The Pact
Chapter 12: NOW: December 1997 (2)
by Picoult, JodiGus Harte, mother of Chris—a high school scholar-athlete accused of murdering his girlfriend—reflects on the stark contrast between the freedom of choice in a grocery store and the rigid routines of the Grafton County Correctional Facility where her son is held. As she considers buying Clementines, Chris’s favorite fruit, she questions whether they’d even be allowed in the prison, imagining guards inspecting them with the same vigilance she once used to check his Halloween candy. The vibrant produce aisle overwhelms her, highlighting the oppressive lack of agency in her son’s life and her own growing despair.
While shopping, Gus overhears gossip from local women who blame her parenting for Chris’s alleged crime, insinuating he’s either a “bad seed” or a product of poor upbringing. Confronting them, Gus challenges their right to judge, but the women dismiss her, reinforcing the town’s collective scrutiny. The encounter leaves Gus shaken, and she abandons her cart upon spotting a sensationalized newspaper headline: “Murder in a Small Town, Part II,” which frames Chris’s case as a lurid drama. The article’s biased tone fuels her anger, and she impulsively takes the paper without paying, defiantly embracing the town’s negative perception of her family.
Determined to confront the media’s exploitation of Chris’s case, Gus storms into the offices of the *Grafton County Gazette* to demand a retraction from editor Simon Favre. She accuses the paper of sensationalism, arguing that the headline misrepresents the facts by implying Chris’s presence at the crime scene is newly revealed evidence. Favre dismissively offers her a chance to share her side of the story, but Gus refuses, insisting her son’s innocence shouldn’t require public justification. Though Favre agrees to adjust the tone of future coverage, he cynically notes that public opinion has already been swayed, leaving Gus powerless against the narrative.
The chapter closes with Selena, another character, arriving at Jordan’s house, where she casually interacts with Thomas, Jordan’s son. Their lighthearted banter contrasts sharply with Gus’s turmoil, underscoring the divide between the personal toll of the case and the outside world’s indifference. The scene hints at the broader community’s detachment from the Hartes’ suffering, emphasizing how gossip and media spin have eclipsed the human tragedy at the story’s core.
FAQs
1. How does the supermarket setting contrast with Gus’s experience of visiting Chris in prison, and what does this reveal about her emotional state?
Answer:
The vibrant, abundant produce in the supermarket—described as “a rainbow of soldiers”—sharply contrasts with the dull “serviceable russets and grays” of the prison. This juxtaposition highlights Gus’s longing for normalcy and autonomy, which Chris lacks in jail. The overwhelming choices (e.g., tangerines vs. apples) symbolize freedom, while prison life is rigidly controlled (“eat this, walk here”). Gus’s hesitation over buying Clementines—Chris’s favorite—reveals her grief and powerlessness, as even small gestures of care (bringing fruit) are fraught with restrictions. The scene underscores her emotional turmoil, caught between mundane routines and the trauma of her son’s incarceration.2. Analyze the confrontation between Gus and the “Bainbridge biddies.” How does this interaction reflect the town’s perception of Chris’s case?
Answer:
The women’s gossip—”he’d have to learn that behavior somewhere” and “bad seed”—demonstrates the town’s rush to judgment. Their comments reflect a pervasive bias: Chris is already deemed guilty in the court of public opinion, with blame extended to his parents. Gus’s defiant response (“why is this any concern of yours?”) challenges their intrusion, but their retreat (“when it happens in our town…”) reveals a collective ownership over the tragedy. This mirrors real-world small-town dynamics, where crime becomes communal fodder, and the accused are socially condemned before trial. The scene emphasizes the isolation and stigma Gus faces.3. What does the newspaper headline “MURDER IN A SMALL TOWN, PART II” suggest about media ethics, and how does Gus’s reaction critique sensationalism?
Answer:
The headline’s dramatic framing (“PART II”) and subheading (“Evidence Mounts…”) prioritize narrative intrigue over factual nuance, painting Chris as a “Scholar-Athlete” turned killer. Gus’s outrage—”when did newspapers start printing fiction?“—criticizes the media’s exploitation of tragedy for “shock value.” Editor Favre’s admission (“it’s a good hook”) confirms this profit-driven approach. The exchange highlights how media sensationalism fuels public prejudice, making fairness irrelevant once “people have sunk their teeth into the story.” Gus’s futile demand for a retraction underscores the power imbalance between truth and salacious storytelling.4. How does Gus’s theft of the newspaper symbolize her evolving defiance?
Answer:
Initially, Gus follows societal rules (considering paying for the paper) but then defiantly keeps it—”Let them think the whole family’s full of felons.” This act mirrors her broader rebellion against the town’s judgment. Where she once might have avoided confrontation, she now openly challenges the Gazette’s editor. The theft signifies her rejection of perceived moral authority (the store, the media) and her embrace of “outsider” status. It’s a small but pivotal act of agency, reflecting her transformation from a grieving mother into a fierce advocate unafraid to disrupt norms for Chris’s sake.5. What thematic role does the absent “PART I” of the newspaper series play in the chapter?
Answer:
Gus’s question—”What happened to PART I?“—symbolizes fragmented narratives and selective truth-telling. The missing installment suggests media cherry-picking of details to craft a cohesive, damning story. It also mirrors Gus’s own fragmented understanding of events; just as the public lacks context, she grapples with gaps in Chris’s case. The omission hints at how stories are shaped by omission, reinforcing the theme of perception vs. reality. The Gazette’s narrative control parallels the legal system’s power—both construct versions of truth that may exclude exonerating evidence or humanity.
Quotes
1. “The options were staggering—should she pick the tangerines, the green Granny Smith apples, the smooth-cheeked tomatoes? A choice at every turn—the complete antithesis of being told to eat this, to walk here, to shower now.”
This quote powerfully contrasts the overwhelming freedom of civilian life with the rigid control of prison, using Gus’s supermarket experience to highlight how incarceration strips away basic autonomy. It underscores the psychological impact on both Chris (the incarcerated) and Gus (the family member).
2. “When it happens in our town, it becomes our problem.”
Spoken by a judgmental townswoman, this quote encapsulates the small-town mentality that has turned Chris’s case into public property. It reveals how gossip and moral policing intensify the family’s suffering, showing the social consequences of the alleged crime.
3. “I could say your boy sprouted angel wings and flew to heaven, Mrs. Harte. That could even be the truth. But if people have already sunk their teeth into the story, they’re not going to let it go.”
Editor Simon Favre’s cynical remark exposes how media sensationalism overrides truth in high-profile cases. This moment crystallizes the novel’s exploration of how public perception becomes its own damaging force, separate from legal facts.
4. “My son is innocent. He loved that girl. I loved that girl. There’s your truth.”
Gus’s defiant declaration to the newspaper editor represents both a mother’s unconditional loyalty and the emotional core of the story. This raw statement contrasts sharply with the legal and media narratives, emphasizing the personal tragedy beneath the public spectacle.
5. “Unless he’s just a bad seed.”
This whispered comment from a townsfolk captures the dehumanizing rhetoric surrounding Chris’s case. As a standalone phrase, it powerfully illustrates how society reduces complex individuals to simplistic labels when judging crime and morality.