‘Complicity’ by Iain Banks is an exploration of human nature and morality which

provokes us to question ourselves. By an examination of Banks’ presentation of the

character of Andy, I intend to analyse which techniques in particular enhance his theme
of the justifiability of an immoral act which therefore adds credibility and realism to his
argument.

The main aspect of the book which I feel helps to present Andy effectively as a just and
moral person is the structure. The novel consists of a main storyline narrated by the
protagonist Cameron Lolley, Andy’s closest friend, whilst background information is
relayed. This extra information comes in the form of Cameron’s flashbacks to shared
experiences the men have had. The majority of these are from their childhood which
helps build up a picture of Andy and allows the reader to see where his motives for his
murders come from. This gives us a greater understanding of Andy and the reader sees
his justification as to why his victims had to die and therefore we see that he is no
stereotypical killer right from the outset. The reader is therefore effectively introduced to
the idea that an immoral act can be intelligently justified.

Banks uses the relationship between Andy and Cameron to develop the character of Andy
and to ensure the reader sees him as a very human character. Their friendship is revealed
to be close and longstanding, as demonstrated by the fact that it is Cameron whom
Andy’s mother contacts upon the death of his sister Claire. To echo this, the first
description we are given of Andy is from Cameron who describes him as

“…my old soul mate, my surrogate brother, my other me.”

This emphasises the fact that their close relationship was evident. We also learn this from
Cameron when he describes how he sees turning Andy in to the police as “one more
betrayal.” Even though Cameron knows the horrific murders Andy has committed, he
still feels connected and loyal to him. We can therefore assume that if the man who
knows him best still believes there is good in him, then there must be a valid, although
not evident, reason for it. The reader therefore feels sympathy and understanding towards
Andy and wants to believe in the honour in this human character.

Banks effectively creates sympathy for Andy in the reader’s mind in order to further
develop the idea that an immoral act can be justified. This is shown when he describes
how during Andy’s time in the army he was awarded a prestigious medal for bravery
during a failed mission. However, he returned the decorations when he learned that the
officer responsible for the failure had been promoted. This is clear, conclusive evidence
of Andy’s belief in his morals and loyalty to them which the reader feels deserves
commendation. Andy later confesses to Cameron that the mission is the only thing he has
nightmares about, saying:

“Isn’t that ridiculous?”

This provokes sympathy for Andy and we see his vulnerability and troubled nature, and
the reader feels he deserves their pity. This is therefore effective in promoting
understanding for his actions and therefore the idea of the justifiability of an immoral act
is enhanced.

For the murders themselves, banks has chosen to use second person present narrative
which allows us to gain valuable insight into how nervous, unsure and uncertain Andy is,
for example when he says:

“You wish the light was a little less bright. The moustache prickles under your nose.”

This choice of narrative allows the reader to be subconsciously drawn directly into events
and encouraged to see things from Andy’s perspective and to put themselves in his place.
This means that banks persuades the reader to find a deeper understanding for Andy’s
actions and therefore not to jump to the conclusion that the murder is insane and ignorant.
This therefore allows him to enhance the idea that an immoral act can be justified.

An understanding of Andy’s view of his victims is essential in understanding why he felt

they deserved to die. An example of this is the fact that one of his first victims was Dr
Halziel, the incompetent man whom Andy blamed for his sister’s death. In the climactic
scene in which Cameron confront Andy, Cameron tries to reason with him, saying that
Halziel was not malicious, neither did he hate Claire or wish her dead. Andy rebukes this
saying:

“Is a certain level of skill translates into the gift of life or death it becomes malice when
you don’t bother to exercise that skill, because people are relying on you to do just that.”

This shows his clear reasoning and the intelligence in his deductions which the reader can
commend him for without condemning, but understanding, his actions. His line of
thought is echoed by his descriptions of why he felt his friend Howie deserved to die:

“Broke his wife’s jaw, both her arms and her collarbone; he fractured her skull and
birched her when she was pregnant. That what we’re human for, so we can choose to alter
our behaviour; he wouldn’t so it himself, so I did it for him.”

This is the first clear indication of why Andy believed these men should die; that if
people do not use their basic human abilities, be it skills or the realisation that behaviour
requires altering to value the lives of others, they do not deserve to live. Although this
philosophy shocks the reader, its simplicity is evident and the reasoning basic and
comprehensible. This therefore enhances our view of Andy as an intelligent, human and
moral character fulfilling what he believes to be his role in life: to broadcast his morality
in the most explicit way he can. The reader recognises this fact and the idea of
justifiability of an immoral act is further developed and successfully implanted in the
reader’s mind.

‘Complicity’ poses many moral questions for both the characters and the reader. Do we
allow ourselves to justify Andy’s actions and therefore risk condoning them? Or do we
fall into the trap of stereotyping all killers as insane, ignorant and irrational? After close
examination of the text, I believe that Banks’ skilful portrayal of Andy constantly as an
honourable, moral, human character allows us to understand his actions and the reasoning
behind them. We are therefore open to the possibility of the idea that his generally
considered immoral acts can be justified as a result. Therefore, in conclusion, Banks’
portrayal of the character of Andy is effective in enhancing his theme of justifiability of
an immoral act.