William Landay‘s Defending Jacob is a classic, whodunnit mystery...at the surface anyway. The story follows Andrew “Andy” Barber, a District Attorney who takes on the case of recently-murdered Ben Rifkin. Only 14 years old, the death of Ben causes waves of grief to roll over the town of Newton. Andy and the rest of the DA’s office struggle to figure out who killed Ben. What was the motive? Where is the murder weapon? Who in this town could have possibly ended the life of a child? However, as the case continues to unfold, the signs start to point to one potential suspect: Jacob Barber. 

 

Due to the fact that this is a book analysis, from here on out there will be spoilers. Like,

you-might-hate-me-if-you-kept-reading spoilers. You’ve been warned.

 

POV Biases

How far would you go for the ones you love? At first that question seems outright easy - you would do all that you can for those you love. However, throw in a couple of stab wounds, a prosecution, and a potential murderer and the answer to that question becomes unclear. Andy, bewildered by the mere thought that his son is a murderer, stands firmly at Jacob’s side. We discover in the beginning of the novel that Andy’s family has a history of being murderers; his father and grandfather before him are known killers (an interesting plot point that Ladlay indulges in). However, as Andy isn’t a murderer, the “curse” must have ended, and therefore Jacob cannot be a killer. Logic. His unwavering dedication is a testament to his beliefs in sticking with those he loves. Written in first person, Landay brilliantly writes Andy’s character and his history, forcing the reader to question whether Andy’s judgement of his son is to be followed. Throughout the novel, Jacob continues to get prosecuted, though no physical evidence arises to back up the claim of him being a murderer. In Andy’s eyes, this is more than enough. So much so, that Andy is willing to hide Jacob’s innocent knife and gruesome stories that proves Jacob is at the very least, not morally good. Interestingly enough, in  the first few pages of the novel, Andy reflects another DA, Neal Logiudice, and the idea that prosecution does not mean that you are always fighting “bad guys”. Landlay purposefully clues us in that Andy has a different perspective to prosecution and law as a whole. However, as the readers, we see what Andy is ignoring. Jacob, whether he is a murderer or not, clearly struggles with being anything but apathetic towards others. This gives us a disconnect with Andy’s character, a choice Landlay makes to have readers question their own stance on Jacob, rather than follow Andy’s opinion blindly. 

​

The Trolly Problem

Laurie Barber takes the “end” of defending Jacob quite literally. Driving her son to an interview, Laurie does the unthinkable: crashes her car and kills her son. Initially, as a reader I was shocked. How could a mother kill her own child? But the more I analyzed the book and how Landay portrays Laurie, her choice doesn’t seem surprising. We see in the beginning of the novel Laurie is a warm figure to the others in town. Providing light during a dark time, she consoles those around her and believes talking about one’s problems can help find a solution. However, once her son is accused of murder, and Andy’s past is revealed, her world is flipped on it’s axis. No longer is the world full of sunshine and rainbows. Laurie becomes reclusive in her marriage and unable to see Jacob as her son. The psychological problem, coined the trolley problem (see image below), is tackled through Laurie’s decision of killing Jacob. The trolley problem goes as such: there is a trolley headed towards five people. However, you have the choice to pull a lever and cause the trolley to go towards a different path where there is only one person. What choice do you make? One over five sounds simple enough. But what if that one person was a family member and the other five were strangers? Context changes the dilemma and forces us to face our own ethics head on. So, perhaps there isn’t a simple answer after all. In Laurie’s case, she sees it as either allowing Jacob to die or allowing Jacob to kill other victims. It’s an interesting perspective Landay makes, one that is difficult to resolve. 

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

Whodunnit

Now, if you read the novel and at the end thought, “but who killed Ben?!” You’ve severely missed the point of the novel. While the book masks a “whodunnit” arc to appeal to mystery lovers, readers end up with so much more in their hands. Instead, we follow the complex life Andy has, and how his past shapes his decisions when it comes to Jacob. Defending Jacob isn’t necessarily about who killed, but rather how far is one willing to go to defend a potential killer. Andy’s father - in prison due to murder - pulls strings to get the prosecution and jury off of Jacob’s back, pinning it on their second suspect. He fulfills his need to help Andy protect Jacob, though not conventional in the slightest. Because of this, Andy’s character dances on the line between protect and punish. We see in the present that Andy never gives up the idea that the suspect that confessed in a suicide note might not have been the killer; Landlay making Andy not to say anything only solidifies Andy’s character. Of course, it portrays him to be morally gray, but what person is perfect? This is a father who believes his son is innocent, and will defend him until the end, even after Jacob’s death. No, we will never know if Jacob killed Ben or the girl on their vacation, Hope. But what we do learn is how people can react to a prosecution and how one’s morals can change based on critical circumstances. Some could argue the ending was unsatisfying; but, the ending gives us closure to how Jacob’s parents and the town itself reacts to someone being accused of murder. It’s much more realistic; humans are prone to error. Not necessarily a bad thing, but there is not a right or wrong when it comes to dealing with this prosecution, and Ladlay explores this perfectly. He builds a cat and mouse chase, the readers being the cat and the answers to the case being the mouse. Each page was a revelation of a character or plot that gave the ability to change the course of our thought process. You should be left questioning the characters choices rather than trying to answer the murder case itself. I know I was. 

​

Final Thoughts

William Landay’s Defending Jacob hits the mark on how to get his readers to question the ethics and choices the characters make, as well as reflect on their own perspectives on ethics. This novel avoids being a generic murder mystery novel, going from a classic who done it to an anomalous what would you do? There is so much more one could say about this book, but to keep it short, I’ll say this: Landlay exceptionally writes characters and a town in a way that allows us readers to analyze our own moral ambiguity.