On King's Style

[Walter Oobleck]

Do you mean numbers as in all the people he had already fed to Ol' Sparky? (or might have to in the future)
I'm trying to understand.... are you asking me what it would take for me to not like Paul because of his job? (In general? Or in the case of somebody/s that is innocent of guilt having that fate?)

I think I'm looking for a reason why Paul's actions are right, or for someone to state his actions were wrong. I can try to justify or to minimize what was done, a kind of mercy killing if you will, the kiss of death. Or maybe all I'm doing is asking a question or questions about the story I've seldom, if ever, seen addressed. Plus, it's hard to ignore "real life" and to imagine how much different this conversation would be if the subject were he fabled death penalty. On the radio at work, I've heard a story/news about the justice system. Apparently some folk have discovered it is broken. Some lament Super Max prisons, a new one having been built in Illinois, ready to house...2,000?

I could go on and on...about the dichotomy that seems present, or irony...in the mindset that argues the state putting to death of those judged worthy of death is itself wrong...while simultaneously being comfortable with the idea that one should be punished, apparently indefinitely, for having an opinion contrary to that flavored by the many. I'm highly satisfied with the fairness of it all. /sarcasm

Numbers is meant to bring to mind just that, numbers of people put to death...with Prussian efficiency. Justified and minimized, too.

How much free will do we have? If we are beholden to the script? And how does the script come about? Whatever the many desire? I'm not faulting anyone for enjoying the story or for enjoying and liking Paul as a good man. I am questioning how "good" he can be when the proverbial scale is applied. Why are some transgressions easier to forgive than others?

Story got us talking, hey?

 

[FlakeNoir]

I think I'm looking for a reason why Paul's actions are right, or for someone to state his actions were wrong. I can try to justify or to minimize what was done, a kind of mercy killing if you will, the kiss of death. Or maybe all I'm doing is asking a question or questions about the story I've seldom, if ever, seen addressed. Plus, it's hard to ignore "real life" and to imagine how much different this conversation would be if the subject were he fabled death penalty. On the radio at work, I've heard a story/news about the justice system. Apparently some folk have discovered it is broken. Some lament Super Max prisons, a new one having been built in Illinois, ready to house...2,000?

I could go on and on...about the dichotomy that seems present, or irony...in the mindset that argues the state putting to death of those judged worthy of death is itself wrong...while simultaneously being comfortable with the idea that one should be punished, apparently indefinitely, for having an opinion contrary to that flavored by the many. I'm highly satisfied with the fairness of it all. /sarcasm

Numbers is meant to bring to mind just that, numbers of people put to death...with Prussian efficiency. Justified and minimized, too.

How much free will do we have? If we are beholden to the script? And how does the script come about? Whatever the many desire? I'm not faulting anyone for enjoying the story or for enjoying and liking Paul as a good man. I am questioning how "good" he can be when the proverbial scale is applied. Why are some transgressions easier to forgive than others?

Story got us talking, hey?

I think we as individuals can sometimes find ourselves in situations whereby we feel like we don't have much free will. (for example, if you believe the death penalty should not exist, but live in a State where it is utilised as part of the justice system. You might feel as though you have a voice, but, it isn't heard. I guess in this case you try to change the law, or if unsuccessful, move to a part of the country where it is not legal? Thus expanding your free will... perhaps not ideal? But, I think we do have choices and our outlook has much to do with how tight our bonds feel.

I guess you are really asking me who gets to make the rules, God or Man? We are in the wrong thread/area for that, but short answer... some people believe one, others the other and still more a combination of both. (& that is only Christianity...)
(I am going to have to get back to The Green Mile/or Stephen's writing style now, or I will be moderated...! )

With Paul, I think some of us may feel what he did was acceptable in the set of circumstances he was in, others may feel that there is no redemption for him because of their religion, others again may fall somewhere in between... and feel guilty for liking and supporting him, but not fear for their souls. Because... we (people) don't think in the same way, our beliefs are different, our separate life experiences don't allow us to come together and agree on some things... this is what real free will is, I think... and it makes for a difficult peace.
But, we (our countries) live in a democracy... and I (personally) choose to support that, it doesn't mean I will always like it, but it is preferable to me compared with some of the alternatives.

(It's getting late, I'm starting to ramble... )

 

[PatInTheHat]

I think we as individuals can sometimes find ourselves in situations whereby we feel like we don't have much free will. (for example, if you believe the death penalty should not exist, but live in a State where it is utilised as part of the justice system. You might feel as though you have a voice, but, it isn't heard. I guess in this case you try to change the law, or if unsuccessful, move to a part of the country where it is not legal? Thus expanding your free will... perhaps not ideal? But, I think we do have choices and our outlook has much to do with how tight our bonds feel.

I guess you are really asking me who gets to make the rules, God or Man? We are in the wrong thread/area for that, but short answer... some people believe one, others the other and still more a combination of both. (& that is only Christianity...)
(I am going to have to get back to The Green Mile/or Stephen's writing style now, or I will be moderated...! )

With Paul, I think some of us may feel what he did was acceptable in the set of circumstances he was in, others may feel that there is no redemption for him because of their religion, others again may fall somewhere in between... and feel guilty for liking and supporting him, but not fear for their souls. Because... we (people) don't think in the same way, our beliefs are different, our separate life experiences don't allow us to come together and agree on some things... this is what real free will is, I think... and it makes for a difficult peace.
But, we (our countries) live in a democracy... and I (personally) choose to support that, it doesn't mean I will always like it, but it is preferable to me compared with some of the alternatives.

(It's getting late, I'm starting to ramble... )

Well ya should stay up late more often then, you ramble up some pretty good stuff

 

[skimom2]

Did you really read "The Green Mile"? Of course, there's the "normal people being put into a situation with abnormal circumstances" which is present in every King book, but, how can one say that its publication is the only thing that differs "The Green Mile" from his other works. I'm just shocked. "The Green Mile" is a bright example of King's brilliance as we know he is not fully accepted in the literature world by critics. My task is to explain why it is worth to be regarded as fiction, as it doesn't fit into the horror genre, nor is it a supernatural drama only.

That is not the question you asked. You posited a situation in which this book differs greatly from the body of Mr. King's work. It does not, as he's produced many books that have no supernatural goings-on at all (or at least, just a whiff). He has also produced other 'literary' works, most notably Lisey's Story. In answering the question you posed, I gave my reasoning in a respectful manner. I'm sorry that my analysis did not coincide with your presumption. I've read all but the most recent books by Mr. King many times, and while that doesn't make me an expert on literature in general or his books in particular, it does make me well-versed to respectfully answer your question. It's too bad you couldn't offer the same courtesy.

 

[skimom2]

(Which taught me something, because I had thought it might actually be part of what had made the story seem to not let up. I had felt that the G.M was a go, go, go kind of story and wondered if this was because of the pace it had been written, polished and published.)

So pace set it apart for you? I'm not so sure about that, either. If you look at his body of work, his stories usually move along at a good clip. Even in a book like The Stand, the story generally trots right along; it's just that there's a LOT of story moving TGM, because it was written as a serial, feels much like his novellas to me. Not so much story to drag along as in a novel, so the pace feels quicker (though it's really not much different than in a novel, if you look at the different 'threads' of the story moving in conjunction) because there aren't as many story threads chugging along. TGM has three main story threads: 1) Coffey; 2) the warden's wife; 3) Paul's growth. It might feel like it's moving faster because there is less to keep straight in your mind. Something like The Stand has a whole bunch of threads going on. The point is that they all develop at the same pace, though with more to remember, the longer story might seem to move slower. Does that make sense? It's interesting to read a novel like that: look at the smaller 'stories within the story' and see how each moves along. In a good book, they all pretty much move at the same pace. As a reader, you can feel the difference if even one of the plot threads drags behind the others. It takes talent and practice to keep them all in line (something Mr. King has in abundance--lol), and that's why newbie authors are encouraged to keep their stories very simple--no more than two or three threads. It's a juggler's dream and nightmare to keep all those balls moving smoothly.

 

[FlakeNoir]

So pace set it apart for you? I'm not so sure about that, either. If you look at his body of work, his stories usually move along at a good clip. Even in a book like The Stand, the story generally trots right along; it's just that there's a LOT of story moving TGM, because it was written as a serial, feels much like his novellas to me. Not so much story to drag along as in a novel, so the pace feels quicker (though it's really not much different than in a novel, if you look at the different 'threads' of the story moving in conjunction) because there aren't as many story threads chugging along. TGM has three main story threads: 1) Coffey; 2) the warden's wife; 3) Paul's growth. It might feel like it's moving faster because there is less to keep straight in your mind. Something like The Stand has a whole bunch of threads going on. The point is that they all develop at the same pace, though with more to remember, the longer story might seem to move slower. Does that make sense? It's interesting to read a novel like that: look at the smaller 'stories within the story' and see how each moves along. In a good book, they all pretty much move at the same pace. As a reader, you can feel the difference if even one of the plot threads drags behind the others. It takes talent and practice to keep them all in line (something Mr. King has in abundance--lol), and that's why newbie authors are encouraged to keep their stories very simple--no more than two or three threads. It's a juggler's dream and nightmare to keep all those balls moving smoothly.

Yes, I think this is exactly why it felt faster paced to me--because there were less (focal) characters/and situations and so my mind allowed me to flit between each more quickly as I had less to remember/keep straight, or so it seemed anyway.

Knowing how it had been written, (I have the boxed set of 6 books) perhaps while reading each book I was also (subconsciously) picturing Stephen and his deadlines?

 

[E. Moneva]

That is not the question you asked. You posited a situation in which this book differs greatly from the body of Mr. King's work. It does not, as he's produced many books that have no supernatural goings-on at all (or at least, just a whiff). He has also produced other 'literary' works, most notably Lisey's Story. In answering the question you posed, I gave my reasoning in a respectful manner. I'm sorry that my analysis did not coincide with your presumption. I've read all but the most recent books by Mr. King many times, and while that doesn't make me an expert on literature in general or his books in particular, it does make me well-versed to respectfully answer your question. It's too bad you couldn't offer the same courtesy.

Where exactly in my comment did you see a lack of courtesy? I simply couldn't agree on your statement that its part-by-part publication is the only thing that differs "The Green Mile" from King's other works. I think "The Green Mile" is special. I may be biased, but it truly stands out.

 

[jchanic]

I read each installment of The Green Mile as it came out. I had originally intended to wait until the entire series was out, but I'm weak.

John

 

[skimom2]

I read each installment of The Green Mile as it came out. I had originally intended to wait until the entire series was out, but I'm weak.

John

John, do you see value in having the individual books, vs. the compilation? Is there enough difference between the two to make it useful to have both?

 

[Kurben]

Well, if your task is to why it deserves to be regarded as fiction because it is not horror or "supernatural drama" then it is a bit difficult. The supernatural does come into play since Coffeys powers are of that kind. And The Green mile is far from unique in that regard in Kings production. We have The Girl who Loved Tom Gordon, Rita Hayworth and The Shawskak Redemption, Liseys Story, The Body, The Long Walk, Dolores Claiburne, Hearts in Atlantis and others like Joyland. Some of these, just as The Green Mile, has a touch of supernatural in some aspect. What is unique with the Green Mile is that it is written in installments in a try if books could still, like in the time of Dickens, be appreciated in that way. In was a kind of experiment and it was a success. In that way it is unique but otherwise it is just vintage King. Very good writing which, i think, ought to be the main aspect in reviewing or analysing it.

 

[PatInTheHat]

I read each installment of The Green Mile as it came out. I had originally intended to wait until the entire series was out, but I'm weak.

John

I envy that, I had the complete set plopped down in front of me and devoured them.
Plan was as they were intended, one at a time, read one and wait, read another...
I totally understand that weakness, upside down, sure, but still the same

 

[Spideyman]

I read each installment of The Green Mile as it came out. I had originally intended to wait until the entire series was out, but I'm weak.

John

That is how I read The Green Mile. Would rush home from work, purchase the next little paperback book, go home and devour the story, eagerly awaiting the next monthly installment. Personally, I felt it added to excitement of the story.

 

[jchanic]

John, do you see value in having the individual books, vs. the compilation? Is there enough difference between the two to make it useful to have both?

I have to say I've never compared the two versions, but I don't remember ANY differences between them. If I do a reread, I just read the omnibus edition for convenience's sake.

John

 

[skimom2]

I have to say I've never compared the two versions, but I don't remember ANY differences between them. If I do a reread, I just read the omnibus edition for convenience's sake.

John

That's what I have, but I often see the individual sets priced very reasonably around here and have wondered if there were differences. Thank you!