Growing up, I always wanted to read whatever my older sister was reading. This makes sense - she is the one who used to read to me late at night when we were supposed to be sleeping. In the first grade, the last time I remember being tested, they put me at a third grade reading level, which can in part be credited to her for her continuous encouragement. When I was in the eighth grade, she passed me a book she was reading as a senior: The Scarlet Letter by Nathaniel Hawthorne. Well, that one was a mistake. I wanted to be at the point where I could read and understand it. She expected that I would be; she always had so much confidence in me. But I wasn't ready for it. Well, it's on my list now, and I'll get to it eventually (still dragging my feet after all these years), but that's not what this post is about.
This was also around the time that my sister started passing me her John Grisham books. She wanted to be a lawyer, so immersing herself in the fiction of the trade was exciting to her. These books, unlike the Hawthorne, I could handle. I read The Rainmaker first, followed by a long string of others, my favorite one being The Partner. I felt smart reading these books, because they let me into the prestigious world of law. I understand now that these books aren't of the same caliber as the classics that I struggled with, but they served a purpose in my life... they brought back my confidence.
I have just finished my first Grisham book since I was a freshman in high school, and I don't know how I feel about it. Grisham's The Brethren is something I picked up cheap at a garage sale a few years back, probably for nostalgic purposes. Reading it now, though, it's not the same. I don't know if it was this particular book, or if it's Grisham's style in general that is so off putting to me. First of all, I didn't care enough about any of the characters. The story focuses around three ex-judges referred to as "The Brethren" who are serving time in a federal prison. They concoct extortionist scams from the inside with the help of their shady lawyer. The story follows along with them a few of their victims... the biggest one of them being a candidate for the United States Presidency. Now I have nothing against villainous protagonists. I actually encourage it. However, going through an entire story not caring who "wins" and who "loses", who lives and who dies, doesn't say much for Grisham's character writing ability. It also really bothered me the way he would jump between character perspectives from one paragraph to the next. I'm okay with it after line breaks or at the start of a new chapter, but this just feels sloppy.
It's been an interesting experience revisiting an old favorite and realizing that I'm not impressed. It makes me wonder though, did I just randomly select one of his worst novels? Or were none of them as good or as clever as I remembered them? I know I'm not the same person as I was when I was reading them a good decade or so ago, but now I really want to do some re-reading to find out for sure. Has anyone else experienced this? Feel free to add to the discussion.
No comments:
Post a Comment