Anyone out there reading his books? I read all of them so far, though a decline in quality can't be denied after his first - about five - really great thrillers. Can anyone recommend or warn me of "Skipping Christmas" and "The Summons" (which are the two I haven't read yet)? Regarding what I read 'Skipping Christmas' must be a quite nice - surprise: - Christmas story, good to read and quite funny. I'm asking as his previous book and the only other non-thriller "A painted house" IMO was by far the worst he ever wrote. Regarding "The Summons" I read some media articles praising this book as a return to his good old thrillers. Looked good to me, but all privat persons I was asking really warned me to buy it.
Ive read most of his old stuff, and its all great. im not sure abotu a painted house though. i havent read it, but the vary idea of him writing about something other than law distrubs me. thats part of what makes his books so interesting. Not that he shouldnt be allowed to write abotu anyhting but the law, but im not really sure that any of the otehr stuff would really be my cup of tea.
I don't read novels often, but in need of something to read on the plane tomorrow, I bought The Summons after seeing it on the bestseller rack, then reading the back cover. I'm looking forward to it, and will let you all know my thoughts when I'm done.
i read his first few books and eagerly anticipated the release of the next few, usually purchasing them on their release date and finishing them in about a day...but after the release of the street lawyer i thought his next few books took a turn for the worse. i had not picked up the summons yet but i hear it kinda harkens back to some of his older books <writing about law again> and i think at some point i might pick it up and read it...
Grisham tells a good story, usually, but he's a very clunky writer. Skipping Christmas starts out with a good idea but I found myself rolling my eyes several times when the characters behaved in inexplicable ways. I dunno - it seemed rushed and weak and very one-dimensional.
I had actually read the first 3 or so of his books and thought "A Time To Kill" was excellent, though the drop off started there for me. Then I read his comments in a Vanity Fair interview a couple years back regarding the court case going on in Louisiana over whether Oliver Stone and the other producers of "Natural Born Killers" could be sued for inciting some teens to violence who had watched the movie over and over after dropping acid and then gone on a copycat-type shooting spree through the south. A friend of Grisham's was one of those shot and that's one of the reasons he supported the suit against the movie's makers. Without going into too much detail, his argument boiled down to the idea that the movie had "glamorized" violence to the extent that it made these kids want to copy that violence. Now, getting beyond the fact that I don't believe a book's or movie's writers or producers should ever be considered an accomplice to a crime, I found it exceptionally rich that Grisham was making in this argument. Did he ever consider the fact that the opening scene of "A Time To Kill" seems to glamorize hate crimes committee against racial minorities or that he seemed to indicate in that book that a crime of vengeance might be OK? He detailed these acts to such an extent that if the Louisiana case precedent stands (and right now it does), he'd be primed to be sued himself if someone admitted to using one of his books as a blueprint for murder. Although I understand the motivation for his statements and position, and realize they are borne of extreme anguish, the fact that a lawyer and writer has sold out the First Amendment in this way is appalling. For that reason, I will never read another book by John Grisham, see another movie based on one of his books, or attend any function where he is a speaker or honored guest.