I've always liked Scott Turow (Presumed Innocent) and this was pretty good, just short and for some reason, to me, it felt like there just wasn't really enough of a story there for a novel. Seemed like it either should've been shortened and been one of a set of short stories...or more depth to the characters for a complete novel. None of the characters were really fleshed out so you don't really end up understanding motivations or getting their perspective or anything...

Although I found parts of the story somewhat dull, I did like the characterization. I especially liked the judge for his intelligence, honor, dedication for both the law and his group in chambers, and his cult. Also, for his love for his wife.
The story was interesting. Maybe I read too much into it but I found it a commentary on the limitations we face in life. And IN NO, there should be no time limit on rape cases.

Some times, the second time you read a good book, you have to work harder to get through the pages. In this case, there’s only 17 years difference, there is much more times to work thought the ideas and themes and especially the characters. But it’s still a really good book.

Great Legal Thriller

Although I feel anyone will enjoy this intricate legal thriller, I'm convinced every lawyer or legal professional will continue to turn page after page to unwind this thought-provoking mystery. A terrific read has good as they get.

Limitations served as my intro to the writing of Scott Turow, and it's made a very favorable impression. As expected, it contains The story of an appellate court judge who recognizes striking personal elements within his latest case, it contains, as expected, absorbing courtroom scenes interspersed danger and action. Turow goes further, however, taking his readers inside the heart and head of his protagonist. Judge George Mason must decide the appeal of a high profile case of multiple rape, based upon challenges to the statute of limitations and the admissibility of a horrific video tape of the incident. He's preoccupied with worry over his wife's life threatening illness, at the same time receiving anonymous death threats via the internet.

But the crux of the plot rests upon the ethical dilemma of Mason's life; this explosive case reminds him of an incident that occurred thirty years ago in his college dorm. Turow takes his readers inside Mason's heart and mind as he struggles with memories and guilt that he believed long buried. It's the humanity with which this character is presented that raises Limitations above the run of the mill among legal thrillers.

‘they would end up with lighter sentences…which is a suitably outcome in George’s mind, given the otherwise admirable life the young men have led’

there are so many things wrong with this book.

1 - this quote. in what world is the act of a vicious, intentioned rape made any less horrible by living an ‘honourable’ life the rest of the time. firstly, they didn’t, because not one of the men regretted their actions or decided to admit to their guilt. this is reinforced by ideas that they thought the girl’s life couldn’t have been made worse by her being unconscious during the rape? i believe that, yes, people can change and one act does not define a life, but that doesn’t mean that the punishment isn’t warranted. additionally, the author fails to mention the aspect of privilege - these are upper class, white, straight men - and it seems that influences some of the judges views as he sees them almost as a reflection of him, and is therefore more forgiving.

2 - the judges backstory. what he did to that young girl was rape, and the fact he (and his wife?) try to pass it off as something different is troubling. again, the author tries to use peer pressure and alcohol to justify these actions - as with the case, it is not a justifiable action. furthermore, his desire to contact the victim is disturbing because i cannot imagine anyway in which that would benefit her. it is purely selfish to try and lessen his guilt, and either way, it should not matter if her life turned out ‘good or bad’. it does not change the crime.

3 - the actual plot and pacing itself. it was slow. he spent the whole book debating one case and wrestling with his demons. it was clear from the start #1 was not the corazon, and any further mentions of gang violence felt racist and enforced harmful stereotypes. he was never in any real danger, and although some of the prose was good, the writing was sluggish and as a stand-alone, the characters were difficult to follow. the legal aspect had some positives with pointing out how sometimes justice can be derailed by technicalities, but i felt these were not properly explored - it could’ve been better demonstrated with almost any other crime.

maybe it’s because this book is nearly 20 years old, but the constant justifications of rape seem absurd. was this the culture? either way, it was not an enjoyable read and i won’t be reading any more of his books.

Several college students rape a girl while she is passed out, the statute of limitations has expired, but the rapists have kept and continue to view a video of their nefarious deed during the intervening time. Does the statute expire? Personally, I don’t see why this should be an issue as long as the girl has a father who also owns a baseball bat, but this most reasonable option is never addressed.

Turow does a good job laying out the plot and everything moves along nicely, but this sort of novel just isn’t my cup of tea; it is a legal thriller – an oxymoronic description if there ever was one. If you are looking for a light read for the beach, or if you live in Chicago like I do, and want a nice book to read in a snow drift, this book can meet you needs, but great literature – no.

My 2nd or 3rd Scott Turow legal thriller, and probably my favourite. And for all the same reasons that this book has a fairly low Goodreads rating - because it's more of a "Thinker" than a "Thriller". It poses some interesting questions about how justice should be dispensed (how long is a suitable sentence?) and also a little bit about the quirks and fallibility of ordinary human beings.

Съдия Джордж Мейсън е най-противния главен герой създаден от Търоу.

Едвам добутах книгата до край, това надуто копеле съдията ми скъса нервичките с лицемерието си и с фалшивите си напъни уж да раздава правосъдие.

Книгата била по истински случай, което влоши още повече положението, поне за мен.

Цитати:

"Трудните дела водят до лошо правосъдие."

"Интернет създаде цели общности от несъобразяващи се с нищо луди, даващи израз на безумните си мании, криейки се зад компютрите си."

Judge George Mason is at a moral and professional crossroad with only three choices for a way forward, none of which offer any hope for his nagging conscience.

George, a former criminal defense attorney familiar with internal struggles between loathing, amusement, intrigue, envy, and empathy, is now an appeals court judge hearing motions about a case that has multiple mitigating factors. The case is old, and the clock is about to run out on the law’s statute of limitations for rape. The politics of the appeal and the particular way he and his fellow judges on the Appeals bench prefer to deal with it, each for his own distinctively non-legal reasons, is boxing George into choices he’d prefer not to make. He is also struggling with dark fears associated with death threats from an anonymous troll from his past.

This is a great start and more than enough in my experience to keep readers turning pages, not only in the bookstore where a strong start is a competitive advantage yet also on airplanes, park benches and late at night in bed. Scott Turow knows his craft as a legal thriller writer. He is a lawyer. He is a #1 New York Times Bestselling author who has published eleven fiction and three nonfiction books and sold more than 30 million copies. He also served effectively as president of the Authors Guild during one of the most challenging eras for writers and authors in history. He is more than an author. He is an expert who can translate legal arcana and ethics into meaningful tutorials for the rest of us.

There is another thing that Scott Turow is – he is a novelist, which is saying he is something more. He practices the craft side of his talents deftly in ways that don’t let the seams, the diversions, and the subtle mechanics of literature show. It is the storytelling side of work that qualifies as literary art. His characters grow before us on the page as they encounter life challenges and reveal themselves in the way they react, sometimes freezing, sometimes fleeing, more often planting their feet and facing up to their fears.

Gail Caldwell of the Boston Sunday Globe compares Turow to John le Carre for his ability to share “an introspect’s embrace of the gray-zone ambiguities of modern life.” It’s a good observation and, as a long-time fan of Le Carre’s writing, I can mostly agree with it. The critical difference for me between the two authors is that while le Carre is deeply wary of the government and the people responsible for its present and future, Turow seems to be more optimistic and forgiving, which results in more neatly fitting resolutions.

Writing this during these trying times when values such as truth and character are so easily compromised by weak, selfish and narcissistic leaders makes me realize how much we have to appreciate in the works of writers and artists during society’s worst moments. LIMITATIONS was written before our current crisis of faith and confidence in our social institutions, which is both good and not so good. Good because it reminds us that man’s struggle with truth and honor has a long and varied history. Not so good because it enables readers to make allowances for George’s and his opponents' moral and ethical framework.

Im really enjoying this series. Did this book have the most “going on?” Maybe not.. But I still couldn’t put it down. His characters are like no other. I wish these books could go on forever!

Enjoyed this story in the Kindle County series.