Timbo ’s review of Rose Madder > Likes and Comments

Wow - you've got to be kidding. King doesn't exactly sell on his nonfiction and true crime catalog, so to hear someone comment as if they weren't expecting the supernatural in a Steven King novel is just sort of...wow.

And yes. Daniels was indeed a caricature. That was sort of the point - made more obvious by what he became later.

Your review makes it sound like what you wanted King to do was write Sleeping With The Enemy. Because without the supernatural at the end, that's exactly what you'd have had. It doesn't take a Stephen King to write that. And even that crazy cop husband was a caricature. They all are when portrayed on film. And King's villains are nothing without being caricatures. Just as general principle. How much of his work have you read?

It’s like you’re surprised and appalled that someone could have a different opinion to yours. Where did I say I didn’t expect the supernatural? I made one comment about it being a half-arsed fantasy novel, which it is.

Obviously I expected a supernatural element, and in any of King’s novels, you need to suspend your disbelief, but the supernatural elements seemed out of place and quite ridiculous, in my opinion. That’s not the worst thing though. Rose’s journey into the alternate world was so boring. It was just painful to read – almost like bad fan fiction. As ridiculous as the magic painting storyline was, I could’ve forgiven it if it was interesting.

Given some of his other novels have equally unbelievable storylines, I’m not even sure why I hated this book so much. Perhaps it’s the lack of originality, the boring plot, predictable ending, some truly cringe-worthy dialogue, awkward romantic scenes etc .

What do you mean it was 'sort of the point' (having a caricature instead of a character)? How was it the point? I wanted Daniels to be a realistic character; to show some human characteristics. Instead I got a ridiculously one-dimensional cardboard cutout ‘evil’ man who had no redeeming qualities whatsoever and was barely human from the beginning. Good horror/fantasy requires realistic characters in unreal situations, something King usually does so well. Norman Daniels was a very poorly drawn character with no depth whatsoever. Rose was a much better character, which makes the contrast even more noticeable. If you enjoy reading flat, one dimensional villians, that's fine. I didn't enjoy it.

How much King have I read? A fair bit, because I am a fan. Off the top of my head: Duma Key, Pet Sematary, The Shining, The Stand, Cujo, Misery, The Dead Zone, Salem’s Lot, Carrie, Dolores Claiborne, Insomnia, The Long Walk, It, and Thinner. All of which are better than Rose Madder, despite some of those works having equally – if not more - ‘out there’ supernatural elements.

I appreciate your comment and respect your opinion, but I disagree with you completely on this book.

I see in Daniel a supernatural character as well. Most of his description is very familiar (not saying metaphorical) to an animal. I believe that Stephen King tried to represent Daniel as a dog, that bites and looses control everytime he gets pissed off. Maybe he used that metaphor to criticize people who have certain ideals about racism and the value of human life. Maybe he is saying "you're the inferior race by giving your brain the unhappiness of such thoughts and ideas, not me becuse I'm gay or have a different race/culture".
Perhaps I'm wrong but that's what made me laugh at Daniel in the first place, because he represents everything that is wrong in the World with no exception.
But I get what you mean, I sometimes find myself thinking how much I hate Rose, because she is such a "self-help romance book" character.

Interesting take, Ana. Yeah, that may have been King's intention, but it just didn't work for me. Thanks for your comment.

"A purely evil, hateful man with no redeeming qualities whatsoever, yet we're expected to believe this psycopath functions perfectly well in the police force and is a highly decorated detective? Trying to imagine this man being sympathetic and kind to victims of serious crime, being a credible witness in court etc is impossible for me to do."

It made sense to me. He's a manipulator and actor, very good at playing whatever social role he needs to play. He only takes off the mask when he thinks someone is irrevocably in his power. Since we're mainly seeing him from his wife's point of view, we quickly see how vile he is, but the other cops, witnesses, judges and so on see what he wants them to.

Also, he seems incredibly intuitive, possibly with subtle but serious paranormal powers. When stalking her, for example, he just blanks out and acts on instinct and always manages to do (from his point of view) the "right" thing--goes to the places she went to, guesses correctly which bus seat she would have sat on, etc.

This power or talent may also work when he's trying to say the right thing or cover up a crime. Maybe he can just sort of focus on his goal and the right words, tone of voice, actions, etc. "occur" to him.

Edward wrote: ""A purely evil, hateful man with no redeeming qualities whatsoever, yet we're expected to believe this psycopath functions perfectly well in the police force and is a highly decorated detective? Tr..."

You raise some good points, Edward. Look, I think King is a smart writer and no doubt you've accurately explained his intentions with the character, it just didn't work for me.

There's nothing ridiculous about the novel....your comment on the other hand, is totally ridiculous!!!

Worth wrote: "There's nothing ridiculous about the novel....your comment on the other hand, is totally ridiculous!!!"

Thanks for your intelligent and well thought out contribution. Next time you feel like typing something stupid, please do us all a favour...and don't.

Do you a favor?!? Never!!!

Just read some of your comments on other reviews. Why get angry because other people dislike books you like? Wouldn't it be boring if everyone liked the same stuff? Anyway, glad you enjoyed this novel. I think King is a really good writer and although I hated this book, it hasn't put me off reading everything he writes. Take care.

Yeah, I have to admit that you're right! I have to stop getting angry about these things. I guess its because I get too emotional about some books.

I'm about 18 months late to this discussion, Bookrater, but I think the reason you disliked Rose Madder (I did also) is due to tone. The book set itself up as a gritty urban drama and then just... drifted off into fantasy. The equivalent would be Moby Dick turning into a romance novel on page 200, or Pride and Prejudice suddenly becoming a whodunnit. It doesn't work. It just jars the reader.

The reason for this switch in Rose Madder, of course, was so King could link it into his Dark Tower novels, something he began to do ad nauseum. Fine for fans of his fantasy series, but a miserable period for those of us who didn't.

Kris, yeah I think you're spot on. Tone was set and it went in a completely different direction.

Wish I had read your review before reading this book. I absolutely agree with you 100%!

Hey Daizy. I love King and I think that’s why I’m extra disappointed when he writes something I hate. That’s what’s interesting about him. Usually if I like a writer, I’ll like most of his or her books.

Absolutely I can believe Norman functioned quite well as a police officer. Lots of socio- and psychopaths masquerade as sane amongst us.

But, yeah, it wasn’t a great book.

That dream sequence killed me. So boring and made me lose my interest. And the whole dream guy Bill thing omg. Asshole/caricature or not, Norman keeps the engines going now for me. Think he's a pretty well described psychopath. But this was a step down from what I'm used to reading Stephen King books

This not what I expected from a King book. I know he has some that are absolutely more realistic (The Girl Who Loved Tom Gordon) but I just feel like this one could have been executed better. I felt it was dry and slow, and honestly kind of boring. Some scenes were great, and it's well written in true King style, but it is not one I would recommend or read again.