Talk:The Green Mile (novel)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject iconHorror Start‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in film, literature and other media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
 ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Note icon
This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.
WikiProject iconNovels Start‑class Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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.
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.


This is more drama than horror/fantasy. The Person Who Is Strange 00:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Why is there no mention of Amazing Stories, Season 2, Episode 7, "Life on Death Row," 1986, starring Patrick Swayze. ??? Please don't tell me it's unrelated ;-)

Clean up[edit]

I've done some initial clean up on this article and its infobox to bring it more in line with the Novels MoS and Wikipedia's guidelines regarding the use of WP:NONFREE images. As such, I've moved the cover of the original first volume release to the infobox and removed all the rest. I've also updated the infobox to the first release, as per its instructions. The re-release as a single volume is covered in the prose, but it should not take precedence over the original release. I plan to also work on cutting down the plot section, fixing up the volume list into a proper release section, and add a reception section. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Additional cover image[edit]

I added the cover of the complete hardcover edition, which AnmaFinotera removed, arguing it was not notable. I disagree. I believe this image adds value to the article, as the image I uploaded is one that will be most familiar to most readers, is still sold in stores, and, finally, most notable for being the only hardcover edition of the novel (there have been a few paperback editions). Let us have consensus then. Jmj713 (talk) 23:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The image does not add anything of value to the article. Individual book covers are not necessary and the infobox specifically calls for the first release, not the "most common" one. It is not necessary for readers to see another version of the book cover, which does nothing but feature stylized text of the title, to identify this book. Nor is this second cover discussed critically within the text of the article. As such, I feel it violates WP:NONFREE, is more of a decorative image than a critical illustration, and does not belong in the article. (BTW, as this article has few other editors, I'd recommend a note at the Fiction notice board and the novel project to request additional views or it will likely just be you and me for awhile :-P) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:44, 11 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But it's not in the infobox. I'm perfectly fine with the way the infobox currently is. It's separated and in the main text. Pictures makes articles better. And since there is no free alternative possible, I don't see how it violates WP:NONFREE - any book cover does that. Jmj713 (talk) 00:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, pictures do not make articles better. Wikipedia is primarily a text-based encyclopedia. Images should be used sparingly and either for identification purposes (infobox/lead images), or to impart critical information that can not be imparted with text alone. A basic book cover with no critical commentary does not meet this requirement, making it a violation of WP:NONFREE, not because it is a book cover, but because it is not being used in a necessary manner. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:39, 12 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Umm, yes pictures do make articles, even ones about a book, better. Humans are primarily visual. A picture is worth a thousand words blah blah. Wikipedia's lack of quality pictures and photographs is often cited by outside critics as a chief weakness. G&E (talk) 13:26, 26 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's your personal opinion. Wikipedia's policies, guidelines, and manuals of style say otherwise. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Plot summary length[edit]

The plot summary is not overly detailed compared to other Stephen King novels (see the dead zone). I don't see any original research. I'll grant that there aren't any real references, but I'm not sure that there need to be. G&E (talk) 05:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Other low-grade articles are not the guideline to determine if something has too much plot. The Dead Zone (novel)'s plot summary is beyond ridiculously long. And yes, the article does need sources. The bulk of the plot includes interpretive statements which are OR not plot summary. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:47, 26 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We agree that this article needs more references. That's why I left this tagged. I believe the OR tag referred to the staightjacket note which I have removed. If you see others, please remove them. I don't understand why you tagged the plot summary as too long, then proceeded to revert its original verbosity. I've trimmed it by over 100 words. Its shorter than most King plot summaries. If you can shorten it further, please make a positive contribution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghosts&empties (talkcontribs) 08:33, October 26, 2009
No, the OR refers to nearly the entire plot section which is NOT pure plot, but plot with heavy personal opinion and interpretation. That said, your trimming was not an improvement either as it left most of the OR and removed . It really needs a total rewrite. You also keep copying the award down to the references section for no apparent reason. If you are trying to actually add a reference, please do so properly with an inline citation and not in such a strange, unhelpful manner. You seem to have been on Wikipedia more than long enough to know how to at least do that. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Somehow, our interplay improved the article. Thanks for compromising. G&E (talk) 15:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Magical Negro"[edit]

Surely John Coffey falls into the stereotype of "magical negro" whether you think that it's cool or not. The WP on magical negro cites Coffey. What is an RS? As far as mystical healing powers, one example would be when Morgan Freeman heals Jim Carrey in "Bruce Almighty". Which I've changed the category from fantasy novel to magic realism novel which previous commenters also noted. G&E (talk) 15:21, 26 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Whether he falls into the stereotype or not is another issue. It does not belong as a link in the way you are doing in the plot section. Magical negro != psychic healing powers. Citing a reliable source that calls him a stereotpical magical negro in the reception section would be fine, but the way you are using it, it is a misleading and inappropriate link per WP:PIPE. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:27, 26 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do I need to say Coffey's empathy and healing powers make him a "MAGICAL NEGRO" in bold type as a separate sentence? It's one of the most salient features in the book, but it's easier to use the characteristics as a jumping off point rather than go into an exposition in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghosts&empties (talkcontribs) 10:54, October 26, 2009
Again, the way you are attempting to link and claim this is purely WP:OR. Yes, it needs to be clearly cited as a separate point and not continually attempted to falsely link an unrelated term. The term itself is a personal opinion, and subjective. Again, find a reliable source that explicitly states the claim and cite is appropriately in the reception section, or leave it alone. Otherwise its both personal opinion and can be seen as a BLP violation. Please stop reverting already. We are are not helping by continuing to try to find other ways to do this link. And sign your posts. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The WP article on Magical Negro cites Green Mile. It's also in the realm of something so obvious that it needs no citation. It's also obvious that you have done at least one more revert than I have. BLP of a fictional character? Numerous authors are cited in articles on stock charters. In the context of stock characters, it's not an un-PC term. It was coined by Spike Lee. G&E (talk) 20:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wikipedia is NOT a source for itself, nor is it "not so obvious" that it doesn't need a citation. Again, it is NOT plot summary, it is interpretation. And BLP of the author in declaring it was his intention. Again, source it in a reception section properly. It does NOT belong in the plot section at all. If it is so "obvious" then you should be able to quickly provide the appropriate sources and put it in the reception section instead of continuing to argue it and put in in the plot as if it were summary or stated in the novel which it obviously is not. And who has done the "most" reverts is irrelevant. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Anyway, as you, for whatever reason, couldn't be bothered to just cite the statement as requested, I have now done it for you. Hopefully that will solve the issue, which could have been dealt with hours ago if you had just done so instead of continuing to revert without bothering with sourcing under the false claim it wasn't needed. For future note, any extraordinary claims need citing, and if something you add is challenged the burden is on YOU to prove it. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your research and text regarding the magical negro is excellent.G&E (talk) 02:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply] and then someone came in and just deleted the whole thing. I think it belongs in the article. It's obvious which character in the Green Mile we're talking about if you reference the term and the book. How the term applies to this book is painfully obvious. Lee didn't "coin the term". Slate says it's been around 100 years. I remember hearing it in the late 90's in college and it's in Bogle's book of film criticism "Toms, Coons, Mulattoes, Mammies, and Bucks" first published in 1975. Gripdamage (talk) 05:12, 17 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Possible extended life of the protagonist[edit]

If the mouse lived for 64 years in the novel, and a common house mouse has a life span of up to two years, then a human (who in good health could reach 108 naturally) might have their life span extended up to 32 times the normal length. Thus, the protagonist in the novel might reach a shriveled up old age of about 3,500 years. Any thoughts? Suggestions? Corrections? Does this seem like it might be included in the article? (talk) 00:16, 28 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Don't include it in the article. The book doesn't. It simply implies that he might get to live very long and that is good enough for the article as well. Richard 08:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, it doesn't belong. WP:OR. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


What's with the "nigger cocksucker John Coffey" line in the article? *Maybe* if that's a descriptive phrase used in the book, it *might* be acceptable, but even then I think it's a little over the top.

I'd delete it myself, but I tend to write notes on the talk pages (of Wikipedia) rather than directly edit the articles.

Rhkramer (talk) 17:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pretty obvious that was vandalism. I had hit revert earlier but it didn't take. Doing again. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:04, 8 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]


As there was a "magic Negro" furor further up the page, I have decided to explain my deletion to avoid any editwarring.

I removed the material from Reception because it was synthesis, misrepresentative of the source, and also not pertinent to the book that is the subject of the article.

Mendez's article is about Barack Obama as a "magical Negro" and references multiple works of Stephen King's by title (including The Green Mile), and that is all she does. She makes no mention of any specific characters in those works, and to claim otherwise is a misrepresentation of the source. Furthermore, the statements Spike Lee made aren't even quoted, and he was talking about the portrayal of minorities in film (as the title seems to indicate). So not only is that not relevant to a novel, but there's no actual support for the statement. A Google News search seems to indicate it was a throwaway comment on films like The Green Mile that Lee made while doing a series of talks on college campuses in 2001. Not only is Mendez's article not related to the film, neither is Lee's talk, really, and neither of them are either related to each other or the book that is the subject of this article. MSJapan (talk) 23:25, 17 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Odd phrase in the lead[edit]

In the lead, there is this sentence "Published in six volumes, it was crafted while the book was already in production." (my emphasis added). It has a citation needed tag. But what does this even mean? It sounds like it is talking about the film, but this article is about the novel. –CWenger (talk) 23:11, 2 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

About the serial novel - "the" novel is originally a collection of six books, and the first book was already for sale when the last book wasn't finished yet. The term "production" might need rephrasing. Richard 08:52, 3 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, of course. Thanks! –CWenger (talk) 15:22, 3 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm rewriting that clumsy introduction, but further edits may yet be needed. Whimper (talk) 02:07, 2 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"The Green Mile"[edit]

The film article The Green Mile (film) has been requested to be moved to The Green Mile, see Talk:The Green Mile (film). (talk) 03:58, 16 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Paul's Age[edit]

John was born in 1892 which would make him 40 in the year 1932 when most of the story takes place, not 44 as someone wrote earlier. I changed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:26, 3 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]