Sep 30, 2001 02:45 AM
6334 Views
John Grisham is one of the world's top bestselling authors, so much so, that his books have the legend 'The New Bestseller from John Grisham', splattered across the cover, even before they reach the bookshops.
As a lawyer who writes 'legal' fiction, Grisham has proved the adage, 'stick to what you know', and utilizes his knowledge to the full. His books have been so successful that most have been made into films, so why has he suddenly decided to ignore his successful formula, by writing A Painted House? Has he suddenly become arrogant through previous success, and believes he can write anything, or could it be that in fact he is again writing what he knows, as this book was apparently inspired by his own childhood background in rural Arkansas.
THE PLOT.
''Pappy and Gran had been renting the land since before the Great Depression, which arrived early and stayed late in rural Arkansas. After thirty years of backbreaking labour, they had managed to purchase from Mr Vogel the house and the three acres around it. They also owned the John Deere tractor, two disks, a seed planter, a cotton trailer, a flatbed trailer, two mules, a wagon and the truck.''
A Painted House is written in a first person, past tense, narrative, from the perspective of a seven year old boy, Luke Chandler. Luke's family are cotton farmers, and the whole story is centred around the picking season of 1952, which is towards the end of the cotton industry. It is basically a portrait of life in the rural South in the 1950s, seen through the eyes of Luke, and although he is young, the adult perspective comes through by means of him witnessing and spying on the adults in his life. It also covers the interactions of the various migrant workers who pick the cotton on the farm.
DOES IT WORK?
Well, yes and no. Grisham is not, and has never claimed to be a literary genius. His books are mainstream, and will never attain 'classic' status, and neither will A Painted House.
Take young Luke; he is the one narrating the story, but no seven year old could think or indeed speak as he does in the book. So one assumes it is written by him as a reflecting adult, so that sorts that out, or does it? There is no denying the inquisitiveness of a seven year old, but in the book there are instances where you question if one so young would really be interested in what was happening, and the outcome. So I felt that some of his thoughts did not really equate to a seven year old.
I don't feel either that Grisham really develops the characters in the book. He creates them with ample room to flesh out, then leaves them in limbo. There are also times where he slips up and recounts, for example, conversations that Luke could not possibly have heard. He also occasionally slips from first to third person narration.
Leaving aside the actual characters, Grisham does a good job on the plot. He develops a storyline with mystery, tension and a good helping of twists and turns. He even manages to throw in a couple of murders and some intriguing secrets. The problem here is, he doesn't see everything through to the end, and I closed the book feeling let down.
CONCLUSION.
I feel John Grisham should stick to his 'legal' thrillers. He has had a brave attempt at changing genres, and has failed. If you want a quick, basic read, which touches on an era in history, fine, but don't start on this book thinking 'Grapes of Wrath'. The fact that everybody and their granny are giving this book away free at the moment, surely says it all.
