|
Junkenstein posted:And then pretty much retconning what we see in Black House when it actually came to the climax of the Dark Tower and the Crimson King. EEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!! EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 03:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 08:58 |
|
|
I actually liked the Tommyknockers, but I am a weirdo who enjoys King's writing of small town life.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 09:09
|
|
|
GreyPowerVan posted:I actually liked the Tommyknockers, but I am a weirdo who enjoys King's writing of small town life. I really like the Tommyknockers as well. Yeah, it's got its flaws and it's too long for its own good, but the concept is great.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 15:50
|
|
|
Yeah. Tommyknockers is too long, but that is just about its worst sin. I really like it otherwise. Trim a hundred pages or two, and it could be amazing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 15:54
|
|
|
I'm on page 146 of Revival and Jamie just met Jacobs again. Does it pick up soon? It's okay so far, but I'm getting tired of the biography.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 16:01
|
|
|
Yes but I considered the part you've already read the better part. But that's the King stuff I like.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 16:38
|
|
|
GreyPowerVan posted:Shows you how little other authors write. (I'm looking at you GURM) To be fair, writing is not all cranking out first drafts. King says he spends a couple hours a day writing first draft stuff, but several more hours polishing: editing, revising, rewriting, which is also "writing". He's got a pretty efficient work program, not all authors can be that organized.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 20:29
|
|
|
Pheeets posted:To be fair, writing is not all cranking out first drafts. King says he spends a couple hours a day writing first draft stuff, but several more hours polishing: editing, revising, rewriting, which is also "writing". He's got a pretty efficient work program, not all authors can be that organized. It's probably more fair to compare King and GRRM with respect to The Dark Tower series, which King was taking his time with until after his accident (and which most people think started to dive in quality once he rushed through it). Even if King hadn't written a couple dozen books and stories in between The Dark Tower entries, I'm not sure he would have finished it much faster. There's really unique challenges with writing long series like that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 20:41
|
|
|
http://www.oregonlive.com/books/index.ssf/2014/11/stephen_kings_revival_revives.htmlquote:So now that he's written a follow-up to "The Shining," could we also get a "Stand" sequel? Maybe.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 05:57
|
|
|
Frannie fell into a well? No great loss.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 06:15
|
|
|
Was there an eclipse? Did Fran touch her kid in the bathing suit area?
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 06:48
|
|
|
Blade_of_tyshalle posted:Frannie fell into a well? Hate to be emptyquoting, but yeah.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 07:00
|
|
|
GreyPowerVan posted:I actually liked the Tommyknockers, but I am a weirdo who enjoys King's writing of small town life. The section with the two brothers is a portrait of SK and his brother. It is a fantastic short story and really touching when you know it is essentially a love letter to his brother. It might even have been published as a short story. Tommyknockers gets knocked because it is a wacky homage to 50s pulp sci fi. I like it. If you aren't creeped out by the contents of the shed then you're not truly putting yourself in that place. Blade_of_tyshalle posted:Frannie fell into a well? Going to go against that. Remember who stood up to Mother Abigail's last request? I like Frannie acting the way she does - against her mum and for her dad, deciding to split with Jessie, admitting that in the post-plague world she needs a man and choosing who she does. Frannie gets a bad rap and I can see why but I think it's unfair. She's an ideal "I" character through which to see many events. We need those characters who feel weak and disorientated in a new and strange world of The Stand. The only reason Fran gets a worse rap than LUCY is that Lucy is hardly in it. Super Ninja Fish posted:The Stand is too draggy in some parts. Depends which edition. The original I think is better in some ways for pacing. The extended version is the best to read second time round, once you know the plot and want to spend more time with characters. The extended version was botched in editing, but I've said that before so I won't go over that again. Violet_Sky posted:Carrie is pretty bad. It's pretty middle rank King. It has a certain freshness and the Dracula style montage adds a touch of variety. It lacks a lot of King's later cliches and laziness. And - goddamn - it's SHORT. Savour it. This is what you guys have to endure every time I come back after taking a week off the internet. Apologies. EDIT: King on influences etc.: King has a record of being inconsistent/honest to the moment (take your pick). He once wrote of wanting to do what Lovecraft had done with Providence and set all his fiction in his hometown. When someone mentioned King's admiration for Lovecraft in a taped Q&A*, King muttered something like "Not since I was 13". Hmmm. Well, maybe he was speaking about HPL's style or politics rather than actually retracted his previous written advocacy for HPL. Either way, Stevie, I'd rather like to introduce the next bestselling edition of HPL stories instead of you, that ok? I could do with the cash. * The entire Q&A is on Youtube somewhere. Josef K. Sourdust fucked around with this message at 00:49 on Nov 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 20:29
|
|
|
GreyPowerVan posted:I actually liked the Tommyknockers, but I am a weirdo who enjoys King's writing of small town life. King's writing on small town life might be why he is one of my favorite authors. I loved how in salem's Lot he showed all the hidden sins of a small town (hence the Peyton Place influence of the novel). Still to this day it is my favorite King novel, while I think the Shining is his best (your favorite doesn't always have to be the best).
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 03:03
|
|
|
The Stand will be four movies. http://www.empireonline.com/news/story.asp?NID=42815
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 13:59
|
|
|
blue squares posted:I'm on page 146 of Revival and Jamie just met Jacobs again. Does it pick up soon? It's okay so far, but I'm getting tired of the biography. I am getting to the halfway point, and I've been loving every second of it. As a kid, my favorite thing about King was the death, the blood, the destruction, all of the scary stuff. Right around the time that Insomnia and The Green Mile came out, it really shifted over to an absolute love for his writing about people. I really loved Joyland for this reason. It's also the reason I like From A Buick 8 more than most people seem to. It is also what I really love about Revival so far. It hasn't been the least bit scary (it is starting to creep in a little bit) and I don't mind one bit.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 15:07
|
|
|
I like Joyland a lot, too..didn't care one bit about the ghost. For some reason Revival isn't doing it for me yet. For just writing about people, King is too outclassed by other authors.
blue squares fucked around with this message at 15:56 on Nov 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 15:50
|
|
|
Joyland was cool but I thought it could have played more into the "spooky fun house" cliche, as dumb as that sounds. I actually thought it needed a bit more cliche elements since that it was paying homage to. King set a real flavor with it though. You could practically smell the stale popcorn and the salt air, hear the distant clanks, roars and screams from the amusement park and the chilly ocean cold when the off-season rolled around.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 18:53
|
|
|
Hedrigall posted:The Stand will be four movies. 4 movies just to end with that absolute poo poo Hand of God ending. I'd rather they did IT like this.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 19:18
|
|
|
Hedrigall posted:The Stand will be four movies.  I can't think of a single book that was more justified in having multipart movies, given the length and scope of things like the final Harry Potter and Hunger Games. That said, I'm curious how the ending will be handled. A giant-rear end battle at Hogwarts -- regardless of what you think about the rest of that ending -- is an insanely cathartic and appropriate end to the series. And relative to The Stand's ending, the Hogwarts battle makes for a pretty good movie. Two hours of The Stand's ending? Uh... Edit: Then again, if the final movie is Matthew McConaughey as Flagg chewing scenery in post-apocalyptic Vegas, I take it all back. DirtyRobot fucked around with this message at 19:24 on Nov 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 19:21
|
|
|
Someone posted this, I thought it was cute:quote:For screenings of The Stand, cinemas will remove all of the seating. Experience The Stand, as it was meant to be seen! Standing room only!
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 22:37
|
|
|
DirtyRobot posted:
There is a lot of room available in a four-part adaptation to expand upon the ending. I'm sure literally everyone working on this knows that King's weakness is endings and hopefully the last part will make the Hand of God less hamhanded and unsatisfying at least.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 22:48
|
|
|
The Dark Tower got so, so bad. Look out for the harry potter and comic book references roland
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 00:45
|
|
|
Regardless of the actual ending, what about the first three movies? I'm trying to think of how they would end the first three movies in this four movie series.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 00:49
|
|
|
The Berzerker posted:Regardless of the actual ending, what about the first three movies? I'm trying to think of how they would end the first three movies in this four movie series. Four seems a bit much. I thought the pacing of the miniseries was actually pretty good, and it divided things up rather well. It's not like there are tons of minor conflicts, peaks and dips to sustain four films. I dunno how the comic broke things up, perhaps they're using that as a basis?
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 01:10
|
|
|
Super Ninja Fish posted:4 movies just to end with that absolute poo poo Hand of God ending. I'd rather they did IT like this. I bet King wishes he could rewrite that part, given how many people think he was referring to the literal hand of god, instead of a guy thinking that the bolt of energy created by flagg looked like one.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 03:07
|
|
|
joepinetree posted:I bet King wishes he could rewrite that part, given how many people think he was referring to the literal hand of god, instead of a guy thinking that the bolt of energy created by flagg looked like one. Thank you. It bugs me when people say it was a "Hand of God" ending, when it was very obviously a nuclear blast. There was just one character having a stray thought that it looked like the Hand of God; it doesn't mean that was what King intended for his readers to think.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 03:43
|
|
|
Why did Nick tell Tom, in Tom's dream, that he had to get to Boulder and tell everyone he saw "the hand of God in the desert", if King didn't mean that? Of course it was a nuclear blast, but I think it's heavily implied it was the work of God. Also, I'm really enjoying Revival so far. Rusty fucked around with this message at 06:53 on Nov 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 06:50
|
|
|
Rusty posted:Why did Nick tell Tom, in Tom's dream, that he had to get to Boulder and tell everyone he saw "the hand of God in the desert", if King didn't mean that? Of course it was a nuclear blast, but I think it's heavily implied it was the work of God. I don't see how you can read the book and get to that conclusion. The whole point is everybody in the book seems to fall for proclamations it was caused by the God and the devil, but it's all down to human stupidity, from the dude escaping a simple spill causing the outbreak all the way to end where a nuke gets set off. And eventually there's ties with gods in connected works, namely Flagg being a semi-eternal evil spirit across multiple levels, but he's not all that connected to true demonic forces other than being able to wake up in another reality at the end. Same goes with Mother Abigail not really being connected to god - other Stephen King works already establish that most of them contain plain old non-religious supernatural forces. Psychic forces are a thing in them, but religous prophecies not so much. Even though characters often interpret them that way.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 07:01
|
|
|
I think the book can legitimately be interpreted that way, I think when I first read it I did. But when I read it again, I felt like he was pretty deliberate in the religious themes. I thought the part that kind of solidified it for me was the multiple people seeing the hand of god setting off the nuke, and dream Nick telling Tom to make it back so he could tell them all. I could be wrong, it just seems a bit heavy handed in parts to dismiss entirely.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 07:35
|
|
|
The Berzerker posted:Regardless of the actual ending, what about the first three movies? I'm trying to think of how they would end the first three movies in this four movie series. 4? Dunno. 3 would be pretty obvious given how the book is broken up into three pretty distinct "acts". I would wager it would be Captain Trips/Dreams, Trip to Nebraska/Vegas, Boulder Free Zone, and the trip to/confrontation with Flagg for the last one. Pheeets posted:Thank you. It bugs me when people say it was a "Hand of God" ending, when it was very obviously a nuclear blast. There was just one character having a stray thought that it looked like the Hand of God; it doesn't mean that was what King intended for his readers to think. The miniseries didn't help matters. Everyone sounds pretty embarassed on the DVD commentary at that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 07:44
|
|
|
Rusty posted:I think the book can legitimately be interpreted that way, I think when I first read it I did. But when I read it again, I felt like he was pretty deliberate in the religious themes. I thought the part that kind of solidified it for me was the multiple people seeing the hand of god setting off the nuke, and dream Nick telling Tom to make it back so he could tell them all. I could be wrong, it just seems a bit heavy handed in parts to dismiss entirely. The hand of god is explicitly described as Flagg's bold of energy coming back down, and not an actual hand of god. The religious theme is deliberate but not in the sense that a literal god comes down and destroys Vegas. The idea, as stated by King in multiple interviews, is inspired by old testament vs. new testament. Vegas has the "adore me at all costs even if what I say seems horrible to you" leader. Boulder has the "be nice to you neighbor while I disappear for a while leader." And the point is that Vegas destroys itself. Flagg creates a bolt of energy to silence one of this followers who spoke up against the executions, and the bolt of energy ricochets and hits the nuke. One of the Boulder folks thinks it looks like the hand of god, but that is it. And it is something that was built up for a very long time. Which is why I think if King could take back the reference, he would. Because the point was set up far ahead of time: we are constantly shown that Vegas has far more power and competent people than Boulder, but that they keep getting in their own way: Flagg kills Nadine, Trashcan man destroys their airforce, etc. So Flagg accidentally destroying Vegas just as they are about to reach their most powerful because he can't handle a guy questioning in public is very appropriate. But the hand of god visual has led a number of people to think it is literally a hand of god coming out of nowhere to end the story (which not only is pretty explicitly not what is said in the book, but wouldn't fit thematically in a book where the most important thing the "good" religious leader does is disappear and die). joepinetree fucked around with this message at 08:45 on Nov 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 08:38
|
|
|
joepinetree posted:The hand of god is explicitly described as Flagg's bold of energy coming back down, and not an actual hand of god. I haven't read the book since the 90s and I can't stay awake for the miniseries so this explanation is much appreciated. And it makes a lot of sense.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 09:11
|
|
|
joepinetree posted:The hand of god is explicitly described as Flagg's bold of energy coming back down, and not an actual hand of god. I could certainly be wrong, I have never read any King interviews on it or done any looking, I guess to put it a different way, I think the Flagg energy turned in to a hand, was kind of like God coming out of the shadows and saying "yeah, this has been my show all along" and then blowing the city up with e nuke old testament style. Rusty fucked around with this message at 09:42 on Nov 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 09:34
|
|
|
Rusty posted:I pretty much agree with this, and I certainly never thought that the Hand of God caused the explosion directly, and there is no doubt that Vegas, and Flagg were already faltering. I just think that the idea that everything was just a coincidence and happened on it's own, like Flagg losing his powers and influence, Stu breaking his leg, Tom getting away, the one spy getting shot in the head, etc. were predetermined. They were in Vegas for the explosion, and Tom and Stu were there to be witnesses.It also just wasn't one person that saw the hand of god, it was also Tom, and dream Nick. The hand of God was't the explosion, but the Flagg energy turned in to something to cause the nuke to explode. That doesn't fit either King's work in general, nor does it fit the narrative. It was predetermined to the extent that mother Abigail was a sort of psychic and knew it would happen, not in the sense that literal god had to wait for a nuke to be there to be able to destroy them. If I had to guess why King used the "hand of God" imagery, it was more in reference to Flagg (the energy ball was his, after all) in a reference to self destruction, than to a monotheistic god looking for a way to get rid of Vegas. Not to mention that both references to "hand of God" are from the perspective of how characters saw it, not how King described it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 16:32
|
|
|
Honest question: Does the fact that so many people have latched onto this one issue a sign that King is terrible at endings or awesome at them? Personally, I think it's really only the use of the incredibly loaded noun "God," which in context appears to some to be describing the One True God, revealed to have orchestrated the entire novel, causing lots of people to but their criticism caps on. He could have said "Hand of Satan," instead. To me, it was pure metaphor, and nothing more. Or even less, just the simile of, "what the event looked like to some characters." When I read it, I thought it was clear it was Flagg's hap-hazard use of his powers which caused the nuke to go off; and that some characters described it as "Hand of God," but I never thought for a moment, after having just read such a long book (I've read both versions), a book which to me seemed to lack any true divine intervention, that suddenly at the end "GOD" God uncharacteristically stepped in to win it for the good guys. I think I was only somewhat put off by Flagg showing up reincarnated somewhere after being vaporized in a nuclear fireball. It went beyond what I thought of as the "limits of the supernatural" present in the rest of the book (that's phrased awkwardly, I'm sorry, but I think you know what I mean.) There were supernatural aspects, and of course Mother Abagail was deeply religious and saw God's work in everything, and naturally so would some of her followers. Flagg's resurrection chafed... but I later just chalked that up to King's sometimes (sometimes? yeah, sometimes) ham-fisted need to link everything to The Dark Tower (I'm looking you YOU, Black House!!). Hrm. I don't think the body of my post really sticks to the original question, so I'll try to finish what I started: King's use of one powerful word in an ambiguous way could be seen as a misstep or it could be seen as brilliant. Dr. Faustus fucked around with this message at 21:43 on Nov 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 21:39
|
|
|
joepinetree posted:That doesn't fit either King's work in general, nor does it fit the narrative. It was predetermined to the extent that mother Abigail was a sort of psychic and knew it would happen, not in the sense that literal god had to wait for a nuke to be there to be able to destroy them. If I had to guess why King used the "hand of God" imagery, it was more in reference to Flagg (the energy ball was his, after all) in a reference to self destruction, than to a monotheistic god looking for a way to get rid of Vegas. Not to mention that both references to "hand of God" are from the perspective of how characters saw it, not how King described it. It can be interpreted both ways, but I there is strong evidence that Stu and Tom were meant to witness so they could tell Boulder. That's why he got hurt. The main reason I responded though was the idea that just one character saw it and it could have made a mistake and just been written out. It gets referenced by 4 characters and the "hand of God" itself gets referenced throughout the book. For example, chapter 52: "Acts was the last book in the bible where doctrine was backed up by miracles, and what were miracles but the divine hand of God at work on the earth". On the way back to Boulder: "Wasn't that what Tom said about Vegas? The hand of God came down out of the sky." "If he dies, you and Kojac have to go. You have to get back to Boulder and tell them you saw the hand of God in the desert" There are a few more. I like the idea that it was all just a big coincidence, and Flagg was just incompetent (he was and was losing people already), but I think the God stuff got so heavy handed by the end, that it is hard for me to subscribe it all to random events. And of course all the supernatural stuff and mother Abigail and so on. That's all I have to say about it. I will read it again some day and maybe not have that theme so stuck in my head the next time, like the first time I read it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 22:05
|
|
|
I have so many King books I haven't read, including the last 60% or so of It, and the last 4 Dark Tower books... But now I just want to read The Stand again.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 00:06
|
|
|
Rusty posted:I think it fits with both. King has a lot of coincidences in his books, but I think they just appear as coincidences and to King they are actually pre-determined events. He says this type of things in a lot of his books (most recently Revival) so I think it does fit his work. It also fits the Stand because there is so much foreshadowing throughout the book. Finally, I'll point out that "the hand" while being Flagg's energy (as I pointed out already) transforms in the eyes of both the characters, Larry and Ralph, in to something that looks like a hand for some reason. King kind of uses Larry to describe what was once a ball of electricity that transforms in to a hand of God. Then, dream Nick tells Ralph he has to tell the people of Boulder that he witnessed "the hand of God in the desert". So it's literally 4 characters that saw it that way. It doesn't really fit both. I mean, people can interpret things multiple ways, and there is no one way to interpret anything, but if we are to look at the text to see which things have better support, it is clear which one has better support. And no, it is not that it was all a coincidence and Flagg was just incompetent. That is completely missing the point of what I've said: the point is Flagg (and the old testament style god) will inevitably fail. It isn't that maybe if flagg was more competent things would have worked out. The entire point is that Flagg will inevitably fail, because the sort of people he attracts is people like trashcan man and Henreid, and not because god will come out of nowhere to save people. And the support of this is the following: - In a book with no set narrator, the hand of god comment is exclusively described from the character's point of view. At no point it is described as the actual hand of god, just as "so and so said it was the hand of god," or "so and so thought it looked like the hand of god." - The book goes out of its way to make it so that any supernatural vision the Boulder folks have is either of Flagg or of Mother Abigail. There is no voice of god, message of god, anything like that. Only mother abigail and Flagg. There is no god telling them to follow mother abigail, or any other similar intervention. Only her communicating with them directly. - Flagg is the only one showing with actual supernatural power beyond a psychic ability. And we know Flagg from other books. Mother Abigail's power is limited to psychic abilities (seeing the future, communicating via dreams), no other special powers. - The most notable thing Mother Abigail does while in Boulder is disappear without leaving any instructions whatsoever. Nothing. No clues, no "do this." So King clearly wanted to convey that people in Boulder believed Mother Abigail spoke to God, and that they believed God saved them from Vegas. But clearly also goes way out of his way to make sure that, beyond Abigail's psychic abilities, absolutely nothing that happens in Boulder is caused by any sort of divine intervention or special powers. And even when discussing the dreams and visions, King goes to great lengths to make sure that it is conveyed that they are dreaming/talking to Abigail, not God. The only one shown using special powers (besides psychic ability) is Flagg. Likewise, every Boulder "success" is showing as the result of hard, frequently dirty work as a community. Again, it is not an accident that Flagg is shown as a dictator that uses his actual powers, and Abigail is a "disappear and do nothing" leader, and the point is precisely that Flagg was bound to fail (and not that he only failed because god decided to step in).
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 06:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 08:58 |
|
|
joepinetree posted:- Flagg is the only one showing with actual supernatural power beyond a psychic ability. And we know Flagg from other books. I'd want to note that The Stand is Flagg's first appearance. I would prefer to not interpret the character in The Stand through what Steve-O later came up with.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 11:56
|
|
