaches—Odette’s empha­sis on Ruth’s alleged mal­ice ver­sus Kennedy’s implied con­tex­tu­al defense—sets the stage for the tri­al’s ide­o­log­i­cal bat­tle­ground, where facts and per­cep­tion will col­lide along racial lines.

    FAQs

    • 1. How does Ruth Jefferson attempt to manage her anxiety in the courtroom, and what does this reveal about her character?

      Answer:
      Ruth employs breathing techniques she previously used with laboring mothers, taking deep breaths and visualizing the tension leaving her body (page 337). This demonstrates her resilience and ability to draw on her professional experience to self-regulate under extreme stress. It also highlights her compassionate nature—even in her own crisis, she subconsciously reverts to methods designed to comfort others. The passage reveals Ruth’s internal strength and discipline, as well as her deep connection to her nursing identity, which becomes a psychological anchor during the trial.

      2. How does prosecutor Odette Lawton strategically frame the case to the jury, and what rhetorical techniques does she employ?

      Answer:
      Odette deliberately reframes the racial discrimination aspect as a matter of “patients’ rights” (page 337-338), downplaying the Bauers’ racism while emphasizing Ruth’s alleged retaliation. She uses vivid language (“jackals at carrion”), repetition of “baby,” and emotionally charged accusations (“murderer”) to paint Ruth as vengeful and incompetent. By physically distancing herself from Ruth while claiming shared jury identity (“one of them”), Odette manipulates implicit biases. Her rhetoric transforms systemic racism into an individual failure of professionalism, a strategic move Kennedy anticipated (page 338: “I told you so”).

      3. Analyze the significance of physical touch and connection in this chapter. How do these moments contrast with the courtroom’s tension?

      Answer:
      Touch serves as both a literal and metaphorical lifeline. Edison and Adisa’s hand-holding creates a “force field” of support (page 336), while Kennedy’s subtle hand squeeze counters Odette’s accusations (page 338). These contrast sharply with Odette’s pointed finger and the jury’s visual “picking over” of Ruth. Ruth’s memory of comforting newborns (page 338) further juxtaposes her nurturing touch against Odette’s depiction of “violent” actions. The tactile imagery underscores the trial’s dehumanizing nature while preserving Ruth’s humanity through private moments of connection.

      Answer:
      The chapter demonstrates how legal narratives are consciously constructed for jury perception rather than absolute truth. Odette avoids racial discourse entirely, reframing the case as professional negligence (page 337-338), while Ruth’s team must decide whether to challenge this directly. Public gallery dynamics—the supremacists’ restraint versus the Black community’s silent support (page 336)—show how courtroom theater extends beyond the jury. Kennedy’s warning (“Do not let them see you sweat,” page 338) highlights how defendants must perform innocence under scrutiny, where visible reactions can outweigh factual evidence.

      5. How does the author use medical imagery to reflect Ruth’s psychological state during the trial?

      Answer:
      Medical metaphors permeate Ruth’s perspective: the gallery’s stares feel like “pinpricks” and “bug bites” (page 336), evoking clinical hypersensitivity. Her breathing exercise mirrors labor coaching (page 337), equating the trial’s stress with childbirth’s transformative pain. Odette’s autopsy reference (page 338) ironically parallels Ruth’s feeling of being psychologically dissected by the jury. This imagery reinforces Ruth’s dual reality—she’s both a healthcare provider and a patient in the legal system, with her expertise now weaponized against her (“violated professional standards,” page 338).

    Quotes

    • 1. “I’ve got eyes in the back of my head, I would tell him, when he was amazed that even if I turned away, I knew he was trying to steal a snack before dinner.”

      This opening reflection establishes Ruth’s maternal instincts and situational awareness—qualities that become painfully ironic as she faces false accusations of negligence in her professional capacity as a nurse.

      2. “The defendant stood there, and she watched that baby struggle to breathe, and she let that baby die.”

      Odette Lawton’s prosecutorial rhetoric distorts Ruth’s inaction during the medical crisis, framing it as intentional murder rather than the complex result of systemic racism and hospital protocols. This quote represents the prosecution’s core narrative.

      3. “Ruth Jefferson’s behavior was wanton, reckless, and intentional. Ruth Jefferson is a murderer.”

      The blunt accusation highlights the novel’s central conflict—how racial bias transforms professional decisions into criminal acts. The legal language (“wanton, reckless”) contrasts sharply with Ruth’s internal monologue about her care ethics.

      4. “We have all had our feelings hurt, ladies and gentlemen. But even if you don’t feel that a choice was made correctly—even if you find it a moral affront—you don’t retaliate.”

      Odette’s jury appeal reduces systemic racism to mere “hurt feelings,” reframing Ruth as vindictive rather than constrained by structural barriers. This quote exemplifies the prosecution’s strategy of depoliticizing racial dynamics.

      5. “The prosecutor will have you believe this case is black and white. But not in the way that you think.”

      Kennedy’s opening rebuttal introduces the novel’s thematic core—the false binary of racial perception versus the complex realities of institutional bias. The interrupted sentence structure mirrors the ongoing tension in the courtroom drama.

    Quotes

    1. “I’ve got eyes in the back of my head, I would tell him, when he was amazed that even if I turned away, I knew he was trying to steal a snack before dinner.”

    This opening reflection establishes Ruth’s maternal instincts and situational awareness—qualities that become painfully ironic as she faces false accusations of negligence in her professional capacity as a nurse.

    2. “The defendant stood there, and she watched that baby struggle to breathe, and she let that baby die.”

    Odette Lawton’s prosecutorial rhetoric distorts Ruth’s inaction during the medical crisis, framing it as intentional murder rather than the complex result of systemic racism and hospital protocols. This quote represents the prosecution’s core narrative.

    3. “Ruth Jefferson’s behavior was wanton, reckless, and intentional. Ruth Jefferson is a murderer.”

    The blunt accusation highlights the novel’s central conflict—how racial bias transforms professional decisions into criminal acts. The legal language (“wanton, reckless”) contrasts sharply with Ruth’s internal monologue about her care ethics.

    4. “We have all had our feelings hurt, ladies and gentlemen. But even if you don’t feel that a choice was made correctly—even if you find it a moral affront—you don’t retaliate.”

    Odette’s jury appeal reduces systemic racism to mere “hurt feelings,” reframing Ruth as vindictive rather than constrained by structural barriers. This quote exemplifies the prosecution’s strategy of depoliticizing racial dynamics.

    5. “The prosecutor will have you believe this case is black and white. But not in the way that you think.”

    Kennedy’s opening rebuttal introduces the novel’s thematic core—the false binary of racial perception versus the complex realities of institutional bias. The interrupted sentence structure mirrors the ongoing tension in the courtroom drama.

    FAQs

    1. How does Ruth Jefferson attempt to manage her anxiety in the courtroom, and what does this reveal about her character?

    Answer:
    Ruth employs breathing techniques she previously used with laboring mothers, taking deep breaths and visualizing the tension leaving her body (page 337). This demonstrates her resilience and ability to draw on her professional experience to self-regulate under extreme stress. It also highlights her compassionate nature—even in her own crisis, she subconsciously reverts to methods designed to comfort others. The passage reveals Ruth’s internal strength and discipline, as well as her deep connection to her nursing identity, which becomes a psychological anchor during the trial.

    2. How does prosecutor Odette Lawton strategically frame the case to the jury, and what rhetorical techniques does she employ?

    Answer:
    Odette deliberately reframes the racial discrimination aspect as a matter of “patients’ rights” (page 337-338), downplaying the Bauers’ racism while emphasizing Ruth’s alleged retaliation. She uses vivid language (“jackals at carrion”), repetition of “baby,” and emotionally charged accusations (“murderer”) to paint Ruth as vengeful and incompetent. By physically distancing herself from Ruth while claiming shared jury identity (“one of them”), Odette manipulates implicit biases. Her rhetoric transforms systemic racism into an individual failure of professionalism, a strategic move Kennedy anticipated (page 338: “I told you so”).

    3. Analyze the significance of physical touch and connection in this chapter. How do these moments contrast with the courtroom’s tension?

    Answer:
    Touch serves as both a literal and metaphorical lifeline. Edison and Adisa’s hand-holding creates a “force field” of support (page 336), while Kennedy’s subtle hand squeeze counters Odette’s accusations (page 338). These contrast sharply with Odette’s pointed finger and the jury’s visual “picking over” of Ruth. Ruth’s memory of comforting newborns (page 338) further juxtaposes her nurturing touch against Odette’s depiction of “violent” actions. The tactile imagery underscores the trial’s dehumanizing nature while preserving Ruth’s humanity through private moments of connection.

    Answer:
    The chapter demonstrates how legal narratives are consciously constructed for jury perception rather than absolute truth. Odette avoids racial discourse entirely, reframing the case as professional negligence (page 337-338), while Ruth’s team must decide whether to challenge this directly. Public gallery dynamics—the supremacists’ restraint versus the Black community’s silent support (page 336)—show how courtroom theater extends beyond the jury. Kennedy’s warning (“Do not let them see you sweat,” page 338) highlights how defendants must perform innocence under scrutiny, where visible reactions can outweigh factual evidence.

    5. How does the author use medical imagery to reflect Ruth’s psychological state during the trial?

    Answer:
    Medical metaphors permeate Ruth’s perspective: the gallery’s stares feel like “pinpricks” and “bug bites” (page 336), evoking clinical hypersensitivity. Her breathing exercise mirrors labor coaching (page 337), equating the trial’s stress with childbirth’s transformative pain. Odette’s autopsy reference (page 338) ironically parallels Ruth’s feeling of being psychologically dissected by the jury. This imagery reinforces Ruth’s dual reality—she’s both a healthcare provider and a patient in the legal system, with her expertise now weaponized against her (“violated professional standards,” page 338).

    Note