Apple TV+ delivers a nail-biting update of Scott Turow's legal thriller that explores the implosion of a multiracial family while exploiting and seducing the rest of us.
Brilliant analysis of our times and this novel in its various forms. I agree with others that this is NYT quality writing that deserves a wider audience. I can't imagine the kind of time and research and revisions that went into producing this gem. It makes me want to reread the novel and watch the first film version again, as well as view this new series. I always come away from your posts with my brain buzzing with new energy and a sense of excitement. Thank you.
Recently, someone asked me for writing advice. My response was short. Writing is revising. It's a lesson I haven't always practiced. But l've begun to realize that a story or essay will give more of itself if you give it a call after the first date. I did sit on this one a few days before publishing it. Each day, it told me a little more that it wanted to say, that it could say, if I just paid a tad more attention. Thank you for seeing into how this works, Deborah. And for taking the time to read and appreciate my take on this compelling and unsettling TV series. I really appreciate your response. Namaste!
I’ve read the book and watched both versions. I also had the opportunity to discuss Turow’s work with a classmate of his and know where he got the victim’s name. You too might remember. Your piece makes me want to start over again, but so far, I don’t give the family a pass, even though the story left me very conflicted. You need a national platform. But you know this
Scratching my head over Turow’s inspiration for the victim’s name. But nothing comes to mind. I do remember Robin Cook’s model for Coma because she was tangentially part of the Stanford scene. And even though Turow spent several years there, I’m drawing a blank on Carolyn’s model.
So grateful to you for the read and your encouraging thoughts about a national platform. It would be nice to have a wider audience, but I really appreciate readers like you who read and support my work regardless of the platform. It means a lot!
I have not seen either version, but your essay intrigues me. That last question and the last paragraph is an important one, I think. Thank you so much.
Thanks to you, too, for taking the time to read and respond to my essay. I really appreciate it. But you’ve probably figured out that this series has nothing to do with beautiful and good things. Cheers!
Sometimes you need a dose of the dastardly and distasteful to truly appreciate the good and the beautiful! And your essay is beautifully written and reasoned!
I have seen both versions (haven’t read the book), and you have brought up so many things I didn’t think about when I watched the series. Very insightful observations! It was much more layered than the movie version with Harrison Ford, and much more complicated with the multi-racial family. I might just revisit it after reading your essay!
Layered—that’s a good way to describe the new version. Over the course of 8 hours, there’s quite a lot to see. Believe it or not, I may revisit this one again at some point, too. Thanks so much for reading and appreciating my observations. Your response is very encouraging!
Andrew-TRULY, The New York Times needs to sign you on as a special contributor. Exceptional essay. (But I think I say that about all your essays.) I've not yet dipped my toe in this remake--the (at the time) chilling original has never fully been exorcised from my little brain, but after reading your essay--with it's interesting and relevant perspective--I will give it a go.
A word of caution, Diana. The original really was chilling. But it didn’t exploit the murder scene the way this new take does, which shows that horrible image many times. The film only showed photos of it once. It’s a sad comment on our time that the appetite for this has increased. So be prepared for that if you decide to watch this one. I’d love to know what you think if you do. Perhaps you’ll include it in “Wit and Wisdom” one day.
Thank you so much for your encouraging thoughts on today’s post. Writing for the NYT used to be a dream of mine. So it’s especially nice that you have put me there in spirit. I really appreciate that!
Thank you--TRULY--for the warning. In my ongoing commitment to practice "positive mental hygiene" I will make sure and "little eye" my way through those parts.
As for NYT--I hear an intention starting to be expressed. :)
Truly a tangled web the new version of Presumed Innocent presents us with. Your final question hits the mark and "untangles" it a bit. Very thought-provoking take. Bravo.
For a while now, I’ve tried to distance myself from reviews until after I’ve come to my own conclusions. So far, I haven’t found one that sees PI the way I do. Glad you enjoyed my take, especially that last question. Thanks for reading and weighing in!
Brilliant analysis of our times and this novel in its various forms. I agree with others that this is NYT quality writing that deserves a wider audience. I can't imagine the kind of time and research and revisions that went into producing this gem. It makes me want to reread the novel and watch the first film version again, as well as view this new series. I always come away from your posts with my brain buzzing with new energy and a sense of excitement. Thank you.
Recently, someone asked me for writing advice. My response was short. Writing is revising. It's a lesson I haven't always practiced. But l've begun to realize that a story or essay will give more of itself if you give it a call after the first date. I did sit on this one a few days before publishing it. Each day, it told me a little more that it wanted to say, that it could say, if I just paid a tad more attention. Thank you for seeing into how this works, Deborah. And for taking the time to read and appreciate my take on this compelling and unsettling TV series. I really appreciate your response. Namaste!
You are so right about that. Writing is revising, a process that I enjoy sometimes even more than laying down the original draft.
I’ve read the book and watched both versions. I also had the opportunity to discuss Turow’s work with a classmate of his and know where he got the victim’s name. You too might remember. Your piece makes me want to start over again, but so far, I don’t give the family a pass, even though the story left me very conflicted. You need a national platform. But you know this
Scratching my head over Turow’s inspiration for the victim’s name. But nothing comes to mind. I do remember Robin Cook’s model for Coma because she was tangentially part of the Stanford scene. And even though Turow spent several years there, I’m drawing a blank on Carolyn’s model.
So grateful to you for the read and your encouraging thoughts about a national platform. It would be nice to have a wider audience, but I really appreciate readers like you who read and support my work regardless of the platform. It means a lot!
I have not seen either version, but your essay intrigues me. That last question and the last paragraph is an important one, I think. Thank you so much.
Thanks to you, too, for taking the time to read and respond to my essay. I really appreciate it. But you’ve probably figured out that this series has nothing to do with beautiful and good things. Cheers!
Sometimes you need a dose of the dastardly and distasteful to truly appreciate the good and the beautiful! And your essay is beautifully written and reasoned!
I have seen both versions (haven’t read the book), and you have brought up so many things I didn’t think about when I watched the series. Very insightful observations! It was much more layered than the movie version with Harrison Ford, and much more complicated with the multi-racial family. I might just revisit it after reading your essay!
Layered—that’s a good way to describe the new version. Over the course of 8 hours, there’s quite a lot to see. Believe it or not, I may revisit this one again at some point, too. Thanks so much for reading and appreciating my observations. Your response is very encouraging!
Andrew-TRULY, The New York Times needs to sign you on as a special contributor. Exceptional essay. (But I think I say that about all your essays.) I've not yet dipped my toe in this remake--the (at the time) chilling original has never fully been exorcised from my little brain, but after reading your essay--with it's interesting and relevant perspective--I will give it a go.
Agree. NYT are you reading this?
A word of caution, Diana. The original really was chilling. But it didn’t exploit the murder scene the way this new take does, which shows that horrible image many times. The film only showed photos of it once. It’s a sad comment on our time that the appetite for this has increased. So be prepared for that if you decide to watch this one. I’d love to know what you think if you do. Perhaps you’ll include it in “Wit and Wisdom” one day.
Thank you so much for your encouraging thoughts on today’s post. Writing for the NYT used to be a dream of mine. So it’s especially nice that you have put me there in spirit. I really appreciate that!
Thank you--TRULY--for the warning. In my ongoing commitment to practice "positive mental hygiene" I will make sure and "little eye" my way through those parts.
As for NYT--I hear an intention starting to be expressed. :)
Truly a tangled web the new version of Presumed Innocent presents us with. Your final question hits the mark and "untangles" it a bit. Very thought-provoking take. Bravo.
For a while now, I’ve tried to distance myself from reviews until after I’ve come to my own conclusions. So far, I haven’t found one that sees PI the way I do. Glad you enjoyed my take, especially that last question. Thanks for reading and weighing in!