|
Be Depressive posted:Also there's certain details like Junior's brain tumor that are flat-out told to the reader in narration, and would be more interesting if left something of a mystery.
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2013 04:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 08:30 |
|
|
Stephen King wrote a whole column about why there are changes in the Under the Dome series and why he approves of them: hhttp://www.stephenking.com/promo/utd_on_tv/letter.html
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2013 14:08
|
|
|
Be Depressive posted:I'm definitely going to finish reading this, because I liked the first 20% so much, but man I am so glad the tv show is changing the story. Otherwise it would just be a dark, misanthropic, seemingly pointless and depressing show. In regards to the book, this is typical of King. The evils of Small Town, America. Several of his book has had the theme of small communities destroying themselves, ignoring bad stuff happening or similar when faced with unusual circumstances. Salem's Lot, IT, etc.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2013 20:29
|
|
|
The ages of 11-13 are really about perfect to get into King. There isn't anything in King that kids that age don't already talk about with their friends anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2013 04:43
|
|
|
69% though Under The Dome now... Why is it that The Chef is the only character that I have any affection for? I really like him, too. He's right about everything.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2013 07:28
|
|
|
Attitude Indicator posted:In regards to the book, this is typical of King. The evils of Small Town, America. Several of his book has had the theme of small communities destroying themselves, ignoring bad stuff happening or similar when faced with unusual circumstances. Salem's Lot, IT, etc. It also helps to remember that King really, really hated the Bush administration and Under the Dome is basically him venting about it as it drew to a close. It's a parable about how Dick Cheney used a catastrophe to seize power and in the process only hosed things up even more for everybody involved rather than a realistic depiction of how average people would react in that situation. It's always fun to find (presumably unintentional) hints or references to the ideas that King is kicking around for his next book, and Duma Key has this one tangent where King spends a few pages having the main character read a book about the War in Iraq and muse about how Bush Lied and People Died. Knowing now that he had Under the Dome in the works you can practically hear his mind kicking the ideas around.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2013 08:08
|
|
|
The Berzerker posted:OH DO YOU I'm on disc 6 of 7 of the audiobook. My first audiobook experience and it's gone really well actually, King's voice really comes out well that way. Also Michael Kelly reads it. I'd be lying if I said he wasn't the reason I got that format instead of the normal paperback. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2013 18:11
|
|
|
I just re-read Under The Dome and 11/22/63. I liked UTD's ending the first time around, but this time it felt pretty flat. I had forgotten about Shumway's experience at the bandstand and it just ground the whole plot to a screeching halt as she told it and the ending made even less sense with it. 11/22/63 actually improved, because I already knew the plot so I was able to appreciate the words more (if that makes sense) this time around. Stephen King is so good at making characters! I read a rather negative review on Goodreads that said: "For an English teacher, he sure uses the word 'obdurate' a lot", and I totally agree, but it only detracts a little - ok, a lot, but that's because I made the mistake of checking out the review while I wasn't half done with the re-read.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2013 18:38
|
|
|
All the love for The Long Walk earlier in this thread made me finally read it.  That was really good.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2013 04:41
|
|
Gandalf21 posted:All the love for The Long Walk earlier in this thread made me finally read it. Some of the slang and character types are a touch dated, but it's still one of my all-time favorite King efforts. I generally like all of the older stuff he released as Bachman. Now, go ahead and read Rage, Road Work, and The Running Man.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 02:19
|
|
|
But not Thinner and definitely not Blaze.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 19:14
|
|
|
Victorkm posted:But not Thinner and definitely not Blaze. Sorry outside of The Long Walk, I thought Thinner was better than any of the other Bachman Books. That said I haven't read either of them since 1986 when I was in 8th grade.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 19:22
|
|
|
nate fisher posted:Sorry outside of The Long Walk, I thought Thinner was better than any of the other Bachman Books. Maybe I am thinking about the movie as opposed to the book. The movie was pretty bad.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2013 16:42
|
|
|
Victorkm posted:Maybe I am thinking about the movie as opposed to the book. The movie was pretty bad. It's been a good long while, but I also remember enjoying reading Thinner. But dear God, yes, stay away from the movie. Far away. That same advice extends to The Running Man.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2013 16:55
|
|
|
Bullshit. I love the movie. It's super different from the book but it was great.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2013 19:45
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2013 22:26
|
|
|
The Running Man has a spoiler right in the introduction. Like King is talking about writing as Bachmann and casually drops the ending of the book onto like the third page of said book. I'm going to read several King books in the near future and was wondering if there are any other introductions or prologues that I should just skip?
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2013 06:02
|
|
|
Iowa Snow King posted:I'm going to read several King books in the near future and was wondering if there are any other introductions or prologues that I should just skip? Basically all of them. He often writes intro essays years after the fact, with an intended audience of people who have already read the book and bought the re-release. If you don't want plot details or character names spoiled for you, always save the intro for the end.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2013 16:39
|
|
|
King also doesn't really believe in the concept of "spoilers." Back when he was writing a column for Entertainment Weekly (does he still do that?) I believe he had a small rant about how he hated the rise of the concept of spoilers among the general reading population, though I don't quite remember his reasoning or the context of the rant.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2013 17:33
|
|
|
H.P. Shivcraft posted:King also doesn't really believe in the concept of "spoilers." Back when he was writing a column for Entertainment Weekly (does he still do that?) I believe he had a small rant about how he hated the rise of the concept of spoilers among the general reading population, though I don't quite remember his reasoning or the context of the rant. He thinks it's stupid for people to zealously attempt to avoid any information whatsoever about what happens in a book they're planning to read. He also believes that any story that can have the reading experience completely ruined just by someone else revealing plot points is a bad story to begin with - a good writer's book will still be an entertaining and engrossing read even if the entire story is recounted in an overview of the plot beforehand. And essentially he's of the mind that if people enjoy his books, they should feel free to discuss aspects of it with other potential fans without worrying about them being insulted for daring to "spoil" something - he particularly dislikes it when people get protective over spoilers for old books, ones that have been around for decades. I believe that was about it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2013 17:45
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:He thinks it's stupid for people to zealously attempt to avoid any information whatsoever about what happens in a book they're planning to read. He also believes that any story that can have the reading experience completely ruined just by someone else revealing plot points is a bad story to begin with - a good writer's book will still be an entertaining and engrossing read even if the entire story is recounted in an overview of the plot beforehand. And essentially he's of the mind that if people enjoy his books, they should feel free to discuss aspects of it with other potential fans without worrying about them being insulted for daring to "spoil" something - he particularly dislikes it when people get protective over spoilers for old books, ones that have been around for decades. I believe he is right.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2013 18:16
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:He thinks it's stupid for people to zealously attempt to avoid any information whatsoever about what happens in a book they're planning to read. He also believes that any story that can have the reading experience completely ruined just by someone else revealing plot points is a bad story to begin with - a good writer's book will still be an entertaining and engrossing read even if the entire story is recounted in an overview of the plot beforehand. And essentially he's of the mind that if people enjoy his books, they should feel free to discuss aspects of it with other potential fans without worrying about them being insulted for daring to "spoil" something - he particularly dislikes it when people get protective over spoilers for old books, ones that have been around for decades. I wonder if that's why he does the whole "and that was the last time he was ever seen alive" stuff, just to piss off the spoiler people.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2013 18:40
|
|
|
ConfusedUs posted:I believe he is right. Me too. Venerable literary scholar and general curmudgeon Stanley Fish stumbled into the same debate last year when he wrote an article on The Hunger Games for the New York Times and dared to discuss the content of the ending of the third book. He was boggled by the fact that so many people would be angry at him for actually talking about the book, and one that at that point had been out for two years to boot. My instinct is that King got onto this topic with, I think, the Harry Potter series? I don't know if that's just me wanting to see symmetry with Fish so I can have two examples of old men bewildered by the very weird way in which most people consume contemporary fiction.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2013 18:49
|
|
|
Stanley Fish's reaction is actually really interesting when you consider his criticism is often focused on the author's control over the reader's knowledge and expectations, and how a reader's expectations change or are repeatedly subverted as the plot develops over the course of a work, or even within the scope of the development of the syntax of a single sentence.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2013 19:51
|
|
|
Crunch Bucket posted:It's been a good long while, but I also remember enjoying reading Thinner. But dear God, yes, stay away from the movie. Far away. That same advice extends to The Running Man. Ahh, no way. The Running Man is the campest, most ridiculous Schwarzenegger vehicle. It's got future governor Jesse The Body Ventura, and former Family Feud nice-guy host Richard Dawson as the evil shithead villain. It's a good time. It is not much like the book, but it's completely fun in its mid-80s way. It is one of the better Stephen King adaptations, of which there have been an awful lot of terrible ones.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2013 22:27
|
|
|
I picked up 11/22/63 the other day and I had no idea it took place in Derry (partly, I guess, I'm only about 150 pages in) and I couldn't be more excited. IT is easily my favorite King book , and it's in my top 5 all time books. Derry is my favorite King setting, he just captures what a wicked, depressing, foul place it is so perfectly. I love that this part of the book is like a mini sequel. I haven't enjoyed a King book this much in along time, it's great that he seems to be in a good groove. I blocked most of Dreamcatcher from my memory, but I remember there was some graffiti saying "Pennywise Lives" and a Losers Club statue or plaque. Did he ever elaborate on who put those there and if Pennywise ever did come back? Your Gay Uncle fucked around with this message at 00:25 on Jul 18, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2013 11:02
|
|
|
I think in an interview that King claimed that Pennywise was too scary even for him and that there would be no sequel to IT. On the other hand, we discover at the end of the book that Pennywise was pregnant with offspring so its possible we could see an original story featuring a monster similar to Pennywise. IN fact I believe that this may have already happened in the Dark Tower, since it is implied that Dandillo is the same kind of monster as Pennywise, but weaker and more inclined to feed on laughter than fear. I would be very curious to hear from anyone who knows what the deal with the Losers Club plaque that is feature in Dreamcatcher. I haven't read that one so I'm sorta confused. The concluding events of IT leave you wi the impression that no record or memory of the fight with Pennywise still exist. Even the surviving Losers forget immediately and all documents relating to the incident start degrading at a very rapid pace. so who would have put up a plaque, and what would it even say?
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2013 19:01
|
|
|
Who's to say that the Dreamcatcher world is in the same where as the Derry in IT? Different worlds/levels of the tower and all that. In other words don't expect perfect continuity because a wizard did it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2013 19:32
|
|
|
I'm honestly fine with " A wizard did it". I think the main reason King wrote the Dark Tower series was so he could say " anytime you see something like that, it was in a different dimension". Continuity has never been his strong suit, didn't the oceans switch sides in between Drawing of the Three and WasteLands? If he ever did do a sort of It sequel though I think it could work. One of the main themes in It was that Derry was "haunted". Hanlon says it means a place where a predator returns for game (paraphrasing, don't have the book with me) but Pennywise was so powerful and was there for so long it could easily be justified that part of It remained in some shape or another. Or maybe a wizard will do it. Edit: yeah, things like that in the Dark Tower series I just attributed it to the world " having moved on". VVVVVVVVVVV Your Gay Uncle fucked around with this message at 00:30 on Jul 18, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2013 22:36
|
|
|
Your Gay Uncle posted:Continuity has never been his strong suit, didn't the oceans switch sides in between Drawing of the Three and WasteLands? Yeah it was weird. In The Gunslinger he travelled west through the desert, then in The Drawing of the Three he went north up the coast, with the sea to the east. I've read some "explanations" that said in essence that in the world of the Tower, assuming that it's analogous to the US, the distances are shorter and that he must have travelled from the East coast to just west and south of the Great Lakes, so that when he went north, Lake Michigan was on his right and somehow he considered it to be a "sea". But that all kind of falls apart in The Wastelands. Then there are others that say the world of the Tower is not like the US at all, and there are tons of fan-rendered maps that try to make sense of it, but none of them seem to agree in just how that world was organized. I think a lot of people assume that the story starts in Maine, so they try to fit it around that point. Also, for some reason, in the Talisman I've always just kind of thought that the Territories were in Canada.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2013 23:15
|
|
|
Well, it took me the better part of a week but I finally powered my way through this thread. There were a ton of posts from early on that I would have loved to reply to, but I was so far behind that it seemed unnecessary to resurrect them. I was a little disheartened to see Eyes of the Dragon not getting a whole lot of love, because it's always been one of my go-tos when I want to re-read a King book (I also don't remember The Girl Who Loved Tom Gordon being as bad as people seem to think, but it's been ages since I read it). I also read The Regulators first and vastly prefer that one to Desperation. My guess is that it's because after investing myself in the characters in the context of The Regulators, I found it impossible to switch gears and re-envision them in Desperation. I'd also like to take a moment to bitch about his brain tumor trope. Of all the quirks in his writing, that one stands out and irritates me like no other, and I can't really give you a good reason why. It especially pissed me off in Bag of Bones. There is no need to kill off a character with an undiagnosed brain tumor when it would be just as easy to have them be hit by a car instead. Love his stuff overall, though. Of all the authors I read, he's the one I'm most likely to go back to and re-read.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2013 00:59
|
|
|
Zamboni_Rodeo posted:Well, it took me the better part of a week but I finally powered my way through this thread. There were a ton of posts from early on that I would have loved to reply to, but I was so far behind that it seemed unnecessary to resurrect them. I was a little disheartened to see Eyes of the Dragon not getting a whole lot of love, because it's always been one of my go-tos when I want to re-read a King book (I also don't remember The Girl Who Loved Tom Gordon being as bad as people seem to think, but it's been ages since I read it). I also read The Regulators first and vastly prefer that one to Desperation. My guess is that it's because after investing myself in the characters in the context of The Regulators, I found it impossible to switch gears and re-envision them in Desperation. And that was the last time anyone ever saw Zamboni_Rodeo again. I still need to catch up on the latest episode but so far I'm glad I never finished Under the Dome because I have no idea what's going on but it's not pissing me off since I'm not expecting to see stuff I remember.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2013 01:18
|
|
|
I re-read Pet Semetary with that "Jud brought Norma Crandall back from the dead some time before the book starts" theory in mind, and while it was interesting to think about, I don't think it really makes a lot of sense. Norma has all the traits of an elderly lady, and no traits of any of the things brought back to life in the Pet Semetary that the book shows us. Still, it's a great book that is incredibly tense. Also re-reading made me think of how someone asked earlier in this thread if Ellie had "the shining" like Danny Torrance. She might not have exactly what Danny has, but she definitely has something going on. The whole book is a gigantic downer, but thinking of her having to go through all that and then go back to a normal life is rough stuff.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2013 01:37
|
|
|
Zamboni_Rodeo posted:It especially pissed me off in Bag of Bones. There is no need to kill off a character with an undiagnosed brain tumor when it would be just as easy to have them be hit by a car instead. That one was an aneurysm, which I actually liked- of all the ways to go, it's the one you'll never see coming, and you'll never have any way to avoid it. She was just walking around one day and dropped dead on the spot.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2013 07:06
|
|
|
^^^^^^^^^^^^ Fair enough. It's been a while since I read that one. I remembered the death being brain-related, and it did bother me just because it seemed to be overkill. I had actually never read The Dead Zone before I stumbled across this thread, and I went out to my nearest used bookshop to get a copy that same day. It seemed like he was setting up Stillson to have a tumor (what with the headaches and the mood swings), and then he pulled a bait-and-switch and had it end up being Johnny instead. Like I said, of all the common things he uses, that one bothers me the most and I can't really give a good reason why, other than maybe it feels like a cop-out. Every time I see it come up, it's like oh, boy, here we go again... I remember feeling that way when I read Under the Dome.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2013 14:23
|
|
|
Zamboni_Rodeo posted:^^^^^^^^^^^^ Funny you mention the brain tumor trope. I'm currently reading Under the Dome and finally caught on to noticing the 'searing headache is actually a brain tumor' thing does seem to show up a lot. Not exactly something you want to read while you're hungover.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2013 01:44
|
|
|
crankdatbatman posted:Funny you mention the brain tumor trope. I'm currently reading Under the Dome and finally caught on to noticing the 'searing headache is actually a brain tumor' thing does seem to show up a lot. Not exactly something you want to read while you're hungover. I'm gonna guess that Charles Whitman's shooting rampage influenced King a lot and he just keeps re-using it because, well that's kind of how he rolls. It's pretty crazy to think that an otherwise sane person could have an organic dysfunction that throws the "welp, time to go up to the old clock tower and starting executing men, women and children" switch in their brain.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2013 02:07
|
|
|
Greggy posted:I re-read Pet Semetary with that "Jud brought Norma Crandall back from the dead some time before the book starts" theory in mind, and while it was interesting to think about, I don't think it really makes a lot of sense. Norma has all the traits of an elderly lady, and no traits of any of the things brought back to life in the Pet Semetary that the book shows us. Still, it's a great book that is incredibly tense. I was the person that linked the thread about Norma Crandall and asked if Ellie had the shining. I remember when I saw the movie for Pet Semetary, I always wondered why they didn't fence the yard in straightaway. After reading the book, now I know that the evil part of the cemetery wanted Gauge to die so Louis could be the caretaker of the place like Jud was so the poor kid would have died anyway. The football analogy that Louis used was really depressing. Regarding IT: Henry Bower is a massive dick and deserved everything that happened to him. How dare he poison an innocent dog! I was happy that Mike got some justice for it! Yes, I know Bower did plenty of other terrible things but animal abuse really gets me. I felt like Patrick Hocksetter was a human version of Pennywise. That was the saddest and most uncomfortable chapter in the book. King did superb job of writing from a detached and unfeeling point of view. Did Beverly's dad have sexual desires for her but covered it up by being abusive in other ways? I thought the gang bang was more awkward than anything and was slightly amused that she didn't even remember that her first time was in a sewer with 6 boys until she went back to Derry. Mike's dad was one of my favorite characters and thought the stories he recounted to Mike were some of the most interesting parts of the book. It'd be cool if there was a book told from his point of view. I also thought that Mike and his dad had the best parent/child relationship through the whole book. The rock fight, the smoke lodge, Ben running away from Bower and meeting his friends, what happened to Derry during the second battle and Mike's encounter at the smokestack were other favorite parts. As for the movie: I saw it when it first came on TV many years ago so I decided to give it a re-watch. Oh, my it was bad. I felt like it would have been better if they had spent the first half setting up the kid's stories and the second half focusing on the adults. To Tim Curry's credit, that was the first time I laughed at the Prince Albert joke, though. I've been reading other books but plan to give "The Shining" a re-read and start The Dark Tower books.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2013 07:54
|
|
|
In The Stand, there is a short chapter that is a running compilation of mundane deaths that random people experienced after the first round of Captain Trips. Does anyone know what chapter or page that starts on?
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2013 06:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 08:30 |
|
|
That's Chapter 38. It's right after Stu meets Glen and Kojak, about a third of the way through.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2013 11:14
|
|