While reading "The Innocent Man" the author spent a good amount of time explaining that the innocent man, Ron Williams, was once a star baseball player in Oklahoma. He was given the great opportunity to play baseball in college but rejected the offer so he could make the big leagues. His chances of playing in the MLB quickly began to fade with a messed up shoulder along with bad drinking and drug habits.
The author chose to add the darker details of Ron Williams and the bad choices he has made throughout his life. The author made strategic decision in adding those aspects. If John Grisham hadn’t chosen to add this to the book, would the reader even be surprised that Williams was found guilty or even suspected of the crime? I completely believe that if the author didn’t add the parts of Ron Williams and his past then the reader wouldn’t have really grasped that he would be a main suspect in a murder.
Like on page 68 of the Innocent Man the author, John Grisham, says, “in February 1981, Ron was again arrested for drunk driving and pleaded guilty.” So Ron Williams obviously had a problem with drinking, and was caught more than once. The book theme isn't a mystery about who goes to jail, but more of the man that went to jail when he didn't deserve it. On the back cover of the book it says, “in a trial littered with lying witnesses and tainted evidence that would shatter a man’s already broken life… and let a true killer go free.” If the author decided to make the innocent man a mystery would that have completely changed the book? I feel that if we didn't know about Ron Williams and that he was indeed innocent it would really change how you feel about him because while reading the book you feel terrible for Ron Williams knowing that he had a bad life with some bad choices and he is going to go to jail for something he didn't do, you feel bad for him. On the other hand, if you didn't know that he was innocent then you don't feel bad for him and you are even glad he goes to jail.
No comments:
Post a Comment