HA!

Yeah, like, maybe...the phonebook? LOL It would be an improvement anyway:D

Well good, then I could replace their group books with something decent. ;)

nah, they'd be too terrified of any of Stevie's fans to even LOOK at ya.
Room WOULD be empty tho; they'd scatter!

LOL I wish the same exact thing sometimes!

I don't think those Beloved or Morrison fans would want me in their group anyway. They'd probably chase me out with sticks. O_o

I'm often the first to go off on a tangent, not offended. I 'so' wish facial emotions and voice inflection could somehow be included. at times I dislike puters very much.

Sorry Tom, we just got off topic... but that happens a lot here.

I'm sure there is a group where Beloved could be discussed, but as I mentioned that I hated it, I don't plan on joining any time soon. :P The subject came up, we had a little side discussion, we're done now. No big deal. :)

Sorry!

Isn't there a Morrison group where Beloved can be discussed? It took me a while to figure out you wern't discussing a SK book/article I wasn't aware of.
Beloved

Becky wrote: "Leslie, it wasn't the subject matter that bothered me. I was actually hoping that Beloved would be a realistic, brutal book that would make me understand the kind of life that slaves and ex-slaves ..."

I felt like I did get a sense of the brutality of slavery and the post-trauma that came along with it. I'm sure no book could truly convey the horror of it, but I thought BELOVED came pretty close. I think the emphasis was more on the long term psychological effects of slavery. Admittedly, the supernatural element to the book confused me at first. I remember thinking, "What kind of book is this?" But now after I've had time to mull it over, I think that part should be looked at more as a metaphor than anything else. I still can't put this book in my favs, but I have to say it's not one I'm likely to forget.
(Ditto on the apology for derailing the conversation!)

Leslie wrote: "Rachel wrote: "But the other books are so much more than just Westerns...ahh forget it...i give up...my opinion."

but but but...what's wrong with Westerns? If you break it down Star Trek was a ..."

Nothing's wrong with Westerns, just not my cup of tea.

Leslie, it wasn't the subject matter that bothered me. I was actually hoping that Beloved would be a realistic, brutal book that would make me understand the kind of life that slaves and ex-slaves had to endure.

What bothered me was the way it was told. It was like it was supposed to be so profound as to be impossible. Granted, maybe there are people who really truly understood it, AND found it to be amazing literature, but I think the number is small. But, I hated it, so who am I to judge its worth? :P

(Sorry for derailing again.)

Yep! "Wagon Train to the Stars" is exactly how he pitched it.

Rachel wrote: "But the other books are so much more than just Westerns...ahh forget it...i give up...my opinion."

but but but...what's wrong with Westerns? If you break it down Star Trek was a Western set in space. (That's what Roddenbury always said anyway)

I didn't care for the Colorado Kid either. It just wasn't "King". I'm all for the idea that an artist can and should write outside of his/her genre, and for that I thought it was okay. I really just hated that there was absolutely no resolution. It just ended on a fizzle. And what on earth was the cover art about? Nothing to do with the story for sure. LOL. I guess it was just to harken back to those old pulp noir novels from....what?...the 40's?

But I loved Lisey's Story.

Becky wrote: "Don't get me wrong, Betsy, I'm not saying that I hated it because it was difficult to read in substance, I disliked it because there was no rhyme or reason to the writing, and trying to find out wh..." (Beloved)

I had to read that one for a college lit course, so along with lectures and class discussion I think I got to understand it pretty well. But I do agree with you Becky that it's a bit disjointed at time. (along with about 5 other books all about women being physically, emotionally or sexually brutalized - real tough summer that one)

Rob wrote: "Er....I DID graduate in '88.

I'd rather have a teacher show a film in class to further appreciation than my kid end up reading the Cliff Notes just to pass the class. Although I do admit to doing..."

I think Cliff's notes can be quite useful if used in conjunction with reading a novel. Never instead of, of course.

Yeah wasn't his character a robot?

...and a great flick. Yul Brynner was bad-ass in that movie.

Westworld was Michael Crichton's movie.

Sure am.
I'm glad SOMEone knew the title of what I meant :)

Rob wrote: "Tom wrote: "Kinda like the Wild, Wild West, yes? (did Yul Brynner play the bad dude in that?)
Set in the West, but futuristic."

Are you thinking of Westworld w/ Yul Brynner?"

Tom wrote: "Kinda like the Wild, Wild West, yes? (did Yul Brynner play the bad dude in that?)
Set in the West, but futuristic."

Are you thinking of Westworld w/ Yul Brynner?

I've been away from Stephen King for a long, long time. For the first time in a few years, I was riding to work alone, without a person talking to me. I ended my pay radio subscription, and needed something else to listen to besides sports.

That's when I found Stephen King, again. I just "read" (listened to) Bag of Bones and enjoyed it. I am now almost finished with Duma Key. I am really enjoying it too.

I remember not enjoying Needful Things and Roadwork. I couldn't get into them...was boring, and didn't capture my attention.....but, that was years ago. I'll try them again to see if my opinon has changed.

Thought so! No way it could just be me.

yeppers
nuff said

So as not to give too much detail and leave myself with bile in the throat all day...the BBQ grill. Do you remember that?

Which scene was that Kandice? if you don't mind re-telling, that is :)

Kandice wrote: "I've read a few of Straub's and I couldn't tell. I enjoyed both of their collaborative books, and even though I liked Talisman better, Black House left me with the nastiest image I've ever gotten f..."

I've read a few of Straub's and I couldn't tell. I enjoyed both of their collaborative books, and even though I liked Talisman better, Black House left me with the nastiest image I've ever gotten from a book!

IMHO,
King OR Straub cannot be typically compared, period.
Both authors have said there is no way to differentiate between them in their collaborations. BTW, in Sebring a few weeks ago, SK said he will do another with Straub.

Sarah wrote: "That's interesting - I haven't really read much of King's collaborative work with Straub (maybe 1 that I can't really remember except that I didn't really care for it). How does it typically compare?"

I personally love both books that King has written with Straub. I've never read any Straub (I own two books, but I haven't read them yet) so I can't really tell where King ends and Straub begins, but maybe it's not possible anyway. *shrug*

That's interesting - I haven't really read much of King's collaborative work with Straub (maybe 1 that I can't really remember except that I didn't really care for it). How does it typically compare?

What about Black House? I got about 200 pages in and it was focusing on the art hanging on the walls. ahhhh, yeah...

And I must say that Needful Things definitely kicked butt. Be careful what you wish for and what you buy...

Kinda like the Wild, Wild West, yes? (did Yul Brynner play the bad dude in that?)
Set in the West, but futuristic.

Kandice wrote: "I agree that while the entire series had the flavor of a western, the installments that came after The Gunslinger were more like futuristic, or different timeline westerns. The Gunslinger had more ..."

Rob wrote: "OK. So...why did King feel the need to go back and revise The Gunslinger to make it fit in with the rest of the sereies if it already was the BEGINNING of the series? That seems a little odd to me."

You know Rob...I totally get what you're saying here...also, your question about why the first book didn't really pack much of a punch to draw readers in. This is why I always thought that THE GUNSLINGER wasn't originally intended to be a series. From the first time I read it, I had always thought it started out as a stand-alone and then gained momentum. Imagine my surprise when I went over to the SK site and he says that he intended a series from the beginning! I need to find my old copy and compare it to the revised...don't think I ever read the revised.

I think about the work he put in with a majority of his books to tie in with that series (or visa versa). When the first one didn't gel as easily as it should have it must have annoyed him. Well, it would have annoyed me. :)

Anytime Rob. :)

Makes sense. Thanks.

Because the series flowed a little bit differently from some of the details included in the first book when it was originally serialized.

Character names, a particular discussion, a few minor details... Not much changed, but it fits better now. Before it was a mitten, now it's a glove. :)

OK. So...why did King feel the need to go back and revise The Gunslinger to make it fit in with the rest of the sereies if it already was the BEGINNING of the series? That seems a little odd to me.

Chris wrote: "I should have known Rachel would be the one to run with that....."

Yes, you should have ;)

I should have known Rachel would be the one to run with that.....

The 2nd half of Cell was just... disappointing. The first half was great. But then, I was expecting something vicious and terrifying, something more along the lines of "28 Days Later" and that's very, very far from what we got with Cell. =\

Pulse induced Rage-killers turn Philosophical megalomaniacs... Eh.

It was the same with me Chris, I had read Gunslinger when I was a teenager, and didn't think much of it. It was not 'scary' like the others I had read at the time. I didn't find it terribly interesting. Actually, I barely remembered that I had read it until I read it again as an adult. I was like, 'this sounds familiar...oh yeah! I've read this' LOL I appreciated it much more the second time around (and the third and fourth lol, yeah I re-read Stephen King's books alot). It also helped that I had more of the series to go along with it.

But I think I already mentioned somewhere on this site, that Tommyknockers was the SK book I liked the least. Soooo corny....

Lori wrote: " I'm like an old record that skips "There is no bad Stephen King book!" :)"
Agreeeeee!!!!

Becky wrote: "Cell. Without a doubt. "
Wow...cell is one on my Favorite.

Chris? You? Mature? Whaaa? :) You never said I couldn't say it ;)

Don't say what? *innocent* O_o

I enjoyed it better the second time around.

The first time I read The Gunslinger, I wasn't all that impressed. But keep in mind that I was a teenager that had just breezed through all of King's "regular" style novels. DT was something new, something unexplored (to me). I wasn't ready for it. I was looking for more Pet Semetary/Christine vampire killer clown type stuff.

But as a mature (don't say it, Becky) adult, The Gunslinger is one that I have re-read and I do enjoy it more than most books out there. Even more than most King books. Part of that is seeing the bigger story of the DT, and part of it I think is simply a different perspective. I appreciate it more than I did then.

Ain't that the truth!

Lori wrote: " *************** UNIMAGINABLE *************** "

I have an active imagination. :)