This guys is so inconsistent and tries on a few things that I can't abide. I loved Presumed Innocent, great court room thriller. One of those books that you read and think 'That'd make a good movie' and it did. His next book 'Burden of Proof' was very disappointing made more so by the author wanting us to forgive the main character after raping his friend. Limitations tries on the same thing, this time with what amounts to a gang rape. The author carries on like it's OK. It's not OK. Don't read this book.

Having read Scott Turow's Presumed Innocent, I know what the man is capable of, and it's a whole lot more than what you get with "Limitations." Not that Limitations is bad or anything; Turow shows throughout that he is a terrific writer with a style that is much more literary than you usually find within this genre. However, the story itself just feels kind of flat, the legal jargon overshadows the suspense, and the plot threads resolve in unsatisfactory ways. The book originally appeared in much shorter form in The New York Times, and I can't help but think that this new expanded edition was Turow's attempt at a quick cash grab. Who could blame him for being unable to resist the temptation to whip out another 75 pages in return for being able to sell the book at $13 a pop? Unfortunately, though, it comes across as the equivalent of a Lifetime original movie (albeit a pretty good one), rather than a masterfully crafted thriller.

This book was pretty slow, but made me feel like I actually learned something while being mildly entertained. I still don’t know if Warnovits was convicted or not? Some words were just a tad above my intelligence level

George Mason is a judge on the Court of Appeals in Kindle County, but when a disturbing rape case is brought before him he begins to question the nature of the law and his role in it. He is distracted by his wife’s diagnosis of cancer and some threatening emails he has been receiving. A quick, easy legal enjoyable read.

Not a typical ponderously long Turow, but a paperback original (albeit a fancy paperback) that deals with the appeal of a single case with Judge George Mason as the presiding appeals judge with two others. He comes to realize the case recalls an incident in his UVA days (right here in Charlottesville) in which he was an unhappy and guilty participant.

The usual polished writing with great dialog. Subplots include the radioactive cancer treatments his beloved wife is undergoing where he cannot even be in the same room as her in the immediate aftermath, and ugly threats on his computer and cell phones.

All nicely tied together at the end. A quick and entertaining one-day read.

Finora il mio preferito di questo autore. Scott Turow come di regola coinvolge il lettore e lo induce a riflettere : come e quanto il giudizio umano deve o può valutare un altro essere umano.
Qualche imprecisione nella traduzione degli istituti giuridici (che peraltro non trovano esatti corrispondenti nel nostro ordinamento) : forse un glossario in fine potrebbe essere utile.
Romanzo molto consigliato.

The book felt both too slow and fast at times, the story did not make me want to keep reading. It might have been because at many points in the story I did not feel like I could relate to the main character's problem or dilemma. I felt like the book was trying to "justify" rape or similar acts blaming youth and inexperience and trying to make you feel sorry for the men by explaining how good and wonderful they were in all other aspects of their life, for me that was just unacceptable. I think or at least hope that was not the author's intention, however that is how it felt to me and it made reading the book a pain and an infuriating moment rather than pleasant

somewhat below usual author’s standards

Not my favorite Turow book. I had figured out the threat perpetrator well in advance, although not the reason. As always, interesting legal questions are raised and discussed.

I’m very frustrated with this book. I felt like it had a great premise and a great start. It had intrigue and excitement. It was a good who done it with some other interest sprinkled in. But I felt like I was robbed at the end. Seemed too easy of an out and not very interesting. It’s like watching a crime show and you find out the character you saw for 5 seconds early on was the one who committed the crime. Where is the twist in that. Just didn’t see it

I absolutely adored this book. Turow’s writing is unique in that I found myself, more than once, drinking in the descriptions, formed with words I never would have expected. Turow’s writing is smooth and rich, and is not cliché at all.

The book calls into question some serious moral considerations, and I, too, was left to consider what I would do in this situation. Is justice still served if the guidelines of the law would let clearly guilty individuals free? The law is malleable and unclear, and there is no black and white answer in most cases. It was thrilling to ride side-by-side with George Mason as he tackled the case, bringing into question his own moral compass and dealing with his own life issues.
I can’t say I loved the ending, though. For some reason it just doesn’t sit well with me. It seems too convenient and yet, simultaneously too “out there”. That said, I can’t think of how I would have preferred it to end, and it was certainly unexpected. That’s all I’ll say so as not to ruin it for anybody who hasn’t read the book.

I do highly recommend this book. I found the writing delightful and the storyline enticing. I’ll be reading more of Turow’s writing in the future, that’s for sure.

This taught novella was brutal reading. Not in any way comparing Turow to Grisham, but gave me A Time to Kill Flashbacks.

Abuse of women, or kids -- my weak spot. Can't even watch SVU -- binge it. An episode here. An episode there.

Anyway, I still enjoyed the unfolding of the story. I read it quickly. I will remember it for a long time.

Phillip Tomasso
Author of Nothing Good Happens After Midnight

[In all fairness, it needs stated that, if it were possible, my score for this novel would be 3 1/2 stars, instead of the flat 3.]

This was my first dance with Scott Turow's Kindle County legal thrillers. Limitations presents itself as a quick but packed joust into legal drama, but this is less courtroom caper and more courthouse concern. The plot confronts the real fear of a Judge of the court receiving death threats from an unknown source while considering facts involving a landmark case of disgusting sexual assault, and whether or not the appeal for reversal of decision should be granted. As specific that sounds, its a plausible enough scenario where its simple to envision the fiction as real events.

While Turow has elegance in his prose and decent plot-weaving chops, the payoff plays a little on the predictable side. While the 'who' may be surprising, the resulting tidy bow makes some of what we learned along the way feel moot. Too many things fell naturally and perfectly into place to remove the intrigue of reality for the fanciful parking lot full of drivers with artistic licenses. Sure, these "too perfect" moments help with the tidy plot bow at the end, the inconsequential nature of the novel-long red herring feels like cheap misdirection.

This is not fully a negative indictment on this novel. As stated, Turow's elegance aides his prose greatly. He possesses a natural gift with words, and creating realistic characters that feel molded after real people. The previous paragraph doesn't dissuade me from examining other Turow novels. I'm more encouraged, knowing that if I feel this one is a bit weak, that a full-strength work by Scott would be a helluva barnburner.