Negative Positive
Title: Completely shallow
Review: Big waste of money and time. Most shallow treatment of a good idea I've seen in a long time. When I was about three-fourths of the way through, I found myself wondering if maybe he knocked it out in about 2 or 3 days. Research pretty much nonexistent. No way this would've ever been published if he wasn't John Grisham. I found several implausibilities and at least one inconsistency that must have been an oversight on Grisham's part. It also contained a few typos, something you wouldn't expect to see in publishing at this level. Seems even the publisher just threw it out there as an afterthought. I want a refund.
Is the review positive or negative? 