Jill's comments (member since Nov 16, 2008)

Jill's comments from the SciFi and Fantasy Book Club group.

Cicero wrote: "I should preface my opinion of this book with the fact that I have never "got" Gaiman. His books are perfectly readable but I just don't seem to get the warm fuzzies that most people seem to get wh..."

S'okay. I feel the same way about Stephen King and everyone thinks I'm a crazy person. And I work in an English department of a major college campus.

Jason wrote: "Libby,
Point taken, and you might be right, as well as Greyweather. He probably gains more readers this way, being vague. And if that is his goal, he did a great job. But the current culture is so focused on not saying anything concrete that it drives me a little mad. "

I think more people are just more comfortable admitting that they don't know about the afterlife than they were, say, thirty years ago. That tends to reflect in popular culture, including the literature. Of course, I certainly don't know enough about Gaiman to make any absolute statements about his personal beliefs (or lack thereof).

Gaiman has quite an impressive amount of knowledge when it comes to beliefs of various cultures. You should check out the Sandman series, if you haven't already.

I'm a Silas fan. I was a bit sad when he was left out of the Dance Macabre.

My favorite character is Crowley. Cliche but true, nonetheless.

Kathy wrote: "Hmmmmm. Hard to say if I have to pick one, but I think Agnes Nutter could have been a riot of a character if we saw her more. Her writings sure were hilarious. I could just envision the old gal ..."

There's an Agnes character in the Witch books of the Discworld series, but she's not the same Agnes. Agnes Nutter does resemble (in temperament) another Discworld witch named Granny Weatherwax. She's one of my favorite Discworld characters. Oh, and Death in both Good Omens and the Discworld series talks in all caps. Though, from what I've been told, Neil was actually responsible for the Death bits in Good Omens. But his Death is still somewhat similar to Discworld's Death.

The Them (aka the kids) re-enacting the Inquisition.

Crowley scaring his plants into being the most beautiful plants in London.

Kligy wrote: "What book are you talking about in the topic "British Irony"? So many, many times the topic title gives no indication of the book's title or author and message after message assumes the reader KNO..."

It's a discussion on Good Omens.

Yay for Sir Terry of Pratchett! :)

Note to self, don't give Robin any prints of Picasso.

I think I mentioned in another thread that my favorite character is Rorschach, easily. My least favorite is Ozymandias.

Kyle wrote: Yea, that's cool, you have an opinion, I don't think the majority of the world agrees with it, though.(Obviously not, he's one of the most successful author's of all time, much less than just the tiny Horror Genre) H.P Lovecraft wasn't the best with language either, he couldn't write dialogue if it cost him his life...this is the reason there is almost no dialogue in Lovecraft's stories. Seriously, almost NO dialogue(And the dialogue he did write is atrocious).King write's very good/realistic dialogue. ; ) I just believe King has written the highest amount of good, and well known horror stories ever(By far). We will have to wait and see until he passes on(Sorry, sounds so morbid...Keep up the good work, Mr. King!). He will without a doubt hold a very special spot. He is the most successful horror author of all-time, and just in general literature, one of the most loved author's.

I know what you mean, he isn't the best with language. But he's not OMG horrible. It's the horror genre and he also has gotten much better over the years. I just read 'Salem's Lot and it's SOOOOO much worse than his newer worker's like Lisey's Story, The Dark Tower and anything he's written in the last 20 years. It was only his second novel, lol. He is an author for the common man, so were Lovecraft and Poe(they were both broke 'till the day they died)...King was number 12 on the Forbes list for 2008! lol It's just his style, I love it. It's not literature and I doubt meant to be. King books are ALL about an idea. A scary/bizarre concept in a normal world. He is a storyteller. Not an extremely poetic writer, but he still is pretty decent with language. He has a folksy "guy next door talking to you" feel.

Kyle, first of all, I don't care what other people think. I'm a scifi and horror geek who works in the English department of a university. You couldn't find a much more hateful attitude against those two genres than in an English department.

And, as Henrik said, Lovecraft knew that he was weak when it came to writing dialogue, which is why he wrote so little of it. Knowing your weaknesses is an important thing in a writer (for an example of someone who doesn't know their weaknesses as a writer, see Anne Rice). As with the rest of King's writing style, I don't think much of his dialogue either. I couldn't tell the difference between all the characters in 'Salem's Lot half the time. Again, it produced one giant "Meh" from me.

I agree with you that King's catalogue is very impressive. And as I've already stated, it makes for some damn fine movies, so it's not his imagination that is lacking in my mind, it's his writing style. I've read books from early on in his career and later in his career. I've never been impressed.

Also, I wouldn't use popularity as a gauge of quality. If we did, we'd have to put the Twilight series up as some of the greatest in the history of literature. Moreso than Steinbeck or Fitzgerald.

And Henrik mentioned, the fact that Poe and Lovecraft, despite dying in relative obscurity, have managed to become the standards of a whole genre so many years after their deaths, is a far better reflection of the quality of the work and the skills of the artists than anything else. Vincent Van Gogh died in obscurity too. But how many times have you seen prints of "Sunflowers" and "Starry Night" in your lifetime?

I don't doubt that King will be remembered as a very important contributor to the horror genre of the twentieth century. I just don't think the writing itself is very good.

I'll give you an example of someone I do like, writing and imagination-wise though: Clive Barker. He has a really good grasp on the flow of language. So not only are his books entertaining because of the worlds he creates, but they're engaging in the way they're written as well. He's not on the level of, say, Gabriel Garcia Marquez; but for the genre he's really quite impressive.

Kyle wrote: "Chris wrote: "Jill wrote: "I wouldn't call him the greatest horror writer of all time, but that's just me. I might just be a classics snob, but to me that title still belongs to H.P. Lovecraft.
"

..."

As far as the comment that few people could name a Poe or Lovecraft story, that's simply not true. Especially for Poe. For many many kids, Poe was their first introduction into "classic" literature. I've yet to meet a kid who can't name off at least The Pit and the Pendulum, The Tell-Tale Heart, The Fall of the House of Usher, or The Raven. And most horror movie fans are familiar with Re-Animator (a story originally by Lovecraft). Hellboy owes its monsters to H.P. Lovecraft. And all the modern writers I know who write horror fiction cite Lovecraft as a major influence.

Will King be remembered as reverentially as Poe or Lovecraft? Only time will tell. I don't doubt his influence. I just don't think highly of his writing style. I hate to use this word, but the only word I can think of is "pedestrian".

Sarah Pi wrote: "Yes... I"m just sayin g they haven't expanded the role just because of her name."

I hope so. But the wife's part, comparatively speaking, isn't all that small. Most people only appear in one scene or two in the book. She appears throughout the book in flashbacks. It only seems a small part when you compare it to the two main characters.

Sarah Pi wrote: "I heard it would be pretty true to the book - Charlize Theron's part is supposed to be appropriately small, despite her marquee name."

She's the wife, I think.

Ben wrote: "I think it has more in common with Lucifer's Hammer. The Road could almost be a first person ..."

I can see that. I've never thought of that before. :)

Kyle wrote: "Jill,
I have to admit, I profoundly disagree with you. Not all of his fifty-something books are amazing, but it is undeniable that he has not written some classics, if not some that will/have already reached a Legendary status within the Literary community(The Stand, The Shining, The Dark Tower). And he is already the greatest horror author of all-time,but he also write's quite a bit more than just horror, though all his books are pretty dark.

Stephen King is not a horrible writer, though obviously not the best. I do believe though, he is one of the greatest storytellers of the last century."

Well, as I said to Robin, I've never denied that he has a rich imagination. His stories are very original. It's his style that I find such a turn off. He doesn't make me all that interested in the characters, even the ones I'm supposed to sympathize with, and that just astounds me, because I'm such a sucker for that sort of thing.

Despite being an English major, I really don't care about how he's thought of in literary circles. Mainly because his are the kind of books that you turn to to be entertained. If you're enlightened as well, that's all well and good. Sadly, I'm neither.

I wouldn't call him the greatest horror writer of all time, but that's just me. I might just be a classics snob, but to me that title still belongs to H.P. Lovecraft.

I will freely admit, however, that his stories have made some damn fine movies. Which shows that my problem with him is exactly what I said: my problem is with his writing style. I simply don't care for it. And I've tried. I don't get what's so enthralling about it. It's like I'm watching everyone enthralled by Sutter Cane's latest novel in the movie In the Mouth of Madness...only no one's dying.

Robin wrote: "Jill,
Have you read the Stand? It really is a great book. There are many books King has given us that are "second rate" - Cujo, Thinner, etc. But then there are things like Different Seasons, Gr..."

Thanks, Robin. I'll definitely check out your husband's blog. :)

Yes, I've read The Stand. I've also read The Shining, Four Past Midnight, The Tommyknockers, Thinner, 'Salem's Lot (one I desperately wanted to like because, as a horror fan, I'd enjoyed the original version of the movie so much) and Pet Sematary. So I'm definitely familiar with his style. I've just always been thoroughly unimpressed with it. I freely admit that he has a very rich imagination. It's the writing itself that I find lacking. I also find it amazing that in all the books I've read of his, I've yet to find a character that I really love. Even in stories that were turned into fantastic films like Shawshank Redemption, Green Mile and Stand By Me. On the whole, his writing to me is just one big "Meh."

I completely agree that the father was entirely too distrusting, but I can't help but sympathize with his point of view. Paranoia and lack of trust would be the hallmark of just about anyone who would live through something like that. Combine that with no other adult to talk to in order to reason with him (the son being too young to successfully do so), and the fact that his wife was even more cynical than he was, and you have someone who would be highly distrustful, to the point of self-destruction.

Can someone please explain the appeal of Stephen King to me? His writing style is unremarkable at best and I've yet to find a book of his where the characters were even remotely interesting. If you don't feel like derailing this thread, feel free to PM me.

People keep on coming back to the writing style, but I really think that it was a decision on McCarthy's part to be as minimalist as possible in order to add to the overall theme of the book. For me, it didn't feel "gimmicky" at all. If it was gimmicky, then so was the nadsat in A Clockwork Orange and the writing style of Trainspotting.