Book Review: The Appeal by John Grisham
If there were ever any questions as to John Grisham’s political affiliations or what he did for a living prior to his writing career, both are answered in his latest novel, The Appeal.
He’s a Liberal Democrat and he was a trial lawyer.
The Appeal is, in the mind of this reader, less of a legal thriller and more of a Nazi recruitment speech for the big-tort agenda. Normally a captivating master of suspense, in The Appeal, Grisham lacks both the courtroom drama that made him famous and his candid knack for creatively thinking outside of that box that he has successfully shown in such works as Bleachers, and Playing For Pizza. As an avid fan who has read every word that Mr. Grisham has put into print, I find this novel to thus far be his only disappointing venture.
The general plot of The Appeal revolves around a small town suddenly infected with a cancer wave that rivals none other after years of toxic dumping into the town’s water source by a large chemical plant. A husband and wife attorney team, who Grisham really overdoes in making martyrs, leads the charge against the chemical company, and after a jury returns a striking verdict of 41 million dollars for the plaintiff in their first lawsuit (with many more waiting in the wind), the story moves to its center theme, which is both sides preparing for the appeal.
While the plaintiff and the martyr trial attorneys go about the normal course of preparing for the appeal to the state’s Supreme Court by strengthening their case, the chemical company that got punched in the gut decides on a different route, employing the next election cycle to change the makeup of the Supreme Court to include a majority of justices who favor limited liability over massive torts. From there the story spins off into a wild and dirty campaign tale, pitting what Grisham wants you to believe to be the evils and greed of big business against the helpless, defenseless individuals that trial attorneys protect everyday.
Now, lets be real for a second. John Grisham has never really tried to hide his liberal philosophies, and I respect him for that. After all, he has publicly endorsed Hillary Clinton for President. Many of his past tales speak of Democrat stances to critical issues facing society today. A Time to Kill and The Chamber both carried the anti-death penalty sentiment. Just like The Pelican Brief, which speaks the mindset that the environment is always to be favored over development and the harvesting of natural resources. Even The Runaway Jury and The Rainmaker are stories that favor tort law. But in all those examples, Grisham inner-twined his artful skill for the dramatic and holds his political message to just undertones. That is why this Republican reader has always enjoyed his stories, not only do they offer a competing political opinion, but Grisham has always focused more on entertainment and less on blasting his political beliefs.
Sadly, this is not the case with The Appeal. If you read it, get ready to sit in the back of the lecture hall as that annoying, never wrong, professor that we all had a one point, pounds on you repeatedly about how trial attorneys save America, and that those who stand in their way are at the root of all that is wrong with the world today.
Now for a personal touch to Grisham’s ringing endorsement of trial lawyers and the tort industry.
When I was a teenager, my youngest sister had an eye operation so severely botched, that it left her legally blind in both eyes. My parents, concerned over what this handicap meant for her future, quietly approached two lawfirms to determine if a lawsuit against the surgeon was a suitable course of action. Both said the same thing, that there was blatant malpractice on the part of the surgeon, but that a likely settlement of twenty-five thousand dollars was not worth their time. One lawyer even told them flat out that eye damage isn’t gruesome enough in a courtroom to attract a worthwhile reward. This, of course, left my parents quite confused. After all, even after an attorney took 40 percent of that likely settlement, fifteen thousand dollars invested over several years would have still been enough to pay for a sizable portion of my sister’s college. For a lot of people, that is worthwhile.
Nearly fifteen years later, one of the law firms that rejected my sister, sued my mother for over a million dollars on behalf of an amateur motorcyclist left with a broken leg after a parking lot accident with my mother. One…point…two…million for a broken leg with no long term effects that wouldn’t have even been scratched had the motorist been inside a car. The law firm even tried (unsuccessfully) to move the lawsuit to a neighboring county with a track record of higher tort awards, and were not shy about that motive.
Now honestly, with stories like this, how can John Grisham, John Edwards and the rest of the trial lawyer crowd continue to sit there and say, “It’s not about the money.”
Up next for myself and Sam, we’ll be squaring off on an issue topic in the first of many showdowns to see which of us can hold our own in debating the issues.