The Confession by John Grisham

I'm really kind of irritated.  I'm irritated at myself for not being able to put the book down.  I stayed up way too late reading The Confession by John Grisham.  And I am irritated at the author because I didn't even like the book.  I thought it was cliche, cheap, easy shots all the while stinking of political correct garbage and yet it was wrapped up in a compelling narrative that kept me wanting to know what was going to happen.

It's very anti-capital punnishment and while he pushed some buttons in that department and prompted me to examine my own thoughts and feelings about the death penalty, it was so conveniently packaged in favor of the accused that the author turns it into a straw man, easily pushed over.

But the thing that bothered me most was the ever-present race theme in the book.  As in many of his books, he writes in the South and this was set in Texas.  The thing that bothered me is that the white characters in the book are mostly evil or at best, tragically flawed.  And the black characters in the book are all principled innocents.  I may be casting a wide net so I am thinking, a character review is in order...

1  The main character is a Lutheran minister and he's a great guy.  No denying that.  He struggles with doing the right thing but pretty much always does the right thing.

2  The attorney for the defense is passionate in his quest for justice and comes across as very likable.  He is also characterized as anti-social and a little bit nuts - it seems in Grisham's world, to be a white guy fighing for justice means you are social pariah.

3  The REAL killer.  They arrested a black kid for killing a white girl and on the eve of his execution, this pathetic white guy shows up wanting to confess.  It seems he was actually the killer.

4  The governor - white guy - racist, hate-mongering and an idiot.  Loves to start drinking with his friends in the middle of the day.

Aside:  all the people in positions of authority in the book are white and described as stupid.  Smart enough to reach high positions in society and to fabricate a capital murder conviction out of thin air - and yet somehow stupid.  Can we get more cliched than that?  Sort of reminds me of the Occupy Wall Street and their fight against all the 'stupid' rich people.  "Yeah, they're all stupid with all their money and stuff."  Can't we do a little better than this?

5  The DA - a horrible human being, he even throws a party to celebrate the execution - with lots of white friends who get drunk and act stupid

6  The police - they're all corrupt, "stupid", and force a confession from the black kid.  They'd all rather see someone executed than have the truth come out.

7  The judge.  Incredibly biased.  Oh, and she's sleeping with the DA.  Because this is a story about Anytown, USA....Riiiiiight.

8  The Appeals Court - anti-Constitution, racist, corrupt, etc, etc, etc - all white, of course

9  The Victim's family - ALL of them, idiot rednecks out to get money and exploit the murder of their daughter.  They're all evangelical and pro-death penalty and hate mongering, evil white people.

NOW ... as over the top as all this is, consider that not one of the black characters in the book acts inappropriately.  It would be one thing to write a book and talk about how wrong everyone was in the book.  There are no good guys, and all that.  But as much bad stuff went on in the book, the black characters in the book only respond with justice and at times, incredible, admirable grace.  I'm not saying I didn't love the black characters.  I did.  And I hated all the white guys that Grisham wanted me to hate.  But afterwards, I'm wondering why we've used such absolutes here - and drawn such a clear distinction along racial lines.

If you want to argue against the death penalty, pick a guy who actually committed horrible crimes -  be a man and make an argument then.  Have shades of gray in your characters (literally) instead of 'evil white guys plot against kind and sweet Jesus-loving black neighbors. 

One of the strangest problems that occurs in the book (perhaps it was a rare attempt at subtlety but if so, it was another miss) was toward the end.  Picture these lawyers who do nothing but try to get death penalties overturned.  Their client is on death row and they're out with the REAL killer trying to find the body so their client will be exonerated.  They hate this guy so much - the real killer - that they want to put a bullet in his head and it escalates to where they might actually do it.  Only the Lutheran minister keeps them from killing him.  Ironic since they spend every waking moment fighting against the death penalty. 

So:  we've spent the entire book proving that anyone who is pro-death penalty is a racist, ignorant, stupid, Christian.  (yes, that's in there too)  And then we're supposed to believe that the white guys are just in their hatred of the real killer toward the end and would've been well within their rights to just kill him and leave him in the woods?  Uh ... OK.  Sorta sounds like it's OK to kill him if he's guilty.  Or does he have to be guilty AND white?  Lazy writing in my view, even if the pace of the story was impressive.

I enjoy books that challenge my comfort level and bring up difficult questions of race and hot topics like capital punnishment, but in my view, this book didn't aid the conversation of either.  It is hypocritical, preachy, unbalanced, and harmful to real dialogue in a desperate effort to perpetuate stereotypes.  The fact that he chooses stereotypes that are politically safe is no excuse and - well - just plain sad.

I think we'd all be better off if John just stuck to his good lawyer stories and spared us his unquenchable need to shed his own 'white guilt'.