Neesy
#1 fan (Annie Wilkes cousin) 1st cousin Mom's side
Jake praised Obama in 1963? I better read 11/22/63 again - I am a bit confused now.
Themes and Politics
- Thread starter Justin Rocket
- Start date
-
This message board permanently closed on June 30th, 2020 at 4PM EDT and is no longer accepting new members.
...well done Patrick....and much better than the post I attempted in your defense...mine was rightfully deleted because I was less than pleased by the rudeness behind the question...
I don't really see that in King's work. It appears to me that, in his work, being a part of the institution makes someone institutionalized. It is a heroic thing to reclaim one's independence, but a character has to pull away from the institution to do that (and no examples come to mind where it doesn't signal an impending death for the character).
What a lot of over anaalysing. Sometimes his bad guys are part of of an institution true but he also has bad boys that are supernatural and bad buys that are humans. Take under the dome for example. And Carrie. There the mother or the force behind the horrible prom are not driven by institutions. She can't be seen as a matter of religion. Possibly what an extreme case of fundamentalistic mania could lead to. I don't see capitalism printed in the head of the bad guy of Needful things. I do not think he can be seen as an example of that. That is so much oversimplyfying things that it is ridicoluos. But sure, to be able to think for yourself he appreciates. In some cases that involves doubting governments or corporations. Sure, his domocratic views spills through here and there but how that could be a problem when he is writing about heroes able to think for themselfes are a mystery to me.
or
He doesn't like powerhungry men or women or greed or the will to dominate everybody else. I don't think that can be ecaulized with not liking institutions per se. He would be a poor, and boring writer, if he only wrote about situations without conflicts. Sometimes, but far from always, these men that are bad are part of an institution but far from always. Take his last books, Mr. Mercedes where the bad guy is a loner that are hunted by an expoliceman (is he a part of an institution) or Revival where the bad guy is a preacher that lost his faith and are doing things no church would like. He can't be seen as a representative for religion. Analysing King might be fun but here i think you have cut so many corners that the analyse is invalid. He has written so many different kind of books so a simple generalisation does not work.
or
He doesn't like powerhungry men or women or greed or the will to dominate everybody else. I don't think that can be ecaulized with not liking institutions per se. He would be a poor, and boring writer, if he only wrote about situations without conflicts. Sometimes, but far from always, these men that are bad are part of an institution but far from always. Take his last books, Mr. Mercedes where the bad guy is a loner that are hunted by an expoliceman (is he a part of an institution) or Revival where the bad guy is a preacher that lost his faith and are doing things no church would like. He can't be seen as a representative for religion. Analysing King might be fun but here i think you have cut so many corners that the analyse is invalid. He has written so many different kind of books so a simple generalisation does not work.
Yeah what he said...sometimes a book is just a book, and a story is just a story, most times even be my best bet, but reckon ya sell enough of 'em, and/or for long enough, lotta folks just can't help theyselves with the psychoanalytic babble bother...'Oooooo I wonder what's inside bookboy's head, 'cause just maybe I don't much care for what he said?'
Maybe Dale Barbara in Under the Dome? Julia Shumway? Whose communication with the leather-heads seems to be an echo of Carol in Hearts in Atlantis. For that matter, how about Carol in Hearts? What was the question again? Just a second... I don't understand cognitive dissonance that well. I get what you're saying I think. Say like in Hearts in Atlantis King includes that quote from Easy Rider, "we blew it." Meaning, I'll hazard, that the protest movement of the 60s...blew it. They cashed in their chips for Easy-Bake Ovens and Atari...they could have changed things and though they did to a degree...meet the new boss same as the old boss. But that kinda sorta goes hand-in-hand with what I was trying to get across...which is what you are saying I think...(I'm a carpenter and was mudding all the day long, drinking a beer now, so go with the flow)...I think...where was I?
Lost my thought. Ummm, yeah, it is hard to be an individual. I like Hearts because that was a moment in time when the individual was aware, perhaps more so than other times, unless those times be war...when the ole existential angst was in overdrive. They voiced their dissent by playing Hearts instead of doing the institutionalized think like studying for classes...their friends were being killed overseas after all. But while each was individual, they too, joined gathered what have you. Long run, didn't work out so maybe I need to think about the question some more. Or drink another beer. Welcome aboard anyway...forgot to say that earlier.
Bad boys that are supernatural, like the Reverend Lester Lowe, are still representing institutions (in Lowe's case, organized religion).
What came through most strongly was the institution of public education and high school cliques.
The theme in Needful Things was all about a store where people were giving up parts of themselves to get material items. I sensed a strong critique of the economy which has people sacrifice parts of their lives (such as time with their children) to purchase a bigger house or a new car.
Mr. Mercedes starts with a guy driving a Mercedes (not a Ford or a Chevy, but a car associated with a higher socioeconomic class then that) running over a large number of unemployed workers at a job fair. And, the Mercedes was stolen. That's a terrific use of symbolism to portray the "Occupy Wall Street" metanarrative (iow, the institution of classism).
Last edited:
Yeah what he said...sometimes a book is just a book, and a story is just a story, most times even be my best bet, but reckon ya sell enough of 'em, and/or for long enough, lotta folks just can't help theyselves with the psychoanalytic babble bother...'Oooooo I wonder what's inside bookboy's head, 'cause just maybe I don't much care for what he said?'
The use of themes is hardly an unusual thing in creative writing.
Mr. Mercedes. I argued before that it is about the institution of classism. Now, look at a couple of quotes from it.
“Rich people can be generous, even the ones with bloodcurdling political views can be generous, but most believe in generosity on their own terms, and underneath (not so deep, either), they’re always afraid someone is going to steal their presents and eat their birthday cake.”
That's very Occupy in tone.
“Every religion lies. Every moral precept is a delusion. Even the stars are a mirage. The truth is darkness, and the only thing that matters is making a statement before one enters it. Cutting the skin of the world and leaving a scar. That’s all history is, after all: scar tissue.”
Gordon Gecko, himself, could have said that.
“Rich people can be generous, even the ones with bloodcurdling political views can be generous, but most believe in generosity on their own terms, and underneath (not so deep, either), they’re always afraid someone is going to steal their presents and eat their birthday cake.”
That's very Occupy in tone.
“Every religion lies. Every moral precept is a delusion. Even the stars are a mirage. The truth is darkness, and the only thing that matters is making a statement before one enters it. Cutting the skin of the world and leaving a scar. That’s all history is, after all: scar tissue.”
Gordon Gecko, himself, could have said that.
I stopped caring about themes when I finished all my English courses. This says it all.
Walt Whitman (1819–1892). Leaves of Grass. 1900.
When I heard the Learn’d Astronomer
WHEN I heard the learn’d astronomer;
When the proofs, the figures, were ranged in columns before me;
When I was shown the charts and the diagrams, to add, divide, and measure them;
When I, sitting, heard the astronomer, where he lectured with much applause in the lecture-room,
How soon, unaccountable, I became tired and sick; 5
Till rising and gliding out, I wander’d off by myself,
In the mystical moist night-air, and from time to time,
Look’d up in perfect silence at the stars.
Walt Whitman (1819–1892). Leaves of Grass. 1900.
When I heard the Learn’d Astronomer
WHEN I heard the learn’d astronomer;
When the proofs, the figures, were ranged in columns before me;
When I was shown the charts and the diagrams, to add, divide, and measure them;
When I, sitting, heard the astronomer, where he lectured with much applause in the lecture-room,
How soon, unaccountable, I became tired and sick; 5
Till rising and gliding out, I wander’d off by myself,
In the mystical moist night-air, and from time to time,
Look’d up in perfect silence at the stars.
Stephen King's opinions on themes are relevant to this topic. I don't see why your's might be.
So I am not entitled to my opinion on themes. I have been a member here for about ten years and I give my opinion on everything I wish. Your remark was out of line.
My impression is that you read King as Satan reads the Bible.
We don't need to do this. You seem to have plenty to contribute, (welcomed) so I don't think it necessary to be antagonistic in your communications.
In that case neither are yours! So why did you open this thread in the first place? Everyones opinions are of course welcomed!
Your opinions on theme have no relevance to the original question of this thread. I'm not commenting on whether a story should have themes. If I were, such comments from me would be irrelevant to the thread.
I would genuinely love to have a pleasant discussion. However, I'm forced onto the defensive by comments like
"the rudeness behind the question"
"What a lot of over anaalysing"
"lotta folks just can't help theyselves with the psychoanalytic babble bother...'Oooooo I wonder what's inside bookboy's head, 'cause just maybe I don't much care for what he said?'"
and by attempts to threadjack and change the topic to the merits of themes in stories.
We can't have a pleasant discussion unless everyone makes an effort.
...hers are as valid, if not more so than yours....are you this obnoxiously rude to people you've never met in real life as well?....so much for your self-professed "pleasant" discussions, you seem to have developed social amnesia....
Your original comment and question was: "So, I thought King was a fan of the hero myth and distrusted institutionalization. But, he's a Democrat.
Doesn't that create some serious cognitive dissonance?"
By asking the question, perhaps people have assumed (not unfairly so) that you're inviting opinion in response to your musing? Normally free-thought and tangents arise when folks begin to look at an issue. I suppose the members here are quite used to engaging in free-flowing conversation and a couple of the responses have sparked some attitude--on both sides.
Perhaps you could phrase your question in a different way?
Personally, I don't believe it does create cognitive dissonance in the 'man', but perhaps it does show the range of the writer? I think first and foremost, Stephen follows where the story leads and often has little control on a concious level, that's not to say that his personal beliefs don't have an influence, because I'm sure they do... but it has always been about the story for him--and if that might seem to the reader to conjure up theme's that don't appear to spring directly from the man? Well then, all the better as far as he is concerned.