King Reading Newsgroup?
Donovan Colbert
Ok, excuse my use of tabloid journalisim headlining to get
your attention, but...
My wife suggested something this evening that I had never ever
considered. (As I'm sure many of you will have no trouble
understanding, she often comes in handy, this way. :)
I had noticed this line, paraphrasing, "But I think that is
another story, although maybe close to ours, perhaps close enough to
even start arguments"...
And read that as an indication that he *does* read the
newsgroup, or at least keeps an eye on it. I don't think that is an
unthinkable notion. If there were an "alt.books.donovan.colbert"
newsgroup, I am certain I would be as compelled to peek into it every
now and then, as I would be to, oh, grab the pink globe and see what
it had to show me, were I to own that glam. If you get my drift...
My wife responded, he probably does read, and maybe even posts too...
I was just starting to argue the point when a little light went on in
my head, "A psudeonym... a pen-name"...
At which point I had the dreadful thought, what if Stephen King was
Jon, or Jared, or *heavan forbid*, Dani or Stevie.
The idea of ripping into some fellow "faceless nobody" across the
pond, or some "faceless nobody" single mother in middle America is
easy enough to live with. The idea of flaming (mind you, effectively
or not) King, on the other hand... Well, even if I didn't agree with
King's opinions (I'm fairly certain he holds many I wouldn't). I don't
think I'd approach a discussion with quite as much piss and vinegar,
all the same.
So, anyhow, it just got me thinking... I'd like to add, even if
you're *not* Stephen King in disguise, Jon, Jared, Stevie, Dani, and
everyone else who I have done my Johnny Flame impression for, I want
you to know, just because I don't agree with your opinions or even
necessarily find your arguments reasonable doesn't really mean I
begrudge you your opinions or your right to voice them. Even you,
Stevie... Everyone certainly is entitled to follow their own path.
I know, kind of silly, still, all the same,
I feel much better now...
Donovan Colbert
Huh?
>
>Donovan Colbert <don...@mother.com> wrote in article
>> [don't] think I'd approach a discussion with quite as much piss and vinegar,
>> all the same.
On 28 Feb 1998 08:22:04 GMT, "Veronica" <vero...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>This is a newsgroup and King has over 40 novels, not to mention his
>screenplays in which to discuss. King is a literary giant, but he is not
>God and therefore, not perfect. We could talk all day about how much we
>love his works, which we do, but there are other things to discuss, debate
>and learn. That's what makes it interesting.
Veronica
Donovan Colbert <don...@mother.com> wrote in article
<34f76d7c...@news.mother.com>...
(snip)
> Ok, excuse my use of tabloid journalisim headlining to get
> your attention, but...
>
> The idea of ripping into some fellow "faceless nobody" across the
> pond, or some "faceless nobody" single mother in middle America is
> easy enough to live with. The idea of flaming (mind you, effectively
> or not) King, on the other hand... Well, even if I didn't agree with
> King's opinions (I'm fairly certain he holds many I wouldn't). I don't
> think I'd approach a discussion with quite as much piss and vinegar,
> all the same.
>
This is a newsgroup and King has over 40 novels, not to mention his
screenplays in which to discuss. King is a literary giant, but he is not
God and therefore, not perfect. We could talk all day about how much we
love his works, which we do, but there are other things to discuss, debate
and learn. That's what makes it interesting.
--
Veronica
vero...@hotmail.com
Peter Price
Donovan Colbert wrote in message <34f76d7c...@news.mother.com>...
> Ok, excuse my use of tabloid journalisim headlining to get
>your attention, but...
>
>considered. (As I'm sure many of you will have no trouble
>understanding, she often comes in handy, this way. :)
>
> I had noticed this line, paraphrasing, "But I think that is
>another story, although maybe close to ours, perhaps close enough to
>even start arguments"...
One thing I have notice on this newsgroup is the tendency, even to
affectation, of people to adopt King's word usage and sometimes phraseology
in their posts. A lot of words from W&G popped up pretty quickly after
people had read that novel. This could result in someone being mistaken for
the Kingster, but then again...
> And read that as an indication that he *does* read the
>newsgroup, or at least keeps an eye on it. I don't think that is an
>unthinkable notion. If there were an "alt.books.donovan.colbert"
>newsgroup, I am certain I would be as compelled to peek into it every
>now and then, as I would be to, oh, grab the pink globe and see what
>it had to show me, were I to own that glam. If you get my drift...
>
> My wife responded, he probably does read, and maybe even posts too...
I believe there are two documented cases of King posting here, sometimes
through proxies. I think it's in Jon's FAQ. It caused a huge uproar at the
time over the authenticity of the posts. Bev seems to be the font of wisdom
on this score.
> I was just starting to argue the point when a little light went on in
>my head, "A psudeonym... a pen-name"...
>
> At which point I had the dreadful thought, what if Stephen King was
>Jon, or Jared, or *heavan forbid*, Dani or Stevie.
Scary, isn't it? We could all be anybody. You could be King posting this
as a troll to see who people think is most like him...
> The idea of ripping into some fellow "faceless nobody" across the
>pond, or some "faceless nobody" single mother in middle America is
>easy enough to live with. The idea of flaming (mind you, effectively
>or not) King, on the other hand... Well, even if I didn't agree with
>King's opinions (I'm fairly certain he holds many I wouldn't). I don't
>think I'd approach a discussion with quite as much piss and vinegar,
>all the same.
I think you might find it easier than you think. I know I would. Although
my response would be tempered. What if he put out an order I was never to
be allowed to read another of his books again? Agghhhhhh!!!
> So, anyhow, it just got me thinking... I'd like to add, even if
>you're *not* Stephen King in disguise, Jon, Jared, Stevie, Dani, and
>everyone else who I have done my Johnny Flame impression for, I want
>you to know, just because I don't agree with your opinions or even
>necessarily find your arguments reasonable doesn't really mean I
>begrudge you your opinions or your right to voice them. Even you,
>Stevie... Everyone certainly is entitled to follow their own path.
>
>I know, kind of silly, still, all the same,
>I feel much better now...
Okay, got that off your chest? Now let's get back to business! :-)
Peter
Veronica
Donovan Colbert <don...@mother.com> wrote in article
<34f71e9...@news.mother.com>...
> Huh?
Huh what?
> >
> >Donovan Colbert <don...@mother.com> wrote in article
>
> >> [don't] think I'd approach a discussion with quite as much piss and
vinegar,
> >> all the same.
>
> On 28 Feb 1998 08:22:04 GMT, "Veronica" <vero...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
Richard A. King
I'm still reading Nightmares and Dreamscapes 2 years later. Great stuff.
It takes my mind off my divorce.
Regards,
<richa...@bigfoot.com>
"We owe a cock to Asclepios pay it in full"
[PLATO]
Jon Skeet
Donovan Colbert <don...@mother.com> wrote:
> So, anyhow, it just got me thinking... I'd like to add, even if
> you're *not* Stephen King in disguise, Jon, Jared, Stevie, Dani, and
> everyone else who I have done my Johnny Flame impression for, I want
> you to know, just because I don't agree with your opinions or even
> necessarily find your arguments reasonable doesn't really mean I
> begrudge you your opinions or your right to voice them. Even you,
> Stevie... Everyone certainly is entitled to follow their own path.
Absolutely. Ditto... and it's fun arguing with you :) The world
would be *so* boring without other opinions...
Oh, and FWIW, I'm not King - otherwise I'd have let myself do the
play of Rage... ;)
--
Jon Skeet
Web page: http://www.pobox.com/~skeet
Stephen King, Dungeon Keeper, Worms, Friends... it's all there.
Back up now! Please mail me (sk...@pobox.com) with any problems...
*AngelicDevil*
> Huh?
I agree.
>
> >
> >Donovan Colbert <don...@mother.com> wrote in article
>
> >> [don't] think I'd approach a discussion with quite as much piss and vinegar,
> >> all the same.
>
> On 28 Feb 1998 08:22:04 GMT, "Veronica" <vero...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >This is a newsgroup and King has over 40 novels, not to mention his
> >screenplays in which to discuss. King is a literary giant, but he is not
> >God and therefore, not perfect. We could talk all day about how much we
> >love his works, which we do, but there are other things to discuss, debate
> >and learn. That's what makes it interesting.
>
>
>
*******************************************************************************
"We don't know what we had when when we did it, but we did it anyways.."
-Bob Dylan
" War doesn't prove who's right, only who's left."
Diplomacy is the art of saying "Nice Doggie"...until you find a big rock.
*******************************************************************************
Donovan
My *biggest* fear came from the idea of seeing a character that was
so patently *me* displayed in a negative context in a King book. I
mean, there have already been some characters in King that were so
annoying self-righteous and morally weak (Patrick Landers (sp) from
The Stand) that they were a little too close to home for me. (I also
feel uncomfortable with Daffy Duck... a neurotic and paranoid second
fiddle to Bugs Bunny, consumed with petty jealousy and greed... Or
Archie and Reginald... but *anyhow* I digress...)
On Sat, 28 Feb 1998 08:18:21 -0500, "Peter Price"
<mel...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>I believe there are two documented cases of King posting here, sometimes
>through proxies. I think it's in Jon's FAQ. It caused a huge uproar at the
>time over the authenticity of the posts. Bev seems to be the font of wisdom
>on this score.
Yup. Officially, on record, King doesn't post here or read the
newsgroup. Or so he would have us *think*... :)
>
>Scary, isn't it? We could all be anybody. You could be King posting this
>as a troll to see who people think is most like him...
Can you dig that, ye cully? Aye, if you can dig on that, you might
think that I was The Big Dog On The Porch. Of course, that would be
absurd. :)
>
>I think you might find it easier than you think. I know I would. Although
>my response would be tempered. What if he put out an order I was never to
>be allowed to read another of his books again? Agghhhhhh!!!
Exactly. I'd show a lot more respect. I'm not sure if this is fair or
not, but, I know I would. Even if completely disagreed with him, it
would be, "Mr. King, sir, while I understand your position on Capital
Punishment and think that you have made very strong points and that my
examples pale in comparisson to those you have presented..."
As opposed to, "Stevie, you ignorant bitch, if I had a nickle for
every time your mouth spouted some innane and outrageous claim backed
with liberal left wing rhetoric I'd be buying Microsoft from Bill
Gates. Go Die, and quickly, for all of our sakes..."
(Nothing personal Stevie, it just seemed a fitting example)
etc... :)
>
>Okay, got that off your chest? Now let's get back to business! :-)
<Lacing up my boxing gloves> Ok, whats next... how about Welfare or
the UK Methadone program... :)
>Peter
>
Donovan
My money is on Stevie. "Stephen King" "Stevie C"... I'm looking for
more, but I'm sure it will be as hard to prove as the JFK conspiracy
theroies. :)
But, I agree... I enjoy the arguments, even when they get heated. And
I never walk away actually *angry* at anyone. I just hope that
everyone else takes the conflict as light hearted as I do. It is fun
to let yourself get a little bit worked up and passionate about a
topic.
Robert Whelan
In article <350b27d2...@news.campus.mci.net>, Donovan wrote:
>
>>I believe there are two documented cases of King posting here, sometimes
>>through proxies. I think it's in Jon's FAQ. It caused a huge uproar at the
>>time over the authenticity of the posts. Bev seems to be the font of wisdom
>>on this score.
>
> Yup. Officially, on record, King doesn't post here or read the
>newsgroup. Or so he would have us *think*... :)
Apparently Tabitha reads the group and reports to him occasionally. In
the introduction to the Uncut Stand, for instance, he seemed to be
very aware of "endless discussions of who should play who.", and the
Uncut Stand includes in the first Flagg chapter an added passage about
how chain letters don't work, comparing the plague to a chain letter
that *does* work. He may know more about it than he lets on.
Robert W.
stevie canuck
Donovan wrote:
> My money is on Stevie. "Stephen King" "Stevie C"... I'm looking for
> more, but I'm sure it will be as hard to prove as the JFK conspiracy
> theroies. :)
Bwahahahahahahahahahaha!!
Well, according to Bev's latest report from Variety, King is currently
in the Toronto area as exec. producer of Storm of the Century, and I am
currently in the Toronto area.
King and I are both married to intelligent and talented women, and we
both have kids.
No one has ever seen King and I in the same place at the same time.
I decided a year or two ago that if I ever become a famous writer and
decide to publish pseudonymously, I will use the name Richard Bradenton.
Hmmmmm ... the truth is out there ... but so are a lot of wild theories!
Stevie C
to e-mail me change .com to .ca
Veronica
*AngelicDevil* <robe...@river.it.gvsu.edu> wrote in article
<Pine.HPP.3.95.980302...@river.it.gvsu.edu>...
>
> > Huh?
> I agree.
Agree about what? What isn't clear about what I wrote?
Donovan
I'm not sure, Veronica, I can't clarify what wasn't clear. It just
didn't seem to make sense.