As promised, some fabulosity (<--SARCASM, IN CASE YOU WEREN'T SURE) from Theodore Boone: The Abduction:
- All of the descriptions of Theo's mother—well, minus the Mama Bear stuff and the she's-not-a-good-cook-because-she's-a-good-lawyer-and-God-forbid-a-female-be-good-at-more-than-one-thing stuff—mention, in some way, how hard she works at her appearance. Which includes, of course, just eating wheat toast when they go out for waffles. The menfolk, of course, have no such worries.
- "Theo's problem at this moment was his habit of trying to avoid school. Headaches, coughs, food poisoning, pulled muscles, stomach gas—Theo had tried them all and would try them again." (19-20) I'm sorry, but WHAT PERSON UNDER, LIKE, EIGHTY, WOULD GIVE "STOMACH GAS" AS AN EXCUSE FOR ANYTHING, EVEN IF IT WAS TRUE???
- Theo, still trying to convince his parents to let him skip school: "Look, I'm serious. I need to be on the streets." (20) WHO IS THIS KID, BRUCE WILLIS? WHATEVER HAPPENED TO PERRY MASON?? (Oh, and poor Perry got thrown over. Now Theo watches Law & Order. Or was it CSI? I forget. Probably Law & Order, since that's slightly more out of date.)
- Theo is very familiar with the law enforcement and legal professionals of Strattenburg. I know this because:
"Theo knew most of the policemen in Strattenburg, as well as most of the lawyers, judges, janitors and clerks in the courthouse." (7)
"Theo, though, wanted to be at the courthouse, watching trials and hearings, listening to the lawyers and judges, chatting with the policemen and the clerks, even the janitors. Theo knew them all." (20)
"Because he knew every lawyer, judge, court clerk, and practically every policeman in town, Theo's word carried great weight with his friends and classmates, at least in matters like this." (103)
- The boys are supposedly now girl-crazy, but they only "reluctantly" allow them to join into the search for April. (You'll be relieved to hear that they're all "properly helmeted", though!)
- This revoltingly positive "review" at USA Today got something right: Theo comes off really well when he comes up against unreasonable adults. Sadly for Theo (and us), except for that one police officer, the adults in Strattenburg make Fred MacMurray in My Three Sons look like a horrific child abuser. (Well, as long as they're in the upper middle-class tax bracket. Poor people in Strattenburg are, of course, all dirtbags. Unless, as I said in my column, they're charming immigrants.)
- Theo plays golf.
- Theo's one low-income friend (besides April) has a family that is described as "clannish". It's been said that Strattenburg resembles an idyllic '50s small town, but really, it's more like feudal Europe.
- I'm just quoting this for its pure inanity: "Though Ike was in his early sixties, he insisted that Theo call him simply Ike. None of that uncle stuff. Ike was a complicated person." (90) HOW DOES THAT EVEN COMPUTE? A + B = 37%²??
- Oh, adding to the Non Polo Shirt Wearing People = Sketchy Characters worldview, Theo's Complicated Uncle Ike lost his lawyering privileges somewhere along the way. AND HE LIKES THE GRATEFUL DEAD! THE HORROR! (That all came up in the first book, but as it got a second (and third, and fourth) mention from Grisham, I figured I should bring it up again here, too.)
- Lastly, there's Ike the Hippie's take on the homeless. Get ready for your head to explode:
"The point, my dear nephew, is that we may never know who the cops pulled from the river. There's a class of people out there, Theo—bums, drifters, hobos, homeless folk—who live in the underworld. They're nameless, faceless; they move from town to town, hopping trains, hitchhiking, living in the woods and under the bridges. They've dropped out of society, and from time to time bad things happen to them. It's a rough and dangerous world they inhabit, and we rarely see them, because they do not wish to be seen. My guess is that the corpse the cops are inspecting will never be identified. But that's not really the point. The good news is that it's not your friend." (98)
1. No, we don't know if the body was ever identified. Because, you know. People like that don't count.
2. PEOPLE DON'T GENERALLY DECIDE TO BECOME HOMELESS. IT'S NOT, LIKE, A LIFE CHOICE. Take this condescending, patronizing and HORRIBLY OFFENSIVE passage and go jump in a lake, John Grisham. JESUS.
3. It enraged me to such an extent that I daydreamed about Uncle Ike delivering that monologue and then getting tossed into the ring against Andrew Vachss' Burke. Which helped soothe my ire somewhat. But only somewhat, clearly.
No, that's not all. But, seriously: Isn't it enough?
_______________________________
Previously:
My internal editor is horribly offended by the "lawyers, judges, janitors" bit. The exact same phrase twice, and an almost identical one a third time? Oy.
Posted by: Sarah Rettger | 19 July 2011 at 08:38 AM
You know it's bad if you read it and think... didn't I read that somewhere before? (And then flip through until you find all three instances, because you are a GLUTTON FOR PUNISHMENT.)
Posted by: Leila | 19 July 2011 at 08:43 AM
This book (frankly, no Grisham book) was anywhere near my reading list. However, thank you for going into the breach. You want donations for your needed therapy?
Posted by: Melissa | 19 July 2011 at 09:00 AM
Does anybody really refer to their uncles exclusively as UNCLE So-and-So all the time? That def. does not compute to Uncle Deadhead being "complicated", just sort of...standard. And, wow, I was actually shocked by the total lack of even basic sensitivity in that passage about those "hobo" types who "don't want to be seen." Yes, best if we just pretend they don't exist, John Grisham. Because that's what they want? What?!?
Posted by: Gillian | 19 July 2011 at 10:09 AM
"It enraged me to such an extent that I daydreamed about Uncle Ike delivering that monologue and then getting tossed into the ring against Andrew Vachss' Burke."
^^ This made me laugh, aloud, and agree, aloud, in equal measure.
Posted by: Aarika | 19 July 2011 at 11:08 AM
I really hope there's a third book in which it's revealed that Theo was actually an extremely short 75-year-old all along. That's the only way this series can make sense in my mind.
Posted by: Annie | 19 July 2011 at 11:20 AM
Leila, have I thanked you recently for throwing your own slim body on this BOMB of epic proportions for us? If I have not: thank you. Really. Now, STOP IT. If that dork comes out with a third book, you need not read it.
We begin to fear for your sanity.
Posted by: tanita | 19 July 2011 at 11:28 AM
I'm still laughing because you just called John Grisham a dork.
Posted by: Leila | 19 July 2011 at 11:41 AM
I cannot believe you actually read this book. The first one was so very bad, and I know you saw that too. You are a brave, brave woman to read this and tell the world about it.
And, anyone who thinks that a kid says "stomach gas" and knows who Perry Mason is is obviously so far removed from real teenagers that they should be disqualified from ever attempting to write for them.
Heck, Perry Mason was before MY time.
Posted by: Bookreviewsandenglishnews.blogspot.com | 19 July 2011 at 12:22 PM
It enraged me to such an extent that I daydreamed about Uncle Ike delivering that monologue and then getting tossed into the ring against Andrew Vachss' Burke. Which helped soothe my ire somewhat.
How much do I love you for this statement? A lot. That's how much.
Posted by: goddessdster | 19 July 2011 at 01:28 PM
“Thanks” also for the link to the USA Today “review”. That was as painful as I imagine the book must be. Only, mercifully, much much shorter.
I note that your review made no mention of Theo’s “Chinese-food-eating dog, Judge, [who] rounds out the happy family.” Does this mean that Judge was unobjectionable?! I guess that would leave him as the best-realized character in the book.
I join the other commenters above in saluting you for your brave sacrifice.
Posted by: Maridesce | 20 July 2011 at 05:26 PM
Ugh. No. Judge is terrible, too.
I mentioned him in my Kirkus review, but not to the extent I'd have liked to: It's mentioned more than once that he only eats people food. Like, specially plated up for him. He gets his own plate of pancakes and sausage at one point.
Posted by: Leila | 20 July 2011 at 05:34 PM
I'm shocked at how much classism out of a 1930s series book there is. And the take away is, be judgey mcjudgey?
Posted by: Liz B | 20 July 2011 at 08:51 PM
The first one was tolerable but by the end of the second one I wanted Theo to get a life. Theo's mother is the worst, his father seems cluless and Theo is... uninteresting and polite to a fualt. Judge is the only half-way exciting character.
Posted by: Ruby | 29 December 2011 at 05:51 PM
Maybe in the third book Theo will do something REALLY BAD (like, um...wearing the same clothes two days in a row (don't you hate their receptionst??)) and be grounded. Then Judge could solve the case and everybody would be much happier.
Posted by: Ruby | 29 December 2011 at 05:54 PM
"The Abduction closes the case on just how effectively Grisham can write for the youth market.
In this novel, as in the first, Grisham addresses tough subjects without talking down to kids: child neglect, drug abuse, alcoholism and the apparent abduction of Theo's best friend, April."
*Stomach turns backflips*
Posted by: Ruby | 29 December 2011 at 05:59 PM
(Sorry.)
"There are many positive messages wrapped in this entertaining story that appeals to the kid in all of us."
That kid is ceryainly not me.
Posted by: Ruby | 29 December 2011 at 06:16 PM
I thought of you, and how happy you will be, when I saw what was on this list -- http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-16851836
Posted by: Charlotte | 02 February 2012 at 07:06 PM
AUUUUUUUUUUUUUGH.
Posted by: Leila | 02 February 2012 at 07:09 PM
As a fan of John Grisham's adult books, I have to say he's failed with his portrayal of Theodore Boone in this juvenile novel. It's disappointing because 'A Painted House', his story told through the eyes of 7 yr old Luke Chandler, is brilliant and utterly believable. 'Theodore Boone: The Abduction' is not. Even his name and the names of other characters in the book stretch credibility - how many 13 yr olds do you know named Theodore? Still, his dad's (oops, sorry, father's)name is Woods, so I guess he was fortunate not to be given the name Branch, or Sapling, or Kindling, or Bark, to represent a 'chip' off the old block . . . The biggest problem is Grisham's failure to think and speak like a 13 yr old. Okay, Theo's parents are lawyers, but he is at school weekdays with other 13 yr olds, from whom most parents would be lucky to get much more than 'yes' or 'no' answers, rather than Theo's 'No, I do not' in response to his mother's "Do you want to talk about it?' On p.77 para 2 reads, "As the hormones kicked in and the gender walls came down . . ." Since when would target readers understand these words? Isn't that something an adult would say and be expected to understand? Contrast that with Theo's musings over Dudley's world-famous mint fudge in chap.2. There it seems almost juvenile for a 13 yr old. Then, there are evident problems with the storyline, for instance, chap. 13 where, one minute Theo is in chemistry class, then the next thing he knows he's downtown representing a Haitian family in Animal Court. Not believable, John. Then we have Jack Leeper, trying to bargain with police to pay $50K and be relocated to prison locally in exchange for his revealing where April Finnemore is 'stashed'. Question: How would he know where April was? Nothing is revealed in the story of any collusion between Leeper and April's dad, so if they paid the $50k, how would he have been able to fulfil his end of the bargain? She could well have been dead for all Leeper knew. Again, not believable, John. Stick to what you do well.
Posted by: Tim Frater | 03 June 2012 at 12:16 AM