Rating: 
Summary: Another chapter
Review: I was intrigued by the book. Always good characters and lots of story-lines. Morals are laid out, people changed, money rules all. Even some flaky romance. Mr. Grisham doesn't let you down in this one. I admit the end had me wanting more. All fans of the author and new ones in the waiting should pick it up. Look forward to his next one.
Rating: 
Summary: worst book I couldnt finish
Review: I only regret having to give this book one star. It was awful. I've read all of Grisham's books, my favorite being A Time to Kill, and they're all fairly readable, nothing too taxing on the brain, you know, light stuff and that's ok sometimes. ... I couldn't even finish it. I'm glad I work in a library and don't have to buy books, but I used my job to get this book before anyone else and I'm sorry I wasted my time.
Rating: 
Summary: Annoying Legal Errors
Review: This book gets 2 stars because it does present one side of the tort reform debate in an easily digested manner. However, it loses 3 stars because the beginning contains two legal errors so egregious, it's hard to believe that Grisham is a lawyer, or had this book vetted by lawyers. These errors are annoying because the public understands the law mainly through the popular media, so some effort should be made to get it right. In this book, the public defender (Carter) is told by the drug company's sleazy rep (Max Pace) that Carter's indigent drug-addict client killed an acquaintance because the client had an adverse reaction to an experimental drug he had been given in a treatment center. (The experimental drug cures addiction, but in 8% of cases, gives the patient an uncontrollable urge to kill). Max Pace tells Carter that there is nothing he can do for the client anyway, because intoxication or drug use is not a defense to murder. Therefore, he might as well quit the Public Defender's Office and take Max Pace's lucrative offer, in essence working for the drug company. Max (a disbarred attorney himself) assures Carter that there is no ethical violation. This is wrong on all counts. It is true that VOLUNTARY intoxication/drug use is not a defense to a crime. (If you voluntarily drink or get high, you are responsible for the consequences). However, involuntary intoxication is another story - in this case, the young client in good faith took a pill for addiction, given to him by the treatment center. He could not possibly have foreseen the consequences. Thus, he did nothing wrong and cannot be blamed for the death. He had a good defense to the homicide charge, either involuntary intoxication or temporary insanity. An ethical lawyer would have presented the defense, thus implicating the drug company. When Carter abandoned the client, protected the company from involvement in the crime, and took the drug company's money, he had a glaring conflict of interest. Since Carter is portrayed in the book as greedy, Grisham could have explained the law and the ethics violation correctly, and just have had weak, greedy Carter decide to do it anyway. Instead, he misstated the law.
Rating: 
Summary: Deja vu
Review: How many stories has Grisham written now in which the protagonist is lured by, and corrupted by, huge sums of money? I've lost count. But people keep buying the books. I can only conclude that readers like to fantasize about being in such a situation -- coming into possession of millions and millions of dollars, saying goodbye to job and humdrum life and living -- at least for a while -- like Patton French on his 200-foot yacht or his Gulfstream V, downing shrimp and steak and vintage wines etc. Speaking of which -- Patton French AGAIN? Is Grisham going to keep bringing him into his novels, or maybe even center the next story around him?
Rating:
Summary: Worst Grisham to date
Review: This has to be the worst story line Grisham has put into the public domain yet. I have read all his previous books and keenly anticipated another legal thriller but I could not actually bring myself to finish it.What multinational firm in their right mind would go out of their way to find, inform, compensate and then demand confidentiality of seven poor underprivileged familes that had no idea they were wronged and even if they ever did would never ever be able to prove it. An artificial set of circumstances and assumptions that have no basis what so ever in reality. There is a certain contempt of the reader in the stupidty of this story line. Sorry, just no good enough!
Rating:
Summary: Not Grisham the way it used to be
Review: While this is an interesting book, it is not a page-turner like A Time to Kill or The Firm (or any of his first four or five books). I never really cared about Clay Carter. I never understood why he stayed at the OPD office if he hated it so much - he had to have other options. He certainly wasn't there for any altruistic reasons. And granted, $10 million is a lot of money, but he didn't seem to have to struggle too hard with his conscience. No, in the end he finally seems to feel some remorse, BUT, if he had continued on a successful trajectory, would he have have felt remorse for his actions? I believe it is the case of the thief not being sorry he stole, but being terribly sorry he was caught. No, this was a disappointing book. So much could have been done with this premise. I'd like to read a book about Helen Warshaw, and how she came to the point of taking down the mass tort lawyers. That sounds like the sort of tale Grisham tells best, about one little guy taking on the Goliaths. Ever since Runaway Jury, Grisham's books seem to have gone downhill, with the exception of Painted House. His books start with good ideas, but just seem to take the path of least resistance as far as storylines. I'm sure I will read his new books as they come out (I've read all except The Summons), hoping against hope for the Grisham I knew and loved.
Rating:
Summary: Thw worst book by Grisham
Review: Truly horrible! No storyline whatsoever. Disgusting. The beginning 20 pages were ok, but the rest was not. Reading the book turned into a much-dreaded chore, instead of enjoyment. Grisham can do better.
Rating: 
Summary: A good one from Grisham
Review: I really liked this book. I have read all the books by John Grisham, and I liked most of them. This was one of his better ones.
Rating:
Summary: The King of Torts
Review: Painfully predictable! Sorry, but although I've been a huge fan of Grisham's books in the past this one was unbearable. Only read through to the end in the hope that I might be wrong. Characters one dimensional - set in stone sterotypes - the leggy dumb money hungry blonde, the poor little rich girl, lawyers with no morals etc. As a result you feel nothing for any of the characters. Slightly more readable than a Mills and Boon book, but only just.
Rating:
Summary: The King of Torts
Review: I cannot believe I bought this book. What a disappointment. The story line is weak; Grisham seems to be more interested in mentioning high dollar brand names than telling a story. It is extremely disapopointing and very boring. I skim read it in about two hours (and that was too much wasted time). If I read another Grisham, and I've read them all so far, it will definitely be the paper back version.
|
