The first thing I hope you noticed about my post is the title of the book, “A Time to Kill”, by John Grisham. If you didn’t, I would hope it’s because you were too busy being amazed that I managed to blog my post (or is it post my blog?) a whole three days before the due date (for those of you who didn’t know that the due date is in three days, now is an appropriate time to be hysterical).
About the title: notice any similarities to any other books we’ve read this year? I thought it was suspiciously similar to “To Kill a Mockingbird”, by Harper Lee. I haven’t finished the book, so I cannot state what the symbolic meaning of my book is, but there are, actually, quite a few similarities between this book and Harper Lee’s masterpiece. To begin with, a defining element of the plot in “A Time to Kill” is the rape of a ten-year-old African American girl by two white men. In Lee’s book, it is the rape of a white woman by an African American man. Also, the setting in both books is a prejudiced southern town. The reason is, of course, to add emphasis to the rape crime.
However, there is no ‘hero’ character in “A Time to Kill”. Rather, the ‘Atticus’ part is played by criminal attorney Jake Brigance. He is not nearly as righteous as Atticus, and his reason for taking the case is for the publicity, not because he feels he must to have a clear conscience (the court case in the Grisham book is between the father of the rape victim and the state; the father murdered both rapists). Because of this, though, the character is easier to connect to. It is less difficult for me to relate to a less-perfect, more realistic character than the ideal, perfectly righteous Atticus. Simply put, the lawyer in “A Time to Kill”, while not in any way an antagonist, is much more like you’d imagine a lawyer to be.
“A Time to Kill” is told in third person (limited), so, even though Brigance is the main character, he is not always present during major events. This further helps the story develop, because, with the intricate, interwoven plots (activist groups for or against the defendant of the murder trial) the reader would not be able to follow the plot fully by only following Brigance. Interest is also added to the plot this way, because the reader knows about upcoming events before Brigance, allowing the reader to be nervously awaiting the occurrence of such events. These factors have led to my having to force myself to only read enough for one blog post at a time. So far, the plot is extremely believable and exciting.
Overall, through the first hundred and thirty-seven pages of “A Time to Kill”, by John Grisham, the book is shaping up to be an enjoyable pleasure read.
That's deep bro...
ReplyDeleteI SECOND THAT
ReplyDeleteAfter reading to page 261, I can definitely state the Grisham’s “A Time to Kill” is not a classic. Having written a three-part essay series about what makes a book a worthy classic (my buddies in Beeler’s class can empathize) it is clear Grisham’s book is simply an enjoyable pleasure read.
ReplyDeleteWhile the main character, Brigance, is well developed, there are others who fall into common stereotypes. There is the old, retired, drunk, crazy lawyer, the gung-ho defense attorney, the judge who is scared of voters, the various obnoxious members of the press, and a whole slew of others. I find these characters easier to understand in a short period of time, allowing me to breeze through the book as an amusing way to pass the time. However, were Grisham attempting to write a classic, he would definitely need to beef up his characters. One of the things that made a book a classic was fully developed characters that the reader can deeply understand, and, although a few are present in, “A Time to Kill”, there are certainly not enough to consider this book a classic. I, though, would rather pick up a Grisham book than, say, “Something Wicked This Way Comes”.
I feel that Grisham’s writing skill is shown in “A Time to Kill” because he manages to spur interest in the legal process (other authors often stick to litigation or, worse yet, the clichéd detective novel). To do so, he throws in controversial cases, yet, unlike some sources, the entire legal process is present. Rather than bore the reader with page-long description of motions being written by Brigance, Grisham has developed a style that conveys to the reader both the interesting and dull jobs a lawyer must do, without boring the reader to the extent that the book moves slowly.
Grisham also generates interest in the book by bringing up an interesting issue. The book deals with whether or not people should, in extreme circumstances, be able to take the law into their own hands and punish those who have greatly wronged them. The plot is focused around this issue. Although in some circumstances the reader would be quick to form an opinion, Grisham includes the stories of characters with split beliefs, forcing the reader to spend time on their own opinion (and read on to find out how Grisham ended the book).
I am continuing to greatly enjoy reading Grisham’s “A Time to Kill”, and I hope that the ending of the book is as good as the first 261 pages.
726543, 726544, and 726545. This being my third blog post, I figured you devoted readers out there are getting bored, so I thought I would spice things up a little by including some winning lottery numbers. Yes, I know it has only been a few hours since my last post, but I wanted to continue reading “A Time to Kill”.
ReplyDeleteI’m now at page 433 of 515. The plot, and the tensions between whites and blacks, has greatly escalated. However, they escalated at a believable rate. It wasn’t as if, on one page, the Ku Klux Klan was mentioned, and then, on the next, they assemble in full force. Rather, Grisham has effectively used the page length of the novel to slowly yet evenly build up suspense.
The way Grisham tells the story adds to the terrific amount of believable suspense. The story is, again, told in third person limited. Grisham only reveals the thoughts of certain characters, which leaves the reader wondering about some characters’ motives. This perspective helps make certain events seem larger than they actually are as well. For instance, to build up suspense, a few characters are killed during the course of events. However, Grisham only has a set number of characters, and he can’t kill them all and still create suspense. Instead, the reader learns of these characters’ deaths multiple times throughout the book, as different characters learn of the deaths at different times.
Grisham has also proved that he has a well-developed main character. After an attempt is made on Brigance’s life, he reacts accordingly, going into believable shock. Additionally, Grisham has developed more of his minor characters, along with adding a few more major ones along the way. So far, all of Grisham’s main characters are believable and relatable.
The only complaints I have so far are minor, and apply mainly to the plot. First of all, I find it hard to believe that members of the press would stay from the initial story to the trial, with a month in between. Secondly, a law student just happens to show up and have all of the necessary qualifications to help Brigance with the case. Thirdly, it seems slightly odd that the Klu Klux Klan attacks Brigance’s secretary’s husband, rather than any one of the number of people related to the case (although it could be because all of them are vital to later developments of the plot).
Grisham’s book, while having a few faults, is extremely suspenseful and enjoyable to read, so much so that I will probably have to write my fourth and final post soon after finishing this one.
I am not Joel, so I will skip the corny jokes that just add another paragraph to his already over-blown analysis of A Time To Kill, by John Grisham.(Note: this is a poor attempt at humor, which I suppose contradicts my first statement. I was simply intimidated by how much Joel already has written, and I have not read any of his writing.) I have also been reading the story at a more moderate pace—I have just finished chapter three. In the first thirty-some pages of the novel, Grisham sets up the three ‘parties’, for lack of a better word; Billy Ray Cobb and his friend James Louis “Pete” Willard, the Hailey family, particularly a young girl, Tonya Hailey, and her father, Carl Lee Hailey, and last but not least, Jake Brigance, a self-serving lawyer in the city of Clanton. This is a style I have noticed in the majority of Grisham’s books—in fact, there is not one that I have read that does not employ it (and I have read at least five or six of his novels).
ReplyDeleteGrisham uses the first few chapters to set up the conflict as well as define the main characters. In the spirit of a lawyer novel, nothing is left in the shadows. Every motivation, besides that of Brigance, is very clearly defined, and every character is named and thrown into the story immediately. A multi-paragraph mini-biography is present every time a new character is identified in the story, which is an effective way to set the scene for the novel. Luckily, Grisham only employs this strictly expository manner of writing in the beginning of the novel, because it would become very irritating. And so, the scene is set: two white men, Billy Ray Cobb and Pete Willard, rape a ten year-old black girl, Tonya Hailey. They ditch her in a ravine, she is found and brought to her home where the Hailey clan gathers, and then sheriff Ozzie Walls is thrown into the mix. After a whole load of useless shuffling to explain the significance of his position as a black sheriff in Ford County, we learn that Ozzie is connected with Cobb due to Cobb’s recent stint in prison. Ozzie quickly coerces a man, identified primarily as Bumpous, to rat out Cobb and Willard.
A quick, tame action scene ensues wherein Ozzie struts into a bar called Huey’s and smacks a table with a nightstick (a sort of thin club), then throws Cobb to the floor, and with unnecessary violence (it seems), holds Cobb in a strangle hold with the nightstick while handcuffing him. Then Ozzie goes as far as to drag “him by his hair across the dance floor, out the door, across the gravel and [throw] him into the back seat with Willard”. My intention is not to summarize, but to exaggeratedly point out Ozzie’s conceited manner. Based on a hunch, he violently arrests two rednecks, and grins like a fool throughout the entire ordeal. Ozzie is a character that I believe will not rest easy—he is sure to reappear in the story, whether it be for better or worse.
Chapter three is devoted to Jake Brigance, describing his attractive wife, his militaristic routine, and his complete materialistic view on life. Some depth is added to his character when it is revealed that he eats breakfast with the farmers and mechanics and woodcutters in the Coffee Shop (creative, right? Five points to Grisham for originality!). Whether or not this was a cute attempt to make the reader like Brigance, or possibly an event that will influence the rest of the plot, is yet to be seen. Brigance is a hard worker, however. He would not have inherited his office if it hadn’t been for his perseverance, and the amount of work he put into his Victorian house is admirable. If only he had not inherited the office, or been living in a Victorian house, I would appreciate Brigance as a person and as a character one can relate to. Good try, Grisham, but you have to work harder. As I read on, I anticipate the “burning crosses and the crack of sniper fire” that is promised me by the summary on the back cover, because after three chapters of introduction, I am bored.
Good job, Grisham! My parting request was more action in the novel, and I received it. I think that Grisham’s style of writing actually deserves more appreciation than I give it. Grisham cuts out the sappy, emotional imagery, the moving mental monologue, and gives us a believable story, ugly and bare. Grisham is a true storyteller. Most people don’t like true storytellers. Grisham tells us the story straight up, revealing what is necessary to be revealed, and scrapping the rest. In fact, with a style as minimalistic as Grisham’s, I’m initially surprised that he manages to pull together 515 pages. However, I’m converted to belief in Grisham when I read passages about certain characters or events that are filled with an immense amount of detail and observation. There are distinct differences between imagery and detail. Imagery is an emotional, metaphorical, and simile-ridden, crush of words that really invokes within the reader a real sensual experience. However Grisham’s strict stick-to-the-facts writing style gives the reader freedom to have their own take on the story. Many stories are written in a biased way, and readers are encouraged, almost obligated, to sympathize with certain characters and to feel certain moods. Grisham’s minimalistic, yet detailed, style of writing allows the reader to shift their preferences with to any character in the story. Grisham takes a third-person position in narrating the story, but he doesn’t focus on one character, but rather on multiple varying characters. Again, it’s a true story, instead of a singular experience. This is Grisham’s claim to fame, as a storyteller who ultimately gives the reader the reins in regards to the emotional impact of his novels.
ReplyDeleteI’m not really sure how to start this post, because I can’t use a corny joke, so I’ll just go with what everyone else seems to be doing. Page Number: Done (or something, as another Grisham Blogger said).
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, Grisham’s style adds to the excitement of the climax of A Time To Kill. This book is centered on a legal case and its courtroom, with the climax, as usual, being the final verdict by the jury. This adds excitement because rather than having a climax that is captivating but unpredictable, and sometimes unfulfilling, such as Cold Sassy Tree (where any number of events could have happened in the town), the reader knows where the story is headed. This allows the reader to incorporate the events of the book to predict a climax, motivating him or her to read on to see if he or she is right, and why/how. I find a book more enjoyable with this type of climax (and arguably, so do many other people; books like Harry Potter, The Hunger Games, and To Kill a Mocking Bird all have climaxes that are laid out in the first part of the story).
Also, as I read the last hundred or so pages, I noticed that one of Grisham’s characters manages to be realistic and humorous to the reader. This is the minor character of Harry Rex, a divorce lawyer and friend of Brigance who offers obscure and usually nonsensical counsel throughout the trial to Brigance (the main character). The reason it took me so long to notice, though, is because of Grisham’s style. He doesn’t often include dialogue tags, which I find a good thing, because I enjoy reading through books quickly and the repetition of Jake said, the witness said, Jake asked, etc. gets old fairly quickly. However, because Grisham’s story is written, and not performed, I find that some of the emotion he incorporates is lost. During a point when the tone is depressed, Harry Rex meets the lawyer father of Brigance’s clerk (who was attacked by the Klan, the reason for the depression. Grisham writes:
“Do y’all have the Klan in Boston?” asked Harry Rex.
“Not that I know of.”
“It’s a shame. Those folks add a real dimension to your law practice.”
I first read through this with a mellow tone, but then I realized the humor in the line. Although I enjoy Grisham’s style, sometimes he should change it slightly to further impact the reader with his writing (I suppose this contradicts the minimalist style Marijn likes, but I think a small amount of elaboration for emphasis to ensure the reader catches an emotion, like humor, is not a bad thing). This also taught me that I should continue re-read certain lines that don’t make immediate sense to search for a humorous or symbolic value.
While I’m sure there are many themes that could be taken from this book, I am not going to search for them, because, in my opinion, Grisham wrote to entertain, above all. Although he has information about the legal system, and well-developed characters with some strong morals, I do not get the sense that he wrote to include a deeper meaning in much of his writing. In fact, many of his characters provide negative examples, because they often lie, are drunk, or are dishonest (yet for many of them, everything ends well), which was another thing that told me he was writing to entertain. Also, as Marijn said, he gives the reader the 'reins' of the emotional impact, so he doesn't push particularly hard for any one theme in the novel.
As for the ending, without giving it away, I can say that Grisham manages to end the book predictably, yet, at the same time, he includes so many other events during his 500-page novels that he gives enough options to make the predictable ending seem unpredictable. Grisham ended the book satisfyingly, and I am thoroughly glad I had took the time to read A Time To Kill.
The most common complaint about a novel-turned-movie is that certain parts of the story were cut out. Unsurprisingly, only the people who have read the novel complain about this aspect. The masses that see this movie without prior experience of the story do not complain, because the filmmakers very coherently piece together a complete story from the multitude of tidbits and imagery that is found in a novel. Therefore, it has been proved that although the movie might lack certain themes or events that the novel contains, it still tells a complete, understandable story. This is why John Grisham’s novels should never be made into movies. Every single event and description, with the exception of a few words here and there, is important to understand the story. Every dialogue affects the plot, every description is key to the reader’s understanding of the story. A Grisham novel, especially A Time To Kill, would not make for a long movie. No, it would make for two, three, maybe four , very, very long movies. Such an amount of detail and interaction is not encompassable within a reasonable amount of time, and the ridiculous amount of detail cannot be disregarded.
ReplyDeleteThis being said, Grisham’s writing can be hard to read. It’s almost like a suspenseful textbook. As if there is more than a legal obligation to read and process and respond, whether mentally or tangibly. The suspense makes Grisham’s novels “good books”, but the phantasmagoria of literal information makes his novels “interesting”. But so far, A Time To Kill has not necessary been a pleasure to read. As I just described, it’s interesting enough, but the lack of written expression of author’s emotion—that is what it lacks, in order to be a novel that is read, reread, lent out, borrowed back, and essentially, enjoyed. Grisham’s take on the thriller genre is entertaining, but not anything I would recommend to a class full of emotional, hormonal, sympathetic teenagers. If Toy Story 3 made you sad, A Time To Kill will make you cry, because of its utter lack of emotion. It’s a tragedy that such a tragedy is not tragic enough to befit the situation. So much tragedy only results in comedy. Congratulations Grisham. I know you will always be there for me when I get sick of reading enthralling, emotional novels written by fantastic authors. It’s comforting to know that there is a boring novel out there I can always fall back on.
I disagree entirely with Marijn. I find Grisham’s novels enjoyable because of the lack of emotion. Without the author’s emotion, I can choose how to react to each event and form my own biases. The lack of emotion also allows me to focus solely on the plot, removing those sappy emotional paragraphs that slow the reading down when I only want to know what happens next. I would agree that Grisham is a storyteller. He is not a Harper Lee, a Stephen Crane, or a Shakespeare. His books may be as thick, but it is because of the details, and not emotional impact, of his novels. If he is lacking so much emotion, which, as Marijn stated, prevents it from being thoroughly enjoyed, then why is he such a well-known and respected author?
ReplyDeleteIronically, many of his books have been made into movies, including A Time To Kill and The Chamber (both were made in 1996). I have yet to see any Grisham movies, though.
Final Review of “A Time to Kill” by John Grisham
ReplyDeleteTake the trial and prejudices from “To Kill a Mocking Bird” and modernize them. Switch the race roles, so a white man is on trial for raping a black girl. Throw in some characters that are believable and realistic. Add John Grisham’s style and skills, and that pretty much sums this book up.
“A Time to Kill” is on of Grisham’s masterpiece courtroom dramas. It deals with the rape of a black girl by two white men. Those men are shot and killed by the father of the black girl during their own trial. Then it’s the black father on trial, the main case of the book. Representing him is a top-notch small-town criminal lawyer and the brilliant legal aid (whom are collectively getting $900 for the entire case). Throw in some prejudices, a difficult jury selection, threats and bribes, the KKK, and enough details to drown in (not necessarily a bad thing) and you begin to understand what “A Time to Kill” is like to read: enthralling.
Grisham is, as we decided on our blog, a pure storyteller. His tales are not weighed down by emotion, or, in my opinion, unnecessary detail. He gives the bare bones of a real story, allowing the reader to formulate his or her own opinions about the book. The courtroom dramas he writes, this book being no exception, are almost the equivalents of murder mysteries, because he gives as many possible verdicts, plot lines, and characters in his 500+ page books as you’ll find suspects and motives in a crime novel. His novels are captivating, enjoyable reads for those looking for entertainment (as opposed to a great theme about society or a deep truth about humanity).
At first thought, it appears that in “A Time To Kill” Grisham has two options for the black man who is put on trial: guilty or not guilty. Simple enough, right? Wrong. Grisham includes many possibilities, such as guilty because of a threatened jury, not guilty because of a bribed one, no verdict because the lawyer is murdered, etc. In my opinion, the mark of a fiction-writing master is to be able to take the predictable and make it seem unpredictable; it is this that warrants John Grisham’s “A Time To Kill” an 8 out of 10.