Monday, March 26, 2007
The picture
What did you think of the photograph? Was it worthy of a 300-page book? Was the author’s obsession with it justified, or did he go a little over the top? Do you believe that the men really were as they were portrayed, coincidentally like they were pictured in the photograph (e.g., the man with his back turned), or did the author’s view of the picture color his view of the men?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I neglected to put my opinion in my post, so here it is: I think the photograph is magnificent. I do think the author made a little too much of the "these guys are exactly like they look in the picture" thing. But it is a great book about a great picture about a terrible time.
And the picture is important. This picture, along with other pictures and stories, gave Mississippi sheriffs of the 1960s the reputation they deserved.
Love the photo. It perfectly captures a time and place, and it's an important part of history — especially now that we are more removed from those times and people might be reluctant to believe that law enforcement could be so cruel and calculating and so resolutely on the wrong side (No one would have believed Rodney King if the video didn't exist, or any other number of victims of police brutality and institutionalized racism).
I don't think the author went over the top with comparisons to the picture. I think he began the venture with an open mind and gave these people the benefit of the doubt at every step. I think he would have been delighted to find that these men had turned over a new leaf, but the truth is they hadn't. Maybe he belabored a metaphor here and there, but that would be a tiny fault in a vast accomplishment.
The photo is amazing. What a moment to capture.
I agree that maybe the author belabored his metaphors a bit, but what he found out about the men really did seem to reflect their positions and postures in the photo. A coincidence for the most part, but still, it's interesting.
Hi, guys. Sorry I'm behind. I've finished part one.
I think the author took some liberties with proposing what the men were thinking in that photo, and while I understand that supports the way he tied that to their life stories, it made me a little credulous, particularly with the sheriff whom he thought was watching the photographer.
I think the multiple interviews and document research he produced put the book's accuracy in high regard ... but there have been times in part one where I couldn't help but wonder whether he was injecting his opinions for better story-telling effect. I need to go home and bring to book back from lunch to quote what he had about one sheriff who died not only from illness but "no doubt" from remorse or some such thing. Yikes. What is that doing in there? Why doesn't he trust the reader to draw conclusions just from the horrific facts he can present?
Er, incredulous.
Post a Comment