The Mystery, Crime, and Thriller Group discussion
Group Read Discussions
>
Dec. 2016/Jan. 2017 Group Read Discussion: Defending Jacob by William Landay
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Nancy, Co-Moderator
(new)
Dec 15, 2016 11:51AM
Mod
reply
|
flag
Hi Nancy, thanks for setting this up. It's a busy time of year but I hope everyone who would like to read it can grab some time and join in and add comments, or if you've read it please join in.This is part of the GR description. I'm not putting all of it but just the first part, "Andy Barber has been an assistant district attorney for two decades. He is respected. Admired in the courtroom. Happy at home with the loves of his life, his wife, Laurie, and teenage son, Jacob.
Then Andy’s quiet suburb is stunned by a shocking crime: a young boy stabbed to death in a leafy park . . . "
It's one I've been meaning to read for a long time and looking forward to finally doing it. Look forward to hearing from everyone!
* * * Post 17 & beyond * * * SPOILERS!!! * * *
I read this a few years back and enjoyed it. Here is my review of it:He did an exceptional job of telling the story about a father doing everything he can to help his son, who is in a world of hurt. Some people would say that Mr. Landay described things to much and was unrelavent to the story, but I disagree. He told it as if you were living the situation itself.
I found myself thinking that I would probably do some of the same things as Mr. Barber did to help his son Jacob out. I felt like I was right there in the courtroom as the drama unfolded. I also came to dislike the ADA Mr. Loguidice. He was arrogant, sleezy and flat out disgusting. All he cared about was trying to make himself look good. Thought I had the ended figured out, but it threw me a curve ball I was suspecting. A great for anyone that likes mystery/legal thrillers.
Hi Britney, thanks for the great comments; glad to hear you enjoyed it. I did a brief look inside and the description of Mr. Loguidice sounds like he's going to be the fly in the ointment (or a major one). I should be getting my copy today and can't wait to start the book. I liked the witness Q&A at the very beginning - it ups the tension in a natural way. I hope there is a lot more. I've been reading a, hmm, sort of medium-paced book and this one seems like it will be fast-paced!
I read this about 4 years ago and totally enjoyed it. I always like it when I don't have everything figured out before the book ends!
I started this a few days ago and am enjoying it for the most part, but there does appear to be one of those infuriating instances where the main character, by doing something incredibly stupid and out of character that causes, or at least complicates, the problems he faces. In this case I am talking about (view spoiler).I also found it disconcerting that much of the case centers around a school in the New England town of Newton. This book was published a few months before the massacre in Newtown, Conn., and it's difficult not to think about that when you are reading about the heightened security measures in the Newton school.
I just read this in Oct and I thought it was the best story I've read in awhile. What really hooked me was throughout the story information was revealed in such a way that I thought Jacob did what he was accused of and then new information would make me think maybe not. It really kept me wondering until the end.I understand what Tom means about the main character doing something stupid. I thought that at first too but I think as the story continues, (if I remember right) the character will explain himself and then it seemed more understandable and acceptable to me in this case. Otherwise, I would usually feel the same as Tom.
I actually just read this about a month or so ago and it was a great read! I really was torn back and forth through out the book. I am excited for this discussion!
Jackie wrote: "I read this about 4 years ago and totally enjoyed it. I always like it when I don't have everything figured out before the book ends!"Hi Jackie, glad to hear you enjoyed it. I got totally pulled into it. It's great the way he is revealing things that seemed straight forward at first but now not at all!
Tom wrote: "I started this a few days ago and am enjoying it for the most part, but there does appear to be one of those infuriating instances where the main character, by doing something incredibly stupid and..."Hi Tom, yeah, I agree that part was curious. He does give a rationalization for it later. (view spoiler)
Chelsie wrote: "I actually just read this about a month or so ago and it was a great read! I really was torn back and forth through out the book. I am excited for this discussion!"Hi Chelsie, I think it's great too! Everything seemed so obvious at first and then now he's adding layer after layer. (view spoiler)
I really like the dialog, the characters, everything.
I finished yesterday; felt a bit reamed out. There was an increasing reversal in my thinking/opinions (view spoiler) Great book.
M.L. Roberts wrote: "Tom wrote: "I started this a few days ago and am enjoying it for the most part, but there does appear to be one of those infuriating instances where the main character, by doing something incredibl...Hi Tom, yeah, I agree that part was curious. He does give a rationalization for it later. (view spoiler)"
Now that I've finished the book I still have that reservation. What strikes me as odd is that (view spoiler). That said, I didn't find any other major instances where Andy's behavior didn't match what his character was likely to do.
Here is my review. I believe Landay played with the format of the legal thriller, focusing more on the emotional impact of the crime than in the crime itself. Many readers may like this original approach but I couldn't get into it,
Hi! I read Defending Jacob several years ago. I really liked it. It is one of those books that you think about long after the story has ended. I hope you all enjoy it!
Tom wrote: "Here is my review. I believe Landay played with the format of the legal thriller, focusing more on the emotional impact of the crime than in the crime itself. Many readers may like this original ap..."Thoughtful review, Tom. I enjoyed reading it.
About the incident with the knife, as the story progressed there were more and more things I thought he did that were actually pretty awful/breaking the law, but at the same time my impressions of Andy Barber changed as well. (view spoiler). Eventually the 'disaffected youth' in Andy came out.
My copy has questions so I'll add those separately.
This book is compared to Scott Turow's Presumed Innocent. Did you find it similar? I haven't read it but was curious.
!! SPOILERS here & beyond !! * * * !If you have not finished do not read past this post! * * *
Here are some questions from the paperback.
1. How would you have handled the situation if you were Andy? Would you make the same choices he made? Where would you differ the most?
2. Before & during the trial, how would you have handled the situation if you were Laurie? Do you feel she made strong choices as a mother and wife?
3. Is Andy a good father? Why or why not?
5. Is Jacob a product of his upbringing? Do you think he is a violent person because his environment made him violent, or do you think he has had violent inclinations since birth?
6. How do you think people could or should stop adolescent bullying?
7. How much of a factor did Jacob's age play into your sympathies for him or lack thereof? If Jacob were 17 would you view him differently? What about if he were nine?
8. Do you think Neal Logiudice acts ethically in this novel? What about Andy?
9. What is the most damning piece of evidence against Jacob? Is there anything that you felt exonerated him?
10. If Jacob hadn't been accused, how do you think his life would have turned out? What kind of a man do you think he would grow up to be?
This book has been on my to-read list for a very long time and I finally got around to reading it a few months ago and enjoyed it immensely. I am still not totally convinced that Jacob actually was the killer, but everyone else seems to. The most disturbing part for me in this book is the discussion on inherited evil and killer genes, which I totally and utterly reject. Clearly not everyone does. Both Andy and clearly his mother worked very hard to disassociate himself from his family background and until what happened in the book was very successful. I found it quite unfair that everyone focused the blame on the Jacob's father and hardly any of it on the mother, who to me seemed pretty weak when it really counted and really let Andy and her son down. She was supposed to be the one with all the emotional insight, how did she not noticed that her only son was not only bullied but clearly had emotional problems since his early childhood! I very much believe in nurture rather than nature, but also that sometimes something like adolescent bullying can drive a teenager or child above the edge. The other culprit in this case is clearly the legal system, which only worked to make sure Jacob got proven to be a murderer without looking into why he might have done it. Even if he did it, could he not still be saved and helped. He had been very much wronged too. I am not a somebody who excuses crime, but the reason for a crime are important.Moreover, right or wrong, I know that if I was in Andy's situation, I would have tried to save my son just the same. Andy loved Jacob like every good father would and therefore tried to save him with all the ways he had available. I know I would do the same, knowing it was probably wrong.
Jacob should have received a lot of help coping with his emotional life earlier in his childhood. Not sure how he would have developed, depends on if somebody managed to help him with his problems connecting emotionally to others. Otherwise, he would have probably grown into quite a cold person, probably doing well at a job where being ruthless would be of an advantage. But he was only a kid and I firmly believe it was not too late for him to change with help for people who loved him and possible good professional help.
I thought it was brilliant. Landay set up parallel arguments both for and against the case of Andy and Jacob and I guess everyone involved.On one hand I empathize with what Andy did, but on other hand he starts his marriage with a whopper of a lie: he does not tell Laurie his own father is a convicted remorseless killer under life sentence for 'carving a girl.' Why? Because he doesn't think she would have married him. That might be true. But basically he did not trust her or himself enough. That's not good.
For one thing, he knew Laurie's father was a psychiatrist when he married her and she has exposure to mental evaluative processes. Later, they have Jacob and as a little kid Jacob has problems - other little kids seem to get 'hurt' when they are around him. That, combined with her comment later, 'maybe kids are hardwired and parents give themselves too much credit' - lead me to think that if she had known about Andy's background she might have pushed the issue to look into Jacob's behavior. And, having been honest about it, Andy would be remiss not to think they should look into Jacob's behavior. Later tragedy might have been avoided.
When Andy eventually tells Laurie about his father, it's bad; it's like another lightning bolt for her since Jacob is already charged with murder. They then tell Jacob and Jacob gives the most honest response I saw out of him - he says Why didn't you tell me? It sounds like someone who may have questioned himself at some point.
Andy also keeps lying, meaning he destroys evidence, the ipod that showed Jacob's involvement in the cutting room site, he gets rid of the knife, and he then excuses his CPAC friend's lie under oath by calling it a 'white lie' - that lawyers guide the jury. His response to everything he does that he knows is wrong is, What would you do? That's not a mature response. He sounds like an adolescent.
Andy is understandably defensive but he gets really nasty when anyone threatens what he is trying to hold together. He ignores the psychiatrist hired by his attorney who after evaluation says: Jacob's heart is 'two sizes too small.' Jacob has no empathy.
I think Jacob is guilty. On the evidence they had when the trial was interrupted, I don't know how the jury would have found. But based on what happened at the very end. He's guilty. It was Andy's refusal to accept reality that caused even more tragedy beyond the murder of Ben Rifkin.
Great book. Landay presents a difficult case and supports it either way.
M.L. Roberts wrote: "I thought it was brilliant. Landay set up parallel arguments both for and against the case of Andy and Jacob and I guess everyone involved.On one hand I empathize with what Andy did, but on other..."
I see your point about Andy not having told Laurie about his dad, but if you had this in your background and didn't feel you were good enough for the girl you loved and properly others didn't think you were good enough, would you tell? And once you haven't told, telling gets harder and harder and I think he just wanted to forget about it himself. Clearly worked hard on being respectable.
If Laurie saw early (and clearly Andy didn't) that Jacob had a problem, with all the advantages she had from her upbringing, why didn't she get help? And why then put all the blame on Andy and his family.
I also think if you have spent your life distancing yourself from a violent background, it must be really difficult to accept its existence in the person you love most, i.e. your son. Not an excuse, he should have done something.
I don't know enough of the American prison system, but would Jacob have had psychological help and a way to rehabilitate as a juvenile murderer or would he have just been kept with adult murderers. Prisons, rightly or wrongly are such horrible and violent places, were hardly anybody comes out better, so if you had a chance of saving your son from it even if he was guilty, I know I would take it. For me what was more devastating was in hindsight convinced me of his guilt is that Jacob killed the girl in Jamaica. She had done nothing to him unlike Ben who clearly was a bully. That definitely was a point of no-return, difficult to see how, even with the best psychological help, you could save somebody who had killed twice like that. I can very much understand how Laurie could not live with that.
Gisela wrote: "M.L. Roberts wrote: "I thought it was brilliant. Landay set up parallel arguments both for and against the case of Andy and Jacob and I guess everyone involved.On one hand I empathize with what A..."
I feel sorry for Andy, he's been dealt a tough hand in life, but that does excuse him lying. That's the point, he lies to get what he wants - and instead of admitting it he turns it around and says "What would you do?" It's moot. He lied to his wife-to-be. He keeps on lying. He knows Patz's confession is a lie and he did not commit suicide. He knows about Jacob - Derek told him about the little dog and how Jacob said he had to bury it. Andy did not know about that until the trial, but he did learn about it and it has to factor into what he thinks Jacob is capable of.
In Andy's defense I don't think he had any idea Jacob would kill someone. But what happened after that is on Andy - and the way Andy is at the end leaves me thinking he would have gone right on defending Jacob no matter what he did. Other people, other people's children have a right to protection. I think Andy should be indicted for obstructing justice, aiding and abetting. At the same time though I feel sorrier for him than for just about any flawed character I've come across. That's one reason the book is so memorable.
About the punishment, that's difficult because he said that Massachusetts law tries juveniles accused of murder as adults. So that's pretty harsh. On the other hand, what of the victim; nothing will bring the murdered kid back. So Andy's defense of What would you do? can also be turned back on him, What if Jacob was murdered? Under a different set of circumstances, if the book had started with Jacob's murder, I think Andy would have gone to great lengths to put the person behind bars or maybe more, and not accepted any excuses.
Gisela and M. L. Roberts - I think all your comments are great and that's what made this book so great for me. It made me switch back and forth throughout on whether Jacob was guilty or not and whether Andy was being reasonable or not and being a good parent or not for many of the reasons you each said. I really wasn't sure about Jacob until the end when the girl in Jamaica was killed and then I thought yes he is a murderer.
Gayle wrote: "Gisela and M. L. Roberts - I think all your comments are great and that's what made this book so great for me. It made me switch back and forth throughout on whether Jacob was guilty or not and whe..."Agree. Why kill this girl? This is a really chilling book which will stay with me for a long while. Teenagers killing teenagers is horrific.
Gayle wrote: "Gisela and M. L. Roberts - I think all your comments are great and that's what made this book so great for me. It made me switch back and forth throughout on whether Jacob was guilty or not and whe..."I agree as well. It's one of the most unforgettable books I've ever read. At the very, very beginning there is a quote . . . "Let us be practical in our expectations of the criminal law. . . ." And by the end of the book what Gisela mentioned above is true, is our law really set up or able to handle this type of crime, how do you treat it. Fourteen is so young. It is horrific. The other thing that Landay showed was the completely different reality of the teens - the postings on Facebook - the kids were interacting in a whole different reality; parents don't exist. That part reminded me of Lord of the Flies - another scary book. Really makes you think.
I think Andy did what almost all parents would with the belief it could be managed. Especially, and this may not sit well with some, being a lawyer and prosecutor he was well within his skill set. I also believe we as parents would 'cover' something with the idea it was a one off and the kid would change,
This case/book evidences who flawed human thoughts can be especially when peppered with emotion
Dan wrote: "I think Andy did what almost all parents would with the belief it could be managed. Especially, and this may not sit well with some, being a lawyer and prosecutor he was well within his skill set. ..."Agree 100%. I guess that is why you could not live with it any longer when it happens again. Heart-breaking, to think that the best thing you can do for your child is to kill him and yourself!
I'm about 8 chapters in and I can already tell how Andy wants to protect Jacob. Andy doesn't want to believe that his son could commit such a crime. Andy has even discounted some things that could call in question Jacob's innocence. It's getting interesting.
Hi, just checking back to see if anyone has finished, still reading, and any thoughts. Be sure to add comments!
The Mystery, Crime, and Thriller Group
Books mentioned in this topic
Presumed Innocent (other topics)Defending Jacob: A Novel (other topics)
