|
I dunno. It's a popular book that many people haven't read but, at the same time, many people will read at some point in the future. I can understand the argument that it's the Stephen King thread, but I don't think you should have to have read every single book by him in order to participate in the thread without having to worry about getting spoiled. Also, it's not like anyone is saying not to talk about it... Just write out the word "spoiler" twice and add some square brackets. A slash. That's all.
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2012 01:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 04:33 |
|
|
My personal rule of thumb is that any popular media thing that's old enough to freely rent a car doesn't need spoiler tags anymore. For Stephen King that means The Eyes of the Dragon, The Dark Tower II: The Drawing of the Three, Misery and The Tommyknockers all just entered or are about to enter no need for mandatory spoiler tagging, and the next one to do so will be The Dark Half in 2014. I mean, noone complains about spoilers when you talk about Darth Vader being Luke's dad these days.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2012 02:31
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:My personal rule of thumb is that any popular media thing that's old enough to freely rent a car doesn't need spoiler tags anymore. For Stephen King that means The Eyes of the Dragon, The Dark Tower II: The Drawing of the Three, Misery and The Tommyknockers all just entered or are about to enter no need for mandatory spoiler tagging, and the next one to do so will be The Dark Half in 2014. Fixed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2012 02:56
|
|
|
They dumped WHAT on Carrie White?
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2012 03:41
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:My personal rule of thumb is that any popular media thing that's old enough to freely rent a car doesn't need spoiler tags anymore. For Stephen King that means The Eyes of the Dragon, The Dark Tower II: The Drawing of the Three, Misery and The Tommyknockers all just entered or are about to enter no need for mandatory spoiler tagging, and the next one to do so will be The Dark Half in 2014. Darth Vader being Luke's dad is a part of popular culture, people who have never seen Star Wars know about it. It's completely different to spoiling something from a book that someone might want to read. With the popularity of DVDs and box sets now, people are getting into films and TV shows years after they originally came out, and this has always been even more true for books. As for you arbitrarily choosing a period of time where you deem spoiler tags unneccesary and deciding that should apply to everyone, that's really stupid.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2012 12:46
|
|
|
Just be reasonable. Did the book come out in the last year? Spoiler tags! The last five years? Probably wanna spoiler tag it in more general threads. Ten years? Ok I think you're pushing it, but I guess maybe spoilers could be appropriate in some situations. 20+ years? Now you're being ridiculous.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2012 13:51
|
|
|
Ornamented Death posted:Just be reasonable. Did the book come out in the last year? Spoiler tags! The last five years? Probably wanna spoiler tag it in more general threads. Ten years? Ok I think you're pushing it, but I guess maybe spoilers could be appropriate in some situations. 20+ years? Now you're being ridiculous. Personally I'd consider spoiler tags unnecessary where the information is common knowledge. Darth vader or carrie, for example? Common knowledge to the point of parody. The outcome of pet semetary, on the other hand, is nowhere near as well known. Though I suppose it's all relative and hard to define in absolute terms. I was just a bit pissed that what is presumably a major plot element of that book was spoiled for me.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2012 14:00
|
|
|
Furthermore, if you thought it shouldn't have been spoiler tagged originally, shouldn't you do it if someone asks you to? This is generally considered a spoiler free thread about Stephen King and ruining parts of his older books is still a dick move.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2012 14:54
|
|
|
Then there's the people who are doing re-reads, and forgot many of the plot points (like me). I wouldn't be screaming if someone spoiled something for me, technically I've already read it at a point in time, but it's really a nice courtesy that takes very little effort. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2012 19:37
|
|
|
OK here's the rule: For books that came out a long time ago, spoilers are not required. If you're posting in a GENERAL Stephen King thread it can be safely assumed that people have a general knowledge of his work. Putting some sort of spoiler warning when you're discussing plot points that might "give away" a good portion of the book is a nicety but isn't required and, from now on, we're not going to get really worked up about it. Pet Sematary came out nearly 30 years ago. People don't need to be tripping over themselves to avoid telling you what happens in a book, especially one that's kinda entrenched in popular culture to a point where I'm shocked that people are not aware of the turning point in the book. OK? OK? OK.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2012 20:02
|
|
|
Y Kant Ozma Post posted:OK here's the rule: You will literally drive people away from this thread. "a long time" is in no was specific. I'm not trying to be a dick, but I have only read 1 Bachman book and although I plan to read the others, I have not. I should not be expected to know how they end or be afraid to read them because they came out "a long time ago" we have had a good system through the entire thread and it only became a problem because one person did not think something should be spoilered.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2012 01:35
|
|
|
If they want to do it as a courtesy it's up to them but there's absolutely no way I'm enforcing a spoiler rule for books that range up to thirty years old. People don't need to tiptoe around discussions about a book just to placate someone who hasn't read it. It's a general King discussion thread, not a thread dedicated to a specific book.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2012 02:00
|
|
|
Haha holy poo poo dude, no one is going to be driven away from this thread except maybe you. If someone's read so little Stephen King that untagged discussion of his older books scares them away, then they weren't really going to contribute much to the thread anyhow. I haven't read nearly as much King as (probably) most of the folks in this thread, but I don't throw a fit whenever there are untagged spoilers because I'm a reasonable person and I don't expect people to be careful when talking about books written that long ago. Plus, you know, Ozma has made her ruling so we all just have to deal with it .
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2012 02:01
|
|
|
This may be a spoiler, but it turns out that Christine?? Not a woman at all, but a car.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2012 02:21
|
|
|
Ridonkulous posted:You will literally drive people away from this thread. Guess what bro gollum bites the ring off frodos finger and falls into the fires of Mt. Doom
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2012 02:22
|
|
|
Gandalf doesn't actually die. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2012 02:28
|
|
Knight of the
|
T. Butt posted:Guess what bro gollum bites the ring off frodos finger and falls into the fires of Mt. Doom Finn you know spoilers are my trigger!!!
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2012 02:42
|
|
|
All work and no play make Jack a dull boy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2012 02:58
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:All work and no play make Jack a dull boy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2012 03:12
|
|
|
T. Butt posted:Guess what bro gollum bites the ring off frodos finger and falls into the fires of Mt. Doom And it turns out that Tyler Durden was a ghost the whole time
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2012 04:03
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:All work and no play make Jack a dull boy. All work and no play makes Jack adult boy. See this. Kubrick was a gold bug and something, something, trilateral commision. I think I probably saw the link to this in this thread. But it's well worth a watch.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2012 04:05
|
|
|
Ithaqua posted:And it turns out that Tyler Durden was a ghost the whole time Reminder that Rosie O'Donnell said a thing about this on Twitter and people freaked out on her.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2012 04:24
|
|
|
Wow, I'm sorry to have started all of this. I didn't even think about spoiling that since it happens in the middle of the book, not the climax, and every single advertisement for the movie, including half of the boxes, already told everyone that the person I spoiled died and pretty much bases its marketing strictly around that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2012 04:41
|
|
|
The girl in Firestarter? Starts fires. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2012 05:13
|
|
|
angerbutt posted:This may be a spoiler, but it turns out that Christine?? Not a woman at all, but a car. Thank you, that made my night. Yeah, I don't have a life, whutzit to ya. I'm really reeling about that Firestarter spoiler though. I guess I don't need that book anymore. SIGH. *rolls neck and arm back behind me, book slowly drops out of my fingers, dropping to the floor in slow motion, until it hits the ground with what you would swear was a gasp of pain... but not quite human pain. Book pain.* *ninja edit- not really
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2012 07:06
|
|
|
That may be the most admins Ive seen post in one page on a thread ever, have you got a secret King thread in the mod forum or something? On topic got round to watching the film version of 1408, thanks for the recommendation, I think. That actually creeped the gently caress out of me. The carpenters 'we've only just begun' over and over was really disturbing, reminded me of evil dead were going to get you were going to get you or dead before dawn dead before dawn.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2012 23:15
|
|
|
In On Writing: A Memoir of the Craft, the main character manages to conquer his addictions to drugs and alcohol. Sorry to spoil it for you.  Ahh I spoiled a plot point from a book published only 12 years ago I'm sorry I'm sorry.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2012 10:31
|
|
|
Cool, so while you guys are on the up and up with the snark could someone give me a honest spoiler of The Colorado Kid because I remember reading it in a fever dream and can only remember wanting some really awesome fried seafood. There was a plot about a dead body, but yet nothing loving happened right? Also, I want to say I read a random short story of his about Alexis Machine. Am I confusing this with a portion of The Dark Half or did King actually end up writing a short story either about the guy or similar to what "George Stark" wrote in The Dark Half and put it in another compilation?
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2012 18:12
|
|
|
hatelull posted:Cool, so while you guys are on the up and up with the snark could someone give me a honest spoiler of The Colorado Kid because I remember reading it in a fever dream and can only remember wanting some really awesome fried seafood. There was a plot about a dead body, but yet nothing loving happened right? That's the point of the story - it's a bit of a shaggy dog story, but the whole point is that sometimes there are just mysteries in life that we don't get the answer to, but that's what makes life interesting. I personally feel that people that get butthurt at this are missing the point entirely, because it's a charming little portrait of a tiny town, its local culture, and the fin de siecle of traditional local newspaper journalism, and isn't a hell of a lot of time investment.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2012 18:46
|
|
|
Sir Prancelot posted:Gandalf doesn't actually die. Sir Prancelot posted:They also make Jack get exploded by a faulty boiler. And the hedge monsters, jesus. Ten of the most suspenseful pages I've ever read.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2012 19:08
|
|
|
jackpot posted:Well technically he does...
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2012 19:10
|
|
|
jackpot posted:By the time I read The Shining I'd already seen the movie a dozen times, and it was so freakin' interesting the way one of the best "bad guys" in movie history has a completely sympathetic story in the novel. Kubrick's Jack Torrance is a straight-up monster so yeah, but I wouldn't call the book version of him completely sympathetic. The sense I got was more like he was some sort of sleeper cell. Halloran tries to send out a beacon to Wendy and Jack when he meets them and says something like "she has some on her because most moms do" and, before declaring that Jack doesn't at all, he indicates that there was something really weird lurking in there. There's also a long thing about Jack's abusive tendencies well before he was a drinker (kicking stray dogs, right?). So I think the argument is that he obviously wouldn't have tried to slaughter his wife and child had he not ended up there, but he was a bad seed no matter what. He went after the stuttering debate kid while stone sober and had anger issues throughout. The book always frustrates me a bit because it is definitely one of his better ones and is pretty well plotted; Danny's also a good character. But I have zero sympathy for Jack as I read and Wendy's poorly written. When I trot out examples of male writers absolutely not getting the way women work, that's one of the ones I'll use (by the way, the door swings both ways on that one). The chapter called "Night Thoughts" that begins with her thinking "my man" while she's got cum dripping down her leg... Uh, Stephen, No.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2012 19:15
|
|
|
I think he's sympathetic because he actually does get over his tendencies. Everyone has some kind of dark side, and it's commendable when someone can completely bury it, if not completely overcome it. He's sympathetic because it was outside sources that needled at him until it was drawn back out, as opposed to him succumbing on his own (which is pretty much the difference with Jack's Jack - he just seemed like he was looking for an excuse to go crazy).
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2012 20:33
|
|
|
You're probably right- I think my issue is that Jack never really is a nice guy, so I cut him no slack. He's still an jerk at the beginning, but not necessarily a bad jerk. And his whole reason for being up there is that he's at the end of his tether and has to provide something, so there's that. But it's definitely not a deal where someone who was perfectly nice and caring with his family was suddenly corrupted by an EVIL HOTEL. I went on a Stanley Hotel ~GHOST TOUR~ last year and really enjoyed it. It's a pretty cool hotel, though it's really a pity that they had to keep the decor in the lobby as-is after the miniseries. The rest of the place has a much lighter feel but the lobby is all doom and gloom with dark paper and paneling. The sad part, though, is when the tour guide asks the group how many people are familiar with the Stanley because of X. "The Shining" was basically just me raising my hand, and my father and sister shrugging (my sister wouldn't commit further because she has been on the tour several times with friends and knows there are awful trivia questions, to which I alone was subjected from that point forward). Everyone else was there because of some Ghost Hunters episode. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2012 20:39
|
|
|
Yeah, I don't mean by that that he's a nice guy, but that he's simply not a bad guy, at heart. It's been a long time since I read it, but what I remember from it is a guy who wanted to be good (or at least to be better), had no power over what was happening to him (and hated it), and ultimately "won" by taking control just long enough to save his family and finish things on his terms. He wasn't a good guy, but he was a long way from evil. I think ultimately he was just weak in all the ways that something truly bad needed him to be.Y Kant Ozma Post posted:You're probably right- I think my issue is that Jack never really is a nice guy, so I cut him no slack. Well wouldja look at that: King is writing a sequel to The Shining called Dr. Sleep.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2012 21:28
|
|
|
I still haven't read any dark tower books. I am familiar enough with it to get some of the references in other books, but- it just doesn't appeal to me. And I'm pretty nervous about the Dr. Sleep thing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2012 21:33
|
|
|
Y Kant Ozma Post posted:I still haven't read any dark tower books. I am familiar enough with it to get some of the references in other books, but- it just doesn't appeal to me. There's a Dark Tower thread if you just want to check it out for fun or something maybe it'll change your mind, no harm done. Its a pretty awesome thread and the OP is drat good, I mean simply fantastic.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2012 21:40
|
|
|
I'm thinking that, at worst, Dr. Sleep will be like Black House, where the general tone and plot is so far removed from the original book that your reception of the sequel doesn't really tie in to the original much at all. His books carry over characters so much anyway that it's really easy to keep the books themselves kind of disconnected from anything that ties into it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2012 21:40
|
|
|
jackpot posted:Yeah, I don't mean by that that he's a nice guy, but that he's simply not a bad guy, at heart. It's been a long time since I read it, but what I remember from it is a guy who wanted to be good (or at least to be better), had no power over what was happening to him (and hated it), and ultimately "won" by taking control just long enough to save his family and finish things on his terms. He wasn't a good guy, but he was a long way from evil. I think ultimately he was just weak in all the ways that something truly bad needed him to be. I may be remembering this wrong, but didn't he drunkenly break his son's arm? Just finished 'Salem's Lot, drat that was good. Probably the next scariest one after Pet Sematary.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2012 21:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 04:33 |
|
|
OctaviusBeaver posted:I may be remembering this wrong, but didn't he drunkenly break his son's arm? The sequence is something like: * Breaks his son's arm * Turns into more and more of a drunk while at Stovington * Is out one night with Al Shockley, his drinkin' pal, and they hit a bike- they think they hit a person, but it doesn't seem like they do. * The next day, Danny wakes up and says he had a dream that dad hit someone. Without or without taking that into account, Wendy decides to talk with him about divorce. * Jack tells her to postpone the discussion for a week or two, and they do. * Jack gets sober * Two months into sobriety, Jack loses his temper with Stuttering Debate Kid after kid knifes his tires. Jack's fired. So you have two violent incidents, one while drunk and one when he's stone sober. Arguably he was more provoked with the sober one, but he still hurt a teenager, and his student no less.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2012 22:05
|
|