John Grisham - The Last Juror - Book Review

I read a lot of books every year, and while it is never my goal here to provide book reviews on all of them, there are some notable ones which are either really good or really bad which I feel is worth either promoting you to read it or dissuading you to the same. John Grisham's "The Last Juror" falls into the latter category.

In truth, it is a bit sad that I have to give a less than stellar review of a Grisham book. I have read about 14-15 of his books, and in general have really enjoyed them. By far the most memorable were "The Firm", "A Time to Kill", "The Rainmaker", "The Runaway Jury", and to a lesser degree "The King of Torts" and "A Painted House". Sure, he has written some real stinkers in my opinion (I'll keep those to myself so as to not bias you), but not many. I don't know what it is, whether it is fame that has gotten to Grisham's head and made him think that anything he writes will be bestsellers, or whether he has simply lost his touch, or perhaps, he has simply run out of good ideas.

When one reads the outline of the book on the back cover, and in the "semi-reviews" on the first page or two, it makes it sound like this will be both a legal thriller, as well as a murder-mystery. I imagine most readers would have sensed that there was some intrigue to be had in picking up this book, and die-hard Grisham fans would hope for a renaissance of classic Grisham storytelling.

First, the good stuff. The book starts out strong, there is a brutal murder in a small town. The rising action is very good here, and the reader wants to know more about how things will pan out. The main suspect is apprehended and tried. A short trial follows, and is outlined at a very good pace, with adequate detail. We learn a little more about the main character, Willie Traynor, the bad guys (the Padgitts) and some of the local characters who will float in and out of the book from time to time. The beginning is strong and near the end of the book it is once again strong. The book is also not innundated with technical law details, which for us non-lawyers, is a good thing.

I also liked the fact that some of the characters from his other books (like Harry Rex and Claude) were brought back. Unfortunately, they were not further developed.

Now for the not-so-good-stuff: The Last Juror does little to affirm the teaser summary and the one-sentence hype, often found in the opening pages of a book. Instead, what we see is a story that starts puttering around for about 150 pages, picks up again, and then ends very weakly. In between all of this, the reader is unfortunately a captive audience to Grisham's not-so-subtle chiding of the Vietnam War, big box stores (think Walmart here), and his social commentary on race relations in the South, Southern cuisine, and denominational differences in various churches in Mississippi (this was interesting for me, as a born-again believer, but I didn't see the connection to the plot whatsoever). The town elections and the various politicians/officials involved - they were in the book as cameo appearances only, and while I thought that perhaps one or more of them would turned out being impact characters, such was not the case. Unfortunately, all of these topics, which Grisham dissects unnecessarily for multiple pages in length, have little or nothing to do with the main storyline. I would say, that the opposite effect happened - it dragged everything down and slowed the story to a snail's pace.

The characters are generally hollow and under-developed. I have noticed a little trend in Grisham's books in the past few years - the "love interest" of the main character is nothing more than a good lay at best, and filler material at worst. The reader really feels little connection to the main character (who many times does not simply possess the enviable qualities of a solid protagonist), and as a result, the main character's friends and acquaintances are given even less attention by the reader. In the case of this book, the main character Willie, meets up with the sister of the murder victim, and within short order, there is a roll in the hay and then some goodbyes are said. The sister of of Rhoda was very wooden and I don't know of any reader who would have anymore than a passing interest in reading further about the character.

Some other characters in this book you wonder about, as Grisham starts to develop them somewhat (ie. see the situation with Sam and the Durant woman) and then goes nowhere with them. I thought for sure that Sam would be not only developed, but that he would have a major impact on the plot at the end, just based on how his character was an anomaly and the situation that he was in. But alas, after reading the ending, Sam would have been completely omitted from the book and the reader would not have noticed a difference except in the weight of the book.

While some people found the human interest story of the Ruffins interesting, I did not. Sure, Calia Ruffin was one of the jurors, but most readers will fail to see the actually connection of her and the title of the book. If she was the only one alive after all is said and done, that would have made for a more interesting story, in line with the title. Further, all of the descriptions about Southern black cooking is lost on me, and I don't think Grisham understands that maybe not all of his readers are from the South and would understand - or even care - about such detail. I've also noticed that Grisham seems rather formulaic in portraying Black people - they never seem to be the bad guys and while I commend him for wanting to bring awareness to race relations, it almost seems that he relishes the opportunity to harp on long-held stereotypes, whether they be for Whites or Blacks.

The ending was not in much doubt. I had written in my book (actually, I highlight and write in all my novels) at one point way before the last third of the book, that I suspected how the "mystery" would be solved in the end. I was disappointed that I was right and that I was able to figure out the book. This was not the case with earlier Grisham novels. The ending here was way too quick, and just like King of Torts and a Painted House, the reader just suspects that the rising action will at some point reach a climax. But it never does and it gets frustrating, because the reader can likely inject his/her own ideas as to how the book should end, and likely those suggestions would be a vast improvement from how the book actually ends.

Overall, I'd give the book maybe a 3 out of 5. It is by no means Grisham's worst work, but it is getting there. I am hoping that he takes a break from writing to mentally regroup and refuse contracts that require him to churn out a book a year. In the 1990s that may have worked for him, but it doesn't anymore.

Are YOU Capable of Killing Someone?

My wife and I had a fascinating discussion last night in bed before we retired for the evening. Not sure how the topic came about (probably some current news story), but in the ensuing conversation, she asked me if I was in a similar situation where someone broke into my house and started to visciously attack either her or my son, whether in the passion of self-defence, I would be capable of killing the perpetrator, if need be.

Now, I know what the Christian answer is. Of course not. The Bible maintains a non-retaliation ethic, as is evident in the whole principle of turning the other cheek. The Bible also commands us not to kill. However, the Bible also commands us to do a lot of other things, which we don't do. So let's not prop up Scripture in order to make us feel more self-righteous when in fact we don't necessarily live consistent enough lives to authoritatively say that we can always yield to what God's Word has to say. Shall we strive towards a Biblical ethic of peace and non-retaliation? Absolutely. It is the ideal to which we should seek to live out. However, that is easy to say as you as the reader of my blog and me as the writer of the same. Would we be able to think logically if placed in such a moment where you have seconds (if not less) in order to assess the situation and make a decision?

What was my answer? I told my wife that I believe that anyone is capable of killing anyone else under the right circumstances, so for myself, I would not rule that out; however, without ever being in that situation (and heaven forbid I ever get into that scenario), I can't qualitatively say how I would react. But I did tell her that there are some things that generally cause people to snap mentally, and it is under those conditions that human beings are highly unpredictable. She agreed with me and said that for her, she would probably be capable to killing someone who was knifing me to death or assaulting our son. You see, there are some abhorent things which I think transcent societal and cultural norms. A man attacking a woman is one, and anyone sexually assaulting a child is the other. If you are shocked by my wife's and my reaction on this question, seriously consider yourself in the same scenario with your spouse or child on the receiving end of a violent act, and tell me that you would simply ask them to stop and politely leave, and then call the cops. If you have enough discipline to do that when your loved ones are being victimized, then hey, I applaud your ethic. I suspect, though, that most people will probably go overboard on the self-defence.

Now, I qualified this by telling her that there are some things which under no circumstances should warrant a lethal self-defence position. If someone is robbing your possessions, or calling you names (as hurtful as they may be) or vandalizing your property, I don't believe there is any justification for any acts of violence. I believe that violence, as repugnant as that is in my mind, is borderline permissible when it comes to self-defence only. Now, what constitutes self-defence is about as broad as what constitutes good food. In discussing this with my wife, I think we both agreed that shooting the perpetrator in the back or unloading 5 bullets in the back of his head will likely not have the support of many legal communities. I also added that this is a very slippery slope, since people may claim self-defence after killing someone out of vengeance and then staging a self-defence scenario.

My wife and I further discussed the John Grisham book, "A Time To Kill", which, without giving away any plot lines, was about a gang of white young men who visciously raped a nine to ten year old black girl. Of course, it is set in the American South, at a time where racial tensions were running high (I can probably still maintain that there is still a distinct air of that there, given my conversations with a person who lives in the American south). Anyhow, you have a father who does not have a propensity towards violence try to leave it up to the legal system to mete out justice to the perpetrators. Unfortunately, with the racial climate being what it is, it does not look like justice will be done. So what does he do? He sneaks into the courtroom the night before, hides in a closet, and when the next day comes and the alleged perpetrator is being led to or from the courtroom, out comes the father with a firearm and kills the guy.

Now, my wife asked me what is different between killing that guy in the courtroom and killing him upon stumbling across him sodomizing his daughter in the woods? I told her a lot, and in fact, despite my sympathies towards the father's position, what he did was absolutely reprehensible, since it involved pre-meditation and calculation - which would of course lend itself to being murder. Stumbling across a crime in progress may cause a struggle and in the ensuing grappling, the father may have killed the perpetrator. I don't believe in that B.S. line of not-guilty-by-reason-of-insanity; rather, I think that in a crime in the heat of passion, people's mental faculties are not exactly logical and as such, they may do something that they may regret...or they may not, if they need to act in self-defence.

There are some peripheral issues to this discussion that are worth exploring. One is the whole sense of trust that people have in the legal system in general. How many times have you heard of a case where damning evidence was found at a suspect's home (such as a video of a rape or torture or killing clearly committed by them, but it got rendered inadmissible due to the way it was obtained - ie. without proper paperwork or warrant) and the suspect goes free due to lack of evidence. In this case, would people do the right thing and let the system handle the situation, or would they turn into a vigilante and go after the persons themselves. That's a hard one for me to field. I am a great supporter of community policing such as the Guardian Angels (who, by the way, are not vigilantes, since they seek to work in tandem with the legal authorities). As for vigilantes...in my head, I am opposed to people taking the law into their own hands, but at the same time, my heart asks what do you do when the system fails you and a known killer/pedophile goes free on a technicality?

One other issue which my wife, in particular brought up, that was quite fascinating is the whole idea of retalitation and vengeance, and specifically how a Christian would reconcile such a situation that I described above. Well, I think I may have somewhat addressed this one above, but let me take a stab at it here. Retaliating means that you are striking back in order to meet blow for blow, action for action, but it is out of a sense that you are yielding the law, or what you view to be right/wrong and what constitutes justice. I don't think that there is any good defence for retaliation, when it is particularly clear what the Bible says about it. Second, shall we seek vengeance? Again, I believe the Bible is quite clear on this one as well - vengeance is the Lord's. Remember, while worldly systems of justice have their uses, God has an infinitely wider perspective on making sure He metes out justice. It may not be in this lifetime and even if it's not, it's not for us to decide. So I don't believe that there is any justification in retaliatory or vengeance killing. I will even come right now and say that I believe both are wrong.

I should also point out that even if you do not take a neutral position, as my wife and I do, that you still may be surprised by what will happen. Several people I talked with are so confident that they will have no problems "dispatching" the perpetrator, that it almost seems like they wear it like a badge of honour. I suspect if they ever faced that situation, their sense of certainty will be eroded quite a bit - we are not talking about knocking the perpetrator unconscious here - we are talking about taking another's live, and even in self-defence, there is a grave finality to that action which cannot be revoked.

Naturally, I do not wish this scenario on anyone, but as my wife I concurred wholeheartedly, it is certainly something worth thinking about.