Book recommendations

[Giuseppe Zangara 0]

And clearly I meant half-century in regards to Stephen King. Otherwise my argument holds little to no value.

This is all you had to say. Though, you should've dropped "clearly," because it really wasn't very clear.

[vivalaultra 0]

But I so love to rant, especially when it's uncalled for. Therefore, I stand behind my somewhat uncalled for rant.

[PUT THAT DICK IN MY MOUTH! 0]

People who say Pynchon is all head and no heart really aren't that good at reading Pynchon. Gravity's Rainbow has some of the most moving scenes I've ever encountered in literature.

[snuffbox 0]

Steve King is better than Ken Kesey, Tom Robbins, Jack Kerouac, Joan Didion, Bill Burroughs, Hunter Thompson, Tim Sandlin, Chris Moore (not to mention old Pynchon)? Really?

 

And by writes 'from the heart' you meant 'by the numbers' right?

[PUT THAT DICK IN MY MOUTH! 0]

Books about giant, shape-shifting spiders really tug at my heartstrings. That shit's fuckin real, man.

[vivalaultra 0]

Gee, those aren't the same arguements made by thousands of intellectuals that haven't read any Stephen King books themselves. Oh well, my opinions are my opinions. Can't change them. And it is my opinion that Stephen King is better than Hunter Thompson, old or new Thomas Pynchon, Joan Didion, and Tim Robbins. Apparently you don't think so, but that's fine. I'm not looking to change minds. It's...whatever, man. The Gestapo around here has their opinions and I have mine, and nary the twain shall meet. I'll read my Stephen King and be happy and you read your Pynchon and be happy. Everybody wins. The intellectual snobbery around here just...reminds me of everything I dislike about everything. Have fun, guys.

[Guest Felonies!]

vivalaultra, don't condemn people for elitist snobbery and then say "if you don't like TV on the Radio, you don't like music, as far as I'm concerned."

[vivalaultra 0]

Oh, that was a joke. If you don't like TV on the Radio, that's fine. I like TV on the Radio, and I think they're a wonderful band, but if you don't like TV on the Radio, then oh well. Any time I make an elitist snob remark, it's purely in jest, I assure everyone. I guess when I make jokes I should use emoticons to indicate my jocular context.

[snuffbox 0]

I'll grant you that King is a better writer than Tim Robbins (by default), but Tom? Not even close to his level.

 

Clancy, Koontz, King, etc, paint-by-the-numbers writing is far from art.

[snuffbox 0]

See, I dont fault anyone for reading/enjoying the mainstream authors...to each their own/etc. But when you start saying any of them are the best of any time period, then it is getting ridiculous.

 

Nickelback sells alot of records & a bunch of people dig them. One of the best rock bands of the last couple decades? Nope.

[vivalaultra 0]

Ah, but you're missing the operative phrasing that I used. When I said what I said, I included the phrase "I think". That makes it an opinion personal to me. If I said "I think mint chocolate chip ice cream is the greatest ice cream in the universe.", you could disagree with me, but you couldn't tell me that I was wrong to claim that. It's an opinion, nothing more, nothing less. And I certainly don't think that Stephen King is paint-by-numbers writing. What Stephen King books have you read that led you to that conclusion? I haven't read anything by Dean Koontz and I've only seen movies and played video games based on Tom Clancy books so I'm not qualified to judge them. As far as paint-by-numbers writing, I'd give that title to Dan Brown, certainly, but I just don't see that in Stephen King. King has the ability to include literariness in books which will appeal to the masses. Sure, he's done his share of books just to make money, but, a great many of his novels, especially ones written in the last 10-15 years are alot more than 'paint-by-numbers', I think.

[Guest Felonies!]

You act really cornered sometimes.

[vivalaultra 0]

Well, if large groups of people wouldn't come together to try to force me into a corner, I wouldn't act cornered.

[EricMM 0]

There is no point in arguing opinion if you won't change it, and, indeed, very little point in forwarding an opinion as fact that you aren't even willing to attempt to argue, you know.

 

I mean, I like Stephen King an awful lot, and I even agree with some of your comments. But your arguing leave a lot to be desired. Note that I haven't read many of those other authors you listed so I am certainly in no position to nominate King as a "best" writer..

[vivalaultra 0]

No, see, that's the point of the whole thing. I wasn't trying to argue anything. The thread is called 'Book recommendations' so I recommended a book. The thread isn't called 'Try to defend your authors/principles'. It's neither my duty nor my interest to try to validate Stephen King or to make Stephen King look legitimate. Of course my argument's going to look shitty at best when:

 

A.) I'm not trying to argue in the first place.

B.) I'm presented nothing in the way of counter-argument besides a couple guys trying to make witty comments.

 

In the first thread I posted on this affair, I said "I think Stephen King is the best American fiction writer of the last half-century (granted, I did originally mistype as half-decade)." I thought there would people who would disagree, but as far as a large group of faux-intellectual snobs trying to back me into a corner like a wounded rat, I didn't picture that. I apologize for not anticipating that occurence and preparing more salient points with which to argue. This whole thing is dumb.

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

Maybe you shouldn't go to English grad school after all. They'll filet you for caring about Stephen King.

[snuffbox 0]

Investing in coloring books would be my suggestion.

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

I liked The Stand the last time I read it almost fifteen years ago.

[vivalaultra 0]

Investing in coloring books would be my suggestion.

 

Truly you are the cleverest person I have ever met. Geez, most of you people are nearly impossible. It's just not worth trying most of the time.

 

And a bunch of intellectuals trying to filet me doesn't bother me. I am not a fish. The fact that I can enjoy a wide range of literature shouldn't be reason to criticize or mock me. The fact that I have a favorite author that's not 'in the club' of English major darlings also shouldn't be reason to mock or criticize me, but, alas, it is so I'm mocked and criticized. The circle of life and man's duplicity and all that. Oh well, I'm going to read my Stephen King books and enjoy them and I hope you all have a nice afternoon doing whatever it is that you people do.

[Guest Felonies!]

Did I miss something? Weren't you a literature snob as recently as Thursday? Suddenly you're this man of the people condemning these "faux-intellectual elitist snobs," which I take to mean Inc, Edwin, Byron, Snuffy, and others, but it seems like aside from this whole Stephen King scuffle, you've been pretty much in line with everyone you're so pissed at in terms of having enviable taste in books.

[vivalaultra 0]

I wasn't a literature snob on Thursday. When was I a literature snob on Thursday? The only books I've recommended in this thread whatsoever were books by Garcia Marquez, Tim O'Brien, and Stephen King, and I mentioned in the thread in NHB that was titled after you that those three are my favorite authors and I don't really care for 'post-modern' fiction or Pynchon and the ilk. I don't have a problem by any stretch of the imagination with Thomas Pynchon, Barth, Joan Didion, Tim Robbins, Inc, Snuffy, uh....the Bulb, you, or anybody else. I only mentioned that I really enjoy Stephen King and think he's top-notch as far as American writers over the past half-century and then the whole 'jumping my case' thing started. Anything I said after the initial post was merely on a reactionary basis. Certainly, it's kind of sad that there's a vast majority of Literati that see Stephen King as nothing more than a genre author and, thus, think that nothing of any literary merit can come from his works. Just because King writes 'horror stories' (which is a terrible generalization since there's much more to his body of works than big spiders and rabid dogs and vampires and such) doesn't mean he's a hack. I don't get this distinction that people make between high-brow books and low-brow books. I prefer to judge books on a basis of well-written and poorly-written or good and bad, and I find Stephen King books to be in the former category, well-written and good. Some people don't judge him in that same light, either because they've decided already that because he's 'popular' or 'genre' that he's not something that like to read, or they've read his books and they just don't like his style or what he has to say. I don't care if anybody dislikes Stephen King or Stephen King's books, but, I do have a problem when I catch shit for referring to him as the best American author of the last half-century. And it wasn't even good shit. It wasn't even clever shit. It was trite, boring, cliched shit. And then I get told that I don't have good arguments. And the last point I'd like to make on this matter/subject, the 'horror story/psychological horror' genre that Stephen King is unquestionably the master of is a genre of literature that's been seen as a fringe genre for a very long time. However, look at authors like Edgar Allan Poe, Henry James, Mary Shelley, Ann Radcliffe, Lord Byron (not the Bulb), Samuel Coleridge...all of those authors made their bread and butter on stories that involved ghosts or monsters or horror, but the thing that seperated them and Stephen King from hacks and 'paint-by-numbers' authors is that Stephen King's books aren't about monsters. They're more psychological novels about people. Certainly, they have monsters in them, although there's quite a few that have no monsters or horrific elements, but the vast majority of Stephen King's work aren't just monster stories or ghost stories. And I still love Stephen King. And I'm still not ga-ga over Thomas Pynchon. And I'm not a literature snob, although sometimes I pretend to be. And I'm a good dancer.

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

but, I do have a problem when I catch shit for referring to him as the best American author of the last half-century.

I enjoy some of his short stories and all, and The Stand was awesome in 6th grade, but that's a really hugely massive stretch in a 50-year-period that includes dozens of other incredible authors and works, several of whom have been noted in this thread. How could you not expect to catch a bunch of shit? King's commercial success is impressive and I do remember liking some of his short stories, but his bloated plotting and his obsession with incredibly cheesy horror elements will always hold him back. I can't read most of his stuff without getting that warm embarrassed feeling you get when you see something awkward and humiliating taking place.

[vivalaultra 0]

Well, ya know, I guess I should expect to catch shit, but I would've rathered that shit to be well-thought out and clever. Certainly, one of the knocks against Stephen King is his bloat, but I enjoy his bloat and his wonderful descriptive passages. That's the Romantic in me coming out, I guess. It's a good thing I had no cred to begin with or after this all of my cred would certainly be gone.

[snuffbox 0]

Tim Robbins is a movie actor, not a writer. Tom Robbins is a great American author from the Seattle area.

 

You know how snobbish/pretentious we get around here viva. You've clearly read what has been posted in this thread. How you can be so shocked/offended by the reaction to your comment about King being the best American writer of a half-century is really beyond me.

[vivalaultra 0]

Dammit. I can't recall the amount of times I've mistyped Tom/Tim Robbins. At least one time, I've referred to both as Tony Robbins, he of the large teeth and self-motivation. I guess I shouldn't have been surprised at the shit I caught. Still didn't change my mind, and I still would rather read something by Stephen King over aything by Thomas Pynchon any day, and I still stand by my statement that Stephen King is the finest American writer of the last half-century/decade. And I guess all involved will have to agree to disagree. Anyway, I've got to go begin my report on Ann Radcliffe's The Italian and it's place in Gothic Literature, so...it's been fun.

[snuffbox 0]

He's the best writer named Stephen King in American history. Probably.

[vivalaultra 0]

And you're the fifth best poster named Snuffbox that I've ever run across on the internet.

[Corey_Lazarus 0]

I'd say he's a better horror writer than Dean Koontz, but that's like saying Troma is a better film studio than Brain Damage: they're both bad, but at least one of them knows what makes their stuff work and exploit it in every which way. Still can't lay a finger on Lovecraft, but Lovecraft's an icon anyway.

 

I'm almost finished with World War Z: An Oral History of the Zombie War. It's better than the Zombie Survival Guide, as it takes the premise of the most promising part of the ZSA - the "zombie outbreaks throughout history" that takes up too little space towards the end - and expands on it by taking place a decade after the last shot was fired in the great zombie war (which Max Brooks has placed in the not-distant-at-all future). Some funny characters in here that are obviously meant to be public figures we all know (a few stabs at Kim Jong Il and Bush, and even Jon Stewart), and a lot of well thought-out ideas regarding the implausible situation of the dead rising to consume the living and nearly taking over the entire planet. There's a few dull parts - particularly the Japanese boy who spends the first half of his story talking about how much he loved the 'net - but there's enough overall substance to make it a nice read.

 

Plus, before it was even released, Brad Pitt's production company (I forget the name of it...Plan B, IIRC) bought the film writes, and it's currently slated for a 2008 release.

[snuffbox 0]

I just finished John Ehrlichman's memoirs of his Nixon years, Witness to Power, and enjoyed it.

 

Im proud that this thread has gone 10 pages.

[snuffbox 0]

A weird thing about politcal/history books. One of my favorite books ever (from all genres) is Robert Kennedy & His Times by Art Schlesinger...but many of his other books (Age of Jackson, 1000 Days, Imperial Presidency, etc), while being very informative, are very difficult to read. It's as if he often tries too hard to make sure every reader knows how intelligent he is and forgets to write history in the gripping fashion that it so lends itself to. In the Bobby K book he somehow managed to bring forth the emotion as well as the facts.