Stephen King and John Milton: Blindness, religion and writing
mst
I've read/heard that Stephen King has some sort of retinal disease called
Macular Degeneration that will eventually render him sightless. Apparently
he is already losing his direct vision, only his peripheral vision is
unaffected. No doubt this will drastically affect his writing (perhaps it
already has), but as any lit major should know, blindness does not mean an
end to his literary career.
One of the canonical figures of English Literature (note the capital "L"),
John Milton, was blind, and wrote copiously despite that hinderance. His
daughters helped out (do you think Naomi would serve as her Daddy's scribe?
King has written a good deal about father/daughter relationships lately).
Paradise Lost, Milton's masterpiece, is a very religious (NO! Really?!)
text, and there has been much speculation that his blindness greatly
enhanced his Christian fervor. PL also has a sympathetic devil, which is an
interesting character for a deeply religious man to create.
Although King has stated that he is not "conventionally religious," religion
does play a central role in many of his works, especially recently. How
might losing his sight have affected his religious outlook?
The topic of the day is: How do you think King will/has adjust(ed) to his
vision impairment, and how would YOU continue to write if you were blind?
Some follow up questions: Could his deteriorating vision be affecting his
work? Any opthamologists out there know what this particular disease
entails? What are the logistical problems a blind writer faces? Has anyone
noticed any similarities between King and Milton in terms of content? What
religious tropes has King "borrowed" in his exploration of the topic?
Play nice, kiddies.
--
Teri
++++
"Well, since you got here by not thinking, it seems reasonable
to expect that, in order to get out, you must start thinking."
Tock the Watchdog
DreemTrvlr
>Macular Degeneration
<big snip>
Any opthamologists out there know what this particular disease
>entails?
My Uncle has Macular Degeneration. His has progressed to the point that all he
has left is his peripheral vision. All I know about the disease is that it is
genetic. One of his 3 brothers have it and all of thier male children have a
chance of getting it.
Rick
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GSS/U d-(?) s: a-- C++() UL?> P L>++ E? W+@$ N++ o? K- w(+) !O M?>+ V? PS+ PE++
Y? PGP? t+>+++ 5-- X+@ R- tv(-) b+++ DI++ D G e h! r++ y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
stevie
>All right, let's see if a literary discussion is possible.
(snippage)
>The topic of the day is: How do you think King will/has adjust(ed)to his
>vision impairment,and how would YOU continue to write if you were blind?
That's not a literary discussion. The first is an exercise in pop
journalism, and purely speculative at that, while the second is an
exercise in self awareness/analysis.
Stevie
Robert Whelan
In other words, you aren't going to contribute. So shut up.
Rachel
subtle satire.
XO
Rachel
In article <pSXP2.36401$FZ5....@news.rdc1.sfba.home.com>,
"mst" <ter...@homey.com> wrote:
> All right, let's see if a literary discussion is possible.
>
> I've read/heard that Stephen King has some sort of retinal disease called
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
mst
>My Uncle has Macular Degeneration. His has progressed to the point that
all he
>has left is his peripheral vision. All I know about the disease is that it
is
>genetic. One of his 3 brothers have it and all of thier male children have
a
>chance of getting it.
Stephen's dad, Don King (!!), apparently had severe vision problems as well.
He mentioned his dad wearing THICK glasses in a home movie clip or
something...it must seem a rather painful irony that his father, who
abandoned him and his mother and brother when he was just a toddler, would
have left him such a dismal legacy.
mst
>I don't think Milton had Stephen King's sense of humor, nor his gift for
>subtle satire.
No, Milton was a grim figure in literature...but there are surprisingly
human touches in his work as well.
I do wonder how much influence his daughters had in his writing...
King's humor has changed, though...it has become less subtle, more sarcastic
and somewhat bitter. I noticed it especially with my rereading of the Dead
Zone last week...the episode with Dees where Johnny tells him "furthermore,
you sound like you're talking through a Saltine box" is just HILARIOUS, but
it doesn't bonk you over the head with a "ISN'T THIS A CLEVER LINE?"
pointer. TGWLTG has too many cases where something strikes Trisha as very
funny, and we get to read about her cracking up...too obvious. If it's
funny, we should know it without signposts.
Covenant
Teri.
A very thought provoking and intelligent post.
But unfortunately I know nothing about King's condition to comment, and I
have read NO Milton at all.
All I can say is that *nowadays*, technology being what it is, I don't know
if blindness would hinder an author quite so much.
I think the biggest problem would be the psychological ones of losing one's
sight and then having to deal with it.
I would HATE to lose my sight, ( a fear I have had since childhood... one of
my grandfather's was blind, and I used to agonise about the fact that he
could not see.)
That said, i am aware that life is a bit easier for blind people than it was
even 10 yrs ago.
However.
Going *from* sighted *to* non-sighted would (I feel) have a profound effect
on anyone, so maybe something like that *would* cause a change in Stephen's
work...
again, nice post !
mst wrote in message ...
Covenant
stevie wrote in message <371107...@rogerswave.com>...
>mst wrote:
>
>>All right, let's see if a literary discussion is possible.
>>The topic of the day is: How do you think King will/has adjust(ed)to his
>
>
>That's not a literary discussion. The first is an exercise in pop
>journalism, and purely speculative at that, while the second is an
>exercise in self awareness/analysis.
Oh... be fair Stevei... ; ' )
Teri also wrote.....
>What are the logistical problems a blind writer faces? Has anyone
>noticed any similarities between King and Milton in terms of content? What
>religious tropes has King "borrowed" in his exploration of the topic?
*I* would call those points for Literary Discussion...
Covenant.
A Man With Far Too Much Time On His Hands
Robert Whelan
Stevie loves to selectively edit peoples posts so he can bash them
out of context.
Robert Whelan
> DreemTrvlr wrote in message <19990411050659...@ng07.aol.com>...
> >My Uncle has Macular Degeneration. His has progressed to the point that
> all he
> >has left is his peripheral vision. All I know about the disease is that it
> is
> >genetic. One of his 3 brothers have it and all of thier male children have
> a
> >chance of getting it.
>
> Stephen's dad, Don King (!!), apparently had severe vision problems as well.
> He mentioned his dad wearing THICK glasses in a home movie clip or
> something...it must seem a rather painful irony that his father, who
> abandoned him and his mother and brother when he was just a toddler, would
> have left him such a dismal legacy.
I have thick glasses. I started worrying about it when I was ten, because
my mother was really upset that my eyes had started going. She blamed
herself for letting me read too much. I then got very conscious about
it, and tried to minimize the damage. Read books on "eye exercises"
and the Bates Method. All I managed to accomplish was to prevent
my eyes from getting really bad...by trying to do my reading without
my glasses whenever possible, and asking for a lower prescription
for desk work. (It makes no sense to get full strength glasses,
so you can see perfectly miles away, and then READ with them..
it's just asking for your eyes to get worse.) What this has
accomplished is that I have the best eyesight in my family. My
younger brother and sister have horribly thick glasses, almost
as bad as the things King wears. He must have read, and read,
and wrote, and wrote, while those eye-butchers slapped stronger
and stronger lenses on him, which he used for reading again.
I think that's why I'm so picky about books. I'm not willing to put
up with anything that's badly written, partly because I know it will
take a toll on my eyesight. If it's going to take a toll, it better
be worth it.
Looking at the horribly thick glasses King wears, I think it's quite
possible that he hit an eyesight barrier at some point, and found it
impossible to stare at the words on his screen as much as he could
when younger, and care whether they read well or not.
stevie
> stevie wrote in message <371107...@rogerswave.com>...
> >mst wrote:
>>>All right, let's see if a literary discussion is possible.
>>(snippage)
>>>The topic of the day is: How do you think King will/has adjust(ed)to
>>>his vision impairment,and how would YOU continue to write if you were
>>>blind?
> >That's not a literary discussion. The first is an exercise in pop
> >journalism, and purely speculative at that, while the second is an
> >exercise in self awareness/analysis.
> Oh... be fair Stevei... ; ' )
You're right. My comments were not entirely fair, but I was reacting to
the incredibly snotty tone of her opener:
"All right, let's see if a literary discussion is possible."
That wasn't at all fair to the general membership of the group, and I
chose to react in kind.
Stevie
Tim Moses
mst wrote in message ...
>
>Macular Degeneration that will eventually render him sightless.
Macular Degeneration CAN render one sightless.....but there's no
guarantee that it WILL. Just yesterday, there was a short News piece on the
effectiveness of eating spinach to halt/prevent Macular Degeneration.
>Although King has stated that he is not "conventionally religious,"
religion
>does play a central role in many of his works, especially recently. How
>might losing his sight have affected his religious outlook?
Well, look what it did for St. Paul......!
>
>The topic of the day is: How do you think King will/has adjust(ed) to his
>vision impairment, and how would YOU continue to write if you were blind?
Personally, I would adjust very poorly to the complete loss of my vision....
I already have fairly bad eyesight: extreme nearsightedness. In fact, it
is so bad that I have already experienced retinal tears or holes (that's
"tears" as in rips, not saline drops....). Although they were quite small,
I
could "see" these 'non-vision' areas: like black spots, right where I tried
to focus. The thought of my vision being totally gone gives me the
chills....
>
>Some follow up questions: Could his deteriorating vision be affecting his
>work? Any opthamologists out there know what this particular disease
>entails?
Not precisely an ophthalmologist, but (as noted) I do know a slight bit.
The
Macula is the area of the retina where your central vision is located - and
is
what allows you to see fine detail. When the cells in this area die, you
lose
the ability to see "centrally," although your peripheral vision is
unaffected.
SK has the 'wet' version of this syndrome: meaning there is 'leakage' from
the blood vessels that serve the retina. This leakage is what is killing
his
Macular cells.
How does this specifically affect one's vision? Try reading a book by
holding
it up in front of your left cheekbone, while looking straight ahead......
>
>Play nice, kiddies.
Yes'm.
KAH
>
MartyG5723
happen to me. At least a writer, with all the voice-led programs they have
today could dictate his thoughts and the word processor would record his
thoughts. An editor could correct grammar or whatever, and he could listen to
the pages on tape. Everything I do for enjoyment requires sight. I knit
intricate sweaters, do crossword puzzles and logic problems, read numerous
books. The thought of not being able to do those those, much less not being
able to see a sunset or a bird or a flower, or my grandchildren is enough to
send terror through me. I'm sure I'd survive, but it sure wouldn't be my ideal
life.
MartyG
mst
>You're right. My comments were not entirely fair, but I was reacting to
>the incredibly snotty tone of her opener:
Given the rash of flames lately, I think it's an entirely fair opening
question. Your antagonistic reply only serves to exacerbate the generally
hostile atmosphere.
>That wasn't at all fair to the general membership of the group, and I
>chose to react in kind.
That you continuously choose to interpret my posts as "snotty" goes to show
where YOUR mind is. Lighten up already...
stevie
> stevie wrote in message <37127E...@rogerswave.com>...
>>You're right. My comments were not entirely fair, but I was reacting to
>>the incredibly snotty tone of her opener:
>>"All right, let's see if a literary discussion is possible."
>Given the rash of flames lately, I think it's an entirely fair opening
>question.
I see. So the existance of flames in a newsgroup is adequate evidence to
produce the suspicion that intelligence is lacking in the general
population of the ng? If that's the case, there is no intelligent life
in usenet, and what does that say for you?
>Your antagonistic reply only serves to exacerbate the generally
>hostile atmosphere.
Perhaps, but so too does your openly snotty opener.
> >That wasn't at all fair to the general membership of the group, and I
> >chose to react in kind.
>That you continuously choose to interpret my posts as "snotty" goes to
>show where YOUR mind is. Lighten up already...
Well, in fairness I went for snotty rather than stupid as those seemed
the only realistic options, all things considered. Should I change my
view?
Stevie
mst
>I see. So the existance of flames in a newsgroup is adequate evidence to
>produce the suspicion that intelligence is lacking in the general
>population of the ng? If that's the case, there is no intelligent life
>in usenet, and what does that say for you?
I have NEVER said one damned thing about intelligence or the lack thereof on
this ng or any other...you're the one reading all that crap into my posts.
I simply asked if a LITERARY discussion was possible, since most discussions
degenerate pretty quickly into one-line banter or flames at the slightest
provocation.
I have also never participated in any of the flames that are flaring
up...notice that although YOU are getting increasingly "snotty," I'm still
trying to maintain some semblance of civility. I might disagree with
people, but I try my DAMNEDEST to do it politely, something you aren't
willing to see simply because I happen to agree with Robert on literary
points.
>Well, in fairness I went for snotty rather than stupid as those seemed
>the only realistic options, all things considered. Should I change my
>view?
You know, I'm starting to understand why Robert loathes you. Welcome to the
wonderful world of killfiles, you're not worth raising my blood pressure.
mst
>I have thick glasses. I started worrying about it when I was ten, because
>my mother was really upset that my eyes had started going. She blamed
>herself for letting me read too much.
Is it really reading that causes vision loss? I've heard this argument go
both ways, that vision problems are largely hereditary and no amount of
reading or not reading will drastically change your ultimate vision. I've
also heard that a LOT of reading (especially in low light situations or with
backlit monitors...a la CRT) will inevitably damage your vision even if
you're genetically slated for 20/20 eyesight. My own eyes are quite bad,
not so much in the actual prescription but in the degree of astigmatism...my
doctor once told me my eyes are like squashed grapes. But the thought of
ever going blind IS quite terrifying, and reading and writing are two of my
most cherished pastimes, so this fear does strike quite close to home. I
found it nearly unbelievable that SK was so casual and cheerful about it in
his 60 minutes interview...is he just putting on a front?
>My younger brother and sister have horribly thick glasses, almost
>as bad as the things King wears. He must have read, and read,
>and wrote, and wrote, while those eye-butchers slapped stronger
>and stronger lenses on him, which he used for reading again.
This Bates Method you wrote about...is it commonly known? I've tried to
read without my glasses, it gave me a headache because I had to hold the
book so close to my face that I went crosseyed. I DO remember being told
when I first got glasses that I should try and NOT use them whenever
possible. That was like asking me to hold my breath whenever possible...not
being able to see clearly is like living in a blurry photograph.
>Looking at the horribly thick glasses King wears, I think it's quite
>possible that he hit an eyesight barrier at some point, and found it
>impossible to stare at the words on his screen as much as he could
>when younger, and care whether they read well or not.
I can understand that, but his editors should still be able to do SOMETHING,
or at least, his "assistants" could help out. I remember when the Big Four
(It, Tommyknockers, Eye of the Dragon, Misery) was announced back in 1988 or
so...I was SO excited that my favorite author was going to release SO many
books in one year. It was quite a blow that three of the four were
dissappointments, but I was still engaged enough by them to keep reading.
Is it possible that around that time he realized his
writing/editing/publishing days were numbered, so he wanted to get the stuff
out FASTER to be able to enjoy the response while he still could?
Robert Whelan
> Robert Whelan wrote in message ...
> >I have thick glasses. I started worrying about it when I was ten, because
> >my mother was really upset that my eyes had started going. She blamed
> >herself for letting me read too much.
>
> Is it really reading that causes vision loss? I've heard this argument go
> both ways, that vision problems are largely hereditary and no amount of
> reading or not reading will drastically change your ultimate vision.
Oh yes. Think about it. Your eyes have to adjust to focus to the near
point. You place glasses on, you change the near point for the eye by
essentially making the nearest point the eye can see clearly the
point at which it can see clearly in the distance. And if you
keep the glasses on and read, your eye has to focus even harder
and closer than before. Unnaturally close. I'm sure heredity has
something to do with the predisposition to weakeness, but I
managed to maintain a level prescription for a few years until
I did a long stint in an office. I found that I could catch my
vision deteriorating, and remedy it with exercises while on the
subway, and bring it back. It was definitely work related.
I've
> also heard that a LOT of reading (especially in low light situations or with
> backlit monitors...a la CRT) will inevitably damage your vision even if
> you're genetically slated for 20/20 eyesight.
I did that when I was a kid. I'd read after I was supposed to be asleep,
from weak light from the hallway outside my room, and I'd read for long
uninterrupted periods without break. That's the worst, not giving the
eyes a break from close focus. The muscles lock up just as muscles
that are frozen in a cast lock up.
My own eyes are quite bad,
> not so much in the actual prescription but in the degree of astigmatism...my
> doctor once told me my eyes are like squashed grapes. But the thought of
> ever going blind IS quite terrifying, and reading and writing are two of my
> most cherished pastimes, so this fear does strike quite close to home. I
> found it nearly unbelievable that SK was so casual and cheerful about it in
> his 60 minutes interview...is he just putting on a front?
I don't know. I've become so disgusted with him that I am almost
uncharitably suspecting him of lying about it just to garnish
sympathy and or explain away his sloppiness. But don't take that
theory seriously.
Regarding eye problems. You know that detached retinas are a problem
suffered by nearsighted people? People whose eyes are frozen in
a stretched, near focus, for endless years. That's enough to keep
me on low prescription glasses, and attempts to practice eye
exercises for a long time. I refuse to wear full prescription,
except for driving at night.
> >My younger brother and sister have horribly thick glasses, almost
> >as bad as the things King wears. He must have read, and read,
> >and wrote, and wrote, while those eye-butchers slapped stronger
> >and stronger lenses on him, which he used for reading again.
>
>
> This Bates Method you wrote about...is it commonly known? I've tried to
> read without my glasses, it gave me a headache because I had to hold the
> book so close to my face that I went crosseyed. I DO remember being told
> when I first got glasses that I should try and NOT use them whenever
> possible. That was like asking me to hold my breath whenever possible...not
> being able to see clearly is like living in a blurry photograph.
I know. I was the same. I couldn't live without them on. But my
eyesight always got worse...BECAUSE I was wearing them all the
time. It's a catch 22. Wear them and get worse. Don't wear them,
and you can't see the blackboard, or people's faces...
> >Looking at the horribly thick glasses King wears, I think it's quite
> >possible that he hit an eyesight barrier at some point, and found it
> >impossible to stare at the words on his screen as much as he could
> >when younger, and care whether they read well or not.
>
>
> I can understand that, but his editors should still be able to do SOMETHING,
> or at least, his "assistants" could help out. I remember when the Big Four
> (It, Tommyknockers, Eye of the Dragon, Misery) was announced back in 1988 or
> so...I was SO excited that my favorite author was going to release SO many
> books in one year. It was quite a blow that three of the four were
> dissappointments, but I was still engaged enough by them to keep reading.
> Is it possible that around that time he realized his
> writing/editing/publishing days were numbered, so he wanted to get the stuff
> out FASTER to be able to enjoy the response while he still could?
I don't know. Did he really want to enjoy the response he got from
TOMMYKNOCKERS? Which he knew was "unpublishable" before it got
published? Honestly, I don't think his eyesight is such a concern.
If he was concerned about his eysight, he might spend more time
taking long walks and making up stories in his head, before sitting
down. As it is, I think he spends way too much time rapidly hacking
out his new stuff. If what you mean by "enjoying the response" is
"milking his audience for as much as he can get" I'd say that was
true. I know I sound bitter, but I'm looking at King's handwringing
about how he may be milking his audience (as he did after the
Green Mile) with a lot of cynicism, particularly when he keeps
doing it, again, and again (like the SOTC script, and this less than
150 page novella puffed to 200 pages and sold as a novel.)
Honestly, "Girl who Loved Tom Gordon" would have been, in the past,
published in a "Different Seasons" type collection. I really think
it's all about money now. King predicted it himself, and it's come
true.
I have yet to check out Jack Vance since he had his eye operation,
which apparently screwed up his vision. I want to see if poor
eyesight has affected this man, whose writing has become better
and better over the years, not sloppier and sloppier as King's
has.
I'm trying to read TOM GORDON now, and honestly, I don't know what
an editor would be able to do with it, if handed it as a finished
manuscript for editing. The amount of work it needs is so extensive
that the editor would be practically co-authoring the thing.
DavidEvan
>doctor once told me my eyes are like squashed grapes. But the thought of
>ever going blind IS quite terrifying, and reading and writing are two of my
>most cherished pastimes
I hear ya loud and clear Robert! My eye doctor was a little less colorful than
yours; he described my eyes as being like eggs. I could easily handle the loss
of any other sense but if I was to go blind I think I might shoot myself.
There goes my computer, books, videos-everything I do the most of. Can you
imagine the terror Helen Keller went through? Absolutely mind boggling. And
just the other day I saw a poster announcing available help for deaf and blind.
Shudder. I guess I really need to count my blessings. Even though I dont see
well, I *do* see. And even if I'm deaf in one ear and hard of hearing in the
other, I *can* hear. And I can talk (although the sensibility is in
question:).
David
That sound is me knocking on wood!
~~I hear it takes ten years to get used to how old you are
~~Unknown
Marthapups
(DavidEvan) writes:
> Even though I dont see
>well, I *do* see. And even if I'm deaf in one ear and hard of hearing in the
>other, I *can* hear. And I can talk (although the sensibility is in
>question:).
> David
Um...how about the sense of touch? That sense seems to be pretty highly
developed in you if I recall:)
Tina
DavidEvan
>>well, I *do* see. And even if I'm deaf in one ear and hard of hearing in
>the
>>other, I *can* hear. And I can talk (although the sensibility is in
>>question:).
>> David
>
>Um...how about the sense of touch? That sense seems to be pretty highly
>developed in you if I recall:)
>
>Tina
Ahhh yesiree!:). And we mustn't forget that even though I have a few
drawbacks, I have managed to keep a keen sense of good taste when it comes to
LA women:)!<wink and grin>
mst
>from weak light from the hallway outside my room, and I'd read for long
>uninterrupted periods without break.
Don't tell me you pulled all-nighters reading when you were a kid, too! I
did my first one when I was 9 years old...just got into a book and COULD not
put it down. Luckily it was summertime and I didn't have school the next
day. I don't know if that habit HELPED or HURT me when I got older and
all-nighters became a regular ordeal. I was lucky in that my parents didn't
try too hard to stop me from reading voraciously...they didn't understand
half the stuff I read, so I'd just tell them it was homework (even though it
was more likely that I was ignoring my homework to read for pleasure). With
Chinese parents, homework is like a mantra...
>I don't know. I've become so disgusted with him that I am almost
>uncharitably suspecting him of lying about it just to garnish
>sympathy and or explain away his sloppiness. But don't take that
>theory seriously.
Optimism, Robert. Hold it close to your heart...it certainly can't hurt.
After all, Hope Springs Eternal, right?
>I know. I was the same. I couldn't live without them on. But my
>eyesight always got worse...BECAUSE I was wearing them all the
>time. It's a catch 22. Wear them and get worse. Don't wear them,
>and you can't see the blackboard, or people's faces...
There are times, I suppose, where tuning out visually can come in handy.
It's just not very practical for me, seeing as I teach high school, and
those eyes in the back of your head aren't very reliable unless the ones in
the front are working at optimal capacity. Luckily for me, my prescription
has stabilized at around 600, and my astigmatism can't get much worse
without my eyes LITERALLY being squashed. In a few years, corrective
surgery might even be an option...there's a thought, letting other FALLIBLE
human beings slice into your eyes with a white hot laser.
>I don't know. Did he really want to enjoy the response he got from
>TOMMYKNOCKERS? Which he knew was "unpublishable" before it got
>published?
You know where he lost me in Tommyknockers? Gardener's rant against nuclear
power while on a drunken rampage. Have YOU ever known a drunk who was that
ARTICULATE, and who could pull stats and figures out of his ass while pissed
three sheets to the wind? I don't think so, and I've known a LOT of drunks.
They may be highly intelligent people, but alcohol knocks out your recall
and verbal skills...simple medical fact. Unless Gard wasn't REALLY an
alcoholic (which would blow a major premise throughout the rest of the book)
he couldn't have made those wonderful anti-nuke speeches...with which,
incidentally, I COMPLETELY agree, they just didn't make for the most
realistic character development in this case.
Even so, the umbrella fencing scene after the anti-nuke speeches is funnier
than any of the random supposedly humorous riffing that Eddie does ad
nauseum in the last two DT books. I loved the image of Ted the Power Man
getting poked in his fat cat belly and running screaming from the psycho
poet...no matter how bad the book is, a corporate suit getting skewered by
an artist is a good thing. Of course, the line between the suits and the
artists gets finer every day.
>As it is, I think he spends way too much time rapidly hacking
>out his new stuff. If what you mean by "enjoying the response" is
>"milking his audience for as much as he can get" I'd say that was
>true.
Could he actually be afraid of not having enough money? I find that
mind-boggling, as I'm sure he's set for life, and probably for three
generations down the road. No, I honestly don't think it can be the
money...it's the NEED to be READ, and perhaps he just doesn't have the
patience to wait for the revision, editing process to run its course
anymore...and the publishers don't push the issue. Why waste precious time
and human resources going over a work that could be sitting on the shelves
pulling in CASH?
Usenetters should be able to relate to the urge to have someone read and
respond to your words. But considering how sloppy many posters are (not
just here, but EVERYWHERE), it probably doesn't take much to understand how
he could start thinking his stuff was ok when it wasn't nearly as refined as
it used to be. The general level of acceptability is dropping, I
think...abbreviations, invented spelling, all the crap that started being ok
once the floodgates of whole language drowned out sane educational policy.
Not that I don't see the good points of whole language, but a solid
understanding of phonics is critical to a well-rounded curriculum as well.
Anyone who is rabidly pro-one-side-or-another in the Great Debate is missing
out on the simple fact that KIDS LEARN DIFFERENTLY. Ooops, sorry, that's a
rant for the k12.chat.teacher ng.
>I'm trying to read TOM GORDON now, and honestly, I don't know what
>an editor would be able to do with it, if handed it as a finished
>manuscript for editing. The amount of work it needs is so extensive
>that the editor would be practically co-authoring the thing.
I read it on my trip to Kansas City (my first excursion to the
Midwest/South...boy, was it FLAT!). There were some parts I found moving
and the first night Trisha spent in the woods WAS quite terrifying. But it
kept being interrupted by dumb giggly pop culture references that didn't
really enhance my understanding of Trisha as a person...and I was sad to see
that there was NO attempt to get into the reasons behind the dissolution of
the McFarland marriage, or any attempt to develop the brother or best friend
beyond simple strokes. I wanted to know why Quilla came across as such a
bitch, goddammit! That seemed SO unfair, especially given the loving
treatment drunk old Larry got.
One thing in particular bugged me...why does Trisha like Surge so much?
It's stated, but never expanded upon. Have you tasted that stuff? What's
so special about it that he had to specifically mention how much she liked
it? Did she like the commercials? Is it the colorful label? The sweet and
tangy taste? What? It seemed like such a trivial observation without some
sort of depth to enhance it beyond brand name loyalty.
Another observation: Surge is made by Coke, Trisha's best friend is
nicknamed Pepsi...cola rivalry? Cutesy connections? Pepsi is a bit of a
stretch for Penelope, too...so the implication seems to be that her
personality FITS her nickname...but we only get tiny glimpses of it,
secondhand.
This novella had potential and glimmering moments of truth, I won't deny
that. But it didn't REACH...there just wasn't enough care and love put into
bringing out the deeper layers of the story, it reads like a first
draft...which it most likely was. Damn, that makes me sad. Even an
unplanned pregnancy can go the full nine months.
Mic...@www.jtc.ac.kr
> All right, let's see if a literary discussion is possible.
Really? Are you serious?
> I've read/heard that Stephen King has some sort of retinal disease called
> Macular Degeneration that will eventually render him sightless. Apparently
> he is already losing his direct vision, only his peripheral vision is
> unaffected. No doubt this will drastically affect his writing (perhaps it
> already has), but as any lit major should know, blindness does not mean an
> end to his literary career.
Jean-Paul Sartre had the same problem and he did go *completely* blind.
Of course that did not put an end to his efforts to win the Nobel Prize.
> One of the canonical figures of English Literature (note the capital "L"),
> John Milton, was blind, and wrote copiously despite that hinderance. His
> daughters helped out (do you think Naomi would serve as her Daddy's scribe?
> King has written a good deal about father/daughter relationships lately).
> Paradise Lost, Milton's masterpiece, is a very religious (NO! Really?!)
> text, and there has been much speculation that his blindness greatly
> enhanced his Christian fervor. PL also has a sympathetic devil, which is an
> interesting character for a deeply religious man to create.
>
> Although King has stated that he is not "conventionally religious," religion
> does play a central role in many of his works, especially recently. How
> might losing his sight have affected his religious outlook?
>
> The topic of the day is: How do you think King will/has adjust(ed) to his
> vision impairment, and how would YOU continue to write if you were blind?
This is a good question, all too rarely asked with any seriousness.
Let's say that it will give new meaning to the term, "DARK TOWER".
> Some follow up questions: Could his deteriorating vision be affecting his
> work? Any opthamologists out there know what this particular disease
> entails? What are the logistical problems a blind writer faces? Has anyone
> noticed any similarities between King and Milton in terms of content? What
> religious tropes has King "borrowed" in his exploration of the topic?
I believe that King is the Milton of our age. In fact for me, personally,
The Stand stands right next to my copy of PL. In fact The Stand IS Paradise
Lost and Regained. I think the idea of a Satan running amok in our lives
is common to both these great writers.
Michael
Mic...@www.jtc.ac.kr
Robert Whelan <rwh...@amanda.dorsai.org> wrote:
(snip)
> I have thick glasses.
I knew we had something in common. 230/223. We're talking coke bottles here.
> I started worrying about it when I was ten, because
> my mother was really upset that my eyes had started going.
After I began to lose my sight my mom bought me the entire Tom Swift
boys' literature series so I can dream of being someone I was not.
(snip)
> it's just asking for your eyes to get worse.) What this has
> accomplished is that I have the best eyesight in my family. My
> younger brother and sister have horribly thick glasses, almost
> as bad as the things King wears. He must have read, and read,
> and wrote, and wrote, while those eye-butchers slapped stronger
> and stronger lenses on him, which he used for reading again.
Everytime I think about my eyes I wish I could have colon cancer instead.
> I think that's why I'm so picky about books. I'm not willing to put
> up with anything that's badly written, partly because I know it will
> take a toll on my eyesight. If it's going to take a toll, it better
> be worth it.
>
> Looking at the horribly thick glasses King wears, I think it's quite
> possible that he hit an eyesight barrier at some point, and found it
> impossible to stare at the words on his screen as much as he could
> when younger, and care whether they read well or not.
That will definitely be a sad day for me.
Mic...@www.jtc.ac.kr
stevie <mill...@rogerswave.com> wrote:
(snip)
> I see. So the existance of flames in a newsgroup is adequate evidence to
> produce the suspicion that intelligence is lacking in the general
> population of the ng? If that's the case, there is no intelligent life
> in usenet, and what does that say for you?
Intelligent people spell "existence" properly. You stevie aren't someone
who knows how to handle "evidence".
mst
>I believe that King is the Milton of our age. In fact for me, personally,
>The Stand stands right next to my copy of PL. In fact The Stand IS Paradise
>Lost and Regained. I think the idea of a Satan running amok in our lives
>is common to both these great writers.
Very intriguing thought, Michael. And, I notice, you're the only respondee
that has specifically addressed PL so far...kudos. It's not one of my
favorites, for the simple fact that I'm areligious and any blatant
proselytizing tends to turn me off, but I recognize its literary value, and
am able to find things in it that are clearly relevant to SO much of English
lit that it would be foolish to ignore it. This is why I DO suspect that
King's work MUST make reference to Milton's on occasion...any serious writer
with a background in English lit MUST be aware of Miltonian themes.
I had not thought of the Stand as PL, but I can see how you make that
parallel. It is the most likely candidate among King's works. I'm not so
sure about the regained part, though. What has really been regained at the
end of the Stand? Or is Paradise the result of all the people dying? That
has a certain dark appeal, doesn't it? Recreate Eden here on Earth by
removing all the corruption...namely humanity.
If you DO see the Stand as PL, who would play Adam and Eve? I suppose Fran
is the natural Eve choice, but since her child is not Stu's...that kind of
screws up the parallels...could it be a commentary on the reshuffled family
structures so common in 20th century America?
Flagg's demonic devil figure is not quite as sympathetic as Milton's
devil...although he's a lot more fun. The snake? Trashcan? I'm starting
to see where this could go...
Thanks for the LITERARY exchange...we'll see how long it'll last.
Covenant
Marthapups wrote in message
<19990414232130...@ngol02.aol.com>...
>>well, I *do* see. And even if I'm deaf in one ear and hard of hearing in
the
>>other, I *can* hear. And I can talk (although the sensibility is in
>>question:).
>> David
>
>Um...how about the sense of touch? That sense seems to be pretty highly
>developed in you if I recall:)
And THIS is called coming back with a VENGEANCE !!!!!!
Hiya Sweetie!!!!
Good to see you again!
Marthapups
<cove...@joelamb.freeserve.co.uk> writes:
>
>And THIS is called coming back with a VENGEANCE !!!!!!
>
>Hiya Sweetie!!!!
>
>Good to see you again!
>
>Covenant.
>A Man With Far Too Much Time On His Hands
>
Why thank you Covenant! So nice of you to notice:) Gemini don't miss a trick
do they?
Tina
Covenant
Marthapups wrote in message
<19990415155438...@ngol08.aol.com>...
We do our best!
(Don't we Joe...)
(Yes Joe... we *do* !)