Sycamore Row

“The white collars gathered an hour later across the square at the Tea Shoppe and discussed interest rates and world politics. At the Coffee Shop they talked football, local politics, and bass fishing. Jake was one of the very few professionals tolerated inside the Coffee Shop.”

Clanton’s Coffee Shop and Tea Shoppe symbolize a deeply divided town. Socioeconomic class—inextricable from racial politics in the United States—influences nearly every aspect of life and every subject of conversation in the community. These divisions impact the legal system, especially jury trials, as the novel’s procedural details prove, making justice a more elusive, though no less valuable, pursuit.

“I chose you because you have the reputation of being honest and I admired your courage during the trial of Carl Lee Hailey. I strongly suspect you are a man of tolerance, something sadly missing in this part of the world.”

Seth’s letter to Jake provides an important source of characterization for the novel’s protagonist. Seth’s words spotlight the traits of tolerance, honesty, and courage, pointing to themes of Inequality and Entrenched Racism in the American South and Unethical Practices in Trial Law. Though he’s significantly flawed, Grisham positions Seth’s appreciation for these values as a redeeming quality for his character and a guiding moral principle for the narrative.

“I despise lawyers, especially those in Clanton. I will not name names at this point in my life but I will die with a tremendous amount of unresolved ill will aimed at various members of your profession. Vultures. Bloodsuckers.”

Seth’s opinion of lawyers introduces a motif of disdain for the legal profession, a motif that sets up Jake, by contrast, as a rarity—a lawyer with integrity. A critical tone toward unethical lawyers emerges from the start of Grisham’s narrative and continues throughout the text.

“I have not heard from Ancil in many years, though I have thought of him often. He was a lost boy who deserved better. As children, he and I witnessed something no human should ever see, and Ancil was forever traumatized.”

Seth’s ambiguous reference to witnessing “something no human should ever see” creates intrigue and establishes the mystery at the heart of the story. This line creates a causal relationship between witnessing Sylvester’s lynching and Ancil’s difficult and haunted life, supporting a thematic examination of generational trauma. Seth’s sympathy for Ancil, like his respect for Jake, adds layers of depth to his character.

“Typically, the insurance boys worked in pairs. It took two to perform even the most mundane legal tasks: two to file papers in court; two to answer a docket call; two for an uncontested hearing; two to drive here and there; and, of course, two to jack up the billing and pad the file. Big law firms vigorously worshipped inefficiencies: more hours meant more fees.”

Insurance lawyers, like Stillman Rush and the rest of the Rush and Westerfield firm, are targets of Grisham’s critical tone and his thematic critique of Unethical Practices in Trial Law. This example of such unethical practices epitomizes the greed and waste Grisham sees as corrupting the legal system, making legal help unaffordable for most people who need it. This line also showcases the emphasis on technical details that qualifies Sycamore Row as a procedural novel.

“Lettie knew the most foolish thing she could do was to believe in a positive outcome. The day she saw any money would be the day she believed, and not a moment before.”

Lettie’s cynicism—in general and specific to Seth’s bequest—are a result of a life of social, political, and economic disadvantage and a history of oppression. She hasn’t only suffered inequality through her own direct experiences, but from the trauma of previous generations, passed down through various forms of cultural transmission and reinforced by structural racism. Opposition to Seth’s will and the ensuing trial leads Lettie to uncover hidden truths from the past, including her personal ancestry. The novel suggests that these truths, in addition to her inheritance, begin the healing of her generational trauma.

“Everything is about race in Mississippi, Jake, don’t ever forget that. A simple [B]lack woman on the verge of inheriting what might be the largest fortune this county has ever seen, and the decision rests with a jury that’s predominantly white. It’s race and money, Jake, a rare combination around here.”

The events of Grisham’s novel both reinforce and contradict Lucien’s assessment of racial politics in Mississippi, highlighting the subjective perceptions of race and privilege held by Sycamore Row’s characters. Grisham portrays a Southern county still mired in the legacies of slavery, the Civil War, and Jim Crow and Reconstruction eras. He also includes examples white citizens of Ford County with more progressive and inclusive views. The stories of A Time to Kill and Sycamore Row are, in part, the stories of a Southern county’s confrontation with race and with its past, but their influence is often more nuanced than even its heroes realize.

“He was neither a Democrat nor a Republican, liberal nor conservative, Baptist nor Catholic; he pulled for neither State nor Ole Miss. He had no favorites, no leanings, no preconceived notions about anything or any person. He was a judge, as open, tolerant, and fair-minded as he could possibly be, given his upbringing and genetic composition.”

In Sycamore Row, Judge Reuben Atlee represents power and authority within the context of Ford County’s legal system. The final line of this quote provides a caveat to his description as fair-minded. He’s not wholly unbiased because he’s human and inevitably influenced by his society, his upbringing and his experiences. Nevertheless, Judge Atlee demonstrates that a dedication to upholding the intent of the law and balancing technical rules with ethical judgment makes him an effective advocate for justice.

“He hadn’t hit her in several years, but when you’ve been beaten you never forget it. The bruises go away but the scars remain, deep, hidden, raw. You stay beaten.”

Grisham characterizes Lettie as victimized in many different ways. Her oppression under the yoke of racial inequality is paralleled by more personal, intimate forms of victimization, including physical abuse from her husband, Simeon. While the text spells out the effects of his actions on Lettie personally, the novel also implies a connection between the effects of generational trauma and Simeon’s propensity for violence and addiction through subtext and inference.

“Sistrunk’s strategy was to blow up a case, reduce it to a race war, attack every white person involved, including the presiding judge if necessary, and haggle over jury selection long enough to get enough blacks on the panel […] There were always casualties in a Sistrunk trial, and he showed no concern for who got hurt.”

Booker Sistrunk is a flat character whose function is to demonstrate how dishonest, manipulative accusations of racism—what Grisham refers to as “race baiting”—are detrimental to the legal pursuit of justice and to the Black community in general. Sistrunk claims to act on behalf of justice and the rights of his people, but Grisham frames his actions as intimating that he’s really only motivated by self-interest.

“Nor were they successful in achieving their bigger goal, which was to destroy the pursuit of justice. Because I represented Carl Lee Hailey, a [B]lack man who shot and killed the two white men who raped and tried to kill his daughter, they—Dennis Yawkey and his ilk and various known and unknown members of the Klan—tried repeatedly to intimidate and harm me, my family, my friends, even my employees. They failed miserably. Justice was served, fairly and wonderfully, when an all-white jury ruled in favor of my client. That jury also ruled against nasty little thugs like Dennis Yawkey and his notions of violent racism. That jury has spoken, loud and clear and forever.”

Grisham presents Jake’s message to Dennis Yawkey’s parole board as an example of how eloquent and persuasive lawyers can be. Such persuasiveness, he suggests, can be used for the good of society or for selfish motives, as demonstrated by the book’s thematic exploration of Unethical Practices in Trial Law. This particular example of rhetoric on Jake’s part summarizes the themes of A Time to Kill, evokes their emotional weight, and sets the stage for a future conflict escalation in Sycamore Row when Yawkey is granted parole.

“Ethics are determined by what they catch you doing. If you don’t get caught, then you haven’t violated any ethics.”

This observation, by an unnamed lawyer to a group of white-collar men gossiping at the Tea Shoppe, provides a subtle send up of society, satirizing the legal system, lawyers, gossip, greed, racism, ethics, and hypocrisy. This quote exposes what Grisham portrays as a widely accepted guideline for ethics within a corrupted court system.

“‘You’re makin’ it easy for the white folks to hate Lettie Lang, you know that, Booker?’ ‘She’s black. They hated her long before I came to town.’ ‘That’s where you’re wrong. I’ve been elected twice by the white folks in this county. Most of them are good people. They’ll give Lettie a fair shake, or at least they would have until you showed up. Now it’s black versus white and we don’t have the votes.’”

This exchange between Sheriff Ozzie Walls and Booker Sistrunk builds on ideas developed earlier in the novel about practices of what Grisham calls “race-baiting” and false assumptions of racism. Grisham describes much of Sistrunk’s behavior in front of judges and juries as a show he puts on to win cases, suggesting that his accusations of racism are a form of manipulation and coercion aimed at a white audience. Speaking to Sheriff Ozzie, however, Sistrunk’s words convey a sense of his reality in the legal profession and a worldview shaped by generational trauma.

“Why would a man do what Seth Hubbard did? Right? Make a last-minute will, crude and handwritten, cut out his family, and leave everything to a person who has no claim to any of his fortune? This is the question that haunts you now, and it will only get bigger until we find the answer.”

While Jake remains focused on the practical aspects of the case and his role in representing Seth’s estate, Lucien is eager to understand Seth’s motive. He recognizes that the community’s intense opposition to Seth’s handwritten will stems from the fact that his choices don’t seem to make sense to them. If they can figure out Seth’s motive, Lucien realizes, they have a fighting chance to win the support of public opinion. The mystery of Seth’s motive drives the plot forward by providing a clear problem for Jake to solve.

“‘But no one can blame you for Simeon’s drunk driving.’ ‘Sure they can. If the case had been handled properly, he would have been convicted before now and his license pulled. He would not have been driving last night, in theory anyway.’”

Jake’s conversation with his wife, Carla, elucidates the complex relationship between public opinion and justice. From a purely legal perspective, Simeon’s actions and the resulting tragedy should have no bearing on the trial regarding Seth’s will. However, since trial proceedings inherently involve humans with emotions, public opinion is always a factor with which litigators must contend. Jake may not believe his actions truly facilitated the tragedy, but he’ll still have to reckon with the consequences if the public’s perception derails the Hubbard case.

“In the sixth chapter of the Gospel of Luke, Jesus teaches the importance of forgiveness. He knows we’re human and our natural tendency is to seek revenge, to strike back, to condemn those who hurt us, but this is wrong. We’re supposed to forgive, always. So I’d like for you to tell Lettie and her family, and especially her husband, that Evelyn and I forgive Simeon for what he did. We’ve prayed about this. We’ve spent time with our minister. And we cannot allow ourselves to live the rest of our days filled with hatred and ill will. We forgive him, Jake. Can you tell them?”

Mr. Roston’s words encapsulate one aspect of the text’s proposed path to Rectifying Historical Injustice and Healing Generational Trauma—truth and forgiveness. To unshackle themselves from the chains of the past, Sycamore Row’s characters must confront that past. Only when injustices like those committed against Sylvester Rinds and his family are brought to light can atonement be authentic and the healing effects of forgiveness made possible.

“They got the leftovers, the worn-out desks, books, chalkboards, typewriters, file cabinets, athletic gear, band instruments, everything. Nothing was new, it was all discarded from the white schools in Ford County. The white teachers earned less than those in any other state, and the [B]lack teachers earned only a fraction of that. […] Separate but equal was a cruel farce.”

With this description of a Black school before education was formally desegregated in Mississippi, Grisham makes a clear statement about segregation and the fallacy of its “separate but equal” rationalization. He positions Jake’s recognition of it as a rare attitude, as well as knowledge only available to Ford County’s most highly educated residents. He implies that social structures in the American South still reinforce ignorant views about race and history. Jake and Portia’s visit to Burley School emphasizes the symbolic and thematic importance of setting in Sycamore Row.

“Why did the old man do it? Herschel was willing to accept and shoulder more than his share of responsibility for their fractious relationship, but he could not begin to comprehend getting cut out completely. He could have loved Seth more, but then Seth gave little love in return. He could have spent more time here, in the house, but then Seth didn’t want him around. Where had they gone wrong? How young was Herschel when he realized his father was cold and distant? A child can’t chase a father who has no time for him.”

Though Grisham positions Seth’s children as antagonists in Sycamore Row, he offers moments of insight in Herschel’s emotional landscape that nuances his character as well as Seth’s. In this passage, Grisham makes Herschel a kind of stand-in for the reader, asking the central question of the plot: Why does Seth’s new, handwritten will express such hatred of his children when he was willing to leave his estate to them only a year prior? Herschel and Seth’s strained relationship reveals Seth to be as flawed in some areas of his life as he is courageous and ethical in others.

“Okay, you knew at halftime that you were not going to win, but you led the team back onto the field for the second half, and you kept playing. You didn’t quit then and you can’t quit now.”

During the lowest point of Jake’s character arc when all hope of winning the trial seems lost and Jake considers resigning, Harry Rex asks Jake about the worst loss he ever had as quarterback for his high school’s football team, catalyzing an epiphany for Jake about the importance of his work. They were losing 36 to 0 at halftime, but Jake acknowledges he didn’t quit; he was the quarterback—the leader of a team. Comparing the game to the trial, Harry Rex reminds Jake that the role of a lawyer isn’t only about winning cases. Given the prevalence of Unethical Practices in Trial, Law, Jake’s role is also about showing he supports those who have been victims of injustice and standing by them, even if the rest of the world won’t.

“We were hoping he would arrest Cleon, but that’s not the way things worked in Mississippi back then. Not at all. The sheriff was there to help Cleon clean up his land and get rid of the [B]lacks.”

Ancil’s eye-witness account of the atrocities his father committed against the Rinds family in 1930 exposes the reality of Inequality and Entrenched Racism in the American South in a way generalizations and statistics can’t. His explicit account leaves no doubt of law enforcement’s historical complicity in racist violence and the subjugation of Black Americans. Though Grisham suggests that things have changed by 1989 in the fictional setting of Clanton, where Sheriff Ozzie was easily elected by a predominantly white populace, the relationship between law enforcement figures and racial bias and violence (both implicit and explicit) remains a constant reality.

“Jake stepped over and picked up the handwritten will. ‘And lastly, I admire Seth because of his sense of justice. With this handwritten will, he is trying to fix a wrong inflicted upon the Rinds family by his father decades ago. It falls upon you, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, to help Seth correct that injustice. Thank you.’”

Jake’s closing statement neatly summarizes the text’s thematic engagement with Rectifying Historical Injustice and Healing Generational Trauma. He also demonstrates how those endeavors intersect with the practice of law and with the pursuit of justice, both within and outside of the legal system. Jake encourages the jurors he’s addressing can pursue justice within the legal system by ruling in favor of Seth’s handwritten will. Outside the courtroom, they can also follow Seth’s example by taking individual action that promotes systemic change.

“Portia, still smiling, said, ‘She’ll take it. She gets a nice house and a nice cushion, yet she won’t be hassled by a fortune everybody wants a piece of. She told me last night the money belonged to all of Sylvester’s people, not just her. She wants to be happy and she wants to be left alone. This will make her very happy.’”

Though Seth’s intent in leaving his estate and land to Lettie is to make amends for the crimes of his father and the injustice done to her ancestors, his bequest also complicates Lettie’s life in ways he may not have foreseen since being the richest resident of Ford County and a Black woman makes her a target. Grisham implies that the settlement Judge Atlee suggests resolves those problems in a way Portia believes will please Lettie.

“Lettie walked over and offered a hand, a hand Ancil ignored. Instead, he gently took her shoulders and squeezed tightly. ‘I’m so sorry,’ he said. ‘I’m so sorry.’ After a few seconds, she unwrapped herself and said, ‘Enough of that, Ancil. The past is the past. Let’s say it’s over. I want you to meet my kids and grandkids.’”

Both Ancil and Lettie have been adversely affected by generational trauma in their lives—Ancil as a witness and Lettie as a target. In this moment, they’re both able to confront the past. Ancil finally has an opportunity to confront his familial guilt for his father’s crime and apologize. Lettie has the opportunity to forgive and begin the healing process. Not just internal healing, but communal healing of the rift caused by Ford County’s legacy of racial inequality.