|
The problem I had with the book was that Trashie was supposed to be one of the bad guys because his mind was warped by years of bullying about being a pyromaniac so he ended up going west through no real fault of his own, but Frannie who engages in a similar manner toward Harold, although he was an insufferable prick but that doesn't count, was one of mother Ab's disciples and basically started the republic of boulder because everyone was eager to have some sort of ruling body once more. In short: Trashie got the worst of it, and Frannie can just about gently caress off. I wonder if anyone has read the shock doctrine and the stand in close proximity.  Edit: Glen was cool as hell though, I love Kings more intelligent characters, the ones he uses to speak through and I think Glen was his best. Local Group Bus fucked around with this message at 21:06 on Jan 26, 2012 |
#
?
Jan 26, 2012 20:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 03:14 |
|
|
oldpainless posted:Its been a while since I read The Stand, but I thought Flagg was explicitly described as a jeans-n-jacket kind of guy? He was, but my (and a lot of other people's) imagination took over and turned him into a kind of Christopher Walken The Prophecy type of guy as opposed to the jolly jean jacket guy by default, for whatever reason.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2012 15:43
|
|
|
Ozmaugh posted:Nick Andros and Larry Underwood are far more interesting. Larry's intro and first few subsequent scenes were ridiculously cringe-inducing. I wasn't sure whether I was supposed to be laughing at what was going on or marveling at how dumb the character was. Although I still think this was one of my favorite quotes from The Stand: Tom Cullen posted:The Lord is my shepherd. I shall not want for nothing. He makes me lie down in the green pastures. He greases up my head with oil. He gives me kung-fu in the face of my enemies. Amen
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2012 18:36
|
|
|
Close to 150 pages into Needful Things and I am sucked in hard. I'm going to sound like a waffler, but now this may be favorite King book if it keeps going (I crowned 11/22/63 after finishing it, provided I haven't read IT and the Stand really hasn't stood the test of time for me). Regardless, Leland Gaunt maybe my favorite King villain easily. Last night I read the part where he dickers with the woman who buys the Elvis photo, after she had a really sweaty orgasm and I was stunned at how Gaunt can switch between gregarious and warming to dastardly and cold-hearted just like that, while still holding onto his witty humor. Good stuff so far.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2012 22:24
|
|
|
Most books would be finished in the time it's taken King to introduce all the main characters in Desperation. C'mon, Steve, pick up the pace! Tak!
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2012 00:02
|
|
|
quote:The problem I had with the book was that Trashie was supposed to be one of the bad guys because his mind was warped by years of bullying about being a pyromaniac so he ended up going west through no real fault of his own, but Frannie who engages in a similar manner toward Harold, although he was an insufferable prick but that doesn't count, was one of mother Ab's disciples and basically started the republic of boulder because everyone was eager to have some sort of ruling body once more. You felt that Frannie was bullying Harold? How so? He came across to me as a self-entitled goony rear end in a top hat, and I thought she handled his ego and insecurity pretty well. She wrote some mean things about him in her personal diary, but that seems the extent of the so-called mistreatment. I've read this thread since its inception and have seen other people mention that they think Frannie is insufferable, but to me, the only time she scraped my nerves was towards the end, when she insisted that Stu and her move all the way back to the abandoned Ogunquit, and convinced him by giving him a bratty "I want!" look. Aside from that, I found her fully sympathetic, much moreso than Harold (though I love Harold and his arc as well).
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2012 01:54
|
|
|
Boofchicken posted:Isn't she only like 21, 22 though? I mean, that's not a teenager, but certainly not far from it and I have known plenty of early twenties people who still act like immature brats, world ending plague not withstanding. She's 20, actually- right? She's supposed to be immature at the beginning, so that doesn't bother me, but King uses her diary entry (and Harold's discovery of them) as some sort of catalyst for change and it doesn't really do much for her. I just don't think he really knew how to write about someone who would have had to undergo a pretty substantial development. A lot of the other guys "change" a bit, and he pulls that off, but Frannie's supposed to be totally different in the end and that never really works. I definitely don't think she "bullied" Harold, though. There wasn't anything to be done there. ReverendLondo posted:Larry's intro and first few subsequent scenes were ridiculously cringe-inducing. I wasn't sure whether I was supposed to be laughing at what was going on or marveling at how dumb the character was. He's an absolute shitheel at first, definitely.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2012 02:06
|
|
|
I didn't mean to imply that she knowingly bullied him but her reaction to the diary and her telling Larry that there was something off about Harold even before he meets him is a pretty juvenile and pathetic thing to do. But yes, she is a young pregnant woman and as such both her immaturity and the instincts she feels toward her child should be taken into consideration, I just wanted to draw a parallel between Trashcans tormentors and Frannie, She;s obviously not as bad but both set things in motion though thoughtless actions and only one character was seen as "good". Hell, if memory serves didn't she have a tantrum when Stu invited Harold over for dinner or something? It's been so long since I have read The Stand that I can't remember a fair chunk of it only what the characters left me with and for me it's Frannie being a copy of her mother: Controlling and uncaring of another person wanting to change with the world and perhaps discover a better nature along the way.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2012 05:11
|
|
|
Local Group Bus posted:, She;s obviously not as bad but both set thins in motion though thoughtless actions and only one character was seen as "good". That's being unfair to her, too. Her diary is immature but writing her private thoughts down in a diary isn't a "thoughtless action," nor is shacking up with Stu Redman in the first place thoughtless. Harold and Nadine are both cowardly enough to want to have a 'reason' for going through with things. Harold actually realizes that at the end--- that his reasoning for everything is really loving flimsy. If it hadn't been the diary, it would have been something else in time. Nadine seems to think that Larry refusing to gently caress her at the end is reason enough to head over to Flagg. To say Frannie's the real catalyst pinning the blame on someone entirely, which is what King takes measures to avoid with every aspect of the book. What I dislike about her is that she never really grows as a character and as such seems completely out of proportion with the other characters who do change; I don't dislike her because she's a bad person (she's not) or because she's the thing that wound Harold up. Local Group Bus posted:Hell, if memory serves didn't she have a tantrum when Stu invited Harold over for dinner or something? It's been so long since I have read The Stand that I can't remember a fair chunk of it only what the characters left me with and for me it's Frannie being a copy of her mother: Controlling and uncaring of another person wanting to change with the world and perhaps discover a better nature along the way. Rather the opposite. Stu invites Harold over for dinner after attempting to make amends, and at this point Frannie knows that Harold read the diary. Frannie's still feeling guilty about how Harold must have felt, and doesn't have an inkling that maybe something might be up with him. So when Stu comes home and says he invited Harold over for dinner, she thinks that she feels bad about the fact that Stu's trying to be nice to him while she's sitting around thinking horrible stuff about him. Other than getting mad about Stu leaving her (which makes sense) or about being the marshal/police chief/etc (which also kind of makes sense) she doesn't really pull the controlling bit all that often. I don't think she's anything like her mom.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2012 05:18
|
|
|
Mmm, good points. Maybe it is time for that re-read.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2012 05:47
|
|
|
Is there a reason Frannie is on the Freedom Board or whatever its called? If she's an immature 20 year old, how is she elected over people like the doctor or Harold who comes up with some good ideas? Again, its been a while since I read it so please refresh me. Although Harold is about 173 times more interesting than Frannie is, I do remember that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2012 06:20
|
|
|
oldpainless posted:Is there a reason Frannie is on the Freedom Board or whatever its called? If she's an immature 20 year old, how is she elected over people like the doctor or Harold who comes up with some good ideas? Again, its been a while since I read it so please refresh me. Harold is originally on the list for the crew. Nick Andros boots him last minute because he doesn't trust him, and because he felt like Stu had packed it with his cronies. Nick's initially worried that this will cause friction but later it's mentioned that no one else on the free zone committee really disagreed with the decision. I think the rationale for having Frannie is probably that she was from one of the earlier groups in, I dunno. The doctor doesn't show up for a while and I don't think a doctor could really be a selectman if he's, you know, doctoring. The vet who came in early on wouldn't have been up for it, either. Maybe it's a reach but you can go so far as to assume that the earlier groups have a stronger tie to Mother Abagail and would therefore have already seemed kind of like community founders to other people. I don't think you can argue that geography was the only reason they got in there a bit faster.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2012 07:55
|
|
|
Ozmaugh posted:I think the rationale for having Frannie is probably that she was from one of the earlier groups in, I dunno. The doctor doesn't show up for a while and I don't think a doctor could really be a selectman if he's, you know, doctoring. The vet who came in early on wouldn't have been up for it, either. There's also the concept of group dynamic or, kind of reaching here, the simple fact that everyone on the committee was the focus of a chapter or two. They were the only one's interesting enough to have pages upon pages devoted to them, therefor they win by a landslide due to overwhelming popularity. They're the only ones interesting enough to get chapters devoted to them, while politics are basically popularity contests, ergo the characters with their own chapters win the election. Everyone else was either uninteresting, a throwaway character, mentally handicapped, a dog, or isolationist/evil.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2012 08:06
|
|
|
Thanks for the explanation. Maybe I just have an irrational dislike of Frannie but I never really got to like most of the good guys. Frannie, Larry and Stu just kinda worked my nerves after awhile but I liked Glen and didn't mind Nick. I'd much rather hear about Trashcan Man, The Kid, Flagg and Harold. But I guess King always made more compelling villains than protagonists. Gaunt, Pennywise, Big Jim, Rainbird et al were always so much more interesting than the heroes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2012 08:06
|
|
|
oldpainless posted:Thanks for the explanation. Maybe I just have an irrational dislike of Frannie but I never really got to like most of the good guys. Frannie, Larry and Stu just kinda worked my nerves after awhile but I liked Glen and didn't mind Nick. I'd much rather hear about Trashcan Man, The Kid, Flagg and Harold. It's funny that I'm defending her so much when I don't like her much myself. Listen! You don't have to like her either, but hate her for the reasons I hate her! You know, it's also entirely possible that my dislike of Frannie has a lot to do with Molly Ringwald butchering it. I read the book before I saw the miniseries, but that came out in what- 94? I was 12. I bet the miniseries made more of an impression on me than anything else.  Killing Nick Andros is what made it easier for King to finish the book, I guess, so there's that but goddammit. Having Nick die is so drat lovely.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2012 08:11
|
|
|
Ozmaugh posted:It's funny that I'm defending her so much when I don't like her much myself. Listen! You don't have to like her either, but hate her for the reasons I hate her! No  I think it was 94 and I was also 12. I have that miniseries on the shelf, along with Desperation, and tried watching it about 2 years ago or so and I remember thinking it was so crappy even with esteemed thespians such as Laura San Giacomo and Rob Lowe.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2012 08:19
|
|
|
I liked it at the time, but I also liked Tommyknockers when I saw it...so what do I know.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2012 08:28
|
|
|
Let us not forget The Langoliers miniseries. Terrifying.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2012 08:35
|
|
|
oldpainless posted:I remember thinking it was so crappy even with esteemed thespians such as Laura San Giacomo and Rob Lowe. If Laura's breasts couldn't save that series, nothing could. Matt Frewer prancing around was pretty entertaining, though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2012 08:53
|
|
|
oldpainless posted:Let us not forget The Langoliers miniseries. I don't care what anyone says, I love The Langoliers.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2012 22:27
|
|
|
Ozmaugh posted:I liked it at the time, but I also liked Tommyknockers when I saw it...so what do I know. Marg Helgenberger with her teeth falling out, hooray
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2012 22:33
|
|
|
Speaking of Tommyknockers, did you know that the 'Becka Paulson storyline was pulled out and done as a one-off episode of The Outer Limits starring Catherine O'Hara and Steven Weber? It doesn't have any reference to the original boook - Paulson accidentally shoots herself in the head and survives, and then goes slowly crazy like in the novel.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2012 22:37
|
|
|
It was also a short story published in Rolling Stone.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2012 23:34
|
|
|
ReverendLondo posted:If Laura's breasts couldn't save that series, nothing could. The dad from ALF is one of the CDC dudes at the beginning. Which is just marvelous because I can't look at Max Wright and keep a straight face. Dude hangs out in crackhouses.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2012 00:29
|
|
|
Ozmaugh posted:The dad from ALF is one of the CDC dudes at the beginning. If you had to survive the hellish nightmare that was ALF you'd turn to crack too. Apparently they worked 18 hour days on a deathtrap set riddled with trapdoors that you could never be sure were secured or if you were about to take a short sharp drop 4ft down.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2012 08:10
|
|
|
Oh my god. Listening to IT on audiobook because I never finished reading it. In the first chapter King foreshadows the death of George a full 3 times. "he ran towards his bad death" "it was the song that was playing the day his brother died" "it was the last time he saw his brother"
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2012 14:29
|
|
|
King sure loves him some foreshadowing. "It was the last time that XXX saw YYY alive" shows up at least once a novel. I just read one in Needful Things this morning.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2012 16:06
|
|
|
I just finished 11/22/63 about a half hour ago and needed to tell SOMEONE that I think it's Stephen King's best work - and I have read most of them. Regarding the ending: It's the saddest, happy ending I think I've ever come across. I had very visceral reaction when he came back to '58 after seeing the future with JFK and started to realize he had to go back and stay back. I'm not usually the sappy type, but the love story really took hold of me. I'm not much of a history nerd, but I enjoyed the hell out of the historical angle, too. Just a tremendous book, though it is a bit of a departure for him. Canuckistan posted:King sure loves him some foreshadowing. "It was the last time that XXX saw YYY alive" shows up at least once a novel. I just read one in Needful Things this morning. Yes...that happens in 11/22/63 a lot to the point that anytime a conversation ended between two characters I was half-expecting to see that line next in the paragraph.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2012 23:12
|
|
|
Kelly posted:I just finished 11/22/63 about a half hour ago and needed to tell SOMEONE that I think it's Stephen King's best work - and I have read most of them. I agree. I really liked 11/22/63. Also the guy in your avatar is pretty much how I imagined Chaz Frati.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2012 00:35
|
|
|
Victorkm posted:I agree. I really liked 11/22/63.  I started reading Needful Things after the last few pages had a tangent about how good it was. It's interesting but I'm getting burnt out on Maine-speak after 3 King books in the last 3 months.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2012 00:59
|
|
|
Victorkm posted:Oh my god. Listening to IT on audiobook because I never finished reading it. Stephen King foreshadows like brick to the face scratches your nose.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2012 01:06
|
|
|
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I recall in whichever book Roland's ka-tet meets Stephen King it's pointed out that Roland and King look quite a lot alike. This bothers me a lot, because I'm pretty sure Eddie thinks he looks a lot like Clint Eastwood back in Drawing of the Three. Also, when I was a little kid there was a door in the middle of a field, flat on the ground. My friends and I were convinced you would be killed by demons/monsters if you dared try to open it. Reading Jake's drawing was really freaky those few years later.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2012 01:51
|
|
|
Blade_of_tyshalle posted:Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I recall in whichever book Roland's ka-tet meets Stephen King it's pointed out that Roland and King look quite a lot alike. This bothers me a lot, because I'm pretty sure Eddie thinks he looks a lot like Clint Eastwood back in Drawing of the Three. This always bothered me too. Although in The Gunslinger, one of the drawings shows young Roland (at the execution, I think?) and it's definitely King.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2012 04:11
|
|
|
Victorkm posted:Oh my god. Listening to IT on audiobook because I never finished reading it. Foreshadowing the opening death is fine. The opening scene being devoted to a character dying is a horror movie convention that existed ever since Halloween, so it's fine to telegraph that. Major characters midway through the story, and huge plot points, though. That's just annoying, and I have no idea why he even does this.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2012 16:36
|
|
|
King loves foreshadowing so much that I bet he's mad somebody else beat him to the book title John Dies At The End
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2012 16:48
|
|
|
I don't think there's any reason not to make it clear right off the bat that George is going to die--- particularly when the way in which he dies is so oddball that you can't really predict it. beep beep
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2012 20:12
|
|
|
  
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2012 20:53
|
|
|
Ozmaugh posted:beep beep I hated this so much you have no idea
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2012 02:31
|
|
|
I  Derry
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2012 05:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 03:14 |
|
|
Jealous Cow posted:I hated this so much you have no idea Beep beep is great because it's actually more memorable when IT turns it back around on Richie. It was an annoying friendship catchphrase that everyone remembers coming from the villain instead of the friends. Part of this is Tim Curry's delivery/the way the scene was directed, but it was still built up/timed well in the novel.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2012 06:02
|
|