ILNews

Book Review: 'Black and White on the Rocks' examines how law and justice influence lives

September 11, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A review by Cynthia Baker
 

baker-cynthia Baker

Lawyers may deal with it more than any other profession: that place between self-interest and principle. The recently published novel, “Black and White on the Rocks,” takes its readers to that place, again and again. The novel’s author, Fredrick Barton, weaves a story of love, crime, and power in 1988-1989 New Orleans.

Through the main character of Mike Barnett, a well-regarded movie critic for a New Orleans newspaper, readers meet a terrific cast of characters, including Mike’s professional colleagues, a federal judge and his family, several lawyers and their clients, and other citizens and miscreants of the Big Easy. References to actual New Orleanian politicians complement Mike Barnett’s quest: to find out why Judge Delacroix, a highly respected judge who handed down a spate of pro-civil rights rulings in the ‘60s, ruled as he did in a lawsuit that changed Mike’s life.
 

bw-otr-1col.jpg Author: Fredrick Barton, “Black and White on the Rocks” (2013, University of New Orleans Press, 388 pages) used with book cover, if available

As the title suggests, “Black and White on the Rocks” involves race, alcohol and tough relationships. However, the legal center of the book is Retif v. Greive, a civil case concerning a building permit for the Thomas Jefferson Magnet High School. Even to lawyers, this might seem like a snoozy premise, but this particular building permit opens the door to the novel’s sweeping treatment of ideas: friendship, forgiveness, addiction, power, despair, and faith. On its way to the United States Supreme Court and long after the case is settled, Retif v. Greive demonstrates how law and justice influence lives far beyond those named in the caption.

The novel also addresses more nuanced aspects of the law in an intelligent and interesting way. For example, when a lawyer fails to make partner at one firm and then goes to work for another, does he owe loyalty beyond that required by the rules of professional responsibility to his new firm and its clients? How far away from journalistic truth is legal truth? And how does the law of political line drawing determine people’s sense of democracy and power? As a Washington Post critic has noted, Barton “is interested in the why of things.” In weaving this tale, Barton raises these and other interesting legal issues without a trace of pedantic drudgery.

Regarding race, the author blends his characters’ lives in ways that allow readers to see racism from almost every perspective. About halfway through the novel, Mike Barnett, who is white, observes that “[c]enturies old boundaries had placed the City of New Orleans in a geographical straightjacket” and contemplates the idea of a metropolitan government. He argues to his dear friend and professional colleague, who is black, that good government needs to trump racial politics. The disagreement that follows makes painfully clear some of the many tragedies of racism, even between friends who strive not to be racist.

The book takes readers on an architectural, historical, and culinary romp through New Orleans. In the place also known as “The City that Care Forgot,” readers enjoy Mike and his friends’ discussions at some of the most famous restaurants in the United States. Even if you have never been to New Orleans, you will feel like you know the city better due to Barton’s artful lagniappes, a Creole term for small gifts, of sumptuous cuisine and cultural landmarks.

Another unique aspect of this novel is how the author, himself a film critic, explores the themes of the novel with movie references and reviews. In particular, reviews of “Mississippi Burning,” “Do the Right Thing,” and “A Thin Blue Line” serve to enlighten readers’ understanding of how deeply race and racism continue to influence how we see our world – in the news, at the theatre, at our workplaces, and in our communities. Any film buff would enjoy the novel just for the reviews (all of actual movies) alone. References to Claude Lelouch’s “And Now My Love” help tell the love story of a happy marriage, a rare treasure in today’s media culture.

The novel’s two minor detractions spring from a combination of absence and abundance. Other than mentioning the sounds of the Mardis Gras parades, this wonderful novel about New Orleans seems strangely empty of music. Expletives, on the other hand, are plentiful and, at times, almost gratuitous. Finally, fair warning to any reader: If this book were a movie (and I think it could be made into a very good one), it would almost have to be rated R based on hard language, intense violence, and sexual content.

I commend “Black and White on the Rocks” to our legal community. It’s a trip to New Orleans, a love story, and a murder mystery, all in one. •

__________

Cynthia Baker is a clinical professor of law at the Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Falk said “At this point, at this minute, we’ll savor this particular victory.” “It certainly is a historic week on this front,” Cockrum said. “What a delight ... “Happy Independence Day to the women of the state of Indiana,” WOW. So we broke with England for the right to "off" our preborn progeny at will, and allow the processing plant doing the dirty deeds (dirt cheap) to profit on the marketing of those "products of conception." I was completely maleducated on our nation's founding, it would seem. (But I know the ACLU is hard at work to remedy that, too.)

  2. congratulations on such balanced journalism; I also love how fetus disposal affects women's health protection, as covered by Roe...

  3. It truly sickens me every time a case is compared to mine. The Indiana Supreme Court upheld my convictions based on a finding of “hidden threats.” The term “hidden threat” never appeared until the opinion in Brewington so I had no way of knowing I was on trial for making hidden threats because Dearborn County Prosecutor F Aaron Negangard argued the First Amendment didn't protect lies. Negangard convened a grand jury to investigate me for making “over the top” and “unsubstantiated” statements about court officials, not hidden threats of violence. My indictments and convictions were so vague, the Indiana Court of Appeals made no mention of hidden threats when they upheld my convictions. Despite my public defender’s closing arguments stating he was unsure of exactly what conduct the prosecution deemed to be unlawful, Rush found that my lawyer’s trial strategy waived my right to the fundamental error of being tried for criminal defamation because my lawyer employed a strategy that attempted to take advantage of Negangard's unconstitutional criminal defamation prosecution against me. Rush’s opinion stated the prosecution argued two grounds for conviction one constitutional and one not, however the constitutional true threat “argument” consistently of only a blanket reading of subsection 1 of the intimidation statute during closing arguments, making it impossible to build any kind of defense. Of course intent was impossible for my attorney to argue because my attorney, Rush County Chief Public Defender Bryan Barrett refused to meet with me prior to trial. The record is littered with examples of where I made my concerns known to the trial judge that I didn’t know the charges against me, I did not have access to evidence, all while my public defender refused to meet with me. Special Judge Brian Hill, from Rush Superior Court, refused to address the issue with my public defender and marched me to trial without access to evidence or an understanding of the indictments against me. Just recently the Indiana Public Access Counselor found that four over four years Judge Hill has erroneously denied access to the grand jury audio from my case, the most likely reason being the transcription of the grand jury proceedings omitted portions of the official audio record. The bottom line is any intimidation case involves an action or statement that is debatably a threat of physical violence. There were no such statements in my case. The Indiana Supreme Court took partial statements I made over a period of 41 months and literally connected them with dots… to give the appearance that the statements were made within the same timeframe and then claimed a person similarly situated would find the statements intimidating while intentionally leaving out surrounding contextual factors. Even holding the similarly situated test was to be used in my case, the prosecution argued that the only intent of my public writings was to subject the “victims” to ridicule and hatred so a similarly situated jury instruction wouldn't even have applied in my case. Chief Justice Rush wrote the opinion while Rush continued to sit on a committee with one of the alleged victims in my trial and one of the judges in my divorce, just as she'd done for the previous 7+ years. All of this information, including the recent PAC opinion against the Dearborn Superior Court II can be found on my blog www.danbrewington.blogspot.com.

  4. On a related note, I offered the ICLU my cases against the BLE repeatedly, and sought their amici aid repeatedly as well. Crickets. Usually not even a response. I am guessing they do not do allegations of anti-Christian bias? No matter how glaring? I have posted on other links the amicus brief that did get filed (search this ezine, e.g., Kansas attorney), read the Thomas More Society brief to note what the ACLU ran from like vampires from garlic. An Examiner pledged to advance diversity and inclusion came right out on the record and demanded that I choose Man's law or God's law. I wonder, had I been asked to swear off Allah ... what result then, ICLU? Had I been found of bad character and fitness for advocating sexual deviance, what result then ICLU? Had I been lifetime banned for posting left of center statements denigrating the US Constitution, what result ICLU? Hey, we all know don't we? Rather Biased.

  5. It was mentioned in the article that there have been numerous CLE events to train attorneys on e-filing. I would like someone to provide a list of those events, because I have not seen any such events in east central Indiana, and since Hamilton County is one of the counties where e-filing is mandatory, one would expect some instruction in this area. Come on, people, give some instruction, not just applause!

ADVERTISEMENT