Rose Madder vs. Insomnia

[Faddah Callahan]

So I noticed and read the thread about the New York Magazine's list of King books in order of not-so-greatness to greatness, and for some reason, I noticed that I tend to lump "Insomnia" and "Rose Madder" together. Not sure why. "Insomnia" is part of the "tie-in-the-Tower" mindset books, whereas "Rose" is part of the female-lead-gets-tossed-around-a-bit cycle (which appears to feature "Gerald's Game" and...uh, that one about the chick in the woods and baseball; I have read neither).

Ahem. Now that I've come to the conclusion that my position on shacking "Rose" up with "Insomnia" is an erroneous one, it is time to forcibly remove them from each other. A messy divorce is in order, and I want to know who comes out on top. I'm not sure why I stuck them together; perhaps I saw a similarity in the way that the books play with a dream world shadowing a waking one, and a way to take very "real" myths and apply them to King's own mythology, and to thrust an average person into such legendary circumstances...although one could make the argument that that refers to half King's output (what was the story with the "long boy?").

(Playing with the mythology line, maybe it's the Greek angle. I can't think of a story aside from those two that pulls such obvious figures--the minotaur and the three fates--from Aegean myth. Oh well.)

There was a time when I probably would have said that "Insomnia" was my favorite, being the manly man that I am I am. But I think that, in hindsight, I prefer the tight mythos that unfolds with "Rose Madder" rather than the flashier, but messier, "Insomnia"; lthough "Insomnia" wins for "ridiculous but catchy and undeniably King line." What could beat "Don't you go visit that pin-sticker man"?

Anyway, what say you? Is one better than the other? Or am I crazy for asking?

[pathoftheturtle]

Well, you might have lumped them together just because they were published close to the same time. But Rose Madder is also a "tie-in-the-Tower" book, and furthermore happens to mention a tertiary character also mentioned in Insomnia. (Another character, secondary in Rose Madder is featured in Desperation.)

... "Rose" is part of the female-lead-gets-tossed-around-a-bit cycle (which appears to feature "Gerald's Game" and...uh, that one about the chick in the woods and baseball; I have read neither).

Have you read Dolores Claiborne? it's the best.

Anyway, what say you? Is one better than the other? Or am I crazy for asking?

Oh, Insomnia. Totally.

[Jean]

coupling them isn't really far-fetched, because both deal with feminist issues, and while Insomnia offers an attempt at balanced judgment, Rose Madder is as pronouncedly misandric as Full Dark, No Stars

[CyberGhostface]

J/w, why do you think those two are misandric? I would say the latter is misanthropic if anything.

Also, Faddah, I highly recommend you read 'Girl Who Loved Tom Gordon'. It's a very short read but worth your time.

[Jean]

well yes, this is right, come to think of it - misanthropic in the sense that they are both misandric and misogynic: in many King's novels a man vs. woman controversy reveals that the man is so bad there's no other solution than killing him, and/or the woman is unable to find any other way out.

And Faddah: I second the recommendation; The Girl Who Loved Tom Gordon is one of my absolute favorites.

[mae]

I like both very much. Insomnia blew my mind when I read it. Read Rose Madder right after and was not disappointed. And I also read both without any prior knowledge of The Dark Tower, too.

[Jean]

I love Insomnia; got to reread Rose Madder (among other reasons, to see what path dislikes so much about it)

[mtdman]

Never read Rose Madder but anything is better than Insomnia.

[Merlin1958]

Never read Rose Madder but anything is better than Insomnia.

From this statement I take it that you have not read every SK book out there? In that capacity, truly, what makes you think you are fit to comment? Isn't that a bit of "Hubris" on your part? IMHO you need to have read ALL the mytho's in order to comment like this. To not have read certain volumes, especially DT related ones, is extremely pompous, but that is just IMHO and who am I really?

Take some stock, do your homework then, and only then put forth your "informed" opinion. That would be my suggestion, lame as it may be.

[pathoftheturtle]

Never read Rose Madder but anything is better than Insomnia.

Not strictly true, but still truly witty.

[mikeC]

Never read Rose Madder but anything is better than Insomnia.

When I first read this book I disliked it very much but I listened to the audio book last summer and I really liked it. Not sure if I was just not expecting much or that I'm older now or if it was b/c the narration was very good but I had a completely different reaction.

As far as lumping the 2, maybe b/c they have slight DT references that came out around the same time?

I lump it in the category of books Steve writes about art or paintings coming alive, Road Virus, Duma Key, stationary bike.
This is one of the few SK books I don't think I will ever re-visit.

[pathoftheturtle]

Also, RM is one of the books that set up things for TDT that weren't used or mentioned again. (Unless you count the mention "Forget about Insomnia" as implying inclusion of "forget about those other ones, too.")

[mae]

Did anyone, like myself, read both without first reading or even knowing about The Dark Tower? Maybe that's why I enjoyed both these books so much, and most don't seem to have very fond things to say, especially about Rose Madder.

[Empath of the White]

Insomnia for me. King handled a pretty sticky issue without preaching for one side or the other. I liked some of the references in Rose Madder, but what did it set up for the Tower?

[mystima]

Rose Madder mentioned the city

Spoiler:

Lud

but for the life of me can't remember what the other references are at the moment...have to go and reread that one again...I did like Rose Madder over Insomnia though.

[mtdman]

Never read Rose Madder but anything is better than Insomnia.

From this statement I take it that you have not read every SK book out there? In that capacity, truly, what makes you think you are fit to comment? Isn't that a bit of "Hubris" on your part? IMHO you need to have read ALL the mytho's in order to comment like this. To not have read certain volumes, especially DT related ones, is extremely pompous, but that is just IMHO and who am I really?

Take some stock, do your homework then, and only then put forth your "informed" opinion. That would be my suggestion, lame as it may be.

It doesn't take an expert on all of King's works to recognize Insomnia as a bad book. That's not hubris, just my (apparently uninformed) opinion.

[Brice]

How is it a bad book. I mean I can understand if you didn't like it at least on an intellectual level. Different books appeal to different people. I thought Insomnia was a wonderful book aesthetically, but realize it probably would not qualify as one of the greats in literature, but what makes you define it as a bad book? Or did you just mean you didn't like it. Sorry, it's just even if I read a book and don't enjoy it that's not enough to make me consider it a bad book.


Just for Jean:

Spoiler:

Jane Austen books....now THOSE are bad books.

[Jean]

thank you Brice. I will remember.

[Brice]

[mae]

Uh-oh, sounds like a bear-threat.

[mtdman]

How is it a bad book. I mean I can understand if you didn't like it at least on an intellectual level. Different books appeal to different people. I thought Insomnia was a wonderful book aesthetically, but realize it probably would not qualify as one of the greats in literature, but what makes you define it as a bad book? Or did you just mean you didn't like it. Sorry, it's just even if I read a book and don't enjoy it that's not enough to make me consider it a bad book.

No personal offense here, but that's a pretty dumb statement. Why would you not think it was bad if you didn't enjoy it? Do you take that consideration on anything you don't enjoy? If you don't enjoy it, how can you think it's not bad? Isn't that a criteria for a thing being bad? SMH

Insomnia was boring. Half the book nothing happens. The other half of the book is King trying to convince us abortion isn't a bad thing and that the only pro-life character in the book is a crazy extremist wife beater. When his politics enter into his writing, it makes the writing bad. Just like in Under the Dome. I don't care about his political views, and I don't want to be fed them subliminally through his writing. Additionally, the events in the story are just weird, meandering, inconsequential nonsense. Even Roland thinks so, at least he refused to read the book.

Eli Wallach read the narration for the audio book, and it was fantastic narration. That's the only reason why I bothered to finish the thing.

[mae]

Insomnia was boring. Half the book nothing happens.

Everyone's entitled to their own opinion, of course, but I loved the first half of Insomnia. "Nothing happens" is way off the mark. I was riveted. The second half was great too, but the first was amazing.

[Merlin1958]

How is it a bad book. I mean I can understand if you didn't like it at least on an intellectual level. Different books appeal to different people. I thought Insomnia was a wonderful book aesthetically, but realize it probably would not qualify as one of the greats in literature, but what makes you define it as a bad book? Or did you just mean you didn't like it. Sorry, it's just even if I read a book and don't enjoy it that's not enough to make me consider it a bad book.

No personal offense here, but that's a pretty dumb statement. Why would you not think it was bad if you didn't enjoy it? Do you take that consideration on anything you don't enjoy? If you don't enjoy it, how can you think it's not bad? Isn't that a criteria for a thing being bad? SMH

Insomnia was boring. Half the book nothing happens. The other half of the book is King trying to convince us abortion isn't a bad thing and that the only pro-life character in the book is a crazy extremist wife beater. When his politics enter into his writing, it makes the writing bad. Just like in Under the Dome. I don't care about his political views, and I don't want to be fed them subliminally through his writing. Additionally, the events in the story are just weird, meandering, inconsequential nonsense. Even Roland thinks so, at least he refused to read the book.

Eli Wallach read the narration for the audio book, and it was fantastic narration. That's the only reason why I bothered to finish the thing.

Well now, that IS a dumb statement, no offense intended. Just because the subject matter does not appeal to an individual's taste's does not automatically make it BAD. Your Roses may be another man's weeds!!!

[Jean]

Insomnia was boring. Half the book nothing happens.

Everyone's entitled to their own opinion, of course, but I loved the first half of Insomnia. "Nothing happens" is way off the mark. I was riveted. The second half was great too, but the first was amazing.

Yes. I didn't really care for the last quarter, with all the fuss, but I adored the first half.

[Brice]

How is it a bad book. I mean I can understand if you didn't like it at least on an intellectual level. Different books appeal to different people. I thought Insomnia was a wonderful book aesthetically, but realize it probably would not qualify as one of the greats in literature, but what makes you define it as a bad book? Or did you just mean you didn't like it. Sorry, it's just even if I read a book and don't enjoy it that's not enough to make me consider it a bad book.

No personal offense here, but that's a pretty dumb statement. Why would you not think it was bad if you didn't enjoy it? Do you take that consideration on anything you don't enjoy? If you don't enjoy it, how can you think it's not bad? Isn't that a criteria for a thing being bad? SMH

Insomnia was boring. Half the book nothing happens. The other half of the book is King trying to convince us abortion isn't a bad thing and that the only pro-life character in the book is a crazy extremist wife beater. When his politics enter into his writing, it makes the writing bad. Just like in Under the Dome. I don't care about his political views, and I don't want to be fed them subliminally through his writing. Additionally, the events in the story are just weird, meandering, inconsequential nonsense. Even Roland thinks so, at least he refused to read the book.

Eli Wallach read the narration for the audio book, and it was fantastic narration. That's the only reason why I bothered to finish the thing.

Well now, that IS a dumb statement, no offense intended. Just because the subject matter does not appeal to an individual's taste's does not automatically make it BAD. Your Roses may be another man's weeds!!!

This is pretty close to my thinking actually. When I think of writing as bad I strictly think in terms of badly written. A great story can be badly written. An example imo, is take Danielle Steele (please), now in fairness to her she does tell a good story for the type of story it is...and usually it is rather formulaic, but it's a formula that works for her. She does tell a good story though. Her writing...the structure of her stories leave much to be desired though. She is a good storyteller, but at least from what I've read a bad writer. Or going in another direction you can see a painting that may be hideous to your tastes, that in no way refects on the artists skill in rendering it. Basically what I'm getting at is that a story can be bad and the writing can be bad and it can just not be suited to your tastes and none of these are the same thing.

...and I took no offense.