Book Three Review

Stephen King is an excellent author. You would not know that by reading The Green Mile. Although, I do have to admit if I was trapped on a deserted island and I could have only one book, this would be it. Why? Firewood.

One of the better known authors for horror and si-fi is Stephen King. If you can think of a cross between Edgar Allen Poe and Agatha Christie, this is who you’re looking for. In fact, if you get on Google and search Stephen King, Google will show you what other people have searched for and one of the results is Edgar Allen Poe. True story! King has written an insane amount of books. And that’s a lot of books.  Most of them are extremely dark. With writing that many books you can imagine that there will be a few that are not so spectacular, and The Green Mile is one of them.

Okay, so what is The Green Mile? Metaphorically speaking, The Green Mile is a toaster crossed with Bella Swan. It’s boring and useless. You may think that’s a little harsh but it’s not. When you get past the first fifty pages of the book you will understand. A story like The Green Mile does require a lot of back story which is good. You don’t want to just jump in the middle of a prisoner breathing life back into a dead mouse without having a little idea of how we got to that point. You will need to be informed about the murder of the twins in the begging of the book. A man that doesn’t have the mental capacity to kill an ant (and is afraid of the dark) is convicted of a disturbing crime.

The Great Depression is waging a relentless war on the typical 1930s Americans. Paul Edgecombe is faced with the gruesome task of making sure the scum of society gets a date with the electric chair. I guess you can say sparks will fly. Get it? Sparks! Ha! As you can imagine, anyone who lands on death row ought to be a little messed up but you haven’t met John Coffey. Or anyone other Cold Mountain death row inhabitants for that matter.      

The book opens with rolling out the welcome mat in front of the Cold Mountain Penitentiary. The narrator (prison guard Paul Edgecombe) shares a little bit about John Coffey (like the drink but not spelled the same) and then we have a 200 page long flashback. Eventually you’ll get back to John Coffey but it’ll take a while. I understand that King has to give a bit of a back story but come on! Most of the things you need to know in the flashback I can tell you in 30 seconds. Let’s try it out: mouse, urinary tract infection, brain tumor, William Wharton. Ta da! I’m not sure what I’m allowed to tell you without giving anything away but make sure you keep an eye on particular illnesses of particular people *wink wink*. Also, don’t forget the murder of the little girls in the beginning of the book.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              

Throughout the story you’ll also learn about Paul Edgecombe’s current life in a retirement home. He’s writing about his experiences on the Green Mile like one would in a memoir. “I believe that the combination of pencil and memory creates a kind of practical magic, and magic is dangerous.” (King 63). This will help things make a bit more sense later on.  

Pay attention to Percy's interactions with Delacroix. They both have a good memory. “Like some dogs: kick them once and they never trust you again, no matter how nice you are to them.” (King 207).

Reading The Green Mile is similar to watching a long documentary. There’s good content but it just drones on and on and on…. You get the picture. If you love pages upon pages of descriptions of a single event, this book’s for you. There is so much unnecessary detail it almost makes it not worth reading, which is a shame because it is such an incredible book. Don’t get me wrong, I love long books. But I do not books love books that just don’t know when to stop. None of the descriptions are dull, though. There were just so many incredible ideas; King didn’t know when to stop (I’m assuming). Despite this, most of these pages of text come off as filler. Like when you have to write a three page long paper but you only have about three sentences and no material. Which doesn’t make sense because King includes a crap ton of material. If you find an edited version of The Green Mile that’s about 300 pages shorter, you’ll love it. 

One more question before we leave, is this book worth reading? That’s entirely subjective. I’d personally give the book two and a half stars out of five and will never read it again. You should just read it. Unless you’re illiterate (then you aren’t reading this). After reading The Green Mile I was left with several questions. One of these being, how do we question what evidence we have been presented without any evidence otherwise? Should we go with our gut when we feel it’s the only thing we can trust? Should you really just trust my review of the book? Go find out on your own. Which begs the question, why do we need reviews? Let’s be honest here, we thrive off other people’s opinions. No matter whose it is, we listen to it and take it into account. Do you really need Mitt Romney’s opinion on Harry Potter? No, but if you happen to hear anyone’s opinion on anything it will be permanently burned into your subconscious. 

Want some more cool quotes from The Green Mile? Click here

Post Nine

The post you've waiting for! Yeah, I forgot about it. Oh well, it happens.

The Green Mile is narrated by Paul Edgecombe. He works day and night just to bring home the bacon to his loving wife. He’s honest and fair in his dedicated job of death row prison guard. He’s the hardworking, small town American everyone knows and loves. I can’t find anything about him that’s not to like. He’s awfully optimistic for someone who has to go home smelling like burnt flesh after an execution.

I’ve noticed that a lot narrators and protagonists have a tendency to be more damaged and pessimistic in almost every book that’s not intended for children under the age of nine. But I guess if everyone was perfect it wouldn’t be too interesting. This is especially true when it comes to most works of Stephen King. King is better known for his works in horror but I can’t think of any of his characters who could be considered ‘optimistic’. I might be able to come up with a few but that’s really not important.

So what about this whole likability thing? I don’t know. Likable characters are cool. Scratch that. I like interesting characters. Interesting characters can be unlikable. Characters can be likable and interesting at the same time. The point is interestingness. Is that a word?

Post 12: Reading Wishlist

Emily's bookshelf: to-read

I Don't Want To Be Crazy

by Samantha Schutz

Pet Sematary

by Stephen King

The Tommyknockers

by Stephen King

It

by Stephen King

1984

by George Orwell

Such a Pretty Girl

by Laura Wiess

The Great Gatsby

by F. Scott Fitzgerald

Absolutely Positively Not

by David LaRochelle

Lessons from a Dead Girl

by Jo Knowles

Skin

by Adrienne Maria Vrettos

Every Crooked Pot

by Renee Rosen

Catch-22

by Joseph Heller

The Book Thief

by Markus Zusak

Deadline

by Chris Crutcher

Looking for Alaska

by John Green

Book Talk

Post Six

Is readicide a problem in schools?

When was the last time you saw a student read a book for fun? I’ll let you think up the answer for that.

Is genre fiction less worthy than Literary Fiction?

Is a cake you make from a box less worthy that a cake you buy at Kroger's? No. They’re essentially the same thing. They are most likely exactly the same thing except one was made by someone whose job it is to bake and the other was made by someone who probably ate half of the batter before it was even put into the pan (you know who you are). This doesn’t mean that the cake mix is worse; it just means the creator put ingenuity into it. That cake you just bought at Kroger's was made to be exactly like the twelve dozen other cakes that person was supposed to make that day. The cake mix wasn’t just churned out so the person who made it could check a box and be done. They put their time and effort into it and made it exactly the way they wanted it. Maybe they but chocolate chips into the batter. Maybe they put sprinkles and icing on it. Sure, the person who made the cake from a box probably didn’t wash their hands first but I’d choose it over a cookie cutter any day.

Are you good with swapping out Of Mice and Men for Twilight, for example?

Long answer short, no. I think schools should teach both those books (please don’t shoot). In schools teachers really emphasize what makes a good book a good book. But I’ve never really heard anyone specifically makes a book a bad book. Schools also have a tendency to disallow a student to think for themselves if a book is good or not. For example, Romeo and Juliet.  Am I a literary scholar? Nope. Have I spent my entire life studying Shakespeare and other works from the Elizabethan era? Nope. Did I read Romeo and Juliet? Yep. Would I have read it even if I didn’t have to read it for school? Probably, but I probably would have stopped half way through. Did I like it? Well, that’s tricky. I kept telling myself it was a good play because that’s how it was introduced to me (I REALLY hated it). What did I tell my English teacher when she asked if I liked it or not? As far as she knows, I loved it. Because any other response would be incorrect. One does not simply dislike Shakespeare. But many people hate Twilight. Why is that? I’ve met many people who haven’t even read Twilight but think it’s horrible. Because that’s the popular opinion. They hear a majority say it’s bad and they just jump on the band wagon. They don’t have to read it to know it’s bad, they just know that’s what the cool kids told them. And therefore, it’s true. I have personally read Twilight, and I thought it was horrible. But why should it be taught in schools? Because it incorporates real world problems that are sugar coated (and no, I’m not talking about vampires). Twilight condones domestic abuse. But everyone I’ve met whose read it tries to gloss over that fact. Because they have been taught in school to read and check the boxes. Not to put what they’re reading in real world context.

Post Seven

Hey! Wanna see something cool? Watch this!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1tQURrlewU

Post Eight

How true does a book have to be to be considered nonfiction?

     I'm honestly not sure why this is a question. I'm not sure why something would be considered nonfiction if it wasn't 100% true. I can't go running around writing about how unicorns and cockroaches are trying to take over the universe by destroying every piece of toast ever and then claim it to be nonfiction. Why? Because there's some poor idiot out there who will actually believe it (and then blame it on Obama). They're also probably the same person who is genuinely believe that they lost their nose when someone else grabbed it.

Are half-truths okay if it’s still a good story?

    Can I re-write a history text book and make Abraham Lincoln a dinosaur because it would be a better story?

Do we need lines between genres-do we need to label something fiction or non-fiction? Why does it matter?

     Do you want a doctor to learn about brain surgery from a Doctor Seuss book? Do you want your Aquarium Fish for Dummies telling you that killer whales make good companions for terriers?