|
fishmech posted:I would at least read the parts in 5 and 6 about the priest from Salem's Lot (heck take those out of 5 and 6 and they'd make an excellent short story or novella), and definitely read 7. 5 was good albeit a bit goofy (Harry Potter and Dr. Doom), although I think they meandered around the town too long before the 'wolves' showed up. 7 redeemed the series for me and I really enjoyed the book (even the polarizing ending). With the exception of the gas station shootout, 6 was just painful to read. I barley remember anything else from it other than constantly checking what page I was on to see how much more I had to suffer through.
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2010 02:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 00:07 |
|
|
Polygamy posted:Believe or not I actually did come across two of Koontz's books that were decent. Fear Nothing and it's sequel Seize the Night. Granted they're nothing groundbreaking but for books about malevolent super intelligent primates but I actually managed to finish them without forcing myself to.The rest of his stuff is trash though. Seriously? Those are the only two Koontz books I've read and if that's his best, I'd hate to see his worst. Utter tripe.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2010 16:29
|
|
|
Re: Koontz Phantoms is his best, in my opinion, and Tick Tock is okay if "completely stupid screwball comedy with voodoo and aliens" sounds like something you might enjoy. Fear Nothing was too off-the-wall even for me, but Seize the Night scared the poo poo out of 13-year-old Shivcraft despite nothing really making sense. The first Odd Thomas book was okay, but the later ones spin out into his crazy hardcore religious nonsensical science-fiction tendencies, and also Odd is supposed to be loving twenty years old why in the holy hell is he so goddamned temperate and sage. Basically Koontz is a workmanlike writer who falls back too often on tropes that are far too divergent to ever coalesce into something worthwhile, be it a statement or a worldview: psychic/superintelligent animals, stolen or lost children, tortured male police officer protagonists, startlingly beautiful female protagonists who have led sheltered lives and do not know how beautiful they are, and in the tradition of Ann Radcliffe, strained scientific or naturalistic explanations for phenomena that have been presented as almost uniformly supernatural. Later books show a predisposition to holier-than-thou cultural criticism, a lack of gratuitous sex (which some of his 80s stuff had in spades), and needlessly wacky "humor." But to get the Stephen King train rolling again, I here reiterate my belief that The Shining is probably his best book. It is so good, in fact, that I've managed to get away with slipping it onto the syllabus of a class I'm helping teach in the fall. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2010 18:09
|
|
H.P. Shivcraft posted:Re: Koontz Is that the one with the shapeshifter that kills the whole town? Cause that was a pretty awesome book. Then again, I read it in the heights of my King obsession at ~14 years old, so that could have influenced my opinion.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2010 16:44
|
|
|
Loving Life Partner posted:Is that the one with the shapeshifter that kills the whole town? Cause that was a pretty awesome book. Yeah, that's it, and I'm in pretty much the same boat w/r/t the age thing, but it still seems like Phantoms is pulled of with more finesse than is usual for Koontz. I mean, it has some of his old hobby-horses (tortured cop protagonist, missing/dead child) but the pseudoscientific twist actually ends up strengthening the monster-concept and story rather than weakening it, in my opinion. Unfortunately the loving tapeworms eat each other's memories hurrrr factoid it hinges on became something else he revisited until it became loving ridiculous.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2010 19:55
|
|
|
3Romeo posted:Honestly? I had no problem with any of it, and it's still one of my favorite books. Though, to be fair, I read it first when I was twelve (over many long nights during summer break), right around that age when you're still exposed to new things and those new things have a way of becoming your favorite things. I guess maybe because kids at that age don't yet have a comparative mind. I dunno. Considering the epic build up the book takes up to the hand of god, it's a disappointingly pretty piss poor way to resolve everything. There's also the entire Harold Lauder subplot, which takes the form of a Wile E. Coyote scheme. Also, there's this, taken directly from page 1101: That night the dream changed. He was in the delivery room again. There was blood everywhere—the sleeves of the white coat he was wearing were stiff and tacky with it. The sheet covering Frannie was soaked through. And still she shrieked. Its coming, George panted. Its time has come round at last, Frannie, it’s waiting to be born, so push! PUSH! And it came, it came in a final freshet of blood. George pulled the infant free, grasping the hips because it had come feet-first. Laurie began to scream. Stainless-steel instruments sprayed everywhere- Because it was a wolf with a furious grinning face, his face, it was Flagg, his time come round again, he was not dead, not dead yet, he still walked the world, Frannie had given birth to Randall Flagg—
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2010 00:52
|
|
|
For some reason, I remember Harold's suicide passage being one of my favorite things King has ever written, lemme see if I can dig it up... Oh hae, quote:He wrote in his notebook, the words emerging slowly from the straggling letters:
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2010 01:40
|
|
|
randomfatguy posted:Considering the epic build up the book takes up to the hand of god, it's a disappointingly pretty piss poor way to resolve everything. There's also the entire Harold Lauder subplot... Again, nothing I had problems with. The Stand is a Biblical story (in the revised intro, King calls it a "long tale of dark Christianity" which I completely agree with). Judas' scheme and Harold's are equivalent, as is the sacrifice in Vegas. It's kind of like reading the Bible and expecting some climax in the New Testament where the Romans go to war against the underdog Jews. I'm sure he could have gone that way if he chose, but the novel is among other things a Biblical allegory. I'm not a Bible scholar by any means, but I knew enough of the story to appreciate what he was trying to do. I mean, don't get me wrong. The spoiler you posted isn't exactly elegant, and I agree with you. King's prose is pretty bad at times and he often goes off the deep end, like with The Kid and The Trashcan Man, and he has the same problem all famous writers do: he can't kill his darlings, even when they make a novel eleven hundred pages, and no one tells him otherwise. But inelegance or not, it's arguably his best novel.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2010 03:38
|
|
|
3Romeo posted:Again, nothing I had problems with. The Stand is a Biblical story (in the revised intro, King calls it a "long tale of dark Christianity" which I completely agree with). Judas' scheme and Harold's are equivalent, as is the sacrifice in Vegas. It's kind of like reading the Bible and expecting some climax in the New Testament where the Romans go to war against the underdog Jews. I'm sure he could have gone that way if he chose, but the novel is among other things a Biblical allegory. I'm not a Bible scholar by any means, but I knew enough of the story to appreciate what he was trying to do. You don't have a problem with an apocalyptic book that just suddenly morphs, disjointedly, into a modern fantasy book about a magic deaf-mute and a magic evil dude with magic retard-followers. What? Seriously the first part of the Stand is great but when it starts going magical I lost all hope in it being an actually good book. vvv A supervirus is more believable than a one-dimensional bad guy showing up and summoning lesser bad guys through psychic powers and a deaf-mute being his one true foil because deaf-mutes and really old ladies can channel God. Darwinism fucked around with this message at 07:23 on Jul 18, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2010 07:12
|
|
|
Darwinism posted:You don't have a problem with an apocalyptic book that just suddenly morphs, disjointedly, into a modern fantasy book about a magic deaf-mute and a magic evil dude with magic retard-followers. What? As if a virus that kills 99.44% of the world and spreads everywhere in under a week isn't magic.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2010 07:15
|
|
|
The Stand's anti-climaxes pissed me off. Not even the ending, but Wooo, big awesome bad guy buildup, maybe birth of some sort of crazy antichrist to make the final stages of the book exciting? Maybe! Stay tuned! Maaaaaybe! Here it comes! Oh, nope.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2010 08:10
|
|
|
Darwinism posted:You don't have a problem with an apocalyptic book that just suddenly morphs, disjointedly, into a modern fantasy book about a magic deaf-mute and a magic evil dude with magic retard-followers. What? No, no problem at all.  That's like saying I should have a problem with The Shining because it starts off about an alcoholic father and a psychic boy and sends up about a haunted hotel. The division of the plague survivors into their camps (and how they rebuild society in the face of conflict) is the heart of the book. Yeah, there's a lot of supernatural stuff--the dreams, Flagg's powers, Mother Abagail--but it's Stephen King. That's his stock in trade. The plague makes up, what, a third of the book? It's the catalyst of the story but it isn't the story itself.Edit: I suppose there's an argument to be made about baiting and switching the reader, and it's valid. Both Flagg's and Mother Abagail's introductions come as the plague is winding down and from there the story, as you said, becomes a "modern fantasy" (but it's about much more than a "magic deaf-mute and magic evil dude with magic retard-followers"). But thematically, it makes sense. Glen even mentions this when he's talking to Stu. The death of rational, technological society--what he calls the "death-trip"--is the precursor to a life where "magic" and superstition--all those things people lost or ignored in easy lives--comes back. It isn't a bad theme at all. Asbury fucked around with this message at 13:51 on Jul 18, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2010 12:57
|
|
|
Locus posted:The Stand's anti-climaxes pissed me off. Not even the ending, but Wooo, big awesome bad guy buildup, maybe birth of some sort of crazy antichrist to make the final stages of the book exciting? Maybe! Stay tuned! Maaaaaybe! Here it comes! Oh, nope. One thing to think about, as King mentions in On Writing He got a fairly decent case of writers block something like 2/3rds of the way into The Stand, and came close to giving up on it altogether, which probably has something to do with the way it ended
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2010 15:53
|
|
|
3Romeo posted:Again, nothing I had problems with. The Stand is a Biblical story (in the revised intro, King calls it a "long tale of dark Christianity" which I completely agree with). Judas' scheme and Harold's are equivalent, as is the sacrifice in Vegas. It's kind of like reading the Bible and expecting some climax in the New Testament where the Romans go to war against the underdog Jews. I'm sure he could have gone that way if he chose, but the novel is among other things a Biblical allegory. I'm not a Bible scholar by any means, but I knew enough of the story to appreciate what he was trying to do. I can see that now that you mention it, but while I was reading it I was hoping for an adaptation of Ragnarok with Harold functioning as Loki instead of Judas, so naturally I would have found anything other than that disappointing. 3Romeo posted:I suppose there's an argument to be made about baiting and switching the reader, and it's valid. Both Flagg's and Mother Abagail's introductions come as the plague is winding down and from there the story, as you said, becomes a "modern fantasy" (but it's about much more than a "magic deaf-mute and magic evil dude with magic retard-followers"). But thematically, it makes sense. Glen even mentions this when he's talking to Stu. The death of rational, technological society--what he calls the "death-trip"--is the precursor to a life where "magic" and superstition--all those things people lost or ignored in easy lives--comes back. It isn't a bad theme at all. The introduction of Flagg was pretty ridiculous, but it wasn't anything too bad. As you said, that's trademark King. Mother Abigail, however, signals the decline of the novel. It marks a change in the direction of the novel, changing it from a legitimately good story to one of "dark Christianity." It feels like King didn't know where to take the story, so he shoehorned it into what it became. Going with Glen, he discussed the rebuilding of society in much more interesting terms that foreshadowed something far different than people conglomerating into two separate societies of good and evil.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2010 01:34
|
|
|
randomfatguy posted:Going with Glen, he discussed the rebuilding of society in much more interesting terms that foreshadowed something far different than people conglomerating into two separate societies of good and evil. For the record: "...Most of the societies that form are apt to be primitive dictatorships run by little Caesars unless we're very lucky. A few may be enlightened, democratic communities, and I'll tell you exactly what the necessary requirement for that kind of society in the 1990's and early 2000's is going to be: a community with enough technical people in it to get the lights back on" (344). I agree that this would have been a better story had King decided to go that direction. Instead of two societies in Boulder and Vegas there could be five or six that he cycles through, each maybe with a different kind of government (theocratic, fascist, democratic) and the theme of the story wouldn't be Biblical good and evil but a kind of societal natural selection where different forms of government are stacked against each other. (He somewhat goes into this when comparing the efficiency of Vegas under Flagg and the lackadaisical people in the Free Zone). Except that isn't King. Even though some of his best works don't have any mystical poo poo in them at all, like The Body or Misery, almost all of his longer ones do. So what we got was King doing a Biblical allegory in his genre. One other point, going back to that bait-and-switch thing I brought up earlier. Mother Abagail's first chapter is on page 481, about a third of the way through, though she's referenced much earlier on. Compare this to book five of the Dark Tower, where King decides to take the series into meta-fiction three pages before the end of the book then shits up six and seven with it. (In the afterward to the series he bitches about that word but it is what it is). I don't know if he decided he liked the "what-the-gently caress" endings that have become so popular since Lost but whatever the case, there's the difference between a story that shifts theme after the beginning and one that changes near the end.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2010 14:18
|
|
|
Without trying to change the discussion too much (and because I don't have the energy to read 25 pages of opinions), can anyone narrow down what King novels are good to read? I only got into his books a few weeks ago with Misery and The Shining - both of which were superb and I'm kind of enjoying IT.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2010 12:44
|
|
|
Octy posted:Without trying to change the discussion too much (and because I don't have the energy to read 25 pages of opinions), can anyone narrow down what King novels are good to read? I only got into his books a few weeks ago with Misery and The Shining - both of which were superb and I'm kind of enjoying IT. Though you'll hear some arguments, my personal favorites (in order of publication): The Shining The Stand The Talisman It Misery The Green Mile Under the Dome Almost all of his short story collections are worth reading (especially Different Seasons and Skeleton Crew.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2010 12:53
|
|
|
The Stand is amazing, even though the ending suffers from Stephen-King-wrote-this-ending syndrome. But the journey is incredible. Salem's Lot was good but I don't get the hype it receives about how scary it is. It really isn't that scary, at all. Everyone is going to disagree with me but Duma Key is scary, beautiful, heartbreaking and fantastically original. It's my favourite of his recent output. Moreso than Under The Dome.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2010 13:14
|
|
|
Hedrigall posted:The Stand is amazing, even though the ending suffers from Stephen-King-wrote-this-ending syndrome. But the journey is incredible. I actually agree with you on Duma Key, that book really surprised me and turned out better than I thought it would. "I drawed you a pitcher, Daddy." is one of the saddest lines I've read in a while, in the context of the scene.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2010 14:41
|
|
|
If Duma Key didn't have the clumsy foreshadowing that King seemed to have picked up since Bag of Bones it would probably be my contender for his best post accident work. As it stands I think From a Buick 8 takes that slot. Does anyone else think that King writing in first person suits his style a lot better than third? He seems to hold you at a distance with his recent third person novels like Under the dome and Cell.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2010 16:42
|
|
|
3Romeo posted:Almost all of his short story collections are worth reading (especially Different Seasons and Skeleton Crew. I would also add Night Shift to that, thinking it over that might actually be, if not my favorite King work then at least in the top 5.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2010 22:05
|
|
|
Chairman Capone posted:I would also add Night Shift to that, thinking it over that might actually be, if not my favorite King work then at least in the top 5. There's some really good stories in Night Shift (like Quitters, Inc.) but it's not one of my favorites. Most of the work comes from his days when he was selling stories to any magazine that would take them, and it shows. Again, not awful or anything, but (imo) not one of his best.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2010 00:24
|
|
|
Octy posted:Without trying to change the discussion too much (and because I don't have the energy to read 25 pages of opinions), can anyone narrow down what King novels are good to read? I only got into his books a few weeks ago with Misery and The Shining - both of which were superb and I'm kind of enjoying IT. I'd add Pet Semetary. Also seconding Duma Key as being way more interesting than Under the Dome, which I thought was unsatisfying and dragged like hell 90% of the time.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2010 00:32
|
|
|
3Romeo posted:There's some really good stories in Night Shift (like Quitters, Inc.) but it's not one of my favorites. Most of the work comes from his days when he was selling stories to any magazine that would take them, and it shows. Again, not awful or anything, but (imo) not one of his best. Whatever the collection that has "The Raft", "The Mist" and "The Jaunt" all in one book, that's the best book. Because it has "The Raft", "The Mist" and "The Jaunt" all in one book.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2010 07:40
|
|
|
3Romeo posted:There's some really good stories in Night Shift (like Quitters, Inc.) but it's not one of my favorites. Most of the work comes from his days when he was selling stories to any magazine that would take them, and it shows. Again, not awful or anything, but (imo) not one of his best. Night Shift had some stories with really stupid premises, but he managed to make even the stupidest story ideas (A haunted laundry press? Trucks coming to life and trying to kill us? A mythical creature with a magic lawnmower?!) into some pretty drat entertaining stories. I've recommended 'Salem's Lot to my wife and my sister as an intro to Stephen King books. It's not his best, but I enjoyed it and it contains a lot of the common plot devices and character archetypes that he uses in some of his best works. I would also add Desperation and Hearts in Atlantis to the recommendations. Desperation is pretty brutal and goes for the gross out horror a little too often for my tastes, but I found the book pretty scary and I enjoyed the religious themes. Just like IT makes me nervous about walking next to drainage ditches, Desperation made me nervous (just a little bit) about my recent road trip through the desert.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2010 07:52
|
|
|
Well, it happened again. I started reading The Dark Tower (on the Kindle this time), and once again I've come to a dead stop in Wizard and Glass. I've never made it past that book. It's like a physical barrier! But, reading all your comments about how bad the ending is, maybe it isn't a bad thing. Eh, I've started reading The Stand, maybe I'll be more motivated when I'm finished with that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2010 11:23
|
|
|
Well, thanks a lot guys. I mean, I was looking at the enormously long wiki for his works and a lot of them sound interesting, but I don't want to waste my time getting into something that won't have a satisfying conclusion. It seems like Stephen King is a pretty hit and miss writer, but when he does hit the mark the result is fantastic.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2010 12:42
|
|
|
Hedrigall posted:Whatever the collection that has "The Raft", "The Mist" and "The Jaunt" all in one book, that's the best book. That's Skeleton Crew, yep!  Octy posted:Well, thanks a lot guys. I mean, I was looking at the enormously long wiki for his works and a lot of them sound interesting, but I don't want to waste my time getting into something that won't have a satisfying conclusion. It seems like Stephen King is a pretty hit and miss writer, but when he does hit the mark the result is fantastic. That pretty much sums him up.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2010 13:22
|
|
|
I almost never find anything by King really unpleasant to read. I've enjoyed a lot of his novels that other people tend not to like, including his post-accident stuff. He's a pulp writer, obviously, but he's an excellent pulp writer, and that's very rare. It is in writing a "satisfying conclusion" where King often misses the mark, and I'd say this makes him a much better short story writer. You'll find the ending to, say, "The Jaunt" much more satisfying than the ending to most of his novels.* *I thought the ending to the Dark Tower was actually pretty good though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2010 14:10
|
|
|
DirtyRobot posted:*I thought the ending to the Dark Tower was actually pretty good though. I liked it, too. It was pretty much what I expected it to be. If readers were paying the least little attention to the theme of the story, they would have guessed it, too. I was surprised at how many people got pissed off.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2010 14:06
|
|
|
Hedrigall posted:The Stand is amazing, even though the ending suffers from Stephen-King-wrote-this-ending syndrome. But the journey is incredible. Under The Dome and Duma Key are pretty good representations of two of King's favorite types of plots, the "big story with lots of characters about some supernatural disaster befalling the entire town/city/world" plot and the more personal "troubled individual encounters spooky and/or terrifying stuff" plot. If you liked Under the Dome better, you'd probably like stuff like The Stand and Needful Things; if you enjoyed Duma Key then you'd probably like Bag of Bones, Insomnia, Dolores Claiborne, maybe Lisey's Story. Like DirtyRobot, I've never really found a King book hard to read; I enjoy his writing style even if the story isn't all that great. There are some King novels that I have no particular desire to read again, but I've never stopped in the middle of any of 'em. I'd say Gerald's Game and Rose Madder were probably my least favorite King books. I really didn't like Cell either; it started out pretty interesting, but the last half was terrible. I do agree that King's short stories tend to be better plotwise than his novels. Seems like when he's not limiting himself to a few thousand words or less his plotlines tend to meander and grow a little out of control and he has trouble tying everything up in the end. Still fun to read, but then you end up with those "...well gently caress, now what?" King endings. His short stories tend to have much tighter plotting and that keeps him from going hog-wild and then not really knowing how to finish things up. dennyk fucked around with this message at 14:31 on Aug 7, 2010 |
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2010 14:24
|
|
|
It's a novella rather than a novel, but I read UR last night, and by God, what a piece of crap it was. I can forgive the fact that it obsesses about the Kindle (although why am I paying £3 for a sales pitch about a device I already bought?), but the plot is awful. King brings in all this UR poo poo which sounds pretty interesting, but doesn't actually have any relevance to the story, which ends up being the most clichéd poo poo imaginable. All it boils down to is guy sees the future, tries to change the future, succeeds, is admonished by the Time Police. It's a plot that I've seen before in a Goosebumps book when I was a kid. Then it all turns out to be a Dark Tower thing. Ugh. Apparently when he was approached to do a Kindle-only novella, it wasn't even supposed to be about the Kindle. King just decided it was a good excuse to write a lamp monster again. If anyone was thinking about reading UR, buy Under The Dome instead. Inexplicably it is cheaper than UR now.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2010 15:21
|
|
|
Mister Kingdom posted:I liked it, too. It was pretty much what I expected it to be. If readers were paying the least little attention to the theme of the story, they would have guessed it, too. I was surprised at how many people got pissed off. I'd like to see the Dark Tower books rewritten as taking place after the end of the 7th, now that Roland has things a bit... different. Leovinus posted:All it boils down to is guy sees the future, tries to change the future, succeeds, is admonished by the Time Police. click ♫ Never run away from the time police / you will not survive ♫ fishmech fucked around with this message at 15:40 on Aug 7, 2010 |
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2010 15:37
|
|
|
3Romeo posted:Of all his female characters, Frannie Goldsmith from The Stand is the best written. The funny thing is that King once mentioned he wrote her as the kind of woman he wanted to fall in love with (I think he mentioned that in Danse Macabre)...but she was such a bitch to Harold (Harold the Fat, Harold the Nerd, Harold the Writer) that I can't ever read that dynamic and wonder what if anything he's trying to say in there. She could have been nicer to him but I forgive her considering Harold at the beginning of the story is basically Chris-chan minus the animu bullshit. He's a non-showering, socially retarded, pseudo-intellectual pervert that's inappropriately posessive towards Fran. Darwinism posted:vvv A supervirus is more believable than a one-dimensional bad guy showing up and summoning lesser bad guys through psychic powers and a deaf-mute being his one true foil because deaf-mutes and really old ladies can channel God. You could make the argument that Tom Cullen was a magic retard, what with his level of mental handicap varying wildly to fit whatever King wanted him to do at the time and the use of him as a spy in Vegas because Flagg's telepathy doesn't work on downsies for no real reason. Nick was actually a rather good character until the bombing stuff though. pienipple fucked around with this message at 02:31 on Aug 8, 2010 |
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2010 02:04
|
|
|
So, I just re-read most of books 5-7 of The Dark Tower, and I think I understand much better why people hate parts of it so much. I kind of rushed through it the first time and was basically just in it for the rush and the camaraderie or the characters, but it really is full of some wacky and hosed up poo poo. I like the Harry Potter toys and the Dr Doom wolves, though. And I like how Wolves of the Calla actually uses the same font as the Harry Potter books in the chapter headings, anybody else pick up on that? Also I've probably mentioned this in a Stephen King thread before, but the fact that I grew up with a summer house on Kezar Lake on the same road as King's house there really contributed to my enjoyment of the final book, where Roland and Eddie end up there with John Cullum. Especially since they talk in Dick Beckhardt's house which was right next door to our house (before King bought it after Beckhardt and his wife died and subsequently renovated the place and now keeps it as a second house, the jerk). It basically drew me into the reality of King's self-insertion world, and it was like he was inserting me into the Dark Tower too, since some of the setting was from very specific and real locations in my life and childhood that maybe a couple dozen other people know about at the most. I just totally get off on that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2010 04:29
|
|
|
Hoo wee boy howdy, I just finished The Tommyknockers and I'll be damned if the whole town of Haven weren't really under the influence of telepathic space weed. Just the thought of an entire town going off the power grid and going out with missing teeth to buy out shitloads of batteries everywhere makes it too easy for me to mentally cast some of my more hardcore friends in the roles of Gard and Bobbi.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2010 04:49
|
|
3Romeo posted:That's Skeleton Crew, yep! Probably his best book of shorts. He really needs an editor that will tell him "No, this lamp monster is loving retarded", "Wrap it up already", "Bodily functions aren't funny if you are older then 7" edit: "No one cares about your favorite band, stop trying to shoehorn them into the storyA"
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2010 20:23
|
|
|
IT. I'm not sure it's actually a bad book, but it's about alcoholic writers and Maine and the seedy underbelly of society and ffs Steve I've already read The Shining and Needful Things and I don't need any more of that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2010 20:28
|
|
|
"Look King, I know getting hit by a van can be a traumatic experience, but get the gently caress over it already." "Perhaps you should cut down on the amount of magical retards. We got enough to fill up a small town in New England"
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2010 20:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 00:07 |
|
|
Will you just cut it out with the ironically scary references to Children's things?
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2010 20:36
|
|