5: I loved it
4: It was good
3: Average
2: Only so-so
1: I didn't like it
Never Read
Bracket #7: Gerald's Game (1992)
Gerald's Game, 1992
Please vote for Gerald's Game using the following scale:
5: I loved it
4: It was good
3: Average
2: Only so-so
1: I didn't like it
If you haven't read this book yet, please vote Never Read. Feel free to discuss your votes in this thread.
I just finished a re-read, and I'm officially upgrading my opinion of this book from "completely worthless" to "only so-so."
I vote a three. When I read it, I expected it to rank a one, but enjoyed some of the dark atmosphere. At that point though I'd quite had enough abused woman character development, from this and many other novels. That topic, however sad and sympathetic, never really appeals to me.
Gave it a 4. I think I liked this book more than most people do because it is plausible. That sense of reality made this book much more gripping.
Sloth Love Chunk
Unlike its companion piece, Dolores Claiborne, this book fell far short for me. It compelled me to read the entire thing, but I have never felt any sort of need or desire to re-read it. Seeing as to how I have read most of King's works more than once, this is a major thing for me. Normally, I would give it an average, but after thinking about it for some time, I am not sure I feel this book deserves that rating. Instead, I am going one lower and giving it a so-so, or a 2.
Margaret Emmie Mackey Catoe, you are, have been, and always will be my soulmate, and I love you.
Con todo mi corazon, por todo de mis dias. And I always will, in this life and into the next.
August 2, 1947 - September 24, 2010
4 from bears
Ask not what bears can do for you, but what you can do for bears. (razz)
When one is in agreement with bears one is always correct. (mae)
bears are back!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Originally Posted by BROWNINGS CHILDE
I find it so extremely implausible that it's frankly absurd. Sorry.
I never thought of it from the point of view of (im)plausibility. It's a perfect "what if" story, and, of course, "did he?" - well, this time "he" did, at least in bears' opinion.
Ask not what bears can do for you, but what you can do for bears. (razz)
When one is in agreement with bears one is always correct. (mae)
bears are back!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I gave it a 4 as well. I really enjoyed it, but at the same time the wholeSpoiler:was pretty gross and I didn't like reading that part. But Gerald's Game is the only SK book thats ever made me feel like I was going to pass out. It was the part whereSpoiler:.
I gave it a 4. I reread it recently and it does have some good psychological stuff going on there.
"People, especially children, aren't measured by their IQ. What's important about them is whether they're good or bad, and these children are bad." ~ Alan Bernard
"You needn't die happy when your day comes, but you must die satisfied, for you have lived your life from beginning to end and ka is always served." ~ Roland Deschain
What do you mean by "good psychological stuff"? I'd agree that there's some vivid depictions of recognizable psychological processes.
I also think that there's some odd concessions to the psychology of the audience.
Did he? The rules for this part of the game were Annie's exactly. Realism was not necessary; fairness was.Sorry, I have to say he did not. Not for me. I have always thought, "That's not fair!"
This book is entrenched in my all-time bottom 5 for King. Definite "1"
Pretty boring.
It did have one of the biggest surprises in an SK book for me.
I can see I'm one of the few people who genuinely loved this one, and for my own part, it was because I was impressed with the way he wrote the main character and her plight. Also, this one has the distinction of almost making me pass out.Spoiler:
A 3. It was, unfortunately, the third King book I read. I don't know how or why I chose this one, but it turned me off of King for about 3 years. I remember being scared by certain parts and disgusted by others. Plus it really wasn't a very exciting or compelling read for me. I didn't really take anything away from it except for dude with his necklace of penii (or whatever).
A true firewasp ninja would never wear such a ridiculous sweater.
There's logic in nonsense.
Give me all the bacon and eggs you have.
I find it plausible in comparison to hmmmmmmmmm lets see
Carrie
Salems Lot
Christine
Pet Sematary
Eyes of the Dragon
The DT series
It
Firestarter
Needful Things
From a Buick 8
The Talisman
etc.etc.etc.etc.etc......
Sloth Love Chunk
yes, but in all those you've listed the main premise was fantastic by definition, while GG is supposed to be kinda every-day-life drama, where some plausibility is required.
Ask not what bears can do for you, but what you can do for bears. (razz)
When one is in agreement with bears one is always correct. (mae)
bears are back!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
My point being that there are very few SK novels that are even set somewhat in reality. I felt like GG could happen. This set it apart from the majority of SK's other works.
Sloth Love Chunk
There are entire forensics books dedicated to what went wrong during sex or during self-pleasuring. This scenario, escaped lunatic aside, is extremely plausible. Extremely.
It'll take a lot more than words and guns,
A whole lot more than riches and muscle.
The hands of the many must join as one.
And together we'll cross the river.
Puscifer, "The Humbling River"
Well, sure, but isn't that kind of like saying "It's a very dry day, aside from all the rain"?
Not that I care. I LIKE the majority of SK's other works.
I definitely do give SK points for creatively getting out of bed, and the character was excellent, of course, but what really made this book most involving were these elements:It was not until the suspense ended that he restrained his style, to get that happy ending. I had thought that SK was above such pandering to narrow mindsets....People are almost always safe from ghosts and ghouls and the living dead in daylight... but when a person is alone in the dark... Who knows what some men and women have seen in the hour of their solitary deaths? ..."...we live in a web of mystery, and have simply gotten so used to the fact that we have crossed out the word and replaced it with one we like better, that one being reality."~ Stephen King
I guess how plausible the story is depends on how sexually inhibited/adventurous you are.
Sloth Love Chunk
Srsly.
It'll take a lot more than words and guns,
A whole lot more than riches and muscle.
The hands of the many must join as one.
And together we'll cross the river.
Puscifer, "The Humbling River"
Ditto.
This is one of my favorite psychological novels. I don't know why so many people dislike it.
Good grief.
Does anyone agree with me?
If you dislike it for some other reason, please post.I prefer It --...it occured to him that kids were better at... incorporating the inexplicable into their lives. They believed implicitly in the invisible world. Miracles both bright and dark were to be taken into consideration, oh yes, most certainly, but they by no means stopped the world. ...
But when you grew up, all that changed. You no longer lay awake in your bed, sure something was crouching in the closet or scratching at the window ... but when something did happen, something beyond rational explanation, the circuits overloaded. ... You couldn't just incorporate what had happened into your life experience. It didn't digest. Your mind kept coming back to it, pawing lightly like a kitten with a ball of string ... until eventually, of course, you either went crazy or got to a place where it was impossible for you to function.
The poll has closed. Gerald's Game has earned a FAS (final average score) of 3.000000000 or 60.00%, placing 5th (last) in this bracket. It will not be moving on to Round 2. In 2009, Gerald's Game also placed 5th with a FAS of 3.294117647, so it lost 0.294117647 (-8.93%) this time.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
