Riveting, honest, and compelling - these are the words that truly describe this remarkable piece.

From the very first sentence, it grabs your attention and refuses to let go. The author's honesty shines through every word, making you feel as if you are right there experiencing the story along with them.

The narrative is so compelling that you find yourself completely immersed, unable to put it down. You turn the pages with anticipation, eager to see what will happen next.

It's a captivating read that keeps you on the edge of your seat, filled with emotions and surprises. Whether it's a thrilling adventure, a heartwarming romance, or a thought-provoking memoir, this article has it all.

It's a must-read for anyone who loves a good story that will leave a lasting impression.

A Civil Action by Jonathan Harr is a captivating retelling of a significant environmental lawsuit that took place in Woburn, MA. The lawyer protagonist, Jan Schlictmann, is a complex and deeply flawed character who elicits both empathy and frustration from the reader. The plaintiffs' lawyers invited the author to follow their case closely, giving him access to the inner workings of this complex and emotional litigation. This unique perspective offers a real and detailed look at the intricacies of the case, something that could never be achieved in a Grisham novel, yet it is equally compelling.

Since the author is embedded with the plaintiffs, the story naturally delves deeper into their characters and generates sympathy for their clients, but not to an unjust extent. The defense lawyers are also given character depth and motivation, rather than being simply vilified as the enemy. To enhance the reading experience, if you're a law geek, you can obtain the A Civil Action Documentary Companion, which contains copies of all the pleadings and motions submitted to the court. While not necessary, it is highly interesting.

This book is highly recommended. It tells a compelling story with complex characters and draws the reader into the narrative. The reader's investment in the outcome is even more poignant when they know that this is a true story and that the victims' lives were (and still are) affected by the events in Woburn.

This is the story of a "civil action", which is a law suit. It involves a "tort" where a corporation was sued for dumping toxic wastes that purportedly caused cancer among the residents of Woburn, Massachusetts.

Harr was definitely not even-handed. The story is told primarily from the point of view of the plaintiff's lawyer, Jan Schlictman. Of course, readers are going to identify with the ordinary people rather than the rich corporations.

However, at least Harr didn't go entirely Erin Brokovich. He did present the reasons the defendants could argue that the science behind the allegations was, shall we say, not necessarily solid.

Moreover, Harr was so meticulous in explaining the entire process of a law suit from beginning to end that this was required reading in my One-L Civil Procedure class in law school. It made a rather fascinating introduction into the law, allowing students to gain a better understanding of the complex legal procedures and the various aspects involved in a civil action.

Overall, this story provides a valuable insight into the world of law and the challenges faced by both plaintiffs and defendants in a legal battle.

A True and Powerful Story

This is a truly remarkable and powerful story that offers a wealth of knowledge. It delves deep into the issue of environmental pollution and its profound impact on a community. Through this story, one can gain a comprehensive understanding of how pollution can disrupt the lives and well-being of people.

Moreover, it also provides valuable insights into the judicial process. One can learn about the legal procedures, the challenges faced, and the efforts made to seek justice.

In comparison to the movie, this story is far superior. It offers a more in-depth exploration of the themes and issues, allowing the reader to truly engage with the content.

So, I highly recommend that you read this story. It will not only educate you but also inspire you to take action and make a difference in the world.

In the novel, "A Civil Action" by Jonathan Harr, it presents a true story of the tragic water quality in Woburn, Massachusetts.

Throughout the book, the main lawyer, Jan Schlichtmann, defends the people of Woburn against Beatrice Foods and W. R. Grace. As the evidence unfolds, the fight becomes increasingly complex. The question "Who or what is to blame for the water contamination?" seems simple at first, but as more witnesses and experts voice their concerns, it remains unanswered until the jury makes its decision.

This novel is highly intriguing as it shows both sides of the argument. The ending of the book reveals the truth of a lawsuit, which doesn't fully conclude until the jury has its say. I believe the intended audience is those interested in environmental issue books, ones that make you realize that not everything can be truthfully explained. It was successful in reaching a more politically inclined readership.

Law school has a specific requirement for us. We are supposed to read this particular material before we commence our very first year.

However, I really don't understand the reason behind it. To be honest, this reading is extremely long, and it is painfully boring. What's more, after going through it, I feel that it is ultimately pointless.

Wait a minute! Suddenly, it dawns on me that law school itself is also long, painfully boring, and ultimately seems pointless. Now, everything makes sense! It's like a light bulb has gone off in my head, and I can see the connection between this required reading and the overall experience of law school. Maybe this is some kind of strange initiation or a way to prepare us for the arduous journey ahead. But for now, I'm just left with this rather disconcerting realization.

This book vividly narrates the true account of one of the most momentous environmental legal cases in the history of the United States: Anderson v. Cryovac (1983), more commonly referred to as "the Woburn case."

The residents of Woburn, MA, unfortunately, endure an alarmingly high incidence of leukemia. Civil lawyer Jan Schlichtmann bravely undertakes this case against the mighty companies suspected of dumping toxic chemicals.

I incorporated this case in my course on rhetoric and the law. My students were extremely disappointed with the conclusion. They were anticipating the typical Hollywood storyline where the underdog prevails over the powerful and justice triumphs over might. However, in reality, sometimes the antagonists simply possess far more financial resources.

It is also quite disconcerting to observe how this case shatters Schlichtmann's life. Perhaps, after all, I made the correct decision in not attending law school.

The truth?

Facher said, smiling, one day after court. "The truth is at the bottom of a bottomless pit."

This thought-provoking rendering is based on the true court case in Woburn, MA, which involved the poisoning of the water supply and the families who suffered as a result.

I have to admit that I was not looking forward to this book. I expected it to be a long, dry court case filled with legalese and science. However, I was wrong!

This book hooked me from the start! Although it is non-fiction, it is engaging and written as a narrative. I was completely drawn into the story and the characters. I found myself experiencing a wide range of emotions, including sadness, frustration, hope, nausea, incredulity, and anger!

The book is chock full of discussions about the characters, the trial, and the legal system, making it a great choice for book groups. It is a story that will stay with me.

I would give it a 5, but it is very long and the ending is frustrating. Additionally, it desperately needs a "where are they now" conclusion. Nevertheless, overall, it is really well done!

Probably a 3.5.

The writing in this book was indeed quite good. It had the ability to draw me right into the story from the very beginning. However, as I delved deeper into the narrative, I found that I never really established any feelings of connection or intimacy with the main character. I remained somewhat distant from him, never truly understanding his motivations or being able to relate to him on a human level. Instead, this book read more like an historical account of an interesting event. And perhaps that's exactly what it was intended to be.

Also, around the early 400's (considering this book is a hefty 500 pages long), I started to feel like the book would never reach its conclusion. In fact, when it finally did end, it felt more like it fizzled out rather than having a satisfying and conclusive ending. It left me with a sense of disappointment, as if there was still more that could have been explored and developed in the story. Overall, while the writing was engaging, the lack of connection with the main character and the somewhat underwhelming ending prevented me from giving this book a higher rating.

Good god, this was an absolute slog.

I truly have no idea why this book was written. It seems as if the author got entangled in a convoluted scenario and became fixated on the need to relate every single detail, down to the most excruciating ones, over the course of 500 pages.

“A Civil Action” is centered around the Woburn case, which involves a purported cluster of leukemias among children in a neighborhood near Boston. Two local industries, a tannery and a chemical company, were accused of poisoning the city’s wells with a variety of toxins, with TCE being the chief culprit allegedly responsible for the leukemias. If you’ve never heard of this case, well, that’s probably because it didn’t ultimately turn out to be much of a landmark. In reality, it was just a huge mess, with neither side having a clear-cut case. The drama unfolded over years within a sluggish legal system. In the end, the more culpable of the two companies settled with the families for $8 million. This sum was large enough to be somewhat satisfying but not large enough to be a genuine admission of guilt.

Even though the book is ostensibly about a landmark environmental case, it’s actually more of a portrayal of lawyer Jan Schlichtmann than anything else. Schlichtmann is an insanely egotistical lawyer who sues the companies on behalf of the grieving families. He is charming and intelligent, yet also stubborn to the point of irrationality. It’s extremely difficult to sympathize with him, even though he’s supposed to be the protagonist. He’s only about thirty when the book begins but has already established his own law firm after winning several large sums of money in personal injury cases. Yes, personal injury cases. In other words, Schlichtmann is an ambulance chaser. He seems to deserve the sleazy reputation that comes with that branch of law. Throughout the book, it’s quite evident that Schlichtmann is primarily motivated by money. It’s not so much about obtaining justice for the families as it is about getting two big companies to admit fault and proving his worth by winning the case. As his firm descends deeper and deeper into debt, Schlichtmann becomes increasingly desperate to win the case by a large margin. He believes it’s worth at least $25 million. Of course, that doesn’t happen, and after all his various debts are paid off, Schlichtmann finds himself having made only about $30k on the case. And that’s after his firm takes a 40% cut of the settlement offer made to the families (a standard fee in personal injury law where plaintiffs don’t put up any money upfront). When Schlichtmann declares personal bankruptcy a few years later, I found I had no sympathy for him whatsoever. Here was someone who took the case against the better judgment of his law partner, spared no expense in preparing studies and expert testimony to support his position, put himself and his partners and their homes and their livelihoods at risk, and recklessly, doggedly pursued the case believing he could win even when all the signs pointed to defeat.

What’s more, I don’t even necessarily believe Schlichtmann’s case, that is, that the chemicals dumped by the two companies caused the leukemia cluster in Woburn. The foremost CDC expert on such clusters, after several years of studying the phenomenon, began to doubt whether they even existed. Sure, there was a “cluster” when you looked at the specific neighborhood in Woburn. But if you considered Boston as a whole, the leukemia rate was normal. It seems more of a question of scope, of zeroing in on an area where there may be nothing more than a statistical aberration. The two companies were definitely guilty of something - they did dump chemicals, and it’s likely those chemicals got into the wells. But whether the concentration of those chemicals was high enough to have caused leukemia... well, that’s an entirely different matter.

It made me think about what personal injury law actually accomplishes. In my estimation, not much. Even if Schlichtmann had won the case through jury deliberation and received the huge award he’d anticipated, would that really have changed anything? It might have made it easier for other groups to sue big companies for polluting the environment, but it didn’t do anything to address the actual pollution, did it? In any system, there will always be outliers. There will always be patients who slip through the cracks in a庞大的 medical system and receive sub-standard care. But does paying out huge sums of money to the rare individuals who suffer harm at the hands of an otherwise fairly reliable system really incentivize hospitals to improve their overall operations? Or does it just encourage them to carry better malpractice insurance? In the Woburn case, a handful of families would have been handsomely compensated for the loss of their children. But the underlying pollution wouldn’t have been addressed. It wasn’t until the EPA got involved and compelled both companies to commit tens of millions of dollars to cleaning up the area they had polluted that any significant difference was truly made. Personal injury law seems like just another exploitative branch of our extremely litigious society.

Overall, this book was 500 pages too long. It would have been much better presented as a long-form newspaper article. Many of the details in the book were worse than extraneous. Author Jonathan Harr goes so far as to include the lyrics to a parodied rap that one of the office employees sings to Schlichtmann at the annual Christmas party. In the Acknowledgements, the author confessed that the first manuscript he submitted to his publisher was 1,500 pages long. 1,500 pages!!! This is an author who simply doesn’t know how to focus on the most important details.

Legal thriller? My foot.

My billing department would have a stroke if they read the amount of money that was spent on this case.

That being said, the writing was fast paced. There were moments when I felt the author lingered on unnecessary details, like Jan's romantic life. I didn't appreciate when someone commented "There's nothing worse than watching your witness get r*ped" or something similar.

However, I am cognizant that this book is a record of real people and thus a product of its era.

Overall, it was a solid read. The story had its moments of excitement and kept my attention throughout. While there were some aspects that I didn't particularly like, I understand that they were likely included to provide a more complete picture of the events and the people involved. The fast-paced nature of the writing made it easy to get through, and I found myself eager to see what would happen next. Despite its flaws, this book offers a unique perspective on a particular time and place, and I would recommend it to others who are interested in true crime or historical accounts.

This was an extremely good true book that delved into a trial which occurred in Massachusetts. The trial centered around contaminated well water and its 'alleged' connection to cancer and other health problems within the neighborhood.

It is an older book, yet it emerged as a Kindle free read and boasted high ratings. Consequently, I decided to give it a shot. I'm truly glad I did. What set this true story apart was that it was penned during the trial, not after. The author actually sat through depositions, engaged in meetings with lawyers and the community, and witnessed all of the trial proceedings.

Although it is a relatively longer book, it is well worth the read. It provides a unique and in-depth perspective on the events as they unfolded, offering readers a rare glimpse into the legal and social aspects of such a complex issue.

Overall, this book is a fascinating and informative read that I would highly recommend to anyone interested in true crime, environmental issues, or the legal system.