Bracket #12: Under the Dome (2009)

[mae]

Under the Dome, 2009
http://www.thedarktower.org/gallery/data/510/medium/utd_trade_face_gray_.jpg

Please vote for Under the Dome (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Under_the_Dome) using the following scale:


5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1
0
Never read


If you haven't read this book yet, please vote Never Read. Feel free to discuss your votes in this thread.

[frik]

2.5

Terribly disappointing. Loved the premise, but the execution sucked.

sk

[Jean]

5

loved it

yes, the explanation in the end is preposterous, but so it is in It... and most everywhere.

[frik]

Not just the ending, most of the second half of the book didn't really go anywhere.

sk

[Jean]

loved it nevertheless

[webstar1000]

great!

[Girlystevedave]

3.5

Meh, but not awfull

[Iwritecode]

4.5 Had to deduct half a point for that ending.

[mae]

5

loved it

Again, have to concur.

[Jean]

http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/0134-bear.gif (http://s91.photobucket.com/user/mishemplushem/media/Facilitation/0134-bear.gif.html)http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/0134-bear.gif (http://s91.photobucket.com/user/mishemplushem/media/Facilitation/0134-bear.gif.html)http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/0134-bear.gif (http://s91.photobucket.com/user/mishemplushem/media/Facilitation/0134-bear.gif.html)

[divemaster]

I liked it a lot. I must have--as a rather right-wing Republican fellow, I found the character (caricature) of Big Jim was not only silly and illogical, but downright offensive. But I still give the book a 4.5 b/c of the overriding greatness.

[Jean]

http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/bear_thumb.gif (http://s91.photobucket.com/user/mishemplushem/media/Facilitation/bear_thumb.gif.html)
that's the spirit!

[Heather19]

5

loved it

yes, the explanation in the end is preposterous, but so it is in It... and most everywhere.


4.5 Had to deduct half a point for that ending.

4.5, I loved it up until the very end. Unfortunately had to deduct half a point because of that. I really wish that we never found out what created the dome and that they all perished within.

[Andrew Campbell]

0. I am (as I said previously) all the dumber for having read it.

Anyone interested in my review on Amazon can find it here (ohhh, the hornet's nest I stirred up in the replies to that review). http://www.amazon.com/Under-Dome-Novel-Stephen-King/product-reviews/1476735476/ref=cm_cr_pr_btm_link_22?ie=UTF8&filterBy=addOneStar&pageNumber=22&showViewpoints=0&sortBy=bySubmissionDateDescending

[Jean]

quoted from the above-linked review:

Here's the problem: King commits the one cardinal sin of story-telling; he allows his own political bias to get in the way of the narrative.
Probably one has to be an American to understand this. I read it as just a parable on society in general, and liked it a lot. Their own private burning of Reichstag was done very well (the supermarket scene), and so was the rest. I didn't find the characters two-dimensional, either; or rather, I didn't feel any need for them to be forced into more dimensions by anything else than the reader's perception. The interaction between forces, political, social and human, was very good. I loved the poor sons of bitches, and was very sorry for them.

[divemaster]

King's political bias was pervasive (not persuasive--he's anything but). Not just in Under the Dome, but elsewhere King shows his ignorance concerning certain political issues. (In other works, the same can be said for his take on Southerners and Southern culture in general. But I give him a pass on most of that b/c hardly anyone gets it right who has not lived it. Luckily, he mostly sticks with "rural NE," which is what he knows).

9 times out of 10, a political caricature such as Big Jim would put me off so much as to rate a book very low. Maybe even a "0" if I was really pissed off about it. But in Under the Dome, for some reason I could put that aside and enjoy the story. I actually like the character of Big Jim as an antagonist. I just didn't see the need to make him an obvious Republican. And especially, a so-called Christian. I know a lot of Christians, and even the hypocritical ones (myself included--aren't we all?) would never act as Big Jim. Sure, someone could use the appearance of religion to cover evil tracks, but King had Big Jim, even in his own private moments, supposedly be seeking to do God's work. NO Christian truly seeking God's will and to please God would have behaved that way. Was it really necessary to stick a finger in the eye of Christianity? King would have been better off presenting Jim as someone cynically taking advantage of Christianity rather than professing it.

And many times, when he was the eeeeeevil Republican acting a certain way, I was thinking to myself that the action was more indicative of a Democrat. I mean, what Republican would turn his nose up at the military the way he did? "Ah," but you say, "it's not so much that he was a Republican than he was just an evil guy."

Exactly. So why emphasize the politics?

This is a weird post for someone who loved the book and gave it a 4.5, but there it is.

[Jean]

I think there are a lot of people who cynically take advantage of Christianity, at the same time believing that they do God's work. These things seem to be mutually exclusive, and would be, if we lived in a logical world, or if man was an integral, rational creature, which he is not. The atheists often accuse Christians who do bad things that they do those things because they are Christians, while they do them precisely because they are bad Christians, and sick human beings; see Carrie's mother as an example. I mean, a Christian can be sick and evil just like anyone else: it would make him a bad Christian and, from our point of view, not a Christian at all, but human consciousness is such a pliable, flexible thing that he'll always convince himself that he is all good (that, assuming he is sane. If he is not, like Big Jim obviously wasn't, altogether different rules apply)

[Ben Staad]

I didn't care much for this book. I had a strong sense of déjà vu while reading this and felt like the ideas were culled from previous work. The ending sucked and the clear political message did not come across as satirical at all.

[Randall Flagg]

4. deducted 1 point for being too blatant mocking Bush, Cheney et al. Needed editing too, just a bit bloated.

[WeDealInLead]

King would have been better off presenting Jim as someone cynically taking advantage of Christianity rather than professing it.

.

From my POV, that's exactly what he was doing. He wasn't evil because he was Christian. He was an evil man delusional enough to think he was one. As for sticking it in the eye of Christianity...eh. Why not? Why should it be off-limits? It's not like he took a massive dump on it. That was just one part of what made Big Jim so twisted; he was crazy enough to think himself a Christian. If he was in Greece he'd have been an Orthodox Christian, a Buddhist in India or Jewish in Israel.

I give the story 4. The ending was a copout and disappointing but the book was a page-turner. I blew through it in three days. I borrowed an audio book so I lose no time away from it. I listened to it when I wasn't home reading it.

And come on, it's just a book of fiction. I didn't hear anyone complaining about a through and through Christian, Mother Abigail in The Stand.

[Jean]

he was crazy enough to think himself a Christian. If he was in Greece he'd have been an Orthodox Christian, a Buddhist in India or Jewish in Israel.
that's, basically, what I was trying to say in my post above

[BROWNINGS CHILDE]

Don't understand the political backlash about this story. IT. IS. FUCKING. FICTION. Get over it.

[Ben Staad]

Everyone has there own opinions on the why they like a piece of fiction or why they don't. Mine are stated above. I will not be picking this book back up for a re-read because I didn't care for many aspects of the story regardless if it is only a work of fiction.


Don't understand the political backlash about this story. IT. IS. FUCKING. FICTION. Get over it.

[Iwritecode]

I don't get into politics so all the political stuff went right over my head. I didn't notice it at all.

[Jean]

I don't get into politics so all the political stuff went right over my head. I didn't notice it at all.
same here

[divemaster]

Don't understand the political backlash about this story. IT. IS. FUCKING. FICTION. Get over it.

Are you telling me (actually, yelling) for me to get over my opinion? Like I'm not allowed to voice an opinion of what biases an author might bring to a work of fiction? Is that what you are telling me? For a book I rated 4.5 out of 5, by the way?

[BROWNINGS CHILDE]

I just dont understand why people take it personally. I don't care what you rate the book. Give it a zero. I could literally not care less. And my comment was not directed at you personally. Almost all of the criticism that I have heard about this book has been directly related to their political views. King has been demonized for demonizing a republican. Awefully sensitive group as your response demonstrates. They added two lesbian characters in the tv series and polished up big Jim's character for the tv series so that it would not be politically offensive to either side. It is simply a work of fiction, and I think that Big Jim's character was effectively drawn. He comes off exactly how I think King wanted him to be. And from a small west texas town, I have known several town officials that are Big Jim personified. My point was that it is a work of fiction. I don't think had a political aggenda. And if you took offense to my statement.....well I probably wont sleep. Though I didnt mean it as a personal attack.

[Jean]

I dearly hope that two of my most respected and loved people are not going to quarrel and will find a way out of the present misunderstanding

http://www.buildabear.com//ProductImages/BABW_US/Large/15818L.jpg

[divemaster]

It just seemed like he was saying fiction should never come with a political backlash. Tell that to Swift, or Dickens, or Twain, or Voltaire, or a myriad of other authors. If an author wants to make politics or religion a part of his story, then people should be able to comment on it without being told, in effect, to just shut up already. I'm not the one who made a point of the character's politics or weird anti-Christian, Christian mindset. That was King. As readers, we should be free to add that to the mix of our interpretation/enjoyment of the work.

[BROWNINGS CHILDE]

That is like judging the merit of To Kill A Mockingbird because you don't like racism. My point is and has been that the value of the book or the quality of the writing (and I am aware that you gave the book a 4.5 out of 5, and again, my comment was not directed at you personally as there has been a great deal of discussion about the political aspects of this book) should not hinge on the political or religious values that one of the characters possesses within that work of fiction.

[mae]

The poll has closed. Under the Dome has earned a FAS (final average score) of 4.145833333 or 82.92%. It received a rating of 4.5 with 8 votes.