THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Wednesday, June 21, 1995 TAG: 9506210081
SECTION: DAILY BREAK PAGE: E3 EDITION: FINAL
SOURCE: BY ANN G. SJOERDSMA
LENGTH: Medium: 94 lines
``Dear Ms. Sjoerdsma,
``Your sour and sarcastic review of `The Rainmaker' . . . June 7th . . . runs in the face of the millions of books sold by Mr. Grisham. Could it be that a huge number of people heartily agree with his `lawyer bashing' and that this is our only opportunity of being heard, if only indirectly?
``And, further, in `The Rainmaker,' he even hits home with the health insurance company. With the exception of some of the executives being stopped from exiting the country, I would swear that he is describing at least one of the two health insurance companies who have had me insured through a former employer. . . . ''
``A few years ago I purchased a stock which was the source of a class action suit. Being a stock holder I was invited to join the group. It was officially determined that my claim was the sum of $1,462.50. After a couple of years of no information, I received my check - $82.15 - exactly 0.0561709% (editor's note: actually 5.6 percent) of my claim. Thus, the lawyers and costs amounted to 94.4% of each and all claims. And, of this, the lawyers naturally received 33.33% of the whole, namely a $15,300,000 settlement fund.. . .
``And so, `He's just bashing. And it's much too easy for him.' I, for one, hope he bashes harder and harder until we have a situation where he can't bash - not too easy. Of course, I have the Brooklyn Bridge for sale also.''
Lawyer bashingly yours,
Edgar Neil Rogers, Esquire
Virginia Beach
THANK YOU for the gentle bashing, Mr. Rogers. You were not the only reader to take exception to my strident review of erstwhile practicing attorney John Grisham's now-No. 1 best seller, ``The Rainmaker.'' A female reader called the public editor on June 8 to complain about my harsh language and ``spiteful tone'' and to suggest, rather insultingly, because she does not know me, that I might be jealous of Grisham's success. But even many of my friends questioned my tone and tact on this one, arguing that pop-fiction romps, such as those that Grisham annually churns out for Doubleday, should not be so critically scrutinized.
I am not about to defend insurance companies or lawyers, as groups. I am skeptical, suspicious and distrusting of both: I am a ``lapsed'' lawyer; I've dealt with other lawyers; I've gone up against insurance companies. My advice to anyone who has to deal with either, bearing in mind that even rational group prejudice should never damn the individual without proof, is: caveat emptor. I have no doubt that the health-insurance scam and swinish, cover-up lawyers that Grisham described in his novel exist.
(It is also significant, however, that Mr. Rogers writes, ``After a couple of years of no information. . . '' I have to ask: Did you try to make contact with the lawyers involved, other stockholders, the court? Did you demand accountability? I never left a client of mine ``in the dark''; and I have no respect for lawyers who do. But clients, too, have to protect themselves, even in large class-action suits.)
I am not jealous of John Grisham, at best a mediocre writer who knows what societal vein to mine, but I am disappointed in him. Grisham is a well-educated, wealthy, famous, still-young man who has a built-in audience in the millions, and he persists in ``cheating'': He fudges on the law; he creates lazy, absurd plots; he minimizes characterization. But most offensive to me is that he engages in what I call ``bashing'' - easy, superficial, thoughtless, go-for-the-gut-not-the-mind storytelling - to promote The Little Guy and his own box-office potential.
Why does Grisham shoot to kill, but not shoot straight? If he is going to expose greed and corruption - and I agree they need exposure - why not tell the whole, complex truth, not just the expedient half-truth? The protagonist of ``The Rainmaker,'' a cynical, lazy law student, is laughable, as is the judge who champions his cause. The courtroom scenes are written for maximum dramatic - read ``movie'' - effect and play like an Abbott and Costello routine. I'll suspend my disbelief for a taut courtroom thriller, such as those lawyer Scott Turow writes, but I won't be manipulated by a Dr. Frankenstein of legal fiction.
Perhaps if Grisham were not obligated to a book-a-year contract, he would take the time to be more informative and enlightening in his narratives. He has the opportunity to be so.
An anonymous reader sent my ``Rainmaker'' review to me, penning at the top: ``I cannot believe this very poor review. You need to return to school. No, I do not care for Grisham. D+.''
I deliberately wrote a caustic, hard-hitting review, knowing and hoping that I would get a response - and bracing myself for its sting - and I willingly signed my name.
You can read mildly amusing, light-hearted and generally positive reviews of John Grisham's books in any newspaper in this country; you can read the review I wrote only in this newspaper. Maybe you don't want to, and that's your choice. But at least you have the option, and I, for one, am grateful that some of you are reading and responding. That is what newspapers are all about, Mr. Rogers. And I thank you. MEMO: Ann G. Sjoerdsma is book editor for The Virginian-Pilot and The
Ledger-Star. by CNB