I just returned from a book club discussion of The Lincoln Lawyer (by Michael Connelly)... maybe you have read it too?
There was a range of reaction, none severely negative, mostly positive. WARNING!! Some spoiler comments follow.
Some ranked the book quite high- a 98/100 was one score! Now this is the guy who has said that "only Sherlock Holmes merits a 100."
He and all of the members enjoyed the book's description of legal strategies and the courtroom repartee. Personally, I love books that provide an extensive dialog of lawyers examining witnesses. For me, it all began with Perry Mason when I was in the 8th grade! At least 9 of the authors on my favorites list write books about lawyers. BTW, I prefer legal drama (Perry Mason) to legal thriller (The Firm), but I like them both. Id say that The Lincoln Lawyer falls about midway on the continuum between drama and thriller.
None of us work in the "justice" system and can claim the ability to judge the realism in the book, but most of us had the feeling it was accurate. Unlike Perry Mason, Connelley's criminal defense attorney almost never has an innocent client. Indeed, that became the crux of the problem for the lead character who must face the mistake of contributing to the incarceration of an innocent man.
Some interesting plot twists: the attorney's investigator gets killed. Gosh! The author killed his Paul Drake!
In the final twist: we find out how the "bad guy" is able to move undetected across town to commit murder while wearing an anklet alarm system. OK, the author had me fooled, but my peers in the discussion group had figured it out in advance.
Most of the difference of opinion about the book revolved around the central character. Some of us did not feel sufficient attraction to the character. It was suggested that defense attorneys created by J. F. Freedman were more likable/attractive. Other participants liked the development of the character through the book; as the book opens, the attorney is thoroughly jaded and seems resigned to perform a service, no matter how low he must stoop. By the end, he seems just a bit (thus, realistically) reformed by the crisis he underwent with the two principle clients featured in the plot. At the very least, the crisis brought out his more noble side.
The group also exchanged views on the credibility of the evil client and his equally equal mother. This led to a reflection on the different mental states of murderers, including Jeffrey Dommer and Charles Stuart.
I felt the book was a solid "B" and others in the group had no trouble giving the book a solid "A."
If you read the book, how would you rate it?
Friday, September 28, 2007
Thursday, September 27, 2007
The Book Version or the Movie Version
What do you like best, the movie version of a mystery/thriller or the book version?
I was thinking of the movie versions of books by my favorite authors. Here's some examples:
I love the Easy Rawlins series by Walter Moseley. When Moseley finishes a paragraph you can feel the sub-culture of 1950s LA - I am there! The history is live! So when Devil in a Blue Dress was made into a movie with one of my favorite actors (Denzel Washington), I put it into my VCR with huge anticipation. What a let down! It just couldn't capture it. I wish I could put better words on "it." Is "it" - ambience? flavor? aroma? emotion? stress? I just don't know how Moseley does it but it wasn't in the film. More importantly, I couldn't follow the plot as done on film... and supposedly I already knew it! Nope, the book is better.
I also love Vic Warshawsky, the tough feminist-minded insurance investigator created by Sara Paretsky. I enjoy the realism in the book and the lead character is very believable. The plots are well developed. Extremely fun reads. Then a movie was made with the title "VI Warshawski- Detective in High Heels." My overall impression from the book is that Vic is not exactly a high heels kind of gal-- so right off, you know something is amiss. Then the script plays more like a comic mystery - I assure you that is not the case in the books. The movie was not based on one specific book. As someone on Paretsky's forum states: It "kind of cobbles together some of the stories. It stars Kathleen Turner. It's an ok movie, but doesn't really do justice to Sara's books - a single book made into a movie would be good!" How true.
I could go on, but generally the book is the real deal. Extreme Measures might be an exception. This was a great movie and a great book IMHO.
Here's something I wonder about: Which is more to the point-- ?
(1)People who read a book they like, will spend money to see the movie.OR
(2)People who see a movie they like, will go out and buy the book.
I was thinking of the movie versions of books by my favorite authors. Here's some examples:
I love the Easy Rawlins series by Walter Moseley. When Moseley finishes a paragraph you can feel the sub-culture of 1950s LA - I am there! The history is live! So when Devil in a Blue Dress was made into a movie with one of my favorite actors (Denzel Washington), I put it into my VCR with huge anticipation. What a let down! It just couldn't capture it. I wish I could put better words on "it." Is "it" - ambience? flavor? aroma? emotion? stress? I just don't know how Moseley does it but it wasn't in the film. More importantly, I couldn't follow the plot as done on film... and supposedly I already knew it! Nope, the book is better.
I also love Vic Warshawsky, the tough feminist-minded insurance investigator created by Sara Paretsky. I enjoy the realism in the book and the lead character is very believable. The plots are well developed. Extremely fun reads. Then a movie was made with the title "VI Warshawski- Detective in High Heels." My overall impression from the book is that Vic is not exactly a high heels kind of gal-- so right off, you know something is amiss. Then the script plays more like a comic mystery - I assure you that is not the case in the books. The movie was not based on one specific book. As someone on Paretsky's forum states: It "kind of cobbles together some of the stories. It stars Kathleen Turner. It's an ok movie, but doesn't really do justice to Sara's books - a single book made into a movie would be good!" How true.
I could go on, but generally the book is the real deal. Extreme Measures might be an exception. This was a great movie and a great book IMHO.
Here's something I wonder about: Which is more to the point-- ?
(1)People who read a book they like, will spend money to see the movie.OR
(2)People who see a movie they like, will go out and buy the book.
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
California Girl - (Due Nov 10) Add Your Comments!
I will start reading this soon. Feel free to post your comments about the book here, but save any spoiler type comments until after Nov 10.
I will say that I have read several of Parker's books and have enjoyed them a lot. He creates great lead characters, usually quite conflicted. I especially loved the 3 part series with Deputy Merci Rayborn spelled out in The Blue Hour, Red Light, and Black Water. I am looking forward to California Girl!
You can visit Parker's own website here. On that page is a list of links to author interviews - always a fascinating insight into a book.
Here is a really fun interview of Parker conducted by Harlen Coben (one of my recent fav authors). An author interviews an author. It is posted on the site of Mystery Readers International - the major mystery fan organization which votes the Macavity awards.
-----
First let me say that my library mystery book club (the non-virtual one) rated the book quite high. Of seven readers, six thought it was a terrific book.
-----
OK, here are my comments about California Girl:
In some ways this book defies categorization; is it a “novel” or a mystery? Or put differently, is it a story with themes about family struggles and conflicts, public personas and private secrets, or is it a plot of suspense and a crime to be solved. This book is clearly both.
Many mystery books, best-seller or otherwise, fall into the category of “thriller” or “who dunnit?” that are heavy on plot and light on character, and especially the development of character. Using examples familiar to our library book club from last year, Riggs, Tappley, Healey, and Flora all come to mind. If there is any extensive character development, it is to make the motive of a psychopathic maniac somehow believable. Deaver and Gerritson come to mind.
On the other hand, many books deal entirely with family conflicts over a period of time. I am not much of a reader outside of the mystery genre, but isn’t this what James Mitchner did (Texas, Virginia, etc)? Not to mention many others that focus on the evolution of families. Some may feel that Parker does too much of this. Publisher’s weekly bends in this direction with the comment: “Readers should think mainstream novel rather than thriller and prepare to wait patiently for the rewards offered by this intricately plotted tale.”
Yet this book won the Edgar for best mystery novel in 2005. So clearly the eight panelists at the Mystery Writers of America felt it was not only a mystery, but the best of the year. Incidentally, there are typically around 500 competing titles for this award.
If you were to imagine a contiuum of 1 to 10 with 10 being a mystery/thriller focused almost entirely on plot with little to no description of character beyond the minimum, and 1 being a “mainstream novel” with no mystery plot worked in at all… where does California Girl fall? Is it satisfying to the mystery lover?
My answer is maybe a “5” – and yes it was satisfying as a mystery. I also enjoyed following the theme of life expectations and realities as seen from a variety of family viewpoints: The Vonns, The Beckers, The Stoltzes, and The Lobdells. Lofty expectations for love, for marriage, for child-raising are all central to the story as well as the events that thwart these hopes. These thwarting events include the world at large (Vietnam war, local politics, cultural pressures) as well as individuals and their psycho-social-sexual needs that are at odds with other family members.
Would I read another book by this author (#10)? Yes. But to be honest, I have read some of Parker’s other books which I liked even more than this one, in particular the three book series with Sheriff Deputy Merci Dearborn. That probably colors my thinking at least a little.
This book begins with a first person point of view in chapter 1 and then concludes with the same first person point of view in the last 3 chapters. The intervening 35 chapters are told as narrative. The narrative serves as one long flashback spanning the years 1954 – 1970. In a way, Parker is essentially providing the prologue and epilogue in the present, without calling it that.
The specifics (using the my ranking form as a guide).
Did the book get my interest? Well the first chapter did that. Then you have to hang in there for a while since the next several chapters are not about the mystery plot, but rather with the background to the conflict that drives the principle characters.
Plot solution? Well, he does a pretty good job with credible red herrings. Beyond Cory Bonnet (the drug dealer convicted of the crime) and Roger Stoltz (the businessman and US Congressman ultimately proven to be the bad guy) there were a host of possibilities: Janelle’s brothers; David Becker, Howard Langton (the coach accused of the other murder at the same time and friend of David; Terry Neemal (the Wolfman homeless guy); Barbara Becker (I thought she would protect David and the Chapel at any cost); and Jonas Dessinger (the obnoxious news publisher and Andy’s boss).
Nevertheless, though Parker kept me guessing, I sure suspected Stoltz the most, but not because of the possessive love motive —more because of some political belief conflict. It was also clear from the first chapter that the one that would be accused would be accused wrongly. Finally, the very moment that Nick Becker orders the finger and thumb to be frozen, you know that DNA will become the final solution at the end of the book.
Was the solution credible? It was in every way but one. I have a bit of trouble picturing Stoltz getting into the beheading gore. I consider it partly credible because he would be desperate enough to try to cover his tracks, and sawing off the head was probably seen by this character as necessary to throw off any investigation – which it did.
Suspense and tension? Not so much in the classic thriller way, like Harlan Coben or Jeffrey Deaver. The tension was more a matter of personal conflicts-- binds in which characters found themselves, like David vs the FBI nuts; Andy and his love life; Andy and his bosses; Nick and Lucky Lobdell; Max and Monica and the way they responded to Clay throughout their lives; and so on. So I gave a mediocre score to the book on this point, because I think of this grading point more in the classical way. I make up for this later.
Setting? This surely includes, not just the California locales, but the historical periods of the 50s and 60s. This was really, really fun. And Parker does it really well, much better than, say, Stuart Kaminsky in Mildred Pierced. Kaminsky, I felt, got carried away with bits of trivia and it became almost obvious that he was trying to find a paragraph to insert the name of a song from the period. Parker slips these things in seamlessly. OK, the contact points of his family with Nixon and Manson are maybe a bit much--- yet it was believable in the context.
Along that line, the dialog was totally believable given the setting and characters.
It is interesting that all of the Becker boys are central characters. Yet Parker favors Nick as he is the first-person voice at the start and the end. Using the words of our grading question, none of the boys are admirable or hero types. Possibly not so likable. They are however interesting because they are all flawed, and so also appealing because of that!
In all, I gave it a score of 91 – a good A-.
I will say that I have read several of Parker's books and have enjoyed them a lot. He creates great lead characters, usually quite conflicted. I especially loved the 3 part series with Deputy Merci Rayborn spelled out in The Blue Hour, Red Light, and Black Water. I am looking forward to California Girl!
You can visit Parker's own website here. On that page is a list of links to author interviews - always a fascinating insight into a book.
Here is a really fun interview of Parker conducted by Harlen Coben (one of my recent fav authors). An author interviews an author. It is posted on the site of Mystery Readers International - the major mystery fan organization which votes the Macavity awards.
-----
First let me say that my library mystery book club (the non-virtual one) rated the book quite high. Of seven readers, six thought it was a terrific book.
-----
OK, here are my comments about California Girl:
In some ways this book defies categorization; is it a “novel” or a mystery? Or put differently, is it a story with themes about family struggles and conflicts, public personas and private secrets, or is it a plot of suspense and a crime to be solved. This book is clearly both.
Many mystery books, best-seller or otherwise, fall into the category of “thriller” or “who dunnit?” that are heavy on plot and light on character, and especially the development of character. Using examples familiar to our library book club from last year, Riggs, Tappley, Healey, and Flora all come to mind. If there is any extensive character development, it is to make the motive of a psychopathic maniac somehow believable. Deaver and Gerritson come to mind.
On the other hand, many books deal entirely with family conflicts over a period of time. I am not much of a reader outside of the mystery genre, but isn’t this what James Mitchner did (Texas, Virginia, etc)? Not to mention many others that focus on the evolution of families. Some may feel that Parker does too much of this. Publisher’s weekly bends in this direction with the comment: “Readers should think mainstream novel rather than thriller and prepare to wait patiently for the rewards offered by this intricately plotted tale.”
Yet this book won the Edgar for best mystery novel in 2005. So clearly the eight panelists at the Mystery Writers of America felt it was not only a mystery, but the best of the year. Incidentally, there are typically around 500 competing titles for this award.
If you were to imagine a contiuum of 1 to 10 with 10 being a mystery/thriller focused almost entirely on plot with little to no description of character beyond the minimum, and 1 being a “mainstream novel” with no mystery plot worked in at all… where does California Girl fall? Is it satisfying to the mystery lover?
My answer is maybe a “5” – and yes it was satisfying as a mystery. I also enjoyed following the theme of life expectations and realities as seen from a variety of family viewpoints: The Vonns, The Beckers, The Stoltzes, and The Lobdells. Lofty expectations for love, for marriage, for child-raising are all central to the story as well as the events that thwart these hopes. These thwarting events include the world at large (Vietnam war, local politics, cultural pressures) as well as individuals and their psycho-social-sexual needs that are at odds with other family members.
Would I read another book by this author (#10)? Yes. But to be honest, I have read some of Parker’s other books which I liked even more than this one, in particular the three book series with Sheriff Deputy Merci Dearborn. That probably colors my thinking at least a little.
This book begins with a first person point of view in chapter 1 and then concludes with the same first person point of view in the last 3 chapters. The intervening 35 chapters are told as narrative. The narrative serves as one long flashback spanning the years 1954 – 1970. In a way, Parker is essentially providing the prologue and epilogue in the present, without calling it that.
The specifics (using the my ranking form as a guide).
Did the book get my interest? Well the first chapter did that. Then you have to hang in there for a while since the next several chapters are not about the mystery plot, but rather with the background to the conflict that drives the principle characters.
Plot solution? Well, he does a pretty good job with credible red herrings. Beyond Cory Bonnet (the drug dealer convicted of the crime) and Roger Stoltz (the businessman and US Congressman ultimately proven to be the bad guy) there were a host of possibilities: Janelle’s brothers; David Becker, Howard Langton (the coach accused of the other murder at the same time and friend of David; Terry Neemal (the Wolfman homeless guy); Barbara Becker (I thought she would protect David and the Chapel at any cost); and Jonas Dessinger (the obnoxious news publisher and Andy’s boss).
Nevertheless, though Parker kept me guessing, I sure suspected Stoltz the most, but not because of the possessive love motive —more because of some political belief conflict. It was also clear from the first chapter that the one that would be accused would be accused wrongly. Finally, the very moment that Nick Becker orders the finger and thumb to be frozen, you know that DNA will become the final solution at the end of the book.
Was the solution credible? It was in every way but one. I have a bit of trouble picturing Stoltz getting into the beheading gore. I consider it partly credible because he would be desperate enough to try to cover his tracks, and sawing off the head was probably seen by this character as necessary to throw off any investigation – which it did.
Suspense and tension? Not so much in the classic thriller way, like Harlan Coben or Jeffrey Deaver. The tension was more a matter of personal conflicts-- binds in which characters found themselves, like David vs the FBI nuts; Andy and his love life; Andy and his bosses; Nick and Lucky Lobdell; Max and Monica and the way they responded to Clay throughout their lives; and so on. So I gave a mediocre score to the book on this point, because I think of this grading point more in the classical way. I make up for this later.
Setting? This surely includes, not just the California locales, but the historical periods of the 50s and 60s. This was really, really fun. And Parker does it really well, much better than, say, Stuart Kaminsky in Mildred Pierced. Kaminsky, I felt, got carried away with bits of trivia and it became almost obvious that he was trying to find a paragraph to insert the name of a song from the period. Parker slips these things in seamlessly. OK, the contact points of his family with Nixon and Manson are maybe a bit much--- yet it was believable in the context.
Along that line, the dialog was totally believable given the setting and characters.
It is interesting that all of the Becker boys are central characters. Yet Parker favors Nick as he is the first-person voice at the start and the end. Using the words of our grading question, none of the boys are admirable or hero types. Possibly not so likable. They are however interesting because they are all flawed, and so also appealing because of that!
In all, I gave it a score of 91 – a good A-.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
