Steve’s answer to “Why do you think Grisham had to go into so much detail about the war story? I don’t think it really…” > Likes and Comments
15 likes · Like
I felt like his actions toward the man he killed was in conflict with the man he seemed to be in the war. Unless he got used to killing and it was no big deal a good man would never have done what he did to his family and the murdered guys family. In the end I feel like Pete was a disppicable person that got what he deserved. He destroyed two families for his own wounded pride. I'd like to see some other thoughts about this.
Robin, I agree with you to a point. As good a person as Pete was the murder was a confusing outcome. He didn't even talk to the man, he just killed him. I believe a person of good conscience would have been more thoughtful and deliberative and would have talked himself out of committing this awful crime. I never reached the point of thinking he was a despicable person becuase most of his life was a sterling example of how a good person truly interacts with the world. The one awful thing he did did not cancel out all the good things he did throughout his life. Though the one thing was more than awful. It was horrendous.
Robin and Ella, I agree also agree with you to a point, but I find the point Robin raises really interesting. I'm not trying to sell my own books and I'm sadly no John Grisham, but I am an author and my most recent book is about a good man who, when pushed beyond his limits, does terrible things in response. I don't think what happens to him justifies his actions, but I think most of my readers found it credible that similar circumstances can and sometimes do drive psychologically broken men to horrible deeds.
Could not agree more. It gave insight into his ordeal and truly the only thing that kept him going was thought of his wife, more so than the kids. The in depth descriptions of his ordeal fed into why he did what he did and why he would not explain himself.
back to top
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Robin
(new)
Jan 02, 2019 05:47PM
I felt like his actions toward the man he killed was in conflict with the man he seemed to be in the war. Unless he got used to killing and it was no big deal a good man would never have done what he did to his family and the murdered guys family. In the end I feel like Pete was a disppicable person that got what he deserved. He destroyed two families for his own wounded pride. I'd like to see some other thoughts about this.
reply
|
flag
Robin, I agree with you to a point. As good a person as Pete was the murder was a confusing outcome. He didn't even talk to the man, he just killed him. I believe a person of good conscience would have been more thoughtful and deliberative and would have talked himself out of committing this awful crime. I never reached the point of thinking he was a despicable person becuase most of his life was a sterling example of how a good person truly interacts with the world. The one awful thing he did did not cancel out all the good things he did throughout his life. Though the one thing was more than awful. It was horrendous.
Robin and Ella, I agree also agree with you to a point, but I find the point Robin raises really interesting. I'm not trying to sell my own books and I'm sadly no John Grisham, but I am an author and my most recent book is about a good man who, when pushed beyond his limits, does terrible things in response. I don't think what happens to him justifies his actions, but I think most of my readers found it credible that similar circumstances can and sometimes do drive psychologically broken men to horrible deeds.
Could not agree more. It gave insight into his ordeal and truly the only thing that kept him going was thought of his wife, more so than the kids. The in depth descriptions of his ordeal fed into why he did what he did and why he would not explain himself.
