Stephen King Fans discussion
The Random - Discussion Threads
>
The End
date
newest »
newest »
Well I grant you that Harold was not treated very nicely but I for one found him repulsive and needy.
Ok ben I haven't read the Colorado Kid, but I have read the stand. I disagree with the your take on Harold Emmry Lauder. Harold only ever did what Harold wanted to do. Harold thought he owned Fran because they were from the same town and he to be blunt has always had the hots for her. Harold is the architect of his own down fall. He deluded his self into thinking Fran felt the same way he did when it was there for everyone including Harold to see that she didn't love him she didn't even like him in the beginning. She never lied to him and said she loved him or lead him on in anyway. Nor did Stu Redman set about in the seduction of Fran. He actually tried to suppress his feelings for her at first because of Harold. The fact he didn't make a move on Fran becomes evident when Fran decides it is time to let Stu know how she feels about him.Yes I wont deny Fran used Harold to keep herself alive and going, but that doesn't mean she is obligated to him in any other way. Fran only did what any other person would do in that situation. An offer of help came and she took it.
My biggest concern in the first part of the book was Larry. Now there was a man that needed to be slapped into reality. A greedy self centered and self serving. He always relied on others to get what he wanted. He finally learned with Rita what it was like for someone to depend on you. What happened to him after he left New York was only what he deserved.
Nick, as you know TCK is my favorite and was an obsession of mine for a while. Your ending strikes me a bit like the plot of The Ledge, and I love it!
I really believe that he does not laugh at us.He has said time and time again that he does not have any idea how a book will end until he gets there. As his story develops so does the characters as well as the ending; this is why he is one of the best. The way the Mist ended in the short story was perfect unlike in the movie which was ugly.
Another great ending was 11/22/63. Although I did not see the screen version, I’ll stick with the book.
Ok so I will have to one disagree that Stu sized up Fran and Harold. And first and foremost... I take offense from the statement; “paid Harold the ultimate insult as being a “homosexual”, are you kidding me that you actually put these two together”...: insult as an alternative person”
King never wrote being a homosexual as an insult... you did in your paragraph where you said Harold’s father paid him the ultimate insult..: that may be your interpretation but it was not Kings..:
I'm sorry Ben, but I also never liked Harold and felt that he was just not a great guy. He only helped Fran because he had ulterior motives, NOT because he was a good guy. No, he didn't force her to go with him, but they were alone, and I agree that each did what anyone would have done in that situation. You team up with the only "other" even if you never would under other circumstances. I don't think King laughs at us. I think, like Ken said, he never knows what's going to happen when he begins a story and I believe that's why his endings are so often weak. I absolutely love the idea around The Colorado Kid, but know I am in the minority.
I have read just about all of Kings works and King never stated being a homosexual as a insult... like I said I took offense to the way you stated it... if it detracts from the thread so be IT... he has characters calling them names but that was all....
Ben wrote: "But that's what I meant. Name calling.....but what you wrote was..."His own Father paid him the ultimate insult by suspecting him of being a homosexual"..that is not name calling and like I said King did not write it that way... you stated the words....
No Ben... I am offended by your interpretation that was not written by Stephen King.
I’m not angry so do not assume that, and I like I said I have read his work. The story’s and the characters are fictional which you are not.
No you are not allowed to write on this site in an offensive manner...
Ben no need for you to get the way you are being. Your attempt to bring discussions into the Stephen Kings group on GoodReads that are not written nor intended by Stephen King is offensive. If you find that me pointing this out; oh well...Also, MLK has nothing to do with this discussion so why bring him into IT.
Ben like I said no need for you to get angry and try to make stuff up....
Ben wrote: "Your's sounds much better than mine.But as good as this story was, what good is a story with zero resolution? Only King knows. I doubt if he, while writing this story, decided at the last moment t..."
I always believed that King made up his mind before he even started writing that he was going to write a mystery without an ending. As I remember he had just been asked to write for a new series of hard case crime novels. And I just figured that he said to himself, "I'm going to make the investigation more important than the crime by not offering a resolution." Or something like that.
Kandice wrote: "Nick, as you know TCK is my favorite and was an obsession of mine for a while. Your ending strikes me a bit like the plot of The Ledge, and I love it!"Thanks, Kandice. Don't know The Ledge. I'll have to check it out. Time for another re-read of TCK I think.
Nick, I very much believe King set out out write an unexplainable mystery. It probably made things easier for him since most of us agree he is not the best producer of endings. ;-)The Ledge is also one of the stories in the movie Cat's Eye. It's a pretty fun little read.
Ben, I think you are asking a lot of people to read thousands of words in a post on a single thread. I skimmed what you pasted, and while 'Salem's Lot is my favorite King novel, or at least tied with The Colorado Kid, I don't understand what you are asking.
To me this three post information was simply a regurgitation of the novel from Clift notes with very little depth or insight. Basically non value added synopsis of whom ever written IT.
Kandice wrote: "Nick, I very much believe King set out out write an unexplainable mystery. It probably made things easier for him since most of us agree he is not the best producer of endings. ;-)The Ledge is al..."
Totally. (Does anyone say that anymore?) I'll check out The Ledge.
Ben wrote: "NickI'm going to assume you read Pet Sematary.
I attend a local Library group where I live, and some of us concluded that Jud Crandall was the one who killed Church (the cat).
We believe he kille..."
Makes sense.
Ben wrote: "Oh, is that all.Well, if you read the chapters of "IT" where I mentioned he writes worse about homosexuality, you may also get angry at "his" interpretation.
But I suspect he gets a pass when he d..."
I haven't read this whole discourse but I do want to say that writing the voice of bigots is a struggle. You know all the words and the names to call and you want to be realistic. You know you need to do it to make the personality of the villain ring true, but still, you hesitate and even feel guilty doing it. The guy I write with hates it whenever we have to portray a bigot and there are all kinds of things he won't let me write. King just dives right in, and in doing so, he invites being called a bigot himself. He does it so well and naturally that it seems that he must share these views. But I believe he is just trying to write realistic characters, and that requires bravery.
Ben wrote: "Oh, I'm not angry.You succeeded in sidetracking my intentions, but I guess that's finally over now since you'll cower away from insulting like-minded Civil Rights icons.
I fail to see how using a persons initials insulting anyone...as I said you are making things up.
Nick wrote: "Ben wrote: "Oh, is that all.Well, if you read the chapters of "IT" where I mentioned he writes worse about homosexuality, you may also get angry at "his" interpretation.
But I suspect he gets a pa..."
I agree with your assessment on this it is difficult to write contrary to how you feel in life.
The way I look at it everyone is a person not a color not a sex a person. Only you can label yourself, if you allow others to label you then you are giving them control over you and your emotions.
when we are born we don't know the difference, we are taught how to react what can be taught can be altered. I do not judge others as I wish not to be judged, your opinion is yours and you are entitled to it I may not agree with it but it is your and I will respect your opinion.
I think when you are creating characters from thin air you need them to feel genuine to the reader. I know people who use the "n" word in life (I do NOT) and I know people who are bigoted, inappropriate, ignorant and also rude. Just because I feel I am none of these things doesn't mean I can't recognize the reality that these people exist. An author creating these types of characters shouldn't be assumed to be things anymore than we can assume King is a woman because he can write really good women characters. Or a child because he writes them really well. Writing is art and while art can be beautiful, sometimes to be true it is also ugly.
Ben wrote: "The racial epithets of King's characters are far from my mind with this thread. But you did make another interesting point about King's portrayal of female characters.Almost every woman I know (wh..."
My wife isn't on this board but she tells me she loves the way he portrays the women she's read in Duma Key, The Girl Who, and 11/22/63.
Ben wrote: "Hmmm.I specifically heard women mention The Mist, The Stand, Rose Madder and Bag of Bones as novels where they would've reacted differently in most scenes. But I didn't argue with them. Most of m..."
Interesting.
Ben wrote: "Okay, KennethLBJ, FDR, JFK, KKK, RFK.
All above are acronyms for politicians and one organization you may adore.
Other acronyms are shortened words for companies, military jargon, prescription ..."
Ben, whereas I agree that Kenneth has missed your point with regard to the whole Harold/homosexual thing, what you have implied in this post is way out of line. I also find your persistent use of ‘we’ and ‘our’ both hostile and arrogant, as if you’re some sort of self-appointed spokesman for a race of people.
I won’t be engaging in any further exchanges of words on this, so feel free to have the last word.
Ben wrote: "This Kenneth didn't miss my point at all. He just pretended to be offended and tried to both purposely derail the thread with repeated accusations and get a rise out of me. He also kept assuming I ..."Just to be clear on what I thought was out of line, it was the list of acronyms and the implication of the following sentence.
The use of ‘we’ and ‘our’ we could no doubt debate till the cows come home, and still not agree, but that’s not why I joined a Stephen King group.
Anyway, I promised not to debate this further, so I won’t.
I agree with Greg that list of abbreviations and the following line was meant to provoke a poster who had tried his best to keep things civil.Ben no one is assuming you are angry, they are concluding that based on what you write. You should stop being so indignant; people come here to discuss books, no one comes here for the explicit purpose of hurting your sentiments.
Being a woman myself, I really like the way King portrays women. Would I sometimes react differently than his characters? Sure, but that's what creating a variety of characters is about.I run a book club comprised of mostly women, but I can assure you, we do NOT bite when we disagree. We simply do that, disagree.
Ben wrote: "Yes, Nick.Although King is my favorite Author, I still cringe whenever he creates a character that is evil-incarnate, but still feels it necessary for them to use that "word". LOL.
And to make mat..."
For a long time, I held this belief that humanity is evolving emotionally and behaviorally and that the demise of slavery was a clear indicator of the fact that humans have moved on. What's going on with the growing awareness of sexual harassment and bullying is, to me, an indicator of this evolution. But if it is evolution, it's damn slow and I see contraindicators all the time. It was easier to believe this in the 60's when the peace movement believed that they were issuing in the dawn of a new age. I trying hard to hold onto that belief and failing more and more, but it at least explains why a King novel set in the 60s allows more racist epithets than one set in this millennium.
Ben wrote: "Hmmm.I specifically heard women mention The Mist, The Stand, Rose Madder and Bag of Bones as novels where they would've reacted differently in most scenes. But I didn't argue with them. Most of m..."
Women that bite, now there is an interesting concept. All women bite, read sleeping beauties if you need proof of that LOL.
Nick wrote: "Ben wrote: "Yes, Nick.Although King is my favorite Author, I still cringe whenever he creates a character that is evil-incarnate, but still feels it necessary for them to use that "word". LOL.
And..."
As it states evolution is slow and often a very painful and violent process, prevalent to the occasional throwback to the previous form.
In looking at all the characters collectively, the women that are awesome that come to mind are Bobbie Anderson and Susan Norton and as far as the male counterparts I would have to go with Fran Goldsmith, Stu Redman and I can not forget Ben Mears...Now to address the horrible characterization that was put forth on this site; I am extremely disappointed as I did my best not to respond in kind; so an apology from this person is expected.
I will say that based on the agreement with this group; his attacks are not consistent with the expectations.
Thank you
And have a nice day
What simply amazes me is that I believe in invite diversity in invite combinations, and I was truly found what you wrote offensive. But rather except that as fact you have done nothing but attacked me, called me all sorts of vial names, and of course bring your ethnicity into the discussion which that had nothing to do with the problem; as the problem is Ben jr.People had also agreed with me and you still do not see that you are the problem Ben.
This is a respectable group which Ben you have managed to cheapen by your actions and your words.
I will remind you that people come to the S.K. Group to talk and read about S.K. And not the garage you spill.
You are wrong and like I said The color of your skin has nothing to do with the problem since the problem is YOU Ben !
How about this, you guys "friend" each other and then you can carry on this conversation off-line and the rest of us can get on with a conversation about good old Steve without having to deal with the emotional spillover from your personal attacks on each other. I mean, you are talking about some important ideas. But the antagonism has it's own negative energy and its starting to hurt some of us. I'm not in charge of anything, but I value the group here and don't want to see people leaving just to avoid these kinds of exchanges. There's some great stuff buried in your discussions, but the damn animosity is getting in the way. Please.
Ben wrote: "I agree, Nick.But I'll not friend this person. I have encountered individuals like this before in the 60's/70's who will absolutely stop at nothing until you bow down to their authority or pigment..."
Against my better judgement, I feel I need to again butt in on someone else’s dispute. I’m sorry Ben, but you seem very keen to turn any kind of disagreement into a racial issue.
You do know it is actually possible for two people of different skin colour to argue and it not have a jot to do with race? If you keep using phrases like ‘bowing down to their authority or pigmentation’ then people like myelf will feel compelled to pull you up on it. And no doubt you will respond to this with a similar choice of words.
I, like everyone on here I would guess, do not care whether the person I am communicating with is white, black, blue, purple or green, but you seem intent on introducing racial issues into disagreements.
I think both of you are acting like children. Not everyone wants to read this garbage. You should agree to disagree and get over it already. I have not commented on this thread before but I've read other people's ideas. This is supposed to be a friendly discussion and you both cheapen the thread.
Ben wrote: ""to turn any kind of disagreement into a racial issue""Any" means several that you know of.
How many have others have you witnessed that you can use "any"?
I only know of one other about 8 months..."
Ok, well obviously I haven’t been following you around your whole life, but from my experience of you on Goodreads you don’t need encouraging to introduce racial elements into a discussion.
And it’s all very well urging everyone move on but if at the same time you’re using the kind of words and phrases in posts that I have already pointed out, then you’re making it difficult to move on without someone taking issue with it. In this case, that’s me.
I suppose this to be an unusual debate discussing different interpretations of Stephen King characters.
King may set-out to write character that are view..."
Okay - I'll give you my interpretation of the Colorado Kid ending:
James Cogan left his wife and suburban home and little son and went to his job at an ad agency in Denver. At around noon he left the building to get lunch and instead slipped into a limo he had hired to take him to Stapleton International airport. There he got onto a private plane and flew to Bangor Maine. He went to the town of Tinnock, ate fish and chips at Jan’s Warfside, and then took the last ferry to Moose-Lookit Island. He gave the boatman a cup of tea on the crossing. By then he had ditched his suit coat and his wallet and donned a yellow jacket. From then on no one saw him or knew where he was, but the next morning he turned up dead, propped up against a dumpster on the beach. He had choked to death on a piece of steak… a midnight snack. There was a pack of cigarettes on the nearby sand but only one cigarette was gone. The stamp on the bottom of the cigarette pack was from Colorado and this allowed the newspaper guys to trace his identity back to Colorado and find his wife. Oh, Cogan didn’t smoke. Oh, and the change in his pocket included seventeen dollars, some US change, and a Russian ten-ruble coin. Oh, and there is a possibility that a muscle relaxant added to the steak that he was eating could have caused him to choke to death… which would have made the death murder not accidental. Oh, and one more thing that I’ll be you missed: James “looked almost good enough to be the subject of one of those romantic poems by Mr. Poe.” His wife? Well, old man Vince says, “I was sort of expecting a pale and dark-haired beauty. What I got was a chubby redhead with a lot of freckles.” (The old “good-looks disparity” motive.) You want to solve the puzzle? King says, “I could have provided half a dozen (endings) three good, two a-country fair, and one fine as paint.” How about this one?
“Stephanie started back toward her own desk than something caught her eye on the wall length bulletin board at the far end of the room. She walked over for a closer look.” The left hand of the bulletin board was layered with old newspaper clippings. In the very bottom corner was a yellowed snippet from the Boston Globe. It simply read, Prominent Russian ballerina Elena Miskaya was found dead in her hotel room last night… apparent cause of death, choking on a small mouthful of chicken Kiev. Ms. Miskaya had been touring the US recently as part of an advertising campaign for the Moscow ballet. She was the wife of noted Russian chemist Vladimir Miskaya.