From: Brad Wendt <bewendt>
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 21:41:51 -0500

I just completed reading Monster and haven't taken the time yet to digest whether or not I feel Steve is innocent. For me, that wasn't necessarily the point. I didn't want to decide that, any more than I would want to have been on that jury.

But I did feel that Steve, in looking up to the toughness of those guys, found himself hanging around (not necessarily hanging out) with them at times. I didn't feel that he was a part of their gang or their group or there motivations. He wanted to be tough.

By hanging around them he ended up as part of the conversation Christine refers to when King says "all we need is a lookout."

Steve looked away. We may take that as him thinking about it or we might interpret it as his deciding against it.

Can we believe that he turned away and then walked away. That he didn't hear anymore about the plan and possibly coincidentally ended up at the store for "mints" when the getover went down. Why if he was involved did he not make some sort of signal, something. Would he just walk out with no positive or negetive signal of whether the place was clear or not?

I had read some of the discussion before I read the book and remember some mention of whether or not Steve was an unreliable narrator. I never could get that out of the book as I was reading it. It was a movie. He was writing what happened. His camera club teacher felt Steve was an honest person, due to what he saw in Steve's film making.

I too want to believe it was perjury out of his need for survival that made Steve say he was never there. If I was on that jury, if I only knew what I know from the book, could I with conviction, declare Steve guilty?

Karen Wendt Madison


At 10:29 AM 7/26/99 00, you wrote:
Received on Mon 26 Jul 1999 09:41:51 PM CDT