Take a photo of a barcode or cover
4.09 AVERAGE
4.09 AVERAGE
reflective
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
N/A
fast-paced
heading my librarian say bastard and the entire class laughing made me loooove the experience of having my ela class act this out
dark
reflective
tense
fast-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
juror 8? more like juror ATE 💪
inspiring
tense
fast-paced
challenging
dark
emotional
tense
fast-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
Complicated
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
I will maybe write a longer review another time, but I just finished and it’s brilliant. Like truly and utterly brilliant and it makes complete and utter sense why it’s been praised. Over seven(eight?)decades since it’s been published and it has not only stood up against the test of time, it remains JUST as relevant. Every part from the beginning to the end is satisfactory. Everything comes together beautifully. Each juror has a perspective and personality that shines through, and I love how by the end of the play, each one feels integral to the storyline, in both words and physical actions.
3.75/5 stars
honestly this was actually such an entertaining read. I knew very little about this book upon starting it except that it was about a jury & was in the format of a play. this made me quite hesitant to read it but it actually was so fun when I finally did. it was very digestible (contrary to some of the reviews on here) and I finished it in one sitting.
this whole book played out like a play in my head, not a movie. which I think is a great sign. since having a background in criminal justice and working with applicants for wrongful convictions, this book was actually nicely condensed. it was able to capture and communicate a lot of the doubts jurors may have in such situations well, and I loved the way it was giving us information bit by bit. we weren’t able to figure it out alongside the jurors because the jurors knew information we as the audience didn’t. and they fed it to us slowly as juror 8 slowly debunked their seemingly solid claims and made an 11-1 guilty vote turn into a unanimous non guilty verdict.
the one negative thing i’d say would be in regard to jurors 3 and 7 (and 10), and the fact that they only really changed their vote ‘just because’ rather than actually having that inner conflict. I think it was hinted that juror 7 was somewhat conflicted but the rest of them kind of just agreed because they wanted to leave and were tired of arguing. I think it just made the unanimous verdict less satisfying in the end. I wish they had been fully swayed by their assumptions being proven wrong or had reasonable doubt like the rest of the jurors.
a complaint i’ve been seeing in reviews is regarding the simplicity of the case and that it was illustrated as very black and white with some evidence (or lack thereof) being too circumstantial and guesswork. I understand this but it’s something that was addressed in the book. juror 8 never claimed the boy to be innocent but rather wanted to simply deliberate further and discuss the matter before jumping to conclusions. this book was only 73 pages - there’s only so much you can write in such a short period of time with such an abundance of characters with different characteristics, views and personalities. I think it was condensed very well and the point was made.
another complaint i’m seeing a lot is regarding the jurors being referred to as juror 2, juror 3 etc. but it honestly wasn’t too difficult to follow. I made a little note on every juror and one quality about them which I kept referring back to if I was ever confused. at one point I stopped needing the note and was able to identify the jurors right away.
overall, I didn’t expect this to be some sort of crazy mind-bending, thrilling, shocking book- and it wasn’t. there were some moments that were great and made me physically react but other than that, it wasn’t something I had to decipher or use too much of my brain to understand. it’s dramatic, fairly unrealistic - but it’s a script. for a PLAY. I can appreciate it for what it is and I quite enjoyed my time reading it. I hope to watch the movie sometime soon too!
honestly this was actually such an entertaining read. I knew very little about this book upon starting it except that it was about a jury & was in the format of a play. this made me quite hesitant to read it but it actually was so fun when I finally did. it was very digestible (contrary to some of the reviews on here) and I finished it in one sitting.
this whole book played out like a play in my head, not a movie. which I think is a great sign. since having a background in criminal justice and working with applicants for wrongful convictions, this book was actually nicely condensed. it was able to capture and communicate a lot of the doubts jurors may have in such situations well, and I loved the way it was giving us information bit by bit. we weren’t able to figure it out alongside the jurors because the jurors knew information we as the audience didn’t. and they fed it to us slowly as juror 8 slowly debunked their seemingly solid claims and made an 11-1 guilty vote turn into a unanimous non guilty verdict.
the one negative thing i’d say would be in regard to jurors 3 and 7 (and 10), and the fact that they only really changed their vote ‘just because’ rather than actually having that inner conflict. I think it was hinted that juror 7 was somewhat conflicted but the rest of them kind of just agreed because they wanted to leave and were tired of arguing. I think it just made the unanimous verdict less satisfying in the end. I wish they had been fully swayed by their assumptions being proven wrong or had reasonable doubt like the rest of the jurors.
a complaint i’ve been seeing in reviews is regarding the simplicity of the case and that it was illustrated as very black and white with some evidence (or lack thereof) being too circumstantial and guesswork. I understand this but it’s something that was addressed in the book. juror 8 never claimed the boy to be innocent but rather wanted to simply deliberate further and discuss the matter before jumping to conclusions. this book was only 73 pages - there’s only so much you can write in such a short period of time with such an abundance of characters with different characteristics, views and personalities. I think it was condensed very well and the point was made.
another complaint i’m seeing a lot is regarding the jurors being referred to as juror 2, juror 3 etc. but it honestly wasn’t too difficult to follow. I made a little note on every juror and one quality about them which I kept referring back to if I was ever confused. at one point I stopped needing the note and was able to identify the jurors right away.
overall, I didn’t expect this to be some sort of crazy mind-bending, thrilling, shocking book- and it wasn’t. there were some moments that were great and made me physically react but other than that, it wasn’t something I had to decipher or use too much of my brain to understand. it’s dramatic, fairly unrealistic - but it’s a script. for a PLAY. I can appreciate it for what it is and I quite enjoyed my time reading it. I hope to watch the movie sometime soon too!
very interesting look at what justice is. i think this will be fun to teach :)
“It takes a great deal of courage to stand alone even if you believe in something very strongly.”
There are a lot of lessons to learn from this play.
The one that resonates the most with me: The beginnings of justice and courage often need to start at the individual level before they make it up to the group.
There are a lot of lessons to learn from this play.
The one that resonates the most with me: The beginnings of justice and courage often need to start at the individual level before they make it up to the group.
A classic that lives up to its reputation.
I'm not going to do a plot summary because really, most people don't need it. It's ubiquitous for American Poli-Sci teachers to throw this bad boy on the screen, right? At least it was around where I grew up. I'm pretty sure I watched it multiple times throughout junior high and high school.
I understand why. The play retains its weight and clarity despite the decades that have passed, which indicates to me that something very powerful was communicated about the judicial system and the way human beings interact with it as jurors. I can say for a fact that I think about this play nearly synonymously with jury duty because of my exposure to it early on in life, and because of that exposure, I'm less inclined to try to circumvent any call to serve that I may receive. This on its own is high praise, in my mind.
Characterization was impressive. There are novels with half as many characters, all named, that I had a more difficult time keeping track of than these twelve unnamed men. Even with very little stage direction, I got a good sense for the speech patterns and ideologies of the men, and even gleaned some rough info about their backgrounds (this was obviously easier for a few of the key jurors, particularly the jurors from different backgrounds than the others, such as juror 11 (a German-European immigrant) or juror 5 (raised in a neighborhood similar to that of the defendant).
The biggest flaw of the play is that it was written during a time when women or ethnic minorities were not equally represented on the jury panel, and therefore this portion of the play is inconsistent with reality. I've seen arguments about when exactly women were "allowed" the right to serve, but all the information I read suggested that in practice very few were permitted to make it onto a panel for one reason or another until decades later. I imagine this is the same for ethnic minorities, particularly black Americans. Obviously any text that doesn't take into account the complexities of ethnicity and gender and the intersection of the two while discussing a legal case against a person of color (as the text alluded to obliquely on multiple occasions) suffers for that, though as the novel is a product of its times, it's difficult to truly "censure" it in this regard. However, it did keep me from providing the full five stars because ultimately, regardless of when it was written, it could have been more and it was prevented (whether externally or internally) from being so.
I'm not going to do a plot summary because really, most people don't need it. It's ubiquitous for American Poli-Sci teachers to throw this bad boy on the screen, right? At least it was around where I grew up. I'm pretty sure I watched it multiple times throughout junior high and high school.
I understand why. The play retains its weight and clarity despite the decades that have passed, which indicates to me that something very powerful was communicated about the judicial system and the way human beings interact with it as jurors. I can say for a fact that I think about this play nearly synonymously with jury duty because of my exposure to it early on in life, and because of that exposure, I'm less inclined to try to circumvent any call to serve that I may receive. This on its own is high praise, in my mind.
Characterization was impressive. There are novels with half as many characters, all named, that I had a more difficult time keeping track of than these twelve unnamed men. Even with very little stage direction, I got a good sense for the speech patterns and ideologies of the men, and even gleaned some rough info about their backgrounds (this was obviously easier for a few of the key jurors, particularly the jurors from different backgrounds than the others, such as juror 11 (a German-European immigrant) or juror 5 (raised in a neighborhood similar to that of the defendant).
The biggest flaw of the play is that it was written during a time when women or ethnic minorities were not equally represented on the jury panel, and therefore this portion of the play is inconsistent with reality. I've seen arguments about when exactly women were "allowed" the right to serve, but all the information I read suggested that in practice very few were permitted to make it onto a panel for one reason or another until decades later. I imagine this is the same for ethnic minorities, particularly black Americans. Obviously any text that doesn't take into account the complexities of ethnicity and gender and the intersection of the two while discussing a legal case against a person of color (as the text alluded to obliquely on multiple occasions) suffers for that, though as the novel is a product of its times, it's difficult to truly "censure" it in this regard. However, it did keep me from providing the full five stars because ultimately, regardless of when it was written, it could have been more and it was prevented (whether externally or internally) from being so.