The Appeal

by John Grisham. Fiction. Copyright 2008. ISBN 978-0-385-51504-7. Published by Doubleday.

The only other Grisham books I have read are A Painted House and Skipping Christmas, so this is the first book of his I have read that is in his usual genre, that of the legal world. I have seen movies based on his books (A Time to Kill, The Firm, and The Pelican Brief), so I expected a good story. However, this didn't portray the life-or-death on-the-edge-of-your-seat suspense situation the others did, as I remember them, but it certainly was one where you hoped against hope that the good guys would win in the end.

In some ways, the story hit too close to home, because unlike a story like the Pelican Brief, which involves a situation beyond most readers' experiences, The Appeal involves the reader in a common experience -- the voting booth, and on that level is very troubling.

When I first began the book, I thought, "Oh! an Erin Brockovich tale, where the mean chemical company is being sued by victims of its unlawful and worse-than-irresponsible dumping practices." But that's only the beginning of the story. The rest of the story is of how a corporation attempts to buy a state supreme court judge and therefore win at the appeal.

And here is what troubled me so about the book:

1. Even though Grisham writes a strong disclaimer at the end of the book, he is no doubt anti-big corporation when it comes to lawsuits. Having lived in Mississippi, I remember the rhetoric about how Mississippi was rife with frivolous lawsuits and how convinced I was that yes, there should be a cap on awards, especially those that were just meant to punish, not compensate. Grisham obviously disagrees.
   
2. Grisham shows other political biases in these statements:
1. The description of Ron Fisk, the attorney the corporation decides to use for their own purposes: young white male, one marriage, three children, handsome, conservative, devout Baptist, bored with his job, ambitious, trusting -- in other words, naive and stupid.
2. View on abortion (page 128): Interview of Ron Fisk by conservative and religious activist groups to see if he would pass the muster for their support: "Abortion? Opposed. All abortions? Opposed. Death penalty? Very much in favor. No one seemed to grasp the contradiction between the two." This last sentence is obviously an editorial comment by the author, with which I disagree. How can anyone not see the difference between punishing a murderer and killing an innocent child in the womb?
3. Even though Grisham claims that all characters are fiction, does no one else see the similarity between the names of the fictional U.S. Senator "Myers Rudd" and "Trent Lott"? Physical comparison may not be the same, but this characterization certainly could be, spoken by the men with the money: "...the ole boy knows how to twist arms...I spent over $4 million last year in Washington. Sprinkled it around like Christmas candy...You and I know he's a moron, but the people in Mississippi don't. He's the king and they worship him down there. If he wants our boy to run, then the race is on." Trent Lott never seemed like a moron to me, but then I was one of those fools in Mississippi who didn't know any better.
3. Like most people, I know little about the judges -- local or otherwise -- who run for office. And this may be more to the point than anything else in the book -- the election of judges should not be in the hands of those who know little or nothing except what they read and hear, which can be easily controlled by those who know how to do it. Grisham's point is, if I read it right, that the appointment of judges, whose job it is not to make law but to make sure it is upheld, should not be politicized. He says so early in the book (pages 82-83): "Thirty-one states elect their appellate and supreme court judges....the [others] have the good sense to appoint their courts."
4. And probably the most disturbing thing is that these corporate types, with no conscience, nothing to motivate them except their greed, use those with conservative views, those who think they are promoting things good and decent (though I object to the bias that those who are pro-life are automatically also pro-gun lobby -- talk about a contradiction!), are actually pawns of the greedy. White conservatives, per Grisham, though sincere, are mere puppets of big business. They allow their personal religious beliefs to blind them to what's really going on.

So my question is, does Grisham know something I don't know? Is this fiction, or merely a fictionalized version of the truth? Does the inside jacket cover give me the answer? "Politics has always been a dirty game. Now justice is, too." Or maybe this is a thinly-disguised attempt by Grisham to use his fame to persuade readers to his political viewpoint.