Black House, Random House and Ann Godoff
Bev Vincent
Ann Godoff Had String of Hits, Misses
By Linton Weeks
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, January 17, 2003; Page C01
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A4048-2003Jan16.html
She also had some clunkers. Within Random House Inc., the suits are still
grumbling about "Black House," a joint production of Stephen King and Peter
Straub that was published in the fall of 2001 and was, according to one
publishing industry source, a multimillion-dollar write-off. "Hundreds of
thousands of copies of the book were returned," says the source, who refused
to be named.
--
Bev Vincent
www.BevVincent.com
"Time and Tide" at http://www.motordoc.net/sf&f/fantasy/time_and_tide.htm
"Dig In" at http://www.adau.net/judas_ezine/archive/0204/0204-21.htm
Vote for the stories and express your opinion!
Robert Whelan
> Random House Ousts Editor In Bottom-Line Decision
> Ann Godoff Had String of Hits, Misses
>
> By Linton Weeks
> Washington Post Staff Writer
> Friday, January 17, 2003; Page C01
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A4048-2003Jan16.html
>
> She also had some clunkers. Within Random House Inc., the suits are still
> grumbling about "Black House," a joint production of Stephen King and Peter
> Straub that was published in the fall of 2001 and was, according to one
> publishing industry source, a multimillion-dollar write-off. "Hundreds of
> thousands of copies of the book were returned," says the source, who refused
> to be named.
This really kinda pisses me off. King insists on these multimillion dollar
deals for these horrible books, and lets the publishing industry take
a bath, and the decent editors who go to bat for his greedy
experimentations get the blame. There is something truly reprehensible
about the way King pawns off his latest pieces of garbage on the
publishers and the public. He and Straub need a good beating for
pulling what they did, and taking money for it. If it doesn't
indicate malicious venality, it indicates gigantic hubris and
head-up-their-asses blindness about the quality of the nonsense
they kludged together.
Richard Edwards
> This really kinda pisses me off. King insists on these multimillion dollar
> deals for these horrible books, and lets the publishing industry take
> a bath, and the decent editors who go to bat for his greedy
> experimentations get the blame. There is something truly reprehensible
> about the way King pawns off his latest pieces of garbage on the
> publishers and the public. He and Straub need a good beating for
> pulling what they did, and taking money for it. If it doesn't
> indicate malicious venality, it indicates gigantic hubris and
> head-up-their-asses blindness about the quality of the nonsense
> they kludged together.
You promised to stay away.
Later,
Richard
Randall Flagg
not King's fault they thought it was good.
You seem to be implying King does this all the time. What other books did
King take millions for, yet the book failed to make a profit? If it happens
as often as you claim, then the publishers are idiots to keep buying his
stuff. So, once again, the blame falls on the publishers and editors, not
the King.
You wrote all that just for a vehicle in which to say "venality" dintcha?
"Robert Whelan" <rwh...@amanda.dorsai.org> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.10.103011...@amanda.dorsai.org...
Covenant
BOBBIE !!!!!
> This really kinda pisses me off. King insists on these multimillion
> dollar deals for these horrible books,
The publishing houses didn't *have* to buy them.
After all, surely *they* read them before publishing...
Surely ????
--
Covenant
A Man With Far Too Much Time On His Hands
Robert Whelan
No, I did not.
But I suppose, if I had, you would have too.
Richard Edwards
Hunh?
There might not have been a promise, but you did say you wouldn't post
to this newsgroup any more.
Later,
Richard
Thunderchief
Hehehehehe.
He just *can't* ;-)
>
> Later,
> Richard
TC
Thunderchief
> The editors read the manuscripts. They didn't have to pay the
> millions. It's not King's fault they thought it was good.
>
> You seem to be implying King does this all the time. What other books
> did King take millions for, yet the book failed to make a profit? If
> it happens as often as you claim, then the publishers are idiots to
> keep buying his stuff. So, once again, the blame falls on the
> publishers and editors, not the King.
>
> You wrote all that just for a vehicle in which to say "venality"
> dintcha?
C'mon! Do you reckon he knows the meaning of that? ;-)
TC
Thunderchief
> Robert Whelan wrote:
>
>
> BOBBIE !!!!!
<snork!>
That is all.
TC
Thunderchief
>> You promised to stay away.
>
> No, I did not.
>
> But I suppose, if I had, you would have too.
Aw, c'mon Bob!
Richards one of the good guys.
TC
Robert Whelan
On Mon, 20 Jan 2003, Richard Edwards wrote:
> Robert Whelan wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, 19 Jan 2003, Richard Edwards wrote:
> >
> > > Robert Whelan wrote:
> > > > This really kinda pisses me off. King insists on these multimillion dollar
> > > > deals for these horrible books, and lets the publishing industry take
> > > > a bath, and the decent editors who go to bat for his greedy
> > > > experimentations get the blame. There is something truly reprehensible
> > > > about the way King pawns off his latest pieces of garbage on the
> > > > publishers and the public. He and Straub need a good beating for
> > > > pulling what they did, and taking money for it. If it doesn't
> > > > indicate malicious venality, it indicates gigantic hubris and
> > > > head-up-their-asses blindness about the quality of the nonsense
> > > > they kludged together.
> > >
> > > You promised to stay away.
> >
> > No, I did not.
> >
> > But I suppose, if I had, you would have too.
>
> Hunh?
In the past year you posted a couple of times to one thread. The
other two posts were in response to me, when I recently showed up.
> There might not have been a promise, but you did say you wouldn't post
> to this newsgroup any more.
And the fact that I posted again means that I changed my mind. What
was the point of trying to pretend I had "promised"? Were you
trying to embarass me into continuing not to post? To save
this newsgroup from evil old me? Stuff like that just pisses
me off and I post more, you eedjit. Play your little hero
games off someone else.
Richard Edwards
>
> On Mon, 20 Jan 2003, Richard Edwards wrote:
>
> > Robert Whelan wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sun, 19 Jan 2003, Richard Edwards wrote:
> > >
> > > > Robert Whelan wrote:
> > > > > This really kinda pisses me off. King insists on these multimillion dollar
> > > > > deals for these horrible books, and lets the publishing industry take
> > > > > a bath, and the decent editors who go to bat for his greedy
> > > > > experimentations get the blame. There is something truly reprehensible
> > > > > about the way King pawns off his latest pieces of garbage on the
> > > > > publishers and the public. He and Straub need a good beating for
> > > > > pulling what they did, and taking money for it. If it doesn't
> > > > > indicate malicious venality, it indicates gigantic hubris and
> > > > > head-up-their-asses blindness about the quality of the nonsense
> > > > > they kludged together.
> > > >
> > > > You promised to stay away.
> > >
> > > No, I did not.
> > >
> > > But I suppose, if I had, you would have too.
> >
> > Hunh?
>
> In the past year you posted a couple of times to one thread. The
> other two posts were in response to me, when I recently showed up.
Oh, OK. Well, it's been pretty dead around here.
>
> > There might not have been a promise, but you did say you wouldn't post
> > to this newsgroup any more.
>
> And the fact that I posted again means that I changed my mind. What
> was the point of trying to pretend I had "promised"? Were you
> trying to embarass me into continuing not to post? To save
> this newsgroup from evil old me? Stuff like that just pisses
> me off and I post more, you eedjit. Play your little hero
> games off someone else.
No. You just said you would stay away. That was your choice. I don't
like you. I wish you would keep your word. That's all.
Later,
Richard
ald
<rwh...@amanda.dorsai.org> wrote:
>This really kinda pisses me off. King insists on these multimillion dollar
>deals for these horrible books, and lets the publishing industry take
>a bath, and the decent editors who go to bat for his greedy
>experimentations get the blame. There is something truly reprehensible
>about the way King pawns off his latest pieces of garbage on the
>publishers and the public. He and Straub need a good beating for
>pulling what they did, and taking money for it. If it doesn't
>indicate malicious venality, it indicates gigantic hubris and
>head-up-their-asses blindness about the quality of the nonsense
>they kludged together.
Hey, Robert, I was wondering when you'd make it back here ;-) I take
it from the above that you didn't like "Black House" either? I admit
that I *hated* the way they ended it, at least on the first read
through, and that it wasn't as good as "The Talisman", but I enjoyed
the book (other than the ending) even the first time, and have already
read it again (and enjoyed it even more then, since the ending wasn't
as much of a shock). Just a couple of quibbles with your post:
1) You're going off about what the original poster (Bev, IIRC) said
was "one source" saying that "Black House" was a multi-million dollar
write-off. I hadn't heard that before, and the facts don't seem to
back that statement up. Unless I'm mistaken, it was on the best
sellers lists in hardback, and it's just recently been released as a
paperback. That doesn't sound like something that the publishers are
losing money on to me.
2) As has already been pointed out to you, King's book *don't* lose
money for the publishers. Just because *you* don't like them doesn't
mean that most other people don't, and aren't willing to buy anything
written (or co-written) by King. I mean, come on, Robert, the
publishers would make money if he ever *did* publish his laundry list,
'cause some of us would still buy it to find the great tale in there
;-)
--
ald
reply via e-mail to a717 at erols dot com
Robert Whelan
I reckon one or both of you don't know the meaning of the word, which
is why you made a big deal out of me using it. It's a word, not
even a "big" word. I know it. Aren't you ashamed that you are
so illiterate? Why advertise it? Morons.
Arch Stanton
Robert,
Perhaps im begining to agree with you on your thoughts of king. I've read some
of his most recent work this month and i find it to be overly long and bloated
and ill researched and possibly containing massive continuity problems.
What did you think of dreamcatcher? Im finishing it up right now and I must say
I found the book to be sort've insulting to me. I can't exactly pin my problem
with the book down, but i think it's in kings treatment of the retarded. While
he tries to portray the character as a loveable angel of magical powers, the
way KING writes him and how others in his book talks about the character comes
off as really cruel and childish.
and for others reading dont tell me thats the point of the story, I know the
story exists in a childhood memories of the 'Magical retard" but the way
duddits is written seems insulting to those who truly are mentally retarded.
atleast to me anyway.
I also found Dreamcatcher to be "Padded" in my opinion in that there are long
passages inwhich nothign happens and is in no way pertinant to the book. It
feels like a 400 page book padded to 640 something pages.
ANDY
Why are you holding your cigerette like some kinda european nazi in a war
movie? - HANK HILL
to email me take off yer pants!
HppyButchr
>No, I did not.
>
>But I suppose, if I had, you would have too.
>
awwe. Thats so sweet that you post here as well. I'll bet you come with all
sorts of ways to tick it to Stephen King like boycotting his books. or paying
for other books and taking his, or going to the library and reading them for
free. You keep up the good work Bobbie. We're all real proud.
~Jeremy
The Happy Butcher
Thunderchief
> > >
> > > You wrote all that just for a vehicle in which to say "venality"
> > > dintcha?
> >
> > C'mon! Do you reckon he knows the meaning of that? ;-)
>
> I reckon one or both of you don't know the meaning of the word, which
> is why you made a big deal out of me using it. It's a word, not
> even a "big" word. I know it. Aren't you ashamed that you are
> so illiterate? Why advertise it? Morons.
>
You got that right, Bob. Words with more than one um...sillibul... leave me
cold.
TC.
Un-ejucemated.
Robert Whelan
> Robert,
>
> Perhaps im begining to agree with you on your thoughts of king. I've read some
> of his most recent work this month and i find it to be overly long and bloated
> and ill researched and possibly containing massive continuity problems.
>
> What did you think of dreamcatcher? Im finishing it up right now and I must say
> I found the book to be sort've insulting to me. I can't exactly pin my problem
> with the book down, but i think it's in kings treatment of the retarded. While
> he tries to portray the character as a loveable angel of magical powers, the
> way KING writes him and how others in his book talks about the character comes
> off as really cruel and childish.
Well, I think that I know what you are talking about, since I had that
reaction to Duddits prior to the chapter that introduces Kurtz, the
crazy General (?). There was something gratingly annoying about the
way all the boys stood around staring at Duddits with adoration, which
was totally unconvincing. Maybe I had desensitized myself by posting
a fake positive review of the book, before I had read it, but I don't
think so. I think after a certain point the story picked up and King
started to like his characters, and become more efficient in his
storytelling. I didn't find Duddits annoying after the story hooked me,
with the first Kurtz chapter. I remember expecting Duddits to be as
annoying as the "adorable" Kyra in BAG OF BONES, which was insultingly
cartoonish in it's portrayal of a small child.
> and for others reading dont tell me thats the point of the story, I know the
> story exists in a childhood memories of the 'Magical retard" but the way
> duddits is written seems insulting to those who truly are mentally retarded.
> atleast to me anyway.
Do you know real retarded people? That might make a difference. Did you
ever read the original STAND? I always found the Tom Cullen character to
be an affectionate and real portrait, but I found some of the added
material in the "Uncut" Stand to be condescending and cartoonish, like
someone was cruelly aping, and exaggerating retarded qualities, rather
than imagining a real, though retarded character...I seemed to notice
this in the tornado scene in the Uncut.
> I also found Dreamcatcher to be "Padded" in my opinion in that there are long
> passages inwhich nothign happens and is in no way pertinant to the book. It
> feels like a 400 page book padded to 640 something pages.
Probably it was, but I enjoyed it for some reason. Intellectually I knew
that not much was happening except an extended chase scene through the
snow, but it was a well-written and involving chase-through-the-snow,
and I liked and cared about the characters doing it (after the first
Kurtz chapter, that is...before that I pretty much hated it except for
a few moments involving Mr. Gray, which spooked me.)
Robert Whelan
On Mon, 20 Jan 2003, Thunderchief wrote:
Unejumecated.
Robert Whelan
On 20 Jan 2003, HppyButchr wrote:
> >From: Robert Whelan
>
> >No, I did not.
> >
> >But I suppose, if I had, you would have too.
> >
>
> awwe. Thats so sweet that you post here as well. I'll bet you come with all
> sorts of ways to tick it to Stephen King like boycotting his books. or paying
> for other books and taking his, or going to the library and reading them for
> free.
Mostly used book stores and libraries, yes.
> You keep up the good work Bobbie. We're all real proud.
Oh, the company I keep.
Robert Whelan
On Sun, 19 Jan 2003, Covenant wrote:
> Robert Whelan wrote:
>
>
> BOBBIE !!!!!
>
>
> > This really kinda pisses me off. King insists on these multimillion
> > dollar deals for these horrible books,
>
>
> The publishing houses didn't *have* to buy them.
> After all, surely *they* read them before publishing...
>
> Surely ????
But at this point in King's careere, surely HE reads his own stories
before submitting them? Surely he knows, at some level, what crap
the stories really are, what cheats, what lazy kludges. But he, (and
his agent, I suppose) know that they can take advantage of hungry
publishers, desperate for a big hit from the famous KING, and they
do. It seems immoral and unethical. King is so wealthy now that he
can afford to NOT write at all. Why MUST he continue, whether or
not the stories are crap?
Robert Whelan
Well, it may be that they over-printed copies, which they seem to keep
on doing. But I think that this is partly due to King's own smarts
in hyping each new stunt-project to his publishers in ways that make
them think "Hey, this is the ONE!". With BLACK HOUSE the stunt involved
getting back toegether with Straub, to purportedly make a sequel to
TALISMAN, which was a publishing success. Of course, they were selling
this project to publishers and editors who probably hadn't read the
original gigantic book, and were only taking it on faith that this
was a real sequel, that would appeal to the fans of the original
book. Yes, they are to blame for not doing their homework, but King
particularly is to blame for leading them (and the audience) on.
King also hyped the "Dark Tower" connections in the book. He's an
asshole in his desperation to SELL every new project.
And just because a book is on the "bestseller list" doesn't mean it
REALLY sells well, particularly in this age of Barnes & Noble superchains,
and their continued policy of liberal return allowances. People may
have BOUGHT the book (thus getting it on the bestseller lists) but
then RETURNED it in droves, in disappointment and disgust, and then
the massive piles of mass-printed hardcovers sat there as word of
mouth killed it.
> 2) As has already been pointed out to you, King's book *don't* lose
> money for the publishers. Just because *you* don't like them doesn't
> mean that most other people don't, and aren't willing to buy anything
> written (or co-written) by King. I mean, come on, Robert, the
> publishers would make money if he ever *did* publish his laundry list,
> 'cause some of us would still buy it to find the great tale in there
Some. But apparently King isn't makeing a heck of a lot of money FOR
his publishers anymore, after his multi-million advance-fees are taken
out of the profits.
Thunderchief
Says you...
TC
Thunderchief
"Sharon" <sp...@ebonydragon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:rv6o2v4507ou7c7ja...@4ax.com...
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> > You got that right, Bob. Words with more than one um...sillibul...
leave
> >me
> >> > cold.
> >> >
> >> > TC.
> >> > Un-ejucemated.
> >>
> >> Unejumecated.
> >
> >Says you...
>
Nope. I said I was un..ed..u..ce...mated...
>
> sharon
>
TC
Arch Stanton
>sorts of ways to tick it to Stephen King like boycotting his books. or
>paying
>for other books and taking his, or going to the library and reading them for
>free. You keep up the good work Bobbie
Here's what it boils down to, Robert Likes King as a writter, he just feels
that somewhere along the journey king has taken as a writer that he lost his
passion for writing. I think it's very human of a person to be a FAN of a
persons work but not a blind lemming of a fan who loves everything king puts
out.
King is one of my favorite authors, i've read nearly his entire catalouge and i
find rougly 1/4 of it to be supremly dissapointing, should we not be able to
talk about how we founda book by one of our favorite authors dissapointing and
how we found the story he told to be flawed?
I mean, atleast were talking about KING right???
ANDY
HppyButchr
>before submitting them? Surely he knows, at some level, what crap
>the stories really are, what cheats, what lazy kludges. But he, (and
>his agent, I suppose) know that they can take advantage of hungry
>publishers, desperate for a big hit from the famous KING, and they
>do. It seems immoral and unethical. King is so wealthy now that he
>can afford to NOT write at all. Why MUST he continue, whether or
>not the stories are crap?
>From: Robert Whelan
Then why on earth would you continue to read his books?
~Jeremy
The Happy Butcher
Arch Stanton
>the stories really are, what cheats, what lazy kludges
Did you ever read an interview with Elmore Leonard where he talks about how
when a writer becomes really popular the publishers try and bagger him into
writting the "Christmas book" every year? They'll throw money at you like crazy
he says just so long as theres a new 35 dollar hardback with your name on it on
shelves by dec20th.
Surely king has signed a contract for a certain number of books to be delivered
ot his publisher in a certain amount of years right? Hell, doesnt he writer for
more than one publisher at a time? Maybe he feels preasure theese days to just
get a book out wiht his name on it?
Book Companies azare just like movie studios. "Cameron Diaz is in it?" "Stephen
King wrote it?"
There's no disputing that king was and is still a good writer. He's talented in
the stories he tells and the unique way he tells them
(it reads more like you are reading a transcript of his pitch to people about
the books to me than his actual book, which i like)
But i've read three king novels in a row in the last month that i found really
dissapointing. I couldn't even trudge ahead with "Bag of Bones" and "Geralds
Game" coulda been a GREAT short story but made a lousy full length novel. The
gimick of it wore out after 50 pages for me atleast.
Covenant
Akshewlly....
You said you were Un... ej...um...ec... ated
;' )
--
Covenant
A Man With A VAST Ejumacashin
Covenant
> On Sun, 19 Jan 2003, Covenant wrote:
>
>> Robert Whelan wrote:
>>
>>
>> BOBBIE !!!!!
>>
>>
>>> This really kinda pisses me off. King insists on these multimillion
>>> dollar deals for these horrible books,
>>
>>
>> The publishing houses didn't *have* to buy them.
>> After all, surely *they* read them before publishing...
>>
>> Surely ????
>
> But at this point in King's careere, surely HE reads his own stories
> before submitting them? Surely he knows, at some level, what crap
> the stories really are, what cheats, what lazy kludges.
Honestly?
I was surprised that Everythings Eventual was published.
It had some nice stuff in it, but a *lot* of them seemed to be (admitted by
King) gleaned from other sources!
I can't imagine a new writer taking a collection of admittedly
semi-plaguarised works to a publisher and having it released.)
> But he, (and
> his agent, I suppose) know that they can take advantage of hungry
> publishers,
I shall draw attention to that in a second... ;' )
> desperate for a big hit from the famous KING, and they
> do. It seems immoral and unethical.
But m'man...
THAT decision is up to the publisher.
If his work is garbage, whether *he* thinks so or not, it is the *publisher*
who decides if it will be put *out there*.
I'm afraid trying to slam Steve-O for his writing doesn't work, bud.
Your *beef* is with his publisher... THEY are the people saying "this is
good enough to print".
And King, being the artiste he is, is gonna believe them... Hell, *I* would
!
(S'just human nature...
"Maybe this isn't quite good enough..."
"Yes it is Mr Lamb!!! We'll publish it and sell MILLIONS"
"Weeeeell... okay then, if you say so!!")
> King is so wealthy now that he
> can afford to NOT write at all.
> Why MUST he continue, whether or
> not the stories are crap?
The simple fact is, Robert... He does it cos he wants to.
Nothing you, I, or maybe even Tabby can say will *stop* him writing.
But the publishing is NOT up to him.
(Unless he goes the *vanity* route.)
Robert Whelan
On 20 Jan 2003, Arch Stanton wrote:
> Perhaps im begining to agree with you on your thoughts of king. I've read some
> of his most recent work this month and i find it to be overly long and bloated
> and ill researched and possibly containing massive continuity problems.
What did you read recently?
Arch Stanton
>crazy General
and i belive that's where the book really lost me as an admirer. and I probbaly
need to go into some of my reading passions before i explain.
One of the things i enjoy most in reading is just reading cheasy military
action novels. I read vietnam ficition by the handfull and world war 2 ficiton
by the bucketfull and having read many modern day military books as well I'd
say my brain has a sort've firm understanding of military practises and such,
and The way king protrays the military in "Dreamcatcher" is just plain fucking
STUPID. I'll admit it.
King didnt bother to do the research nessicary to write a novel with military
stuff in it. It seems as thoug he was confused by ranks in the modern military
so he just decided ot get rid of it(or he really liked THE LAST CASTLE with
rober redford cause the two phrases of buddy and pal are stolen concerning
superior officers are stolen directly from that film)
Another thing i thought was unkinglike and unoriginal was naming some of his
characters so that people would bring their preconcieved thoughts and feelings
about the characters from another persons work of fiction of his own work.
How can one had seen one episode of leave it to beaver and apocalypse now and
NOT have a silly cartoonish picture of Kings charaters in your hear. Infact not
only did he do soo horribly with Kurtz he even tarnished the image of Marlon
Brando as kurtz in my favorite film of all time!
he's written as a crazy over the top cartoon military man that belongs more in
a stephen sigal film than anywhere else in the world of fiction.
and anyone who knows anything about the military has to laugh out loud and the
point in the novel where henry and underhill get in the military hummer and
underhills turns the key and starts the engine.
Even as far as the friends. DId the book and the story need the character Pete?
Did he bring ANYTHING TO THE BOOK? at all ?What did his character do other than
DIE?
for some reason i feel alot of venom towards this book, and i cant put my
finger on it. The whole thing just seemed silly to me.
Arch Stanton
in The last month i've read "Bag of Bones", "Geralds Game" and "Dreamcatcher".
Dreamcatcher is the book i find really ill researched and having continuity
problems.
Bag of bones just felt uniteresting to me at the time, although its a stype of
story i usually enjoy so maybe i just wasn't hungry for that slice of pizza at
the time, I'll probably try and give that a whirl again someday.
Geralds Game the less i say about the better.
I really like King, hes a favorite author of mine. Unlike you I find The Uncut
edition of the stand to be one of the greatest works of fiction i've ever read.
"Salems Lot" is another favorite of mine. Theres a passage in it where king
talks about the how a persons soul feels at three am and how they look at dawn
almost as a curse of having to face another day that read like beautifull
poetry(and i have NOT DONE is service at all with my rememberence of it above)
I can remember excitment at king books and wanting to read them all in a
night(i read the 1000 page plus stand in just over 4 days) With the last few
i've picked up i've felt bland and uninterested, Maybe its me personally?
Something in my brain keeping me from enjoying the books? Maybe i need to gread
something different for awhile?
That's the root of the conversation i'm trying to have but feel will be snubbed
by the lemming fans of this newsgroup. I enjoy king, he's one of my three
favorite authors, but i think some of the recent works of his i've read have
been flawed and i wonder where the flaws developed. Do other people find the
way duddits was portrayed in dreamcatcher offensive in his OOO TE EEER EEED
language and his chinesse eyes and face of indetermanent age.
did others think "geralds game" was a suck masturabatory fantasy fleshed out to
400+ pages?
Jeff
>
> This really kinda pisses me off. King insists on these multimillion dollar
> a bath, and the decent editors who go to bat for his greedy
> experimentations get the blame. There is something truly reprehensible
> about the way King pawns off his latest pieces of garbage on the
> publishers and the public. He and Straub need a good beating for
> pulling what they did, and taking money for it. If it doesn't
> indicate malicious venality, it indicates gigantic hubris and
> head-up-their-asses blindness about the quality of the nonsense
> they kludged together.
Whelan's back! So is jewahe (under a different guise this time).
Scarily, I kinda agree with Bobby - at least about Black House. It is
by far one of King's worst books (as you can read in the review I
posted late last year).
However, I think two things pretty much assured the editors that BH
would make money:
1) It has King's name on it. After all, King has a reputation - he's
one of the few writers the "general" public has actually heard, mostly
because he has authored so many books, most of which have been turned
into movies. The name recognition alone will cause many people to buy
the novel.
2) It is the sequal to The Talisman, which many of King's fans regard
in high estimation. This almost guarantees that hardcore King fans
(like those on the list) will buy it.
The problem is that no writer can sustain a career of 30 years without
a few mistakes (even the great writers you study in English have made
a misstep or two). When you take into account the two previous facts,
however, even a misstep can be a winning situation for the publishing
house and the authors.
As to the "malicious venality," well, all I can say is that King must
have done something to merit the publishing house taking a risk and
paying him a lot of money to write a book, even if it was only
convincing a generation of readers to read his stuff. I've notice that
King regularly has "down" periods in which his writing isn't
high-quality. You have to take the good with the bad.
I won't defend King any more: BH is an ego piece, and it deserves to
be panned. Will that stop me from buying his next book? Not really.
What I will say to Whelan, though, is what I've said all along: if you
don't like what King writes, don't read it. No one is forcing you, and
by doing so, you have chosen to buy into his mystique just as much as
the rest of us. Take that into account the next time you write a
review - check your attitude, back up your claims with solid evidence,
and balance the good with the bad - tell us what you *liked* rather
that focusing entirely on the bad.
But that's getting blood from a turnip. It'll be interesting to see
what drivel you come up with now...
Jeff
> Well, I think that I know what you are talking about, since I had that
> reaction to Duddits prior to the chapter that introduces Kurtz, the
> crazy General (?). There was something gratingly annoying about the
> way all the boys stood around staring at Duddits with adoration, which
> was totally unconvincing. Maybe I had desensitized myself by posting
> a fake positive review of the book, before I had read it, but I don't
> think so. I think after a certain point the story picked up and King
> started to like his characters, and become more efficient in his
> storytelling. I didn't find Duddits annoying after the story hooked me,
> with the first Kurtz chapter. I remember expecting Duddits to be as
> annoying as the "adorable" Kyra in BAG OF BONES, which was insultingly
> cartoonish in it's portrayal of a small child.
>
> > and for others reading dont tell me thats the point of the story, I know the
> > story exists in a childhood memories of the 'Magical retard" but the way
> > duddits is written seems insulting to those who truly are mentally retarded.
> > atleast to me anyway.
The "magical retard," as you put it, is very much a standard literary
device. Those of limited intelligence are able to be corrupted as
easily as those of "normal" intelligence, so they are therefore
somehow closer to nature and perceive things with more clarity than
others.
Is this always true? Not in real life. The mentally challenged can be
selfish and dangerous. Although we try to conform them to societal
rules, no every one takes to it.
Duddits, in this case, acts as a kind of unconscious nexus for the
energies of the group. While I didn't find his role particularly
strong or groundbreaking, I understood from the start why he was
there.
However, to say it was "insulting cartoonish" is a bit harsh. What
particular elements of his characterization are "insulting" and
"cartoonish"? No, the character is stereotypical, but I found nothing
of a cartoonish nature in him. He simply - well, was.
> Do you know real retarded people? That might make a difference. Did you
> ever read the original STAND? I always found the Tom Cullen character to
> be an affectionate and real portrait, but I found some of the added
> material in the "Uncut" Stand to be condescending and cartoonish, like
> someone was cruelly aping, and exaggerating retarded qualities, rather
> than imagining a real, though retarded character...I seemed to notice
> this in the tornado scene in the Uncut.
I think you're just being harsh. What exactly about this seen makes it
cartoonish?
On another note, it seems that you want to match the real world and
the fictional one. If you come to literature *only* to see how well it
matches the "real" world, you will be severely disappointed. Writers
regularly "exaggerate" one quality of a character - either to
emphasize it, or too contrast it with another character. While I'll
agree that wrapping that character up in a single quality isn't very
good writing, as long as the character has a psychological validity,
the emphasize isn't very important.
That being said, I'll agree that King often forces the emphasis -
Carrie's mother, David in Desperation, et cetera. His emphasis can get
a little overdone.
> Probably it was, but I enjoyed it for some reason. Intellectually I knew
> that not much was happening except an extended chase scene through the
> snow, but it was a well-written and involving chase-through-the-snow,
> and I liked and cared about the characters doing it (after the first
> Kurtz chapter, that is...before that I pretty much hated it except for
> a few moments involving Mr. Gray, which spooked me.)
Oh, my. I actually strongly agree. The book was rather slow at first,
but picked up in the chase - it was nicely suspenseful (although you
knew that the good guys will win. They always do). The growth of the
bynum, too, was plain disgusting, and not knowing if the characters
would survive their victory gave the book an added twist. The book was
decent - a far cry better than Black House, Bag of Bones, and Gerald's
Game, but not spectacular. I'd give it a 5 on a scale of 10.
HppyButchr
>that somewhere along the journey king has taken as a writer that he lost his
>passion for writing. I think it's very human of a person to be a FAN of a
>persons work but not a blind lemming of a fan who loves everything king puts
>out.
>
>King is one of my favorite authors, i've read nearly his entire catalouge and
>i
>find rougly 1/4 of it to be supremly dissapointing, should we not be able to
>talk about how we founda book by one of our favorite authors dissapointing
>and
>how we found the story he told to be flawed?
>
>I mean, atleast were talking about KING right???
>
>ANDY
Oh, I agree with that logic, I was pretty dissapointed with From a Buick 8, and
Dreamcatcher was only so-so. But not liking an author's works, and going about
explaining that he way Robbie does is two different things. In one category,
we just don't like the books and go about our daily lives, in the other, we're
facist corporate shills.
~Jeremy
The Happy Butcher
Thunderchief
>
>
> Akshewlly....
Did we *nearly* go to the same school?
>
> You said you were Un... ej...um...ec... ated
>
> ;' )
Heheheh'd,
TC
Poppy Z. Brite
>Here's what it boils down to, Robert Likes King as a writter, he just feels
>that somewhere along the journey king has taken as a writer that he lost his
>passion for writing. I think it's very human of a person to be a FAN of a
>persons work but not a blind lemming of a fan who loves everything king puts
>out.
>
>King is one of my favorite authors, i've read nearly his entire catalouge and
>i
>find rougly 1/4 of it to be supremly dissapointing, should we not be able to
>talk about how we founda book by one of our favorite authors dissapointing
>and
>how we found the story he told to be flawed?
>
Absolutely, but I've never understood why people take their disappointment with
a story as justification to ascribe motives and feelings to the writer. I
didn't like DREAMCATCHER very much, but it seems obvious to me that King has
never lost his passion for writing. Publishing, yes (maybe), but he strikes me
as very much the type of writer who must either write or go slowly insane. Why
else would he have continued to do it? He hasn't needed the money for many
years, and the crap he has to listen to probably outweighs any fannish ego
gratification by now.
PZB
Cat
>as very much the type of writer who must either write or go slowly insane.
>Why
>else would he have continued to do it? He hasn't needed the money for many
>years, and the crap he has to listen to probably outweighs any fannish ego
>gratification by now.
>
>PZB
What Poppy said? That's what *I'm* thinking ;-)
~cat~
"Madness is the very essence of uncertainty...sanity is that place of certainty
above the whirling chaos." (Dean Koontz, Cold Fire)
HppyButchr
>of
>story i usually enjoy so maybe i just wasn't hungry for that slice of pizza
>at
>the time, I'll probably try and give that a whirl again someday.
In my opinion Bag of Bones had an incredible build up to a whole of nothing. A
quasi-entertaining spooky special effects sequence set up to give the eventual
movie a nice ILM climax.
The rest of the story however, was very creepy, and truly gave me the willies.
~Jeremy
The Happy Butcher
Robert Whelan
On 20 Jan 2003, Poppy Z. Brite wrote:
> >
> >Here's what it boils down to, Robert Likes King as a writter, he just feels
> >that somewhere along the journey king has taken as a writer that he lost his
> >passion for writing. I think it's very human of a person to be a FAN of a
> >persons work but not a blind lemming of a fan who loves everything king puts
> >out.
> >
> >King is one of my favorite authors, i've read nearly his entire catalouge and
> >i
> >find rougly 1/4 of it to be supremly dissapointing, should we not be able to
> >talk about how we founda book by one of our favorite authors dissapointing
> >and
> >how we found the story he told to be flawed?
> >
>
> Absolutely, but I've never understood why people take their disappointment with
> a story as justification to ascribe motives and feelings to the writer.
It isn't just my disappointment. King repeatedly indicates that he,
himself, thinks that the stories that I found bad, were stories he didn't
think were good himself. Eg: He stated, prior to publishing TOMMYKNOCKERS,
that he had a "flying saucer novel that I think is unpublishable". King
has the taste to produce novels that I like, and that same taste is
capable of identifying bad novels, unsatistying novels, that both King
and I think are crap. But King goes ahead and publishes that crap
anyway, despite public expression of his doubt as to it's quality.
DREAMCATCHER very much, but it seems obvious to me that King has
> never lost his passion for writing.
NEVER? Even with BAG OF BONES? With GIRL WHO LOVED TOM GORDON?
Publishing, yes (maybe), but he strikes me
> as very much the type of writer who must either write or go slowly insane.
Writing to avoid going insane, and publishing the insane babblings for
money are seperate issues. King is rich enough to purge his feelings
of insanity in bad writing without inflicting the results on his public,
and accepting large paychecks for it.
Why
> else would he have continued to do it? He hasn't needed the money for many
> years, and the crap he has to listen to probably outweighs any fannish ego
> gratification by now.
What evidence do you have that he listens to anything his fans have to
say? The main conduit for criticism would be printed words, via reviews,
emails, letters. He's got a severe vision problem. What makes you think
he's straining his eyes to read any of it?
Covenant
> Shortly before the pants exploded, Covenant said...
>
>>
>>
>> Akshewlly....
>
> Did we *nearly* go to the same school?
Yep !
We went to different schools together !
--
Covenant
Covenant
Robert.. NO !
You just make the precise argument *against* your own point of view !
He took a novel which he thought was *unpublishable*..
The PUBLISHER decided to do JUST that!
This is *not* King's fault! Maybe he *doesn't* know what does or doesn't
sell... But it isn't his *job* to know.
His job is to write, and give it to the publisher. *Their* job is to decide
if it goes out.
John
rwh...@amanda.dorsai.org says...
>
>This really kinda pisses me off. King insists on these multimillion dollar
>deals for these horrible books, and lets the publishing industry take
>a bath, and the decent editors who go to bat for his greedy
>experimentations get the blame. There is something truly reprehensible
>about the way King pawns off his latest pieces of garbage on the
>publishers and the public. He and Straub need a good beating for
>pulling what they did, and taking money for it. If it doesn't
>indicate malicious venality, it indicates gigantic hubris and
>head-up-their-asses blindness about the quality of the nonsense
>they kludged together.
Robert - tell us how you really feel... ;)
I can't disagree with your assessment completely. I thought it was awful,
though not quite to the garbage stage. More like recyclable trash.
BTW: Welcome back, you old reprobate.
John
Robert Whelan
On 20 Jan 2003, Cat wrote:
> > he strikes me
> >as very much the type of writer who must either write or go slowly insane.
> >Why
> >else would he have continued to do it? He hasn't needed the money for many
> >years, and the crap he has to listen to probably outweighs any fannish ego
> >gratification by now.
> >
> >PZB
>
> What Poppy said? That's what *I'm* thinking ;-)
Cat, you're not thinking. Poppy's thinking for you.
Cat
>
>Cat, you're not thinking. Poppy's thinking for you.
>
That's what *you* think, Robert ;-)
ald
<rwh...@amanda.dorsai.org> wrote:
>Well, it may be that they over-printed copies, which they seem to keep
>on doing. But I think that this is partly due to King's own smarts
>in hyping each new stunt-project to his publishers in ways that make
>them think "Hey, this is the ONE!". With BLACK HOUSE the stunt involved
>getting back toegether with Straub, to purportedly make a sequel to
>TALISMAN, which was a publishing success. Of course, they were selling
>this project to publishers and editors who probably hadn't read the
>original gigantic book, and were only taking it on faith that this
>was a real sequel, that would appeal to the fans of the original
>book. Yes, they are to blame for not doing their homework, but King
>particularly is to blame for leading them (and the audience) on.
>King also hyped the "Dark Tower" connections in the book. He's an
>asshole in his desperation to SELL every new project.
>
Yeah, God forbid he should try to find new ways to bring stories to
the public, so that lesser-known authors have more outlets than just
the publishing giants ;-)
The problem with your argument is that he's been quite *successful*
with all of his new projects. And there *wasn't* a "Dark Tower"
connection in "Black House"? That's news to me. Hopefully I can do
without the spoiler space at this point, anyone who hasn't read "Black
House" stop *now*, but the way I read it, not only did he make the
"Dark Tower" connection, but due to the way they ended it he took the
character of Jack away from Peter Straub so that he (King) could use
him later in the "Dark Tower" series.
>And just because a book is on the "bestseller list" doesn't mean it
>REALLY sells well, particularly in this age of Barnes & Noble superchains,
>and their continued policy of liberal return allowances. People may
>have BOUGHT the book (thus getting it on the bestseller lists) but
>then RETURNED it in droves, in disappointment and disgust, and then
>the massive piles of mass-printed hardcovers sat there as word of
>mouth killed it.
>
Again, you're assuming that everyone else shared your opinion of the
book. And do people really do that?!? I mean, when I buy a book new,
instead of getting it from a used book store or a library, I'm pretty
certain that I'm going to enjoy it. But even if I didn't, I wouldn't
feel right trying to return it, it would feel too much to me like
trying to return my Big Mac after I ate it because it didn't fill me
up enough.
>Some. But apparently King isn't makeing a heck of a lot of money FOR
>his publishers anymore, after his multi-million advance-fees are taken
>out of the profits.
Um, if this were the case, why would they not only continue to publish
him, but continue to make him feel pressured to put out books on a
regular basis (which is inferred from "Bag of Bones")?
--
ald
reply via e-mail to a717 at erols dot com
Gary Jordan
God Bless
Jeff
> in The last month i've read "Bag of Bones", "Geralds Game" and "Dreamcatcher".
Ohh...you probably couldn't have chosen a worse sequence (well, unless
you'd read Needful Things or Pet Semetary in the middle of that)...
Bag of Bones had a perfectly wonderful beginning. It is a really great
example of a Gothic novel, with the unexplained intruding on the
explained, and characters generally ignoring the occurrances or trying
to explain them away. <spoiler alert>I felt that it fell apart just
about the time that the girlfriend died - almost as if King didn't
really know how to conclude the story and took a sharp detour. From
that point on, the story felt like it fell apart.
Dreamcatcher just wasn't spectacular. It was okay, but was just
written to be written. The message was muddled, and it just didn't
every really catch a stride.
Gerald's Game is the book I rate as the low point of King's career. It
is completely unbelievable (how much blood did Jesse have in her?) and
completely destroys its supernatural elements in the second half. This
book would have served better simply by leaving off the letter - the
part that forces the rational world back on the supernatural and
explains everything away while the protagonist happily rejoins the
show in progress. Blah.
> I really like King, hes a favorite author of mine. Unlike you I find The Uncut
> edition of the stand to be one of the greatest works of fiction i've ever read.
I don't. I really tried to like the book, and did enjoy much of the
first two books. It just felt that King couldn't find an ending (he
admitted as much in a note to a book somewhere), and forced it, even
though we were promised through implication a "major" battle between
good and evil. By not following through on that promise, the ending
betrays the reader's expectations. That's why I just don't like the
book.
> "Salems Lot" is another favorite of mine. Theres a passage in it where king
> talks about the how a persons soul feels at three am and how they look at dawn
> almost as a curse of having to face another day that read like beautifull
> poetry(and i have NOT DONE is service at all with my rememberence of it above)
I recently reread the book, and did find it very well done. It had
mystery, suspense, and surprises, as well as solid writing. However,
it still does not rank as one of my favs.
> I can remember excitment at king books and wanting to read them all in a
> night(i read the 1000 page plus stand in just over 4 days) With the last few
> i've picked up i've felt bland and uninterested, Maybe its me personally?
> Something in my brain keeping me from enjoying the books? Maybe i need to gread
> something different for awhile?
I don't think it's you. King's writing is cyclic - he writes really
good stuff for awhile, and then the quality drops off. I would suggest
a vacation. When you return, you'll be surprised at some of his stuff.
If you don't want to, go back a reread a favorite to rediscover why
you like King.
jewahe/jeff
HppyButchr
>is completely unbelievable (how much blood did Jesse have in her?) and
>completely destroys its supernatural elements in the second half. This
>book would have served better simply by leaving off the letter - the
>part that forces the rational world back on the supernatural and
>explains everything away while the protagonist happily rejoins the
>show in progress. Blah.
>
Thats funny, cause I was blown away by Gerald's Game. To be honest, I think it
had more to do with listening to it as an audio book while driving on very
empty roads between Pittsburgh and NJ in the wee hours of the morning than with
the book itself, but regardless.
It is a very impressive and complex journey into the human psyche, and down the
road of insanity.
~Jeremy
The Happy Butcher
Liz
"HppyButchr" <hppyb...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030121160041...@mb-mu.aol.com...
I must agree. It has been argued that there was much of the book that didn't
move the story along. I would argue that those bits were actually the point
of the book and the plot just gave them a reason to be there. Sort of like
noodles can be a carrier for sauce. <g>
As she dove more deeply into her own memory and motivations, the journey
took me with her and a whale of a ride it was.
I've only been able to re-read it once - somehow it scared me in a way other
monsters don't.
Liz
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.443 / Virus Database: 248 - Release Date: 1/10/03
wolf woman
And I for one, not that anyone asked for my opinion, but I have one so I'm
jumping in, thought Gerald's Game was fabulous. I thought that the way SK
got into the head of a woman was very well done. So much so that I actually
went out and read Tabitha King's work just to make sure I wasn't reading her
work instead of his. I'm reasonably sure it's his.
WWLisa
wolf woman
news:b0kgup$qk301$1...@ID-120804.news.dfncis.de...
>
> I must agree. It has been argued that there was much of the book that
didn't
> move the story along. I would argue that those bits were actually the
point
> of the book and the plot just gave them a reason to be there. Sort of like
> noodles can be a carrier for sauce. <g>
Here Here! Agreed completely.
> As she dove more deeply into her own memory and motivations, the journey
> took me with her and a whale of a ride it was.
> I've only been able to re-read it once - somehow it scared me in a way
other
> monsters don't.
This is one of my favorite King books, but it's one of the only ones I
haven't re-read. I think it's damn scary, quite possibly because the
supernatural was taken out of it by the letter in the end, and perhaps, it's
the "it could happen to you too" feeling I got.
WWLisa
deathboy
"Covenant" <cove...@joelamb.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message news:b0i283
>
> Robert.. NO !
>
> You just make the precise argument *against* your own point of view !
>
> He took a novel which he thought was *unpublishable*..
>
> The PUBLISHER decided to do JUST that!
>
> This is *not* King's fault! Maybe he *doesn't* know what does or doesn't
> sell... But it isn't his *job* to know.
> His job is to write, and give it to the publisher. *Their* job is to
decide
> if it goes out.
>
>
> --
> Covenant
> A Man With Far Too Much Time On His Hands
>
>
So King can't write something and decide to never give it to his publishers?
he most certainly can. I am in no way taking sides or getting at all
involved in this but what you said made absolutely no sense and I couldn't
let it go. Whats the publisher going to do come to King's house and demand
he hand over all manuscripts? King can burn each page as he writes for all
anyone would care, he has to give SOMETHING to publishers because he is
under contract, but not everything. Robert's point is he is giving them crap
because thats all he has to give them, and he knows it is crap but gives
them it anyway. and if that is all he has to give them (i by no means agree
mind you) then yes he should stop giving it to them and stop accepting money
for it.
as for what started this whole thing to begin with, do you really think
whatever her name was at random house had a chance to read black house
before deciding to publish it? lol thats a laugher too, that'll be the day
when any publisher has any well known best selling author working on
approval.
HppyButchr
>jumping in, thought Gerald's Game was fabulous. I thought that the way SK
>got into the head of a woman was very well done. So much so that I actually
>went out and read Tabitha King's work just to make sure I wasn't reading her
>work instead of his. I'm reasonably sure it's his.
>
>WWLisa
Not only the head of a woman, but the head of a person on the brink of
insanity. Without taking the trip down the road to craziness yourself, this is
in my opinion the closiest possible description (and King isn't even crazy...
in any clinical sense at least :)
~Jeremy
The Happy Butcher
Poppy Z. Brite
>> never lost his passion for writing.
>
>NEVER? Even with BAG OF BONES? With GIRL WHO LOVED TOM GORDON?
I don't understand why people dislike BAG OF BONES so much. I think it's quite
good. It has its flaws -- the two old villains are silly caricatures, the kid
gets a little annoying, and he does that supernatural-ex-machina thing he loves
to do not once but twice (the reappearances of Jo and Mattie). However, the
story of Mike losing his wife and going through the grieving process is so
convincing that I find it painful to read, and I like the parallels to Du
Maurier's REBECCA.
> Why
>> else would he have continued to do it? He hasn't needed the money for many
>> years, and the crap he has to listen to probably outweighs any fannish ego
>> gratification by now.
>
>What evidence do you have that he listens to anything his fans have to
>say? The main conduit for criticism would be printed words, via reviews,
>emails, letters. He's got a severe vision problem. What makes you think
>he's straining his eyes to read any of it?
I don't know for sure; he just strikes me as the kind of writer who obsesses
about that sort of thing but can't leave it alone. In a recent Entertainment
Weekly interview, he admitted that he was still obsessing about a bad review
from 25 years ago. He says also says some things in ON WRITING that make me
think he's pretty sensitive about critical reactions.
PZB
wolf woman
> >And I for one, not that anyone asked for my opinion, but I have one so
I'm
> >jumping in, thought Gerald's Game was fabulous. I thought that the way
SK
> >got into the head of a woman was very well done. So much so that I
actually
> >went out and read Tabitha King's work just to make sure I wasn't reading
her
> >work instead of his. I'm reasonably sure it's his.
> >
>
> insanity. Without taking the trip down the road to craziness yourself,
this is
> in my opinion the closiest possible description (and King isn't even
crazy...
> in any clinical sense at least :)
>
> ~Jeremy
> The Happy Butcher
>
correctly, didn't this follow on the heals of Rose Madder? I think it did,
or at least that's the order in which I read them. Anyway, I thought Rose
Madder started to get into the female psyche and then the supernatural was
sorta thrown in at the end cause King didn't know how to finish it. In the
process of throwing in the supernatural, he seemed to lose the natural and
the woman in the story became this stereotypical bitch on a mission.
Deloris Claiborne was ok at getting into the head of a woman, but I thought
Gerald's Game was just dead on. If I remember correctly all three of those
came out close together, I sorta call it King's "Women's Phase".
wolf woman
Liz
"Poppy Z. Brite" <onlysle...@aol.comkillspam> wrote in message
news:20030121185001...@mb-cs.aol.com...
> >DREAMCATCHER very much, but it seems obvious to me that King has
> >> never lost his passion for writing.
> >
> >NEVER? Even with BAG OF BONES? With GIRL WHO LOVED TOM GORDON?
>
> I don't understand why people dislike BAG OF BONES so much. I think it's
quite
> good. It has its flaws -- the two old villains are silly caricatures, the
kid
> gets a little annoying, and he does that supernatural-ex-machina thing he
loves
> to do not once but twice (the reappearances of Jo and Mattie). However,
the
> story of Mike losing his wife and going through the grieving process is so
> convincing that I find it painful to read, and I like the parallels to Du
> Maurier's REBECCA.
I have to agree. The opening chapter with the description of the day she
died has stuck with me ever since. It is wonderful. You are also right about
the flaws, they do exist, but not to the extent that it ruined the book for
me.
Liz
"wolf woman" <sexywild...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:jblX9.96067$DN6.4...@twister.austin.rr.com...
Yeah, he really did a great job! The order was: Gerald's Game, Delores
Claiborne and Rose Madder right in a row and they were released pretty
quickly after one another. I got the feeling that he worked on them in a
batch.
And I've read Tabitha's work too - she is awesome, but this is not her
style. She may have offered some editing though. <G> I get the distinct
impression that she is his favorite sounding board. Remember the story about
her dragging Carrie out of the trash and demanding that he finish it? That
was his first trip inside a woman's head as far as I know and I bet she had
some suggestions. Come to think of it she did a terrific job with men in the
Reuben series too.
Both of them describe people in such a way that I can't help but care about
them and what happens to them. That two so gifted writers could end up
married to each other is amazing!
Voodoo Lady
>move the story along. I would argue that those bits were actually the point
>of the book and the plot just gave them a reason to be there. Sort of like
>noodles can be a carrier for sauce. <g>
>As she dove more deeply into her own memory and motivations, the journey
>took me with her and a whale of a ride it was.
>I've only been able to re-read it once - somehow it scared me in a way other
>monsters don't.
>
>Liz
I have to agree too Liz... I read this book when I was about 18 or so and I've
only re-read it once in 9 years. I liked the book, I just find her ordeal
agonizing...gives me the sweats just thinking about (no I haven't been there
done that, LOL). But I think King did a brilliant job of putting us in Jesse's
place. Its a place I'd rather not visit all too often if ya KWIM.
Stacey
"now doesn't it make you feel better?
the pigs have won tonight
they can all sleep soundly
and everything is all right"
NIN
ald
(Gary Jordan) wrote:
>The ppl in this room dont even make up 1/1,000,000 of his fan base!
Amen, nor the same fraction of his Constant Readers, people like me
who have read everything that he's popularly published (and most of it
many times over) and are eagerly awaiting his next book or story ;-)
Liz
"ald" <10317...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:3e2e1bc...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
I'm right behind you in that line ald. <g>
Liz
knowing there are more of us. lots more.
Poppy Z. Brite
>> never lost his passion for writing.
>
>NEVER? Even with BAG OF BONES? With GIRL WHO LOVED TOM GORDON?
I got interested in talking about BAG OF BONES before, and forgot to comment on
THE GIRL WHO LOVED TOM GORDON. It's not one of my very favorite SK books, but I
didn't hate it the way many people do. To me it just seemed like a decent,
entertaining little yarn about a kid getting lost in the woods and being scared
by the boogeyman. Not a story of great consequence, but I don't think it was
intended as such. (Strangely, it was my mom's favorite SK novel ever, and I
think she has read most of them.)
The ones I really don't care for are DREAMCATCHER and CHRISTINE. Still, though
I've read great stories and clunkers by SK, I don't think I've ever read
anything that read as if he didn't care about it while he was writing it. I
think tossing off so-called hackwork is much more difficult for most writers
than most non-writers might imagine. If you're not obsessed with the thing, at
least while you're writing, it's damned hard to stay with it no matter how much
money you stand to make.
PZB
Jeff
> And just because a book is on the "bestseller list" doesn't mean it
> REALLY sells well, particularly in this age of Barnes & Noble superchains,
> and their continued policy of liberal return allowances. People may
> have BOUGHT the book (thus getting it on the bestseller lists) but
> then RETURNED it in droves, in disappointment and disgust, and then
> the massive piles of mass-printed hardcovers sat there as word of
> mouth killed it.
Where are you getting this information? Can you back your claim up
with solid numbers? How well did it sell, and how many were returned?
While I'm not an expert in how the bestseller lists are compiled, I'd
bet that there's a method for accounting for returns.
Jeff
> move the story along. I would argue that those bits were actually the point
> of the book and the plot just gave them a reason to be there. Sort of like
> noodles can be a carrier for sauce. <g>
Well, I guess each person has the right to like or dislike what they
want. I just felt that the main reason for the book was to be a
shocker, not a thriller. King explored the "taboo" territory of S&M,
molestation, necrophilia, cannibalism, and other topics on the dark
side of humanity.
While it worked, there were just too many elements that didn't work.
Yes, the first part, Jesse's escape, were thrilling and frightening.
While there was plenty there to make me uncomfortable, this section
worked extremely well as a thriller and an exploration of this woman's
psyche.
My problem with the book comes in the "letter" section. Everything is
tied up a bit too nicely for my taste - and I felt honestly betrayed
*because* it "all worked out for the best." I'd have preferred that
King leave some lingering questions, since that would have better fit
the allegorical journey better - did Jesse *actually* encounter death?
Or was it a figment of her fractured imagination?
Most stories can be broken down to a single allegorical journey. The
teacher who introduced me to this "monomyth" liked to use the story of
Little Red Riding Hood to illustrate the point. The myth goes:
1. The protagonist starts the story with a sense of innocence or
safety. Like Red Riding Hood, this is usually indicated by being at
home among family and friends.
2. Something happens that forces the person out of this community - it
is accompanied by an essential change in the character. Little Red
Riding Hood, for example, gets a new hood and leaves home to visit her
grandmother. Symbolicly, she is leaving safety and innocence.
3. The protagonist encounters pain and suffering. Like Red
encountering the wolf, the hero must encounter a lot of bad stuff
(because the hero was traditionally a man, the "Bad" often involved a
lot of "bad" women - prostitutes, witches, and the like). This is the
journey to wisdom, and wisdom must know the good and the bad to be
complete.
4. At some point, the protagonist "dies." Like Red being swallowed by
the wolf, the protagonist must know what death is in order to know
what life is.
5. The protagonist is "resurrected" with wisdom, peace, and a sense of
his own self. Like Red being freed from the wolf's belly by the
Hunter.
6. Unfortunately, no one lives happily ever after. The journey is not
necessarily a single lap - the protagonist often has to go through the
cycle repeatedly.
Jesse's journey involved an encounter with a symbolic death figure. By
solidifying this figure into just another deranged person, that
symbolism was shattered. While that doesn't destroy the validity of
the journey itself, it does betray the spirit of the story. And that's
why I find the book disappointing.
Liz
"Jeff" <travel...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:44b7ae8e.03012...@posting.google.com...
> Jesse's journey involved an encounter with a symbolic death figure. By
> solidifying this figure into just another deranged person, that
> symbolism was shattered. While that doesn't destroy the validity of
> the journey itself, it does betray the spirit of the story. And that's
> why I find the book disappointing.
Well I can follow your train of thought and see why you came to that
conclusion. Of course I beg to differ. While I was a bit discomfited by the
ending, it was not outweighed by the value of the rest of the book -
probably more than 95% of it grabbed me. The letter is NOT what I think of
when that book comes to mind. The scene with the skin of her hand peeling
like a glove, the desperate attempts to reach water, the mental trips back
to the past, THOSE bounce right to the surface instantly.
Perhaps Jesse just didn't reach you the way she did some of us. To me, that
indicates that each of us is drawn to certain characters and their stories
more than others. For example, the Tommyknockers story didn't grab me all
that much, but for some reason, Bobbi Anderson really touched my heart - I
wanted so badly for her to escape from the clutches of whatever was taking
her over. As I said in an earlier post, King's ability to draw characters
that I care about is what keeps me coming back. The stories are often
gripping, sometimes really difficult to read (Dark Half) but I always care
about the people he wants me to care about. <shrug> It works for me and has
since The Dead Zone was brand new.
Liz
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.443 / Virus Database: 248 - Release Date: 1/11/03
Covenant
> "Covenant" <cove...@joelamb.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:b0i283
>>
>> Robert.. NO !
>> You just make the precise argument *against* your own point of view !
>> He took a novel which he thought was *unpublishable*..
>> The PUBLISHER decided to do JUST that!
>> This is *not* King's fault! Maybe he *doesn't* know what does or
>> doesn't sell... But it isn't his *job* to know.
>> His job is to write, and give it to the publisher. *Their* job is to
> decide
>> if it goes out.
>> A Man With Far Too Much Time On His Hands
> So King can't write something and decide to never give it to his
> publishers? he most certainly can. I am in no way taking sides or
> getting at all involved in this but what you said made absolutely no
> sense and I couldn't let it go.
It made perfect sense.
You're just not looking at the actual *point*.
More below.
> Whats the publisher going to do come
> to King's house and demand he hand over all manuscripts?
King is under contract to deliver a certain amount of texts.
He does.
Whether they are published is the publisher's prerogative, not King's.
> King can
> burn each page as he writes for all anyone would care, he has to give
> SOMETHING to publishers because he is under contract, but not
> everything. Robert's point is he is giving them crap because thats
> all he has to give them, and he knows it is crap but gives them it
> anyway. and if that is all he has to give them (i by no means agree
> mind you) then yes he should stop giving it to them and stop
> accepting money for it.
Y'see, there is where your diatribe collapses.
Maybe he *doesn't* think they are utterly worthless.
But even if he *does* the publisher is under NO obligation to print them.
NOT King's fault.
> as for what started this whole thing to begin with, do you really
> think whatever her name was at random house had a chance to read
> black house before deciding to publish it? lol thats a laugher too,
> that'll be the day when any publisher has any well known best selling
> author working on approval.
Ahhh but that's the way it *should* be.
And... Just because it isn't...again.. Still not King's fault.
Covenant
> On Tue, 21 Jan 2003 09:22:04 -0500 (EST), Americ...@webtv.net
> (Gary Jordan) wrote:
>
>> The ppl in this room dont even make up 1/1,000,000 of his fan base!
>
> Amen, nor the same fraction of his Constant Readers, people like me
> who have read everything that he's popularly published (and most of it
> many times over) and are eagerly awaiting his next book or story ;-)
And those of us who *do* and still critique...
As opposed to criticise needlessly...
;' )
Covenant
A Man Who Does Actually Think King's Output Has Slipped Slightly Over The
Years...
deathboy
King is not under lifetime contract, he can stop signing contracts anytime
he wants
>
> > King can
> > burn each page as he writes for all anyone would care, he has to give
> > SOMETHING to publishers because he is under contract, but not
> > everything. Robert's point is he is giving them crap because thats
> > all he has to give them, and he knows it is crap but gives them it
> > anyway. and if that is all he has to give them (i by no means agree
> > mind you) then yes he should stop giving it to them and stop
> > accepting money for it.
>
>
> Y'see, there is where your diatribe collapses.
> Maybe he *doesn't* think they are utterly worthless.
> But even if he *does* the publisher is under NO obligation to print them.
>
> NOT King's fault.
I agree, perhaps he doesnt think they are crap, robert's argument was though
that he does and has stated so publicly. in on writing he does diss rose
madder and insomnia, so lets accept that at least some of the things he
wriotes he doesnt like.
now as for the publisher and him delivering them books unworthy of
publication, what are they going to do, pay him for the books and not
publish them? just as he is contractually obligated to deliver books they
are contractually obligated to publish them, or even if they arent they are
obligated to pay him. paying him for a book and then deciding not to publish
it makes sense how?
>
>
> > as for what started this whole thing to begin with, do you really
> > think whatever her name was at random house had a chance to read
> > black house before deciding to publish it? lol thats a laugher too,
> > that'll be the day when any publisher has any well known best selling
> > author working on approval.
>
>
> Ahhh but that's the way it *should* be.
> And... Just because it isn't...again.. Still not King's fault.
not his fault, but does that mean it is not unscupulopus for him to take
advantage of that? it certainly is. again, i am in no way saying that i
think that is what he is doing, but it would certainly be possible for him
or any other well known author to do, and just because it might not be that
author's fault that still doesnt absolve him or her of all blame.
Poppy Z. Brite
>that he does and has stated so publicly. in on writing he does diss rose
>madder and insomnia, so lets accept that at least some of the things he
>wriotes he doesnt like.
But when did he say this? It's common for writers to grow disenchanted with
their past work -- I can hardly stand my first three novels now. I think it's
much less common for a writer to think a book is crap AT THE TIME OF WRITING.
In my experience, you always think what you're working on is the best thing
you've ever done.
PZB
Jeff
> As I said in an earlier post, King's ability to draw characters
> that I care about is what keeps me coming back. The stories are often
> gripping, sometimes really difficult to read (Dark Half) but I always care
> about the people he wants me to care about. <shrug> It works for me and has
> since The Dead Zone was brand new.
That's my feeling about King, too. There are some characters I find
vivid - Rose Madder's Rosie, Carrie White, Desperation's David and
Johnny, et cetera. I often find his lesser characters extremely rich -
even someone like Carrie's mom.
That's one of the reasons I return again and again.
ald
<cove...@joelamb.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>And those of us who *do* and still critique...
>As opposed to criticise needlessly...
>
>;' )
>
>Covenant
Oh, I still critique his writing, at least in my head, it's just that
most of it I still enjoy ;-) The exception, as I've said before, was
"Eyes of the Dragon", that one never grabbed me and it took me two
months to finish it (as compared to "Insomnia", which I got for the
first time on a three-day loan from the library and finished it with
almost a full day to spare). The other thing, also previously stated,
is that I don't particularly like horror, vampires and ghosts and
ghouls don't scare me, the only thing that King has written that truly
*does* scare me is the opening section of "The Stand", but SK can spin
a yarn better than anyone else I've ever read ;-)
>A Man Who Does Actually Think King's Output Has Slipped Slightly Over The
>Years...
Really? *Some* of his stuff, maybe, but things like The Dark Tower
series? And The Green Mile?
TracyN
Heh... I *love* this! It would be pretty disheartening to think of our favorite
authors sitting and writing while thinking that what they are writing is crap.
Why would they bother? I guess if there were contractual agreements to meet
and they were pissed off maybe. Still, most writers that I know are compelled
to write good stuff (or at least what they think is good ;-)
Tracy
deathboy
"TracyN" <tna...@questx.net> wrote in message
news:1QKX9.291$6H1....@news.uswest.net...
I would say all writers, all people in any creative endeavor, begin thinking
what they are creating is good but with something that takes as long as a
novel by the end they may change their mind. there are unfinished and
unpublished king novels, presumably somewhere while making them he decided
he didn't like them. I dont think it is impossible that there are 1 or 2 (or
more) that are published even though he decided he didnt like them at some
point prior to their publication.
Robert Whelan
On 21 Jan 2003, Cat wrote:
> >> What Poppy said? That's what *I'm* thinking ;-)
> >
> >Cat, you're not thinking. Poppy's thinking for you.
> >
>
> That's what *you* think, Robert ;-)
Heh.
Robert Whelan
On Tue, 21 Jan 2003, ald wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Jan 2003 10:17:09 -0500, Robert Whelan
> <rwh...@amanda.dorsai.org> wrote:
>
> >Well, it may be that they over-printed copies, which they seem to keep
> >on doing. But I think that this is partly due to King's own smarts
> >in hyping each new stunt-project to his publishers in ways that make
> >them think "Hey, this is the ONE!". With BLACK HOUSE the stunt involved
> >getting back toegether with Straub, to purportedly make a sequel to
> >TALISMAN, which was a publishing success. Of course, they were selling
> >this project to publishers and editors who probably hadn't read the
> >original gigantic book, and were only taking it on faith that this
> >was a real sequel, that would appeal to the fans of the original
> >book. Yes, they are to blame for not doing their homework, but King
> >particularly is to blame for leading them (and the audience) on.
> >King also hyped the "Dark Tower" connections in the book. He's an
> >asshole in his desperation to SELL every new project.
> >
>
> Yeah, God forbid he should try to find new ways to bring stories to
> the public, so that lesser-known authors have more outlets than just
> the publishing giants ;-)
>
> The problem with your argument is that he's been quite *successful*
> with all of his new projects. And there *wasn't* a "Dark Tower"
> connection in "Black House"?
There WAS. What I meant was, it was placed there to hype BLACK HOUSE,
not because it was a natural part of the story. It was a publicity
stunt to sell the story to Dark Tower fans, just as recruiting Straub
was a stunt to sell to TALISMAN fans.
That's news to me. Hopefully I can do
> without the spoiler space at this point, anyone who hasn't read "Black
> House" stop *now*, but the way I read it, not only did he make the
> "Dark Tower" connection, but due to the way they ended it he took the
> character of Jack away from Peter Straub so that he (King) could use
> him later in the "Dark Tower" series.
Exactly.
> >And just because a book is on the "bestseller list" doesn't mean it
> >REALLY sells well, particularly in this age of Barnes & Noble superchains,
> >and their continued policy of liberal return allowances. People may
> >have BOUGHT the book (thus getting it on the bestseller lists) but
> >then RETURNED it in droves, in disappointment and disgust, and then
> >the massive piles of mass-printed hardcovers sat there as word of
> >mouth killed it.
> >
>
> Again, you're assuming that everyone else shared your opinion of the
> book. And do people really do that?!? I mean, when I buy a book new,
> instead of getting it from a used book store or a library, I'm pretty
> certain that I'm going to enjoy it. But even if I didn't, I wouldn't
> feel right trying to return it, it would feel too much to me like
> trying to return my Big Mac after I ate it because it didn't fill me
> up enough.
True, book readers tend to be more honest.
> >Some. But apparently King isn't makeing a heck of a lot of money FOR
> >his publishers anymore, after his multi-million advance-fees are taken
> >out of the profits.
>
> Um, if this were the case, why would they not only continue to publish
> him, but continue to make him feel pressured to put out books on a
> regular basis (which is inferred from "Bag of Bones")?
Because they're having trouble making money in anyway, and are willing
to take a risk on King. I'm sure that the motive ascribed to Mike in
BAG OF BONES is *part* of King's motivation, but though he may have
fleshed out Mike with some of his own feelings of "publish or perish",
you have to remember that Mike wasn't quite the success that King
was, though he didn't do too badly, and, unlike Mike in BAG OF BONES,
King has NEVER retired and given up writing completely. He doesn't
just pull out "trunked novels" (like Pet Sematary might have been),
but also seems to fatten up small short stories from his trunk
into bloated and insincere novels. He broke a contract with one
publisher because he wasn't getting enough money for BAG OF BONES,
and then immediately went shopping for a new publisher for the
book. This is despite the hints that he thinks that BAG OF BONES
is a bad novel within the pages of BAG OF BONES itself, with his
comparing the structure to "cliches", and the title itself referring
to empty characters that have had no life breathed into them by
a writer. I believe in an interview he mentioned the death of
one character as a "cheat", because he didn't want to deal with
the situation he'd set up involving that character.
HppyButchr
>not because it was a natural part of the story. It was a publicity
>stunt to sell the story to Dark Tower fans, just as recruiting Straub
>was a stunt to sell to TALISMAN fans.
>
I read Black House first, and on its merits, I decided to go back and read The
Talisman, which I found to also have many Dark Tower connections. Was it just
a publiciy to sell more copies back then too?
When only one piece of the story had been published?
>and, unlike Mike in BAG OF BONES,
>King has NEVER retired and given up writing completely.
Mike didn't retur as such, he had a serious case of writer's block. The world
has never known if King has suffered from this, because he has published at
least a novel a year since 1975. But he may too have stored books away like
Mike Noonan.
>I believe in an interview he mentioned the death of
>one character as a "cheat", because he didn't want to deal with
>the situation he'd set up involving that character.
Not an interview, but a the book's foreward. I don't know if cheat was the word
he used, but he did explain it as an easier way out, and if you ask, most
readers agree. The novel that preceeds that part of the story is among his
best, incredibly creepy, very intense character description, and just
interesting. However, following that act the book takes a random turn into
movie-land, which is quite unfortunate.
~Jeremy
The Happy Butcher
Robert Whelan
On 21 Jan 2003, Jeff wrote:
> dvdd...@aol.comYERPANTS (Arch Stanton) wrote:
> > in The last month i've read "Bag of Bones", "Geralds Game" and "Dreamcatcher".
>
> Ohh...you probably couldn't have chosen a worse sequence (well, unless
> you'd read Needful Things or Pet Semetary in the middle of that)...
>
> Bag of Bones had a perfectly wonderful beginning. It is a really great
> example of a Gothic novel, with the unexplained intruding on the
> explained, and characters generally ignoring the occurrances or trying
> to explain them away. <spoiler alert>I felt that it fell apart just
> about the time that the girlfriend died - almost as if King didn't
> really know how to conclude the story and took a sharp detour. From
> that point on, the story felt like it fell apart.
It started falling apart for me with Mike asking the caretaker to send
photos of the lodge...such story-sapping foreshadowing, with such
little payoff. It truly fell apart with the appearance of Kyra. At
that point I felt King had lost the thread, or realized that the
thread he was on didn't have enough meat for a big novel, and started
tack switching to pad things out.
> Dreamcatcher just wasn't spectacular. It was okay, but was just
> written to be written. The message was muddled, and it just didn't
> every really catch a stride.
I disagree, in the sense that it seemed that King got caught up in the
feel and place of the story just prior to introducing Kurtz. It was
a chase story. The worst part was the attempt to do something artistica
and pretentious with the "ka-tet" of boys and Duddits, something he
threw out by knocking off most of them prior to the main bulk of the
novel. Yeah, it was wrong of him to tack-switch like that, but the
remainder was fairly involving, as a story.
> Gerald's Game is the book I rate as the low point of King's career. It
> is completely unbelievable (how much blood did Jesse have in her?) and
> completely destroys its supernatural elements in the second half. This
> book would have served better simply by leaving off the letter - the
> part that forces the rational world back on the supernatural and
> explains everything away while the protagonist happily rejoins the
> show in progress. Blah.
The letter was just padding to bloat a novella to barely-novel-length.
There were some nice moments involving the "Space Cowboy" prior to this,
though, as well as that VIVID flashback to Jesse's childhood experience.
> > I really like King, hes a favorite author of mine. Unlike you I find The Uncut
> > edition of the stand to be one of the greatest works of fiction i've ever read.
>
> I don't. I really tried to like the book, and did enjoy much of the
> first two books. It just felt that King couldn't find an ending (he
> admitted as much in a note to a book somewhere), and forced it, even
> though we were promised through implication a "major" battle between
> good and evil. By not following through on that promise, the ending
> betrays the reader's expectations. That's why I just don't like the
> book.
What he "forced" was the secondary "purpose" of the novel, which he says
he "realized" was what the novel was "really about", technology. The
point he got stuck before "realizing" this was the arrival in Boulder,
or just prior to it (I forget). My theory is that the real reason he
got stuck was that the novel, before that, had been focused, emotionally,
on a wise, comforting, mother-figure. Once she was found, King found
himself incapable of subjecting his characters and himself to her
guidance, due to his own mother-issues, thus the "forty days in the
wilderness" to punish her of her "pride", and basically eliminating
her from the story. She was the Gandalf of the story, and King
couldn't deal with what he'd created.
> > I can remember excitment at king books and wanting to read them all in a
> > night(i read the 1000 page plus stand in just over 4 days) With the last few
> > i've picked up i've felt bland and uninterested, Maybe its me personally?
> > Something in my brain keeping me from enjoying the books? Maybe i need to gread
> > something different for awhile?
>
> I don't think it's you. King's writing is cyclic - he writes really
> good stuff for awhile, and then the quality drops off. I would suggest
> a vacation. When you return, you'll be surprised at some of his stuff.
> If you don't want to, go back a reread a favorite to rediscover why
> you like King.
I'd recommend going back to the old favorites, really. King's motivations
are too muddled to produce solid stories anymore.
Robert Whelan
On 21 Jan 2003, HppyButchr wrote:
> >Gerald's Game is the book I rate as the low point of King's career. It
> >is completely unbelievable (how much blood did Jesse have in her?) and
> >completely destroys its supernatural elements in the second half. This
> >book would have served better simply by leaving off the letter - the
> >part that forces the rational world back on the supernatural and
> >explains everything away while the protagonist happily rejoins the
> >show in progress. Blah.
> >
>
> Thats funny, cause I was blown away by Gerald's Game. To be honest, I think it
> had more to do with listening to it as an audio book while driving on very
> empty roads between Pittsburgh and NJ in the wee hours of the morning than with
> the book itself, but regardless.
>
> It is a very impressive and complex journey into the human psyche, and down the
> road of insanity.
There's a lot of good stuff sandwiched in with the bad in GERALD'S GAME.
Robert Whelan
On Tue, 21 Jan 2003, Liz wrote:
> I must agree. It has been argued that there was much of the book that didn't
> move the story along. I would argue that those bits were actually the point
> of the book and the plot just gave them a reason to be there. Sort of like
> noodles can be a carrier for sauce. <g>
> As she dove more deeply into her own memory and motivations, the journey
> took me with her and a whale of a ride it was.
> I've only been able to re-read it once - somehow it scared me in a way other
> monsters don't.
The bits that "didn't move the story along" were good, I agree. The
problem was the contrived situation in which she found herself, that
forced her to address these memories.
Robert Whelan
On 21 Jan 2003, HppyButchr wrote:
> >And I for one, not that anyone asked for my opinion, but I have one so I'm
> >jumping in, thought Gerald's Game was fabulous. I thought that the way SK
> >got into the head of a woman was very well done. So much so that I actually
> >went out and read Tabitha King's work just to make sure I wasn't reading her
> >work instead of his. I'm reasonably sure it's his.
> >
> >WWLisa
>
> Not only the head of a woman, but the head of a person on the brink of
> insanity. Without taking the trip down the road to craziness yourself, this is
> in my opinion the closiest possible description (and King isn't even crazy...
> in any clinical sense at least :)
Doesns't anyone think that the portrait, and the way the story gets
at her psychological issues, reflects a deep hostility towards the
adult character on the part of the author? This "you silly woman,
let me slap you silly with gore and pain, so you snap out of this
bad-relationship phase." Hostility and condescension.
Robert Whelan
On 21 Jan 2003, Poppy Z. Brite wrote:
> >DREAMCATCHER very much, but it seems obvious to me that King has
> >> never lost his passion for writing.
> >
> >NEVER? Even with BAG OF BONES? With GIRL WHO LOVED TOM GORDON?
>
> I don't understand why people dislike BAG OF BONES so much. I think it's quite
> good. It has its flaws -- the two old villains are silly caricatures, the kid
> gets a little annoying, and he does that supernatural-ex-machina thing he loves
> to do not once but twice (the reappearances of Jo and Mattie). However, the
> story of Mike losing his wife and going through the grieving process is so
> convincing that I find it painful to read, and I like the parallels to Du
> Maurier's REBECCA.
You just listed much of why people don't like the book, so it's pretty
clear that you DO understand! I thought Mikes grieving process was
a little overdone, with the repeated vomiting, and the forced
sex-writing-vomiting connection.
> > Why
> >> else would he have continued to do it? He hasn't needed the money for many
> >> years, and the crap he has to listen to probably outweighs any fannish ego
> >> gratification by now.
> >
> >What evidence do you have that he listens to anything his fans have to
> >say? The main conduit for criticism would be printed words, via reviews,
> >emails, letters. He's got a severe vision problem. What makes you think
> >he's straining his eyes to read any of it?
>
> I don't know for sure; he just strikes me as the kind of writer who obsesses
> about that sort of thing but can't leave it alone. In a recent Entertainment
> Weekly interview, he admitted that he was still obsessing about a bad review
> from 25 years ago. He says also says some things in ON WRITING that make me
> think he's pretty sensitive about critical reactions.
He says that he obsesses about bad reviews. They effect his public
image. I doubt he cares about his readers anymore, though. His
"Constant Reader" comments indicate he thinks of them as silly
children (and his Harry Potter review over a year ago indicates
he'd like to continue marketing his books towards children).
Robert Whelan
On Wed, 22 Jan 2003, wolf woman wrote:
> "HppyButchr" <hppyb...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20030121181532...@mb-ch.aol.com...
> > >And I for one, not that anyone asked for my opinion, but I have one so
> I'm
> > >jumping in, thought Gerald's Game was fabulous. I thought that the way
> SK
> > >got into the head of a woman was very well done. So much so that I
> actually
> > >went out and read Tabitha King's work just to make sure I wasn't reading
> her
> > >work instead of his. I'm reasonably sure it's his.
> > >
> >
> > Not only the head of a woman, but the head of a person on the brink of
> > insanity. Without taking the trip down the road to craziness yourself,
> this is
> > in my opinion the closiest possible description (and King isn't even
> crazy...
> > in any clinical sense at least :)
> >
> > ~Jeremy
> > The Happy Butcher
> >
> The reason why I made it specific to woman is because, if I remember
> correctly, didn't this follow on the heals of Rose Madder? I think it did,
> or at least that's the order in which I read them. Anyway, I thought Rose
> Madder started to get into the female psyche and then the supernatural was
> sorta thrown in at the end cause King didn't know how to finish it. In the
> process of throwing in the supernatural, he seemed to lose the natural and
> the woman in the story became this stereotypical bitch on a mission.
Heh.
> Deloris Claiborne was ok at getting into the head of a woman, but I thought
> Gerald's Game was just dead on. If I remember correctly all three of those
> came out close together, I sorta call it King's "Women's Phase".
Gerald's Game got into the head of a woman, but the way it got there
was stupid, in my humble opinion.
Robert Whelan
>
> I don't know for sure; he just strikes me as the kind of writer who obsesses
> about that sort of thing but can't leave it alone. In a recent Entertainment
> Weekly interview, he admitted that he was still obsessing about a bad review
> from 25 years ago. He says also says some things in ON WRITING that make me
> think he's pretty sensitive about critical reactions.
And this has been one problem with recent novels...part of the "stunt"
of BAG OF BONES was the publicity campaign, which hyped it as a very
"literary" novel, and the novel itself was layered with referencing
to other works...King wasn't writing the novel just because it
seemed like a good story, he was trying to get critical acclaim...
"look, I'm a serious writer! DuMaurier! Bradbury! Melville!"
Cat
~cat~
"Strange thoughts come into your head and you'd better think 'em."
- The Good Girl
Robert Whelan
On 22 Jan 2003, Poppy Z. Brite wrote:
> >DREAMCATCHER very much, but it seems obvious to me that King has
> >> never lost his passion for writing.
> >
> >NEVER? Even with BAG OF BONES? With GIRL WHO LOVED TOM GORDON?
>
> I got interested in talking about BAG OF BONES before, and forgot to comment on
> THE GIRL WHO LOVED TOM GORDON. It's not one of my very favorite SK books, but I
> didn't hate it the way many people do. To me it just seemed like a decent,
> entertaining little yarn about a kid getting lost in the woods and being scared
> by the boogeyman.
I wish you'd read it again.
Not a story of great consequence, but I don't think it was
> intended as such.
It sure wasn't.
> The ones I really don't care for are DREAMCATCHER and CHRISTINE.
Christine was a big suprise for me, when I first read it. "Did
the same guy who wrote THE DEAD ZONE and THE SHINING really write
this? It showed that King had only one authorial voice...omniscient
third person, and couldn't manage first person at all. DREAMCATCHER
was just written better than most of his crap recently, and it was
a pleasure to just flow into the story without being constantly
being annoyed by stylistic sloppiness. He says he wrote most of
it longhand, which he says allowed him to pre-edit it as he went
along. I think it shows.
Still, though
> I've read great stories and clunkers by SK, I don't think I've ever read
> anything that read as if he didn't care about it while he was writing it.
Err....it's more that, once he stops caring about a story, instead of
abandoning it he'll switch to a tack which he does care about, even if
it doesn't match the style-tone of the previous section. He'll switch
to goofy humor, or sadistic torture. He CARES about the fun he's having
knocking over the sandcastle he's just built, but he's stopped caring
about the sandcastle, obviously.
I
> think tossing off so-called hackwork is much more difficult for most writers
> than most non-writers might imagine. If you're not obsessed with the thing, at
> least while you're writing, it's damned hard to stay with it no matter how much
> money you stand to make.
The funny thing about King is that his "hackwork" is usually the furious
result of failure at producing something decent. He's aware of the
problem, but too lazy to rewrite, or start over....he just tacks on
his awareness for length. I seriously don't think King "obsessed" about
GIRL WHO LOVED TOM GORDON. Someone reported seeing him, on his BAG OF
BONES tour, talking on Canadian tv about writing, and how a story
grow from an idea. The idea he came up with, as an example of something
you might grow into a story, was one of a little girl lost in the woods.
He then later reported that GWLTG was written on his LAPTOP, between
stops on his BAG OF BONES tour! Based on the ridiculous continuity
gaffes, such as the manner Trisha got lost being revised IN STORY
several times, instead of being revised by the writer, indicates
complete contempt for the tale. I think King wrote it to compete
with Anne Rice's slim novella, published not long previously.
Robert Whelan
I said "may", Jeff.
Robert Whelan
Covenant wrote:
> > So King can't write something and decide to never give it to his
> > publishers? he most certainly can. I am in no way taking sides or
> > getting at all involved in this but what you said made absolutely no
> > sense and I couldn't let it go.
>
> It made perfect sense.
> You're just not looking at the actual *point*.
> More below.
>
>
> > Whats the publisher going to do come
> > to King's house and demand he hand over all manuscripts?
>
>
> King is under contract to deliver a certain amount of texts.
> He does.
> Whether they are published is the publisher's prerogative, not King's.
If King didn't ask for, and get, gigantic advances for those books.
Publisher's don't really have a choice, after they have decided to
take a risk on King. They are committed, financially, to trying
to recoup their losses.
> > King can
> > burn each page as he writes for all anyone would care, he has to give
> > SOMETHING to publishers because he is under contract, but not
> > everything. Robert's point is he is giving them crap because thats
> > all he has to give them, and he knows it is crap but gives them it
> > anyway. and if that is all he has to give them (i by no means agree
> > mind you) then yes he should stop giving it to them and stop
> > accepting money for it.
>
>
> Y'see, there is where your diatribe collapses.
> Maybe he *doesn't* think they are utterly worthless.
> But even if he *does* the publisher is under NO obligation to print them.
>
> NOT King's fault.
> > black house before deciding to publish it? lol thats a laugher too,
> > that'll be the day when any publisher has any well known best selling
> > author working on approval.
>
>
> Ahhh but that's the way it *should* be.
> And... Just because it isn't...again.. Still not King's fault.
But King does drop publishers if he thinks they don't pay him enough
money, as he did with BAG OF BONES. His own tactics (or those of
his approved agent) are basically "Give me what I want, or I'll
go away." And his own stated dissatisfaction with his old publisher
was that they weren't publicizing his books enough, the way they
were with Tom Clancy's books. He's not passively waiting for
the publishers to approve his books, he's playing hardball, with
the most confident bluffing, and then delivering absolute crap.
His old publisher DID drop BAG OF BONES, and King, because he
asked for too much. King made a big show of only taking an advance
of one dollar for BAG OF BONES, with his next publisher, to try
to mitigate the "greed" aspect of his leaving his old publisher,
but he never mentioned the rapidly increasing advances he's
been asking for, and getting, ever since.
Poppy Z. Brite
>image. I doubt he cares about his readers anymore, though. His
>"Constant Reader" comments indicate he thinks of them as silly
>children (and his Harry Potter review over a year ago indicates
>he'd like to continue marketing his books towards children).
>
"Constant Reader" is an allusion to Dorothy Parker -- that's what she called
herself when she was writing book reviews for The New Yorker. I don't see what
it has to do with children.
PZB
Check out my auctions -- signed books and more!
http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/onlysleeping/
Poppy Z. Brite
>> I got interested in talking about BAG OF BONES before, and forgot to
>comment on
>> THE GIRL WHO LOVED TOM GORDON. It's not one of my very favorite SK books,
>but I
>> didn't hate it the way many people do. To me it just seemed like a decent,
>> entertaining little yarn about a kid getting lost in the woods and being
>scared
>> by the boogeyman.
>
>I wish you'd read it again.
I've read it twice, and probably will read it again eventually. I do
ridiculous amounts of King rereading, even of the books that weren't my
favorites.
PZB
Robert Whelan
On 22 Jan 2003, Poppy Z. Brite wrote:
> >I agree, perhaps he doesnt think they are crap, robert's argument was though
> >that he does and has stated so publicly. in on writing he does diss rose
> >madder and insomnia, so lets accept that at least some of the things he
> >wriotes he doesnt like.
>
> But when did he say this? It's common for writers to grow disenchanted with
> their past work
Not King. His PAST work he's quite proud of. It's his recent (past 10
years plus) that he's commented on.
-- I can hardly stand my first three novels now. I think it's
> much less common for a writer to think a book is crap AT THE TIME OF WRITING.
> In my experience, you always think what you're working on is the best thing
> you've ever done.
King is a very good writer, which means, he knows when he's writing crap,
when he's writing it. You, as a writer, have probably grown in skill,
and can be embarassed by what you see as less skilled efforts. However,
if you are writing now, surely part of your skill is, when you see
yourself going down a less skillful path with your story, to back-up
and stop yourself, right? The thing is, King doesn't. He just keeps
hacking away, and then never bothers to fix it, though he may
throw some lines in to a character's head to indicate his awareness of the
problem, pretending that the problem is actually a feature.
HppyButchr
>asked for too much. King made a big show of only taking an advance
>of one dollar for BAG OF BONES, with his next publisher, to try
>to mitigate the "greed" aspect of his leaving his old publisher,
>but he never mentioned the rapidly increasing advances he's
>been asking for, and getting, ever since.
But thats the point. Hes -getting- those advances. Just because you think hes
crap, doesn't mean that he is. Obviously he brings in enough cash to warrant
paying him his increasing fees, or guess what, they woulnd stop paying him!
Eventually, he would run out of front run publishers to drop.
~Jeremy
The Happy Butcher
HppyButchr
>;-)
>
>~cat~
Yeah, he has a habit for sticking with things from the past that he disliked.
Just an overall problem with moving on in general i think.
~Jeremy
The Happy Butcher
HppyButchr
>at her psychological issues, reflects a deep hostility towards the
>adult character on the part of the author? This "you silly woman,
>let me slap you silly with gore and pain, so you snap out of this
>bad-relationship phase." Hostility and condescension.
>
OIften we take from books what we choose to put into them.
~Jeremy
The Happy Butcher
Robert Whelan
Well, King does seem pissed off, especially in his bad recent novels, so
I can see him evilly cackling "Heh, I'll really screw the publishers....
and heh, heh, here's some shocking gore/rape for my Constant Readers..."
Robert Whelan
On 23 Jan 2003, HppyButchr wrote:
> >There WAS. What I meant was, it was placed there to hype BLACK HOUSE,
> >not because it was a natural part of the story. It was a publicity
> >stunt to sell the story to Dark Tower fans, just as recruiting Straub
> >was a stunt to sell to TALISMAN fans.
> >
>
> I read Black House first, and on its merits, I decided to go back and read The
> Talisman, which I found to also have many Dark Tower connections. Was it just
> a publiciy to sell more copies back then too?
> When only one piece of the story had been published?
I'm not absolutely sure, but I THINK Peter Straub has said that there
are no Dark Tower connections in the original Talisman. BLACK HOUSE
might have written in stuff that makes the original Talisman look
like a Dark Tower book, but it's a "retcon", not an original
intention.
> >and, unlike Mike in BAG OF BONES,
> >King has NEVER retired and given up writing completely.
>
> Mike didn't retur as such, he had a serious case of writer's block. The world
> has never known if King has suffered from this, because he has published at
> least a novel a year since 1975. But he may too have stored books away like
> Mike Noonan.
>
> >I believe in an interview he mentioned the death of
> >one character as a "cheat", because he didn't want to deal with
> >the situation he'd set up involving that character.
>
> Not an interview, but a the book's foreward. I don't know if cheat was the word
> he used, but he did explain it as an easier way out, and if you ask, most
> readers agree. The novel that preceeds that part of the story is among his
> best, incredibly creepy, very intense character description, and just
> interesting. However, following that act the book takes a random turn into
> movie-land, which is quite unfortunate.
Well, I did enjoy some of the "Mike in terror of his publishing pressures"
stuff, and the scene when he looks under the bed was very creepy, and
the rock-throwing scene was quite scary, but most everything else
felt insincere, and padded. I felt it took a turn into movie-land
when he suddenly is encountering little Kyra, then it was trying
to imitate a courtroom drama, then it was trying to be "Poltergeist",
crossed with the climax of Salem's Lot.
HppyButchr
>> >There WAS. What I meant was, it was placed there to hype BLACK HOUSE,
>> >not because it was a natural part of the story. It was a publicity
>> >stunt to sell the story to Dark Tower fans, just as recruiting Straub
>> >was a stunt to sell to TALISMAN fans.
>> >
>>
>> I read Black House first, and on its merits, I decided to go back and read
>The
>> Talisman, which I found to also have many Dark Tower connections. Was it
>just
>> a publiciy to sell more copies back then too?
>> When only one piece of the story had been published?
>
>I'm not absolutely sure, but I THINK Peter Straub has said that there
>are no Dark Tower connections in the original Talisman. BLACK HOUSE
>might have written in stuff that makes the original Talisman look
>like a Dark Tower book, but it's a "retcon", not an original
>intention.
That might indeed be the case, but having read them in the order I did, thats
how it played out to me. At that point in his career, I don't think King was
consiously connecting things to his overall Tower outline, but so mnay things
just have a way of easily fitting in, that I have to believe its more than just
coincedence.
~Jeremy
The Happy Butcher
Robert Whelan
On 23 Jan 2003, Poppy Z. Brite wrote:
> >He says that he obsesses about bad reviews. They effect his public
> >image. I doubt he cares about his readers anymore, though. His
> >"Constant Reader" comments indicate he thinks of them as silly
> >children (and his Harry Potter review over a year ago indicates
> >he'd like to continue marketing his books towards children).
> >
>
> "Constant Reader" is an allusion to Dorothy Parker -- that's what she called
> herself when she was writing book reviews for The New Yorker. I don't see what
> it has to do with children.
But King is also a big fan of Harlan Ellison, who uses the term
"Tonstant Weeder" in a contemptuous way towards fans.
Robert Whelan
On 23 Jan 2003, Cat wrote:
> It's funny how Robert came back and he's STILL bitching about Bag of Bones ;-)
Because you expected me to come back and...uh...not bitch about it?
Robert Whelan
On 23 Jan 2003, Poppy Z. Brite wrote:
> >He says that he obsesses about bad reviews. They effect his public
> >image. I doubt he cares about his readers anymore, though. His
> >"Constant Reader" comments indicate he thinks of them as silly
> >children (and his Harry Potter review over a year ago indicates
> >he'd like to continue marketing his books towards children).
> >
>
> "Constant Reader" is an allusion to Dorothy Parker -- that's what she called
> herself when she was writing book reviews for The New Yorker. I don't see what
> it has to do with children.
Another point. Parker was a fairly sarcastic individual. Her "Constant
Reader" self-appellation was sarcastic, since she was rarely "Constant"
in the sense of being "loyal". If King admires Parker and her acerbic
critiques, is he really expressing respect for his readers when he
calls them his "Constant Readers", in either the "loyal" sense, or
the more modern sense of "incessant", and by implication,
undiscriminating?
As for his attempts to point to children, in his Harry Potter review,
it shows King's awareness of the demographic that most liked his
early novels....teenagers. But he's a man of 60 now. Can he really
feel a connection with modern teenagers? How can any attempt to
appeal to them be anything but condescending? (witness the updating
of the Uncut Stand....purely done to condescend to modern kids,
and it seems to work...)