Rose Madder vs. Insomnia

[pathoftheturtle]

Interesting indeed from a philosophical standpoint -- I use more than one standard, myself, separating what I know to be my personal taste from my attempts at objectivity, but honestly it's probably not genuinely possible for one to judge objectively, so ultimately it might be more reasonable to define both sets of opinions AS opinions. Meaning that it would be redundant to say "That's only how I feel about it." since everybody should be able to take that much for granted no matter what. -- yet this subject of literary criticism fundamentals probably should be carried on within its own thread if we're really so interested.

[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.

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!!!

Sure it does. I don't believe in relativism.

[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!!!

Sure it does. I don't believe in relativism.

Interesting because if you don't believe in relativism at all then it kind of implies that you believe in absolutism...that there is one correct view which should (if that is the case) make for some extremely exciting and stimulating conversation for you since you either 1) must feel you have that one correct view or 2) that someone else does and you're just trying to track it down.

To my thinking absolutism is not just dumb, but absurd and on matters of opinion and aesthetic illogical.

[pathoftheturtle]

If SK's politics are bad then I must be plain evil.

[Brice]

Oh, you certainly are.

[pathoftheturtle]

If artists can't express their values, then who can? If you can't teach your beliefs about society with art, then what can you teach them with?

[Brice]

Beliefs are intended to be locked away in the darkest parts of your heart forever.

Spoiler:

Yes, the word intended was intentional.

[mtdman]

1) must feel you have that one correct view.

Why would I believe my view was incorrect?

If artists can't express their values, then who can? If you can't teach your beliefs about society with art, then what can you teach them with?

I don't buy fiction novels to be 'taught' about the author's beliefs. I buy them to be entertained. That is directly affected by the author's desire to 'teach me' about his values and beliefs. If he wants to 'teach' his values, he can do it in a book of philosophy, keep it out of the fiction.

If SK's politics are bad then I must be plain evil.

[Merlin1958]

1) must feel you have that one correct view.

Why would I believe my view was incorrect?

If artists can't express their values, then who can? If you can't teach your beliefs about society with art, then what can you teach them with?

I don't buy fiction novels to be 'taught' about the author's beliefs. I buy them to be entertained. That is directly affected by the author's desire to 'teach me' about his values and beliefs. If he wants to 'teach' his values, he can do it in a book of philosophy, keep it out of the fiction.

If SK's politics are bad then I must be plain evil.

I take it that you boycotted "Avatar"?

[Brice]

1) must feel you have that one correct view.

Why would I believe my view was incorrect?

Well, because if you do believe that you have the one correct view that is simply mathematically improbable. If you think other views are not correct why would you bother with reading or listening to them at all? ....as you are now.

[Jean]

on the other hand, if you think your own view is not correct, how did it become your view to begin with?

[pathoftheturtle]

Yeah: screw probability. I'm certainly not going to rule out any chance that someone's moral view is absolutely correct until I've heard more of his whole argument.
First we give him a fair trial, then we hang him.

But seriously I believe we ought to move this to another thread; if we really want to stick with King as prime example, then perhaps to Under the Dome discussion.

Unfortunately, getting this one back on topic might require me to re-read Insomnia and Rose Madder. Like I come here to get homework. sigh
How about just this:

... 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...

You're wrong. That's just a simplistic misinterpretation of the text.

P.S. -- Is this...

...

If SK's politics are bad then I must be plain evil.

... supposed to mean, "no comment"?

[Brice]

on the other hand, if you think your own view is not correct, how did it become your view to begin with?

I'll PM you to keep us from getting furthur off topic.

[Heather19]

Never read Rose Madder but anything is better than Insomnia.

I completely agree. And in my opinion I don't recall Rose Madder as being much better. Insomnia is bottom of the list for me and Rose is down near there too. One day I'll have to try to give them both another shot.

[Brice]

Today is one day, Heather.

[Jean]

what Brice said

[jhanic]

I have always believed Rose Madder would have been much better if King had ignored the fantasy portion of the story and given us strictly a suspense novel in which Norman looks for, then finds, Rose, and then goes from there. I found the fantasy portion of the story is what really kind of ruined it for me.

John

[mattgreenbean]

Haven't gotten to Rose yet, only because I've paced myself over the years, but I started with Insomnia and have enjoyed most King's stuff. That says something of the book, that it had to be good to get me hooked. We like his writing because it's easy to read, super detailed, good characters, and the right amount of supernatural. Just saying.

[Faddah Callahan]

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.

Ho snap! You're still around too, eh? Assuming there's but one CyberGhostFace...

I have been meaning to get through the misanthropic/misogynistic King books. I actually don't mind King when he writes about things that are grounded in a bit more real-worldy situations, and it seems that those books--since he's trying his damndest to write convincing female characters, as opposed to alcoholic writers--are my best bet.

[Faddah Callahan]

I have always believed Rose Madder would have been much better if King had ignored the fantasy portion of the story and given us strictly a suspense novel in which Norman looks for, then finds, Rose, and then goes from there. I found the fantasy portion of the story is what really kind of ruined it for me.

John

I wonder if one could read "Rose Madder" in a "Turn of the Screw" kinda way; that is, ignoring the supernatural elements as such, and instead, viewing them in a psychological light...or perhaps a metaphorical light would be more appropriate in this case...

[Jean]

I personally think this would subtract greatly from the books

[Faddah Callahan]

Well, I just meant Rose Madder, I didn't mean ALL King's books. In quite a few of them, the supernatural IS the point (heh. Without that, one could read "The Gunslinger"--the first one at least--as Jake's dying dream, and assume the entire thing was a story about a boy being hit by a car. Hmm. I wonder if anyone's said that before?). I just meant that it might be interesting to look at "Rose Madder" that way, since, as I recall, the supernatural elements are so mythological and metaphorical...

[Jean]

it's just that I thoroughly hate it when literature goes metaphorical, especially if the metaphores are of this "none of this really happened" origin. I remember posting somewhere (at .net, I think) that the worst ending I could think of was Roland proving to be a cop who had gone mad and shot a dozen people on the streets of LA, and now is sitting in a straightjacket, delirious. (so yes, anyone has said that before, at least something like that)

[Faddah Callahan]

When it's done right, it can be quite good...when it's done wrong, it can oh-so-wrong...

[Jean]

hear, hear! though, of course, "when it's done right, it can be quite good" is an absolute truth, universally applicable!