I'm not saying that I've ever read a Stephen King novel...but then, I'm not saying that I've never read a Stephen King novel. Nor am I saying that the fact that Lisey's Story is being seriously considered as literature is ridiculous and true...but I'm not saying that it isn't ridiculous and true. Would you believe that I share a birthday with Stephen King? And that is a fact that is both ridiculous and true.

I hate it when people I hate like something I like. It cheapens the whole thing.

Even his On Writing book only contained about twenty pages of actual advice (which seemed, at the time, advice better suited for a mechanic; which is fitting, since the Kingmeister is nothing more than a pop culture grease monkey) in between the hundreds of pages of masturbatory autobiographical nonsense.

I like neither Stephen King nor Ryan Adams. So, in my opinion, they're welcome to each other.

I've missed your rants, Phil.

Great work, Phil. I'm going to write an open letter to Lily Allen. PLEASE COME ROUND MY HOUSE SO I CAN TOUCH YOU UP.

It's odd, I've never really viewed Stephen King as an actual person, before. He's always been a name on a book cover, or on a film credits, but I never imagines he ever existed and had opinions, hopes, dreams, etc before now. I preferred it the way it was.

Yes, the idea of Stephen King as some kind of warehouse full of children writing crap novels is a lot easier to deal with than an actual real human being of such mediocrity existing and managing to be amongst the most famous living authors on the planet.

Similarly, what must John Grishams childhood have been like?

Oh no! Popular writer has opinions on music! Yuck! Best rub his nose in the dirt! There we go! He probably doesn't even like music anyway!

Tell you what, pick up a copy of the Guardian Guide, go to the "Singles" section, read the dreadful shite that passes for music criticism there: "This sounds like The Scissor Sisters eating a hammer whilst Queen wank all over them" and waste your venom on that. Picking through the quotes you mention I get the feeling King isn't much of a music writer but I get the impression he likes what he's writing about. Compared to half the poseurs and tossers writing "music journalism" these days he's infinitely qualified by comparison.

>Popular writer has opinions on music!

Does he? Read what I wrote...a good deal of my dis-satisfaction is his inability to arrive at an opinion...despite the fact he's penning an opinion piece.

>I get the impression he likes what he's writing about.

The best thing he said is the songs are beautiful. Is that very convincing? Here: gang-rape is beautiful. Are you now convinced that I like what I was writing about?

>Compared to half the poseurs and tossers writing "music journalism" these days he's infinitely qualified by comparison.

I don't see how poor writing on the part of other people suddenly "qualifies" King to do anything at all. No more than a rash of inept doctors would qualify me to treat illnesses.

>Does he? Read what I wrote...a good deal of my dis-satisfaction is his inability to arrive at an opinion...despite the fact he's penning an opinion piece.

"Now there's this, maybe the best Ryan Adams CD ever.". Oh, get off the fence King!

>The best thing he said is the songs are beautiful. Is that very convincing? Here: gang-rape is beautiful. Are you now convinced that I like what I was writing about?

You just said he couldn't reach a conclusion. And what's wrong with saying a song's "beautiful". It's better than the sort of crappy music-journo shite I have to read all the time that doesn't tell me anything about the music but does tell me what a posey self-loving prick the writer is.

>I don't see how poor writing on the part of other people suddenly "qualifies" King to do anything at all. No more than a rash of inept doctors would qualify me to treat illnesses.

My point was, you pour all this venom over King (who I never said was a superb music writer - he clearly isn't) when there's so much more deserving drivel in so much greater quantities.

To be honest, the main feel I got from your "rant" was that you don't like Stephen King which I suspect if about more than his opinions on Ryan Adams so why not give us a dissection of his fiction instead? Tell us what it is about that that bothers you rather than going for a soft spot like his wiriting about music.

>"Now there's this, maybe the best Ryan Adams CD ever.". Oh, get off the fence King!

Why qualify it with a maybe? Get off the fence is right, in fact, because he can't conclusively state anything at all about the album he's reviewing. That's "qualified," is it?

>And what's wrong with saying a song's "beautiful". It's better than the sort of crappy music-journo shite I have to read all the time that doesn't tell me anything about the music but does tell me what a posey self-loving prick the writer is.

What's wrong with saying a song is beautiful is that you are saying precisely nothing. Especially when it's couched in an essay that otherwise consists entirely of music-journo shite you are complaining about otherwise. I definitely get more "self-loving prick" out of his product description than "fan of this particular album." Anyone can attach the word "beautiful" to something and it becomes a positive review. That doesn't take talent. But King, ostensibly, is feeding himself and keeping shelter over his head on the premise that he writes well. I think he should prove it.

>My point was, you pour all this venom over King (who I never said was a superb music writer - he clearly isn't) when there's so much more deserving drivel in so much greater quantities.

True. But isn't that my luxury as a columnist? Do I have to write about absolutely everything on earth that I have feelings about, positive or negative, just because those feelings exist? Of course not. I can pick and choose as anyone else can. I've poured venom over plenty of others who deserve it, and I've showered praise on those who have earned it. And, in each case, I've done a very fair job of justifying it.

>To be honest, the main feel I got from your "rant" was that you don't like Stephen King

You say that as though it's some sort of revelation you came to. I'd have thought that was, very clearly, the main point of my rant. I honestly can't imagine having said it any more clearly than I already had...

>why not give us a dissection of his fiction instead?

I've already been assembling the content of next month's Booktext article and that is precisely what I intend to do. Though, it should be said, if he's going to write things other than fiction, he's open to criticism in fields other than fiction. By no means am I obligated to ignore a particularly worthless essay just because it's not part of the Dark Tower series...

>Tell us what it is about that that bothers you rather than going for a soft spot like his wiriting about music.

Again, it's not writing about music that bothers me. Pynchon writes liner notes...I don't speak out against that. Stephen Wright...a brilliant humorist...again, pens liner notes at times. Kurt Vonnegut did illustrations for a Phish album that never happened. Whether I enjoyed these little forays into the music world or not is irrelevant, because they've all earned my respect otherwise, and whatever little indulgences they may need to keep themselves sane, well, I'll grant it. Because they are primarily good at what they do.

King, I feel, is not. Which I touched on at various points in the above, though, somehow, you seem to believe you're the only one who's picked up on the fact that I dislike him specifically. Trust me, I am a firm subscriber to the "know thy enemy" creed. I've read, at least, ten of King's full-length works. When I say I dislike him it's born of a pretty decent familiarity with his output.

And when I dislike something it's because it's actively earned that dislike. I've yet to put down any author I haven't given a genuine and honest chance to. I even conceded Niffenegger a few good moments, and that book was a puddle of cat pee.

> Shut up, shut up, shut up, shut up, shut up, shut up, shut up, shut up, shut up.

A hint - take your own advice. And I though I had anger issues.

> You wrote a novel about a cop who was really the devil, or something

Why pretend you haven't read it? Mwahaha. The fact that you know of Road Work - and know how crap it is - shows that you're an in-denial closet Constant Reader (I put CR just to piss you off). Why carry on reading his books if you hate his writing? That's like reading all 7 Harry Potters and then slagging off Jo Rowling's writing style. I never finished Insomnia, and I class myself as a big King fan and a fan of the Dark Tower series to which that book connects, but I'm not a glutton for punishment. It's an overlong dirge. I also found the short story The Mist crap when loads of King fans bang on about it, and it's now been made into a film by Frank 'Shawshank Redemption' 'Green Mile' Darabont. King certainly has his off days (you could say he's been having one long off day since his accident) but out of his published works he's had more hits than misses. And personally I think genius like Apt Pupil and the thousand pages of IT make up for all the shit he's penned over the years.

OK, I obviously just wrote that before reading what you put about 'earning the dislike' or whatever. But reading ten of his books seems a little excessive if you don't actually like his writing. Just sayin'...

>Why pretend you haven't read it? Mwahaha.

I'm assuming that was cheeky, but even so, I'm not pretending I haven't read it. I'm just pointing out that I genuinely don't remember it. It came bundled with The Regulators at the time. I remember almost nothing of Desperation except that the cop was kind of a monster, or something, but then it turned out he had a demon inside of him. That's ALL I remember. The Regulators, though I did read it, I can't tell you even one word about.

In fact, every one of the novels I reference above I've read. I didn't think anyone would take this as me pretending not to have read them...if anything I DO want people to know that I've read them. I'm not speaking blindly here. I'm speaking as someone who has been continuously, historically unimpressed by the man.

God, I'm *so* sick of reading people saying "well, if you don't like x then why are you reading/watching it!". It's such a ludicrously pathetic and transparent way to defend whatever's just been torn into. If someone loves a medium, a genre or whatever, then part of that love is experiencing stuff you hate and expressing that hate in some way. Deal with it - some people hate the things you love, why not try defending it rather than making non-arguments like that?

I've never read a page of King before, so I'm fairly neutral as to his novel writing talents, but I'll be damned if I don't enjoy reading a well written well focused rant like Phil's.

>That's like reading all 7 Harry Potters and then slagging off Jo Rowling's writing style.

I hate Rowling's writing style. I've slagged it off on numerous occasions, and will continue to do so. But I've enjoyed the story so much through the films that I've read the last two books and quite enjoyed them, and will be reading the last one as well (even though I know what happens).

Is it all right with you if I take 'blue-steel' to be an oblique reference to Zoolander? That would go some way to improve my enjoyment of King's piece...

NtS has reached a whole new low. Who knew that was even possible?

Still, i'd like to add an open note to J.K. Rowling:

Get over yourself, you silly woman.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6905873.stm

That is all.

> NtS has reached a whole new low. Who knew that was even possible?

A new low of... what, disagreeing with you?

Actually, that was too snippy, but I'm interested as to why you think this is a new low and whether that's you being objective, or not...

> I'm interested as to why you think this is a new low and whether that's you being objective, or not...

Okay, but I don't want to get into a line-by-line thing, or 20 posts of argument with the author. But since you asked...

Regardless of the subject, I genuinely think it's a crass, unbalanced and ugly piece, where the tone is hyped in an attempt to mask the fact that the points being made aren't, actually, all that reasonable. A trick which can be applied to anything:

"To be, or not to be: that is the question:"

It might be your question, pal, but saying it's 'THE' question is pretty egotistical, isn't it?

This, remember, is also the genius who did the thing about a load of characters dumped on a magic island. Or something. So his thoughts on the nature of being are bound to be insightful...

"Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,"

Ooh, wow, you've discovered metaphor. Well done you. But you do know you're just repeating the question again, right? And taking longer about it.

"Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,"

So, having mastered metaphor, you thought you'd mix them up? Taking up arms against a sea?! Twat.

"And by opposing end them?"

So 'not to be' is equated with doing something, and 'to be' is equated to inaction. Christ, man, that's not even the right way around.

"To die: to sleep;"

Pick one. Moron.

Crisical analysis should be made of stronger stuff, IMO.

"blue-eyed soul" is a pretty commonly used term to describe white singers whose style is heavily influenced by rhythm n blues or, um, soul. And yes, before you point it out, not all of them have blue eyes. Metaphor in not being literally true shockah.

Oh, I dunno, I didn't read the piece as a considering piece of critique. It was just someone having a proper rant about someone he despises invading his usual sphere of interest. I guess I enjoy reading really well focused bile.

"NtS has reached a whole new low. Who knew that was even possible?" really stings, mind.

> I guess I enjoy reading really well focused bile.

Well, you and many people; it's a whole school of criticism these days, but it's not to my taste. 'Just a rant' doesn't cut any ice, either - it differs from simple opinion, and i suppose has it's place...but I guess I think that place is a probably a personal blog.

> "NtS has reached a whole new low. Who knew that was even possible?" really stings, mind.

Sorry - that would have been helped by a smiley, really, as it (the second sentence, anyway) was intended only as a joke; probably a refugee of the G&T 'we're so good at websites' style.

It's really only a tiny handful of articles that have irritated rather than impressed and/or entertained. Otherwise I wouldn't keep coming back.

Man...you'd think all the genuinely scholarly, literary things I've posted here over the years would afford me at least one pure opinion piece without it dragging NTS to a new low...

(Before I forget: if "blue steel" is a reference to Zoolander, then I appreciate you pointing that out. I haven't seen the film so I won't be able to gauge it's appropriateness. And "Blue-eyed soul?" If it's a common enough phrase...well, I haven't heard it, but I'd have to concede its value. I do like, Andy M, that people are willing spit things back in my face as though I'm not going to accept them if they're presented calmly...)

>A trick which can be applied to anything:

You provide extremely good examples, Andrew. (Never let it be said that I don't give my tormentors an even break... ;-)

The difference is that Shakespeare, ostensibly, has given us enough worthy of ongoing scholarly criticism and debate. His body of work is discussed, dissected and re-evaluated constantly. That's constantly. And there are plenty of literature students who would actually concur with your sarcastic examples. (Not verbatim, obviously, but in theory.) There are people in both camps on Shakespeare. Some thing he's the bees knees. Others would read what you just wrote above and not even realize you were joking.

That said, I'm somewhere in the middle on Shakespeare: worth picking apart, but far overrated. He should be better known for the impact he had on later writers than for anything he managed to accomplish himself. (Ditto Samuel Richardson, though most literary criticism seems to side with me on that.)

>Crisical analysis should be made of stronger stuff, IMO.

As I've said already, keep an eye out for the next Booktext, in which I am indeed tackling a full Stephen King novel. And if that doesn't count as "stronger stuff," then that's King's failure, not mine.

>'Just a rant' doesn't cut any ice, either - it differs from simple opinion, and i suppose has it's place

It really boils down to whether you are on the side of the rant or not. If you already agree with its conclusion, you read it, you like it, you laugh at it. If you disagree you skim it, you scowl, you respond angrily to it. (This is a general "you" Andrew, and not "you" meaning you specifically. I'm just going by what I already know about who has posted to this thread, and their pre-existing notions of King.)

How many pieces posted on G+T or NTS can be classified as rants? Plenty of them. (And some of them positive.) They only trigger really strong feelings when they're disagreed with. If someone agrees, they might post, they might not. Maybe they'll chuckle a bit. If someone disagrees with it, you're going to hear about it, boy howdy.

And that's just fine. I just can't believe a singular dissatisfaction with an Amazon product description would sink the site to a new low...

It may be a "new low", but at least it's inspired comments from you lot; which is more than can be said for some of the other material that we've posted of late (a brilliant, lengthy and exclusive interview with two of the hottest creators in the British comics industry shows up, and you can practically hear the tumbleweed...)

> you'd think all the genuinely scholarly, literary things I've posted here over the years would afford me at least one pure opinion piece without it dragging NTS to a new low...

Surely it should be judged on its own merits, though? Not given a free ride because we liked something else you wrote?(Which oh yes, we have. Indeed.)

> The difference is that Shakespeare, ostensibly, has given us enough worthy of ongoing scholarly criticism and debate

Well, obviously, I wasn't making a point about the validity of that one writer over another. The Shakespeare could have been anything, of course - but it made sense to use a famous piece of reasonably well-regarded writing.

So - my point was only how a tone can be used to distort the worth or value of the thing being discussed. Much of what your piece says aims to get by on its tone when the arguments are invalid, selective or cheap.

Which, as a member of an fairly unbiased audience - I'd no opinion on King as music commentator before today - I resent. It's not just the hyperbole, it's that it expects to get away with it. Which undervalues the reader; expecting us to allow reasonable discussion to be ignored becuase, hey, at least it's written with passion.

> As I've said already, keep an eye out for the next Booktext, in which I am indeed tackling a full Stephen King novel. And if that doesn't count as "stronger stuff," then that's King's failure, not mine.

Well, no - how you approach the criticsm is down to you, not the subject. If you can't keep it reasonable, if you choose to ignore examples that contradict your points even though they exist, that's your failing.

But to be clear, none of that is what I'll EXPECT to see from you, and I genuinely look forward to the piece, no matter what its conclusions.

> It really boils down to whether you are on the side of the rant or not.

Or if you have no specific side. But that doesn't make it fine to use exaggerations, misleads and exclusions. Or, at least, not without expecting to be challenged. And when challenged, surely you have to hold your hands up that yes, okay, some of this stuff was deliberately unreasonable.

> How many pieces posted on G+T or NTS can be classified as rants? Plenty of them.

More on G&T, I'd argue. And that's playing to an already biased audience. This is playing to a wider crowd.

BTW, I haven't said that disagree with your overall point - King as 'music commentaror' - what I disagree with is the methodology. Just as I generally concur with Michael Moore, but resent the hell out of some of his editing tactics and factual jiggling.

Which is to say: the 'new low' isn't about the subject you've picked on. At all. It's about the nature of the picking.

> I just can't believe a singular dissatisfaction with an Amazon product description would sink the site to a new low...

Just as, I guess, I can't believe a simple sleeve note would let one of the site's most intelligent writers take the site there...

I can't help but laugh at this little fray. The site hasn't sunk to a new low, it's hit a new high IMO. Revealed slightly different sides to a couple of posters in the process...

As for ranting, it's generally a bad idea on teh Interwebs because reading, or attempting to read the rant just stresses people out, whether they're for or against any of the arguments. It's only likely to provoke a flame war. Please douse the flames rather than fanning them.

> Please douse the flames rather than fanning them.

*pours bucket of water over head*

Ah, Andrew: apologies for misunderstanding one of your cardinal points. Which, I assure you, was a genuine misunderstanding.

>my point was only how a tone can be used to distort the worth or value of the thing being discussed.

Absolutely. Which, in fairness, I think I did rather obviously. If anything, opening with "you are a turd" should pretty much set the tone of seriousness for the entire piece. Do I agree with my own conclusions? Well, yeah...I wrote 'em. But I figured I'd go a humorous route rather than a series literary critique. I can understand that you (or anyone, including myself) might indeed resent cheapness for the sake of degrading something, but when it's done obviously enough, with a conscious decision to make that methodology clear and not something to be taken seriously...I don't have as much of a problem with that.

The problem is when somebody does it in the guise of serious literary criticism, while, all the while, he's actually just building a strawman to tear apart. That's where it gets dangerous.

>It's not just the hyperbole, it's that it expects to get away with it. Which undervalues the reader; expecting us to allow reasonable discussion to be ignored becuase, hey, at least it's written with passion.

Actually, I'm all for reasonable discussion. (If I weren't, I wouldn't be hanging around the comments here, participating, and granting people the points they are getting exactly correct in their refutation of my rant.) I don't intend to undervalue anyone. (Barring King, obviously...;-) It's just meant to entertain.

A more serious discussion of an author I dislike can be found in my Time-Traveler's Wife article...which, in all honesty, I think is a pretty great example of fairness in appraisal. So it's not that I'm incapable of giving someone that even chance...just that I decided to handle this one flippantly. (And long before I wrote this piece, I had already decided to give King that chance with my Booktext column...so it's not as if I'd intended to leave him like this. I just didn't expect so many comments!)

>Well, no - how you approach the criticsm is down to you, not the subject. If you can't keep it reasonable, if you choose to ignore examples that contradict your points even though they exist, that's your failing.

I think you just misread me on that one. You said I should critique his more "serious stuff." To which I replied I'm treating a novel of his next, which should rightly be considered as something more serious. In other words, you're getting what you asked for. :-) And in the context of my Booktext columns, I always, always intend to be reasonable.

>Just as I generally concur with Michael Moore, but resent the hell out of some of his editing tactics and factual jiggling.

You and me both, bud. I actually just had this very discussion last night...

Well, anyway, the conclusion to be reached here is either a) take the article for what it was: entertainment rather than any kind of serious criticism or b) hate the article for what it is, but tune in to next month's Booktext, which will treat King much more seriously.

Argh! I'm sorry...I misread not one, but TWO of your points. When you said "criticism should be made of stronger stuff" I took it to mean that I should criticize stronger stuff than a product review...which is to say something of more substance.

Obviously what you meant was that the criticism itself should be built of stronger claims and reasoning.

Which I do not disagree with. Chalk it up to a hasty reaction on my part.

I'm finding this whole misreading thing hilarious. I'm really not sure why! :-)

But yeah, your point brings us back to what I said to Cappsy - it's just a form I can't abide. The harsh-comedy-rant thing. It's prevalent, popular and accepted, and as you say certainly obvious from line one, but for me it's a fairly ghastly practice. Venom as entertainment, with the reader as active accomplice, allowing it to happen; willfully allowing facts to be twisted for a laugh.

I know, I know, it's just me. But it's not all that common on NtS - which is one of the reasons I like the site, and was disappointed by the piece. (Plus, if it was only for entertainment, the response to Zagrebo was a little OTT. It suggests you took the exaggerations more seriously than maybe you do.)

On my long-abandoned blog - beforemyeyes.blogspot.com - there's a heftily critical Apocalypto review. But I really hope ever harsh word is earned, justifiable...ditto every positive one.

I did enjoy the Time Traveler's Wife piece, BTW. None of my comments were intended to reflect on your work in general; it's very specific to this piece.

Hell, maybe one day I'll do a pro-King-writing piece for you to tear apart. :-)

Cunts are fun.

Nobody cares what you think. Ryan Adams sucks. Warren Zevon had one good song and it was a novelty song at that right up there with The Witchdoctor by Sam the Sham and the Pharoahs. King has written dozens of great books that are amazing in quality. You wouldn't know shit from good chocolate.

Philsy, you are retarded. King is a wonderful writer, his novels and short fiction is great, his columns are great, and Kubrick's The Shining was a good movie but a lousy adaptation of a brilliant novel.

Reading your hate-spasms over King, makes me want to puke. Again: You are retarded!!!

People missing the entire point of both the article AND the subsequent discussion, there.

I mean, I like King the fiction writer, but Jeez...

I think that some of you people need to get a freakin life and stop talkin trash about stephen king. I dont honestly know him but his books have inspired me to write. I think some of you freakin idiots out there need to grow up. stephen king is the best writer i’ve ever seen hes awesome. Im countin on you strephen king to write about that swine flu thats killin everyone like the stand. I hope one day i can be a good writer like you. Your the best. Say what you want some of you trash talkers out there bet you never read his freakin books. This is comin from a 13 year old so be stupid and argue with me if you dont like stephen king. there is no peace between good nor evil so if you want to trash talk about stephen king you shall recieve no peace from me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! My cousin also thinks your the coolest writer in the world shes 9.

Aww.

Wow, some serious jealousy going on here. You guys should post some of your works, literary or otherwise and then we can really get started. How can you dislike someone you have no relationship with whatsoever and have never met.? You can dislike what they do, but not them.

Let’s see if anyone remembers old Phil in 50 years, or even six weeks, lol.