I find this book hard to describe. There is not much action--but whenever an event is described, an incident in the past or in the present, it gains its power from the fact that you have been reading some chapters containing primarily the ruminations of a judge on a court of appeals deciding the fate of a case (he's casting the deciding vote), all while handling the end of his wife's brush with cancer, and strange, vague threatening messages received on his cell and e-mail.

Character, as always with Turow, is emphasized. Somehow within 195 pages--I suppose this is a novella, then--he manages to convey much more than most novelists do in 300-350. No, this is not a masterpiece like Presumed Innocent or Burden of Proof; but age and practice in the author's dual professions, law and auteur, have given Turow's writing an appropriate gravitas.

The narration was great! However at times the detail was too much and very intricate to the point that I could not listen while I work .
I had to rewind multiple times so that I could follow along!

Also it did drag a bit and it was hard to stay engaged! However I did enjoy the ending!

Not his best!

This is one of Scott Throws earlier books. He has most assuredly gotten better with age. Very wordy with unusual plot. Don't waste time reading this one.....skip it and read his later novels.

listened to the audio version during walks and drive times over the past week or so. It held my interest well, but he does get down into the legal weeds for long stretches between the semi-thriller aspects of the plot. The high moral tone of the introspective main character judge gets a bit treacly at times and comes off as somewhat caricaturish in comparison with the quirky and manipulative nature of one of the other judges, and outright weirdness of one of the clerks.

I haven’t read Scott Turow for a long time and when I came across this book I thought I would give it a try. I wasn’t disappointed. This story has just enough drama and suspense to keep you interested and wanting to know more. And in Scott Turow’s style just enough legalese to make the spin on it interesting. A good read.

I've enjoyed Scott Turow since I read '1L' about a million years ago. I very much appreciate that he writes both non-fiction and fiction and has the confidence/following to work on projects that he must feel are important. Limitations is not a large book, but rather sparse in terms of characters and narrative. I enjoyed it as I enjoyed Michael Crighton's last couple of books - as both authors had an idea that they wanted to explore (or have me explore vicariously) with enough of a story around it to pick it up in the first place.

People wanted a big, action-packed, twisty plot should look to his other novels. This book helped me think about how our past experiences affect our interpretation of current events and it is really hard to look with 'new eyes' on new problems. Judge Mason's first intimate experience with a woman coloured his view of a rape case. The court security chief's experience with gang violence influenced her investigation of threats made against Judge Mason. Judge Mason's 'southern gentleman's' upbringing to protect women from life's unsavory details influenced his truthfulness about the threats to his wife as well as the expectations about his female clerk's ability to review the information about the aforementioned rape case. Because the plot is less complicated, as a reader, I had more 'time' to think about the issues and examine my own reflexes.

I may read this again, just to have another think....

A solid book. However I felt the threatening messages actually detracted from the book’s ability to examine the tension between letting things remain in the past and the compulsion to relive the past in all its traumatic detail.

Appellate judge George Mason faced a dilemma when the case People vs Warnovits came before him. To affirm the trial judge's judgement against the four young men for sexual assault or reject their appeal on the ground of limitation. He reflected on something similar that has happen in his life when he first starts out as a freshman in college. Turrow is a master story teller who weaves an intricate story of the personal struggle and angst of the judge as he grappled with the illness of his wife Patrice. On top of that there is an unknown enemy who keep sending threatening email to him as he struggle to come to term with writing his final term judgement before trying to run for reappointment to the appellate court again.

DNF at 80%. I realized that I had already read this long ago. And the central mystery turned out, not to be the gang rape trial, but the emotions of the judge and—more mundanely—who had stolen his cell phone. A disappointment from Scott Turow, an author whom I love to read.

Since it’s sexual assault awareness month, I decided I’d read something more or less related to it and this was the only book available on my shelf that handled the matter.
I’d have to say this is a good book, but not the kind that gets you head over heels as the storytelling was a bit slow throughout the book and not that exciting.
What I liked about it though was the way it presented characters, I admired george and how he wasn’t just a pretentious judge who seldom admitted he made mistakes, instead he took time to reflect on himself. And I loved how it dealt with rape, self doubt, loneliness and vengeance.
Good as a whole, I’d recommend as a light legal thriller.

A follow-up, more in depth character study of the narrator of Turow’s previous book, Personal Injuries. George Mason has graduated from defense attorney to appellate court judge and is further down the road in life looking in his rear view mirror while trying to sort out a very challenging case that hits a little too close to home. The book title (like many of Turow’s) is two dimensional as the legal principle of statute of limitations is a key argument in the case before him and personally as a conclusion of himself (as a man and a person) as he takes stock and grapples with his own life assessment. I liked his other books better, but that’s not to say this one isn’t good. It’s definitely shorter and more one-dimensional in terms of its focus being primarily limited to George although other characters come within his orbit and although the law is present it’s more in the background while George is in the forefront (which is a switch from his other books). There is a great line about how he is “keeping score” as of late from a personal perspective and at the doorstep of 60 and being a judge (let alone an appeals judge) how ominous of a reckoning that can be when your ultimate verdict is that as a human you are flawed and limited. I turn 50 this year and just the thought of it after being in George’s head for close to 200 pages makes me think maybe this book is better tagged as Horror than Legal Thriller.

WOW.
Adorei este livro, faz-nos refletir sobre a justiça, sobre a humanidade e sobre as nossas ações diárias.
Recomendo!!!!