A fruitful subject for opening discussion of the novel is how readers feel about law suits, about huge monetary judgments against big corporations, and about tobacco litigation. The reaction of smokers to the novel might be interesting to gauge. Another obvious line of inquiry is concerns about the jury system. Reading groups could discuss if any members have served on juries or been a party, a witness, or a spectator at a jury trial. What faith do readers have in juries, given their own experiences and some of the notorious verdicts from the 1990s? A third big issue for discussion could be moral relativism: in this novel, what is the "right" or "just" thing to do? Where is "justice" in this novel?

1. Discounting the jurors who have self-serving agendas—Nicholas and the stubborn Lonnie Shaver—could this jury have reached an impartial verdict in...