www.flickr.com
|
The Forum now has a Flickr account hosting photographs taken during Forum events. This site is still under construction, so check back often, as new photos will be added regularly!
Visit our Flickr site via this link or the permanent link on the right side of this page!
Thomas Adcock’s article Living the Legal & Literary Life in Friday’s New York Law Journal looks at Scott Turow, Thane Rosenbaum, and the Forum. Article available via Fordham Law’s website at http://law.fordham.edu/ihtml/news-2details.ihtml?id=612&nid=426.
Photos from the event will be available soon!
Scott Turow discussed the fact that he has remained a practicing attorney even though he is a successful writer who could otherwise devote all of his time to writing novels. He explained what continues to draw him to the profession, and the kind of work he chooses to do that allows him to continue to represent clients and serve his readership. We also discussed the relationship between the lawyer and the writer. Both rely on language: the lawyer relies on words to make his case before a judge and jury; the novelist assembles words to reach his audience of readers . For this reason, both lawyers and novelists are, to some extent, natural storytellers.
And yet there are considerable differences. Lawyers, by training, have far less tolerance for ambiguity and emotional complexity, which represent the cornerstone of the novelist’s craft. Novelists deal in the world of open and messy narration, rolling a story out, plotted, but not necessarily decisive in its direction. Lawyers, by contract, look for final judgments and ultimtate resolutions, all contained within an argument that they need to win. The lawyer’s world is adversarial and external, while the novelist’s sole mission is to stimulate the senses, the inner workings of human beings and the complex interplay of conscience and spiritual conflict.
Scott’s latest novel, LIMITATIONS, among other things, looks broadly and critically at the moral basis that underlies placing a limitation on the time period in which a claim can be filed or a criminal prosecution can commence. The idea behind a statute of limitation, in criminal and civil cases, is that after a certain period of time, depending upon the particular statute, evidence grows stale and potential defendants are thereby given a reprieve from future prosecution.
But the moral question is: Should truth ever be time-barred? Should a crime go unpunsihed simply because of the passage of time? Do unpunished criminals deserve to be able to go on with their lives–no longer fearing that they will be discovered–simply because their accusers did not act in a timely fashion? The problem is, while evidence may grow stale, the crime itself remains vivid and fresh in the minds of victims, families, and communities.
LIMITATIONS does not seek to answer these questions, but it does present them in a way that creates a great deal of internal debate among its readers.
Scott Turow’s appearance last night at the Forum was superb. As always, he was charming, engaging, and smart. He read an excerpt from his latest novel, LIMITATIONS, a terrific book and a breezy read that raises many questions concerning the nature of judgment and the illusion of objectivity.
Judges are not removed from the realm of human experience. They come to the bench with their own backstories, past experiences that inform their present thinking. For this reason, judgment can never be totally blind. There are biases and prejudices harbored by the very people who profess to be neutral and impartial. There are limitations to human understanding, even among judges, surely among judges. And the judges themselves face limitations in their own character–the flaws that we all have as human beings. And yet we ask them to judge. How can that be so? As the protagonist in LIMITATIONS, George Mason, a state appellate court judge, asks: “Who are we to judge?”
Rusty Sabich, the protagonist in PRESUMED INNOCENT, resurfaces in LIMITATIONS as a secondary character, the chief judge on the appellate court, and, when faced with this question, suggests that we want our judges to be plagued by the memories and traumas of their own personal lives when rendering judgment because such reflections and influences ultimately ensures the quality of mercy.
What do you think?
Thank you to everyone who attended this evening’s “A Conversation with Scott Turow.” As always, photos and a podcast of the event will be made available here as soon as possible.
Please leave comments with any reactions or commentary that you would like to share!
Please sign up on our e-mail list to receive information about upcoming Forum events.
