Bill Denbrough, a literary representation of SKing
Mic...@www.chonju-tc.ac.kr
In the novel _It_ we, as readers, are introduced to a number of characters.
One of these characters is Bill Denbrough. I think we can make the case that
Denbrough comes very, very close to a representation of King himself. Here is
the evidence: BD is from Maine, a poor boy on a scholarship. He is taking
courses in English Lit and finds "himself lost without a compass". Other
characters in the English program admire John Updike, William Faulkner, and
Joyce Carol Oates. All of these writers are in a different league from King.
A completely different league. They KNOW and UNDERSTAND things that King only
guesses about. Not to detract from King's genius, he is a very talented man,
but generally speaking he's a poorly educated, home grown genius, like so
many in North America. Denbrough is taking EH-141, "Creative Writing Honors
Seminar. The instructor has published four books of poetry. Those books were
published by a University Press. Notice King understands the difference
between a major, bestselling house like Random House or Vintage/Signet or
something and Univerity of New England Presses. Denbrough has already written
a mystery tale, some sci-fi, and some horror. He admires, of course, Poe and
Lovecraft. Denbrough earns a B for one of his stories. Not an A, a B.
A means excellent and B means good. King, all his career will be a good
writer, but rarely, if ever, an excellent writer. His excellence is
occasional, unpredictable, sporadic. Denbrough, one day in class, fed up with
the progress of the seminar asks: "why do any of these stories have to be
socio or political or cultural or whatever...?" Why can't a story just be
a story. And there you have King himself (my claim) oblivious, and very rich,
to the connections between living a life in our world and writing fantasy,
horror and fiction generally.
The instructor tells Ben, you have a lot to learn. It is my contention that
King never did learn a damn thing. He just went on and on and on and on
making money and turning out a lot of unreflective second rate stuff. His
final story before dropping the class has Pulp and Crap scrawled atop the
front page. Eventually Ben becomes a "success". I believe this story tells us
alot about King and his attitudes. King is anti-intellectual. King is a
commoner. King's understanding of the world ends at high school graduation.
To put it another way, King is the best we have on the shallow side of genius.
Unable to really grasp the complexities of life or of love, King keeps
spinning out fiction that serves his own emotional needs, needs shaped by high
school and small town America. He is one of a kind. I like some of his work
and the occasional paragraph almost breaks into the big leagues. Generally
however King is the King of adolescent fiction.
Michael
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Jon R.
Mic...@www.chonju-tc.ac.kr wrote:
>
> In the novel _It_ we, as readers, are introduced to a number of characters.
> One of these characters is Bill Denbrough. I think we can make the case that
I really hope that this is a ironic argument, meant to show where
the historical-biographical method can lead us. Robert, did you
read this?
Jon R.
Augustine
Mic...@www.chonju-tc.ac.kr wrote:
> In the novel _It_ we, as readers, are introduced to a number of
> characters.
> One of these characters is Bill Denbrough. I think we can make the
> case that
> Denbrough comes very, very close to a representation of King himself.
Yet again, you are ignorant to the fact that sometimes characters are
just characters. Bill Denbrough is just a character King created in his
mind.
> Here is
> the evidence: BD is from Maine, a poor boy on a scholarship. He is
> taking
> courses in English Lit and finds "himself lost without a compass".
> Other
> characters in the English program admire John Updike, William
> Faulkner, and
> Joyce Carol Oates. All of these writers are in a different league from
> King.
> A completely different league. They KNOW and UNDERSTAND things that
> King only guesses about. Not to detract from King's genius, he is a
> very talented man, but generally speaking he's a poorly educated, home
> grown genius, like somany in North America.
No. Incorrect. Wrong. King may not be quite as good as those writers,
but he certainly is in their league. What makes him poorly educated? He
went to college. Just because he's not a lofty professor at an Ivy
League school he's poorly educated? I bet King is more educated than
Walt Whitman, Mark Twain and even Shaknespeare (this is considering the
fact that much more is known and taught in these modern times than in
Shakespeare's and Whitman's time, but still...). The point is why does
he need a superb education and an Oxford master's degree to be a great
writer?
> Denbrough is taking EH-141, "Creative Writing Honors
> Seminar. The instructor has published four books of poetry. Those
> books were
> published by a University Press. Notice King understands the
> difference
> between a major, bestselling house like Random House or Vintage/Signet
> or
> something and Univerity of New England Presses. Denbrough has already
> written
> a mystery tale, some sci-fi, and some horror. He admires, of course,
> Poe and
> Lovecraft. Denbrough earns a B for one of his stories. Not an A, a B.
> A means excellent and B means good.
So? That's William Denbrough, not Stephen King.
> King, all his career will be a good
> writer, but rarely, if ever, an excellent writer. His excellence is
> occasional, unpredictable, sporadic.
You are wrong once again, Michael. King, all his career, will be an
excellent writer.
> Denbrough, one day in class, fed up with
> the progress of the seminar asks: "why do any of these stories have to
> be
> socio or political or cultural or whatever...?" Why can't a story
> just be
> a story. And there you have King himself (my claim) oblivious, and
> very rich,
> to the connections between living a life in our world and writing
> fantasy,
> horror and fiction generally.
> The instructor tells Ben, you have a lot to learn.
Bill Denbrough's instructor didn't tell Ben anything.
> It is my contention that
> King never did learn a damn thing. He just went on and on and on and
> on
> making money and turning out a lot of unreflective second rate stuff.
> His
> final story before dropping the class has Pulp and Crap scrawled atop
> the
> front page. Eventually Ben becomes a "success". I believe this story
> tells us
> alot about King and his attitudes.
> King is anti-intellectual. King is a
> commoner. King's understanding of the world ends at high school
> graduation.
So? Not everyone must be a high class, self-righteous, hateful
intellectual like yourself, Michael. Maybe SK chooses not to act like a
literary god, so high and mighty above all of us. Do people relate
better to a commoner or a king (pardon the pun, I meant king as in
monarch.) Why do people have to graduate form college to understand the
world. I have the answer to that one: They don't, Michael. They
don't.
> To put it another way, King is the best we have on the shallow side of
> genius.
> Unable to really grasp the complexities of life or of love, King keeps
>
> spinning out fiction that serves his own emotional needs, needs shaped
> by high
> school and small town America.
Finally, a point in one of your posts! Let me try to mold one of your
statements into something that resmbles the truth: "King is the best we
have." That's better.
> He is one of a kind. I like some of his work
> and the occasional paragraph almost breaks into the big leagues.
> Generally
> however King is the King of adolescent fiction.
>
Micheal, most of your posts are adolescent fiction, as they are filled
with the jealousy and obsessive hate normally seen in the form of teen
angst. And most of what they say is untrue and not thought out propery,
therefore it is fiction.
Michael, you can't seem to grasp the fact that King is an amazing
author. One evidence of this is the simple fact of his popularity. He
is one of the best selling authors of the twentieth century, he is
widely known as "The Master of Horror." He has recieved not only praise
from millions of people worldwide, but critical praise as well. Rarely
does a reputable book critic frown upon a SK novel. You, as a person
who doesn't like SK's writing, are a minority.
Admit it Michael, he is great.
Chris Augustine
Mic...@www.chonju-tc.ac.kr
In article <34FB3041...@telenet.net>,
Augustine <augu...@telenet.net> wrote:
<snip>
> Yet again, you are ignorant to the fact that sometimes characters are
> just characters. Bill Denbrough is just a character King created in his
> mind.
Wrong Chris. I am aware that writers are free to exercise their imaginations
in whatever way they so choose. But let me add something to that trite
observation. Characters usually come from the writers most intimate
experience with others and with his or her immediate social world. This is
why for example you rarely find King writing about high class society types.
He doesn't have the background to represent them well. He could try but I know
he would fail. He is good with grade school and high school teachers. He is
good with the local police and with country people. Weak when it comes to old
money or to urban types. Almost nothing King writes is about the big city and
there is an entire literature devoted to the big city; the reason, King would
have trouble providing characters. Compare Peter Blauner's excellent book,
The Intruder, which does give characters rich enough to come from New York
City. Another example: King could never do Holden Caulfield. Caulfield is
outside of his imaginative range.
<snip>
> No. Incorrect. Wrong. King may not be quite as good as those writers,
> but he certainly is in their league. What makes him poorly educated? He
> went to college. Just because he's not a lofty professor at an Ivy
> League school he's poorly educated? I bet King is more educated than
> Walt Whitman, Mark Twain and even Shaknespeare (this is considering the
> fact that much more is known and taught in these modern times than in
> Shakespeare's and Whitman's time, but still...). The point is why does
> he need a superb education and an Oxford master's degree to be a great
> writer?
Well if going to college meant you got a good education you might have a
point. But it becomes clear, year after year, that going to college is
basically like graduating from high school twenty years ago. In other words
people are actually less educated now than in the past because college
standards have been lowered substantially. ANYONE can go to college. Christ,
even Charles Manson might have a college degree for all I know. You'd be
right that King spent more time in a classroom than Whitman or Shakespeare but
you'd be wrong to think they were less educated. Although in Whitman's case
the issue is more educated by self-examination which is rare. He was a rare
talent too. Do you need a degree to be a great writer? No. But most writers
are limited by their lack of education. In King's case in has become too
painful to press that point.
<snip>
> You are wrong once again, Michael. King, all his career, will be an
> excellent writer.
Excellence versus bestselling author. No, Chris, all his lifelong King has
been a bestselling author. Not an excellent author. Now what is excellence?
Let me say right away that excellence cannot be defined because to define is
to reduce to common terms. Excellence means that somehow the person goes
beyond the common terms, excells, goes beyond limits. King rarely does that.
King is a good sometimes mediocre writer. Almost never is he excellent. I did
think Running Man and Rage were excellent short stories. But that was
Bachmann.
<snip>
> So? Not everyone must be a high class, self-righteous, hateful
> intellectual like yourself, Michael. Maybe SK chooses not to act like a
> literary god, so high and mighty above all of us. Do people relate
> better to a commoner or a king (pardon the pun, I meant king as in
> monarch.) Why do people have to graduate form college to understand the
> world. I have the answer to that one: They don't, Michael. They
> don't.
I am not an intellectual. I am merely a concerned reader. In some ways the
character Johnny Edward Marinville parodies the idea of the literary god.
I think King is right to parody the idea of literary status. But what we
need as readers is a better understanding of the world. King cannot provide
that because his emotional needs, the repetitive gross outs and the horror
scenes, keep him from expanding. A mind is a terrible thing to waste and King
has done an excellent job of wasting his. College merely provides an
opportunity, when people don't have commitments to family and work they do
later in life, to develop a working conception of the world. Most of you,
however, wasted your time getting laid, smoking pot, and staring into Indian
mantras.
> "King is the best we
> have." That's better.
No King is not the best we have (in America). The best we have now includes
Vonnegut, Updike, Vidal, Oates, Birkerts, O J Simpson ( of I Wanna Tell You)
and Vincent Bugliosi who wrote Helter Skelter and Outrage, How O J got away
with murder. And if someone does a book on the Menendez brothers that would
be good too.
> Michael, you can't seem to grasp the fact that King is an amazing
> author. One evidence of this is the simple fact of his popularity. He
> is one of the best selling authors of the twentieth century, he is
> widely known as "The Master of Horror." He has recieved not only praise
> from millions of people worldwide, but critical praise as well. Rarely
> does a reputable book critic frown upon a SK novel. You, as a person
> who doesn't like SK's writing, are a minority.
Don't confuse the issue with being well paid for services. Some call girls
I have met come at 500 to 1000 dollars an hour. (You couldn't afford them
Chris, not on your salary). Also I met a whore once whose title was
Sex Meister of the Century. She was good with whips and lashes. Now there's
critical praise for you. Most of the praise comes from people who hope to cash
in on King's money cow.
Mic...@www.chonju-tc.ac.kr
In article <34FAB7...@nor.uib.noXXX>,
"Jon R." <Jon.R...@nor.uib.noXXX> wrote:
<I wrote this line>
> I think we can make the case that Denbrough comes very, very close to a
> representation of King himself.
<and Jon R. wrote>
> I really hope that this is a ironic argument, meant to show where
> the historical-biographical method can lead us. Robert, did you
> read this?
I will assume that Robert is Robert Whalen. I may mean this post ironically.
The point is simple: someone writes something. Either that writing is
motivated by some facet of the author's mind or it isn't. How could someone
write something that was unmotivated by some need. That's outside the realm
of possibility. Therefore, King did write this and it was motivated. My
argument, weak or strong, gathers evidence in support of a rather narrow
specific claim: that a certain character comes closer to the psychological
experiences of an author than some other characters. Now where is your
critique? and don't give me New Criticism, because it's dead.
Dietmar Trommeshauser
> Wrong Chris. I am aware that writers are free to exercise their imaginations
> in whatever way they so choose. But let me add something to that trite
> observation. Characters usually come from the writers most intimate
> experience with others and with his or her immediate social world. This is
> why for example you rarely find King writing about high class society types.
> He doesn't have the background to represent them well. He could try but I know
> he would fail. He is good with grade school and high school teachers. He is
> good with the local police and with country people. Weak when it comes to old
> money or to urban types. Almost nothing King writes is about the big city and
> there is an entire literature devoted to the big city; the reason, King would
> have trouble providing characters. Compare Peter Blauner's excellent book,
> The Intruder, which does give characters rich enough to come from New York
> City. Another example: King could never do Holden Caulfield. Caulfield is
> outside of his imaginative range.
You know, I had hopes of having intellectual discussions with you Michael
and I was willing to ignore others accusations about you being nothing
more than a troll and giving you the benifit of doubt.
Then, alas, you post this ridiculously absurd paragraph and I realize
we're on two seperate planets.
You're comparing apples to oranges here. Just cause King writes storys
set in small towns instead of big cities makes him a lesser writer? What
the hell makes a character who comes from New York richer or more
important than a character who comes from and lives in Maine. If this is
what you are teaching children then i just have to say you are doing much
more damage to our youths than King's writing ever will or has.
Thank God my teachers never had such an eletist attitude.
Saying Caufield is out of King's imaginative range is absurd. I
garrantee Salinger would be totally apalled at this statement. Besides,
how do you know Roland and the Dark Tower world aren't outside of
Salinger's range. These kind of bold statements would be considered
pompous and absolute rubbish by anyone with any knowledge of writing
fiction.
Jon R.
Mic...@www.chonju-tc.ac.kr wrote:
>
(...) and don't give me New Criticism, because it's dead.
*sigh*
No, but this conversation apparantly is.
Jon R.
Tworibbles
Michael wrote:>Well if going to college meant you got a good education you
might have a
>point. But it becomes clear, year after year, that going to college is
>basically like graduating from high school twenty years ago. In other words
>people are actually less educated
>now than in the past because college
>standards have been lowered substantially. ANYONE can go to college.
Well, then, according to your logic, since Stephen King graduated from the
University of Maine at Orono 28 years ago, he will have been vastly better
educated than you, being a modern day college attendee.
Cindy
Mic...@www.chonju-tc.ac.kr
In article <dtrommes-030...@van-as-05a13.direct.ca>,
dtro...@direct.ca (Dietmar Trommeshauser) wrote:
>
> You're comparing apples to oranges here. Just cause King writes storys
> set in small towns instead of big cities makes him a lesser writer? What
> the hell makes a character who comes from New York richer or more
> important than a character who comes from and lives in Maine. If this is
> what you are teaching children then i just have to say you are doing much
>
> Saying Caufield is out of King's imaginative range is absurd. I
> garrantee Salinger would be totally apalled at this statement. Besides,
> how do you know Roland and the Dark Tower world aren't outside of
> Salinger's range. These kind of bold statements would be considered
> pompous and absolute rubbish by anyone with any knowledge of writing
> fiction.
No disrespect Dietmar but you didn't get my point. No King is no less a good
writer even though he cannot do high class society types. He is good at what
he does: small town America. He is very good at that. About fantasy all I can
say is that I plan to read the Dark Towers series very soon so let me hold
off on that. My point is quite simple: if someone came to me and said,
Michael, what is a good novel about the city in America I wouldn't recommend
King; that's all. If the same person said, I want something on small town
America I'd say read Thomas Wolfe and then read Stephen King. If someone said,
what about fantasy, I'd say read the Gormenghast Novels of M. Peake and then
read Stephen King. That doesn't take anything away from King. It merely
means he has limits. I had limits to before I was cloned by aliens from
Venus. Now those limits are merely an unhappy memory.
Kathryn Nyte
>Excellence versus bestselling author. No, Chris, all his lifelong King has
>been a bestselling author. Not an excellent author. Now what is excellence?
>Let me say right away that excellence cannot be defined because to define is
>to reduce to common terms. Excellence means that somehow the person goes
>beyond the common terms, excells, goes beyond limits. King rarely does that.
>King is a good sometimes mediocre writer. Almost never is he excellent. I did
>think Running Man and Rage were excellent short stories. But that was
>Bachmann.
First off I would like to say I agree with the statement that
excellence cannot be defined in common terms. However one can define
excellence in other ways. For instance, I would say that for a story
to be excellent it must take a person to a level that he or she has
not been to before. There are many stories that can accomplish this,
and not all of them are by a college educated man or woman. In fact
one of the best stories I have ever read was by a ninth grader who
wrote a story about his mother dying. It was poor in spelling and
grammer, and it had little organization. It was the force of the raw
emotion that came through made it excellent.
>I am not an intellectual. I am merely a concerned reader. In some ways the
>character Johnny Edward Marinville parodies the idea of the literary god.
>I think King is right to parody the idea of literary status. But what we
>need as readers is a better understanding of the world. King cannot provide
>that because his emotional needs, the repetitive gross outs and the horror
>scenes, keep him from expanding. A mind is a terrible thing to waste and King
>has done an excellent job of wasting his. College merely provides an
>opportunity, when people don't have commitments to family and work they do
>later in life, to develop a working conception of the world. Most of you,
>however, wasted your time getting laid, smoking pot, and staring into Indian
>mantras.
May I inquire what you are concerned about as a reader? In response
to your section on his emotional needs, how do they block him from
expansion? Do you honestly think he needs to "gross" us out? In some
of his earlier works, I agree he did opt for the gross out, and that a
few of his works have been adolescent. This is someting that I do not
believe he still does. Everything of his that I have read recently
struck me as appropriate, and every death he writes about has a
purpose. I believe it a testiment to his writing ability that he
continues to write explicitly on the nature of death, for that is the
#1 fear in the country. He is a horror writer after all. He is in
the business of scaring us.
>No King is not the best we have (in America). The best we have now includes
>Vonnegut, Updike, Vidal, Oates, Birkerts, O J Simpson ( of I Wanna Tell You)
>and Vincent Bugliosi who wrote Helter Skelter and Outrage, How O J got away
>with murder. And if someone does a book on the Menendez brothers that would
>be good too.
If you honestly believe that OJ is a better author than Stephen King,
then it is no wonder you consider King to be a lesser author. He
writes at a level that must be beyond you, and you just are not able
to comprehend the messages he conveys through his body of work.
Thats my opinion, and I stand by it
Kathryn
mike mcguire
Mic...@www.chonju-tc.ac.kr wrote:
In the novel _It_ we, as readers, are introduced to a number of characters.
One of these characters is Bill Denbrough. I think we can make the case that
Denbrough comes very, very close to a representation of King himself. Here is
the evidence: BD is from Maine, a poor boy on a scholarship. He is taking
courses in English Lit and finds "himself lost without a compass". Other
characters in the English program admire John Updike, William Faulkner, and
Joyce Carol Oates. All of these writers are in a different league from King.
A completely different league. They KNOW and UNDERSTAND things that King only
guesses about. Not to detract from King's genius, he is a very talented man,
but generally speaking he's a poorly educated, home grown genius, like so
many in North America. Denbrough is taking EH-141, "Creative Writing Honors
Seminar. The instructor has published four books of poetry. Those books were
published by a University Press. Notice King understands the difference
between a major, bestselling house like Random House or Vintage/Signet or
something and Univerity of New England Presses. Denbrough has already written
a mystery tale, some sci-fi, and some horror. He admires, of course, Poe and
Lovecraft. Denbrough earns a B for one of his stories. Not an A, a B.
A means excellent and B means good. King, all his career will be a good
writer, but rarely, if ever, an excellent writer. His excellence is
occasional, unpredictable, sporadic. Denbrough, one day in class, fed up with
the progress of the seminar asks: "why do any of these stories have to be
socio or political or cultural or whatever...?" Why can't a story just be
a story. And there you have King himself (my claim) oblivious, and very rich,
to the connections between living a life in our world and writing fantasy,
horror and fiction generally.
The instructor tells Ben, you have a lot to learn. It is my contention that
King never did learn a damn thing. He just went on and on and on and on
making money and turning out a lot of unreflective second rate stuff. His
final story before dropping the class has Pulp and Crap scrawled atop the
front page. Eventually Ben becomes a "success". I believe this story tells us
alot about King and his attitudes. King is anti-intellectual. King is a
commoner. King's understanding of the world ends at high school graduation.
To put it another way, King is the best we have on the shallow side of genius.
Unable to really grasp the complexities of life or of love, King keeps
spinning out fiction that serves his own emotional needs, needs shaped by high
school and small town America. He is one of a kind. I like some of his work
and the occasional paragraph almost breaks into the big leagues. Generally
however King is the King of adolescent fiction.
Michael
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Do you bother actually "reading" Kings books or do you have a problem comprehending? It is all about a diverse group of people coming together to overcome a common problem. You know, "teamwork". They do this even though they each have thier own personal crises that need attention. It's through thier frienship and care for each other that each of them progresses personally in thier lives. Thus promoting the importance of
forming close friendships in our lives. For without true friends, we cannot become that which we were meant to become. Also, Take a break from reality and enjoy life a little. Not every story has to have a moral tale. Mr. King never claimed to be Aesop! And if your going to flame someone who has become such a success, shut your mouth, write your "great moral reality based novel", Take all of his readers from him and put him out of business. But, I for one,believe this is patently impossible for it would take you the rest of your life to plagerize real writers enough to write a novel. I firmly believe that your "only" abilty is to flame someone else because you are envious of thier ability. You have never seen a Stephen King story republished in it's entirety under a different title,unlike Dean Koontz. Although he is also a great writer and that is not intended as a personal flame to him.(it's probobly the fault of his publisher) The main point of this being Michael, If inanities and ridiculous flames are all you have to post, then,read the book. Don't just scan a few paragraphs,try to understand what is actually being said. Either that, or read the encyclopedia if all you want are facts and reality.
Mike Mcguire
the_me...@yahoo.com
Attn. Regulars: Sorry for such a long post. But Mr. King is the "best" in his genre,and seeing someone who can't read the story inside the story but wants to flame it,
just makes my ass want buttermilk!
--
GIF89a劬
stevie canuck
Mic...@www.chonju-tc.ac.kr wrote:
>No King is no less a good writer even though he cannot do high class
>society types.
... and the question is: Is chonju-boy referring to one King or many?
Gotta love those undemarcated triple negatives!
Stevie C
to e-mail me change .com to .ca
Mic...@www.chonju-tc.ac.kr
In article <34FEDB...@rogerswave.com>,
stevie canuck <ste...@rogerswave.com> wrote:
>
>
> ... and the question is: Is chonju-boy referring to one King or many?
> Gotta love those undemarcated triple negatives!
>
If you're so bright Stevie you should be able to figure it out all on you
little own lonesome. I never said you didn't have what it didn't take.
Jean Graham
mike mcguire wrote:
(Snipped some Michael ranting which I assume anyone who is really
interested can read in his original post.
(Also snipped Mike's reply)
> Attn. Regulars: Sorry for such a long post. But Mr. King
> is the "best" in his genre,and seeing someone who can't read the story
> inside the story but wants to flame it,
> just makes my ass want buttermilk!
LOL! What a great expression? What does it mean -- and where does it
come from?
Jeano,Who might be a folklore major in her next life
Peter Price
Jean Graham wrote in message <34FF47D4...@thezone.net>...
>mike mcguire wrote:
>
>(Snipped some Michael ranting which I assume anyone who is really
>interested can read in his original post.
>(Also snipped Mike's reply)
>
>> is the "best" in his genre,and seeing someone who can't read the story
>> inside the story but wants to flame it,
>> just makes my ass want buttermilk!
>
>come from?
>
>Jeano,Who might be a folklore major in her next life
>
I have this sick feeling it has something to do with and enema.
Peter
Andrew Barnett
[snip Michael's original post, and follow-up]
I would like to intervene on Michael's behalf. Don't get me wrong, I
like Stephen King "as much as the next guy," but I still think there's
some truth to what Michael is saying. When I read the passage in _It_
about Bill Denbrough, I immediately thought "This is King trying to get
back at some professor who did the same to him." Why? Well, to me it was
really the "Pulp" comment that made me think this. I can easily see
people saying Stephen King's work is pulp. I don't think that, but I can
see how some people would.
What really bothers me about these Michael-spawned debates is how so
many of you are unwilling to find fault with Stephen King. _The Stand_
is one of my favorite books of all time, but I still admit that the guy
is human. Not to say that you don't. I'm just in a sort of awe that his
discussion-igniting posts have resulted in mostly things that say
"Everything you say is wrong. Just plain wrong. And there must be
something wrong with you to be so critical." Oh well.
-Andrew Barnett, andr...@erols.com
Gargoyle
Funny, Tolkien also asked "Why can't a story be just a story?"
It was in response to one of the many allegations that The Hobbit was
about Hitler and WW II
Mic...@www.chonju-tc.ac.kr
In article <3507267D...@unnet.com>,
Because no story is only a story. There is ALWAYS a reason why someone is
telling a story and why they tell it the WAY they tell it. In other words,
all story telling is overdetermined with meaning.
Robert Whelan
In article <6e7q8a$n6b$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, Mic...@www.chonju-tc.ac.kr wrote:
>In article <3507267D...@unnet.com>,
> Gargoyle <garg...@unnet.com> wrote:
>>
>> Funny, Tolkien also asked "Why can't a story be just a story?"
>> It was in response to one of the many allegations that The Hobbit was
>> about Hitler and WW II
>
>Because no story is only a story. There is ALWAYS a reason why someone is
>telling a story and why they tell it the WAY they tell it. In other words,
>all story telling is overdetermined with meaning.
>
>Michael
This is true, but I think Tolkien's concern was with treating the
story as being TRULY about what it purports to be about, not being
considered to be REALLY about something else. Tolkien would probably
insist that the best way to tell a story about Hitler would be to
start the tale with "Once upon a time there was a little boy named
Hitler, who lived in a country called Germany" not to write a story
about hobbits, with Sauron being representing Hitler.
Robert W.
Mic...@www.chonju-tc.ac.kr
In article <slrn6ghh6c....@amanda.dorsai.org>,
rwh...@dorsai.org (Robert Whelan) wrote:
> <snip>
> This is true, but I think Tolkien's concern was with treating the
> story as being TRULY about what it purports to be about, not being
> considered to be REALLY about something else.
Frankly Robert it doesn't matter what Tolkien meant to do AFTER he published
his work. At that point the work leaves the realm of the author and enters
into public discourse. It can then be used in any number of ways. And I
usually discount AUTOMATICALLY what authors say about their own work. I listen
to it with a grain of salt.
> Tolkien would probably
> insist that the best way to tell a story about Hitler would be to
> start the tale with "Once upon a time there was a little boy named
> Hitler, who lived in a country called Germany" not to write a story
> about hobbits, with Sauron being representing Hitler.
>
All stories can be treated as allegories. Why arbitrarily say this one is not
to be treated so?
Robert Whelan
Mic...@www.chonju-tc.ac.kr wrote:
: In article <slrn6ghh6c....@amanda.dorsai.org>,
: rwh...@dorsai.org (Robert Whelan) wrote:
: > <snip>
: > This is true, but I think Tolkien's concern was with treating the
: > story as being TRULY about what it purports to be about, not being
: > considered to be REALLY about something else.
: Frankly Robert it doesn't matter what Tolkien meant to do AFTER he published
: his work. At that point the work leaves the realm of the author and enters
: into public discourse. It can then be used in any number of ways. And I
: usually discount AUTOMATICALLY what authors say about their own work. I listen
: to it with a grain of salt.
Heh! You won't catch me THAT easily!
: > Tolkien would probably
: > insist that the best way to tell a story about Hitler would be to
: > start the tale with "Once upon a time there was a little boy named
: > Hitler, who lived in a country called Germany" not to write a story
: > about hobbits, with Sauron being representing Hitler.
: >
: All stories can be treated as allegories. Why arbitrarily say this one is not
: to be treated so?
What a tasty little wiggling worm.... nah.
Robert W.
Jon R.
Mic...@www.chonju-tc.ac.kr wrote:
(snip)
> his work. At that point the work leaves the realm of the author and enters
> into public discourse. It can then be used in any number of ways. And I
> usually discount AUTOMATICALLY what authors say about their own work. I listen
> to it with a grain of salt.
Ho hum. Looks like you've revived the New Criticism you accused
of being dead.
Jon R.
Robert Whelan
Mic...@www.chonju-tc.ac.kr wrote:
: In article <slrn6ghh6c....@amanda.dorsai.org>,
: rwh...@dorsai.org (Robert Whelan) wrote:
: > <snip>
: > This is true, but I think Tolkien's concern was with treating the
: > story as being TRULY about what it purports to be about, not being
: > considered to be REALLY about something else.
: Frankly Robert it doesn't matter what Tolkien meant to do AFTER he published
: his work. At that point the work leaves the realm of the author and enters
: into public discourse. It can then be used in any number of ways. And I
: usually discount AUTOMATICALLY what authors say about their own work. I listen
: to it with a grain of salt.
Well. I'll just use this to launch off on my own lecture. Tolkien
himself is quite aware of the spiritual feel of his stories, its just that
he objects to a one to one correspondence being made between elements of
his stories and other things. Frodo may be Christlike, but he is NOT
Christ. Deliberate allegory would take pains to make sure we all know
Frodo was born of a virgin, or some such nonsense, and had him preaching
in local temples when he was in his tweens.
: > Tolkien would probably
: > insist that the best way to tell a story about Hitler would be to
: > start the tale with "Once upon a time there was a little boy named
: > Hitler, who lived in a country called Germany" not to write a story
: > about hobbits, with Sauron being representing Hitler.
: >
: All stories can be treated as allegories. Why arbitrarily say this one is not
: to be treated so?
Why can all stories be treated as allegories? Believably? Ah, crap.
I'm just falling for the bait.
Robert W.