Ok, so I just read (skimmed, really), Stephen King's "IT".

Let me get this straight...neurotic little kids with 
abuse/bullying/guilt issues (and the people who are the causes of those 
issues) lark about in Generic Americana (as seen through the rose-tinted 
glasses of imagination-warped perception), get lost in the sewers during 
a bad storm, fulfill their burgeoning sexual impulses via little girl's 
own unconscious way of dealing with her issues/exerting an apparent 
'control' over her situation, experience a bit of selective amnesia, 
then come back a few decades later to do the whole thing over again as 
adults whereby they can properly come to terms with things.  Seems 
straightforward enough.

But wait!  It's by Stephen King, so it has to have a supernatural 
bogeyman -- that happens to be an embodiment of the cause of the kids' 
issues, thereby giving them something that they can fight against (since 
there isn't any way to gain closure when faced with the *real* causes, 
as those are all either dead or have too much thrall over them).  That's 
right, blame the town itself, not the individual inhabitants who've 
ruined your life.  A little bit of imagination and everybody gets to 
look the other way, with a convenient scapegoat to destroy.

If you really want to drive home the point that that's all the closure 
some people ever get, you could just have them NOT WIN, thereby 
illustrating that there are still the bogeymen out there even when you 
think confronted your own monsters.

-- 
Tim Cook
http://home.bellsouth.net/p/PWP-empyrean

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GFA dpu- s: a?-- C++(++++) U P? L E--- W++(+++)>$
N++ o? K- w(+) O? M-(--) V? PS+(+++) PE(--) Y(--)
PGP-(--) t* 5++>+++++ X+ R* tv+ b++(+++) DI
D++(---) G(++) e*>++ h+ !r--- !y--
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

Post a reply to this message

Tim Cook <z99### [at] bellsouthnet> wrote:
> It's by Stephen King, so it has to have a supernatural bogeyman

  Not all of King's stories have supernatural elements in them,
but I agree that in some which do, it feels completely unnecessary
and actually bothering, and that the story would have been better
and deeper without the supernatural element. (The Shining is another
good example.)

  One could argue that the supernatural element isn't actually real
but only a metaphorical way of expressing something real. However,
King usually writes the story in such a way that it cannot at all easily
be interpreted in any other way than the supernatural element being a
real part of the story and not just some kind of complex metaphor.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Tim Cook wrote:
> Ok, so I just read (skimmed, really), Stephen King's "IT".

Why is it that I was expecting some rant having to do with repairing 
some user's computer because they dragged the Windows folder to the 
recycle bin?

:D

Post a reply to this message

Tim Cook <z99### [at] bellsouthnet> wrote:
> Ok, so I just read (skimmed, really), Stephen King's "IT".

....

Ironically enough, I was also about to rant about Stephen King.  In my case
though, we just watched "1408".

So a man who lost his faith in God after his daughter died became a professional
Ghost hunter and writer (wait - isn't this also the premise for Casper? :)  I'm
actually OK with that, however, since it's not the basic idea that's important,
but what you do with it).

Most of the movie focuses on his spending 1 hour in a particular room (guess
which number), where he undergoes almost completely random crap.

The main problem with it, is that most of the things that happen are completely
*random*.  There seems to be a requirement that the room can't kill you
directly, that it must make you commit suicide; and some of the experiences the
main character goes through are personalized for him, but most of it seems to be
thrown in just to surprise you.

Maybe I've been spoiled by Stephen R. Donaldson, but the whole idea of putting a
character through hell in order to convince them to commit suicide... it just
seems like such a fertile idea for character development to be wasted by random
spooks.  The thrills and chills should be tailored to the victim, not just
pulled out of a hat.  (That would also offer the character a greater victory,
but that depends on whether or not he succumbs in the end.  Given that it's
supposed to be a "horror" movie, he could die in the end).

As it is, the seeming randomness of it made it completely pointless.  And all of
this is aside from the fact that it wasn't even scary :)

Post a reply to this message

Chambers <bdc### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
> Ironically enough, I was also about to rant about Stephen King.  In my case
> though, we just watched "1408".

  You can't rant about King because of a movie. King's books and movies
made of them may have no relation whatsoever with regard to quality.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Wed, 31 Oct 2007 14:27:45 -0000, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> did  
spake, saying:

> Tim Cook <z99### [at] bellsouthnet> wrote:
>> It's by Stephen King, so it has to have a supernatural bogeyman
>
>   Not all of King's stories have supernatural elements in them,

Try the Bachman Books if you can find them.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Wed, 31 Oct 2007 12:18:11 -0000, Tim Cook  
<z99### [at] bellsouthnet> did spake, saying:

> Ok, so I just read (skimmed, really), Stephen King's "IT".
>
> But wait!  It's by Stephen King, so it has to have a supernatural  
> bogeyman -- that happens to be an embodiment of the cause of the kids'  
> issues, thereby giving them something that they can fight against (since  
> there isn't any way to gain closure when faced with the *real* causes,  
> as those are all either dead or have too much thrall over them).  That's  
> right, blame the town itself, not the individual inhabitants who've  
> ruined your life.  A little bit of imagination and everybody gets to  
> look the other way, with a convenient scapegoat to destroy.

Although you can go deeper and ask if the inhabitants were evil because of  
IT or stayed in IT's town because they were naturally evil (or were  
inclined towards it). If they didn't like what they saw around them they  
always had the option of leaving; which the majority of the protagonists  
did.

I must admit I gave up of Stephen King some time ago, although I finished  
the Childe Roland set (and what a whimper that ended on) the last real one  
I read was Insomnia. I had already started getting restless around Needful  
Things it became Stephen King emulating Stephen King, then in Insomnia I  
would swear that entire passages and dialogue had been lifted straight out  
of his previous works so I gave up on him.

His short stories are better, they tend to curb his inclination to drone  
on.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 07:54:48 -0500, Mike Raiford wrote:

> Tim Cook wrote:
>> Ok, so I just read (skimmed, really), Stephen King's "IT".
> 
> Why is it that I was expecting some rant having to do with repairing
> some user's computer because they dragged the Windows folder to the
> recycle bin?
> 
> :D

Oh, good, it wasn't just me. ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Mike Raiford <mra### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> Why is it that I was expecting some rant having to do with repairing 
> some user's computer because they dragged the Windows folder to the 
> recycle bin?

  For some reason I'm never sure if it's supposed to be "Internet
Technology" or "Information Technology".

  I know it's officially the latter, but in most cases it's always
related to the internet, so...

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 03 Nov 2007 16:57:57 -0500, Warp wrote:


>   For some reason I'm never sure if it's supposed to be "Internet
> Technology" or "Information Technology".
> 
>   I know it's officially the latter, but in most cases it's always
> related to the internet, so...

Well, "Internet Technology" is a subset of "Information Technology" - 
that said, I think your usage here is the first time I've ever heard 
"Internet Technology"....

Jim

Post a reply to this message