I'm going to have to agree with Gahagen on this one. It seems to be a book written for 40 year old mothers who can snag a minute to read in between doing laundry and vaccuuming (I'm not stereotyping anymore than Picoult). Sappy, predictable, "heartfelt", unsatisfying. A quick read, despite it's length, but leaves no lasting impression.
Three Points of Critique:
1) Why did no one ask the simple question: "Did you kill her?"
They talked about how this syndrome leads the a person to be painfully honest. Asking the simple question "did you kill her" would have resolved a lot of problems. Yes, the mom feared what her son might've done, and Theo was afraid of his involvement and ... the lawyer didn't want to put himself into a bind? I suppose the prosecution was afraid he would say no... Litterally, no one asked for his side of the story and I find this unrealistic.
2)The lawyer didn't ask Jacob for his story
Why not? Is this really how the legal system works? I figured lawyers knew the truth about their defendent and just kept a poker face during trial if they should be guilty. I was so confused as to this point. How can one make a sound case without as full a picture as one can get?
3)Ending
If I were sitting in on this case and then, out of the blue, the accused's brother comes forth with his involvement on the case, I would be completely skeptical. Jason is a crime genius - of course he could have planned all of this. What jury would believe this "stroke of luck"? It would seem as if the mother had a hand in all of this too. Picoult should've had Jason go to jail w/out the truth ever being uncovered. The exploration of Theo wrestling with guilt would have been a great read. It would have been a striking tragedy as opposed to a cheap, happy ending.
No comments:
Post a Comment