Under the Dome by Stephen King

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by Dragoro

So cause he has influence hes not allowed to voice his opinion? I dont think so. He has every right. Critics and other authors sure didnt/still dont have a prob taking shots at King

No, I didn't say he didn't have the right, he has every right to voice his opinions. I accused him of being petty by voicing that opinion, knowing how much influence he has on audiences and knowing full well that he would stir a controversy. If he doesn't like her writing that's fine, I don't like it either, but is there any point in his, let's admit it, weak criticism?

Here's the quote for those who missed it:

"[J.K.] Rowling is a terrific writer and Stephenie Meyer can’t write worth a darn. She’s not very good. [King says] Meyer's secret is "writing to a whole generation of girls and opening up kind of a safe joining of love and sex in those books. It’s exciting and it’s thrilling and it's not particularly threatening because they’re not overtly sexual."

See? It's weak sauce

[Dragoro]

I dont think it was weak criticism. In my opinion, it was dead on.

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by Dragoro

I dont think it was weak criticism. In my opinion, it was dead on.

But you could equally say that about most romantic-fantasy in the YA category. They are YA novels after all. I mean, what does he expect? Full on Vamp threesomes in a vat of blood? If he'd had any balls at all he'd have actually delved into her religious motivation and how that was the real route of the 'sexless' vampires in the book.

[Dragoro]

So Stroker, pretty much the master of vampires, was wrong in not using sex in his novel Dracula? Give me a break. Vampires have never been about sex till the trash thats come out since the 80s. As for him determining whats worth criticizing. Whos got more credibility, King with over 40 best sellers, or you with what?

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by Dragoro

So Stroker, pretty much the master of vampires, was wrong in not using sex in his novel Dracula? Give me a break. Vampires have never been about sex till the trash thats come out since the 80s. As for him determining whats worth criticizing. Whos got more credibility, King with over 40 best sellers, or you with what?

Stoker didn't have 'sexy' vampires because he wrote his novels in a time of high moral censorship (although a time of very base and carnal activity behind closed doors). It would not have been published if he'd had any kind of overt sexuality portrayed. Of course there's plenty of sexuality in Stoker, most of it is hinted at rather than shown, and all of it stemming from his own lustful proclivities and perhaps madness brought on by his rumoured syphilis infection. I would no more expect sex scenes in a novel of the time than I would to see an absence of them in modern true horror.

Onto the subject of Meyers, a writer who I think is truly awful myself, her novels mirror a strange American obsession with virginity and purity, as evidenced by that woefully ignorant and dangerous trend of 'pledging' to abstain from sex before marriage. Her vampires are non-threatening, non-sexual, but still the object of desire. It's the bad-boy fantasy but without the 'bad'. The relationship without the sex. King said it himself, but he didn't dare to actually reveal the source of this sexless mangling of vampire fiction. His argument was weak because he didn't go far enough to the root and give explanations. Therefore his argument was pointless.

Saying all that, I still think he should have held back on the criticism, as it served absolutely no purpose. So, swathes of teenage girls love the books of a crazy religious noodle who's single-handedly de-fanged the vampire in modern culture, so what? So a whole generation of girls are growing up with a ridiculous idea of what to expect from boys, so what?

it's not like anybody's reading them, right?

[Dragoro]

So you know Stroker and what was in his mind when he wrote it? I dont think so. I doubt he would of wrote it any different regardless of what time he was living in.

Oh and because Meyer is religeous, shes crazy? You just lost any credibility you had with me, nice talkin to ya.

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by Dragoro

So you know Stroker and what was in his mind when he wrote it? I dont think so. I doubt he would of wrote it any different regardless of what time he was living in.

I have no idea who Stroker is, but I did teach a class on Vampire fiction and lore when I was a creative writing teacher, I've also read several biographies of Bram Stoker and wrote a dissertation on his work. So, yes, I think I have a good idea of why Bram Stoker wrote what he did and why he wrote it that way and at that particular time.

Vampires are inherently sexual creations, and have been portrayed as such for a long, long time. Going back to the time of Lilith, the Vampire is essentially a sexual being. A lot of vampire lore, and the fear it produced, stems from the transmission of blood diseases such as syphilis (of which Stoker supposedly suffered and died from). Diseases that were spread through sexual contact. Blood, penetration by fangs (phallic symbols some would say), the pleasurable agony of the 'bite', the mysterious stranger who comes to 'visit' the usually female victim and then disappears again, is all very sexual.

I could go on and on about this for a long time, as it interests me very much. But I won't, and my original statement still stands. King has a lot of weight in the industry, his criticism was weak and did not address the truly disturbing motivations and horrible influence the books of Meyers might have on teenage girls, which he could have. He instead made a weak jab about her writing and then stated the obvious.

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by Dragoro

So you know Stroker and what was in his mind when he wrote it? I dont think so. I doubt he would of wrote it any different regardless of what time he was living in.

Oh and because Meyer is religeous, shes crazy? You just lost any credibility you had with me, nice talkin to ya.

Again you're making false assumptions, and adding portions of text after I've replied. I never made the statement that religious people are crazy, I did in fact say 'crazy religious noodle'. I have a lot of respect for religions, and religious people, some of my closest friends actually believe in God (strange I know) but I have no respect for crazy religious people, and neither should you.

[BenG]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

I have no respect for crazy religious people

Crazy religious people are one of King's favorite character types.

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by BenG

Crazy religious people are one of King's favorite character types.

Aint that the truth!

[dragonbone]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

but I have no respect for crazy religious people, and neither should you.

Well said! 90% of the wars and suffering in the world are because of crazy religious zealots!

[ohbalto]

Wow, this thread has changed topics a nice bunch of times, hasn't it?

Well, for what it's worth (I'm late getting here):

(1) I gave Twilight an honest chance but couldn't get through it.

(2) I hated the ending to The Dark Tower AT FIRST. As I thought about it (and read the series again), I realized it was the only reasonable ending to the story. Do we have spoiler tags here?

Spoiler:

Oh, excellent.

Okay, the way I look at the ending to The Dark Tower, which is to say, Roland climbing the Tower and coming to the final room and, upon entering the room, finding himself back at the "beginning" of the story, is that it's a recognition that Roland's world is a story world. His story never ends, as it's always there for you to read again.

However, King is nice enough to give the reader -- and Roland -- a shred of hope. While the story may be going back to the beginning, in this telling Roland recovers Cuthbert's horn. That small difference, we are allowed to think, may give Roland the "happy" ending we crave for him.

Like I said, it pissed me off royally at first. But given the recognition of Roland's world as something out of a story (and, if you've read Heinlein's "The Number of the Beast", that does sort of inform the ending), how else could it end?

Roland is always there, waiting for us to take up the adventure with him again. And after giving it some thought, I decided that while the ending may not make me happy, it felt absolutely appropriate (and really, what were the chances Roland would get a happy ending, when you get right down to it).

Also, Susannah gets to go to a New York with Eddie, Jake and Oy, and there's your happy ending right there.

Also, yeah, I thought Cell was kind of lame, but Duma Key was pretty awesome. I keep meaning to try Twilight again, if for no other reason than, once I've read it, I'll feel alright expressing an opinion on it.

[amgoforth]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

Stoker didn't have 'sexy' vampires because he wrote his novels in a time of high moral censorship (although a time of very base and carnal activity behind closed doors). It would not have been published if he'd had any kind of overt sexuality portrayed. Of course there's plenty of sexuality in Stoker, most of it is hinted at rather than shown, and all of it stemming from his own lustful proclivities and perhaps madness brought on by his rumoured syphilis infection. I would no more expect sex scenes in a novel of the time than I would to see an absence of them in modern true horror.

Onto the subject of Meyers, a writer who I think is truly awful myself, her novels mirror a strange American obsession with virginity and purity, as evidenced by that woefully ignorant and dangerous trend of 'pledging' to abstain from sex before marriage. Her vampires are non-threatening, non-sexual, but still the object of desire. It's the bad-boy fantasy but without the 'bad'. The relationship without the sex. King said it himself, but he didn't dare to actually reveal the source of this sexless mangling of vampire fiction. His argument was weak because he didn't go far enough to the root and give explanations. Therefore his argument was pointless.

Saying all that, I still think he should have held back on the criticism, as it served absolutely no purpose. So, swathes of teenage girls love the books of a crazy religious noodle who's single-handedly de-fanged the vampire in modern culture, so what? So a whole generation of girls are growing up with a ridiculous idea of what to expect from boys, so what?

it's not like anybody's reading them, right?

Good grief! You have made me decide to try to read her because of her morals.

[Dragoro]

Originally Posted by amgoforth

Good grief! You have made me decide to try to read her because of her morals.

Hehe yeah, people these days act like having morals is somehow a bad thing.

[dreams]

(coming in late to the "party")

I teach middle school / high school students.

Some take the "pledge to be pure", some are "just normal" kids, and some already have kids of their own. (the pledge just may keep a few in school a bit longer)

Most of my students don't read outside of the classroom. They all are able to discuss current TV programs, movies, actors/actresses, music, and may also be "gamers".

When S. Meyers' book came out it was an instant success among the young girls and a lot of the mothers. (Surprise! A few boys also!)They were suddenly "reading" books AND discussing them. They were forming book discussion groups, texting questions and answers among themselves (and losing the phone when caught in class), and rereading the books.

I really tried to read her books just to see what it was all about but, I just couldn't finish more than the first one. Yes, it was a bit lame but it was not written for my age group. I saw it as written just for the audience that WAS reading them and figured that Meyers hit it just right.

When the movie came out, my students discussed (endlessly) how the movie and book didn't match. (Finally! A point I could bring up about other literary works and the movies made from them that didn't hold true either.) OK, this lasted about the length of their attention spans and they were off about how sexy-looking "Edward" was in the movie, etc.

The point being.... I didn't like the writing but they did and it was something that they WOULD read and discuss. (There has to be a plus in there somewhere, right?)

Following all the 'hoopla', quite a few students continued to read and branched out into other genres. So, I guess something good came out of it---- not that it stopped three of them becoming pregnant and being transferred to continuation school.