Talk:I, the Jury

I'd like

I'd like to point out that this article is mainly about the novel. <KF> 22:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

---

The warning below was the first thing which was posted on this talk page. I'd like to ask anyone who feels the spoiler warning should (must?? A new craze?) be removed from the article to read it and maybe get in touch with me. <KF> 22:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

DO ***NOT*** READ ON IF YOU WANT TO ENJOY THE NOVEL! DO NOT EVEN READ THE WARNING BELOW!

! ! ! WARNING  ! ! ! Do not consult any secondary material on Mickey Spillane either before reading this novel! In particular, avoid T J Binyon's -- otherwise brilliant -- Murder Will Out. The Detective in Fiction (1990), where the author spoils all the fun by saying that Spillane "ends the novel with Hammer executing a naked woman, the beautiful blonde psychiatrist who has been pursuing him throughout the book and is the murderer of his crippled friend".

It doesn't work—David Gerard has just removed the spoiler warning again. For a similar case, see Talk:Tomorrow (novel). <KF> 00:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

---

How...how could you? It was easy...

"... released a year earlier."??

"I, the Jury (1953) is a United Artists film based on the best-selling book written by Mickey Spillane released a year earlier."

Wasn't the novel first published in 1947, as it is claimed earlier in the same text? <KF> 16:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Not an execution

I have changed the wording of the ending because I believe it is inaccurate to call Hammer's ultimate actions an execution. An execution is the carrying out of a court's death sentence, which is not what Hammer is doing; indeed the point of the title is that he considers himself his own jury and disdains the whole idea of deferring to a court. His shooting of Charlotte is either murder (revenge for her own murder of his buddy) or self-defense (because she was trying to get hold of her own gun and shoot him). My own thought is that it is murder, because he states his intention to kill her before she tries for her gun; thus it would be Charlotte, and not Hammer, who was acting in self-defense.

Incidentally, Hammer himself in retrospect calls his act a killing rather than an execution, in Vengeance is Mine.

Pirate Dan 19:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I, the Jury: Alibi for what?

The article on I, the Jury says: None of the guests at Williams's party has a watertight alibi, but . . .

Alibi for what? No crime has been mentioned in the previous text.

Pablito (talk) 14:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Right! The new plot summary is unacceptable. I've reverted it; try reading the old one. Pirate Dan (talk) 14:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Analysis section

The "Analysis" section lacks sources, and I suspect it is original research. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 23:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

For Christ's sake!

The section in this article called Plot summary is so long that it is almost a lie to call it a summary. It looks like it will be as long as the original novel in its forthcoming final draft. I wanted a snappy outline of what the book was about; this was far too long so I didn't read it.

This affliction is common in Wikipedia where passionate devotees of a work can't help mounting their hobby horses to painful length and driving the rest of us to distraction. --O'Dea (talk) 07:17, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Pop Culture

Just thought i'd mention it was also mentioned on M.A.S.H Season 9 episode 10 - Operation Friendship. dunno if anybody wanted to add it. 50.137.3.98 (talk) 14:01, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:I, the Jury/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

I have hardly seen a Wikipedia rating I could disagree more with. Apart from the fact that there is hardly any information on the film (which should be of little relevance to an assessment of the novel article; at least the fact that it has been filmed twice is mentioned), the article contains a thorough plot summary and an analysis of the novel, although an unreferenced one (I've highlighted that part by inserting ==Analysis==). I've also added one or two external links to show that the novel should not be categorized as "Low importance". After all, it is Hammer's first appearance, and though the book was considered filth at the time of its first publication it is today considered as some kind of minor classic within the genres of crime fiction and paperback originals. This, I suppose, can also be seen when one looks at its publication history. I don't know if I'm supposed to change the rating myself or just submit my ideas here; I've decided on the latter. <KF> 16:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 16:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 18:39, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Plot Summary

Right now the plot summary goes to rather acrobatic pains to hide the identity of the murderer, which seems rather preposterous for a book that is over 60 years old and has adapted into multiple films. If I have time, I'm adding the murderer's name. Whenelvisdied (talk) 18:20, 11 May 2020 (UTC)