Imagine 'To Kill A Mockingbird' but in St. J. Vermont in 1952 (but, actually, a fictional place...which is definitely St. J.). That's basically the plot.
I'll admit that I was swayed to read this book because I lived about 10 miles from St. J. for a few years, but I found that I really didn't care much for it. The locals were accurate to a fault, and also quite stereotypical. The Canadian Minister was polite; the French-Canadian immigrants worked low wage jobs, were poor and poorly educated, and racist toward one-another; the judge had faith in the goodness of his community; everyone was related (or practically so); the town had an incompetent sheriff and even less competent prosecutor and there was a perpetual fight over the somehow loveable and harmless - but not really, not to rational people - hick cousin.
The ignorance of Scout - who's named Jim in this version - was not really endearing. And, frankly, I felt that there was too much reliance on a telling of the events of the Summer of '52 rather than a better focus on the events at issue. The first two-thirds of the book describes (in order of length): the history of everyone's family (or nearly so) in a one-church rural Vermont town, life in a one-church rural Vermont town, the weird Ray Bradbury-esque Something Wicked This Way Comes circus, the suprise and dislike of the locals when the black, Canadian Minister comes to town, and the Minister's interactions with the locals. The last third is focused on the trial and the fallout. I felt that the first two thirds could have easily been cut-in-half without losing any impact during the trial.
As far as the trial goes, I'm spoiled by my profession but, even so, there were just such egregious errors that it befuddles the mind. For example, during the picking of the jury, the defense lawyer asks one potential juror if he served with any black men in the military. The response is racist. The potential juror is dismissed. A second potential juror comes up. The defense lawyer asks the same thing. The prosecutor objects, saying the question was already asked! Egregiously, the judge agrees!
Then, the judge gives a lecture to the potential jurors to not be racist. Excuse me, but what? If I ask Bob if he had cereal for breakfast, then I ask Jim if he had cereal for breakfast, I didn't already ask the question. I'm asking two DIFFERENT people the question and the answer to one has no impact whatsoever on the other. The rest of the "logic" in the trial is basically the same. As with modern TV shows, you won't believe the twist!...unless you've seen A Few Good Men. In that case, the defense attorney is a less competent version of Tom Cruise.
It seemed as though this novel wanted to explore the undercurrent of racism in a very rural corner of Vermont, but the author (or, perhaps the fictional character writing his memoir) doesn't have the fundamental understanding of racism to bring the novel to a successful conclusion. Instead, it veers off to comment on the blindness of small towns to religious extremism in their midst. I suppose that there's some crossover there, but there's no analysis, no soul searching on the racism front. It's more of a one off - his way of life was being challenged so he lashed out violently - and, sure, that's pretty applicable to a number of situations, but there's not analysis or thought given to how those who didn't have those beliefs could have intervened or been on guard or done anything other that continue to be wilfully blind to the coming crisis.