Rose Madder (spoilers)
Robert Whelan
Severe Spoilers...********************************************
For "Rose Madder".
I am getting REALLY tired of the phrase "needed to talk to her
right up close". Even psycho killers like Norman have to have some
variation in their psycho babblings.
Was anyone besides me dismayed at the way Norman retroactively
becomes a serial killer? In one "Norman" section he is described as
killing one of the women he slept with since Rose left,
"And that wasn't the first one"....Jeez. How incredibly clumsy.
Piling it on thicker and thicker, aren't we, and without any
rewriting of the first few chapters, which gave no indication of his
being anything but a brutal husband. Now he's suddenly a serial
killer. In a later chapter Rose has a flashback to a time when he
knew he had killed some lady and cut off her breasts...but this
awareness is not available when she is escaping in the first chapters.
I think it would have had some bearing on her decision that he was
capable of killing her. But if you remember, the first chapters
focus partly on the horrible idea that he might NOT kill her, just
keep beating her for years and years. This conflicts totally with
the idea that she is aware of him having murdered someone else, as
is revealed much later.
Incredible.
Robert Whelan
I have just run into two needless repetitions in the dialogue.
In the Pawn Shop, Rosie exchanges a ring for a painting, and is
so happy at the deal that she hugs the pawn shop guy....
"Steiner laughed. `Oh boy, you're welcome,' he said. `I think that's
the first time I've ever been hugged by a customer in these hallowed
halls. See any other pictures you really want, lady?'
The old fellow in the raincoat - the one Steiner had called Robbie -
walked over to look at the picture. "Considering what most pawnshop
victims are like, that's probably a blessing," he said.
Bill Steiner nodded `You have a point'
She barely heard them......"
This is a really clumsy reiteration of the point that pawnshop customers
are usually unhappy about redeeming their goods.
The pawnshop guy and the man in the raincoat continue, like a Greek
chorus, as Rose vacantly stares at the painting, providing all sorts
of helpful commentary on the detail within...they natter on about
details that Rose is not interested in...as indicated by the
wonderful line that begins "She wasn't interested in the background".
Well, since she's the main character, why should we be interested
in what these two newly introduced characters have to say about it,
when we have Rose right there? I thought this entire passage was
forced and awkward. We get more comments and theories about why
Rose likes the painting than we get Rose's own reaction.
Later, Gert is teaching Cynthia self defense and says...
"a pipsqueak like you would end up in traction if you tried to
flip a truck like me..you'd end up in traction...but you can
help me to flip myself"
hilarity ensues, unti Anna walks in and puts a stop to the shennanigans.
Cynthia says "I flipped Gert...It was the thrill of my life...."
and Anna replies "I'm sure it was, but Gert would tell you she flipped
herself. You just helped her to do what her body wanted to do already.".
Editing here could have eliminated either the first conversation or
the last. Yeah, I know..in real life people repeat things over and over,
but in writing an author has the choice of eliminating repetetive
dialogue.
Finally, King's way of describing Anna, when we are first introduced to
her, is the laziest piece of description. She is described as looking
like "Beatrice Arthur, who played Maude on the old TV sitcom". Wonderful.
But what does she look like? Blue eyes, and white hair, and like
Maude from TV. Someone who doesn't know the TV show would be up
shit's creek with a lazy descripton like this. I remember a similar
description either in "Desperation" or "The Regulators" where someone
is described as "Charlton Heston in the 10 Commandments". King has
to know that he's being lazy here.
All right.. That's enough for now...
R.
Jon R.
Robert Whelan wrote:
(snip)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
> The pawnshop guy and the man in the raincoat continue, like a Greek
> chorus, as Rose vacantly stares at the painting, providing all sorts
> of helpful commentary on the detail within...they natter on about
> details that Rose is not interested in...as indicated by the
> wonderful line that begins "She wasn't interested in the background".
> Well, since she's the main character, why should we be interested
> in what these two newly introduced characters have to say about it,
> when we have Rose right there? I thought this entire passage was
> forced and awkward. We get more comments and theories about why
> Rose likes the painting than we get Rose's own reaction.
(snip)
I'm actually quite fond of that particular technique, but find that
it works better in comics or in film, where the sound is 'the stage'
and the pictures show that the sound is really secondary. When
focusing on other parts and letting the dialogue drone on in the
background, the main character's POV is emphasized neatly.
Jon R.
Mkrivet
Robert, decide what you want... Earlier today I read a post from you saying
that you didn't like the induced miscarriage scene as the prologue, and thought
it would have worked better later in the book as something Rosie remembers.
Now you're annoyed that Rosie is remembering Norman's murder of-- was it a
prostitute?-- and think it would have been more appropriate in the opening
chapters. Quite frankly, I don't see what is different about the two scenes
which would make you feel differently about where they should be placed. Don't
you think you're just looking for problems?
MK
absk geek code
BB TH- FP--- SC+++ !ND+ !SL++++ DZ- DH++ NT------ ST++++ D1++ D2+++
D3 ++++ WG++++1/2 ED+++ IT+++ IN+ TK---- !TA+ SH+ FI++ GG !PS DC-
RM+++++ DE++ RG-- GM+++ P R+++ OT- N+ C? OR+ ot++
ChaosUs
Robert Whelan <rwh...@dorsai.org> wrote:
<big snip here>
I'm not trying to be a snot or anything, but where is the line between critisim
and nit picking?
I just finished Rose Madder last week. I read the same parts and they didn't
bother me at all.
IMO King writes the way people talk. I don't have a problem with it.
Technical critisims of editing don't mean as much to me as does the telling of
the tale. I thought he did that quite well with this book.
It's like some of these flame wars, I always consider the first person to
attack the spelling errors in a post the loser.
Gary
Robert Whelan
On 25 Nov 1997, Mkrivet wrote:
> Robert, decide what you want... Earlier today I read a post from you saying
> that you didn't like the induced miscarriage scene as the prologue, and thought
> it would have worked better later in the book as something Rosie remembers.
> Now you're annoyed that Rosie is remembering Norman's murder of-- was it a
> prostitute?-- and think it would have been more appropriate in the opening
> chapters. Quite frankly, I don't see what is different about the two scenes
> which would make you feel differently about where they should be placed. Don't
> you think you're just looking for problems?
I thought the induced miscarriage scene would have worked better as a
flashback later in the book, but not an unexpected flashback. It is
alluded to effectively in the opening chapter, and could be expanded on
later. But Rosie's flashbacks to remembering Norman's murder of the
prostitute have NO previous allusions, and they should have had,
particularly in her escape scene, where she remembers all the nasty
things Norman has done to her...in her moment of wakefulness. When
Rosie remembers the prostitute murder (right after a Norman scene where
Norman recollects having murdered people) it has the feel, (as did the
Norman scene) of having been just written in. In other words, I feel
that King had no idea Norman would be a serial killer until the moment
he wrote the Norman scene, and wrote the Rosie flashback to back it up,
but never went back to the beginning to write in the necessary
background there.
Robert
Mic...@www.chonju-tc.ac.kr
In article <Pine.SUN.3.96.971125000053.28987B-100000@amanda>,
Robert Whelan <rwh...@dorsai.org> in an act of charity wrote:
>
>
> Severe Spoilers...********************************************
> For "Rose Madder".
>
> Was anyone besides me dismayed at the way Norman retroactively
> Piling it on thicker and thicker, aren't we,
Yeah I agree Robert. There simply is no need for that kind of excess in
showing how terrible Norman is. It's really enough that he abuses his
wife; that makes him repulsive enough. To merge that with the standard
serial killer image is excessive and shows sloppy workmanship. No, it
shows that you've lost respect for you audience because you start to rely
on news reports instead of your own imaginative powers.
> Now he's suddenly a serial
> killer. In a later chapter Rose has a flashback to a time when he
> knew he had killed some lady and cut off her breasts<
In the interview with Marshall Blonsky, The Last Stand of Hell, King says
he'll go for the gross out if all else fails. Well here you see it.
> Incredible.
Yes, indeey. Incredible. I will say that the image of Norman I originally
created derived from one of those cops on Hill Street Blues. Steven Bochco
does seem to get around now doesn't he??? You know the short guy with
dark hair paunchy stomach, think he's in NYPD blues too.
Michael
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Mkrivet
> I thought the induced miscarriage scene would have worked better as a
>flashback later in the book, but not an unexpected flashback. It is
>alluded to effectively in the opening chapter, and could be expanded on
>later. But Rosie's flashbacks to remembering Norman's murder of the
>prostitute have NO previous allusions, and they should have had,
>particularly in her escape scene, where she remembers all the nasty
>things Norman has done to her...in her moment of wakefulness. When
>Rosie remembers the prostitute murder (right after a Norman scene where
>Norman recollects having murdered people) it has the feel, (as did the
>Norman scene) of having been just written in. In other words, I feel
>that King had no idea Norman would be a serial killer until the moment
>he wrote the Norman scene, and wrote the Rosie flashback to back it up,
>but never went back to the beginning to write in the necessary
>background there.
>
>Robert
>
>
>
Well, I guess I can agree with you that some sort of allusion ought to be
there... I seem to have memories of that being there, however. Weird.
At any rate, I didn't think it felt out of place or "written in" at all.
Apparently so, If I'm falsely remembering allusions to it. Same goes for the
prologue. I liked the establishment of the absolute horror of Rose's
situation, and then the line that she slept within her husband's madness for
the next (was it 10?) years. It gave me psychological shivers, which I think
was the point of the whole scene. Call me jaded for not being as disturbed by
the miscarriage as I was by the notion that *even after that*, she stayed with
him, but I think that was far more horrifying.
Robert Whelan
On 26 Nov 1997, Mkrivet wrote:
> > I thought the induced miscarriage scene would have worked better as a
> >flashback later in the book, but not an unexpected flashback. It is
> >alluded to effectively in the opening chapter, and could be expanded on
> >later. But Rosie's flashbacks to remembering Norman's murder of the
> >prostitute have NO previous allusions, and they should have had,
> >particularly in her escape scene, where she remembers all the nasty
> >things Norman has done to her...in her moment of wakefulness. When
> >Rosie remembers the prostitute murder (right after a Norman scene where
> >Norman recollects having murdered people) it has the feel, (as did the
> >Norman scene) of having been just written in. In other words, I feel
> >that King had no idea Norman would be a serial killer until the moment
> >he wrote the Norman scene, and wrote the Rosie flashback to back it up,
> >but never went back to the beginning to write in the necessary
> >background there.
> >
> >Robert
> >
> >
> >
>
> Well, I guess I can agree with you that some sort of allusion ought to be
> there... I seem to have memories of that being there, however. Weird.
Oops. I just went back and read the 1st chapter. It does mention
"1985, the year of Wendy Yarrow, the year of the miscarriage", but
since chapter 2 involves her escape, and does not mention, or explain
Wendy Yarrow as part of her reason for escaping (the prologue kinda
obviates her need to escape, I suppose), when Norman turns into a
serial killer later, it seemed to me written in. But you are right
about there being one allusion to it in chapter 1.
> At any rate, I didn't think it felt out of place or "written in" at all.
> Apparently so, If I'm falsely remembering allusions to it. Same goes for the
> prologue. I liked the establishment of the absolute horror of Rose's
> situation, and then the line that she slept within her husband's madness for
> the next (was it 10?) years. It gave me psychological shivers, which I think
> was the point of the whole scene. Call me jaded for not being as disturbed by
> the miscarriage as I was by the notion that *even after that*, she stayed with
> him, but I think that was far more horrifying.
Well, that was the point of placing that scene right at the beginning.
I personally feel that it would have been much more effective as a
flashback that Rosie suffers while staring at the spot of blood....that
way the horror you felt at Rosie's staying in the situation for 14 more
years could have been shared by Rose in her moment of wakefulness...
I felt that having the prologue at the beginning detracted from the power
of the "one drop of blood" chapter, because even though Rosie waited 14
years, we, the reader, read it a minute ago, and it makes her escape
a bit anticlimactic, and robs what would have been an intriguing first
chapter of it's power to draw one in. It seemed odd that King milk the
prologue for all its pathos, and then jump 14 years to have Rose leave
over a drop of blood on the sheets. He makes Rose feel, and the reader,
feel too vividly about the miscarriage to make the 14 years passing feel
believable.
Robert
Jon R.
ChaosUs wrote:
(snip)
> attack the spelling errors in a post the loser.
LOL!
FAQ-worthy.
Jon R.
Mkrivet
>>On 26 Nov 1997, Mkrivet wrote:
>
>
>> Well, I guess I can agree with you that some sort of allusion ought to be
>> there... I seem to have memories of that being there, however. Weird.
>
>Oops. I just went back and read the 1st chapter. It does mention
>"1985, the year of Wendy Yarrow, the year of the miscarriage", but
>since chapter 2 involves her escape, and does not mention, or explain
>Wendy Yarrow as part of her reason for escaping (the prologue kinda
>obviates her need to escape, I suppose), when Norman turns into a
>serial killer later, it seemed to me written in. But you are right
>about there being one allusion to it in chapter 1.
>
Well, I'm glad to know I'm not imagining things :). I was thinking more about
this after I posted that message last night. You had complained that Norman
was "suddenly" a serial killer. I don't think that's necessarily true; I'm
thinking specifically about Norman's confrontation with the weasely guy who
stole the ATM card after Rosie threw it away. He's pretty psycho there. I'm
not sure where you are in the book, so I won't talk about it anymore. I think
you're past that part, but I don't want to ruin it for you.
I really don't agree with your preference to have everything hinted to and laid
out in order. I like the fact that I was wondering what the deal was with
Wendy Yarrow for several chapters. You seem to prefer a chronological
treatment of plot. I don't. Oh well.
Hmmm. Here's what I think. I think King deliberately made the prologue bloody
as all get out in order to contrast that gore with the single drop of blood it
actually takes to get Rose to leave. I thought it was very effective, nearly
elegant. If I were to read the book the way you want it written, I don't think
that single, spare drop of blood would have the impact it does in King's
version. It would have been eclipsed by the waves of gore if they were both in
the same chapter, the same instant in Rose's consciousness. But going from the
incredibly bloody prologue, to ch. 1, with Rose doing something as housewifely
as changing the sheets, and then producing just one drop of blood... King is
deliberately anti-climactic here. All the miscarriages in the world couldn't
wake her, but the single drop of blood made her start buzzing. People really
are like that.
stevie canuck
Mkrivet wrote:
>Here's what I think. I think King deliberately made the prologue bloody
>as all get out in order to contrast that gore with the single drop of
>blood it actually takes to get Rose to leave. I thought it was very
>effective, nearly elegant.
>If I were to read the book the way you want it written, I don't think
>that single, spare drop of blood would have the impact it does in King's
>version. It would have been eclipsed by the waves of gore if they were
>both in the same chapter, the same instant in Rose's consciousness.
>But going from the incredibly bloody prologue, to ch. 1, with Rose
>doing something as housewifely as changing the sheets, and then
>producing just one drop of blood... King is deliberately anti-climactic
>here. All the miscarriages in the world couldn't wake her, but the
>single drop of blood made her start buzzing. People really are like
>that.
That's a really good analysis of the intro to RM, IMO. I hadn't thought
of it that way before, but I agree with you 100% as to the effect of
King's structuring of the book.
I think for someone living the horror of ongoing abuse, it is perhaps
easy to become used to the violence and the horror writ large, to accept
it as the "normal" course of things.
The wake up call requires something simple and small, yet visually
stunning. The image of the single drop of blood on the white linen is
exactly that type of visually stunning simplicity.
Stevie C
to e-mail me change .com to .ca
--
Now some people say you should not tempt fate,
And for them I would not disagree,
But I never learned nothin' from playing it safe,
I say fate should not tempt me.
Mary-Chapin Carpenter
Robert Whelan
On 26 Nov 1997, Mkrivet wrote:
> >>On 26 Nov 1997, Mkrivet wrote:
>
> Hmmm. Here's what I think. I think King deliberately made the prologue bloody
> as all get out in order to contrast that gore with the single drop of blood it
> actually takes to get Rose to leave. I thought it was very effective, nearly
> elegant. If I were to read the book the way you want it written, I don't think
> that single, spare drop of blood would have the impact it does in King's
> version. It would have been eclipsed by the waves of gore if they were both in
> the same chapter, the same instant in Rose's consciousness. But going from the
> incredibly bloody prologue, to ch. 1, with Rose doing something as housewifely
> as changing the sheets, and then producing just one drop of blood... King is
> deliberately anti-climactic here. All the miscarriages in the world couldn't
> wake her, but the single drop of blood made her start buzzing. People really
> are like that.
Right. I'm not saying the contrast wouldn't have been effective. I just
would have preferred a more gentle easing in. The one drop of blood
could have triggered a flashback to that very same material in the
prologue. Then we could have shared Rosie's horror at the missing 14 years
between then and now at the same time as she is experiencing it, rather
than letting that shocking prologue distance us from her.
Robert.
Robert Whelan
So far I have been amazed by how unrecognizable King's voice is
in this novel. It's like someone studied his style, and aped it
repetitively and to excess. A thread here recently considered Robert
Jordan as a possible King pseudonymn, and I found myself amazed to find
a lot of dumb internal thoughts to be horribly similar to Robert Jordon's
use of the technique (with the thoughts italicized). Of course, Jordan
may simply be aping King (badly) as King seems to be aping himself
(badly). Once this thought occurs, it is hard to get it out of one's
head, even though I don't take it seriously. However, listen to this
piece of prose...from page 172.
"Men are beasts" Rose Madder said conversationally. "Some can be
gentled, and then trained. Some cannot. When we come upon one who
cannot be gentled and trained - a rogue - should we feel that we have
been cursed or cheated? ......should we raise against *ka*? No, for
*ka* is the wheel that moves the world, and the man or woman who
rages against it will be crushed under its rim...." Not an example
of bad prose, but it has echoes of Jordon's story.
I would be more willing to assume that King had just read the Entire
Wheel of Time series, and had absorbed (for the worse), Jordon's habit
of having his characters comment redundantly (in thought) on every
piece of action that occurs. The magic of Rose's voyage into the mirror
is constantly interrupted by her pointless questioning of the reality,
or lack of reality of the situation. Compare her dream, and awakening
to Louis's journey to the Sematary with Pascow, in "Pet Sematary",
where Louis starts off thinking it's a dream, but becomes aware that
it is NOT a dream, through spare use of the internal thought. Rose,
in contrast, can't make up her stupid mind. She's always going "But
how could this be, if this is just a dream?" She won't shut up and
allow us to appreciate it for what it is, dream or no.
Be that as it may, Roses' journey into the picture has been the highlight
of the book for me. For the first time the "Rosie Real" references
don't grate, as they have for me all through the novel up til now.
Somehow the frightening "Rose Madder" in the picture, with her strong
voice, cuts through what has been a nightmare of Rose's helpless
drift towards happiness and personal freedom.
This is the point where I find myself willing to continue reading...
"Take it" the woman in the chiton said with sudden harsh impatience.
"Take it, take it! And don't whine anymore! For the sake of every
god that ever was *stop your stupid sheep's whining*".
Amen. Alas, it seems Rose whines for quite a bit more after this
reprimand.
(sigh).
Robert W.
Robert Whelan
Here's an example of the idiotic internal ramblings that spoil
Rose's visit to the picture...
*They're real* she thought. *How can things I see so clearly be anything
but real? And I dozed off, I know I did. How can you go to sleep in a
dream? How can you go to sleep when you're sleeping already?*
*Forget it* Practical-sensible said. *That's the best thing, at
least for the time being*
This completely destroys the story for the reader..and Rose does this
sort of crap ALL the time. Editing, editing editing! This entire
interior conversation needed to be crossed out with a big black magic
marker.
Here's another that needed to go. At this point "Rose Madder" her
supernatural mentor, says to her "Protect yourself while you are
outside the circle of my regard", and Rose responds with this...
"*You bet*, Rosie thought. *And I won't be coming around looking for
favors, you can count on it. That would be like hiring Idi Amin to
cater a garden party, or Adolf Hitler to - *
The thought broke off....
Rose, without much personality of her own, suddenly sounds like Jack
Torrance from "The Shining". This is another piece that a good editor
would have inked out with a big black magic marker (Bev, I know that
they have better and more diplomatic ways).
Lastly, as Rose stands looking at the painting, into which she just
made a mysterious trip, we get this gem..
"I'm not sure I want the damn thing anymore at all" she thought.
"It's scary. Do you want to hear something really hilarious? I think
it might be haunted".
Well, duh. That line should have ended with the word
"scary". We, as readers, don't need her trite reiterations of the
obvious, even though her new dislike of the painting is interesting.
And somehow, "haunted" seems a bit of an understatement after the
harrowing trip in, and the "stigmata" she discovers on her body.
"might" be haunted? Big Black Magic Marker.
Robert.
Scott Leis
On 26 Nov 1997 18:32:05 GMT, mkr...@aol.com (Mkrivet) wrote:
>Hmmm. Here's what I think. I think King deliberately made the prologue bloody
>as all get out in order to contrast that gore with the single drop of blood it
>actually takes to get Rose to leave. I thought it was very effective, nearly
>elegant. If I were to read the book the way you want it written, I don't think
>that single, spare drop of blood would have the impact it does in King's
>version. It would have been eclipsed by the waves of gore if they were both in
>the same chapter, the same instant in Rose's consciousness. But going from the
>incredibly bloody prologue, to ch. 1, with Rose doing something as housewifely
>as changing the sheets, and then producing just one drop of blood... King is
>deliberately anti-climactic here. All the miscarriages in the world couldn't
>wake her, but the single drop of blood made her start buzzing. People really
>are like that.
Hmm, "the straw that broke the camel's back." It might be considered
cliched by some people but I quite agree with you, MK - it works quite
well in this situation. I like the way King does that kind of thing.
Shwade 2
*-- Let it Rock --*
Robert Whelan
<long previous section, all in italics>
*He went in and found a young black man with a cool moustache
sitting in a old fashioned barber chair. There were Walkman
Earphones on his head, and a copy of* Jet *in his lap.
"Whatchoo want" the black barber asked. He spoke more brusquely
than he would have to a black man, but not discourteously either.
You weren't discourteous to a man like this without a damned good
reason, especially when you were alone in your shop. He was six
two, with broad shoulders and big thick legs. Also, he smelled
like a cop.*
This is all done in italics. Previously, when Norman was squeezing
the "fag"'s balls, we got to see the situation from both POV's,
within the italic text (which makes the italics seem pointless).
Here though, it had been so long since we had seen anything but Norman's
POV that for a second I didn't know that the description was anything
but a description of the barber, until the mention of "smelling like
a cop" at the end. Even without the italics this would be considered
a clumsy POV change. Just one paragraph previous had Norman interacting
with a salesclerk who sold him a Taser, and the exchange took place
entirely from Norman's POV, as have most of the Norman sections, (excepting
the very first one.)
On page 299 after Norman shaves his head and buys a motorcycle jacket,
he goes back to the hotel, and we are informed that Norman suffers
from Migraine headaches, with classic zigzag aura in the field of
vision. "Since Rose had left and his big case had heated up, two a
week weren't unusual". This is a big part of Norman's character that
has just been casually shoved in here as an afterthought. No
headaches have EVER been mentioned in the book before this, either by
Rose, or in any of the Norman sections. This is REALLY poor story
construction. He ends this section with Norman waking up with the
headache gone, thinking that "this day was going to see an end to it...
...the end of him as well....knowing there would be no more headaches,
not ever, made that seem like a fair trade". Again, if severe headaches
were a part of Norman's problem shouldn't it have been mentioned
before now? This isn't a blooper, or a nitpicky mistake. This is just
laziness. Previously his problem was cigarettes...his taking up the
habit was supposed to be going hand in hand with his insanity and
obsession with Rose. Now, his smoking isn't mentioned at all. Seems
like King decided to change the cigarette habit to a Migraine problem,
but never rewrote the beginning chapters where he originally had
a cigarette problem but no migraine.
"Rose felt a burst of happiness that she would remember all that long
long day with sickened horror".
I rather liked the motorcycle ride with Bill. For the first time in
the book I found Bill fleshed out as a character (probably because King
got inside his skin to play with the motorcycle). I liked the foxes, and
found the references to Rabies and how it affects the male and female foxes
menacing. So two thumbs up for the motorcycle ride with Bill. I'm even
looking forward to the "sickening horror" foreshadowed here. Hopefully King
has found interest in the story at this point and will stop rambling.
What I find especially interesting is the feeling that what has seemed
like a cliche'd romance novel up til now may get it's comeuppance in the
final chapters...We'll see.
RW.
Robert Whelan
Major Spoilers...**********
On page 340 "Norman tore off Cynthia's sleeveless blouse, baring
her teacup sized breasts". Since her "teacup sized breasts" were
already described when Rose first met her (and apparently, because of
the repeat here, from Stephen King's POV, not Rose's, or Norman's),
this repetition of their particular size is unnecessary. Except maybe
for inveterate breast fetishists, or those who want to participate,
in B-movie fashion, in the vicarious sexual thrill of Norman's near
rape of the girl.
Gertie thinks Norman looks like "Grendel in a motorcycle jacket".
Ok from a writer's POV, but a little uncertain from Gertie's, who
hasn't been established as a lit fan at all. Grendel
according to who? To an artist? To the description in the epic?
This isn't a helpful description...it's too literary and abstract for
a tense moment like this one. Big Black Magic Marker on the Grendel
comparison.
The battle between Gertie and Norman was fairly entertaining. I
was glad Gertie did not die (at least yet). However, Gertie is a
bit cartoony, with her huge breasts, weight, and tough attitude,
and her pissing on Norman was just low comedy. I mean, I thought
that when she thought about Rose's kidneys she was going to do
a number on Norman's...but peeing on him? As poetic justice? It seems
out of place in the mind of a tough woman who is taking this dangerous
asshole seriously (as she should be). But Stephen King wanted to make
silly toilet humor, and so Gertie gets to pee on Norman. Is this
King's idea of pandering to women? His "Thelma and Louise?" I want
to know if there were any women out there who were offended by this
exaggerated use of wife battering as goofy rah-rah entertainment.
I think I liked the fight because it necessarily forced the characters
to stop endlessly thinking little side track comments (except for the
stupid "Grendel" reference). But I should point out that NO serious
self-defense instructor, who was trying to keep immobile a murderous
psycho, would risk her life, and the lives of people she was
protecting, by playing games like sliding up to pee on the guy's
face. Just another example of King's total contempt for this story,
for whatever reason.
Norman flees across the park. It's all in Norman italics again,
and mostly from his POV. But here's a lousy POV violation, where Norman
thinks (and these sections are mostly from his POV)
"He could take care
of all of them, but he had to get away from here in order to do it...
and before every Security Cop in the place was looking for the bald
guy with the bloody face. Already too many people were looking at him,
and why not? He stank of piss and looked like he had been clawed by
a catamount."
Why would people look at him for "stinking like piss", and how
does he know he looks like he was "clawed by a catamount"?. Is this
Norman's poetic observation of himself? when did he have time to look
in a mirror? It's King's dumb poetic observation, placed in Norman's
mind where it doesn't belong. Had some security guard made the observation,
it would have been alright.
Norman steals a Ferdinand the Bull mask from a kid...Get this...
"It stank of rubber and the previous owner's sweaty hair, but neither
smell bothered Norman. The thought that the mask would soon stink of
Gertie's piss did"
If the smell of the rubber and sweat didn't bother Norman, then why
comment on it? And if the stink of Gertie's piss is so strong, how
can he smell "sweat and rubber" at all, just so he can NOT be
bothered by it? This is something that Robert Jordon does as well.
Make a character Notice something, but NOT notice it at the same
time. Crap.
That's enough. I can't read any more of this garbage tonight.
It's giving me a headache. Review of final chapters tomorrow.
Robert.
Jon Skeet
Robert Whelan <rwh...@dorsai.org wrote:
> So far I have been amazed by how unrecognizable King's voice is
> in this novel.
Have you considered that this may be *your* fault rather than
King's? You're expecting King's voice to stay the same, when it's
changing.
As it happens, I don't rate RM terribly highly amongst King books,
but I'd say it's extremely *easy* to tell it's King - partly from
exactly some of the passages you hate... the inner voice passages.
Now, you've already stated several times that you dislike them and
think they should be scrapped, but the fact is they're still
there... just as there are very similar inner voice sections in many
of King's other works, especially Gerald's Game.
It strikes me that you're not looking for King's voice - you're
looking for a version of King's voice that happens to suit how you'd
like a book to be written.
--
Jon Skeet
Web page: http://www.pobox.com/~skeet
Stephen King, Dungeon Keeper, Worms, Friends... it's all there.
Vegard
Robert Whelan <rwh...@dorsai.org wrote:
>> So far I have been amazed by how unrecognizable King's voice is
>> in this novel.
Jon Skeet writes:
>As it happens, I don't rate RM terribly highly amongst King books,
>but I'd say it's extremely *easy* to tell it's King - partly from
>exactly some of the passages you hate... the inner voice passages.
>Now, you've already stated several times that you dislike them and
>think they should be scrapped, but the fact is they're still
>there... just as there are very similar inner voice sections in many
>of King's other works, especially Gerald's Game.
I find it ironic that Robert on the one hand complains that Rose is
a "shallow" (or whichever word he used) character, but at the same time
wants the "inner voice" eliminated. AFAIR, those passages contributed a
great deal to the characterization of Rose
>It strikes me that you're not looking for King's voice - you're
>looking for a version of King's voice that happens to suit how you'd
>like a book to be written.
Yeah, after reading all these over-analyzing tirades I'm amazed that Robert
is able to enjoy *any* book written by anyone other than himself! I mean,
some of his complaints are relevant, but many of the are *so* nit-picky they
border on parody.
V.
Robert Poleson
In article <Pine.SUN.3.96.971126224008.22894A-100000@amanda>, Robert
Whelan said
> Lastly, as Rose stands looking at the painting, into which she just
> made a mysterious trip, we get this gem..
>
> "I'm not sure I want the damn thing anymore at all" she thought.
> "It's scary. Do you want to hear something really hilarious? I think
> it might be haunted".
>
> Well, duh. That line should have ended with the word
> "scary". We, as readers, don't need her trite reiterations of the
> obvious, even though her new dislike of the painting is interesting.
> And somehow, "haunted" seems a bit of an understatement after the
> harrowing trip in, and the "stigmata" she discovers on her body.
> "might" be haunted? Big Black Magic Marker.
>
> Robert.
>
>
Robert, go out. Interact with real people. People that have
never taken a college course in English lit., people that
have menial jobs working 60 hours a week just so they can
feed their kids and have a few beers while they watch the
game on Sunday afternoon. Talk with ordinary folks. You
might notice they are a lot like the people Stephen King
writes about. You also may notice a few of them say things
that should edited out. Is SK so wrong for having characters
make realistic statements?
--
to fix the fishy email addy
change the cod to co.uk
Robert Whelan
On 27 Nov 1997, Vegard wrote:
>
> Robert Whelan <rwh...@dorsai.org wrote:
> >> So far I have been amazed by how unrecognizable King's voice is
> >> in this novel.
>
> Jon Skeet writes:
> >As it happens, I don't rate RM terribly highly amongst King books,
> >but I'd say it's extremely *easy* to tell it's King - partly from
> >exactly some of the passages you hate... the inner voice passages.
> >Now, you've already stated several times that you dislike them and
> >think they should be scrapped, but the fact is they're still
> >there... just as there are very similar inner voice sections in many
> >of King's other works, especially Gerald's Game.
To Jon... It's not the inner voice passages I hate, but the fact that
they are used so clumsily. All his books use that inner voice, that
italicized thought. But usually in a meaningful way, rather than, as
I felt in "Rose Madder" as padding. You missed my point about the
inner voice. It is usually used (by King as well) to highlight
a thought or feeling that is not obvious from the narrative description.
She walked down the path. The flowers gleamed in the moonlight.
*Gosh, those flowers really gleam in the moonlight* she thought.
This is an exaggeration of the problem I'm having with his use in this
novel. He is choosing to show us inner thoughts that lend nothing to
the story.
>
> I find it ironic that Robert on the one hand complains that Rose is
> a "shallow" (or whichever word he used) character, but at the same time
> wants the "inner voice" eliminated. AFAIR, those passages contributed a
> great deal to the characterization of Rose
I don't want the inner voice "eliminated" I want it put to good effect.
These passages DID contribute to Rose's characterization. They were
also overused. I quoted passages I felt were misused. I didn't say
all of them were.
>
> >It strikes me that you're not looking for King's voice - you're
> >looking for a version of King's voice that happens to suit how you'd
> >like a book to be written.
That is exactly what I am looking for. The version of King's voice that
cares, as opposed to this, which seemed to me to be a parody of all those
"Sleeping with the Enemy" style films and TV movies.
> Yeah, after reading all these over-analyzing tirades I'm amazed that Robert
> is able to enjoy *any* book written by anyone other than himself! I mean,
> some of his complaints are relevant, but many of the are *so* nit-picky they
> border on parody.
Well, at least you found some of them relevant.
Robert.
Robert Whelan
Which ones? Perhaps I haven't made clear what it was about these
particular "Nit picks" that bothered me. In general, the examples
I use represent a plethora of similar examples that have sensitized
me. Probably had they been the only examples in the novel, I would not
have noticed most of the examples I have mentioned. But the novel
is full of them. I just don't have the time to detail them all.
Robert.
Robert Whelan
But...to THINK something like "Do you want to hear something really
hilarious? I think it might be haunted" ? This is the sort of thing
one might *say* to a friend at a luncheonette. People *say* all sorts of
things that should be edited out in real life. King, though, is a
writer. When Rose isn't thinking things, are we to assume that all
thought ceases on her part? King is deciding what thoughts to show
us, and what thoughts not to. Why pick a clumsy and stupid sounding
thought? Why did he put that clumsy jokey line about "hiring Idi Amin
to be a caterer" in Rose's thoughts during the picture sequence?
He just isn't taking the story seriously, and he is goofing it up
in Rose's thought balloons. This is King, the author's sense of humor
rudely intruding into a character's personality, and violating it.
Admittedly, Rose has no personality other than the sympathy derived
from her horrid abuse, so almost anything she thinks COULD be
natural to her...but after she finds scratches on her body, her
nightgown missing, and sees a golden armlet under her bed...all
from her trip in the painting, "Do you want to hear something really
hilarious? I think it might be haunted" is ludicrous. Imagine this
as a film, and some poor actress having to actually say these lines,
perhaps to someone else. Imagine the catcalls and hoots from the
audience at her stupidity....
Robert.
Robert Whelan
On Wed, 26 Nov 1997, stevie canuck wrote:
<in response to MKrivet>
> That's a really good analysis of the intro to RM, IMO. I hadn't thought
> of it that way before, but I agree with you 100% as to the effect of
> King's structuring of the book.
> I think for someone living the horror of ongoing abuse, it is perhaps
> easy to become used to the violence and the horror writ large, to accept
> it as the "normal" course of things.
>
> The wake up call requires something simple and small, yet visually
> stunning. The image of the single drop of blood on the white linen is
> exactly that type of visually stunning simplicity.
... but since Stephen King didn't describe the drop of blood
picturesquely, but emotionally, the "visually stunning simplicity"
that you are talking about is not applicable. In fact, he describes
the drop of blood as "dried to an ugly maroon color". The bulk of
the passage is focused on her emotional reaction to the injustice of
having to remake the bed because of this flaw in the sheet. The
picturesqe "visually stunning simplicity" doesn't enter into it at all.
I can imagine a film maker choosing to focus on the visual elements
in order to emphasize the importance of it to Rose, but King himself
does not evoke this quality himself for the reader.
Robert.
Robert Whelan
Well. Norman, after getting peed on by Gertie, loses any last
shred of scariness, if he had any to begin with. All through the
novel he has been mindlessly spewing about "jewboys" "fags" "lesbos"
etc. He's clearly off his rocker, and is hard to believe as competent.
The introduction of migraine headaches turns him into an invalid, and
his first encounter with the women from Rosie's shelter results in
him being kicked around by Gertie, and having his head peed on.
It's hard to take him seriously as a threat again, as King has
firmly established that this is going to be his version of "Home Alone"
as far as Norman is concerned. Norman does kill Annie, (and
redundantly informs us that he thinks she looks like Maude...just
in case we didn't get that fact when King described her that way
previously), but since we never really got to know her really well,
except as a helper of Rose (who we never got to know except as abused
by Norman, who we never got to know except as given blow jobs by his
Dad..) there's not much to care about. After all, near the climax of
this novel SOMEONE had to die. When Norman finally catches up with
Rose there is this bizarre comedy involving Norman's killing of
two police officers (including one who looks like "the Beaver" ha
ha! Haven't you always wanted to kill the Beaver?) but when he
encounters Rose and lays hands on her, she simply pulls his jaw
out of his socket. Rose then leads him into the Picture world,
where "Rose Madder" the monster, kills him for her. He is
drawn into "Rose Madder's hungry embrace, where Norman finally learned
what it was like to be the bitten, rather than the biter." Justice.
How nice.
There is some foolish grotesquery as "Rose Madder" plants pomegranate
seed in Norman, including one of his eyes, which makes a sound
like someone "stepping on a plump grape"
I'm not sure I liked the idea of hiding one's dark side from one's
mate, in hopes that it will go away forever. This is what Rosie does
by putting magic Lethe water in Bill's drinks to make him forget
"Rose Madder". I thought it was very peculiar the way this novel
seemed to completely separate Rose and Rose Madder... They were
essentially separate characters....totally divorced from one another.
Rosie was completely passive and "good", while Rose Madder was
horrifyingly vengeful. What was odd was that there was no sign
of "Rose Madder" as part of Rosie's personality until the last
few winding-down chapters where she contemplates throwing a pot
of boiling water on her husband. And her problem is solved by
burying a seed. Very abstract...very hard to engage with
emotionally. This was the sort of thing that I was hoping would
be a major part of the book, as in "Pet Sematary", but it is dealt
with only cursorily in the final chapter-ettes.
Had this been a spooky short story about an abused wife and a mysterious
painting, it would have worked. As expanded, it seems like a way for
King to fake a novel he didn't feel like writing. If you have any
fondness for King's early works, don't read this. It's absolute
garbage, from beginning to end. The only stated reasons I have
seen on this ng for liking this novel have been in praise of the
hit-you-over-the-head evil wife-beater vs. sweet wife theme, which is
so blatantly shallow and unexplored, psychologically, that it is an
insult to real battered women. And Rose's incredibly rapid recovery
from abuse, and her incredible luck in finding help, a fantastic job,
recovering her fantastic looks, trivializes the plight of real abused
women, who have to struggle painfully to acquire job skills, (notice
how Rose conveniently was discovered to be a great "voice reader" and
never had to deal with any of that?), and aren't usually lucky enough
to find a sexy Mr. Dreamboat to marry right away. This is a "Feelgood"
novel about spousal abuse, and it's played for laughs. I don't know
if I ever want to try another King novel again, after this.
Robert.
Jon R.
Robert Whelan wrote:
>
> Major Spoilers...**********
>
(snip)
> Norman flees across the park. It's all in Norman italics again,
> and mostly from his POV. But here's a lousy POV violation, where Norman
> thinks (and these sections are mostly from his POV)
>
> "He could take care
> of all of them, but he had to get away from here in order to do it...
> and before every Security Cop in the place was looking for the bald
> guy with the bloody face. Already too many people were looking at him,
> and why not? He stank of piss and looked like he had been clawed by
> a catamount."
>
> Why would people look at him for "stinking like piss", and how
> does he know he looks like he was "clawed by a catamount"?. Is this
> Norman's poetic observation of himself? when did he have time to look
> in a mirror? It's King's dumb poetic observation, placed in Norman's
> mind where it doesn't belong. Had some security guard made the observation,
> it would have been alright.
Here I agree. This is Norman's thoughts, and he couldn't have thought
them.
> Norman steals a Ferdinand the Bull mask from a kid...Get this...
>
> "It stank of rubber and the previous owner's sweaty hair, but neither
> smell bothered Norman. The thought that the mask would soon stink of
> Gertie's piss did"
>
> If the smell of the rubber and sweat didn't bother Norman, then why
> comment on it? And if the stink of Gertie's piss is so strong, how
> can he smell "sweat and rubber" at all, just so he can NOT be
> bothered by it? This is something that Robert Jordon does as well.
> Make a character Notice something, but NOT notice it at the same
> time. Crap.
Okay. The sections in italics are _not_ Norman's POV. They are
the story of Norman, but that is not the same thing. The POV is
that of the all-knowing author, although he usually limits himself
to looking into one person at a time.
Jon R.
Robert Whelan
I understand that. Of course, the italics are completely unnecessary
unless they are supposed to indicate a shift in perspective, or POV.
Otherwise, why use them? I think King intended the use of italics to
correspond with a narrative style more closely tied to Norman's POV
than in the rest of the book, but he doesn't hold to it, so it
becomes confusing.
Robert.
Robert Whelan
Final Thoughts on Rose Madder...
While forcing myself to slog through it, and reading the final empty
chapters, I announced that I did not ever want to read King again. Upon
reflection I believe I can be a bit more forgiving. King's motivations
in writing this book seem to have been laudable.
Apparently Mr. King has taken seriously the criticisms (perhaps his
own) that his books are too "negative". At his most intense and serious,
his novels deliver strong moral messages about the omnipresence of
evil, and the idea that those who are merely morally neutral are
pretty much sitting ducks for it. Thus the pressure to try and
create a novel which tries to emphasize the other side of the coin...
the creating of a good life, and the presence of good people.
For moments in "Rose Madder" this is effectively conveyed..as
when Rose decides to approach the "Travelers Aid" booth in the bus
station. Unfortunately, this well intentioned public service
announcement for battered women is not one that Mr. King truly believes
in, and he sabotages it all through out with his apathetic characterization
of both Rose and Norman, and expresses his boredom with the material by
cutting it up with out-of-character asides and comments placed in the
the thoughts of both Rose and Norman. His total disgust with the material
is finally apparent in the battle between Norman and Gertie, where Gertie
humiliates Norman in a completely silly and disgusting manner, removing
all suspension of disbelief, or fear of Norman as a significant threat.
Alas, whatever the source of the motivation to create a novel that
would be inspirational to battered woman, and encourage them to leave
their husbands and take their chances in the big world, Mr. King's heart
just wasn't in it. In his heart of hearts, he tends to believe in the
model of Charity Camber, from Cujo. Rose, as portrayed, had no hope
of escaping...a Mrs. Steinberg if there ever was one. Perhaps the novel
can serve as an inspiration for a few desperately frightened and cowed
individuals, like Mrs. Steinberg, but it's unlikely. King's goofiness
in dealing with it indicates his own awareness of the shallowness, and
hollowness of the trite comforts being expressed, particularly since he
deals very shallowly with the true details of psychological entrapment
that such women would have to deal with.
This novel clearly is an example of the King/Bachman duality.
The Bachman persona allowed King to publish works that were never
bought, and were considered unsellable. Intense, unforgiving novels
such as "Rage" and "The Long Walk", the dry moral "Thinner", and
finally "Misery". While the early Bachman books (Rage/Long Walk)
had been written before King's success with "Carrie", "Misery"
was a contemporary King novel, and buoyed by the success of the
pseudonymous Bachman, began to explore his own dissatisfaction with
his own "popular" bestsellers. King's own public characterization
of the Bachman "persona" as a "hack writer" is unfair both to
the works published under that pseudonymn, and to himself. But
the self awareness of himself as a "hack" has crept into his work
until almost all his recent novels have become self-parodies. He
is delivering story without any true reason to tell it. The
resurrection of "Bachman" as the author of the execrable "Regulators"
has turned the entire pseudonymn around...King has assigned to the
pseudonymn all the idiotic and tired elements he has been publishing
under the name "King" almost incessantly since "The Tommyknockers"
(with the exception of DC and Misery). "Desperation", though still
reeking of the bad habits that have become tics in the last 10
years, was the first sign of true passion from the man in ages.
RW
Mkrivet
In article <Pine.SUN.3.96.971127203543.10703B-100000@amanda>, Robert Whelan
<rwh...@dorsai.org> writes:
On Wed, 26 Nov
>1997, stevie canuck wrote:
<in response to MKrivet>
Robert.
Strange, Robert. I *saw* that drop of blood when I read RM. It was very
visual to me. In my mind, I could see the bed, and Rose with the sheets in her
hands, pulling them up, and then that single brown-red spot on the wide, white
sheets. I think it's when the "buzzing" started, soon after, that the scene
shifted away from visual descriptions. I haven't seen a response from you to
what I said... can I consider this one? I don't see what your point is about
the "dried to an ugly maroon color" quote; perhaps you could explain it
differently?
MK
"If you keep your mind sufficiently open, people will throw a lot of rubbish
into it."
~William A. Orton
stevie canuck
Mkrivet wrote:
>Robert Whelan wrote:
> >stevie canuck wrote:
> <in response to MKrivet>
>>>I think for someone living the horror of ongoing abuse, it is
>>>perhaps easy to become used to the violence and the horror writ
>>>large, to accept it as the "normal" course of things.
>>>The wake up call requires something simple and small, yet visually
>>>stunning. The image of the single drop of blood on the white linen
>>>is exactly that type of visually stunning simplicity.
>> ... but since Stephen King didn't describe the drop of blood
>>picturesquely, but emotionally, the "visually stunning simplicity"
>>that you are talking about is not applicable. In fact, he describes
>>the drop of blood as "dried to an ugly maroon color".
>Strange, Robert. I *saw* that drop of blood when I read RM. It was very
>visual to me. In my mind, I could see the bed, and Rose with the sheets
>in her hands, pulling them up, and then that single brown-red spot on
>the wide, white sheets. I think it's when the "buzzing" started, soon
>after, that the scene shifted away from visual descriptions.
Once again, I am in agreement with you MK. I see no reason to assume
that something must be pretty or "picturesque" to be visual, or even to
be visually stunning. If anything, I would argue that the dried and ugly
appearance of the drop of blood only adds to the visual quality of the
scene.
As I started to read it I remember beginning to picture a bright red
drop of fresh blood. Then King snapped the image into really sharp
detail for me with his description of the "ugly maroon" colour of the
drop. At that point, the picture was locked in my mind.
Perhaps it's a bit of a stretch, but I think it could be argued that the
dried and ugly appearance of the stain, was part of what snapped Rose
to.
Certainly, I think it is no stretch at all to see the appearance of the
blood as symbolic of the stage of things at which she was waking up.
This was not a fresh problem. Her situation had been going on for
something like fourteen years. It was old, and stale, and ugly.
Robert Whelan
On Sat, 29 Nov 1997, stevie canuck wrote:
> Mkrivet wrote:
>
> >Robert Whelan wrote:
>
> > >stevie canuck wrote:
>
> > <in response to MKrivet>
>
> Once again, I am in agreement with you MK. I see no reason to assume
> that something must be pretty or "picturesque" to be visual, or even to
> be visually stunning. If anything, I would argue that the dried and ugly
> appearance of the drop of blood only adds to the visual quality of the
> scene.
If you choose to focus on the "visual qualities" King does provide
details that can support it, but his own focus, by separating the
description of the blood from the description of the sheets, indicates
that HE at least, isn't paying attention to the visual elements, and
he does not indicate Rose is either. If he had, he would have written
something like "In the midst of the wide, white expanse, one single
drop of blood. Rose stood there, momentarily stunned by the wrongness
of that presence, the dried, ugly maroon color, that marred the
clean bleached white". There. But it isn't in the passage you
refer to.
> As I started to read it I remember beginning to picture a bright red
> drop of fresh blood. Then King snapped the image into really sharp
> detail for me with his description of the "ugly maroon" colour of the
> drop. At that point, the picture was locked in my mind.
You have my sympathies.
> Perhaps it's a bit of a stretch, but I think it could be argued that the
> dried and ugly appearance of the stain, was part of what snapped Rose
> to.
Not a stretch at all. King deliberately describes it as dried and ugly,
pretty much from Rose's POV. So when she gets pissed, it's a direct
result.
> Certainly, I think it is no stretch at all to see the appearance of the
> blood as symbolic of the stage of things at which she was waking up.
> This was not a fresh problem. Her situation had been going on for
> something like fourteen years. It was old, and stale, and ugly.
Err....King was trying to portray a realistic awakening, not a
symbolic one. Relating the dried and ugly appearance of the blood
to Rose's situation is silly. It's dried and ugly appearance on her
sheet, and the logical consequence that she'll have to do extra work
to fix the flaw is quite enough to explain Rose's rebellion without
focusing overly much on the symbolism. Like I said, a filmmaker might
focus on it in leiu of focusing on Rose's thoughts, but King focuses on
Rose's thoughts. In fact, in the previous chapter he mentions a
"single drop of blood"...Not blood on a sheet, not blood on a white
sheet. It's the drop of blood that caused Rose's rebellion. Any following
passages simply explain WHY it causes her to awaken, and in no way
is the sight of the blood described as "stunning". Nice theory, but
King didn't seem to really care.
Robert
Robert Whelan
On 29 Nov 1997, Mkrivet wrote:
> In article <Pine.SUN.3.96.971127203543.10703B-100000@amanda>, Robert Whelan
> <rwh...@dorsai.org> writes:
>
> On Wed, 26 Nov
> >1997, stevie canuck wrote:
>
> <in response to MKrivet>
> > I think for someone living the horror of ongoing abuse, it is
> >perhaps
> > easy to become used to the violence and the horror writ large, to
> >accept
> > it as the "normal" course of things.
> >
> > The wake up call requires
> >something simple and small, yet visually
> > stunning. The image of the single
> >drop of blood on the white linen is
> > exactly that type of visually stunning
> >simplicity.
>
> ... but since Stephen King didn't describe the drop of
> >blood
> picturesquely, but emotionally, the "visually stunning simplicity"
> that
> >you are talking about is not applicable. In fact, he describes
> the drop of
> >blood as "dried to an ugly maroon color". The bulk of
> the passage is focused
> >on her emotional reaction to the injustice of
> having to remake the bed
> >because of this flaw in the sheet. The
> picturesqe "visually stunning
> >simplicity" doesn't enter into it at all.
> I can imagine a film maker choosing
> >to focus on the visual elements
> in order to emphasize the importance of it to
> >Rose, but King himself
> does not evoke this quality himself for the reader.
> >
>
> Robert.
>
>
> Strange, Robert. I *saw* that drop of blood when I read RM. It was very
> visual to me. In my mind, I could see the bed, and Rose with the sheets in her
> hands, pulling them up, and then that single brown-red spot on the wide, white
> sheets. I think it's when the "buzzing" started, soon after, that the scene
> shifted away from visual descriptions. I haven't seen a response from you to
> what I said... can I consider this one? I don't see what your point is about
> the "dried to an ugly maroon color" quote; perhaps you could explain it
> differently?
Hum. Now I don't have my copy near me. As I recollect it, King didn't
describe the color of the sheets at all, until Rose considers changing
the sheets and how mismatching sheets would annoy Norman. Your memory of
the "white, wide sheets" is inaccurate, I believe. Wasn't the spot of
blood near the corner of a pillow? I quoted the "dried to an ugly
maroon color" because that description seemed rather detailed and
focused on the blood stain itself, rather than any pictureque quality.
King does mention that the sheets are white, but only after Rose has
become annoyed at the spots EXISTENCE. Rose wasn't "stunned" by the
image, but annoyed.
> "If you keep your mind sufficiently open, people will throw a lot of rubbish
> into it."
This is my problem. My mind is always open. And such shit keeps getting
put in there. Housecleaning is often violent.
Robert
Jon R.
Robert Whelan wrote:
>
> On Fri, 28 Nov 1997, Jon R. wrote:
> > Okay. The sections in italics are _not_ Norman's POV. They are
> > the story of Norman, but that is not the same thing. The POV is
> > that of the all-knowing author, although he usually limits himself
> > to looking into one person at a time.
>
> I understand that. Of course, the italics are completely unnecessary
> unless they are supposed to indicate a shift in perspective, or POV.
> Otherwise, why use them? I think King intended the use of italics to
> correspond with a narrative style more closely tied to Norman's POV
> than in the rest of the book, but he doesn't hold to it, so it
> becomes confusing.
I suppose that works better in the audio version. I'm told that SK
reads the sections in italics, while a woman (Tabitha?) reads the
other parts.
Jon R.
Jared Head
Robert Whelan (rwh...@dorsai.org) wrote:
: ...This is a "Feelgood"
: novel about spousal abuse, and it's played for laughs.
Oh no - I find myself agreeing completely with Robert over the course of
almost a whole of one of his posts! I posted the same sort of thing when
I finished the book - that I didn't feel RM was the sort of book that a
woman would ever write, that a book that starts with a woman feeling her
unborn baby beaten out of her, and ends with people jumping in and out of
paintings undergoes a serious change of tone.
: ...I don't know
: if I ever want to try another King novel again, after this.
Oh, it's OK. I don't (didn't) agree with this bit.
Jared
--
Jared Head at the Department of Biochemistry, University of Bristol
"A computer lets you make more mistakes faster than any invention in human
history - with the possible exceptions of handguns and tequila."
Mitch Ratliffe
Dave Sewell
What was odd was that there was no sign
> of "Rose Madder" as part of Rosie's personality until the last
> few winding-down chapters
Not odd at all. Rose finds the strenght to leave Norman at the start of
the book. This is an aspect (posibly of Rose Madder) that hasn't been
in Rosei for her n years of marrige. After she "escapes" just look at
how her caharacter delevopes. She discovers thinks about herself (that
she is attrative to men, that she is very good at her job, tec). These
are all things that were not there in the Rosie of the begining of the
book. whay then is it so supprising that the Rose Madder side is not
there until the end? After what Rosie goes through I think it was the
(super)natural progression of the character. As Rose Madder says "If
you have that rage inside you, what are you going to do with it......".
Regards, Dave Sewell
--
I don't believe in demons. I just hope they don't believe in me!
http:\\www.ee.surrey.ac.uk\Personal\D.Sewell
MarcyHK
This is my first time participating in a newsgroup, so I hope you'll bare
with me.....
The idea of a "fresh" drop of blood implies crisis (IMHO). People living
with abuse often live from crisis to crisis-deluding themselves that when this
current crisis is over, all with be well. The fact that the blood was
dried, old, underscores the chronicity of her condition. This was no current
emergency, but a life of emergencies. That was the wake-up call.
Marcy
stevie canuck
MarcyHK wrote:
>This is my first time participating in a newsgroup, so I hope you'll
>bare with me.....
Welcome Marcy.
>The idea of a "fresh" drop of blood implies crisis (IMHO). People living
>with abuse often live from crisis to crisis-deluding themselves that
>when this current crisis is over, all with be well. The fact that the
>blood was dried, old, underscores the chronicity of her condition.
>This was no current emergency, but a life of emergencies. That was the
>wake-up call.
I like that analysis, and I think it is well supported by the thoughts
Rose has as she thinks about the drop of blood as the scene progresses.
Stevie C
to e-mail me change .com to .ca
--
... you play the artist, saying, "Is it how she moves, or how she
looks?"
I say, it's loneliness suspended to our own like grappling hooks,
and as long as she's got noise, she's fine.
But I could teach her how I learned to dance when the music's ended.
Dar Williams