|
Murphy Brownback posted:I thought early on it said he looked like Clint Eastwood, although I may be misremembering someone saying the way he talked/acted reminded them of him. This was how King described Roland up until sometime after W&G came out. When the two meet up n the books (I hate that that's a thing I can say), at least one character comments on how similar they look.
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 13:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 19:39 |
|
|
Murphy Brownback posted:My point was more that changing his race in this situation changes the plot (mostly just for Drawing of the Three, but still) - in that movie/story Red's race isn't particularly important as far as the plot goes. He is literally nicknamed Red because he is an Irish dude and it absolutely is brought up. (And since racism is brought up a lot in the book because Stephen King, it's a significant change to make the character black.)
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 16:35
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:He is literally nicknamed Red because he is an Irish dude and it absolutely is brought up. (And since racism is brought up a lot in the book because Stephen King, it's a significant change to make the character black.) I reiterate my point - it is not nearly as relevant to the plot as Roland's is to the Drawing of the Three, specifically with respect to Detta's characterization. You might notice that in Shawshank Redemption, the interaction between Andy and Red, and with Red and the other prisoners, is almost identical to as it was in the book. I guess you could make Detta hate Roland because she sees him as an "uncle Tom" or something, but you have to admit it will change things if the movie ever gets made. Like I said from the beginning I don't think it's a bad thing to change the main character's race, I was just interested in how they are going to deal with important plot points that don't work (as written) if Roland is black.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 19:11
|
|
|
Ornamented Death posted:Doesn't one of the later books plainly state that Roland looks like Stephen King? They'll cast the guy who played Lester Freamon in the Wire as Stephen King. It will be the greatest achievement of mankind.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 05:36
|
|
|
Roland deschain played by Donnie Yen
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 05:38
|
|
|
does anyone actually think the movie is gonna get made with Idris Elba instead of staying in development hell forever
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2015 12:34
|
|
|
Ein cooler Typ posted:does anyone actually think the movie is gonna get made with Idris Elba instead of staying in development hell forever Has Elba become the new Bruce Campbell? Just a few years ago , Bruce was the go to guy that everybody wanted to star in everything.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2015 14:42
|
|
|
Mister Kingdom posted:Has Elba become the new Bruce Campbell? Just a few years ago , Bruce was the go to guy that everybody wanted to star in everything. Yes, Americans do this every year or so, with a different actor. In direct contrast to Campbell, though, Idris Elba can act, and could probably get studio executives to sign off on a starring role in a major motion picture. I do hope that they actually make the movie this time.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2015 14:54
|
|
|
Book chat. Just listened to the audio book of The Library Policeman and wow it's really ...dull, all the worst of SK: AA chat, grizzled alkie struggling to redeem himself, Manichean struggle, deus ex machine, reaching into your past to defeat a supernatural opponent, children with mortal illness, characters intuiting all the right responses, dream exposition and all that drat magic. I thought all this crud was in Insomnia also. Aren't TLP and Insomnia basically parts of the same thing? I'm never going to read my copy of Insomnia again to find out. And Langoliers and Secret Window are two really entertaining and compelling novellas.... I can't remember anything about the fourth. I guess I never re-read 3 and 4 but I re-read 1 and 2 quite a few times. That period of Insomnia, Rose Madder, Needful Things, Desperation, Regulators, Dreamcatcher, etc is so cruddy. I can't believe that i bought all of those books new in hardback as they came out even when they were terrible. I think that although King now has better and worse books at least his better books are better than the 90s. The only thing I like from that period is Green Mile. I thought Dolores Claiborne and Tom Gordon were pretty decent but I don't want to re-read them (and I never wanted to read the DT books). I think it was Dreamcatcher that killed it for me and I've never bought a King novel new since then. I'll read library copies or read someone else's copy. I know there are some goodish books since then (I've read some) but it was that run of really lousy books that detached me. I just wasn't enjoying the later books, certainly not enough to pay money for them. I need a hug (or a refund).  E: Wasn't it after Dark Half (1989) that King got straight? I think that DH is the last King book I really enjoyed all the way through. That kind of explains why the 1990-2000 period is not much fun (on the whole). Josef K. Sourdust fucked around with this message at 01:56 on Dec 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 01:45
|
|
|
Josef K. Sourdust posted:Book chat. You're just like me, probably. I got into King around 1990 (Dark Half was my first book) in like 9th grade. Over the next few years I burned through all his books and when those books came out, of COURSE I was going to buy them. I think the final book I READ was Gerald's Game. After that I bought a few more but stopped reading them altogether. I decided one crazy night to give him another chance and finish up Dark Tower, since Wasteland was the last one that has come out when I was actively reading him. I LOVED Wizard and Glass, and thought "Finally, he's back! Now onto Wolves of the Calla". Of course that led to disappointment again. I read 11/22/1963 a few months ago and really enjoyed it, so I know he's got a few good ones out there again, I'm just salty.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 01:10
|
|
|
Mr Mercedes on Amazon UK for Kindle, 99p, I think for today only. Part of the 12 Days of Kindle sale.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2015 23:05
|
|
|
Is Mr. Mercedes good? I have read about 20 SK books (most recently Revival, which I hated), so I'm a big fan.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 06:59
|
|
|
Huh. I liked Revival, thought it was something of a return to form for him. I thought that one and 11/22/63 were both very solid.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 07:10
|
|
|
I loved 11/22/63 but Revival was just so boring to me. I couldn't even finish it
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 07:23
|
|
|
I liked Mr. Mercedes but it was definitely different from a typical King book. More of a detective novel than a horror/thriller type book. I also liked how there was nothing supernatural in it gently caress you king for changing that in finders keepers Also I didn't really like Revival much. I thought there was a lot of lead up to a boring lovely ending.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 07:25
|
|
|
I have read very few detective novels. Is it fast-paced?
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 07:28
|
|
|
Tbh I don't remember bc I read it when it first came out, but I guess it was good paced because I raced through it in about 2 days.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 07:32
|
|
|
AnonymousNarcotics posted:Tbh I don't remember bc I read it when it first came out, but I guess it was good paced because I raced through it in about 2 days. good enough for me! haha
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 07:35
|
|
|
Mr. Mercedes is pretty good if you can get past two major obstacles: King puts his shuck-n-jive talk in the dialogue of a bright young African-American boy, and there are some pretty Dickensian coincidences (or maybe just totally unrealistic computer forensics) in it that will make you roll your eyes. Revival was quite good. A slow burn where you're suspicious but not exactly sure of what, with a pretty sick ending. Finder Keepers (I just finished it) has even more Dickensian coincidences in it (I hope I'm using that correctly) but it's not a bad story. You'll want to read it before the last book comes out unless you decide you're just not interested. The bit at the end with Brady developing telekinesis isn't such a travesty. I don't know why people are suddenly insisting Stephen King of all authors must constrain himself from writing in some spooky action for the final act. It's definitely not "gently caress you, King," levels. Have you read Stephen King?
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 15:55
|
|
|
I liked Revival, but for the first time ever, it's a Stephen King book that I thought could have used more exposition. I wanted to know more about Jamie's bands.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 19:12
|
|
|
Dr. Faustus posted:The bit at the end with Brady developing telekinesis isn't such a travesty. I don't know why people are suddenly insisting Stephen King of all authors must constrain himself from writing in some spooky action for the final act. It's definitely not "gently caress you, King," levels. Have you read Stephen King? Everything he writes doesn't have to have some supernatural element to it. It was dumb that he added it in out of nowhere in the second book.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 20:42
|
|
|
Dr. Faustus posted:The bit at the end with Brady developing telekinesis isn't such a travesty. I don't know why people are suddenly insisting Stephen King of all authors must constrain himself from writing in some spooky action for the final act. It's definitely not "gently caress you, King," levels. Have you read Stephen King? ahahahaha that's garbage. It's so far away from the tone of everything that preceded it, it's as out of place as if "Jaws" had ended with Brody flying his Nimbus 2000 back to land.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 04:08
|
|
|
I've got bad news for you last two pissed off posters: The whole point of Finders Keepers is that old saying of King's: "I just follow the characters." Some guy doesn't like where John Rothstein takes "The Runner" trilogy? You don't like where King takes the Hodges trilogy? I think S.K. already told you what he thinks about your judgement.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 07:34
|
|
|
I liked Mr. Mercedes quite a bit but couldn't finish Finders Keepers just because the antagonist was boring to me. Still willing to give the third book a chance
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 07:51
|
|
|
Dr. Faustus posted:Have you read Stephen King? I'm sure they have, and that's why they hate that he does this poo poo again. I haven't read the book in question, so I don't know how bad it is, but King's stream of consciousness approach to writing often leads to weird tonal changes and stuff happening out of nowhere. Many of his books would have been better if he had a strict editor that would burn the final chapters and tell him to try again when he gets sober.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 13:22
|
|
|
kjetting posted:I haven't read the book in question... Long edit: I apologize, I am sorry. I'm not trying to be a dick, but I want to be clear: King has lots and lots of acknowledgements at the end of Finders Keepers. Now, I know this means nothing to you because we all fault popular writers for having lazy and spineless editors. We're all guilty of thinking this. That doesn't make it true, because we're not hugely successful and prolific writers. I read the full acknowledgements at the end of the book and he lists all the people who helped him sharpen up and polish that one particular book. I put it to you and to myself and to everyone else who says, "That author is too big for his britches and needs an editor to tell him where to cut it out," that we are not successful, prolific authors and we probably shouldn't judge because we lack the perspective to do so in an informed way. But at least read the drat book before you talk about it. This should go without saying. I made a good point just a few posts up. It links to the plot of the the novel but it bears repeating because if you know King at all you know how he thinks so many authors feel about writing characters: They don't always plot out their entire arc first, and even when they do; during the act of writing sometimes the characters just turn out differently. This is what I think S.K. means when he repeatedly says, "We don't write the characters, we just follow them." It's a line in the goddamn novel for Christ's sake. So if Brady from the first book does a thing that some of you say "changes the tone" or "ruins the story" then King is saying, "Tough titty, said the kitty." It's literally the loving plot of the book. A fan is pissed because the author is expected to take a character in a certain direction and as far as the fan knows, he doesn't; and the fan feels entitled to all sorts of brazen poo poo. Posting on the Internet isn't the same as what happens in the book but it comes from the same place. I think King's message is hugely obvious: Like it or lump it. I'll write what I like, you write what you like. I don't want to be that guy who just says, "Well, don't read it, then!" Go ahead and read it and criticize it. That's totally what discussion is about. I like discussion. You do, too. You'll take your stance and I'll argue mine. In this case I think the message of expecting an author to follow your expectations and being pissed when they do not is in huge blinking neon letters on a loving billboard and the people who are complaining seem to have completely missed that point. How? gently caress if I know. Dr. Faustus fucked around with this message at 19:14 on Dec 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 18:35
|
|
|
Well then.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 19:59
|
|
|
Mr Mercedes is worth reading. I liked it better than Dr Sleep. It did feel like it relied a lot on procedure that King saw on CSI but hey, I don't see much TV, so it felt fairly fresh to me. I listened to Sun Dog as an audio book and it relates to Needful Things the way Library Policeman relates to Insomnia. It's all poop, sadly. Josef K. Sourdust fucked around with this message at 22:11 on Dec 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 20:17
|
|
|
I liked Dr. Sleep a lot, until the twist at the end. After that revelation, it just kinda got "meh" to me and I was disappointed. I'd go into more detail, but I'm phone posting.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 20:20
|
|
|
Dr. Sleep worked for me, but I probably give King some leeway because I'm an alcoholic. I remember him saying, "We know our own." Well, when you're a kid that's not true. But when you're in your forties and twenty years in, it's like radar. Sorry if you didn't like my post, BiggerBoat.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 21:09
|
|
|
Dr. Faustus posted:Sorry if you didn't like my post, BiggerBoat. I was just loving with you. It was just very emotional and it cracked me up. I got "Finders Keepers" for Christmas and like it a lot but I'm starting to get that old "King doesn't know how he wants to end this" feeling and am worried about it. The coincidences are starting to pile up and I'm waiting for a giant monster from another dimension to show up soon.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 22:00
|
|
|
Mr. Mercedes This was a solid story. I liked the limited scope where the core was a retired detective and a psychopath. The plot twists of Brady accidentally poisoning his mother and Janey getting car bombed were unexpected and effective. I liked how Hodges went from near-suicidal despair to having a purpose again. Some minor gripes: why did King choose to give Jerome a penchant for speaking "ghetto" for no reason? I liked the character but it was weird how he kept doing that and it didn't go anywhere. Also, the climax at the concert was pretty good but I didn't believe that Brady had any chance of succeeding at his plan. It was a little dumb how he got into position with the bomb but decided to wait for no good reason other than for the protagonists to arrive. Also, I'll accept that a talented Geek Squad guy could put "ghost sounds" on Olivia's computer. But manufacturing plastic explosives was a little too far. Finders Keepers This wasn't quite as good as Mr. Mercedes. Hodges and his team seemed a little too invincible and comfortable. I liked in Mr. Mercedes how they were a barely functional underdog team with an overweight aged detective, an unstable computer expert, and a teenager, but here they were only held back by what information they had and never seemed to be in danger. I really liked the "Runner" book series and idea of there being a classic book series that ended on a low note, but there being two unpublished follow up novels that would redeem the author. Morris was a creepy villain (I liked little moments like having a drink on Rothstein's birthday, and forgetting he was the one who killed Rothstein), especially when I found myself sympathizing with him for a moment before remembering he deserved to be in prison. The supernatural stuff didn't bug me (although he probably should have just killed off Brady) as much as the "happy slapper" always working perfectly. It's like the improvised weapon in Langoliers, I guess King loves improvised nunchucks? The ending was ok, it seemed kinda generic to have Morris burn to death with the books. It would have been more interesting if he had been arrested and the books published, but he can't get copies in prison. Side note: Dang it, why is the third book called "End of Watch"? Why not just call it "Hodges Sacrifices Himself to Stop Brady?" Revival I agree that the start of the book was slow when taken alone. But the ending was one of the best that King has done (well, not on the same level as Jaunt. But way ahead of Stand). I think a shortcoming in Lovecraftian style stories is when monsters spill from the ocean or doom arrives from outer space, the impact is weakened if the victims are stock characters on a generic Earth. But in this case we had spent so much time getting to know the character's family, struggles, and who he loved, that the revelation that it was meaningless and all he could do was try to extend his lifespan before an eternity of alien toil arrived had an impact. The Reverend Jacobs character was great. I liked how he was smarter than most other characters but he didn't understand what the secret electricity was doing, and had zero readiness for the truth. It was an excellent moment when it is revealed that everyone who had been helped by the electricity was now dead or insane. Naming the evil monster "Mother" and describing them as ants could have been done a better, but overall this was a great book. Taking the time to build up characters so there was a sense of loss and despair was an excellent strategy, I don't think this would have worked as a short story where we didn't get to know and care about Jamie's family.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 22:05
|
|
|
Dr. Faustus posted:I've got bad news for you last two pissed off posters: That's a really poor justification for some really lovely writing. The guy doesn't like where Rothstein takes those characters because he doesn't agree with the politics of it, and how it upends his own worldview and how he sees the characters, that's vastly different to what King does at the end of that book, which is to toss in a cheating final line. He also sure as poo poo isn't following where the characters take him, because nothing, not one thing at all, hints at that character being able to do what they do.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 22:52
|
|
|
Mojo Threepwood posted:Cool post. Finders Keepers is a good example. You know why. DrVenkman posted:That's a really poor justification for some really lovely writing. The guy doesn't like where Rothstein takes those characters because he doesn't agree with the politics of it, and how it upends his own worldview and how he sees the characters, that's vastly different to what King does at the end of that book, which is to toss in a cheating final line. He also sure as poo poo isn't following where the characters take him, because nothing, not one thing at all, hints at that character being able to do what they do. The introduction of Kermit late in the book immediately foreshadows the character doing what he might be able to do. Also, congratulations for knowing sure as poo poo what's in an author's mind. I can name at least three successful writers who say the same as King does about their characters, but you just go ahead on with your bad self. Dr. Faustus fucked around with this message at 22:59 on Dec 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 22:53
|
|
|
I think this thread recommended Peter Straub's Floating Dragon, which I read most of while traveling for the holidays. It's pretty good! Though it's funny that he talks it up in the intro as non-supernatural, because uhhhh...
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 23:23
|
|
|
Not sure if I'm supposed to take this as a recommendation or not? :P Anyway, I haven't read a SK book in years because I got tired of his style, but I still consider myself a "fan". I like many of his books, I like many of the general ideas of the stories, I think he can write some very tense scenes, and I have been genuinely hooked by stuff he has written. Still, I also think he has shortcomings, and many of these are really annoying. I think his prose can be dull and lifeless and the characters bland stereotypes. He can write an engaging story, then apparently run out of ideas and slap on a silly ending from out of nowhere, and his pacing is often off. I also think he's one of the writers who should never be allowed to put a sex scene in his books. I think the last King novel I read was Insomnia or something, and I think that one tipped me over from reading everything and taking the bad with the good to finally getting tired of his bullshit. I stopped reading King before it became cool to hate him for shoehorning his car accident into everything and including doctor doom robots fighting with lightsabers and Harry Potter quiditch balls in the fantasy realm where Stephen King is literally god. I'd actually really like a book recommendation, so which are the best written and most bullshit free SK novels from this century? I'd like to give him another try and see if I see his writing differently now than when I was younger.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 23:52
|
|
|
Blade_of_tyshalle posted:I think this thread recommended Peter Straub's Floating Dragon, which I read most of while traveling for the holidays. It's pretty good! Though it's funny that he talks it up in the intro as non-supernatural, because uhhhh... and "It is completely shameless." But you may be thinking of this: "Without ever admitting it to myself, I knew that this book would be at least a temporary farewell to the supernatural material that had been my daily fare since I first began to butter my own bread by driving a succession of Staedtler Mars-Lumograph 100 B and Blackwing 602 pencils across hundreds of sheets of paper. Undead things in bandages, ancient curses, paranormal powers, the inanimate alarmingly animated, spontaneous combustion, visionary apprehensions, human beings uniting into ad hoc families to combat hideous literal evils, ghosts, ravening beasts, beckoning mirrors, vampiric entities, external horrors, that whole gaudy blaring blinding circus of metaphor made real -- at a level just below consciousness, I had decided to take my leave of all this dear, goofy imagery by wrapping it all together in one gigantic package and then... blowing it up! Anything like restraint or good taste was verboten, the aesthetic was grounded in a single principle, that of excess." He meant he'd take a break from the supernatural stuff AFTER he wrote Floating Dragon. I hope you enjoyed it and others will read it. kjetting posted:I'd actually really like a book recommendation, so which are the best written and most bullshit free SK novels from this century? I'd like to give him another try and see if I see his writing differently now than when I was younger. I LOVE to recommend (good) King books to people, but I need to know what you have already read, first. No point in saying The Shining or Salem's Lot if you've been there done that.  Oops, you said "this century." I have some recommendations but I still need to know what you've read of his since 2001. I promise I will try to steer you towards King you'll enjoy. VV Agreed. There is some other good stuff, but that's really good stuff. VV Dr. Faustus fucked around with this message at 00:28 on Dec 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 00:01
|
|
|
kjetting posted:I'd actually really like a book recommendation, so which are the best written and most bullshit free SK novels from this century? I'd like to give him another try and see if I see his writing differently now than when I was younger. Under the Dome and 11/22/63. Lots of people hated the ending of Under the Dome, but I didn't mind it, and it was only in the last 5 pages that they stuff they dislike came up. Everything else is loving great. A villain that you will LOVE to hate. Read UTD
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 00:26
|
|
|
Duma Key, Joyland, and, if you've read the Dark Tower, The Wind Through the Keyhole is also very good. I would say Joyland and 11/22/63 are my favorite latter day King books. Full Dark, No Stars has a couple of good stories in it, also.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 05:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 19:39 |
|
|
Dr. Faustus posted:I didn't know the title of the last book but I'm not at all surprised. What I expect of King is that there will be a twist that makes that title work in more than one way. He's good that way. There's a reason more things don't just end with the characters suddenly gaining supernatural abilities out of nowhere, and that's because it betrays the fiction of what came before. Not in a 'I don't agree with this politically' way, but in an inexplicable cheating the reader way. By the same reasoning, if the character opened the window at the end and flew away then it's ok because hey, that's just where the character takes me man. I agree with King, and as a writer I very much believe you go where the character takes you, but that isn't license to go wild. It's a very romantic notion but the writer's hand still guides it in some respects. People are annoyed because for two books there's not a hint or an inclination that it's anything other than a mystery novel. The world is grounded in reality and there's nary a mention or foreshadowing of anything that's supernatural, it's not hard to see why readers might be annoyed when the final line suddenly and clunkily introduces a supernatural element because there's no groundwork for it. I actually have no real issue with it in theory, and who knows the third book could be spectacular, but the execution of it is still terrible.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 12:35
|
|