the racketeer

a long solo car trip can be boring. to help make my latest more palatable, i decided to purchase a book on CD. i'm thinking having someone tell me a story while i drive will make the time just melt away.

the selection came down to a crime thriller by an unfamiliar author -- used CD, $6 -- a john grisham and maeve binchy -- both $14.99 -- and harry potter & the sorcerer's stone -- $50. okay, i cannot seriously contemplate a $50 option, so HP&SS is out. the crime thriller has some compelling back cover copy and a very compelling $6 pricetag, but i just can't pull the trigger on an author i don't know. so, we're down to grisham v binchy -- the former promising a bit of legal suspense and the latter a not-too-intense family saga. in the end, i selected grisham.

although mr grisham's pattern is predictable, i thought i'd get some of his patented sharp insight into the legal system, and a bit of suspense, all through the eyes of a sympathetic character. he's generally brilliant at revealing plausible connections between plot twists, settings, characters - where none would have seemed possible.

unfortunately, the only thing that came through was the predictability.


suspense = lacking

mr grisham doesn't deliver a mystery that we solve together with the main character. he metes out details that gradually shed light on what's not a mystery at all to the main character. he's not mystery. he's suspense.

whether it was the actual book or the abridgment for audio, 'the racketeer' didn't offer much suspense. the details were either highly predictable or completely deus-ex-machina.


character development = absent

the protagonist wasn't especially sympathetic -- probably because we never had a good grasp on his motive, or perhaps his motive was simply shallow greed. the plot was rote. the supporting cast was flat. nobody changed, grew, or learned. no hidden talents or traits came to light. noone's path diverged in a yellow wood.


insight = shallow

there were no intriguing insights into the legal system. sure, maybe it was the abridgment, but why leave out such juicy details? i usually feel like i've learned some legal trade secret from grisham. in this case, the legal system was mentioned myriad times, but the actual surface was barely scratched.


connections = tenuous

yes. okay. this could have been due to the abridgment. but the connections were so tenuous as to seem manufactured. grisham usually offers these "ah-ha!" moments where you can see how the pieces fit together in a way you'd never imagined they could. they fit, you believe they fit, and you understand how they fit. in this book, it was all punchline and no setup. the pat solution was simply handed over. fait accompli.


conclusion = painful

the conclusion of 'the racketeer' was a terrible combination of predictable and drawn out. there were many places where it would have been fine for the story to have ended -- and a couple where it would have been quite good. instead, the conclusion drew out and out... and out... and out... and in the end, all wrapped up nicely just as you'd have guessed.


so?

without reading the book, i can't know how much to blame on a now-performing-by-rote grisham and how much is the fault of a sloppy abridger. all things considered, it was nice to have a storyteller along for the ride, and i will try it again, but may take a different route. perhaps i'll borrow an unabridged story from the library, or perhaps i'll sign up for audio.com.





What are your thoughts?