Talk:A Time to Kill (Grisham novel)

Novels Mid‑importance

	Novels portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

On 27 May 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved to A Time to Kill (novel). The result of the discussion was not moved.

Stub

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)[reply]

It's Clanton, not Canton. --65.188.140.112 (talk) 20:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just changed it to "the fictional town of Clanton, Mississippi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.35.138.72 (talk) 12:44, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

About what time or year(s) is this story going on? Even a decade? 85.217.37.129 (talk) 21:31, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Book plot, not movie plot

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) (Edit: he does die on the first day of the trial - see chapter 34 - but the National Guard was called a few days before that in response to the informant - or "informant"?'s - relaying of threats after the riot, which was a few days before that.)[reply]

Premeditation

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to A Time to Kill (John Grisham novel), and then redirected A Time to Kill to Time to Kill for disambig Tiggerjay (talk) 06:05, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A Time to Kill → ? – The film adaptation is more viewed than the original Grisham novel. Also, I'm not thoroughly convinced that, in terms of reception and awards, the novel triumphs the film. George Ho (talk) 05:42, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While the film article may be visited more, the novel is the original work. It has also been adapted into a play. I see no reason to change the current status. ed Ecragg (talk) 13:50, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Original works are not always primary topics. The Fox and the Hound is the Disney adaptation of the original novel. Also, Doctor Zhivago is now a disambiguation page. --George Ho (talk) 17:48, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

REplace with disambiguation move this article to A Time to Kill (John Grisham novel) and redirect "A Time to Kill" to the disambiguation page Time to Kill, where atleast 3 entries are called "A Time to Kill" -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 23:42, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – either leave the current primary topic, or make a disambig. Dicklyon (talk) 05:49, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:A Time to Kill (Grisham novel)/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

I think this article should be fused with the main one.

Substituted at 00:53, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link 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 {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:06, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rev. Everard Sanchez

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)[reply]

Requested move 27 May 2023

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)[reply]

A Time to Kill (Grisham novel) → A Time to Kill (novel) – WP:CONCISE - The John Grisham novel is far and away the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for a novel by this title [1]. 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)— Relisting. >>> Extorc.talk 16:04, 3 June 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} (please mention me on reply) 17:29, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Star Trek: A Time to Kill can be addressed via hatnote. 162 etc. (talk) 16:23, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. If an article has ( ) then it isn't primary topic. Besides in this case there clearly are several other novels, including the Italian novel on which the Nicholas Cage film was based. It's a (Grisham novel) among several novels, this is why we have WP:DISAMBIGUATION to help readers not mess with them. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:02, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unless and until A Time to Kill (Flaiano novel) gets an article, there is nothing to disambiguate. 162 etc. (talk) 16:45, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Oppose per In ictu oculi 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)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.