Abstract: This writing assignment is modeled after papers given in literature conferences. For this assignment, a CFP (call for papers) has to be found for which to write a paper for, or to use one made for the assignment concerning the topic of crime fiction. My paper, falling into the topic of crime fiction, talks about the popular TV series “Better Call Saul”, with a specific focus on analyzing the psyche of the main character, James McGill, assessing the validity of his criminal origins. This assignment helped me practice using various library resources, formulate and articulate my stances, and engage in genre analysis and multimodal composing.

Maxim Zorkin

ENGL 21001

Professor Carpenter 

5/8/25

Better Call Saul: The Plausibility of Saul Goodman’s Criminal Circumstances     

Better Call Saul is a widely popular TV series, a spinoff focused on a character from another massive hit series produced by director Vince Gilligan Breaking Bad. In it, the fan-favorite character “Saul Goodman” is given the spotlight, delving into his life, experiences and actions prior to the events of Breaking Bad. Saul Goodman, or better referred to by his original name of Jimmy McGill is depicted as a mischievous con man who dabbles in unlawful activities, and as the brother of Charles McGill Jr., a successful lawyer whom he looks up to, thus trying to elevate his career in criminal law. Jim’s struggle to abandon his criminal tendencies over the prestige of a safe and prosperous career as a lawyer is a key element of his character, one that allows for the juxtaposition of Jim’s normal life and his further descent into the unlawful corners of society to be laid bare, and eventually when his two lives inevitably merge and conclude with his downfall. What Better Call Saul does to help the understanding of Jim’s character observed in Breaking Bad is not just start with his introduction to the cartels of the New Mexico setting but also delve into his past early life. More importantly to the subject of the paper in assessing Jim’s psychological state, one of these scenes demonstrates the origins behind Jim’s persona of “Slippin’ Jimmy”, a time during his adolescence when Jim would scam and manipulate people for money which is shown to directly contribute to his far more criminal behavior in the future. 

In episode 7 of season 2 titled “Inflatable”, Jimmy McGill is seen in a flashback as a child where he witnesses a con artist trying to swipe money from his father at his convenience store with the ruse of a broken down car. While Jimmy saw through the farce, he instead let the con man buy a pack of cigarettes with the same money he was given by Jim’s father out of sympathy for the repairing of the car. In addition to the scene he has just witnessed, Jim is lectured by the con man that there are “either sheep or wolves” in this world, and is urged to follow the path of a “wolf”. This moment in Jim’s life is shown to forever change his character, as he afterwards fails to inform his father of the incident, and over the course of several years sneaks away a figure of 14 thousand dollars from the family business while at his time at the register as claimed by his brother Chuck.

 Considering the show’s setting in the real world and genre of crime, a significant question concerning this scene arises: Is it possible for this individual incident with the con man to impact Jimmy McGill to the extent in which it changes his behavior and psychological state for the rest of his life? How plausible is it if so? This paper will identify the means in which such experiences can alter the psyche of an individual, examine how the variation and quantity of such experiences alter the outcome of the impact, and observe the extent to which such experiences can develop criminal tendencies in the person. Following an examination of Jimmy McGill’s character, this will help in determining whether or not it is possible for Jimmy McGill’s encounter with the con man to alter his behavior to such degrees, and the likelihood of this incident having such an effect on Jim at his young age. 

In Better Call Saul, Jim’s past encounter with the con man has visibly influenced his character, as seen with the behaviors which mirror the one of the con man. A clear example of this is in episode 10 of season 1, “Marco”, where Jim visits his old friend Marco at a bar in Chicago Illinois. Noticing a suited man across, Jim shows Marco an ordinary Kennedy half dollar, and audibly tells him: “ [Jimmy:] ’which way is he facing?’ [Marco:] ‘ JFK is facing left’ [Jimmy:] ‘Exactly’ [Marco:] ‘Which way is he supposed to be facing?’ [Jimmy:] ‘Right.’”(“Marco” 21:45-22:07.) Jimmy makes a clearly false statement, as the obverse of Kennedy half dollars always faces left. Considering the fact that half dollars are much scarcer in quantity compared to nickels and dimes, it is likely for a person to be unknowledgeable of a half dollar’s appearance, in which case the suited man falls for the trick that Jimmy possesses a very rare half dollar. Jimmy afterwards pretends to barter with Marco over the coin’s price, which motivates the suited man to step forward and offer 110 dollars for it. 

While this behavior isn’t anywhere near extreme in terms of criminal behavior, further into Better Call Saul we see Jimmy McGill become more deeply involved with the Salamanca cartel he encounters in the first episode. An example of this elevated involvement is in episode 9 of season 5 titled “Bad Choice Road”, when Jimmy McGill brings in duffel bags packed with 7 million dollars given to him by the Salamanca Cartel to bail out a member of the head family, Lalo Salamanca after he is jailed for murder under the false name Jorge De Guzman: “ [Manager:] ‘Seven million. Your client has seven million dollars. Where’d it come from?’… ‘And just who exactly is your client?’ [Jimmy:] ‘Jorge De Guzman’”(“Bad Choice Road” 05:44-06:09). This scene demonstrates his deepening relationship with the cartel, but more relevant to the topic of the paper, serves as a shocking outcome to the behavioral changes Jimmy McGill has gone through initiated by his childhood experience with the con man.

As with any work of the crime fiction genre, an important part of the character analysis is an observation of their criminal behavior and judging it against real world instances of similar behavior. Considering the nature of Jim’s childhood experience, the psychological impact of the con man incident on Jimmy McGill can be attributed to a real world psychologically-related occurrence known as Adverse Childhood Experiences, or ACEs. A literary work on these adverse experiences that will help understand what they are and how they relate to the behavior we see in Jim is the study: “The Effect of Adverse Childhood Experiences on Deviant and Altruistic Behavior During Emerging Adulthood” authored by Aitana Gomis-Pomares and Lidón Villanueva. It defines ACEs as negative experiences occurring in the early stages of life which have the potential to traumatize the victim (Gomis-Pomares 1). It also notes that “childhood adversity is strongly linked to social, emotional and cognitive impairment, and to the adoption of health risk behaviors”(Gomis-Pomares 2). 

Jim’s childhood incident with the con man seemingly lines up with the real world phenomenon of ACEs, but presents details that can be taken as problematic for the comparison. For one, the incident visually isn’t traumatizing to young Jim in the scene, nor do we receive any verbal confirmation from his adult counterpart. But what is important to consider is that Adverse Childhood Experiences are not just limited to potentially traumatic incidents. According to the Gomes Pamares study, “experiences of child and adolescent maltreatment, such as problematic family environments, anti- social models,”… “are factors that foster deviant behavior in the long run”, with the study’s definition of deviant behavior as “behavior that violates social norms and values” (Gomis-Pomares 2). Judging from the previously mentioned scene of Jimmy McGill scamming a person at the bar, it is safe to understand that Jim most likely experienced an ACE in which he modeled anti-social behavior after the observed incident, as a consequence of the developmental malleability of childhood. 

Seeing that Jimmy McGill has likely encountered an ACE, which is shown to influence altruistic behaviors and negative outcomes in adulthood, the next step in assessing the plausibility of Jimmy’s psychological development and adult outcome is to assess the far-fetchedness of this individual non-traumatic ACE being the precursor to all of Jimmy McGill’s anti social and criminal behavior. A significant point the study by Gomis-Pomares brings up is the difference between individual adverse experiences and cumulative adverse experiences in predicting deviant behavior in adulthood, stating that “It is generally the cumulative impact of multiple ACEs that leads to risk behaviors and negative outcomes in later life”, mentioning other studies which also agree that cumulative ACEs have a “strong long term” effect (Gomis-Pomares 2). Comparing this knowledge to the long term effects of Jimmy McGill’s individual adverse experience, it is reasonable to come to the understanding that it would be highly unlikely for the incident to drive the behavior we see in Jim throughout the show. Despite this, the heightened predictability of future deviant behavior among cumulative incidents does not take away the impact of individual incidents, as “the cumulative effect and some specific dimensions of ACEs (even in the absence of this cumulative effect) had a relationship with the risk of presenting deviant behaviors and inhibiting the expression of altruistic behaviors”, according to the Gomes-Pomares study on page 6. 

Moreover, an important thing to point out is that the personality of Slippin’ Jimmy was not exclusively developed by the interaction with the con artist, as whatever conditioning he received afterwards was also significantly nurtured by Jim’s new habit of sneaking money out of the register after the incident, further aided by his father’s soft and over-caring nature. If we are to assume that Jimmy McGill truly embezzled an amassed $14,000 from his time at the register as claimed by his brother Chuck, it can be inferred that this dangerous habit was left uninterrupted for years. And it is also known that Jimmy McGill has been playing the part of “Slippin’ Jimmy” for practically his whole life, as in episode 9 of season 1 titled “Pimento”, his older brother Chuck reveals that Jimmy’s life long behavior was the main reason behind why he didn’t let practice at his law firm, Hamlin Hamlin McGill: “[Jimmy:] ‘So that’s it then, right? Keep old Jimmy down in the mailroom. He’s not good enough to be a lawyer.’ [Chuck:] ‘I know you. I know what you were, what you are. People don’t change, you’re Slippin’ Jimmy’… ‘But Slippin’ Jimmy with a law degree is like a chimp with a machine gun.’”(“Pimento” 44:52-45:13). Jimmy’s unchecked anti-social behavior following the incident makes it much more likely this sole incident initiated his deviant behavior as “Slippin’ Jimmy”. And from Chuck’s conversation with Jim in “Pimento” we can also confirm that this behavior was allowed to proliferate throughout his adolescence. 

The role in which Jim’s adolescence plays in fostering his later criminal behavior isn’t just significant in Better Call Saul, but it also is an important factor in how adverse experiences in early life affect the adult person. “Beyond Early Years Versus Adolescence: The Interactive Effect of Adversity in Both Periods on Life-Course Development”, authored by Signe H. Andersen, Laurence Steinberg and Jay Belski is a study that brings to relevance the importance of adolescence as another developmental period which is vulnerable to adverse experiences. The study aims to “extend work based on the emerging view that adolescence is a second period of heightened developmental plasticity”, stating that “adversity experienced in adolescence is a better predictor than that experienced in early childhood when predicting young-adult life- course success”(Andersen 1-2). It is true that we do not see Jim experience any adverse incidents during his adolescence, so from what the point is suggesting, the likelihood that the convenience store incident significantly altered Jim’s character is fairly low, considering that there were no instances of adverse experiences in adolescence presented in the show. But what could be possibly considered is that Jim’s conning personality of “Slippin’ Jimmy” which he consistently indulged in throughout his adolescence is a potential substitute for adverse experiences in adolescence as the study mentions. According to the study, “The extent to which adverse experiences in early childhood impact future problematic development depends on level of adversity experienced in adolescence: Only when exposure to adversity in adolescence was limited did greater early life adversity predict poorer future outcomes”(Andersen 1). It is already known that Jim’s “Slippin Jimmy” personality directly contributed to his criminal behavior later in the show, and for most of his adolescence he freely indulged in these anti-social acts. So if we are to assume that the behavior during his adolescence has the same effect as an adverse experience in pronouncing the impact of the ACE as mentioned in the study, then it increases the likelihood that Jimmy McGill’s life experience would see similar outcomes in a real world individual. 

The personality of “Slippin’ Jimmy”, one that is observed to be responsible for Jimmy McGill’s eventual involvement with the depths of the criminal underworld, has been entirely based upon a single scene in Better Call Saul, where Jim witnesses a con man target his family business during his childhood. We are shown that Jim’s manipulative characteristics and behaviors closely mirror those of the con man, so the validity of such an incident making an impact of such scale on a real person should be a significant question to be posed when analyzing the character of Jimmy McGill. In summary, it can be concluded that it is possible for Jim to have experienced an adverse childhood experience, a psychological turning point which is shown to heavily influence the behavioral development of people. This would depend on the case that ACEs can also include anti social models, which well describes the situation of Jim’s experience. Through further discussion of adverse experiences, the nature of such incidents during adolescence significantly affecting the outcome during adulthood poses a challenge to the plausibility of Jim’s incident and outcome. But the anti-social behavior in which Jim partakes in during his adolescent life as Slippin’ Jimmy could very much substitute the adverse adolescent experience that would strengthen the viability of Jimmy’s criminal adult outcome. Although the characters, their lives, and the events which play out around them are works of fiction, the circumstances in which Jimmy McGill obtained his criminal tendencies could very well play out in the real world. 

  

   Works Cited 

Gilligan, Vince and Peter Gould, directors. Better Call Saul, High Bridge Productions, 2015.

Andersen, Signe H., et al. “Beyond Early Years Versus Adolescence: The Interactive Effect of Adversity in Both Periods on Life-Course Development.” Developmental Psychology, vol. 57, no. 11, 2021, pp. 1958–67, https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0001247.

Gomis-Pomares, Aitana, and Lidon Villanueva. “The effect of adverse childhood experiences on deviant and altruistic behavior during emerging adulthood/La influencia de las experiencias adversas infantiles sobre la conducta antisocial y altruista en la adultez emergente.” Psicothema, vol. 32, no. 1, 2020, pp. 33-, https://doi.org/10.7334/psicothema2019.142.