Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'IT' started by Taoskier, Dec 22, 2013.
Is it possible to review older novel like IT? I tried but failed.
I'm not quite sure what you mean, sorry. Did you mean you're trying to view other threads based on the stories? (Like IT for example.)
If so, the written Works forum is here. (We have fairly recently moved to a new MB, so some of the threads are looking a little empty)
Sorry if I have misunderstood.
Welcome to the SKMB!
First, I'm new here an don't know what I'm doing. I logged in, searched for IT (and man there was foul stench down there). Anyway, there was a blurb about the book, some reviews from '11 to '12. But no place for additional commnts. One thing I wanted to point out is the irony that H. Boom calls King's work penny dreadfulls, yet He calls himself a Gnostic Jew. The ending of IT clearly reflects a Gnostic worldview. I'm a former professor who agrees with Bloom that some what King wrote was junk, but other parts, like IT and The Stand, are brilliant. And the analogues are obvious: aesthmatc scout Ritchie and any of McMurtry's scouts. But I've tarried to long as it is. Just tell me where to hitch my horse, hike a hotel with a lot ladies, and I will make profound utterances--'til the stars fall to the sea, for you and me! Heigh-ho Silver! Away!
I meant to refer to Dr Harold Bloom of Yale, not Dr. Boom, of Los Alamos
I see, I'll Just move this thread into the "IT" forum.
Welcome aboard. I want you to know we often have a spirited debate here and not assume that what I'm about to ask and say are personal. I just don't beat around the bush. That being said:
1. Why should we care about what H. Bloom says?
2. Why would his being a Gnostic Jew really bear on anything?
3. Please support you assertion about the ending of It because I think that is substantial claim without any context.
4. I'm glad we agree that It and The Stand are brilliant, but can you tell us which things you think are junk?
The reason I ask is because I have found some readers are biased for a book if they perceive (like reading tea leaves or tarot cards) meaning and symbols that they themselves have applied to the text. This is often tantamount to seeing shapes in clouds or ink blots. Do you follow? Many of this crowd will define any work that seems devoid of social purpose or meaning and "penny dreadfuls" or other equally condescending terms. I don't know if you fall under this grouping. That is why i have asked for clarification. Context is key. I'm not saying your opinion is invalid. I'm saying I want to know what you are basing it on so I can decide where to lump you. Critics must be ready to bear the same slings and arrows as those they critique.