Strength of Plot: Graded "A"
Strength of Plot: Graded "B"
Strength of Plot: Graded "C"
Character Development: Graded "A"
Character Development: Graded "B"
Character Development: Graded "C"
Quality of the Story's Ending: Graded "A"
Quality of the Story's Ending: Graded "B"
Quality of the Story's Ending: Graded "C"
Never Read
Group 2: Pet Sematary
Pet Sematary, 1983
Please grade Pet Sematary in the following three areas using the grades A, B, or C:
- Strength of Plot
- Character Development
- Quality of the Story's Ending
If you haven't read this book yet, please vote Never Read. Feel free to discuss your votes in this thread.
IMPORTANT: Please make sure to select only one grade in each grading area. For complete instructions, see this post.
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 the plot a "B" The plot seemed to drag in some places and was way to drawn out. I gave character development an "A" I gave the ending a "B" because it was predictable.
AAA. My favorite King novel, hands down. No ifs or buts. And to think he didn't even want to publish it.
And the ninth person to vote hasn't read it. What a loser! Oh wait, that's me ... lol
I know I come across as a big cheerleader for King in these comments, but I love this one, too. I finally picked up a first edition just this last week for super-super-cheap.
It's funny how these votes pan out for me. I gave Pet Semetary A A A, but there are plenty of these Round 2 books I like better (or think are better books) but by these categories I had to rate lower.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that this 3-category grading system does not reflect how I really would rank these books as far as my overall assessment of enjoyment or entertainment value is concerned.
Love this book!
AAA, classic SK!!!!!
Wish List:
Any of the following flatsigned or inscribed-
It, Shining, Salem’s Lot, Mr. Mercedes, The Stand
Brother ARC, Seed ARC
LIKE WASHING MEAT!
HOW MUCH DO I LOVE THIS? MY CAT CHURCH
Absolutely. I have been saying the same since the start of this round; maybe our voting experience has accumulated in years, and now it's time for some changes. I will collect all observations to the same effect, and then we'll have a duscussion of how we'd rather grade the books.Originally Posted by divemaster
Dear inhabitants of the Palaver Castle!! this is our Captain Morgan!!
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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
That's where I've been voting based on how much I enjoyed the book overall. I guess I'm taking the questions in a much broader term than you guys. I just can't give an A to a book I don't like (unless it has a redeeming feature in one of the categories). And vise versa, if I loved it, I'm pretty unlikely to give it a C in a category. My criteria is one - how much I enjoyed the overall plot or storyline to the book, two - how much I enjoyed the characters (not necessarily their development, but whether or not I thought they were strong or entertaining), and three - what I thought about the ending. Sorry if this discussion should go elsewhere.Absolutely. I have been saying the same since the start of this round; maybe our voting experience has accumulated in years, and now it's time for some changes. I will collect all observations to the same effect, and then we'll have a duscussion of how we'd rather grade the books.
Back on topic with this thread I rated this book AAA. This one holds a special place in my heart. I loved it.
Only the gentle are ever really strong.
Saw the movie when I was younger. Don't really remember it. Voted that I haven't read it.
I think for the novels you could list the main characters and we can rate them on a likable scale (1-5 or 10). Also, rate the plot and ending (from good to bad). For the collections, list all the stories to rate separately. The problem now is we have to lump all the stories together as a group to rate them.Absolutely. I have been saying the same since the start of this round; maybe our voting experience has accumulated in years, and now it's time for some changes. I will collect all observations to the same effect, and then we'll have a duscussion of how we'd rather grade the books.
Nah: we have an appended categories sideshow tourney for that kind of thing. Rating whole collections (of stories and of characters) is fine, IMO, for the main "best book" contest, as long as it stays apples to apples. Yes, there may be room for improvement in this, but I'm happy doing best short and most likable protagonists plus most unlikable antagonists in that other area.
ABA
Sloth Love Chunk
I still haven't voted.
I can't make myself give a B for characters in a novel where no character development is needed.
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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
So give it an A if you like the characters or C if you disliked? I don't think a book has to have character development to have strong characters.
Only the gentle are ever really strong.
Jean, by this and other posts of yours I think you might have a unique position on what "character development" is. I don't believe one should be looking at it from a standpoint of "how does this character change or evolve over the course of the story." Some well-written and interesting characters may not undergo any sort of "development" in that sense.
To me (and I suspect most others), character development refers to how well the author has created an interesting, complex character. For example, Stu Redman in The Stand. You may not think he "develops" over the course of the novel--that indeed he's the same ole' Stu throughout. But that's ok! The question you should be asking is "how well did the author develop this character that he presents to us?"
Some authors use characters to merely move the plot along. Agatha Christie, for example. No one could accuse any of her characters from being very developed, but they serve the purpose of the mystery. Koontz is hit or miss. But I think for the most part King gives us complex, well-developed characters. To me, if I've finished a novel and feel like I know that person, what makes him tick; that I'm able to tap into his mind and emotions--that is a well-developed character regardless of whether he changes over the course of the story.
+1
That's reasonable, divemaster, but I don't think it's true that Jean has a "unique" position on the term or that "most" others define it as you do; that is, based on my own (partially completed) studies as an English Literature/Theatre double major. I wrote a couple of plays and analyzed MANY as an actor and director for the stage... I mean, I studied prose as well, of several kinds, but my own understanding of "Character Development" will probably always bear the imprint of the Stanislavski position. I would call what you're talking about "Characterization" or "Character Background." Of course, SK is a particular type of writer, and he says himself in the Full Dark, No Stars afterward that he's less interested in "extraordinary people in ordinary situations" than in "ordinary people in extraordinary situations" which is fine and good, we all like his style, I guess, or we wouldn't be members here... but some of us do still have interest in styles of the former kind, sometimes, too. If we SHOULD be concentrating on "how well did the author develop this character that he presents to us?" for the purposes of these awards, then maybe it should be relabeled to simply "Characters."
I measure character development as a correlation of how well I feel like I know the character by the end. How they feel? How they think? What motivates them. Can I hear their voice in my head when I am reading their dialogue. For that, I think that character development less in this novel than in other King novels. Thus, I gave a B. However, I agree with Jean, in that character development is not necessary in this story.
BTW, maybe it was because we know a little backstory about him, but I though Judd was the most clearly developed character and he was an extra.
Sloth Love Chunk
divemaster - being a foreigner, I wasn't sure in which sense the word "development" was used in the definition of the category.
Personally, I never judged the strength of a character in a book by their changing or not changing. I don't think I ever said I did, either.
Maybe, yes. Tonight I will make a special thread for our ideas on improving the grading, and move all the relevant posts there; then we'll see where we are.
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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Last chance to vote! the poll is closing!
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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The poll has closed. This round Pet Sematary has earned an OAG (overall average grade) of 2.756410256 or 91.88% in addition to its FAS (final average score), making it 7.256410256 or 90.71%.
Grade breakdown:
Strength of Plot: A - 2.730769231 (91.03%)
Character Development: A - 2.846153846 (94.87%)
Quality of the Story's Ending: A - 2.692307692 (89.74%)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
