I hate the ending of John Grisham's The Partner (unboxed spoilers)

Cafe Society
1

I just finished reading the novel today and wish I hadn’t, because up to the last chapter it was immensely enjoyable.
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,

My problem with the ending is as follows:

After the investigator brought up the informant who was feeding him information, I was willing to accept the possibility that Eva had betrayed Patrick, if that was what Grisham was going for. It might have made for an interesting twist, but I didn’t mind when Patrick shot this idea down by revealing he’d arranged his own capture. But then, completely unrelated to this previous red herring, Eva betrays Patrick and runs off with the money.

…

Why would anybody do this? If you’re going to sabotage the happy ending of a story like this, why would you create two completely unrelated “Eva betrays Patrick” plot twists, and use the fake one to spoil the real one?

2

I also disapproved. Eva was given no (particular) motivation for the betrayal (IIRC) and it really was just kind of random. Grisham isn’t exactly Shakespeare though, so perhaps we shouldn’t expect everything to come together at the end.

3

I thought it was a great twist, and totally believable. Many seemingly trustworthy people have stolen from friends and family.

4

What I came here to say.

Word for word.

You shall be hearing from my solicitor

:stuck_out_tongue:

5

Grisham is about 90% great storyteller. Unfortunately, the missing 10% is the part that writes endings. Grisham can’t write an ending to anything. Hated the end to most of his books I’ve read.

6

As I said, it wasn’t the central concept so much as the implementation that I had a problem with. If Grisham was set on using this twist, he shouldn’t have waited for the epilogue so it could contribute to the story instead of just robbing the reader of a satisfying ending, or at least shouldn’t have foreshadowed it with all the grace of Stephanie Meyer operating a wrecking ball.

To me, a good twist is one where the evidence is there, but you don’t recognise what it means until it’s too late. This was the opposite: I could recognise what the foreshadowing meant, but by the time the twist happened, the evidence had already been invalidated.

7

I agree. And I’ve read many of his novels. The worst, I think, was “The Appeal”. When I finished it I had to throw it across the room. Thank goodness it was the paperback version or I could have really hurt something. But man did that ending suck.

8

I threw my hardcover version across the room as well.

I had just finished reading 3 of his books:

The Brethren had an ok ending, but the protagonists were not good people.
The partner got me angry - I guess it’s supposed to be bittersweet- he was betrayed by his love- who seemed geniunely concerned about his wealthfare and in love, shocked that he was caught - but suddenly seemed to get pissed when she was jailed for 3 days and left with little money but he escaped from his criminal sentence, his loveless marraige and found a new place to live in that made him happy. I didn’t accept that, was kinda angry with the ‘out of nowhere’ betrayal.

Immediately after I read the appeal… I’m a bit upset with Mr. Grisham now; Any other of his work I should stear clear of? I wouldn’t normally want to know the ending but I’m sicking of reading downers.

9

Jeez, that’s nothing compared to the f-u ending of The Appeal. Good book, beyond crappy ending. And, yes, I know Grisham intended it that way, but you know what? Fuck you John Grisham, that ending sucked!!!

10

Grisham is one writer who pisses me off pretty consistently, and he regularly gets his books thrown against my wall. I gave up on him altogether after reading that horribly infuriating Christmas thing.

11

I have to jump in and resurrect this…

This is missing the point. Here’s a possible alternate ending to The Partner: terrorists enter Biloxi, set off a dirty nuke bomb, and all the characters in the story die. The end. That is a completely believable ending; in reality, sometimes &%$% happens. Does that mean it’s a good ending? No.

No. Unlike The Partner, The Appeal had a good ending. An ending does not have to be happy in order to be good. It can be frustrating, depressing, infuriating, etc, and still be a good ending. For example, look at the ending of “Apocalypse Now”.

In The Appeal, the ending is a well-integrated part of the story. It leaves the reader frustrated and angry at the stupidity of people…which is exactly the intended result.

In contrast, the ending to The Partner is not frustrating or engaging in any other way. It is a complete non-sequitur – it has nothing to do with any other part of the story, neither the plot nor the characters. That’s what makes it a bad ending.

12

It’s been a long time since I read it, but I remember wondering if he was setting up a sequel- that maybe some of his enemies had kidnapped Eva to get the interest money he’d squirreled away.

13

I actually just finished reading a condensed version of the book… and really enjoyed it (although it sort of lacked the court suspense that I really look forward to when reading legal thrillers). And though I definitely was not happy with the ending, I still think that it’s a good ending.

Patrick still committed an offense no matter what. Even though his firm partners and the client (Arician) obtained the money through evil schemes, he should’ve not embezzled it. He could’ve just simply exposed their greed and still proceed with his plan of living a new life and a new identity (surely he could think of ways on how to ingeniously do this). But still he took the money and if not for the chase, he probably would have kept the money forever. Such people shouldn’t have a fairy-tale ending.

In The Partner, Patrick was able to elude the supposed legal consequences of what he did (add to that the corpse mutilation). Although the readers can sympathize with him (I certainly do), still, something will seem morally distorted if things end in a way most of us would prefer. His story was a lesson.

The ending actually left a question. Did Eva really betray him? Or did Stefano abduct her and who knows what? After all, Stefano told Sandy that he won’t be able to rest without knowing who really took his money (and Stefano was almost already sure that it was Eva). But yeah, the latter is a more painful ending so most of us would probably not settle for that.

14

I do not read thrillers to be preached at, I read them to have fun. I do not need or want Grisham telling me that embezzling money from fraudsters is a bad thing. When a heavy-handed message straight out of the Hays Code comes at the cost of a disjointed, unsatisfying ending, I’d rather go without.

15

Has no one read The Chamber? I think that has to be among the top 3 worst Grisham endings ever.

16

I interpreted the ending a little differently…

There was nothing (or very little) to suggest Eva would betray Patrick. There was also no reason to include Stephano meeting with Sandy at the end of the book unless it foreshadowed something else. Stephano knew Patrick was about to be freed so he had to move quickly to get the money. Maybe Stephano was already tracking Eva and just wanted confirmation she was the right person. We also learned Eva was using her real name and not being discrete, thus making it easier for someone to find her. Patrick also used his cell phone in the lawyer’s car, which we were led to believe was bugged. There was a scene earlier in the book where Stephano says he’d never torture someone again but if he did it once he could do it again. And I’m betting he went one step further with Eva, killing her once he had the money.

It’s also hard to imagine she could completely disappear even with some coaching from Patrick (even with the training she was sometimes careless throughout the book, going to public beaches, etc). Patrick spent years preparing his scheme, had significant training, and still came close to being caught before handing himself over. Eva, at best, had indirect knowledge about vanishing and a much shorter preparation time to make it possible. Eva also obviously cared about her family and country making it difficult to believe she would abandon both.

Thus, I find it far more likely that Stephano took Eva than Eva betrayed Patrick. I wish Grisham would have been more clear. Having Eva and the remaining money taken by Stephano is still a huge plot twist and accomplishes a similar unhappy ending as the way the book actually ends.

17

Hello there,
Well I enjoyed the read and had fun with every twist the lawyers can make using law! As for the ending, it was another twist I sort of expected as I grew disgusted with the partner. I felt he made everyone play his side of the game; he played with people feelings, overdoing a lot his own misery…

18

@mulrich, indeed Eva was not used to hiding well. Strange also that London saw Aricia captured and Eva shopping. Sandy didn’t understand well the need for anti-bugging devices so yes Eva probably got snatched, by green eyes? And the partner is punished eventually

19

Whie I found the novel highly absorbing, and even related to Patrick’s desire to flee and start a new life, I found him a deeply unsympathetic character on a number of fronts, and found the ending – or really any reveral of fortune ending – to be more satisfying (and believable) than him walking off into the sunset. He was a self-centered master manipulator with a near-sociopathic lack of regard for others. He watched his closest friends grieve him at his funeral, he frightened and endangered the well being of the woman who loved him and the father she loved, he burned the corpse of a lonely man, first defiling the the wake the man wanted, who entrusted and befriended him. Moreover, he was greedy, which is what got him caught, and, echoing that, his greed probably got Eva caught by Stephano (my interpretation, rather than Eva leaving) – he just had to get a mllion bucks out of him, rather than just tipping him off. I feel there was much foreshadowing of the ending – not just Stephano’s visit, but explicit wonderings as to whether Patrick’s luck would run out or not. I didn’t feel the ending was all that ambigious as to what happened – it was just told from his perspective, which I’m sure didn’t want to contemplate the possibility that Stephano had her, much less that his decisions led to that outcome.

20

More thoughts:

As for Eva, never do you get the sense of his actually caring for her as a person, only for how she made him feel. He didn’t even consider that he might be endangering her when he triumphantly explained the whole setup to Sandy at the end, all the while knowing Sandy had already been contacted by Stephano, and what the guy was capable of. In the courtroom and grand jury testimony, he smiled and charmed, despite having committed actual crimes which he profited from and paid no price for. The only hints of empathy come from his taking out a life insurance policy for Trudy, and his securing a trust for his not-quite-daughter. But as his MO, it was another form of him buying his way, rather than actually demonstrating human caring.

There was still more foreshadowing of the ending: disbelief and outrage from others about him managing to actually buy his way out of justice. In the end, his luck did run out, and his greed did him in. That’s a sensible narrative arc. For me, a story involving a narcissist who, at best, wasn’t quite as bad as the others around him, who successively manipulated people and systems with his only concern being himself, was fascinating and entertaining, but also enraging. As a reader, I didn’t feel he deserved to win.