Re: Stephan King
Jim Sharkey wrote: > It's quite nifty; a bibliophile like yourself would be set all > a-drooling, I'm sure. :) Whaddya mean, bibliophile? I'm a bibliomaniac! :) > Jim > Occasionally suffers from fanboy disease Maru Same here, but I try to keep it under control around the folks I'm fans of Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Stephan King
Julia Thompson wrote: >Jim Sharkey wrote: >>Has a signed, slipcased edition of the original City on the Edge >>of Forever script Maru >Dang, I just have a paperback, and I haven't had it signed. To be honest, I bought this particular signed version from Borderlands Press ~9 years ago, I *think* after reading about it in Peter David's CBG column. It has two treatments, the actual script, and a second draft, as well as afterwords by PD, Fontana, Gerrold, De Kelley, Koening, Nimoy, Melinda Snodgrass, and Takei. It has some cool pictures and such as well. Not to mention the usual ravings by Mr. Ellison himself. :) It's quite nifty; a bibliophile like yourself would be set all a-drooling, I'm sure. :) Jim Occasionally suffers from fanboy disease Maru ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Stephan King
Jim Sharkey wrote: > > Robert Seeberger wrote: > >From: "Jim Sharkey" > >>I hope I'm not seeing reference jokes where there aren't any Maru > >Loose reference to "I Have No Mouth And I Must Scream" > >You're on top of things Jim! > > Ah, good. I thought I felt my nerd-sense tingling on that one. :) > Have you ever seen the version illustrated by John Byrne? It was > pretty good. > > Even though he comes across as an opinionated, arrogant, and abrasive > SOB, I love Harlan Ellison. He's one of the best SF writers of the > second half of the 20th century, INO. I particularly enjoy his > short story work. He also does one heck of a job at garnering high bids at an auction. The charity auction at AggieCon when he was guest of honor (and so the auctioneer at the charity auction, that's how they do that there) set all sorts of records or something. > Jim > Has a signed, slipcased edition of the original City on the Edge of Forever script > Maru Dang, I just have a paperback, and I haven't had it signed. My copy of _Slippage_ is signed, and let me tell you, he does one *heck* of a job of describing what it's like to have books thrown at you by your bookcases. (Having been in a similar situation, it gave me a nasty flashback when I read it -- so he'd done his job well.) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Stephan King
Robert Seeberger wrote: >From: "Jim Sharkey" >>I hope I'm not seeing reference jokes where there aren't any Maru >Loose reference to "I Have No Mouth And I Must Scream" >You're on top of things Jim! Ah, good. I thought I felt my nerd-sense tingling on that one. :) Have you ever seen the version illustrated by John Byrne? It was pretty good. Even though he comes across as an opinionated, arrogant, and abrasive SOB, I love Harlan Ellison. He's one of the best SF writers of the second half of the 20th century, INO. I particularly enjoy his short story work. Jim Has a signed, slipcased edition of the original City on the Edge of Forever script Maru ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Stephan King
- Original Message - From: "Jim Sharkey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, January 30, 2004 8:34 PM Subject: Re: Stephan King > > Travis Edmunds wrote: > >From: "Robert Seeberger" > >>I Have No Penis Yet I Still Feel the Yearning to Use One Maru > > Forgive me for saying so, but that's just.different. > > It makes *me* wonder if we could get Harlan to write a new short story about AM. :) > > Jim > I hope I'm not seeing reference jokes where there aren't any Maru > Loose reference to "I Have No Mouth And I Must Scream" You're on top of things Jim! xponent A Boy And His Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Stephan King
Travis Edmunds wrote: >From: "Robert Seeberger" >>I Have No Penis Yet I Still Feel the Yearning to Use One Maru > Forgive me for saying so, but that's just.different. It makes *me* wonder if we could get Harlan to write a new short story about AM. :) Jim I hope I'm not seeing reference jokes where there aren't any Maru ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Stephan King
yeah i ahve to agree with Travis on this one, Anne Rice does tend to have very... "Racey" scenes, however they tend to have no real bearing on the sexual identy of any one characterthat being said, it is important as a venue to prove to the lesser of the "Rice" inclinded reader, that the love is so profound that they would share that in a ver intimant way. The sharing of blood between Vamp's is such a medium. - Original Message - From: "Travis Edmunds" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, January 30, 2004 5:54 PM Subject: Re: Stephan King > > >From: "Robert Seeberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Subject: Re: Stephan King > >Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 18:52:15 -0600 > > > >- Original Message - > >From: "Travis Edmunds" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 11:16 AM > >Subject: Re: Stephan King > > > > >First of all, Quinn is blatantly bisexual. He > > > says so in the book a couple of times, and Anne tells us in more > >subtle ways > > > herself. > > > >Knowing as we do that Rice does not work from outlines when writing, > >and at the onset does not know in any more than the vaguest of ways > >how the book will progress or end, the matter of Quinns sexuality > >underwent drastic shifts that were quite pointless, illuminated > >nothing, and did not progress the story. > > I don't think it changed at all. Seeing as how Quinn is an Anne Rice > character, existing in Anne's Vampire/Mayfair Universe, his sexuality is so > open as to be comparable to not have a sexual orientation in the first > place. Moreover, it was certainly not pointless for Quinn to explore his > sexuality. It was quite simply an element of the character being human. > > > > > >First Quinn is shown to be a stereotypical pantywaist of the type > >usually accused of being queer (whether it is true or not). At this > >point the reader is led to believe that Quinn is as gay as most of > >Rice's Vampires. Up to this point Quinn shows exactly zero interest in > >women. > > > >Then Quinn has a homosexual experience with Goblin, who is male and a > >ghost. This seems to confirm the readers initial expectations as does > >a scene where Quinn loudly proclaims himself to be gay. > > > >Then Quinn professes great admiration for a male teacher who thinks > >Quinn is "into" him, but says he really is not interested in that kind > >of relationship with this particular person. > > > >Then in somewhat quick succession, Quinn Has sex with and fathers a > >child by a black servant he has known his whole life, has rapturous > >sex with a devious female ghost who was a prostitute in life, and then > >falls instantly in love with mad abandon for a witch who also happens > >to be heir to a massive fortune. > > > >There is a point in the book where Quinns sexuality shifts from > >exclusively homosexual to exclusively heterosexual. And the only time > >Quinn is described as bisexual is during the heterosexual part of the > >story. > > > "Exclusively heterosexual". I think not. By one's own extrapolation, it's > easy to imigane Quinn (pre vampire) having sex with just about anyone. It's > simply a sexed up book, as are all of her books set in this Universe, and > sexuality really has no bounds within it. > > > > > >I think that initially Rice intended for Quinn to fall in love with > >Lestat de Lioncourt (doesn't everyone?), but changed horses in > >midstream. > > But doesn't he fall in love with Lestat anyway? > > > >But you see one must understand, > > > that in Rice's Universe sexuality is everything. Take the Vampires > >for > > > example. Once the transformation from a human to an immortal is > >complete, > > > they no longer have the use of their sexual organs. Yet they retain > >a strong > > > male or female identity. BUT, at the same time this identity is not > > > overshadowed so much as it is blended in with asexual, or perhaps > >more > > > accurately, bisexual behavior. Nearly every character, mortal and > >immortal > > > alike, has absolutely no inhibitions as to who they have sex with. > >It's just > > > her style of writing. And in the case of Quinn, his sexual identity, > >if > > > anything, is act
Re: Stephan King
From: "Robert Seeberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Stephan King Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 18:52:15 -0600 - Original Message - From: "Travis Edmunds" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 11:16 AM Subject: Re: Stephan King >First of all, Quinn is blatantly bisexual. He > says so in the book a couple of times, and Anne tells us in more subtle ways > herself. Knowing as we do that Rice does not work from outlines when writing, and at the onset does not know in any more than the vaguest of ways how the book will progress or end, the matter of Quinns sexuality underwent drastic shifts that were quite pointless, illuminated nothing, and did not progress the story. I don't think it changed at all. Seeing as how Quinn is an Anne Rice character, existing in Anne's Vampire/Mayfair Universe, his sexuality is so open as to be comparable to not have a sexual orientation in the first place. Moreover, it was certainly not pointless for Quinn to explore his sexuality. It was quite simply an element of the character being human. First Quinn is shown to be a stereotypical pantywaist of the type usually accused of being queer (whether it is true or not). At this point the reader is led to believe that Quinn is as gay as most of Rice's Vampires. Up to this point Quinn shows exactly zero interest in women. Then Quinn has a homosexual experience with Goblin, who is male and a ghost. This seems to confirm the readers initial expectations as does a scene where Quinn loudly proclaims himself to be gay. Then Quinn professes great admiration for a male teacher who thinks Quinn is "into" him, but says he really is not interested in that kind of relationship with this particular person. Then in somewhat quick succession, Quinn Has sex with and fathers a child by a black servant he has known his whole life, has rapturous sex with a devious female ghost who was a prostitute in life, and then falls instantly in love with mad abandon for a witch who also happens to be heir to a massive fortune. There is a point in the book where Quinns sexuality shifts from exclusively homosexual to exclusively heterosexual. And the only time Quinn is described as bisexual is during the heterosexual part of the story. "Exclusively heterosexual". I think not. By one's own extrapolation, it's easy to imigane Quinn (pre vampire) having sex with just about anyone. It's simply a sexed up book, as are all of her books set in this Universe, and sexuality really has no bounds within it. I think that initially Rice intended for Quinn to fall in love with Lestat de Lioncourt (doesn't everyone?), but changed horses in midstream. But doesn't he fall in love with Lestat anyway? >But you see one must understand, > that in Rice's Universe sexuality is everything. Take the Vampires for > example. Once the transformation from a human to an immortal is complete, > they no longer have the use of their sexual organs. Yet they retain a strong > male or female identity. BUT, at the same time this identity is not > overshadowed so much as it is blended in with asexual, or perhaps more > accurately, bisexual behavior. Nearly every character, mortal and immortal > alike, has absolutely no inhibitions as to who they have sex with. It's just > her style of writing. And in the case of Quinn, his sexual identity, if > anything, is actually quite clearcut. More so than may of her characters. > > Yes, that is all true. And yet that is why she has become almost a parody of herself. I do not understand that last statement. Especially since the basis for your argument was firmly planted in your belief that Quinns sexual identity was "fumbled". xponent I Have No Penis Yet I Still Feel the Yearning to Use One Maru rob Forgive me for saying so, but that's just.different. -Travis "different yet funny" Edmunds _ The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/bcomm&pgmarket=en-ca&RU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin.msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Stephan King
- Original Message - From: "Travis Edmunds" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 11:16 AM Subject: Re: Stephan King > > >From: "Robert Seeberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Subject: Re: Stephan King > >Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 19:20:07 -0600 > > > >The only bad thing I have to say about it is in regards to the > >indecision of Quinn being gay or not. The whole question of his sexual > >identity was handled clumbsily and was the only time I can recall Rice > >fumbleing similar subject matter. > > This is where I must disagree. Here is where I say very loudly: "I been readin Anne Rice long before you were born boy" Actually i think you mistake the nature of my complaint. >First of all, Quinn is blatantly bisexual. He > says so in the book a couple of times, and Anne tells us in more subtle ways > herself. Knowing as we do that Rice does not work from outlines when writing, and at the onset does not know in any more than the vaguest of ways how the book will progress or end, the matter of Quinns sexuality underwent drastic shifts that were quite pointless, illuminated nothing, and did not progress the story. First Quinn is shown to be a stereotypical pantywaist of the type usually accused of being queer (whether it is true or not). At this point the reader is led to believe that Quinn is as gay as most of Rice's Vampires. Up to this point Quinn shows exactly zero interest in women. Then Quinn has a homosexual experience with Goblin, who is male and a ghost. This seems to confirm the readers initial expectations as does a scene where Quinn loudly proclaims himself to be gay. Then Quinn professes great admiration for a male teacher who thinks Quinn is "into" him, but says he really is not interested in that kind of relationship with this particular person. Then in somewhat quick succession, Quinn Has sex with and fathers a child by a black servant he has known his whole life, has rapturous sex with a devious female ghost who was a prostitute in life, and then falls instantly in love with mad abandon for a witch who also happens to be heir to a massive fortune. There is a point in the book where Quinns sexuality shifts from exclusively homosexual to exclusively heterosexual. And the only time Quinn is described as bisexual is during the heterosexual part of the story. I think that initially Rice intended for Quinn to fall in love with Lestat de Lioncourt (doesn't everyone?), but changed horses in midstream. >As for his sexual identity being handled clumbsily, it was not. It > was simply done in typical Rice style; a style which NEVER fumbles in regard > to this subject matter. It may be quite easy though, to fumble her words and > ideas (as you did in this book) yourself. Speak only for yourself. Only you know what is in your mind. >But you see one must understand, > that in Rice's Universe sexuality is everything. Take the Vampires for > example. Once the transformation from a human to an immortal is complete, > they no longer have the use of their sexual organs. Yet they retain a strong > male or female identity. BUT, at the same time this identity is not > overshadowed so much as it is blended in with asexual, or perhaps more > accurately, bisexual behavior. Nearly every character, mortal and immortal > alike, has absolutely no inhibitions as to who they have sex with. It's just > her style of writing. And in the case of Quinn, his sexual identity, if > anything, is actually quite clearcut. More so than may of her characters. > > Yes, that is all true. And yet that is why she has become almost a parody of herself. xponent I Have No Penis Yet I Still Feel the Yearning to Use One Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Stephan King
From: "Robert Seeberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Stephan King Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 19:20:07 -0600 - Original Message - From: "Travis Edmunds" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, January 11, 2004 6:01 PM Subject: Re: Stephan King > >BTW, I thought Blackwood Farm was excellent. > > > > I enjoyed it, but was dourly disappointed. If you don't mind, could you > elaborate a little as to your feelings towards the book? Well I thought it was her most novel idea since Memnoch. The whole concept of Goblin and his origin, while telegraphed throughout the novel, is quite novel, as is her method of making you forget what you have already figured out. True. One suspected throughout the book that Goblin was a pure spirit, similar if not identical in nature to the creator of the Vampires, Amel. Of course, I live fairly close to the locales of the book and enjoyed reading about places I've passed many times. What can I say? That's pretty cool. It was a fun book and a good setup for Blood Canticle which I look forward to reading. Certainly. The only bad thing I have to say about it is in regards to the indecision of Quinn being gay or not. The whole question of his sexual identity was handled clumbsily and was the only time I can recall Rice fumbleing similar subject matter. This is where I must disagree. First of all, Quinn is blatantly bisexual. He says so in the book a couple of times, and Anne tells us in more subtle ways herself. As for his sexual identity being handled clumbsily, it was not. It was simply done in typical Rice style; a style which NEVER fumbles in regard to this subject matter. It may be quite easy though, to fumble her words and ideas (as you did in this book) yourself. But you see one must understand, that in Rice's Universe sexuality is everything. Take the Vampires for example. Once the transformation from a human to an immortal is complete, they no longer have the use of their sexual organs. Yet they retain a strong male or female identity. BUT, at the same time this identity is not overshadowed so much as it is blended in with asexual, or perhaps more accurately, bisexual behavior. Nearly every character, mortal and immortal alike, has absolutely no inhibitions as to who they have sex with. It's just her style of writing. And in the case of Quinn, his sexual identity, if anything, is actually quite clearcut. More so than may of her characters. > > -Travis "Will you marry me Anne?" Edmunds xponent You Like Whips And Chains Big Boy? Maru rob I think that'd be the game, for sure. -Travis "Will you divorce me Anne?" Edmunds _ STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/bcomm&pgmarket=en-ca&RU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin.msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Stephan King
- Original Message - From: "Travis Edmunds" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, January 11, 2004 6:01 PM Subject: Re: Stephan King > >BTW, I thought Blackwood Farm was excellent. > > > > I enjoyed it, but was dourly disappointed. If you don't mind, could you > elaborate a little as to your feelings towards the book? Well I thought it was her most novel idea since Memnoch. The whole concept of Goblin and his origin, while telegraphed throughout the novel, is quite novel, as is her method of making you forget what you have already figured out. Of course, I live fairly close to the locales of the book and enjoyed reading about places I've passed many times. It was a fun book and a good setup for Blood Canticle which I look forward to reading. The only bad thing I have to say about it is in regards to the indecision of Quinn being gay or not. The whole question of his sexual identity was handled clumbsily and was the only time I can recall Rice fumbleing similar subject matter. > > -Travis "Will you marry me Anne?" Edmunds xponent You Like Whips And Chains Big Boy? Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Stephan King
From: "Robert Seeberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Stephan King Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 19:24:02 -0600 - Original Message - From: "Travis Edmunds" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 5:33 PM Subject: Re: Stephan King > >From: "Amanda Marlowe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Subject: Re: Stephan King > >Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 07:32:05 -0600 > > > >1. King is a better storyteller than he is a writer. His plots can be > >fascinating and compelling. Unfortunately he indiscriminately adds details > >about every thing including the kitchen sink, which can make the writing > >very > >hard to slog through. > > > >Amanda > >Just my two cents Maru > >(And no, I haven't read King's book on writing yet.) > > > > Good point. Especially since it helps validate my point of view!! > Compare that to Anne Rice's work, which yes, can be tedious and > indiscriminately detailed, but it's GOOD. > As much as I like Rice's books, they can be so detailed that they get boring. At times, yes. However her writing is so rich and textured, that you can almost smell the blood... I really care very little about knowing the most intimate details about every characters wardrobe. That's pretty funny. But it comes back to taste I suppose. Something you may have already touched upon with me... Her books have so much detail that it seems almost to be filler to get the word count up. Filler? Filler you say. Blasphemy...well ok it not blasphemous, it's just that I love Anne Rice. BTW, I thought Blackwood Farm was excellent. xponent Wordy Gurdy Maru rob I enjoyed it, but was dourly disappointed. If you don't mind, could you elaborate a little as to your feelings towards the book? -Travis "Will you marry me Anne?" Edmunds _ The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/bcomm&pgmarket=en-ca&RU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin.msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Stephan King
- Original Message - From: "Travis Edmunds" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 5:33 PM Subject: Re: Stephan King > > > > >From: "Amanda Marlowe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Subject: Re: Stephan King > >Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 07:32:05 -0600 > > > >1. King is a better storyteller than he is a writer. His plots can be > >fascinating and compelling. Unfortunately he indiscriminately adds details > >about every thing including the kitchen sink, which can make the writing > >very > >hard to slog through. > > > >Amanda > >Just my two cents Maru > >(And no, I haven't read King's book on writing yet.) > > > > Good point. Especially since it helps validate my point of view!! > Compare that to Anne Rice's work, which yes, can be tedious and > indiscriminately detailed, but it's GOOD. > As much as I like Rice's books, they can be so detailed that they get boring. I really care very little about knowing the most intimate details about every characters wardrobe. Her books have so much detail that it seems almost to be filler to get the word count up. Most of her books can be summarized in a short paragraph. Frex: Lestat de Lioncourt is cruelly made a vampire by a stranger who then kills himself. He makes a lot of mistakes, tell his side of the story from "Interview With A Vampire", meets Marius who tells his tale, drinks the blood of The Queen Of The Damned, and becomes a rock star. Extreme simplification, but then its just a fictional biography with very little plot as compared with her other books. BTW, I thought Blackwood Farm was excellent. xponent Wordy Gurdy Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Stephan King
- Original Message - From: "Amanda Marlowe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 7:32 AM Subject: Re: Stephan King > A friend had introduced me to King's Gunslinger series recently. Prior to > that, I'd read Carrie, The Dead Zone, and The Stand, and decided I wasn't much > of a Stephen King fan. > > After working through the earlier books in the Gunslinger series, I came to > these conclusions: > 1. King is a better storyteller than he is a writer. His plots can be > fascinating and compelling. Unfortunately he indiscriminately adds details > about every thing including the kitchen sink, which can make the writing very > hard to slog through. > 2. People are far more interested in good storytelling than they are in good > writing, hence King's (and many other popular authors') popularity. > 3. People who are both good storytellers and good writers are worth gold. > > After reading Wolves of the Calla, I concluded that Stephen King has managed > to learn something about good writing over the 40 years or so he's been > writing. > And I'm still not much of a Stephen King fan. > > As a writer, however, I do feel he taught me something. In the end, it's > usually the storytelling that wins out commercially. Is that what wins out in > the end to determine if a book is a classic? In part, yes. The other factor I > think makes a classic is how well the author has pinned down basic human > nature. I think Shakespeare was considered a hack in his day. But he knew > human nature, and made sure we knew he knew it, and we still read him today. > Many of today's classics, if written now, would make today's writing teachers > cringe: Some contain sentences so full of modifiers and phrases it's sometimes > hard to find the subject and verb. That doesn't stop people from loving them, > because the human foibles they are about are still human foibles today. Good Post Amanda! It got me thinking. Since just about every writer and book I like is invariably slogged somewhere for one reason or another, after reading your post I conclude that I don't really give a damn about writing. I usually just pass writing styles off as indiosyncracies. What I care about is content. You might summarize my feelings as "Its the story stupid!" Sometimes I will read someone who writes sentences that just cruise into my mind and think"this is good writing". Next think you know some yahoo is ranting about the awful "writing". I suppose I'm a bit intolerant of "armchair grammarians". Even worse to me are the "story structuralists". These are people who can frequently be heard to say "X doesn't know how to end a story". If anyone reading this happens to resemble that last remark, let me clue you in. When you run out of pages, most of the time the story is over. Not all wheelchair critics draw my ire though. People who complain about weak characterization often get my sympathy. When all the women in a book resemble either dudes in drag or a crutch for some guys ego, its a distraction from the story. But then, I suppose everyone has their bugaboos. > > Amanda > Just my two cents Maru > (And no, I haven't read King's book on writing yet.) Its interesting, but not required reading. xponent Andy Rooney's Spleen Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Stephan King
From: "Amanda Marlowe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Stephan King Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 07:32:05 -0600 1. King is a better storyteller than he is a writer. His plots can be fascinating and compelling. Unfortunately he indiscriminately adds details about every thing including the kitchen sink, which can make the writing very hard to slog through. Amanda Just my two cents Maru (And no, I haven't read King's book on writing yet.) Good point. Especially since it helps validate my point of view!! Compare that to Anne Rice's work, which yes, can be tedious and indiscriminately detailed, but it's GOOD. -Travis "good as in 'good writing'" Edmunds _ The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/bcomm&pgmarket=en-ca&RU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin.msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Stephan King
A friend had introduced me to King's Gunslinger series recently. Prior to that, I'd read Carrie, The Dead Zone, and The Stand, and decided I wasn't much of a Stephen King fan. After working through the earlier books in the Gunslinger series, I came to these conclusions: 1. King is a better storyteller than he is a writer. His plots can be fascinating and compelling. Unfortunately he indiscriminately adds details about every thing including the kitchen sink, which can make the writing very hard to slog through. 2. People are far more interested in good storytelling than they are in good writing, hence King's (and many other popular authors') popularity. 3. People who are both good storytellers and good writers are worth gold. After reading Wolves of the Calla, I concluded that Stephen King has managed to learn something about good writing over the 40 years or so he's been writing. And I'm still not much of a Stephen King fan. As a writer, however, I do feel he taught me something. In the end, it's usually the storytelling that wins out commercially. Is that what wins out in the end to determine if a book is a classic? In part, yes. The other factor I think makes a classic is how well the author has pinned down basic human nature. I think Shakespeare was considered a hack in his day. But he knew human nature, and made sure we knew he knew it, and we still read him today. Many of today's classics, if written now, would make today's writing teachers cringe: Some contain sentences so full of modifiers and phrases it's sometimes hard to find the subject and verb. That doesn't stop people from loving them, because the human foibles they are about are still human foibles today. Amanda Just my two cents Maru (And no, I haven't read King's book on writing yet.) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Stephan King
At 02:36 AM 1/7/04, Doug Pensinger wrote: William wrote: Now I liked _IT_ - I thought it was one of his better ones. The one I thought was worst - I couldn't even finish it (in fact I could barely start it) - was The _Tommyknockers_. I guess I didn't get it. Especially when they all took turns with the girl in the sewer - huh??? I knew a girl named Tommie once . . . Extremely Obvious Completion Of Remark Left To The Reader Maru -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Stephan King
William wrote: Now I liked _IT_ - I thought it was one of his better ones. The one I thought was worst - I couldn't even finish it (in fact I could barely start it) - was The _Tommyknockers_. I guess I didn't get it. Especially when they all took turns with the girl in the sewer - huh??? I haven't read Tommyknockers or any of his newer stuff for that matter. So anyway, I don't think that you can dismiss King as a hack. He has his moments, and I think some of his work will stand for a long time. Like Dickens'. Why can't he be a hack *and* some of his work will stand for a long time? OK -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Stephan King
On 7 Jan 2004, at 3:49 am, Doug Pensinger wrote: I think King has his brilliant moments and he has his duds. Most likely. He also tries more different things than many writers which means there can be more differences of opinion about which ones are the brilliant and the duds :) There was one forgettable book, i forget the title, that involved kids and a scary clown and a sewer system or something under the town that of course blew up at the end of the story, taking most of the town with it (they made a mini series out of it I think) that was just terrible. Stupid - threw it across the room when I finished it. IMO, of course. Now I liked _IT_ - I thought it was one of his better ones. The one I thought was worst - I couldn't even finish it (in fact I could barely start it) - was The _Tommyknockers_. So anyway, I don't think that you can dismiss King as a hack. He has his moments, and I think some of his work will stand for a long time. Like Dickens'. Why can't he be a hack *and* some of his work will stand for a long time? -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ "Aerospace is plumbing with the volume turned up." - John Carmack ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Stephan King
I think King has his brilliant moments and he has his duds. Certainly there are some books of his that I've read that were all too real - so frightening, so close to the heart that I came away appreciating the talent of the writer, but disliking the book because the fear was so real it was unpleasant (I don't know if that makes any sense, but I don't know how else to say it. If you have young children, don't read Pet Semitary. I did when I read it and it gave me the chills. Rose Madder, if I remember correctly, is about a battered woman and a predatory husband. Too real! The Body and The Shawshank Redemption are two novelettes that are not only excellent stories, but they made excellent movies (The Body was the story that Stand by Me was based on. The Green Mile was very good IMO. Then he has his dogs. A number of his early works had really dumb endings and to me, a book with an F- ending just can't be considered very good. Salelm's Lot, Firestarter, The Shining (which was very good up until everything blew up, IMO) are a few examples. I think Carrie and The Dead Zone were pretty good, and the Stand was too, but I knew half way in that everything was going to blow up. There was one forgettable book, i forget the title, that involved kids and a scary clown and a sewer system or something under the town that of course blew up at the end of the story, taking most of the town with it (they made a mini series out of it I think) that was just terrible. Stupid - threw it across the room when I finished it. IMO, of course. So anyway, I don't think that you can dismiss King as a hack. He has his moments, and I think some of his work will stand for a long time. Like Dickens'. -- Doug GSV So There ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
