Maslin Watch: Thank God, a Light Start

I wasn't expecting another Janet Maslin review so soon after announcing that I'd adopted her as my book reviewer, but there she was in Monday's Arts section, condensing the new John Grisham. (Which, now that I think of it, is her second stab at the novel in four days, and there really should be a law about such things, because, you know, that space could have been used to review some of that literary fiction Bill Keller swears won't be overlooked.)

And when I say she condenses the book, I mean it: Maslin's apparently fallen in love with the first-person narration, as she quotes it extensively throughout, six straight paragraphs early on, followed by three more of the final six grafs--and one of the few that isn't graced with a quote does have a page reference (so we know she read page 98, at least) to buttress its plot summary. For, as you might expect from Maslin, the other feature of this "review" is plot summary, dominating all but the first two paragraphs and the last one.

And what's in those three? One of the most hoary of reviewer's devices: the reintroduction of an author who by now needs no introduction.

It's 15 years since a small press published 5,000 copies of the debut novel by a certain soon-to-be-huge Mississippi lawyer.

Now, part of the Maslin Watch's standard is and will be fairness, so I won't gang up on her too hard for this. I happen to think it's a lazy trick, but I concede that mileage varies, and the argument it supports--that Grisham is "re-establishing the storytelling skills and sense of place that put him on the map"--isn't completely out of line for a reviewer to make. That said, apart from glancing references to "the crispness, streamlined energy and self-deprecating charm that Mr. Grisham brings to his best efforts," Maslin doesn't really have much to say about how the book displays his chops. She just hopes she's thrown in enough samples for you to get the point.

The problem is this. Grisham fans--of whom Maslin seems to be one--don't necessarily need convincing, as she herself suggested four days ago. If, however, a review is meant to convince someone who is not already a regular devourer of Grisham of the new novel's worth, one should set out the case for it on its own merits. Not by saying it's as good as his best earlier books, about which a reader may know nothing, and not by stepping aside and letting the author's prose and plot do all the work for you.

This isn't the worst review in the world, all things considered, but it only rises to the level of the mediocre.