The story of Jack Maggs remains consistent with the historical role of the Australian convict in Dickensian England, but also represents a neo-Victorian attempt at coming to terms with an element of Australian history. In both Great Expectations and Jack Maggs, the figure of the convict plays a fundamental role as both outcast and benefactor. This brings together two major forces driving Australian resettlement in the times of Dickens:
By the time Dickens wrote Great Expectations, Australia was no longer primarily a penal colony, and British citizens down on their luck, including not only several of Dickens's characters but also several of his own sons, emigrated from London to start new lives in this land of opportunity. Most saw Australia as a version of "home," albeit a temporary one that would allow them to be financially rehabilitated so that they might eventually return to the real "home," London, as does Pip (if only for a visit) after eleven years in Cairo. But the kind of redemption Pip finds in the East is denied to Australian convicts, for as Hughes explains, even those who were not sent for the term of their lives, "could succeed, but they could hardly, in the real sense, return. They could expiate their crimes in a technical, legal sense, but what they suffered there warped them into permanent outsiders. [Boehm. 586]
Jack Maggs takes place in the same context, but Carey shows the convict much more sympathy than we see in Dickens. The characters are repulsed by Jack, but also sympathize with the hardships he has experienced:
“Mr. Buckle had a sister,” she said, “who he loved most dearly. This sister was transported to Botany Bay.” On hearing this, the quality of his attention changed. She seemed to see this. “He wept to see your injuries. And he wept again when he told me. He could not read another word of his Ivanhoe. He was so upset by what you had suffered.” [Carey 109]
More characters seem directly affected by the treatment of the British judicial system. Jack remains a kind of “outsider[s],” but he is capable of forming attachments in a way that was not possible for the convict in Dickens. Only the young Pip manages to see Magwitch beyond the social stigma attached to him. Carey’s sympathy for Jack Maggs seems related to the changing relationship of contemporary Australians to their colonial history. As Barry Dyster explains, Australia’s social context has changed from one of repression of these stains on their history to one of increased inquiry:
Frank Broeze (1985) has suggested six conditions for the revival of memory since the 1960s. As the convict period became more distant, it became less threatening. As Britain’s importance to Australia waned, so waned Australian deference to British judgments, whether judgment visited on the convicts long ago or British condescension towards the Australian population today. As Australia looked for new roles in a complex world and recruited immigrants for the first time from far beyond the United Kingdom, the definition of national identity became more adventurous and might well find a place for the convicts. As incomes and educations increased, and as the number and kinds of media increased, the demand for and the supply of popular history grew greatly. As local and family history became widely practiced, many practitioners found themselves inevitably in the company of convicts. Sixthly, and partly as a consequence of the other five conditions, professional historians broadened the scope of their craft, explored neglected areas and asked novel questions. [77]
In terms of Jack Maggs, we see a similar revival of memory via three distinct channels. Jack recounts his own story with invisible ink in his own written text, Oates extracts Jack’s memories from him with the hope of capitalizing on his story, and Mercy uses the piecemeal information she acquires from both Jack and Oates in order to help Jack work through his past. This effort comes at the expense of losing an appendage, but she helps Jack accept responsibility for the consequences of his actions. The novel ends with a return to Australia to fulfill Jack’s role as a father in a place better suited to accepting his past mistakes.
Questions
1. How effective is Carey’s rewriting of the Magwitch character in terms of respecting the character Dickens gives us? What kinds of projects might he be attempting to fulfill in this particular kind of radical rewriting? How does it differ from Bertha Mason in Jane Eyre and Wide Sargasso Sea?
2. What can we make of this ending in terms of Australian history? Does it over-simplify the process of working through national trauma? In other words, does the picture of Jack and Mercy at the end seem a bit too perfect when dealing with such a messy and complicated historical issue?
3. To what degree does Carey’s text replicate a similar process of self-imposed amnesia of Australian cultural history? Can rewriting a text ever avoid doing this?4. Does Jack ever come to terms with his experiences in Australia? Carey seems more concerned with highlighting the traumatic experiences leading to his imprisonment rather than the trauma associated with Australia. Why does Carey take the emphasis away from his imprisonment?
5. Does it matter that we hear almost nothing of Jack’s time in Australia? Does this change the text’s status in terms of its utility in coming to terms with Australian national identity?
References
Carey, Peter. Jack Maggs. New York: Vintage, 1999.
Dyster, Barrie. “Convicts.” Labour History 67 (Nov., 1994): 74-83
Boehm, Beth A. “Nostalgia to amnesia: Charles Dickens, Marcus Clarke and narratives of Australia's convict origins” Victorian Newsletter (Spring, 2006).
Last modified 1 March 2004