The Appeal by John Grisham Summary and Reviews
|
List Price: Our Price: $3.74 You Save: $10.26 (73%) Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days Buy Used: from $0.01 (click here) Category: Book See more book details and other editions |
|---|
Book Reviews of The Appeal
Book Review: A Realistic Look At The Politicalization Of The Law
Summary: 5 Stars
I work as a plaintiffs' trial lawyer, having worked in that capacity for well more than three decades. I've directly handled or closely supervised more than 1600 civil matters, and have had good outcomes on all but a tiny few, partly because of having a "no asshole rule," about the clients our office will accept. In the past, I've been disappointed and offended by some of John Grisham's books, as he has often characterized tawdry and wrongful conduct by lawyers, including the plaintiffs bar, as though such conduct were common, when, in my experience, the opposite is true. No system is perfect, but few that I've known from my generation of lawyers chose the law with money as a primary motive, and those that focused on that have not tended towards competency or guts. Consistent with his apparent belief in redemption, Grisham has redeemed himself from the uninformed callousness shown in some other works. This tale of the human spirit, and of evil, is an accurate portrait of very real problems faced by our society, issues and problems that the general public barely even imagines. The Supreme Court election which is central to this story is reminiscent of what happened in California, in 1986, when the then-governor, Mr. Dukemajian, working with ideas from a major Republican PR firm, and as orchestrated by a campaign professional from San Francisco, at a cost of many millions, convinced the people to refuse re-election to three purportedly "liberal," Supreme Court Justices, Bird, Reynoso, and Grodin, based on their alleged hostility to the death penalty. In fact, the support for the process came from the insurance industry, which sought, with ultimate success (through Judges with insurance backgrounds) to undue several cases which had been to the benefit of insurance consumers, notably Royal Globe vs. Butte (construing Insurance Code 790.03 (h) in a way that forced fair settlements), Paul vs. State Farm and Davis vs. State Farm, cases which were de-certified for publication (erasing them from the law by fiat of the Chief Justice), where those published appellate decisions had found a fiduciary level of relationship between the carrier and the insured. These humane cases had cost the insurance industry, by insisting on fairness, and through politics, these cases were undone. The Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court resigned his position, I believe for personal reasons, about six months after an official determination that, no, strictly speaking, he had not violated ethical standards by taking all expenses paid trips from major insurance companies at the same time he was making decisions which happened to be on their behalf. My familiarity with this comes from deep practice experience in the affected areas, including involvement with two of the major cases which were de-certified by this process. The law was politicized, and still has not reached the impartiality that was present when I was originally in practice, though there have been, in fairness, genuine strides away from the dark. This story, in fiction, illustrates what is at stake when greedy preoccupation with material gain is allowed to have its way with law. Also, the legal analysis and issue handling shows a level of practical depth seldom seen in fiction. For these reasons, I have just purchased an additional copy of this book for our long time exchange student from Germany, as she is entering law school next year, and I do not know of a better tale to warn of the dangers which society faces when the high calling of honorable legal practice is subjugated to the goals of those who hold money as a life goal. This is an important and worthwhile book.Book Review: A Total Disappointment
Summary: 1 Stars
Don't buy this book if you are looking for the old Grisham that used to entertain so well - it had all the makings of a great story, but the potential was lost in a storyline that just drug on and on, going nowhere. I kept thinking "okay NOW this is going to pick up a little" but it never did. It left many questions totally unanswered and the ending was terrible. Save your money.Book Review: A big disappointment
Summary: 1 Stars
I was excited to purchase this book, as I am a huge Grisham fan. He starts out in typical Grisham fashion -- reminiscent of his early (good) legal thrillers. Because others have done a good job of explaining the basic story, I won't. My major disappointment is that the first two-thirds of the book are good, only to build up to a very quick and ultimately disturbing ending. I feel like Grisham realized that he was running out of room and tried to hurry up the ending -- without considering his readers. Yes, he shows politics at its worst. But he doesn't offer a satisfactory remedy or even tie up several loose ends in the story.
I'll read the reviews before I purchase his next book. This is one of his worst -- I hope it isn't indicative of what's to come.
Book Review: A fictional story that sounds a critical alarm for the USA
Summary: 5 Stars
I'm not surprised that this novel has generated to date 650 reviews or that most of the reviews are negative. When we pick up a novel by Grisham, we expect a good story and a happy ending. We do not expect to be left feeling uncomfortable and helpless about the reality of our situation and the responsibility that each of us bears. I imagine most readers thought, until the last page, that a miracle would save the day: Jeannette Baker would receive her compensation, Krane Chemical would have to face its liability and perhaps bankruptcy, and Carl Trudeau would fail.
The Appeal is not a great novel but it doesn't matter this time: In the edition that I read, Grisham says, in the final page, that the novel is partially based on reality. No, I find the novel to be a flashlight on what we all fear is the truth but hope is not: that America has become a corrupt country insofar as concerns our elections and therefore our most important public servants and institutions.
There is no escaping that the costs of elections are completely out of control. There is no way for a public servant to finance a major election or re-election campaign today without huge amounts of money from other people. Those other people, individuals, PACs, lobbies, other organizations, want a return on their investment. Doesn't it make common sense that a publicly elected official today cannot be truly independent if he wants to be re-elected?
You know that you suspect this is the truth. This novel and it's author's admission at the end that the story is based on reality, and plain common sense tells you that this is the truth. Who hasn't nodded at another's comment on how corrupt Washington has become? Why else would Canada have extremely strict no-loophole rules about campaign financing that are designed to ensure that an elected official owes nobody?
Look at how polarized and screeching politics have become in America. Look at how the Republican party, once a proponent of such foundational values as hard work, education, thrift, self-reliance, and charity, has become infused with extremism where people listen to rich entertainers like Rush Limbaugh and Fox News and default to their ranting opinions rather than take the time to study the issues thoroughly and form their own views rationally . What caused this development? Self-interest brought to a head by the naked cronyism of the Bush government and the un-presidential behavior of Bill Clinton. We are often not served by great people with great ideas anymore, and that's our fault because we don't demand content-rich, level-playing field election campaigns.
Look at the extreme amounts of money that corporate CEOs pay themselves as if they alone are responsible for their company's success rather than the many underlings who do the real work and have most of the ideas. Those CEOs, those Carl Trudeaus, are part of those people who finance, or arrange the financing of, election campaigns, and then demand results from those elected.
Who amongst you is not appalled by the recent Supreme Court decision, on the technical grounds of protecting the right of free speech, to allow lobbies to threaten an elected official with extreme adverse re-election spending if the official votes against their interest, in other words to practice a form of extortion? Whose interests are served by this decision? Certainly not the general public. Just imagine describing our current system of elections and such a decision to the Founding Fathers of our country; they'd probably say: throw those people out and copy Canada, quickly!
Who among those of you who are literate is not appalled by the TV advertising of election campaigns and the misleading effect of taking sound-bitten facts out of context? In The Appeal, Grisham underlines that such advertising cannot possibly tell a whole story or provide sufficient information for reasoned decision-making. You know instinctively that this is true and you also know that TV campaign ads are often all that most voters use for their decisions. That's what happened in Bush vs. Kerry where misleading attack ads swayed many. Look at the recent senate election in Massachusetts, won by Republican Scott Brown over Democrat Martha Coakley (reminiscent of Ron Fisk and Sheila McCarthy in the book). The election cost an incredible $23 million. You can be certain that the people who financed the winner will want something in return other than just great governance in the interest of the public's greater good. How about that expensive TV ad run by Brown that used images of America's historical battles for liberty? The ad did not mention any of Brown's ideas or accomplishments; it simply tried to associate Brown with the magnificent ideas and accomplishments of others long ago and in a different context. Yet, I received several emails from family and friends that said it was the best campaign TV ad they'd ever seen. When I asked them to tell me why when the ad was empty of the candidate's own ideas and disconnected from the issues at hand, they were unable to respond. Good salemanship, perhaps, but at what cost?
Thank you, John Grisham, for finding a way to draw our attention to the greatest threat facing our country today.
Book Review: A formulistic novel.
Summary: 2 Stars
No one goes to a John Grisham book expecting great literature. However, in his past books Grisham has proven capable of writing suspenseful and entertaining plot driven novels. Sadly, this is not one of them.
The issues raised in the novel are important and worthy of examination. How does one reach a balance between penalizing businesses for reckless or irresponsible behavior while at the same time not stifling innovation and economic growth or overpunishing honest mistakes? But Grisham stacks the deck here by picking as his "bad guy" a company who is clearly in the wrong, and as his "good guys" individuals who are virtuous through and through. It is clear how Grisham comes down on these issues - fair enough- but it is unfortunate that he does little to suggest that the other side might have valid points.
Worse, the plot is clumsy and manipulative. This is particularly the case at the end, when Grisham, perhaps realizing it is time to wrap things up, adds a personal crisis which may (or may not) affect an important decision by newly elected judge Ron Fisk. Contrived - yes. Interesting - not so much.
I have no problem with reading purely for entertainment, but even by that low standard this particular book falls short. A disappointment.