Disjointed, Empty Prose Plagues Novel's Potential

Good Council
1 Star

There is the savor of fine literature, and then there is the quick-burning thrill of a good lawyer novel. Even if you're a Nabokov fan, you must concede that Grisham knows what he's doing.

Unfortunately, Tim Junkin does not. Thus "Good Counsel," his attempt at a smart law thriller, manages to fall into the netherworld that lies in between the two categories.

Junkin's second novel, published by Algonquin Books, is the story of one quick-witted D.C. lawyer's fall from and return to grace. Though he started out as an idealistic public defender, Jack Stanton's ambitions get the best of him, and soon he is running from the police. Why is he on the run? We don't know, and, in fact, it takes Junkin half the novel just to tell us.

This is one of the major problems of Junkin's narrative: Nothing is ever happening at the moment. Any pertinent event has already happened, and the reader finds out only through second-hand retelling by the characters.

The whole book is a dramatic monologue in present tense, but it is far from dramatic. All immediacy is lost because the important action is being retold.

For instance: "I wade in, trying to describe Linda and our relationship, Linda's work at the children's hospital in the city, how I sometimes consulted with her on my medical cases, and how I would pay her." Most of the story unfolds in such an after-the-fact way.

Except for a little sex, of course. That's one of the few things told as it occurs. Standard to the lawyer-novel genre, the grizzled old attorney finds understanding and solace in the form of a twenty-something, whizzy young woman. This one calls herself Muddy and obsesses over finding the culprit in her father's murder. Hmmm ...

Other than this relationship, the novel itself consists largely of Stanton offering detailed accounts of every legal case in which he's ever been involved. Thus the novel feels episodic, passive and disjointed. When we finally discover why Stanton's on the run, there's been no buildup, no excitement -- it's just one more "somebody v. somebody," as if Junkin is a law professor throwing out cases to be memorized by his class.

Similarly, these past cases are supposed to give us a sense of Stanton's character. I have sensed, however, more moral complexity and motivation in characters on a bad sitcom.

This is not to say there's nothing good hidden in the text. For instance, Muddy, the revenge-seeking earth girl, is an interesting idea.

But nothing comes together. These hints of something interesting are undermined by Junkin's awkward and deliberate prose style. Even at its best moments, the book is badly written.

So my advice for Junkin is this: Read a little Nabokov for vivid prose. Read a little Grisham for a cleverly constructed, cohesive plot. And then try again.

The Arts & Entertainment Editor can be reached at artsdesk@unc.edu.