Talk:A Time to Kill (Grisham novel)

message: Good god, someone PLEASE add links and colour to the plot summary! My poor eyes!
--82.44.213.242 (talk) 11:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Stub

message: The article as I found it rehashed the movie plot rather than the plot of the book. In the novel, Carl Lee was NOT acting out of fear that the rapists would get acquitted. The sheriff already had a signed confession from one of the two men, the case against both had more than enough evidence, and the whole town was outraged at what happened--no one wanted the rapists to get off. Carl Lee's motive in the novel was revenge, pure and simple. It was stated as completely understandable and multiple people (the sheriff and Jake Brigance among others) agreed that they would do the same, but it was not out of any wish to prevent the two men from escaping justice.
Please let's keep the book and movie separate. The novel is more ethically ambiguous on purpose.
:*Agreed. In the novel, for example, Stump does not die during the riot (which is not on the first day of the trial), though he is sent to the hospital with major burns and maybe dies at some point later, I don't know yet :) So it's bloody well obvious that the plot summary here is not of the novel. (Also, the revised printing of the novel that I'm reading may have a slightly different text than the original, though it seems to me that maybe only typos were corrected, and not all of those, either.)  Schissel | Sound the Note! 22:58, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Book plot, not movie plot

message: The plot summary at present omits the extremely strong element of premeditation.
It's made pretty clear that Carl Hailey plans the killing very carefully, and believes that his friend Jake Brigance will get him off the charge, just as the same lawyer achieved a not guilty verdict in a trial where Carl's brother Lester had killed another ne'er-do-well.  Grisham goes to great lengths to cut off all traditional channels to exoneration.  Carl discusses his plans with Jake, and Jake takes the plans seriously enough to discuss them with Sheriff Ozzie Walls.
Carl could use a revolver or a knife, but instead he calls in a favor from an all-too-willing friend, a former Vietnam War buddy whose life he saved, now a very successful pimp over the border in Memphis, and asks for a specific form of weapon: an M-16 Carbine, fully automatic.  The buddy is able to obtain the weapon easily, and gives it to him free of charge.  Throughout this, Carl's brother is a witness and (it would be difficult to argue otherwise) an accessory.
In the event, Carl botches the killing.  In one of his first bursts, he accidentally catches the Deputy who is escorting the prisoners from the court room.  Although he quickly gets out of the way he ends up with one leg amputated below the knee.
Carl takes great relish in the killing, laughing maniacally as he kills the two rapists, but he is obviously quite sane and acting in a way that would be difficult for any father to condemn.  This engages the reader directly with the central question: are there murders that can be excused, not by reason of insanity, but on purely moral grounds?
Against this, Grisham weighs the enormity of the crime Carl is avenging, and the racial context.  And because he's a writer as skilled as was Dickens in expressing the zeitgeist through fiction, it works splendidly.  
Our plot summary probably needs to capture the ambiguity that Grisham puts into this work.  I don't think it does so yet. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 00:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *Actually, the notion that premeditation and insanity are mutually exclusive is just plain silly... The essential quality of legal insanity afaik is knowledge of right and wrong, no? (As to "insanity" in regular language and not as a legal term of art, it's even more silly to suppose that these are incompatible.) Schissel | Sound the Note! 22:41, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Premeditation

message: Substituted at 00:53, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on A Time to Kill (Grisham novel). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100314062330/http://www.playbill.com:80/news/article/137733-Grishams-A-Time-to-Kill-Will-Premiere-at-Arena-Stage-Before-NYC-Letts-Morton-Join-Season to http://www.playbill.com/news/article/137733-Grishams-A-Time-to-Kill-Will-Premiere-at-Arena-Stage-Before-NYC-Letts-Morton-Join-Season
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:06, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: There is an entire section titled "Note" which is given over to lengthy analysis of the movie attributed to one, Rev. Everard Sanchez. Who is Rev. Everard Sanchez? Why is their opinion listed here? The citation is obscure and can not be located in a general internet search. Citation given: Rev. Everard Sanchez "The entanglement of Judicial and Racial Issues in the American South As Reflected In Literature And Popular Culture" in Willard C. Kaufman and Alice Cobnam-Wilkinson (Eds.) "Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Legal Studies Symposium", p. 16, 20, 22 172.91.233.119 (talk) 06:46, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rev. Everard Sanchez 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (please mention me on reply) 17:48, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: A Time to Kill (Grisham novel) →  – WP:CONCISE - The John Grisham novel is far and away the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for a novel by this title . Additionally, the only other entry on the disambiguation page is A Time to Kill (TNG novel), which is a redirect and not an actual page. estar8806 (talk) ★ 15:55, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not the case. The Italian novel exists as in the base of the other film. Besides the Star Trek novel both exists and has a standalone article. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:44, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The Star Trek novel does not have a standalone article, it's a primary redirect to Star Trek: A Time to....  This article is the only one on Wikipedia for a novel named "A Time to Kill", and therefore we can do away with the unnecessary disambiguation. 162 etc. (talk) 20:57, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Per WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT, "The fact that an article has a different title is not a factor in determining whether a topic is primary." Disambiguation is a matter of topics, not just standalone article titles. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:41, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

text: Oppose per  and WP:PDAB (note that the PDAB guideline states that other things simply existing implies the lack of primary topic for the partial disambiguation). Cf. Twilight (Meyer novel) (similar move discussion here). Ironic that I was on the other side of that discussion, but I've since had my view changed. WPscatter t/c 18:55, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 27 May 2023