I do enjoy a legal thriller every now and then, and this one was no disappointment. Taut and suspenseful courtroom drama, a spare, no-frills writing style that does in no way lack depth or perception, gritty, realistic dialogue, compelling secondary characters and a unique side story that looks at the political intrigues involved in campaigning for the prosecutor position in the county.The conclusion (following the big reveal of "who did it?", which I actually did not see coming, but I am not a particularly astute crime solving reader so take that as you will; it may be more obvious to others) reminded me a bit of Gillian Flynn's "Gone Girl", or rather, since this book was written in the 80s, Flynn's twisted tale of a marriage and a murder (of sorts) gone wrong reminds me of Turow's novel. Won't say anymore, but I do feel like there are echoes of "Presumed Innocent" in "Gone Girl." Rusty Sabich is a fascinating protagonist and narrator and I appreciated Turow's thorough and unflinching exploration of the character's emotions. The novel examines the fine moral lines we all draw in the sand, and just how absurdly easy it is to cross those lines. The barrier between "good" and "bad" isn't as solid, apparent or impermeable as we may like to think, and Turow does an excellent job at revealing that. There really are no faultless, flawless characters in "Presumed Innocent" (except, perhaps, the smooth, impeccable and sauvely European defense attorney Alejandro Stern, who remains a bit of an enigma to me!), but there's a lot of reality in the character portrayals, and you find yourself cheering for Rusty regardless of any morally dubious decisions he's made. Now for my problems with the novel: I did feel like the book settles into a misogynistic story line that pits two women against each other (surprise!). One female character's motivation for her actions all stem from trying to either a) seek revenge on a man or b) win back his love, depending on whether you accept Rusty's explanation at the end of the novel or Lipranzer's more cynical theory. The other female character exploits her sexuality to climb the workplace ladder. She's portrayed as ruthlessly sleeping with anyone who could potentially help her career, and beyond that, she is a complete blank slate. I was disappointed by how two-dimensional and stereotypical these women are; more so because I found Rusty such a finely-drawn, complex character. Why couldn't the women also receive the same treatment? We've seen vengeful, conniving Jezebel variations in art and literature pretty much ever since Eve accepted the damn apple. The book was written in the 80s, as more and more women asserted themselves in the workforce as equals to their male counterparts, so perhaps there's a bit of that cultural zeitgeist reflected in the novel as Turow grappled with that. Perhaps the male-dominant milieu of the "courtroom and cops" setting meant that such misogyny was...necessary for realism? (not really buying that though. I get that the dialogue would be realistically chauvinistic, but that's no excuse for the weak motivations and depictions of the female characters). Who knows. But pass the Bechdel test "Presumed Innocent" definitely does not.A much more minor quibble - it bugged me that the book seemingly wasn't set in a real city. I gathered that it's supposed to be somewhere in the Midwest, but descriptions are very vague and I never got a feel for the setting. The university that Barbara attends is always referred to as the U., the newspaper is The Trib, (Chicago Tribune?) and we never hear the name of the city, just that it's in Kindle County. For some reason this really annoyed me, and I've realized that I am able to get into a novel more when the setting comes alive and there's a specific location. I never appreciated in the past how even minor details like"So and so turned left onto Lyotnaya Street and walked past the cluster of newspaper kiosks..." can really make you feel like you're THERE, fully immersed in the world of the novel. It adds a realism to the story and a sense of place, and I felt like this was lacking in Presumed Innocent. Thus, a three-star rating. I liked it, I'm looking forward to watching the film version with Harrison Ford (because, duh, Harrison Ford!) but the misogynistic portrayal of the two main female characters was problematic for me and took away some enjoyment of reading.
I first read this murder-mystery cum legal thriller back in college. At the time I was blown away by the twists and turns and the "gotcha" ending. It made me a life-long Scott Turow fan. Coming back to re-read it 20 years later, I found the plot more straightforward than I had recalled but was newly impressed by the depth and subtelty of the characterizations and the quality of the language.For those unfamiliar with it, "Presumed Innocent" is the story of Rusty Sabich, a Deputy Prosecuting Attorney who is investigating the murder of another Deputy PA, Carolyn Polhemus, when he suddenly finds himself accused of the crime and on trial for her murder. The case is complicated by the fact that Sabich's boss, Raymond Horgan, is up for re-election and also by the fact that Sabich had an affair with Polhemus the year before. Sabich hires brilliant defense attorney Alejandro "Sandy" Stern to represent him and the latter 2/3 of the book deals with the courtroom case.My brother once told me that to give a book a five-star rating on GoodReads, it would have to be a book that changed him in some way. I debated long and hard about this one, but finally opted for all five stars. Before reading this, I don't know if I really believed that contemporary American genre fiction could ever aspire to the ranks of great literature. After this, I was a believer. There are diamonds in the rough out there and I believe that some few books will stand the test of time; this could be one of them.Some people don't like the harsh language in this book, or the candid and blunt way that Turow deals with racial tensions or sexual situations (some reviews I read even call him a racist - let's be clear, discussing racial tension in a book does not make one a racist). I am no particularly squeamish and to me, Turow's handling of these matters has a feeling of realism to it which made the book more vivid. He is a practicing Chicago attorney, and I suspect that much of the atmosphere of the fictional Kindle County legal system comes from his own experience in Midwestern courthouses.This book also gave me a new appreciation for the mixed motives that inhabit every human heart. No one is a pure saint or a pure sinner in Turow's world and this also resonates. Given that "all have sinned" in Turow's world, reading this book gives me an appreciation for a legal system which begins with the assumption that the defendant is "presumed innocent." Highly recommended.
What do You think about Presumed Innocent (2010)?
Some lawyers should become writers, others should not. Scott Turow falls squarely in the latter category. Once you realize that half this novel can be skipped, as it is useless exposition about characters the author fails to make sympathetic in the first place, it becomes a much shorter read. Combine that with the fact that half the character descriptions border on, if not delve fully into, racism, it may not be worth reading at all. (I'm sure Turow would say it's the character speaking and not the author, but they are one in the same) My final complaint with the book is that around 1/3 of the way into it I thought, "He'd better not end it that way," and sure enough he draws this winding course just to bring things back to a terribly cliched, Law & Order ending, though without any of the talent or ability of the television writers.
—Grant
There are times when I read a paragraph again, not because I didn’t understand it but because the author uses language so beautifully. Scott Turow obviously delights in the use of the English language. Such delight would be wasted if he didn’t also come up aces in the plot and character department. He captured my attention from the start although not so much with the plot, at first, as with his acerbic descriptions of the characters. By the time I needed to figure out who did what, I knew who was who.This book is a courtroom drama and it predictably spends most of its time in the courtroom or preparing for the courtroom. There is a twist and that is that the main character is a Public Prosecutor who is himself accused of murdering a colleague with whom he had a secret affair. By the end of the book, I had just barely figured out ‘who-dunnit’ – just barely. I felt that my intellect was respected, as well as my need for a good story and a further something to think about in terms of the book’s comment on human nature.
—Lucca
What a mess. It was unnecessarily racist, and unjustifiably long. I opened this book expecting to be gripped, suprised, and excited. Instead, I was disppointed.It was a far too long blow-by-blow account of unimportant details. I guess who the killer was halfway through the book, and it somehow managed to further disappoint me, in the process of revealing the killer to me at the end.I'm not even sure whether or not I should go into the mess of a sub-plot. Becuase the killer is, suprise surpise, h
—Kayla
