The Girl Who Loved Tom Gordon (spoilers)
Absinthe
bad little book either.
<obligatory spoiler space>
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I think I might be a little biased since I love to hike and am looking to
thruhike the AT in the future as well. Living in NY, our woods resemble
very closely what the woods up in Maine are like and I found the way she got
lost and her description of the woods to be realistic enough. One wrong
turn without some kind of orienteering utility such as a compass or a GRS
and you can very easily get lost 5 minutes from the trail. Also with the
huge tracts of protected forrested areas around, it is quite possible to
stay lost for days on end.
The one problem I had with it was the ending. While I didn't mind her
fearing over the *God of the Lost* throughout the story, the fact that this
thing became quite real at the end was kind of a cheap shot to me. I think
the stroy would have had a lot more substance if it turned out to her just
hallucinating her own mortality. I would even like the idea of her facing
down the bear at the end if it was just some angry bear rather than this
thing. In my eyes, it took some credibility out of the story, which
overall, I liked.
I have read in here that most of you didn't really care for this book too
much. I was just wondering why y'all didn't like it? Just curious.
--
Heather
^*^*^*^*^*^*^*
http://www.absinthe-green.com
Updated June 10, 2001
mdrare...@yahoo.com
I took the manifestation of the spirit of the lost in a woodland creature in
stride. Where/How else should it appear to its victims?? We had been clearly
prepared for this ending with the claw marks and kills of the local fauna.
This is not one of my favorite but that is only because I like the
psychological stuff less then the purer horror of a Stand or even the sci-fi
of a Tommyknockers.
Crystal Dreamer
> I have read in here that most of you didn't really care for this book too
> much. I was just wondering why y'all didn't like it? Just curious.
>
--
~Crystal Dreamer~
"It's a Crystal, nothing more. But if you turn it this way, and look into
it, it will show you your Dreams."
-Jareth, Labyrinth, 1986
Captain Black
"Absinthe" <absi...@absinthe-green.com> wrote in message
news:9gj571$95f6n$1...@ID-51823.news.dfncis.de...
> Just finished it the other day. I liked it. Not his best work, but not a
> bad little book either.
> <obligatory spoiler space>
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
>
>
> I think I might be a little biased since I love to hike and am looking to
> thruhike the AT in the future as well. Living in NY, our woods resemble
> very closely what the woods up in Maine are like and I found the way she
got
> lost and her description of the woods to be realistic enough.
I enjoyed the book but, as a Brit:
a) I have no clue who Tom Gordon is
b) getting lost in a forest doesn't quite work in England as you're never
that far from civilisation. Well, at least what passes for civilisation
these days.
Bunny the Lifeguard
The getting lost thing is still pretty applicable to most of the US...
I live in NJ where our Pine Barrens are the largest patch of uncharted
woodland in the United States. That includes Alaska.
And the Blair Witch Project (possibly inspiration for TGWLTG?) shows
what bad things can happen when you get lost in the woods.
But I'd wager that well over 60% of our country doesn't know who Tom
Gordon is... but I don't think that matters to the story. King
probably picked a sports star that he likes or maybe his kids like. He
could have just as well had the story take place in the late 80's and
pick the Mets Kevin McReynolds or have it take place in the '60s and
make it Willie Mays or someone. Gordon doesn't really mean anything to
the story... it's mainly about a little girl trying to survive in the
woods.
-----
I'm rooting for the crocodile.
"I've wanted to say this for years, folks... potted
plant to the midsection!" - Jim Ross, WWF
"It's fun to make fun of people who stutter."
- Howard Stern
"Have you ever noticed that most of the people who
are against abortion are people that you wouldn't
want to fuck in the first place?" - George Carlin
absi...@absinthe-green.com
Tom Gordon is a baseball player & since he is just a relief pitcher, not a huge
one at that... I guarantee most people in the US have no idea who Tom Gordon is
either... I think you don't really have to know who he is to get his place in
the story which is just some famous guy who the girl looked up to that she
fixated on to help her through her struggles. I think King picked a
particularly obscure famous person to show that the girl had some depth and
didn't always go along with the most popular choices, not easily lead, so to
speak. That and also to show her attachment to her father as well.
As far as the woods are concerned, The USA or better yet, North America is huge
with vast portions of it unsettled. We have gigantic tracts of forrest and such
where there is nothing but nature that spreads out for miles. Some of it is
protected and some of it isn't cost effective for development. Remember, the
USA is bigger than all of Europe combined land-wise and in the east, we don't
have much sprawl, with heavy populations being focused in clusters, leaving the
rest of the land to scattered farms & undeveloped areas. Canada blows us away as
far as undeveloped land goes too. So yes, it is very possible to get lost in
the woods to die from exposure & it happens a bunch of times every year too.
Heather
^*^*^*^*^*^
http://absinthe-green.com
Updated 6/10/01
Cuthbert Allgood
beer or two if you promise not to tell everyone that
[CUT]
>I enjoyed the book but, as a Brit:
>a) I have no clue who Tom Gordon is
Well, being Italian I have no clue about the basic rules of baseball, but
anyway I've enjoyed the story... it is about Trisha McFarland, Tom Gordon
is merely a device...
'Bert
--
www.insideview.it is the on-line magazine made by and intended for Stephen
King's Constant Readers. Read the English version
"Gaiety becomes hollow and brittle, as in Poe's castle surrounded by the
Red Death. Horror is destroyed by boredom. Love is a dream."
Stephen King
Rev. Bleech_
(Bunny the Lifeguard) spewed forth:
>The getting lost thing is still pretty applicable to most of the US...
>I live in NJ where our Pine Barrens are the largest patch of uncharted
>woodland in the United States. That includes Alaska.
Er, and who told you that ?
--
=-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-==-=-=
BleechWorld : Too Fly to Die - http://www.bleechworld.com
To e-mail me, nevermind the BOLLOCKS | Yar. FOAD.
=-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-==-=-=
"We ate sweet bun. It made us cheery."
Floyd Code : v1.2a r BO 0/0/r tinG 0- 0 Animals/WYWH 22 129 22.3% <27jan01>
Absinthe
"Rev. Bleech_" <msi...@bo-nc.ll-rr.ock-com.s> wrote in message
news:td7vitg8042o0afoe...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 19 Jun 2001 03:05:44 GMT, powers...@SPAMSUCKShome.com
> (Bunny the Lifeguard) spewed forth:
>
> >The getting lost thing is still pretty applicable to most of the US...
> >I live in NJ where our Pine Barrens are the largest patch of uncharted
> >woodland in the United States. That includes Alaska.
>
> Er, and who told you that ?
> --
I don't know if its the largest uncharted woodland in the states, but it
does encompass 22% of New Jersey and is the largest body of open space from
Boston, MA to Richmond, VA on the Mid-Atlantic Seaboard. It is 1.1 million
acres and that is quite huge.
Didn't you watch *The Soprano's* man?? They got lost in the Pine Barrens
<g>
Bunny the Lifeguard
<msi...@bo-nc.ll-rr.ock-com.s> wrote:
>On Tue, 19 Jun 2001 03:05:44 GMT, powers...@SPAMSUCKShome.com
>(Bunny the Lifeguard) spewed forth:
>
>>The getting lost thing is still pretty applicable to most of the US...
>>I live in NJ where our Pine Barrens are the largest patch of uncharted
>>woodland in the United States. That includes Alaska.
>
>Er, and who told you that ?
It's pretty much common knowledge around these parts... do you have
information to the countrary?
Robert Whelan
> Just finished it the other day. I liked it. Not his best work, but not a
> bad little book either.
> I think I might be a little biased since I love to hike and am looking to
> thruhike the AT in the future as well. Living in NY, our woods resemble
> very closely what the woods up in Maine are like and I found the way she got
> lost and her description of the woods to be realistic enough. One wrong
> turn without some kind of orienteering utility such as a compass or a GRS
> and you can very easily get lost 5 minutes from the trail.
But wouldn't you at least TRY to go back the way you came?
<snip>
> I have read in here that most of you didn't really care for this book too
> much. I was just wondering why y'all didn't like it? Just curious.
If you want to see more in depth reasons, go to
http://www.deja.com
and put the followin in the search window...
alt.books.stephen-king "stand of bushes"
(use the quotes)
Or...
alt.books.stephen-king breastless
Read everything I complained about.
Rev. Bleech_
<absi...@absinthe-green.com> spewed forth:
>
>"Rev. Bleech_" <msi...@bo-nc.ll-rr.ock-com.s> wrote in message
>news:td7vitg8042o0afoe...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 19 Jun 2001 03:05:44 GMT, powers...@SPAMSUCKShome.com
>> (Bunny the Lifeguard) spewed forth:
>>
>> >The getting lost thing is still pretty applicable to most of the US...
>> >I live in NJ where our Pine Barrens are the largest patch of uncharted
>> >woodland in the United States. That includes Alaska.
>>
>> Er, and who told you that ?
>> --
>
>I don't know if its the largest uncharted woodland in the states, but it
>does encompass 22% of New Jersey and is the largest body of open space from
>Boston, MA to Richmond, VA on the Mid-Atlantic Seaboard.
Aaah, okay.
>Didn't you watch *The Soprano's* man?? They got lost in the Pine Barrens
><g>
Actually the last episode I saw before the end of the season. Grrr.
I'll have to hit up one of my friends who tapes it
--
=-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-==-=-=
BleechWorld : Too Fly to Die - http://www.bleechworld.com
To e-mail me, nevermind the BOLLOCKS | Yar. FOAD.
=-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-==-=-=
C is for CLARA who wasted away.
Rev. Bleech_
(Bunny the Lifeguard) spewed forth:
>On Tue, 19 Jun 2001 14:45:28 -0400, Rev. Bleech_
><msi...@bo-nc.ll-rr.ock-com.s> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 19 Jun 2001 03:05:44 GMT, powers...@SPAMSUCKShome.com
>>(Bunny the Lifeguard) spewed forth:
>>
>>>The getting lost thing is still pretty applicable to most of the US...
>>>I live in NJ where our Pine Barrens are the largest patch of uncharted
>>>woodland in the United States. That includes Alaska.
>>
>>Er, and who told you that ?
>
>It's pretty much common knowledge around these parts... do you have
>information to the countrary?
Considering that the NJ pinelands have 52 towns, 700,000 residents,
and you can drive across it in 90 minutes while doing the speed limit,
I'd say it doesn't qualify. Between Richmond and Boston I can believe
but yeesh.
--
=-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-==-=-=
BleechWorld : Too Fly to Die - http://www.bleechworld.com
To e-mail me, nevermind the BOLLOCKS | Yar. FOAD.
=-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-==-=-=
E is for ERNEST who choked on a peach.
Cuthbert Allgood
>But wouldn't you at least TRY to go back the way you came?
I don't think s/he (sorry) is about 10 (or was it 12?).
'Bert
--
www.insideview.it is the on-line magazine made by and intended for Stephen
King's Constant Readers. Read the English version
"Dreams age faster than dreamers" Stephen King
Robert Whelan
> Incredible! I've heard Robert Whelan <rwh...@amanda.dorsai.org> saying
> >But wouldn't you at least TRY to go back the way you came?
> [CUT]
>
> I don't think s/he (sorry) is about 10 (or was it 12?).
So people get the magic "go back the way you came" smarts only
by 10 or 12?
Michael
Robert Whelan <rwh...@amanda.dorsai.org> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.21.010620...@amanda.dorsai.org...
My earliest memory is going to the potty at about the age of 2. I
found my way back to the living room by retracing my steps.
Of course, I wasn't trying to write a best-seller that was founded
in dis-belief and unimaginable situations. ;-)
Michael
Nanny Ogg
Whelan <rwh...@amanda.dorsai.org> writes:
>But wouldn't you at least TRY to go back the way you came?
Robert, whether she would or wouldn't is irrelevant. The fact is, quite a few
people in that situation wouldn't. We've been through this one already,
remember? Check DejaGoogle for the alt.rec.hiking archives and my name, and
you'll find the thread where I posted to a group of experienced hikers,
described the plot to them, and asked them what I thought. You'll not only
find that the people who replied agreed with the plot plausibility, you'll find
stories from someone who's done the same thing and knows other people who have
as well.
If you want to point out that her actions were illogical, fair enough - hell,
I'd be surprised if King disagreed with you there, and I certainly don't. But
if you're trying to claim that because it was an illogical way to act she
wouldn't actually have acted that way, you're not only displaying a degree of
naivete about human nature, you're provably wrong on this specific point.
People _have_ acted just the way Trisha acted, so attempts to claim that nobody
would ever do such a thing are complete non-starters.
Why not just let it go and save yourself a really fruitless argument here?
Hell, it'll at least leave you with more time to tell us how misogynistic and
homophobic King is. ;-)
All the best,
Sarah
--
`If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs, you'll be
taller than everyone else.' Kipling and _I'm Sorry I Haven't A Clue_
`Unfortunately Real Life lacks a decent tourist information service' Adrian
Morgan
Bunny the Lifeguard
>
>Why not just let it go and save yourself a really fruitless argument here?
>Hell, it'll at least leave you with more time to tell us how misogynistic and
>homophobic King is. ;-)
I'd more interested to know why has such a problem with dogs and small
children... they seem to be frequent victims in his stories.
And that was before his accident... after that dog caused its owner to
nail Steve-o with a minivan, I wouldn't be surprised to see a dog get
killed in every new book he puts out now.
Cozy
Nanny Ogg wrote:
>
> Robert, whether she would or wouldn't is irrelevant. The fact is, quite a few
> people in that situation wouldn't.
Say, why doesn't Robert rewrite "Tom Gordon" and all the other
King novels he doesn't like by fixing what he considers to be
plot implausibilities, misogyny, etc.? It'd keep him occupied
for a while and then we could all have fun watching him get taken
to court for copyright infringement. "But your honor, I *had* to!
I couldn't let people be subjected to King's horrible drug-fueled
misogynistic writings!"
> We've been through this one already,
> remember? Check DejaGoogle for the alt.rec.hiking archives and my name, and
> you'll find the thread where I posted to a group of experienced hikers,
> described the plot to them, and asked them what I thought. You'll not only
> find that the people who replied agreed with the plot plausibility, you'll find
> stories from someone who's done the same thing and knows other people who have
> as well.
I think that for characters and their actions, the following rule
holds true. The character does not always have to be likable, and
his/her actions do not always have to be logical -- but what both
character and action must always be is *believable* within the
context of the character and the story.
I thought Trisha was believable and so were her actions. I didn't
necessarily find her totally likable -- I think anyone with that
heavy a baseball obsession has been spending way too much time in
the hot sun. But she and the story worked for me.
--
- K. Cozy
"We take what we want and leave the rest, just like your salad bar."
Robert Whelan
> In article <Pine.GSO.4.21.010619...@amanda.dorsai.org>, Robert
> Whelan <rwh...@amanda.dorsai.org> writes:
>
> >But wouldn't you at least TRY to go back the way you came?
>
> Robert, whether she would or wouldn't is irrelevant.
The fact is, quite a few
> people in that situation wouldn't. We've been through this one already,
> remember? Check DejaGoogle for the alt.rec.hiking archives and my name, and
> you'll find the thread where I posted to a group of experienced hikers,
> described the plot to them, and asked them what I thought. You'll not only
> find that the people who replied agreed with the plot plausibility, you'll find
> stories from someone who's done the same thing and knows other people who have
> as well.
You seem to have ignored my reply to your post in that thread. I pointed
out that all your hikers get lost by making GUESSES as to where they
should aim for. They then tend to stick with their best guess, even
if it's a bad one, in the hope that they'll run across SOMETHING
familiar. This is what happened to me at eight when I got lost
in the woods. No reason is given for Trisha choosing her course
of action after 10 minutes shows that she has missed her original
destination, because eve after 10 minutes, her best guess as
to a way back to the paths she has missed, is BACK THE WAY
SHE CAME.
> If you want to point out that her actions were illogical, fair enough - hell,
> I'd be surprised if King disagreed with you there, and I certainly don't. But
> if you're trying to claim that because it was an illogical way to act she
> wouldn't actually have acted that way, you're not only displaying a degree of
> naivete about human nature, you're provably wrong on this specific point.
> People _have_ acted just the way Trisha acted, so attempts to claim that nobody
> would ever do such a thing are complete non-starters.
People have NOT acted the way Trisha has acted, and none of your
hiking examples showed people acting the way Trisha acted.
> Why not just let it go and save yourself a really fruitless argument here?
Fruitless as in...you aren't listening? I'm not saying that Trisha
couldn't have become lost BELIEVABLY, or acted illogically in a
BELIEVABLE manner, but just saying she acted illogical "just
because", is like saying that she acted illogically because
aliens beamed illogic into her brain from a hovering spacecraft.
It makes a bad story. If you questioned your real hikers closely
you'll get better details of WHY they were "illogical", meaning
that they had reasons for doing what they did, not NO reasons.
Trisha's decisions to continue onwards, after 10 minutes of not
finding a trail that was supposed to be a shortcut to catch
her up to her family in a "few minutes", is UNEXPLAINED
illogic. It's bad writing. If she had a reason to NOT
turn around and TRY to go back, to where she last was
NOT lost, then the story should have told us what that
reason was. But continuing onwards, when she's obviously missed
the path, without trying to adjust her direction even once
(she's got a mental map of the area, you know. She has to
have a mental map to attempt the shortcut in the first
place...she thinks about crossing the "gap" between the
two trails...so if she missed the other path, she's
heading into the gap, and going on won't work.)
> Hell, it'll at least leave you with more time to tell us how misogynistic and
> homophobic King is. ;-)
Sarah, after all our talking, can't you admit the smallest bit that
you do see what my points were?
Robert Whelan
> Just finished it the other day. I liked it. Not his best work, but not a
> bad little book either.
> <obligatory spoiler space>
>
> I think I might be a little biased since I love to hike and am looking to
> thruhike the AT in the future as well. Living in NY, our woods resemble
> very closely what the woods up in Maine are like and I found the way she got
> lost and her description of the woods to be realistic enough. One wrong
> turn without some kind of orienteering utility such as a compass or a GRS
> and you can very easily get lost 5 minutes from the trail. Also with the
> huge tracts of protected forrested areas around, it is quite possible to
> stay lost for days on end.
What was missing for me was any exploration of Trisha's thinking, even
panicked thinking. Her panic was used as an excuse to ignore obvious
and instinctive ways out of her situation.
Here's a recap of some of the worst problems with the story..
Trisha is foreshadowed as getting lost by "stepping behind a
stand of bushes". But she never steps behind a stand of bushes.
The story starts in a flashback, from when Trisha is already
lost, thinking back on how she gets lost. But it never returns
from flashback, but just continues to tell the story from
the flashback until the end of the book, forgetting the
setup.
Trisha goes a "little way" down a side path. Believable for
a quick pee, but unbelievable for getting lost between the gap
of two paths, if it's only a "little way" apart.
The "crowding trees" around the overgrown path suddenly become
impossible to hide behind when Trisha steps of the side path,
necessitating her going down a slope and then hanging on to
a pine tree. Note that the slope begins away from the path,
so it ought to have provided shelter from being seen before
the bottom of the ravine.
Trisha imagines simply "walking across the gap", rather
than climbing up the way she came to the path she
came from. Next page she is described struggling up the
STEEPER slope of the opposite ravine, and then struggling
through thick vegetation at the top! This is King
playing loose with continuity so he can get Trisha lost
without as little thought about the situation so
she can be believably lost.
When trisha misses the other path she was aiming for, she
thinks back on what she has done. She "remembers" that she
went "50,60,70" paces down the side path. This doesn't
sound like the "little way" she went down the side path
to pee, and is a retroactive fixing of the problem of
how she might get lost in the gap between the paths
by making the gap bigger. However, 70 paces seems
an awful long way to go down a side path just to pee,
and makes the "shortcut" across the gap unbelievable
by being at double, or close to double that distance,
through thick vegetation, no less. Why would Trisha
think it a short cut? Would her hearing of her parents
voices so close be as believable if she had gone so
far, rather than a "little way"? (and, NO, 50-70 paces
is not a reasonable interpretation of a "little way".
Trisha DELIBERATELY keeps her eyes aimed on where she
thinks the opposite path is. She isn't just daydreaming
as she aims for it. But she is described as going for
10 minutes before she reconsiders. That's an awfully
long time for a shortcut that was supposed to catch
her up with her folks in a "few" minutes. After that,
continuing the way she's going should seem futile.
At least ONE change in direction should have been
part of her attempt to get back to the paths. King
can't let her do this because, in the gap of two
trails, almost any attempt to go back the way you
came, or make a left (as it would make sense for
Trisha to try (would bring you back to one or
other of the trails, assuming they are both MILES
long, and don't curl back on themselves.
When Trisha hits the log, she decides to crawl under
it instead of going around "to keep her bearings".
This seems just a cheap excuse to scare trisha
with the snake under the log, though, since if
she's smart enough to try and "keep her bearings"
she could go around the log to the other side of the
hole, and maintain her "bearings" from there.
After the log, Trisha gets the bright idea to use
landmarking to keep her bearings. But she uses
it to keep going ONWARDS, still never once considering
trying to go back the way she came. If she's too
panicked to consider going back the way she came,
she's too panicked to use this sensible landmarking
technique. Unfortunately, King seems to have realized
that this landmarking technique Trisha is so
intelligently using can quite easily be used
by Trisha to landmark her way, in a straight line,
back the way she came, out of the gap, into the
arms of the two branching trails. So he makes
her cry and forget about the technique, and then
run screaming. After she runs screaming is the
first time Trisha is believably lost in the entire
story.
It's totally unbelievable that, when Trisha finds that
the Hill full of berries was an illusion, and that she
is wading DEEPER into a wet muddy swamp. that she would
decide "the swamp has to end somewhere" and wade DEEPER
into it! This goes against every survival instinct of
every mammal on the planet. People don't like getting
wet and muddy. People DO try to back out of wet swamps,
even if they aren't absolutely sure what EXACT point
they came from (trish could have followed her own
muddy footsteps back.)
******
The story also has a bizarre, hostilely sexual focus on Trisha.
Trisha is described as 9 years old, but habitually thinks about
herself in disturbingly sexual ways, quoting her friend Pepsi
"Utterly Sexual" cursing "Sugartit", remembering herself
and Pepsi as looking like "the worlds youngest stripteasers"
when they try on makeup, imagining herself looking like
an exercise video girl "swing those hips, move those buttocks"
as she wades through the wet muddy swamp. This is augmented
by authorial asides and descriptions. When Trisha stands
looking in awe at a meteor shower, King gratuitously describes
her chest as "breastless", and in a bizarre sidebar, which
seems partly designed to explain why the search parties,
with presumed bloodhounds, has failed to find Trisha, we
are focused on Trisha's panties, as the police imagine that,
IF Trisha has been taken by a sexual-deviant murderer, that
if they find trisha's body, they don't expect to find her
panties. Along with the overfocus on Trisha's peeing
in the beginning, along with the bizarre image of her
mom SHOWING her how to pee, and Trisha "shaking her tail"
to get rid of drops of urine, we later get to see Trisha
with diarrhea, washing herself in a stream, bare from
the waist down. Someone should have gone through this with
a big black pen and toned down the focus on Trisha's
femininity, especially the sexual focus.
Finally, the Gameboy. King just called it a Gameboy, not a
"Pocket" Gameboy, and the Gameboy ran on AA batteries just
like the radio. With all the focus on her radio, and her
need to save her batteries, you'd think that there would
be some point where she discovers the batteries in her
smashed Gameboy and puts them in her walkman for a last
minute burst of hope. But King leaves this obvious
plot detail dangling.
Robert Whelan
Also, the wierd "Yeah, Baby" stuff. Where this is coming from
isn't really clear. From Trisha? From the "cold voice"?
From King the author? Along with the other sexualizing
material, it seems that King was making an Austin Powers
reference, which means it's another leering sexualizing
element. "Yeah, Baby" was a suggestive sexual comment in
that movie, said in a leering manner.
Robert Whelan
Add to this something AdWatts said in a previous discussion,
about King describing Trisha as "big for her age". AdWatts
felt that this made the descriptions of Trisha peeing, with
diarrhea, all the more disturbing. This would tie to King
deciding to tell us she's "breastless". The feeling of the
story is that King doesn't like Trisha, that he's making
hera whining screaming ditz just so it will be funny when
bad, humiliating, painful things happen to her. Describing
her as "big for her age", as an oversized child, without
the delightful (for King) side benefit of breasts, is just
another expression of King's hostility towards the character.
Trisha's being "big for her age" allows sneering dislike
for the oversized, but still undevoloped child, just as
Annie Wilkes' overweight problem similarly distanced
her from her femininity and fed Paul Sheldon's repulsion
for her in "Misery". All ties in to King's love/hate
mother/lover fixations. Women are only worthy of
redemption if they are old enough/attractive enough,
willing to have nookie. If they are not, then it's
fun to torture them with sexualizing threats, as in the
Austin Powers "Yeah Baby", or as in King-written
screenplay for SLEEPWALKERS, where the audience finds itself
uncomfortably asked to identify with the lusting demons
in the story, rather than the virginal girl being
threatened by them.
Rev. Bleech_
<rwh...@amanda.dorsai.org> spewed forth:
>On Thu, 21 Jun 2001, Robert Whelan wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 21 Jun 2001, Robert Whelan wrote:
*blahblahPEDOPHILESblahblahWOODSblahblah*
Shut up, you.
--
=-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-==-=-=
BleechWorld : Too Fly to Die - http://www.bleechworld.com
To e-mail me, nevermind the BOLLOCKS | Yar. FOAD.
=-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-==-=-=
L is for LEO who swallowed some tacks.
Cuthbert Allgood
>by 10 or 12?
A little girl is supposed to have some holes in her rationality, isn't
she?
'Bert
--
www.insideview.it is the on-line magazine made by and intended for Stephen
King's Constant Readers. Read the English version
"Sometimes there is no difference at all between salvation and damnation."
Stephen King
Robert Whelan
> On Thu, 21 Jun 2001 14:24:01 -0400, Robert Whelan
> <rwh...@amanda.dorsai.org> spewed forth:
>
> >On Thu, 21 Jun 2001, Robert Whelan wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, 21 Jun 2001, Robert Whelan wrote:
>
> *blahblahPEDOPHILESblahblahWOODSblahblah*
>
> Shut up, you.
Plonk.
Robert Whelan
> On 21 Jun 2001 12:34:56 GMT, swhi...@aol.com (Nanny Ogg) wrote:
>
> >
> >Why not just let it go and save yourself a really fruitless argument here?
> >Hell, it'll at least leave you with more time to tell us how misogynistic and
> >homophobic King is. ;-)
>
> I'd more interested to know why has such a problem with dogs and small
> children... they seem to be frequent victims in his stories.
>
> And that was before his accident... after that dog caused its owner to
> nail Steve-o with a minivan, I wouldn't be surprised to see a dog get
> killed in every new book he puts out now.
He hated his wife and kids, and felt trappped by them. As he has said, he
uses his novels as purges for all his bad feelings. In one interview,
he practically admits that had he not lucked out and had _Carrie_
bought at the time it was, he'd likely have ended up an alcoholic
waste. He was ALREADY wasting food money on pool and booze, as
he admits, even though they couldn't afford him to be doing
so.
And after he made money, he still continued to booze. He just
could afford too. And afford cocaine. If the kids hadn't had
Tabitha, and King's money, they would have been in a world
of hurt.
Robert Whelan
> Incredible! I've heard Robert Whelan <rwh...@amanda.dorsai.org> saying
> >So people get the magic "go back the way you came" smarts only
> >by 10 or 12?
>
> A little girl is supposed to have some holes in her rationality, isn't
> she?
Is that YOUR definition of a "little girl"? Seems like you have
a sexist prejudice. But then, so does King. "Why is she being
so stupid? Well, she's a GIRL."
Yeah, that explains it.
Michael
Are you drinking again, Robert?
Toss me a cold one, will ya? ;-)
Michael
Robert Whelan
>
>
> Nanny Ogg wrote:
> >
> > Robert, whether she would or wouldn't is irrelevant. The fact is, quite a few
> > people in that situation wouldn't.
>
> Say, why doesn't Robert rewrite "Tom Gordon" and all the other
> King novels he doesn't like by fixing what he considers to be
> plot implausibilities, misogyny, etc.?
It's beginning to look like this may have been what happened to
King's early novels, with his early editors. It may be that
they insisted he fix plot implausibilities, eliminate blatant
misogyny and racism, make characters more sympathetic. Credit
has to be given King for being able to follow their suggestions,
but I'm beginning to feel that the inclination was never naturally
King's, without some prodding.
King used to fix his own problems. Lately he hasn't seemed
to care.
Rev. Bleech_
<rwh...@amanda.dorsai.org> spewed forth:
>On Thu, 21 Jun 2001, Rev. Bleech_ wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 21 Jun 2001 14:24:01 -0400, Robert Whelan
>> <rwh...@amanda.dorsai.org> spewed forth:
>>
>> >On Thu, 21 Jun 2001, Robert Whelan wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Thu, 21 Jun 2001, Robert Whelan wrote:
>>
>> *blahblahPEDOPHILESblahblahWOODSblahblah*
>>
>> Shut up, you.
>
>Plonk.
Yeah, same way you plonked Wojo I'm sure.
--
=-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-==-=-=
BleechWorld : Too Fly to Die - http://www.bleechworld.com
To e-mail me, nevermind the BOLLOCKS | Yar. FOAD.
=-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-==-=-=
"It's 3 in the morning and YOU'RE CARVING UP TURK !!!!!!!!"
Cozy
Robert Whelan wrote:
>
> On Thu, 21 Jun 2001, Cozy wrote:
>
> > Say, why doesn't Robert rewrite "Tom Gordon" and all the other
> > King novels he doesn't like by fixing what he considers to be
> > plot implausibilities, misogyny, etc.?
>
> It's beginning to look like this may have been what happened to
> King's early novels, with his early editors. It may be that
> they insisted he fix plot implausibilities, eliminate blatant
> misogyny and racism, make characters more sympathetic.
*WHOOOSH* as the point goes right over Robbie's head!
> Credit
> has to be given King for being able to follow their suggestions,
> but I'm beginning to feel that the inclination was never naturally
> King's, without some prodding.
And now, we see how speculation becomes fact in Robert's mind,
all in a matter of seconds!
--
- K. Cozy
"There's an eye in the apples."
Robert Whelan
>
>
> Robert Whelan wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 21 Jun 2001, Cozy wrote:
> >
> > > Say, why doesn't Robert rewrite "Tom Gordon" and all the other
> > > King novels he doesn't like by fixing what he considers to be
> > > plot implausibilities, misogyny, etc.?
> >
> > It's beginning to look like this may have been what happened to
> > King's early novels, with his early editors. It may be that
> > they insisted he fix plot implausibilities, eliminate blatant
> > misogyny and racism, make characters more sympathetic.
>
> *WHOOOSH* as the point goes right over Robbie's head!
I didn't ignore your "point", I ignored it. You don't
mind, do you? It wasn't a brilliant point anyway.
> > Credit
> > has to be given King for being able to follow their suggestions,
> > but I'm beginning to feel that the inclination was never naturally
> > King's, without some prodding.
>
> And now, we see how speculation becomes fact in Robert's mind,
> all in a matter of seconds!
Where did speculation become fact in what I said?
Cuthbert Allgood
>a sexist prejudice. But then, so does King. "Why is she being
>so stupid? Well, she's a GIRL."
Oh, Hell, I forgot the mania for *political correctness* some of you got,
particularly in the USA... OK, I should have said "a little PERSON", or
maybe "a NON-FULLY GROWN PERSON".
'Bert who finds your reaction pretty ludicrous
--
www.insideview.it is the on-line magazine made by and intended for Stephen
King's Constant Readers. Read the English version
"Sooner or later what you've got comes back to you" Stephen King
Robert Whelan
> Incredible! I've heard Robert Whelan <rwh...@amanda.dorsai.org> saying
> >Is that YOUR definition of a "little girl"? Seems like you have
> >a sexist prejudice. But then, so does King. "Why is she being
> >so stupid? Well, she's a GIRL."
> [CUT]
>
> Oh, Hell, I forgot the mania for *political correctness* some of you got,
> particularly in the USA... OK, I should have said "a little PERSON", or
> maybe "a NON-FULLY GROWN PERSON".
>
> 'Bert who finds your reaction pretty ludicrous
Oh, I don't think you were being sexist. But I think that King was.
Wojo
Way to cover your ass, mate.
Wojo
Rev. Bleech_
<rwh...@amanda.dorsai.org> spewed forth:
>I didn't ignore your "point", I ignored it.
...
>> And now, we see how speculation becomes fact in Robert's mind,
>> all in a matter of seconds!
>
>Where did speculation become fact in what I said?
In your mind. HTH !
--
=-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-==-=-=
BleechWorld : Too Fly to Die - http://www.bleechworld.com
To e-mail me, nevermind the BOLLOCKS | Yar. FOAD.
=-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-==-=-=
'July 13, 1999 - Bleech's Killfile hits 69. No one cares.'
Randall Flagg
news:Pine.GSO.4.21.010622...@amanda.dorsai.org...
>
> >
> >
> King used to fix his own problems. Lately he hasn't seemed
> to care.
>
influenced him to believe he can write no wrong.
Cuthbert Allgood
...but you wrote like you thought...
>But I think that King was.
S.O.S. (Same Old Story)
'Bert
--
www.insideview.it is the on-line magazine made by and intended for Stephen
King's Constant Readers. Read the English version
"The most important things are the hardest things to say" Stephen King
Cuthbert Allgood
>>Oh, I don't think you were being sexist. But I think that King was.
>Way to cover your ass, mate.
...as if he didn't know we live at some thousands of kilometers of
distance...
'Bert [maybe he has seen my picture] §;-[)>
--
www.insideview.it is the on-line magazine made by and intended for Stephen
King's Constant Readers. Read the English version
"Argyou not about the hand you are dealt in cards or life"
Stephen King
Captain Black
"Cuthbert Allgood" <marco_s...@AWAYlibero.it> wrote in message
news:odt6jtcibrtms0vtd...@4ax.com...
> Incredible! I've heard Robert Whelan <rwh...@amanda.dorsai.org> saying
> >Is that YOUR definition of a "little girl"? Seems like you have
> >a sexist prejudice. But then, so does King. "Why is she being
> >so stupid? Well, she's a GIRL."
> [CUT]
>
> Oh, Hell, I forgot the mania for *political correctness* some of you got,
> particularly in the USA... OK, I should have said "a little PERSON", or
> maybe "a NON-FULLY GROWN PERSON".
>
Looney
C'mon, we all know what a sexist pig you are. You're the one who thinks women
don't like sex, never want it, and never think about it outside of the span of
the act...
Fuck, she liked the book, dude. Give it a rest. I'd wager that even those who
didn't like the book are tired of you getting a woody every time this topic
comes up.
Anthony "Looney" Toohey
-------------------------------------
Everything about him was old except
his eyes and they were the same color
as the sea and were cheerful and
undefeated
- Ernest Hemingway
THE OLD MAN AND THE SEA
Looney
>I'd more interested to know why has such a problem with dogs and small
>children... they seem to be frequent victims in his stories.
>
Jeez...there's this one again. He doesn't have a *problem* with them. They
make very sympathetic victims, evoking a strong emotional response.
Keee-rist...
Looney
>And now, we see how speculation becomes fact in Robert's mind,
>all in a matter of seconds!
>
Well observed and well put :-)
Looney
>People have NOT acted the way Trisha has acted,
Don't care about the rest of your dumbass, already shot full of holes ranting,
but gotta hear how you came by this big ol' piece of knowledge.
Please, cite. Show me how you perused all of the accounts of people being lost
ever recorded, then gained access to thoughts of those involved in an incident
that wasn't recorded.
Can't? Course not. You're full of shit, and when that's what you're full of,
that's all that comes out...
Looney
>On Thu, 21 Jun 2001 18:25:58 -0400, Robert Whelan
><rwh...@amanda.dorsai.org> spewed forth:
>
>>On Thu, 21 Jun 2001, Rev. Bleech_ wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 21 Jun 2001 14:24:01 -0400, Robert Whelan
>>> <rwh...@amanda.dorsai.org> spewed forth:
>>>
>>> >On Thu, 21 Jun 2001, Robert Whelan wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> On Thu, 21 Jun 2001, Robert Whelan wrote:
>>>
>>> *blahblahPEDOPHILESblahblahWOODSblahblah*
>>>
>>> Shut up, you.
>>
>>Plonk.
>
>Yeah, same way you plonked Wojo I'm sure.
RW's never plonked anyone. He just wants to be have deniability in order to
ignore those who rip him to shreds and expose him for the irrational asshole he
is.
Cuthbert Allgood
[CUT]
>Fuck, she liked the book, dude.
*SHE*?
183 cm, 1## kg, former rugby player, moustaches and goatee... I never
thought I was *she* §:-[Ş>
'Bert
--
www.insideview.it is the on-line magazine made by and intended for Stephen
King's Constant Readers. Read the English version
"If a pet is all a man is, he is a bad man, I think" Stephen King
Robert Whelan
Success has ruined him, in other words.
Cozy
Robert Whelan wrote:
>
> Oh, I don't think you were being sexist. But I think that King was.
Why don't you let the women here vote on whether King is sexist
or misogynist? After all, I think we're better qualified to weigh
in on this matter than you are (unless, being women, we're too
busy thinking about babies and suffering vapors to make a fair
and accurate assessment).
--
- K. "I vote no" Cozy
Michael
Cuthbert Allgood <marco_s...@AWAYlibero.it> wrote in message
> Incredible! I've heard wilyk...@cs.comkillspam (Looney) saying
> [CUT]
> >Fuck, she liked the book, dude.
> [CUT]
>
> *SHE*?
> 183 cm, 1## kg, former rugby player, moustaches and goatee...
So you're a Russian babe, is that what you're trying to tell us?
>
> 'Bert
Michael
MoustacheS?
Robert Whelan
>
>
> Robert Whelan wrote:
> >
> > Oh, I don't think you were being sexist. But I think that King was.
>
> Why don't you let the women here vote on whether King is sexist
> or misogynist?
Sure, but only those of you with high I.Q.'s. 1200 on the
SAT's or higher, please.
After all, I think we're better qualified to weigh
> in on this matter than you are (unless, being women, we're too
> busy thinking about babies and suffering vapors to make a fair
> and accurate assessment).
Only if you are smart women. I wouldn't expect the stupid ones to
know sexism if it bit them in the ass.
Cuthbert Allgood
>> *SHE*?
>> 183 cm, 1## kg, former rugby player, moustaches and goatee...
>So you're a Russian babe, is that what you're trying to tell us?
I don't think I'm Russian... nor from former Eastern Germany. §;-[)>
>MoustacheS?
Oooooooops... In Italian it's a plural noun (we say they are two, one on
each side of the nose)...
'Bert
--
www.insideview.it is the on-line magazine made by and intended for Stephen
King's Constant Readers. Read the English version
"Put a little fuck-you into your day" Stephen King
Cuthbert Allgood
>> or misogynist?
>Sure, but only those of you with high I.Q.'s. 1200 on the
>SAT's or higher, please.
>Only if you are smart women. I wouldn't expect the stupid ones to
>know sexism if it bit them in the ass.
OK, I don't know if King is sexist, but now I know Robbie Whinin' is.
'Bert
--
www.insideview.it is the on-line magazine made by and intended for Stephen
King's Constant Readers. Read the English version
"Wish-I-may, wish-I-might, have-the wish-I-wish-tonight. Drop dead, folks"
Stephen King
Michael
Cuthbert Allgood <marco_s...@AWAYlibero.it> wrote in message
> Incredible! I've heard Robert Whelan <rwh...@amanda.dorsai.org> saying
> >> Why don't you let the women here vote on whether King is sexist
> >> or misogynist?
> >Sure, but only those of you with high I.Q.'s. 1200 on the
> >SAT's or higher, please.
> [...]
> >Only if you are smart women. I wouldn't expect the stupid ones to
> >know sexism if it bit them in the ass.
>
> OK, I don't know if King is sexist, but now I know Robbie Whinin' is.
>
> 'Bert
What is sexist about what he just said? It may be politically incorrect
to express those views, but it certainly is based in truth.
Are you denying the existence of women whom wouldn't recognize
sexism? What he said is the same as saying there are men whom
wouldn't recognize themselves as *being* sexist.
Doesn't make it nice and pretty and pleasant, but then again, he's not
posting to make you happy.
It's the truth. Deal with it.
Michael
Randall Flagg
I don't know where (I think it's been several places), he says he doesn't
write for the readers, he writes for himself. Before he was so successful,
he wrote for the readers, otherwise, his stuff wouldn't sell. Now that we
all buy anything with his name on it, whether it's good or not, he doesn't
have to write what we like. There's a lot of us who'll think something is
good if it's got his name on it. If we read the exact same thing under
somebody else's name, we probably wouldn't give it a chance. And if we did,
we might not like it.
I've heard people say he can't be writing for the money anymore because he's
got so much. Having so much is exactly why he could be writing for the
money -- now more than ever. For many of us, the $1,000,000 mark is
something to dream about. If you've got $100,000, you'll get to a million
with just four doubling periods. With King being over $100 million, four
doublings will put him at ONE BILLION. To speed that along, he could write
stuff that his fans will buy. He doesn't have to try too hard, though,
'cause we'll buy anything with his name on it.
As hinted in this thread, his stuff doesn't appear to be truly editted
anymore. He's changed publishers more than once. If the current publisher
doesn't do exactly as he wants, they may fear he'll leave them, too.
Looney
>Incredible! I've heard wilyk...@cs.comkillspam (Looney) saying
>[CUT]
>>Fuck, she liked the book, dude.
>[CUT]
>
>*SHE*?
>183 cm, 1## kg, former rugby player, moustaches and goatee... I never
>thought I was *she* §:-[Ş>
Oh, that was your post? I thought it was one of the ladies, and I thought you
were in responding... my apologies :-)
I seem to bend peoples genders quite a bit around here :-P
:-)
Looney
>On Sat, 23 Jun 2001, Cozy wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Robert Whelan wrote:
>> >
>> > Oh, I don't think you were being sexist. But I think that King was.
>>
>> Why don't you let the women here vote on whether King is sexist
>> or misogynist?
>
>Sure, but only those of you with high I.Q.'s. 1200 on the
>SAT's or higher, please.
What bullshit, you asshole. You don't listen to anyone, regardless of IQ. You
really expect anyone to post their IQ and SAT scores, answer your question, and
believe that you'll say, "Oh, okay, you're right." You always have an excuse,
always, and it is always bullshit, just like your soul.
> After all, I think we're better qualified to weigh
>> in on this matter than you are (unless, being women, we're too
>> busy thinking about babies and suffering vapors to make a fair
>> and accurate assessment).
>
>Only if you are smart women. I wouldn't expect the stupid ones to
>know sexism if it bit them in the ass.
They'd know it better than you, you fucking chauvanist pig.
Mail Administrator
> Cuthbert Allgood <marco_s...@AWAYlibero.it> wrote in message
> news:sqo9jt88edab3ockv...@4ax.com...
> > Incredible! I've heard Robert Whelan <rwh...@amanda.dorsai.org> saying
> > >> Why don't you let the women here vote on whether King is sexist
> > >> or misogynist?
> > >Sure, but only those of you with high I.Q.'s. 1200 on the
> > >SAT's or higher, please.
> > [...]
> > >Only if you are smart women. I wouldn't expect the stupid ones to
> > >know sexism if it bit them in the ass.
> >
> > OK, I don't know if King is sexist, but now I know Robbie Whinin' is.
> >
> > 'Bert
>
> What is sexist about what he just said? It may be politically incorrect
> to express those views, but it certainly is based in truth.
>
> Are you denying the existence of women whom wouldn't recognize
> sexism?
No. I would deny that it takes a high I.Q. or SAT scores to recognize
sexism.
> What he said is the same as saying there are men whom
> wouldn't recognize themselves as *being* sexist.
I know smart men who don't believe they are sexist. Again, the reference to
intelligence/sexism was unfounded.
Pete
Michael
Mail Administrator <Posto...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3B36E57E...@worldnet.att.net...
> Michael wrote:
>
> > Cuthbert Allgood <marco_s...@AWAYlibero.it> wrote in message
> > news:sqo9jt88edab3ockv...@4ax.com...
> > > Incredible! I've heard Robert Whelan <rwh...@amanda.dorsai.org> saying
> > > >> Why don't you let the women here vote on whether King is sexist
> > > >> or misogynist?
> > > >Sure, but only those of you with high I.Q.'s. 1200 on the
> > > >SAT's or higher, please.
> > > [...]
> > > >Only if you are smart women. I wouldn't expect the stupid ones to
> > > >know sexism if it bit them in the ass.
> > >
> > > OK, I don't know if King is sexist, but now I know Robbie Whinin' is.
> > >
> > > 'Bert
> >
> > What is sexist about what he just said? It may be politically incorrect
> > to express those views, but it certainly is based in truth.
> >
> > Are you denying the existence of women whom wouldn't recognize
> > sexism?
>
> No. I would deny that it takes a high I.Q. or SAT scores to recognize
> sexism.
I was taking the approach that since "-isms are based in ignorance", be it
racism, sexism, etc., and ignorance is fostered in those with a lack of
learning, experience, exposure, etc., the night would follow the day.
With learning comes understanding, with understanding comes realization,
with realization, we have ignorance exposed.
> > What he said is the same as saying there are men whom
> > wouldn't recognize themselves as *being* sexist.
>
> I know smart men who don't believe they are sexist.
I disagree with your opinion that sexist men are smart.
> Again, the reference to intelligence/sexism was unfounded.
>
> Pete
In your view, Pete... and you're most certainly welcome to your world,
but do you mind if I don't share it?
Michael
Cuthbert Allgood
[CUT]
I've never had my IQ measured (here we don't use it), though I know what
it is, but I don't have a clue about SAT... What is it?
'Bert trying to learn something more about US culture
--
www.insideview.it is the on-line magazine made by and intended for Stephen
King's Constant Readers. Read the English version
"Might as well try to drink the ocean with a spoon as argue with a lover"
Stephen King
Cozy
Robert Whelan wrote:
>
> On Sat, 23 Jun 2001, Cozy wrote:
>
> >
> > Why don't you let the women here vote on whether King is sexist
> > or misogynist?
>
> Sure, but only those of you with high I.Q.'s. 1200 on the
> SAT's or higher, please.
My IQ = 147
My SAT score = 1250
But why be so restrictive? Some of the most intelligent people I
know didn't do well on their SATs. Or they are working what
society would consider "low-end" jobs because they want more time
to do things that really matter to them, such as theater or art.
Or they never went to college, but their knowledge of people and
human relationships more than makes up for it.
--
- K. (token broad of the He-Man Girl-Haters Club) Cozy
Q: How many radical feminists does it take to change a light bulb?
A: That's not funny.
spoiled milk
bad book either.
i like the ending with the bear/beast because i see it as a reference to the
drawing of the three of the dark tower series. (i don't know if you read
this book and i don't want to spoil anything for you, so i wont go into
detail)
so i kind of got excited when i read that part because it was like king was
letting us in on an inside joke. or maybe i'm just crazy. :)
mike aka spoiledmilk.
"Absinthe" <absi...@absinthe-green.com> wrote in message
news:9gj571$95f6n$1...@ID-51823.news.dfncis.de...
> Just finished it the other day. I liked it. Not his best work, but not a
> bad little book either.
> <obligatory spoiler space>
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
>
>
> I think I might be a little biased since I love to hike and am looking to
> thruhike the AT in the future as well. Living in NY, our woods resemble
> very closely what the woods up in Maine are like and I found the way she
got
> lost and her description of the woods to be realistic enough. One wrong
> turn without some kind of orienteering utility such as a compass or a GRS
> and you can very easily get lost 5 minutes from the trail. Also with the
> huge tracts of protected forrested areas around, it is quite possible to
> stay lost for days on end.
>
> The one problem I had with it was the ending. While I didn't mind her
> fearing over the *God of the Lost* throughout the story, the fact that
this
> thing became quite real at the end was kind of a cheap shot to me. I
think
> the stroy would have had a lot more substance if it turned out to her just
> hallucinating her own mortality. I would even like the idea of her facing
> down the bear at the end if it was just some angry bear rather than this
> thing. In my eyes, it took some credibility out of the story, which
> overall, I liked.
>
> I have read in here that most of you didn't really care for this book too
> much. I was just wondering why y'all didn't like it? Just curious.
>
> --
>
> Heather
> ^*^*^*^*^*^*^*
> http://www.absinthe-green.com
> Updated June 10, 2001
>
>
>
>
Robert Whelan
>
>
> Robert Whelan wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, 23 Jun 2001, Cozy wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Why don't you let the women here vote on whether King is sexist
> > > or misogynist?
> >
> > Sure, but only those of you with high I.Q.'s. 1200 on the
> > SAT's or higher, please.
>
> My IQ = 147
> My SAT score = 1250
>
> But why be so restrictive? Some of the most intelligent people I
> know didn't do well on their SATs. Or they are working what
> society would consider "low-end" jobs because they want more time
> to do things that really matter to them, such as theater or art.
> Or they never went to college, but their knowledge of people and
> human relationships more than makes up for it.
Oh, all right. Let's say someone with a low SAT score and high
knowledge of people and relationships IS able to see sexism
where someone more naive regarding people and relationships
might not see sexism where it exists.
There are plenty of women, and men, who just don't see eachother's
behavior as sexist, even if it's clearly so to others. A fictional
example would be Edith Bunker, who would say "Oh, your father
doesn't mean it".
You, Cozy, may be quite bright, but blind to sexism in your
favorite author, largely because you like him so much that you
don't want to see his flaws. There are plenty of women whose
husbands beat them, who still defend them as being wonderful
and loving people, which, in part, they still are. But they
still beat their wives.
Nanny Ogg
>Robert wrote:
In article <9h2ua7$bjoii$1...@ID-29204.news.dfncis.de>, "Michael" <w...@nada.com>
writes:
>> >Only if you are smart women. I wouldn't expect the stupid ones to
>> >know sexism if it bit them in the ass.
>>
>> OK, I don't know if King is sexist, but now I know Robbie Whinin' is.
>>
>> 'Bert
>
>What is sexist about what he just said? It may be politically incorrect
>to express those views, but it certainly is based in truth.
Agreed up to a point. However, knowing Robert, I have a sneaking feeling that
his definition of `smart' is going to be based on how well the woman's opinion
on what constitutes sexism correlates with his opinion. Which is going to make
for a rather circular argument
Sarah
--
`If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs, you'll be
taller than everyone else.' Kipling and _I'm Sorry I Haven't A Clue_
`Unfortunately Real Life lacks a decent tourist information service' Adrian
Morgan
ald
(Cuthbert Allgood) wrote:
>I've never had my IQ measured (here we don't use it), though I know what
>it is, but I don't have a clue about SAT... What is it?
>
>'Bert trying to learn something more about US culture
Scholastic Achievement Test I believe is what it stands for (not sure
about the A), what it is is the most commonly used test for college
admission standards. Basically it's two tests, Math and what amounts
to English, with a possible score of 800 in each, for a possible 1600
overall. RW's standard of 1200, while above some college's entrance
requirements, is still relatively low. Or maybe it just seems that way
to me, since I got a 1350 in the middle of my junior year (as in, the
year before most people take the test).
--
ald
reply via e-mail to a717 at erols dot com
Randall Flagg
"ald" <10317...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:3b36988b...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
Looney
> You, Cozy, may be quite bright, but blind to sexism in your
>favorite author, largely because you like him so much that you
>don't want to see his flaws. There are plenty of women whose
>husbands beat them, who still defend them as being wonderful
>and loving people, which, in part, they still are. But they
>still beat their wives.
Or, more likely, you, Robert, are unable to view your own flaws straight on,
your sexism, your narccisism, your own hatred of your mother, etc, so you have
chosen SK as your outlet, and choose to read volumes of your own mental illness
into the smallest fictional characterizations written by a fertile imagination
to tell a story, not as an autobiographical treatise. Get over it, and get
help for yourself. Making SK your mental surrogate is only the first step in a
dangerous disintegration of character...
Not that you had any to begin with.
ald
<TheAgeles...@TheTower.com> wrote:
>Aptitude
Fair enough, I wrote that first, but it didn't look right ;-)
Pete Spahn
> > > Are you denying the existence of women whom wouldn't recognize
> > > sexism?
> >
> > No. I would deny that it takes a high I.Q. or SAT scores to recognize
> > sexism.
>
> I was taking the approach that since "-isms are based in ignorance", be it
> racism, sexism, etc., and ignorance is fostered in those with a lack of
> learning, experience, exposure, etc., the night would follow the day.
That's kind of a round about way of looking at it. Racists are not necessarily
ignorant. They have their own POV just like sexists and just because they
believe what they do does not make them stupid or unintelligent (vs. unbearable
in many cases).
>
> With learning comes understanding, with understanding comes realization,
> with realization, we have ignorance exposed.
That's awfully Hallmarky, Michael. ;)
>
> > > What he said is the same as saying there are men whom
> > > wouldn't recognize themselves as *being* sexist.
> >
> > I know smart men who don't believe they are sexist.
>
> I disagree with your opinion that sexist men are smart.
Why? O.K., maybe I should say I know some intelligent men who are sexist just as
I know some intelligent women who are also sexist. Once again, I say that
preference and viewpoints are not necessarily a matter of ignorance or (lack of)
intelligence. You can be sexist and still be smart although unless you're rich,
you'll probably be single.
>
>
> > Again, the reference to intelligence/sexism was unfounded.
> >
> > Pete
>
> In your view, Pete... and you're most certainly welcome to your world,
> but do you mind if I don't share it?
Hell yes. Get off my newsgroup.
:)
Pete
Wojo
from Pete Spahn, who said:
>Why? O.K., maybe I should say I know some intelligent men who are sexist just as
>I know some intelligent women who are also sexist. Once again, I say that
>preference and viewpoints are not necessarily a matter of ignorance or (lack of)
>intelligence. You can be sexist and still be smart although unless you're rich,
>you'll probably be single.
Ignorance and stupidity are *not* the same thing.
I know a lot of people who are smart *and* ignorant.
Sexism *is* ignorant, IMO.
Wojo
Microsoft Gump 2K1
corrupted it by replying:
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
> > I was taking the approach that since "-isms are based in ignorance", be it
> > racism, sexism, etc., and ignorance is fostered in those with a lack of
> > learning, experience, exposure, etc., the night would follow the day.
>
> That's kind of a round about way of looking at it. Racists are not necessarily
> ignorant. They have their own POV just like sexists and just because they
> believe what they do does not make them stupid or unintelligent (vs. unbearable
> in many cases).
Racism is a direct byproduct of ignorance. If your friends have their
heads stuck so far up their asses as to think that the person standing
over there is not as *good* as them because his skin is a different colour
than theirs, or because they think Jews are stupid, or that women are only
good for sex you would do well to find new friends.
- Dave -
- Remove 123456 from my address -
- http://homepage.eircom.net/~msgump -
- Updated again + *New* Images -
Looney
>If your friends have their
>heads stuck so far up their asses as to think that the person standing
>good for sex...
Whoa! What? They're not?!?!
Oh, man...
Microsoft Gump 2K1
corrupted it by replying:
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
> >If your friends have their
> >heads stuck so far up their asses as to think that the person standing
> >over there is not as *good* as them ... or that women are only
> >good for sex...
>
> Whoa! What? They're not?!?!
Nah, they can clean too. ;-)
Atheist
"Microsoft Gump 2K1" <123mu...@456eircom.net> wrote in message
news:kbjgjt0gcnsbsjevn...@4ax.com...
All it takes is a quick look at genetics and we can see that all humans no
matter what are created basically the same.
The only differences are the ones that seem to matter the most to people,
and these differences are the ones that should really matter the least. Skin
color bears no sign of what a person really is.
The color of their hair, or eyes, or even how their hair is curly or
straight, means shit in the long run of human existance. Until we can pull
our heads out of the sand collectively and realize we are all just dna
sequences and we all have the same insides we will forever live in a world
where ignorance is bliss.
Atheist
Pete Spahn
> >
> > That's kind of a round about way of looking at it. Racists are not necessarily
> > ignorant. They have their own POV just like sexists and just because they
> > believe what they do does not make them stupid or unintelligent (vs. unbearable
> > in many cases).
>
> Racism is a direct byproduct of ignorance.
ig·no·rance (gnr-ns) n. The condition of being uneducated, unaware, or uninformed.
I have never heard Adolf Hitler be referred to as uneducated or uninformed. I am not
defending racism (or Hitler) by any means, merely stating that racism (or any other
type of -ism really) and ignorance do not necessarily go hand in hand and it is
dangerous to assume otherwise. It's easy to say "yeah, those neo-Nazi's are a buncha
uneductaed dumbassess" but remember that many members of the KKK, Black Panthers and
other groups are also clergy men, politicians and lawyers. That implies at least
some level of education.
> If your friends have their
> heads stuck so far up their asses as to think that the person standing
> over there is not as *good* as them because his skin is a different colour
> than theirs, or because they think Jews are stupid, or that women are only
> good for sex you would do well to find new friends.
Never once did I mention or even insinuate the word "friend" in my post . Please
remember, this is a discussion, not a personal character attack.
Pete
Atheist
"Pete Spahn" <amy....@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3B3A3BCC...@worldnet.att.net...
> Microsoft Gump 2K1 wrote:
>
> > >
> > > That's kind of a round about way of looking at it. Racists are not
necessarily
> > > ignorant. They have their own POV just like sexists and just because
they
> > > believe what they do does not make them stupid or unintelligent (vs.
unbearable
> > > in many cases).
> >
> > Racism is a direct byproduct of ignorance.
>
> ig·no·rance (gnr-ns) n. The condition of being uneducated, unaware, or
uninformed.
>
> I have never heard Adolf Hitler be referred to as uneducated or
uninformed. I am not
> defending racism (or Hitler) by any means, merely stating that racism (or
any other
> type of -ism really) and ignorance do not necessarily go hand in hand and
it is
> dangerous to assume otherwise. It's easy to say "yeah, those neo-Nazi's
are a buncha
> uneductaed dumbassess" but remember that many members of the KKK, Black
Panthers and
> other groups are also clergy men, politicians and lawyers. That implies
at least
> some level of education.
>
I would claim Hitler to be uninformed, and bred perhaps to believe that Jews
were the root of all evil along with other people that did not fit the
ideals of his belief system. To exclude people because of a noticable
difference such as skin color to me is a sure sign of an uninformed at the
very least individual.
Education and awareness are two different things much like common sense and
knowledge.
Anybody can read a book and remember some facts, or words of wisdom etc. But
it is what you do with those words, your actions that speak how much sense
you have about yourself.
>
> > If your friends have their
> > heads stuck so far up their asses as to think that the person standing
> > over there is not as *good* as them because his skin is a different
colour
> > than theirs, or because they think Jews are stupid, or that women are
only
> > good for sex you would do well to find new friends.
>
> Never once did I mention or even insinuate the word "friend" in my post .
Please
> remember, this is a discussion, not a personal character attack.
>
> Pete
>
Atheist
Scott
>
> Microsoft Gump 2K1 wrote:
>
> > >
> > > That's kind of a round about way of looking at it. Racists are not necessarily
> > > ignorant. They have their own POV just like sexists and just because they
> > > believe what they do does not make them stupid or unintelligent (vs. unbearable
> > > in many cases).
> >
>
> ig·no·rance (gnr-ns) n. The condition of being uneducated, unaware, or uninformed.
>
> I have never heard Adolf Hitler be referred to as uneducated or uninformed. I am not
> defending racism (or Hitler) by any means, merely stating that racism (or any other
> type of -ism really) and ignorance do not necessarily go hand in hand and it is
> dangerous to assume otherwise. It's easy to say "yeah, those neo-Nazi's are a buncha
> uneductaed dumbassess" but remember that many members of the KKK, Black Panthers and
> other groups are also clergy men, politicians and lawyers. That implies at least
> some level of education.
Intelligence and awareness are not necessarily synonymous.
-Scott
We hate that which we do not understand.
Microsoft Gump 2K1
corrupted it by replying:
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
> >
> > Racism is a direct byproduct of ignorance.
>
> ig·no·rance (gnr-ns) n. The condition of being uneducated, unaware, or uninformed.
>
> I have never heard Adolf Hitler be referred to as uneducated or uninformed. I am not
> defending racism (or Hitler) by any means, merely stating that racism (or any other
> type of -ism really) and ignorance do not necessarily go hand in hand and it is
> dangerous to assume otherwise. It's easy to say "yeah, those neo-Nazi's are a buncha
> uneductaed dumbassess" but remember that many members of the KKK, Black Panthers and
> other groups are also clergy men, politicians and lawyers. That implies at least
> some level of education.
For Hitler or any of the KKK or otherwise to believe in their hearts and
souls that they are *better* than black, spanish, jewish or whatever makes
them unaware and uninformed.
> > If your friends have their
> > heads stuck so far up their asses as to think that the person standing
> > over there is not as *good* as them because his skin is a different colour
> > than theirs, or because they think Jews are stupid, or that women are only
> > good for sex you would do well to find new friends.
>
> Never once did I mention or even insinuate the word "friend" in my post . Please
> remember, this is a discussion, not a personal character attack.
You said:
"O.K., maybe I should say I know some intelligent men who are sexist just
as I know some intelligent women who are also sexist. Once again, I say
that preference and viewpoints are not necessarily a matter of ignorance
or (lack of) intelligence."
I guess I read a bit too deeply into that comment, and inferred that the
people you know were your friends. My bad.
Pete Spahn
>
> I would claim Hitler to be uninformed, and bred perhaps to believe that Jews
> were the root of all evil along with other people that did not fit the
> ideals of his belief system. To exclude people because of a noticable
> difference such as skin color to me is a sure sign of an uninformed at the
> very least individual.
Again, not necessarily. People can be informed about the equality of man all
they want and still believe what they will. It's more a matter of choice and
opinion and their intelligence levels can vary from stupid to genius just like
anyone else.
My entire point was that -isms are not based on I.Q. or S.A.T. tests. If they
were, the world would be a much better place because the people in power would
be smart and without prejudice.
*Cue "We are the World" theme song*
:)
>
> Education and awareness are two different things much like common sense and
> knowledge.
>
> Anybody can read a book and remember some facts, or words of wisdom etc. But
> it is what you do with those words, your actions that speak how much sense
> you have about yourself.
Agreed, but that's not how this discussion started.
Pete
BTW I hope you all realize I am just playing Devil's Advocate here.
Pete Spahn
>
> For Hitler or any of the KKK or otherwise to believe in their hearts and
> souls that they are *better* than black, spanish, jewish or whatever makes
> them unaware and uninformed.
I still think they can be aware and informed but still choose to believe they are better
anyway.
>
> > > If your friends have their
> > > heads stuck so far up their asses as to think that the person standing
> > > over there is not as *good* as them because his skin is a different colour
> > > than theirs, or because they think Jews are stupid, or that women are only
> > > good for sex you would do well to find new friends.
> >
> > Never once did I mention or even insinuate the word "friend" in my post . Please
> > remember, this is a discussion, not a personal character attack.
>
> You said:
> "O.K., maybe I should say I know some intelligent men who are sexist just
> as I know some intelligent women who are also sexist. Once again, I say
> that preference and viewpoints are not necessarily a matter of ignorance
> or (lack of) intelligence."
>
> I guess I read a bit too deeply into that comment, and inferred that the
> people you know were your friends. My bad.
No biggie. Just wanted to be clear where I was coming from.
Pete
Microsoft Gump 2K1
corrupted it by replying:
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
> > For Hitler or any of the KKK or otherwise to believe in their hearts and
> > souls that they are *better* than black, spanish, jewish or whatever makes
> > them unaware and uninformed.
>
> I still think they can be aware and informed but still choose to believe they are better
> anyway.
Then they are misinformed and unaware. People who believe in Santa Claus
are misinformed and unaware too.
Atheist
> Microsoft Gump 2K1 wrote:
>
> >
> > For Hitler or any of the KKK or otherwise to believe in their hearts and
> > souls that they are *better* than black, spanish, jewish or whatever
makes
> > them unaware and uninformed.
>
> I still think they can be aware and informed but still choose to believe
they are better
> anyway.
>
>
Which makes you ignorant, to see knowledge, or the truth before you eyes,
and deny it is a sign of ignorance.
> >
> > > > If your friends have their
> > > > heads stuck so far up their asses as to think that the person
standing
> > > > over there is not as *good* as them because his skin is a different
colour
> > > > than theirs, or because they think Jews are stupid, or that women
are only
> > > > good for sex you would do well to find new friends.
> > >
> > > Never once did I mention or even insinuate the word "friend" in my
post . Please
> > > remember, this is a discussion, not a personal character attack.
> >
> > You said:
> > "O.K., maybe I should say I know some intelligent men who are sexist
just
> > as I know some intelligent women who are also sexist. Once again, I
say
> > that preference and viewpoints are not necessarily a matter of ignorance
> > or (lack of) intelligence."
> >
> > I guess I read a bit too deeply into that comment, and inferred that the
> > people you know were your friends. My bad.
>
> No biggie. Just wanted to be clear where I was coming from.
>
> Pete
>
Atheist
Atheist
> Atheist wrote:
>
> >
> > I would claim Hitler to be uninformed, and bred perhaps to believe that
Jews
> > were the root of all evil along with other people that did not fit the
> > ideals of his belief system. To exclude people because of a noticable
> > difference such as skin color to me is a sure sign of an uninformed at
the
> > very least individual.
>
> Again, not necessarily. People can be informed about the equality of man
all
> they want and still believe what they will. It's more a matter of choice
and
> opinion and their intelligence levels can vary from stupid to genius just
like
> anyone else.
>
> My entire point was that -isms are not based on I.Q. or S.A.T. tests. If
they
> were, the world would be a much better place because the people in power
would
> be smart and without prejudice.
>
> *Cue "We are the World" theme song*
>
> :)
>
I would never say that I.Q or an S.A.T score had anything to do with how
ignorant someone is. There is a big difference as I said before between
intelligence, and common sense.
> >
> > Education and awareness are two different things much like common sense
and
> > knowledge.
> >
> > Anybody can read a book and remember some facts, or words of wisdom etc.
But
> > it is what you do with those words, your actions that speak how much
sense
> > you have about yourself.
>
> Agreed, but that's not how this discussion started.
>
> Pete
>
> BTW I hope you all realize I am just playing Devil's Advocate here.
>
I've played with the Devil too when it comes to debates over issues, so
trust me I realized from the beginning what positions would come from a
discussion like this. So far nothing has surprised me.
Atheist
Mammahi
"Microsoft Gump 2K1" wrote in message
>
> > > For Hitler or any of the KKK or otherwise to believe in their hearts
and
> > > souls that they are *better* than black, spanish, jewish or whatever
makes
> > > them unaware and uninformed.
> >
> > I still think they can be aware and informed but still choose to believe
they are better
> > anyway.
>
> Then they are misinformed and unaware. People who believe in Santa Claus
> are misinformed and unaware too.
>
>
> - Dave -
I think unaware is the wrong word. Ignorance and fear cause a lot of
racism. I've often also noticed that uneducated poor people tend to blame
others for the fact that they are poor, or didn't get the job, etc...
The fear may come from being brought up wrong. I am always trying to get my
peers to not say "they" or "them", or "those people".
Just my two cents.
Anne