Distracting Political Opinions

[ReelScience]

I've noticed a disturbing trend (well, for me) in Mr. Kings 4 most recent novels. That is, his tendency to interject his distaste for the Republican Party, especially George W. Bush into his novels. I wouldn't presume to criticize Mr. King for his opinions, but feel that it is presumptuous of him to expect me to pay him for the privilege reading these same opinions. To be clear, I am not talking about character description, but the kind of comments that seem to come out of left field with no addition to the story whatsoever. It's distracting and completely interferes with my ability to suspend my disbelief. I finally quit reading Under the Dome, for this reason, and would like a refund. I have to assume that one of three scenarios is at work here: 1) Mr. King is unaware that he is doing this (not likely), 2) Mr. King's success has convinced him that his opinion is just too valuable to not give it the widest possible distribution, or 3) Mr. King doesn't care that up to 50% of his Constant Readers are having their reading experience diminished.

Does anyone else feel this way (or not). If so, why do you think Mr. King is doing this?

[michal]

I'm not American, so maybe I'm not very sensitive to political views one way or the other. I am of course aware of Mr. King's political views, but have always supposed that writers write whatever they choose to write or, better phrase - the stories they can tell the way they can tell them. It's just how creative writing roles. I have seen characters in Mr. King's books kick a dog to death (yet do not think of him as a dog-killer), have seen some of them eat children (yet I do not thinking of him as a child eater) and have heard them pronounce both antisemitic and racist remark (but do not think of him as a racist.
So, I just take the remarks, whatever they are, as part of the story, not personally.

But maybe I am just less sensitive.

[Derwood]

The beauty of living in the US is that you have the freedom to have your opinions, and Mr. King has the freedom to have his. He also has the freedom to write about anything and anybody he chooses, and you have the freedom to put his books down if you do not agree with him.

What you do NOT have the right to is a refund because you disagree with said opinions. You bought the book of your own free will (after, as you admitted, disagreeing with King's opinions about the GOP in his previous 3 novels).

:grinning:

[flaggwalkstheline]

meh if u arent liking it, then dont read it:eyebrow:
lotsa authors interject bits of their personal opinions into their stories, people only get mad when it contradicts their own
I didn't appreciate Anne Rice's sudden leap to writing about jesus, so I stopped reading her

[JohnDalglish]

Hi,

Welcome to the MB, and keep posting, I was wondering how long it would take before you showed up.

I think you might be more at home on the Tom Clancy site.

Long days and pleasant nights

[Doc Wilson]

Wayne, there's a more measured discussion of this issue going on this thread: http://www.stephenking.com/forums/showthread.php?t=15815

I think you left out the most likely possibility: uncle steve has reached an age where he doesn't really care what other people think of him (I know because I'm right behind him). Witness his comment last year about the poor quality of Stephanie Meyer's writing. I don't believe he would have said that publicly ten years ago about another writer, even if asked directly.

I too get irked by his politics but what are you going to do? He's my favorite author, by a long shot, and I'm not going to give up reading his stuff until one of us dies.

To give another example, I've been a fan of Neil Young's for thirty years now, but I've made my peace with the fact that he is what Lenin would have called a useful idiot.

[rjt65]

I used to get worked up over things like this but now i learned who cares... People are getting to wrapped up in my way or the highway.... We all need to be more tolerant of opposite viewpoints. No matter, Life is boring if we all agree all the time, no?

I think will better digest this stuff on a reread of UTD..but i feel he takes = pot shots at all politicians in the novel.... Bush negatives also some new potus Obama negatives from the characters....

All are entitled to their opinions, but if you get to upset over your perception of his liberal leanings you are missing out on a great book! so I hope you reconsider.... Keep it

PS- More concerning to me (sites #1 Yankee fan that is the world championship Yankees) is the input of Boston red Sox fans and listening to games where the Sox are winning hahahahaha pure fiction!!! ;-)

[Sundrop]

Hi,

Welcome to the MB, and keep posting, I was wondering how long it would take before you showed up.

I think you might be more at home on the Tom Clancy site.

Long days and pleasant nights

I've said it before, but I love you John!! :laugh:

[Bryan James]

I'm a voting Gosh Darn Independent (I watch both Fox News AND CNN), but I agree with the Original Poster's "distracted" reaction. Those parts of the book just seem contrived as they leap off the page. They don't flow the story. C'est la me.

(I didn't add the 'rde,' but I was thinking it =) )

~BJS

[wally wonder]

said on another thread that we ought to march on sk's house, occupy the foyer, maybe raid the pantry--he's in florida, right?--but imagine the symbolism, like those dark armies of the night (alluded to in udt), maybe you could give a speech while we munch on his fritos...wait a minute...isn't it, like, really cold in maine now?

[guido tkp]

when i think of king and his politics, i think more in line of the 'don't tread on me' aspect of america...

it's not clear at all that king does not like republicans...just the pushy, domineering, fascist types, who seem to be taking over that party in droves.

where i hail from, on a regular basis, far right wing, religious zealots are constantly challenging, and often defeating middle of the road republicans in primaries: thier actual policies do not jibe with what the actual citizens like; for instance, if a local, right winger campaigns on closing down public education, and banning all abortion, they invariably lose, and lose badly... but, if they wave the flag and obfuscate...or flat out lie about thier fellow republican (usually an incumbent) then they tend to win.

this sort of sorry mewling is exactly the sort of thing we tend to wag our collective finger at our 'good' muslim friends when it comes to them getting their 'bad' neighbors in line...and, yet, as a republican (think julia shumway, jack kemp, warren rudman, howard baker, alan simpson, bob dole, ike) i've about as much in common with this new breed of autocrat as i do with hitler...or lenin...

a dictator is a dictator, doesn't matter if you're left or right...that's what jim rennie was...that's not what julia shumway is

sorry to point out the failings of this new breed, and i know the truth hurts...but king is not leaning too far left...just pointing out that some, not all, republicans are leaning too far right: and that there are real, damning consequences if we don't wise up.

for the record, i've been, and remain, a registerd republican for 30 years....make mine ike !

[Doc Wilson]

Haha, Guido it sounds like you might have been born/registered a bit too late to vote for Ike.

But I agree, I'm often disgusted and embarassed by what passes for republican these days.

[jchanic]

I think this discussion has gotten far from Under the Dome and its contents. It should be moved to the Chattery Teeth forum on the main forum page. Discussion of King's views as expressed in his novel is one thing, but commenting on the validity of those views doesn't, in my opinion, belong here.

John

[Snooky]

I'm totally with Doc Wilson. Whatever SK's opinions are; I'm reading his books until one of us dies. I can get beyond it.

[staropeace]

It is his story. He can put up any kind of window dressing and have any 'tude he wishes. He owns the story and the rules are that he does what he wants. LMAO. Simple creed to live by.....Is you a writer? Or is you a reader?
A writer can choose what words are on his or her page. A reader can choose what book he or she wishes to spend the money on,really. When you pays your two bits to see a high diving act,you dont tell the acrobat how to jump.

[Derwood]

I didn't realize so many of his avid readers were Republicans. Learn something new every day

[Ins4n3]

I find it rather humorous that people rant and rave about the political views given to the characters rather than some of the events that happen in the story itself, such as the death of a baby and its mother as they are hit by a truck, or the lost faith of a reverend and her slang she uses to refer to her "God". Aren't these matters more bewildering than those of who the characters in the novel prefer to vote for come election time?

[wally wonder]

I find it rather humorous that people rant and rave about the political views given to the characters rather than some of the events that happen in the story itself, such as the death of a baby and its mother as they are hit by a truck, or the lost faith of a reverend and her slang she uses to refer to her "God". Aren't these matters more bewildering than those of who the characters in the novel prefer to vote for come election time?

you said it best on another thread:



You're absolutely correct, it is fiction. However, when certain people are reading such a great novel and are being immersed into the story and really starting to feel like they are there in the story, then they come across things that don't match up with things they know alot about, and may be a hobby of some sort of theirs, it begins to turn the story sour to them.

for me, it's troubling that the thread police want to control what is discussed. if the thread is about some subject, whatever the subject may be, why can't people talk about that subject...specially if it's some sort of hobby horse of theirs? but yea, it is bewildering what is discussed at times. :y:

[guido tkp]

ins4n3: but..that wasn't the question of this thread...

staropeace: agreed, 100%:

jchanic: but..that was the question, here...kings positon, does it exist, is it prevelant/revelant, does he have a ulterior motive...

personally, i don't remeber whether barbie ever presented a political opinion, one way or the other...
if king was making a point, i think it could be summed up in the hero republican shumway vs the villain republican rennie....

as for him bringing any of this on in recent years...i have two words for you...

greg stillson

there's now a query on the scientific accuracy of the book..if the answers therein begin to get too technical, do we offer to move that, too...?

[SpencerC]

I thought the politics were very distracting in this book. Usually, King doesn't do this, a prime example being Insomnia, where people on both sides of the abortion issue were very well thought out, 3 dimensional characters who happened to have honest, passionate disagreements on the issue, and the story branched out from there.

However, in Under the Dome, it's "Democrats GOOD, Republicans, BAD", and, just in case you didn't feel the pain from the first few whacks over the head with that message, King takes great care to show you the picture on Big Jim's wall of Jim shaking hands with Sarah Palin, just before Jim starts killing folks. I'll be shook hands with Sarah Palin this past Saturday, and, if I get a good picture of it when they're released, you can be damn sure it's going on my wall, but I'm not going to be murdering anybody anytime soon, or ever, for that matter.

So yeah, the politics did turn me off, but not just because of the views expressed. I thought MANY characters who had great potential, and in fact, the whole story's potiential, was cut way short because of the "give a hoot, don't pollute" message. So much could have been done with Junior, Barbie, Big Jim, and so many more folks.

I thought a grand huge climax was coming, but it didn't, because in my opinion, King was trying to prove a point, (as if a fictional story, be it a book, movie, TV show, whatever, can prove anything), and that point can't be "proven" unless you have people dropping like flies and/or struggling to breathe. I think King let his environmental beliefs get in the way of what could have been a great story, but is only a good one as written.

Add that to the fact that the climategate e-mails surfaced only days after this book was released, and you have a whole new can of worms being opened.

[Bryan James]

Influential celebrities have every right to write. Doesn't mean that they are correct. Some (I'll go as far as 'many') of them are asshats.

They do, unfortunately, have too much influence on the mass of idiots bopping about on the surface of the planet.

"OOH, Bob DeNiro or Jeff Stryker/Spicoli said that Cheezits are evil, so I'll take up that cause!!!"

Thinking on your own, doing your own research, and formulating your own opinion is hard work...but it is worth doing.

Unless you want to live under an infinitely contracting Dome.

~BJS

[jnote]

I always look forward to the point of view of his "characters".:wink2:

Also, like looking for "Gary Hart" references!

[clownshooter]

IMHO (and it is just that); one has to look at demographics. This fictional incident occurred in Maine as did many of Mr. King's stories. Maybe former president Bush was not very popular in Maine. UTD was not all that kind to the current CIC either. I simply viewed the political opinions of the characters in the novel as reference points in the timeline of the story anchoring the event as a recent phenomena.

[jcadams]

I'm also a republican, but found it quite amusing that the ultimate bad guy in the story was so anti-Obama. Did notice that he didn't actually call him by name but made it very clear who he was bashing.
I don't think that SK's political views were written in, I think that he was just adding current political and environment issues.
So what if some of the characters don't share your personal views, they are still just characters, it adds to their realism that their views can have such an effect on the reader.

[SpencerC]

I'm also a republican, but found it quite amusing that the ultimate bad guy in the story was so anti-Obama. Did notice that he didn't actually call him by name but made it very clear who he was bashing.


Yeah, "the guy with the terrorist middle name" doesn't leave much room for speculation as to who is being talked about. :laugh:

[JohnDalglish]

Yeah, "the guy with the terrorist middle name" doesn't leave much room for speculation as to who is being talked about. :laugh:

Hi,

Who? Dubya?

Long days and pleasant nights

[dw1345]

While some people may have problems or disagree with the politics in his books, I think it should be known that there are just as many of us who agree with him and love him even more for puting our thoughts down on the page.

Keep doing what you're doing, Mr. King (although I'm sure you don't need anyone to tell you that)!!!

[Srbo]

Hi,

Who? Dubya?

Long days and pleasant nights

Or George Walker Bush ?

[Srbo]

I acually had to Google right now who Dubya is..

Surprise, surprise that John and I talked about the same guy...only I did it without knowing about the Dubya pronauciation of W.

[Lencho_of_the_Apes]

I'd just like to point out that every book ever written is full of political viewpoint, there's no escaping it. If a book says nothing about politics, the author's giving the message that everything is just fine the way it is & there's no need to think about any issues.

Me personally, I quit reading Dean Koontz because of the way he loads gun-ownership propaganda into all of his novels, it's not even remotely subtle. (And because so many of them kinda suck, I guess that's another reason...)

We all float down here.

[Bryan James]

George Dubai Bush?

[wally wonder]

points of view...and as ted pointed out to bobby, that's all they are, a point of view, and as we all learn eventually, you can poke an eye out w/one of those things.

[SpencerC]

Or George Walker Bush ?

Not sure how Walker would be a terrorist middle name, unless you're talking Walker, Texas Ranger, since we all know Chuck Norris eats terrorists for breakfast. :biggrin2:

[JohnDalglish]

Not sure how Walker would be a terrorist middle name

Hi,

Many (perhaps a million or more) dead Iraqi civilians may disagree with you.

Long days and pleasant nights

[SpencerC]

While some people may have problems or disagree with the politics in his books, I think it should be known that there are just as many of us who agree with him and love him even more for puting our thoughts down on the page.

My whole point is that he usually doesn't go the advocacy route, usually he presents all sides of an issue through the viewpoints of his characters, and that adds depth to the story. This time, there is a point to be made, and in this case, King is alienating a large group of his constant readers by taking a stand within the body of the story.

He can state his opinion in interviews all he wants, but I read King to be taken to another world, he's great at really transporting you into the story, but with this story I either felt like I was reading a Huffington Post blog, or being told by my favorite author that my beliefs and the beliefs of those that agree with me are idiotic.

Neither feeling endears me toward rereading the book, which is sad, because one of my favorite things to do is read King's books again and experience new details and context that can be enjoyed better the second time through. With this book, I not only have no desire to do that, I have an aversion to it. I never thought I'd see the day when King's personal politics would be an issue when discussing his novels, but, sadly, that day has come.

[SpencerC]

Hi,

Many (perhaps a million or more) dead Iraqi civilians may disagree with you.

Long days and pleasant nights

So I'm taking it that you loved "Under the Dome."

I really was hoping this wouldn't degenerate into inflamatory political statements, but that seems to be where you want to go, so I'd counter by saying that millions of living Iraqi citizens that would be dead if Sadaam Hussein were still in power would agree with me, as would millions of people who think the man responsible for killing thousands of civillians in New York shouldn't be given the same rights as a citizen of the country whose citizens he killed, and shouldn't be given a trial in the media capital of the world as a vehicle to further his message of hate.

Anway, all this is making my point for me. We know all the arguments both sides of all of these issues will make, and there's a place for that debate, but the fact that the discussion a fictional novel by Stephen King is causing the debate certainly suggests that the politics distracts from the stroy the book is telling.

[dw1345]

My whole point is that he usually doesn't go the advocacy route, usually he presents all sides of an issue through the viewpoints of his characters, and that adds depth to the story. This time, there is a point to be made, and in this case, King is alienating a large group of his constant readers by taking a stand within the body of the story.

He can state his opinion in interviews all he wants, but I read King to be taken to another world, he's great at really transporting you into the story, but with this story I either felt like I was reading a Huffington Post blog, or being told by my favorite author that my beliefs and the beliefs of those that agree with me are idiotic.

Neither feeling endears me toward rereading the book, which is sad, because one of my favorite things to do is read King's books again and experience new details and context that can be enjoyed better the second time through. With this book, I not only have no desire to do that, I have an aversion to it. I never thought I'd see the day when King's personal politics would be an issue when discussing his novels, but, sadly, that day has come.

Did you honestly expect King not to inject some of his own beliefs into a book that deals with power and corruption? I'd be more upset if he DIDN'T throw in some of his own political opinions in a novel that's politically-driven.

Besides, it's his own friggin' book and he can write whatever the hell he wants to write.

It's really too bad you've stopped reading a book just because it doesn't line up exactly where you stand. You're missing out on a good one.

[SpencerC]

I also wanted to say that the political aspects also affected the depth of the characters greatly, and the mini debate here between JohnDalglish and I is a good example of that. We seem to be polar opposites politically, but I'm sure if we take the time to know each other, (and I hope to get to know a lot of folks on this board), we'll find we're good people with honest disagreements that may just have more in common than our love of Stephen King's writing.

In Under the Dome, you don't get to know anyone better, at least that's my take. People are placed into grops immediately, "these are the good guys and these are the bad guys", and the story seems to flow from that perspective. For example I'm sure if Big Jim were real he'd have done something good in his life, (though i'd be hard pressed to imagine what :laugh: ), but he has no depth, a very 2 dimensional character, just like the others in his "posse,"), while Dale Barbara is developed a little and has faults he has to overcome.

A good "bad guy" should absolutely believe he's right, and no matter how twisted his logic, have reasons that seem sound to him that he's doing the right thing, but Big Jim is a flat, purely selfish character, and all who follow him are either misguided or dumb. Politics aside, the "everything is black and white" aspect of the story disappointed me, especially because King usually excels at the shades of grey.

[JohnDalglish]

I really was hoping this wouldn't degenerate into inflamatory political statements, but that seems to be where you want to go, .

Hi,

'We didn't start the fire', to quote Billy Joel.

Long days and pleasant nights

[jnote]

I feel the current events in King's books make the "story" more realistic as there really are people who judge people by their own and others' political views (like thinking the President has a terrorist middle name, etc.)

[guido tkp]

a bit testy, there, spenc....donchathink ?

i seem to remember that saddam h was an individual whose power was most definately on the wane: while true he tended to like to torture and kill his own citizens; his record, at the time of his departure, was not nealry as bad as say...

the saudis...
or n. korea...
or sudan....

and we didn't invade any of those places (for the record...all of those places also had the exact same amount of weapons of mass destruction...and about as much to do with 9/11.........excepting, of course for the saudis...since bin ladan is one of them...and his countrymen have done more to fund him than any others: but, who needs to be so nitpicky with the truth, right ?)

none of which has anything to do with u.t.d.

as for a trial: might come as a shock, but not all republicans are ready to dump the constitution in the bay just 'cause georgie, dickie and rush think it'd be a whopping good idea: one of the more interesting people i've conversed with about this is a JAG (also, as i am, a republican)...and he thinks it'd be the single most american thing to do to give the bad guys a proper, american trial: just like absolutely no one ever gets in their own countries...

believe it or not...that is one of the great things that makes us different, and, i think, better: too bad some don't agree...

it still has nothing to do with u.t.d....

it's characters, of whom a great, wide variety of opinions were alluded to....

or those of the writer, who, in my humble opinion, seems pretty fair and open minded about all sorts of things all these years...

since when is that not such an all american way of being ?

sorry for the rant

[SpencerC]

Did you honestly expect King not to inject some of his own beliefs into a book that deals with power and corruption? I'd be more upset if he DIDN'T throw in some of his own political opinions in a novel that's politically-driven.

Besides, it's his own friggin' book and he can write whatever the hell he wants to write.

It's really too bad you've stopped reading a book just because it doesn't line up exactly where you stand. You're missing out on a good one.


I didn't stop, I just said that I have no desire to reread it. Yes King does throw in politics in other books that I have enjoyed, like Insomnia, but never before in his work have I seen such obvious carictures, (Big Jim as Cheney, Andy as George W. Bush, etc.), and such advocacy for and against certain political beliefs. Again, it's wasn't just the side that he took that bothered me, (as you said, it is his book), it was the fact that the entire story was written to fit those beliefs and a lot of the dramatic potential was necessarily cut short by doing so. I thought it was a very good story that could have been a great one.

[SpencerC]

a bit testy, there, spenc....donchathink ?


No worries about the rant, I had one of my own. :laugh:

I probably did overreact, it just seemed that every time I would post something, this guy would pop in, say something inflamatory, and leave, so I decided I'd respond, because I thought it would just keep continuing, which I see today that it did. I won't respond to the latest one.

I totally agree with you about King being fair and open minded over the years. That's why this book shocked and upset me so, I kept waiting for the other side of the story to be told, for those subtleties and nuances that add to the drama, or the big plot twist that would tell us "you may think that this is just strightfoward political tomfoolery and power grabbing, but, hey, look over here, this is what's really going on" , but it never came.

I've never not liked a King book before, so this is a very frustrating position to be in. Actually "not liked" may be going a bit far, I did like the story overall, just thought it could have been a lot better, but hey, I'm not the millionare bestselling author, so it probably doesn't matter what I think on that score. :laugh:

I also agree with you about the political debates we've wandered into have nothing to do with Under the Dome. That's my point, that the way the story was written invites all this extraneous political thought and debate, either with others, or internally while you're trying to enjoy the story, and to me it was a big distraction.

With the focus on current hot topics, and having people in the story being absolutely "right" and absolutely "wrong" about them, it may also cause readers, (I know it did me), to take the story personally. Whether they're saying, "Right on, Steve!", or "Hey! I think that way on these issues, and I'm not gonna kill people!", it can take people out of the story and right into the quagmire that is American politics.

[POTUS]

To be clear, I am not talking about character description, but the kind of comments that seem to come out of left field with no addition to the story whatsoever. It's distracting and completely interferes with my ability to suspend my disbelief.

WayneJ, if you're going to demand a refund and start this discussion, at least cite some specific examples of what you mean.

I'm betting all of the money in my pockets that it was a character thinking or expressing the anti-right view, and not the narrator/author. Which makes all the difference in the world, here.

Give us an example of the narrator making a politically offensive statement that is NOT in the context of a character's mindset. Do that, and you'll have grounds for asking for your money back. Otherwise, you're just a guy complaining that everyone in the book is a liberal.

[PatInTheHat]

but the fact that the discussion a fictional novel by Stephen King is causing the debate certainly suggests that the politics distracts from the stroy the book is telling.

:umm:
Why?

Maybe that was part of the point...causing the debate that is.
I dunno, but it's all groovy gravy with me if it was, I'm all for it:cool:!

I can't for the life of me figure out why it would be distracting from the story, especially if you feel the debate is part of the story.
I do, so there for it must, afterall, I was one of the readers.
Oh, and as there already seems to be some debates going on that are dealing with different social aspects and certain characters of the story.
Debates on how it all relates and has similarities to all manner of stuff and the effects it has on, well bunches of goings on in the real world..hmm, I think then that's my point..you know, if I had one.

How could that be distracting, as it seems it has actually become integral to the story?
And just how freakin' cool is that...that means we've actually become part of the story:wink2:!
Beat that for thirty five bucks..and they say good entertainment doesn't come cheap..okay okay, so maybe it's me that says it, but holy smoke was I ever wrong:blush:!

Now I do know I can get pretty distracted from a work of fiction when it makes me uncomfortable, makes me take hard looks, see hard things maybe I don't want to see and causes me serious pause.
If however I just don't find myself in philosophical agreement with something in a work of fiction, I usually just view it as fiction, maybe even silly, and usually don't give it a lot more thought, much less debate it.
But maybe that's just me.
(in all fairness & the interest of full disclosure, this one really got my juices up..but see, I LOOOVVVVED IT!!!..you know, except that poor innocent groudhog..that was pretty tragic)

How in the hell did I miss this thread:laugh:!

[scarywriter]

did the politics of Farenheit 451 distract from reading it?
did the politics of Catch-22 distract from enjoying it?
good literature is not middle of the road. it forces people to take sides, even if in their own heads.

[scarywriter]

with this story I either felt like I was reading a Huffington Post blog, or being told by my favorite author that my beliefs and the beliefs of those that agree with me are idiotic.

I thought the ideas that were criticized were those of mob mentality, corruption, power mongering, religious zealotry.

which of those idiotic ideas do you hold to?

[jjokr1]

I've noticed a disturbing trend (well, for me) in Mr. Kings 4 most recent novels. That is, his tendency to interject his distaste for the Republican Party, especially George W. Bush into his novels. I wouldn't presume to criticize Mr. King for his opinions, but feel that it is presumptuous of him to expect me to pay him for the privilege reading these same opinions. To be clear, I am not talking about character description, but the kind of comments that seem to come out of left field with no addition to the story whatsoever. It's distracting and completely interferes with my ability to suspend my disbelief. I finally quit reading Under the Dome, for this reason, and would like a refund. I have to assume that one of three scenarios is at work here: 1) Mr. King is unaware that he is doing this (not likely), 2) Mr. King's success has convinced him that his opinion is just too valuable to not give it the widest possible distribution, or 3) Mr. King doesn't care that up to 50% of his Constant Readers are having their reading experience diminished.

Does anyone else feel this way (or not). If so, why do you think Mr. King is doing this?

Yes, I feel that way too. But as the Democrats continue to slide downhill with their leftist socialist agenda Mr. King will again be the minority in his thoughts.

[jjokr1]

Yes, I agree with the original poster. Is there anyone who can leave their political opinions at home anymore? Try to read a book to get away from the stress of politics and not worry for a while and then your hit with politics in a book your reading to get your mind off those things.

[JohnDalglish]

Is there anyone who can leave their political opinions at home anymore? .

Hi,

Apparently not, according to the fact that you've gone out of your way to join Sai King's own Message Board to complain about his politics.

Did you enjoy Firestarter? Or the Dead Zone?

I would say welcome to the MB and keep posting, but I don't think I shall.

Try the Tom Clancy books and no doubt you may find some other souls of a similar leaning on his MB.

Long days and pleasant nights

[Jay P Lang]

Politics play a large part of peoples lives as they get older. Alot of the characters are older. A large part of America didn't like Bush. It only makes sense to have characters that feel the same way as much of the general public.

Some won't agree with his politics but as King says, "Write what you know." He hasn't been shy about his point of view on politics, and I doubt he will start to be. I love the honesty.

Even if some don't agree and some do, it makes for great reading.

[PatInTheHat]

Yes, I feel that way too. But as the Democrats continue to slide downhill with their leftist socialist agenda Mr. King will again be the minority in his thoughts.



Oh my word, did you come up with that yourself, or is somebody reading bumper stickers again?
Not about the Demobrats, to be able to predict that, is like saying the sun will rise in the east...it is still the east right, I mean if a liberal would say that out loud, it's a done deal that would cease to be the case, as I'm sure an GOP oracle has spoken..and spoken, and spoken (by the way, just how many times do you have to say something to make it become true by the way...I just always assumed there was a magic number involved? ...and is it more, less or maybe the same amount of times in order for history to be revised?:laugh:...seriously:eyebrow:?)

Oh no my friend, please expound your prophetic wisdom in regards to said minority thoughts of socialist agenda's..please (oh please oh please oh please) feel free, it's just you & me here:wink2:.

I can only hope he has indeed become a lefty socialist at least in his thoughts, I welcome him with open arms as I feel rather lonely out here...I'm a new one ya know..don't even have my beret (and ayyyye love a beret...still nothin' on that one huh? damn, I still think it's hilarious..too obscure, or just not funny I wonder, hmmm) or know the secret handshake yet:blush:.
Wacky unoriginal jargon and ridiculous rhetoric is what finally drove me to the fold, whether I agree with it or not..and trust me on this, I know something about ridiculous rhetoric..eh, it's a hobby, but I only practice it after I've done my homework...yeah yeah and clean my plate (sheeesh, don't eat your creamed peas one time...).
I know something about conservacrap too, I use to be a libertarian till they were ruined by same said crap and low rent philosophy (oh yeah, and I re-developed a conscience), that and I read more than bumper stickers!
(hey now, don't get me wrong 'cause I just looovvves me some bumper stickers!)

Nothing personal..seriously, it's just that it was basically a coin toss that led me to pick you to be the lucky recipient (sorry, fresh outta doorprizes, please feel free to make another purchase on your next visit and try again), as I've read enough and would like to get involved...it's not all directed at you, so don't have a cow man...well, unless your heavily into dairy products, than knock yourself out, that's cool!
This just seemed the simplest way for simple socialist lefty looney little 'ol me to introduce myself to y'all...I love politics by the way, so glad to meetcha!

Was it too personal?
Probably...okay definitely, and I honestly & truly apologize for that..you should try it sometimes, you know, if you decide to get personal about the very person whose very house your in again..tsk tsk:glare:.

[jchanic]

Hi,

Try the Tom Clancy books and no doubt you may find some other souls of a similar leaning on his MB.

Long days and pleasant nights

John, I think the difference here is that Clancy writes overtly political books, while King's books are much more focused on story and character. The development of character in Clancy's books is virtually nil, no matter how much he has Jack Ryan agonizing over things.

By the way, I enjoy Clancy's books, too--his plot-lines are very interesting to me. I just don't expect much other than that, though.

John

[Terry B]

Wayne - instead of trying to get a refund for the book, why don't you donate it to a worthy cause (a library or home for battered women). I'm sure there someone out there that would love to read it.

[Vern Stevens]

We all need to be more tolerant of opposite viewpoints.

Not me. :) Tolerance for the sake of tolerance is overrated. Judgement is an important tool for man, it keeps our speicies going.

I intend to read UTD when the Kindle version finally gets delivered. However, even as I recognize King's write to insert his political views in his novels, I still recognize my right to support or not support him and his views based on my views.

Now that I've thrown out a couple of my lofty views, hello forum members. Yes, first post. I usually start with a bang.

[wally wonder]

yeah, but what i'm curious about is the identity of the fox news reporter...:eyebrow:...never eye-deed...bunch of others were, wolf the biggie i guess...does wolf go 'out in the field'?...do journalists use the expression 'out in the field'?...or do they say something like 'on assignment'...notice how they always sign on and off w/their name?...i recall one fox news reporter, in lebanon i think she was, maybe this w/during golf-war-one...she seemed to be raising on her toes as she spoke and then dropping back down...i imagined her clicking her boot heels together...don't see too much of her anymore...just that once time.

i hope i never see sk on fox, like ole norm mailer that one time...that's one thing i could do w/o and never have a problem with it. :wink2:

[JohnDalglish]

Not me. :) However, even as I recognize King's write to insert his political views in his novels

Hi,

Right.

Long days and pleasant nights

[Derwood]

I just don't get the sensitivity by some people. If someone wrote a book that had decidedly pro-Republican, anti-Democrat leanings, I wouldn't get bent out of shape about it (assuming it's a good story).

[SmushingGnomes]

I thought the ideas that were criticized were those of mob mentality, corruption, power mongering, religious zealotry.

which of those idiotic ideas do you hold to?

I think this post best sums up my thoughts. And I find it amusing that criticism against this corruption, religious fanaticism, divisive paranoia and just plain nuttery is considered an attack on the GOP. That says a lot about what the GOP has become.

[Vern Stevens]

Hi,

Right.

Long days and pleasant nights

Yes, I realized I did not spell 'right' correctly. I would have corrected it but it was in moderator preview. You might have noticed that further along in the partial sentence you quoted I did spell 'right' correctly.

Thanks anyway.

[Vern Stevens]

I just don't get the sensitivity by some people.

Of course, that assumes their problem with differing political ideas has anything to do with sensitivity. Some people take ideas more seriously than others. This is not necessarily a bad thing.

While you are free not to get bent out of shape, they are also free to condemn and refuse to support that which they think is bad.

What you attribute to sensitivity may well be the result of a process of reasoning, sound or otherwise.

:smile2:

[Vern Stevens]

Not sure how Walker would be a terrorist middle name

Or Herbert for that matter. Terrifying name perhaps, but not a terrorist name.

[Renzo]

Hi all.

I think what the topic creator is saying is that it is presumptuous for any author to assume their readers would like to hear their politcal opinions while paying for a book. This is especially true if those opinions are interjected into the author's work in a way that does not further the story or characters.

Now, I have not read Under the Dome or any of SK's recent works yet but I can see where people could get upset over this. The thing that bothers me is that this country is being bogged down by two political parties that I don't feel can truly represent the broad spectrum of the American people. I do not want to be pidgeon-holed into the narrowminded views of the Republicans and Democrats. Politicans are ruining this country day by day and instead of voting for their party affiliation, we should be voting for their views and goals. At this point, the whole Republican/Democrat debate looks more like a sports rivalry than a political arena for true constructive debate.

So in short, I am an independant. I think both parties have good ideas and I think both parties have a lot of idiots running them.

[Derwood]

Hi all.

I think what the topic creator is saying is that it is presumptuous for any author to assume their readers would like to hear their politcal opinions while paying for a book.

And I think it's presumptuous for people to think an artist (yes, authors are artists) should keep their views to themselves in order to offend the least amount of people

[Tery]

His views are different from yours. You know that. If it bugs you that much, don't read his stuff. Or learn to deal. Pretty simple, really.

[Renzo]

And I think it's presumptuous for people to think an artist (yes, authors are artists) should keep their views to themselves in order to offend the least amount of people


At the risk of compromising their art? If an artist wants to portray a political stand, they need to do it outside of their work. Otherwise, it just makes them look like they are trying to preach.

And don't forget, this is not my thread. I am just speaking on behalf of someone who had a concern, which is his right, as well. Life is too short!

[Srbo]

Oh, people, c`mon already.
Can`t we just agree to disagree?

Let it go, it`s a work of FICTION and if Steve throws in some of his views and feelings about politics, how bad can that be?
It`s his work, you have the choice of reading it or not. If you are familiar with his way of writing, you know already that he`s done it before..and will do it again.
Everybody has his own opinion abut that, difference being that Steves gets published and yours is not.

It`s just like when I listen to Bono Vox speaking, when I used to listen to him speaking, that is.
I thought and still think it`s crap, I don`t share his opinion at all, so I chose not to listen to him anymore. It`s that simple.
Sure, I`ll still listen to some of his songs, but his political views get on my nerves, so I don`t listen or read anything he says that is not connected to the music buisness.
That`s it, that`s all.

Now, can we chillax a bit and have a beer or what?:smile2:

[Dani~]

I probably don't belong in this discussion since I am from Canada but I feel fortunate that the political aspects of the novel mostly, went right over my head.
I saw good characters and I saw bad characters, it never really occurred to me what party they were supposedly connected to until I started reading it here. Maybe I just wasn't paying close enough attention. I guess if I had more invested in the US politics I would have been reading with that in mind. As it is I'm glad I don't because I might have distracted myself from the story.

[SmushingGnomes]

At the risk of compromising their art? If an artist wants to portray a political stand, they need to do it outside of their work. Otherwise, it just makes them look like they are trying to preach.

And don't forget, this is not my thread. I am just speaking on behalf of someone who had a concern, which is his right, as well. Life is too short!

You're kidding right? Art is a form of communication and you're saying that political stands should be done outside of art? What, you've never seen artists create political works of art? You've never read a political based piece of fiction like Animal Farm? What you've just said is very very silly.

[Vern Stevens]

At the risk of compromising their art? If an artist wants to portray a political stand, they need to do it outside of their work.

You are creating an unnecessary dichotomy. Their political stand may be something that they wish to communicate through their art. That is what art is supposed to do, communicate some value or values of the artist through their chosen medium.

The issue is more a matter of each side of the equation having a right to certain actions. The writer has a right to write as he chooses, and the reader has a right to choose which works he will read based on his own reasoning.

[Renzo]

Of course he has the right to express his views but to do it successfully it needs to fit into the story or the art, it is a poor choice to do so if it doesn't FURTHER that art in some way. If it is out-of-place and from left field, than it is poorly written, spoken, etc. As I said earlier, I have not read Under the Dome but there is a group of people on here and on amazon that feel the political opinions expressed did not FIT into the story. You can't argue that.

But I think I will take my leave from this thread. I don't want this going where I think it might be.

Now...where is that beer?

[Bryan James]

...I don't because I might have distracted myself from the story.

Fragrant orchid celery pants! You pretty much hit the nail on the head, in the middle, and on the POINT right there.

Very nice?

[Moderator]

In several of the interviews Stephen did about this book during the book promotion, he explained that this book was partly about his perspective of how people responded to the politics of the Bush administration and about the environmental issues that have been evolving over the last couple of decades so the references were intentional on his part but not to promote his personal political opinions if you understand the difference. Here's a link (http://abcnews.go.com/video/playerIndex?id=9041961)to one if you want to hear it in his words.

[SmushingGnomes]

Of course he has the right to express his views but to do it successfully it needs to fit into the story or the art, it is a poor choice to do so if it doesn't FURTHER that art in some way. If it is out-of-place and from left field, than it is poorly written, spoken, etc. As I said earlier, I have not read Under the Dome but there is a group of people on here and on amazon that feel the political opinions expressed did not FIT into the story. You can't argue that.

But I think I will take my leave from this thread. I don't want this going where I think it might be.

Now...where is that beer?

Sorry but if you have not read the book as you just admitted then maybe you shouldn't argue whether it fits into the story or not. Yes, there are people who did not feel like added to the story but there are just as many (including me) who feel that it did.

It was not coming out of left-field at all. Rennie's extremist political views and thinking contribute a lot to the crapfest going on under the dome (won't go into details and spoil the story). I suggest you read it before commenting about how it doesn't fit.

[Patricia A]

At the risk of compromising their art? If an artist wants to portray a political stand, they need to do it outside of their work. Otherwise, it just makes them look like they are trying to preach.

And don't forget, this is not my thread. I am just speaking on behalf of someone who had a concern, which is his right, as well. Life is too short!
Art and politics are not exclusive of each other.
Much art is political, and much of politics is an art.

[Vern Stevens]

Of course he has the right to express his views...

Okay, but your statement that I responded to...


If an artist wants to portray a political stand, they need to do it outside of their work.

...suggested you held a different view.


As I said earlier, I have not read Under the Dome but there is a group of people on here and on amazon that feel the political opinions expressed did not FIT into the story. You can't argue that.

That would be why I did not attempt to make that argument. It is a fact that people have differing opinions about what those views are, whether or not they fit, etc. etc. However, I have no intention of using their views as my own which is why I will read it after 12/24 when it gets sent to my Kindle.

Rather, the argument I made was against your statement that suggested you thought artists should not insert political views into their work. Since I'm not sure where you stand on that now (given conflicting statements), I'll withhold further response until you choose to clarify (should you choose to do so).

[nygene40]

So I'm taking it that you loved "Under the Dome."

I really was hoping this wouldn't degenerate into inflamatory political statements, but that seems to be where you want to go, so I'd counter by saying that millions of living Iraqi citizens that would be dead if Sadaam Hussein were still in power would agree with me, as would millions of people who think the man responsible for killing thousands of civillians in New York shouldn't be given the same rights as a citizen of the country whose citizens he killed, and shouldn't be given a trial in the media capital of the world as a vehicle to further his message of hate.

Anway, all this is making my point for me. We know all the arguments both sides of all of these issues will make, and there's a place for that debate, but the fact that the discussion a fictional novel by Stephen King is causing the debate certainly suggests that the politics distracts from the stroy the book is telling.

With all due respect, the fact that Under the Dome IS causing said debate indicates that it is making people think and discuss. John's comment wasn't inflammatory, just truthful. All of this is not distracting from the story the book is telling, it's clear that some readers just don't want their political feathers ruffled and start crying "fowl" (get it?) when they do. Stephen King wrote a story with a nice big can of worms in it which we opened by reading. Some agree with the politics, and some don't, but it's still a damn great story. If you find the politics "too distracting" to focus on the story, stop reading it.

[Tooley]

I agree with a lot of Sai King's political views... so... I haven't a problem with what he says. But, in your case, Mr. King, and many other authors, have put their views into a work of fiction to mold what they believe and to make a point. You are free to take those points and agree or disagree, just like the rest of us, but in the end you shouldn't let it completely ruin your reading experience.

[Tery]

Hear, hear, SmushingGnomes!! I felt that the politics fit into the story very well and helped flesh out several characters, including Big Jim.

I'm sorry, but if you haven't read it yourself then you really ought not to judge. It's like those people who picketed The Life of Brian without anyone actually seeing it. If you rely on hearsay to judge anything then you are making a poor decision, IMHO.

[Bryan James]

The fact that someone hasn't read it is a complete dealbreaker--it makes their opinion void. I've only commented on what I've read so far. It "definately" ain't supreme, but I'm still interested and I'm still reading.

(And I bought it at full retail, so I'm obligated to read it!)

~BJS

[Vern Stevens]

You are free to take those points and agree or disagree, just like the rest of us, but in the end you shouldn't let it completely ruin your reading experience.

One is also free not to read the author's works at all if they don't care for the political views being expressed in the work. In the end, one can choose to support or not support various authors for a whole variety of reasons, including political reasons.

[Vern Stevens]

... as would millions of people who think the man responsible for killing thousands of civillians in New York shouldn't be given the same rights as a citizen of the country whose citizens he killed, and shouldn't be given a trial in the media capital of the world as a vehicle to further his message of hate

Thank goodness our country doesn't have mob rule then. I could care less what "millions of people think". Fortunately, we have a trial system in this country that is supposed to look at facts objectively to determine IF the man is actually responsible for killing thousands of our citizens. While the benefit of the court of public opinion may be expediency, it oftens suffers from the detriment of not knowing all the facts. This would frequently lead to swift injustice.

[xP3AC3MAK3Rx]

I agree with a lot of Sai King's political views... so... I haven't a problem with what he says. But, in your case, Mr. King, and many other authors, have put their views into a work of fiction to mold what they believe and to make a point. You are free to take those points and agree or disagree, just like the rest of us, but in the end you shouldn't let it completely ruin your reading experience.

A fictional story has often metaphorical meaning/s; politically, philosophically, sociologically etc.
I really admire Mr. King for the intelligent way he put's parts of his own views (not necessarily my own) into his characters and story.

After I've read the whole book I will probably break down the political/metaphorical meaning of it, as I see it, myself.

Tommy

[Pale Rider]

I have to agree with a lot of the points made on both sides of the argument. SK has every right to his political opinions. He does not have the right necessarily to sell them and claim they are a novel. A shame, as I really enjoyed this story - the first since Desperation for me.

[freud1977]

The arrogance of the extreme liberal dictates that they cannot help themselves from spewing their own form of fanaticism. They really believe that most people think like them and that those that don't are ignorant, hate filled religious nuts. Grisham and his ilk have become so bad as to now be unreadable. SK is heading in that direction. However, if "under the dome" typifies his current best, than it won't matter. It just wasn't that good.

[Roseasharn]

So...
All the best science fiction I've ever read serves as social commentary.
I'd include UTD in that category.
Good enough?

[smjohn]

Someones political views are part of the characteristic of that person. As characters in a book, I see SK using both sides of the political fence. I see no bias here regarding his own political views.

[Patricia A]

Shakespeare, Steinbeck, Dickens, Twain, Rand, Hemingway,Trumbo, all of these people and a host of others all write fictional stories heavy with political rhetoric. The social/political observations in many of their stories is the story, from the artist's perspective. If you don't like the view from the book's vista, put it down and walk away, easy peasy lemon squeezy.
You don't gotta get mad. :eyebrow:

[missdebbie]

I think the terrorist middle name being referred to here is Hussein, as in Barack Hussein Obama. Where have all you Americans been? I think for those readers who live outside the USA, the political opinions written into this book make us feel hopeful for the future. George Dubya Bush may have had a lot of support in the US, but over most of the rest of the world he's been seen as quite dangerous. He's also been extensively ridiculed in the UK for being as thick as two short planks. He was seen as a really dangerous guy to have as leader of the free world - Tony Blair was ridiculed here for the way he followed him unquestioningly. In fact, the relationship with Bush was at the heart of Tony Blair's downfall. The British electorate became totally disenchanted with him and he became more and more unpopular after a really promising start. If the people in the US could see the way George Bush was ridiculed on our political comedy TV programmes, you would have more idea of how Bush was regarded here. In the UK, President Obama's election was seen as a really promising political event.

[themadone06]

I have only read about 300 pages of UTD. Just got to the part of the missiles. I have noticed political talks coming from the right and the left. As a conservative it doesn't bother me at all, I think it is all hilarious. The stuff that has been said about Obama has made me laugh the hardest. Particularly the paragraph directly after Jim Rennie reads the letter from President Obama was hilarious.

[Tery]

The arrogance of the extreme liberal dictates that they cannot help themselves from spewing their own form of fanaticism. They really believe that most people think like them and that those that don't are ignorant, hate filled religious nuts. Grisham and his ilk have become so bad as to now be unreadable. SK is heading in that direction. However, if "under the dome" typifies his current best, than it won't matter. It just wasn't that good.

This is pretty obnoxious. You're railing at "extreme liberal" arrogance yet you cannot see that you are stereotyping just as much as you accuse "extreme liberals" of doing. SOME of us can actually understand nuance. SOME of us can appreciate that folks on the other end of the spectrum from us are intelligent and thoughtful and, yes, sincere. You, on the other hand, appear to be incapable of such nuance.

If ya don't like it, don't read it. But don't come on here and insult people. :glare:

[koujuke]

I will no doubt repeat what someone has already said: Conservative thinking is a line of thought that fights change. Big Jim takes advantage of the good will of his town flock. That flock likes to believe that all is well and that they should never question the authority they feel they wisely chose to lead them. It is both very interesting and impossible for anyone to expect King to write a book as a dyed in the wool Republican or a dyed in the wool Democrat. He uses both sets of beliefs (and many shades of those in between) to make his story all the more interesting. I feel sorry for the few readers who might not get past political dogma. Mr King neither leads from the right or the left. He is an expert at weaving a story that involves all sorts of character traits.

[BrentMc]

I have to agree with the other people who say Mr. King is free to write whatever he wants in his books. If you do not like it you don't have to read it. It's a free country.

[themadone06]

I think the terrorist middle name being referred to here is Hussein, as in Barack Hussein Obama. Where have all you Americans been? I think for those readers who live outside the USA, the political opinions written into this book make us feel hopeful for the future. George Dubya Bush may have had a lot of support in the US, but over most of the rest of the world he's been seen as quite dangerous. He's also been extensively ridiculed in the UK for being as thick as two short planks. He was seen as a really dangerous guy to have as leader of the free world - Tony Blair was ridiculed here for the way he followed him unquestioningly. In fact, the relationship with Bush was at the heart of Tony Blair's downfall. The British electorate became totally disenchanted with him and he became more and more unpopular after a really promising start. If the people in the US could see the way George Bush was ridiculed on our political comedy TV programmes, you would have more idea of how Bush was regarded here. In the UK, President Obama's election was seen as a really promising political event.

Well this is coming from a more Conservative person. I personally never liked Bush, I'm a Libertarian so I don't usually like many politicians... they are all too controlling. But, truthfully you make it sound like George Bush had a lot of support in the U.S. where do you get these facts? He had support for about a year after 9/11, when we went to Iraq his approval rating was completely split 50/50. I like George Bush as a person, I also like Obama as a person. But, I hate them both as politicians. Other then parties and ideologies Bush and Obama are no different in how the conduct politics. You should see how how our comedians portray all of our politicians :). Watch some SNL. I feel like you are talking with blinders on, or are really naive.

As for what the world thinks of Bush, Obama, or any American President I don't care. The way I see it they don't elect the United States President, so if they don't like him it means absolutely nothing. Same reason I don't care who the British or Canadian Prime Minister is. I'll pay attention to the elections, but it doesn't directly affect me. So, Europe has seen Obama's election as a really promising political event. It was seen as a promising even in America too, not by of course, but his poll numbers are sliding farther and farther everyday. I believe Obama started out with a 70+ honeymoon approval rating, and after the Stim package, huge unemployment numbers, and the healthcare debacle he is in a steady decline into 40%. I think the way Americans portray and approve of their leader is much more important then the way the world views him.

I personally enjoy the the politics in UTD.... very fun read. I like how you can see the good from both political spectrums. Personally my favorite characters are Julia and Rusty, they don't take crap from anyone it seems. I like Barbara too, but I questioned some of his decisions. The one thing I like about him is that he is incredibly patient.... patience is a virtue.

[PatInTheHat]

The arrogance of the extreme liberal dictates that they cannot help themselves from spewing their own form of fanaticism. They really believe that most people think like them and that those that don't are ignorant, hate filled religious nuts. Grisham and his ilk have become so bad as to now be unreadable. SK is heading in that direction. However, if "under the dome" typifies his current best, than it won't matter. It just wasn't that good.

Wow, how very interesting.

Now I my very self, am in fact, what at one time I myself, would have considered to be an extreme liberal.
But I was created as it were, after being exposed to an almost lethal dose of infectious morally judgmental, rank class system, righteously rigid ideology serum, and now I have morphed into Da DaDa Da Anti-Fanaticism Man...able to leap over piles of steamy rhetoric in a single bound..well, I don't bound anymore, could spring a hip:glare:, so let's say I just step around and hold my nose a lot.

Oh, and trust me my friend, don't think for one second I think anyone thinks anything like me, but see the difference is between I and say, well let's just say you for the sake of argument, I wouldn't necessarily want or expect them to, much less expect it in the name of a politicophilosophy, and then we'd all sit around spoutin' off the same tired old mantras...good god those conservative ones are getting old ain't they?..and I love rockin' to the oldies as much as the next old fart, but gee whiz give some of 'em a freakin' rest already (psst, it's getting rather embarrassing..I'm just sayin').
Y'all "conservatives" are the ones that all speak the same conservaspeak say no to everything babble..if you haven't noticed, most liberals can't agree on paper or plastic.
Thinkin' with a your own brain, and not as a collective, can be a very humanizing experience...maybe you can't, won't or just simply don't understand it, but it's the schnizzle I'm here to tell ya..try it sometime!
(and it won't make you a liberal either I swear...that doesn't happen until the indoctrination brainwashing ceremony...oh wow, ya gotta go on free cake night, it's unforgetable, well you know, until that little brainwashing thingy, but it's sooo good)

I, like most "liberals" I think, just want people to consider other people, wildlife & the planet, you know, the usual silly stuff, and not kow tow to power just because it's power with deep pocketed big corporate interests.
Rather because it makes some kind of fair & equal sense in it's treatment to all citizens like we're supposedly guaranteed, and not just a privileged few, or just those that look like and act like them...which is the (of course this is just my opinion..see, no expectations) current definition of "conservative"...yeah yeah yeah, I know, you don't agree..see, your wrong again:wink2:..come on, I'm just pullin' your chain..kinda:laugh:!
And please, don't give me that crappy bogus definition about "fiscal responsibilty" and "smaller government", "for the people", or "we're a friend of small business" either..those myths have been thoroughly debunked since the "father" of the current "conservative" movement, that lovable little scamp, Ronnie Reagan was in office.

Ya see, just sayin' it don't make it so, ya gotta make it go, and that go just plumb got up and went..if it was ever actually there to begin with.
I've lived the supposed "conservative" definition through five administrations, and I sure didn't hardly see it (but feel free to point out to me what I missed while blinking)...oh sure, I heard all about it though, oh my freakin' word did we hear allll about it, so thanks but no thanks, been there, not done that!
If you'd like to go there with me, I'd certainly love to be your historically hysterical huckleberry tour guide!
(think we could get a corporate sponsor?...Ha Psych!..can't buy me babe)
And I didn't just live it, I also took note oh yes I did I did.
I live for this stuff mostly because I never wanted to forget, it's affected my life, and afterall, it ultimately turned me into what I am today...Da DaDa Da!..hmmph, you forgot already dincha..aww man:down:.

Now about that "typifies" thing, what's that all about, can you define what you mean by that please?
I think that'll be in the eye of the consumer, and maybe in the amount of reaction it gets in the magical electronic ether joints like this...if that's the case, than I'd say it's at the very least, a strong keeper...yes/no, maybe a hmmm maybe?

Now I'd love to discuss Grisham and his writings vs. your thoughts on our constitutionaly guaranteed civil rights, but that's for another writers forum.
If he's got one, I'd be more than happy to meet ya there, as I'm nothin' if not reasonable(ish):blush:.

[ShootDaSquirrells]

To start I am neither Republican or Democrat, I believe the system they made (by always having opposite views so no other party could join the fun) is absolutely retarded. Anyways, he clearly has the right to say whatever he wants but I always felt like he has been losing fans by doing that. As far as making the story better, I would strongly suggest attacking both sides or not attacking any side. However that is only my opinion and Stephen King clearly has a different opinion and he is the one with 30 or so #1 NY Times Bestsellers and I am the one with 0. I just think he is abusing his power of being the bestselling author by knowing people will buy his books so he figures he will talk all trash on the Republican party.

[Renzo]

"I, like most "liberals" I think, just want people to consider other people, wildlife & the planet, you know, the usual silly stuff, and not kow tow to power just because it's power with deep pocketed big corporate interests."

Hmm, I can't seem to get the quote button to work. Anyways, I have yet to see politicians from either side consider people, wildlife, the planet or anything else that you just mentioned on a consistant basis. They think for themselves, about themselves with little room for anyone else. It is stupid to debate Repub vs Demo because both parties are essentially the exact same. Oh wait, I can't post in this thread because I haven't finished UTD yet. :glare: Gosh, sorry.

[SmushingGnomes]

I just think he is abusing his power of being the bestselling author by knowing people will buy his books so he figures he will talk all trash on the Republican party.

How is it an abuse of power to preach to any choir? With your line of thinking, any popular figure would be "abusing power" just by speaking to his/her audience. Popularity does not lessen anyone's access to free speech.


Oh wait, I can't post in this thread because I haven't finished UTD yet. :glare: Gosh, sorry.

No one said you couldn't post. You're free to post but we're also free to point out how your opinions related to specifics of the book are worthless when you yourself have admitted that you didn't even read the book.

[PatInTheHat]

"I, like most "liberals" I think, just want people to consider other people, wildlife & the planet, you know, the usual silly stuff, and not kow tow to power just because it's power with deep pocketed big corporate interests."

Hmm, I can't seem to get the quote button to work. Anyways, I have yet to see politicians from either side consider people, wildlife, the planet or anything else that you just mentioned on a consistant basis. They think for themselves, about themselves with little room for anyone else. It is stupid to debate Repub vs Demo because both parties are essentially the exact same. Oh wait, I can't post in this thread because I haven't finished UTD yet. :glare: Gosh, sorry.

Any? At all?
There's a few of 'em...I'll even go so far as to say I think they're are on both sides of the aisle, though not as many on the right.
But you'll not get much argument with me there, and I don't claim to have a great love of the democratic party if that's what your suggesting...I've made that abundantly clear in many past posts.

I do however, absolutley hate the republican party (and with a festering boil like passion), or rather what it has become, to be more accurate...or to be even more precise, far too many of them in positions of great (and even not so great) power & influence within the party for decades, working diligently for corporate power & profit (their bread & butter) at the expense of the people...you know, when it's called capitalism.
Their damage done is uncalculable, and no longer affortable...oh sure it's been fun, but like all parties, it has to come to an end...we'll likely not get our deposit back either:laugh:...:oo:...:down:

The democratic party, with all their fanciful funny foibles, certain sillinesses, and often glaring ineptitude can't be compared however.
(and the republican party ain't without those characteristics in their resume' either)
No matter how misguided or clumsily myopic I personally might think democrats go about it, for the most part it's the people (or their bread & butter if you like, but then that's how it's supposed to be isn't it), and other silly things like the planet (my home) they have a vested interest in, the ultimate stockholders...you know, when it's called socialism.
(the republican party can't hardly claim those characteristics..well, with a straight face at any rate...and we all know how they love straight)


You can post where ever & whenever you freakin' want..no apologies needed, at least to me anyway, I do it all the time:blush:.

[Sigmund]

All responses were interesting but I didn't get the whole "Distracting Political Opinions". I'm not dense, I understand that the "good" guys were Dems/Libs and the "bad" guys were Rep but I think thats just the way things shook out. If SK is making political statements well, what ever blows his hair back. Suck it up. When Big Jim kept commenting on the woman with the "big tiddies" I didn't think that SK was sexist, misogynistic or chauvunist-I just took it that Big Jim was ignorant and stupid on one more level. Maybe some people are too sensitive and should stick to reading material geared to their way of thinking- Rush Limbaugh anyone?

[freud1977]

The arrogance of the extreme liberal dictates that they cannot help themselves from spewing their own form of fanaticism. They really believe that most people think like them and that those that don't are ignorant, hate filled religious nuts. Grisham and his ilk have become so bad as to now be unreadable. SK is heading in that direction. However, if "under the dome" typifies his current best, than it won't matter. It just wasn't that good.
The arrogance of the extreme conservative dictates that they cannot help themselves from spewing their own form of fanaticism. They really believe that most people think like them and those that don't are ignorant, hate filled, communist nuts.

[mogget3]

Stephen King is a writer or better said,an author of best-selling novels. He's not a politician. And why would anyone make a fuss about having a political opinion when politicians are the ones that have the biggest opinions and differences in their opinions! They have freedom of speech,why not authors?

I do always find myself agreeing with Stephen...what does that make me? A democrat? I'm not american. In Holland we don't have just two parties. We have too much to chose from and that's why it's such a mess in our country. Except for the health-insurrance policy. It's much too expensive in my book and for my bank account (116 euros a month!),but otherwise it's a good settlement.

[mouse213]

Mr. King’s book, “Under the Dome” is his view of the evil and good that lies within men. Mr. King’s interjections of his personal political opinions are his views of how politicians drunk with power can use fear to control people.

Mr. King has the right as long as America remains free to write whatever he chooses; thus, making Jim Rennie, a Republican, into an opportunist, power grabbing, villain. In contrast, the reader also has the freedom to ignore Mr. Kings view, knowing that evil does not lie within a political party, but within the heart of an individual.

While reading Mr. King’s book, I saw the similarities of the “Dome” compare to the fears that reside in America. Our government is utilizing fear of unemployment, health care, global warming, war, and terrorists, to gain power and control, or “herd us like sheep”, also mentioned in the book.

Similar to the “Dome” the political party in the USA is a majority ( the Democrats) and have possession of power to influence the masses to follow them; therefore, the democrats have the ability to destroy our nation knowing the resistance from opponents’ and the American people will be limited, if not futile to stop them.

“Rennie” used others in political office to get elected and then continued to use them the stay in power. “Rennie” also used others, both political and civilians as his “fall guys” to cover his mistakes and lack of ability to lead; in comparison, this is also how Obama (an unknown community organizer) became both a senator and president of the USA. Similar to “Rennie”, Obama also covers his mistakes with “fall guys” blaming others (Bush, etc…) without ever being held accountable for his own actions and his personal agendas.

Similar to the “Dome”, people in the USA are also choosing sides utilizing “tea parties”, “town hall meetings”, and bloggs to represent a side.

“Under The Dome” the “blue band” represents people who have given up hope or were looking for hope, willing to follow “Rennie” out of fear, mass confusion, or perhaps because “Rennie” was the most powerful voice. Many like “sheep” trusted "Rennie" because he was a government official. Similar to the "Dome", the “tea party members”, etc, in the USA are protesting the governments forced agendas, such as bailouts, forced health care (that if not purchased will result in a fine/prison sentence), tarp and trade, and global warming ( if passed it will destroy what is left of our failing, unstable economy). Similar to the “Dome”, Americans in oppositions against the governments misuse of powers are also fewer in numbers and limited on where they can go to escape it.


“Rennie” surrounded himself with his own “czars” that answered only to him. When it was too late to stop “Rennie” only then was his true self-serving agenda discovered, to rule with full power and a cold murderous heart against all that opposed him.

The force of the “Dome” was discovered to be controlled by cruel alien children who enjoyed watching the self destruction of the town, the cruel acts, murder, the bulling, beatings, all committed in the name of power. The aliens looked only for the bad in man and in their blindness or desire for destruction, they failed to see or understand that humans are capable of survival when they unite as one through acts of humanity and self sacrifice. Similarly; there are many nations that are outside the USA watching through our “Dome” with glee, hoping, and waiting for the USA to destroy itself from within. Those nations are enjoying watching the USA convert from a free country to socialism. Our enemies smell the weakness of those in control of our government and they hope that the people will conform like “sheep” and follow, because the result will be the end of USA. America will cease to exist and become a country ruled by the government for the government; instead of, a government for the people, by the people, as our founding fathers set it up and desired it to remain.

In the end of the story, political affiliation held no merit for the few fleeing survivors. Like I stated earlier, it is not the political affiliations that defines a person; instead, it is the heart that beats within the person that defines their character. “Julia” was a Repblican also but she was nothing like “Rennie”. "Julia" no longer had the freedoms of an American but with a cost she still had freedom of choice. “Julia” alone did not save the town; instead, it was a collection of those with her that refused to give up hope. Recognizing cruelty and self arrogance that resides within even a kind heart was what brought the “dome” down. Self refection of ones own faults, and the desire join in unity to change a future that would not repeat the failures of the past is also what brought the “dome” down.

The “dome” is around the USA and unless we the people unite as one, we will cease to be. We must unite with the reflections of our founding forefather’s wisdom in our hearts and elect public officials that share the same freedom values and desires within their hearts. “United we stand, Divided we fall”.

In closing, Mr. King I enjoyed your book greatly. I have enjoyed every book you have ever written. “Under The Dome” was thought provoking for me. Mr. King you are one of my favorite writers and you always will be. I look forward to other books you write in the future because few writers can compare with your talent.

[Srbo]

No offense, but this really getting old.

And boring.

Why did you guys forget about all the art ?

This is way to much political talk, and that`s not why I am here on the MB...much finer things to talk about in the SK universe...

To each their own, but...plz do relax...

[wally wonder]

No offense, but this really getting old.

And boring.

Why did you guys forget about all the art ?

This is way to much political talk, and that`s not why I am here on the MB...much finer things to talk about in the SK universe...

To each their own, but...plz do relax...


i dunno, srbo. posts like this are a real bummer when i read them. honestly, this is a form of censorship, nothing more, nothing less. there are some relatively new members posting on this thread and i for one would like to see them post more. under the dome and the politics therein are a subject worthy of debate, talk, communication, and i think we'd all agree that communication in one form or another is much better than the alternatives.

[TowerGirl]

So, I just finished reading Under The Dome about an hour ago. It was with a sense of bittersweet accomplishment that I turned that last page. It is always hard to finish a great story, and I found this one especially hard to put down. I was expecting a disappointing ending, yet I was not disappointed. I enjoyed this book from beginning to end.

Sure there were political undertones, but that's okay. It just made the story more real. And Mr. King has every right to his opinion. If a reader does not agree with a writer's opinion, that is okay. If everyone agreed, what kind of world would this be?

The most important fact is that Under The Dome was a terrific story, and one that will stay on my mind long after the last page has been turned. To me - that is what makes a story worthwhile!

Just sayin'.......

[Renzo]

[QUOTE=SmushingGnomes;349866No one said you couldn't post. You're free to post but we're also free to point out how your opinions related to specifics of the book are worthless when you yourself have admitted that you didn't even read the book.[/QUOTE]

Aw, that's nice. So I will read UTD and come back in a few weeks and we will disagree just as we are now. I still fail to see how my opposing opinions are "worthless" when this thread has clearly surpassed the topic of this book and has encompassed authors including their political views into their novels. Opinions are never "worthless" and it is that kind of narrow-mindedness that is crippling the politics in American today. You find it suprising that this thread came into existance because the author posts that he supports one political vantage point and makes the villain in one of his novels the opposite? Pretty silly.

[Denise Marsden]

I really cant believe that whilst reading the Dome your political sensitivities were an issue. Are you on the same planet ?If people like Stephen King don't highlight the truth it will never be considered as we fight for survival on this planet after the mess that has come out of the insane minds governing some of our world right now!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Sigmund]

Yes, I feel that way too. But as the Democrats continue to slide downhill with their leftist socialist agenda Mr. King will again be the minority in his thoughts.
Sorry, but the Dems are not sliding downhill we are climbing out of a chasm created by right wing fascist decisions and behaviors. It was not the Dem who got into a war due to imaginary WMD or shot the economy all to heck and had to bail out banks to the tune of billions. BTW if Mr. King was ever the minority of anything it is the minority of people who can imagine create and produce literature that can bring enjoyment, introspection and reflection. If you want to read fiction where the Republicans are the good guys and they are always right read the newspapers circa 1995-2008 when that bubble (dome) popped and reality hit

[Srbo]

i dunno, srbo. posts like this are a real bummer when i read them. honestly, this is a form of censorship, nothing more, nothing less. there are some relatively new members posting on this thread and i for one would like to see them post more. under the dome and the politics therein are a subject worthy of debate, talk, communication, and i think we'd all agree that communication in one form or another is much better than the alternatives.

Nah, Bluey, no censorship at all, didn`t I say " to each their own " ?
Of course new members should post more, but I also said that there are much finer things to discuss than politics.
What good have you ever seen come from that?
Same with religion... no one is going to convince the other "side" that they should convert into that or this. Not with one post and not with a thousand.
Sure, as long as there is no fighting it`s all good, it`s just getting really old is all I`m saying.
Let us get back to the beauty of the art of writing.:)

[mouse213]

Nah, Bluey, no censorship at all, didn`t I say " to each their own " ?

Of course new members should post more, but I also said that there are much finer things to discuss than politics.
What good have you ever seen come from that?
Same with religion... no one is going to convince the other "side" that they should convert into that or this. Not with one post and not with a thousand.
Sure, as long as there is no fighting it`s all good, it`s just getting really old is all I`m saying.
Let us get back to the beauty of the art of writing.:)

It is censorship when it discourages others from posting because someone finds the topic boring.
The name of this forum was "Distracting Political Opinions" and therefore it leaves one to believe it is open for discussion.

Mr. Kings books was one written from a perspective political idealogy view point, since the main character, "Rennie" was not only a republican, but the villan. All novels when printed are open to discussion and interpretation by the readers. Since, Mr. King included political characters it becomes a topic of discussion.

When I find a topic that is boring to me, I simply don't read it and move along until I find one that captures my interest.

Mr. King's novel was both intriguing and thought provoking to me because it showed that republican Rennie desired power, republican Julia desired a solution. Mr. King's novel showed the contrast between the individuals both within the same party, one evil, one good. Mr. King also portrayed the govenment leaving the ppl within the zone to feel like exiles from their own country, by having the soldiers remain silent with their backs against the dome; thus, ignoring the voices of the people left alone in despair.

If I read this book only from a political perspective, then the positive thought I would take with me was Mr. King's eloquent ending. In the end the party of survivors were most likely made up of many different political parties; however, there were no angry shouts of blame or fingers being pointed between them. Instead, they all worked together as a collective group of people to solve the problem and they were succssful.

Our govenment was set up to be, for the people, by the people and when the govenment excludes the ppl by turning their backs and ignoring their voices (like in the dome), it then becomes a govenment by the govenment and for the govenment. The dome portrayed the latter and that is why the town was destroyed and only a few survived, because power became the focus of the govenment and the people were treated like mindless sheep that needed to be herded. There is a lesson to be learned here from the pages of fiction, the govenment cannot exclude the voices of the ppl, nor can they believe they are all powerful since they are elected officials and can be replaced with a new candidate.

Have a wonderful day all

[SmushingGnomes]

Aw, that's nice. So I will read UTD and come back in a few weeks and we will disagree just as we are now. I still fail to see how my opposing opinions are "worthless" when this thread has clearly surpassed the topic of this book and has encompassed authors including their political views into their novels. Opinions are never "worthless" and it is that kind of narrow-mindedness that is crippling the politics in American today. You find it suprising that this thread came into existance because the author posts that he supports one political vantage point and makes the villain in one of his novels the opposite? Pretty silly.

I hate to continue this petty squabble, but I was referring to your argument that the political slant did not fit the book. And at that time you said that you hadn't read the book. So how can you make such a claim? Silly indeed.

[mouse213]

[QUOTE=Srbo;350288]Nah, Bluey, no censorship at all, didn`t I say " to each their own " ?
Of course new members should post more, but I also said that there are much finer things to discuss than politics.
What good have you ever seen come from that?
Same with religion... no one is going to convince the other "side" that they should convert into that or this. Not with one post and not with a thousand.
Sure, as long as there is no fighting it`s all good, it`s just getting really old is all I`m saying.
Let us get back to the beauty of the art of writing."


It is a form of censorship when one discourages others from posting by making statements that “it is boring”.

Mr. King’s book was composed with a political theme in that his main character “Rennie” was identified as a republican. Through out the book “Rennie’s” political ideologies were immersed within the chapters.

When a book is published every written word becomes subject to discussion and or debate. When I was in college this was not only encouraged but expected in many English classes to enhance the students’ ability in critical thinking and observations.

I do agree that some topics can become heated such as religion and politics. However, as long as no one is threatening or demeaning other person’s beliefs, I firmly believe it stimulates one to look beyond their own thoughts and consider another person’s perspective even if they have to agree to disagree. Just because someone may not agree does not dictate that they do not respect the other person, or their opinion. This is one reason I love literature so much, because I am allowed to see inside the thoughts of another person and consider it privately, before I choose to respond or not to respond verbally.

“Rennie” was a work of art and therefore, that is why he has become a topic of discussion, however, I saw much more art in Mr. King’s novel than just “Rennie” and I have posted in other topics concerning this novel.

Keep in mind I am new to this site; therefore, this topic was new and fresh for me. The title intrigued me just as the novel did. The forum topic engaged my creative thinking and enticed me with a desire to not only read the post but to post also.
I wish you well my friend in all your endeavors.

[Vern Stevens]

There are other threads to read if you find this one boring. And... I am relaxed... :)

[Vern Stevens]

" but I also said that there are much finer things to discuss than politics."

But "finer" is in the eye of the beholder. Discussing politics is perfectly fine and interesting to me. I'm not so sure why you would be concerned with what other people wish to discuss. If the conversation is getting old, read one of the many other threads. No one is compelling you to read this one. It's pretty clearly labeled as discussing politics. Why is it that you should try to dictate for others what is finer, what's getting old, and what to discuss?

[Vern Stevens]

I really cant believe that whilst reading the Dome your political sensitivities were an issue.

Some people take ideas more seriously than others. Throughout history, many fictional authors have used fictional works to present political and philosophical ideas with the intent of influencing people. Same for TV, movies, music, etc. It is rational and intelligent to be critical of such ideas, and not just accept that at face value. And, it may have nothing at all to do with "sensitivities". That sounds like a demeaning way of saying "concerns".


If people like Stephen King don't highlight the truth...

I think that is what is at issue... the "truth". It may well be that Stephen King is not highlighting "the truth" at all.

[Tery]

But the "truth" is relative, isn't it? This IS the truth as he sees it. And it is his JOB to tell us that truth.

[Srbo]

Vern and Mouse, all due respect, but you either don`t understand or you read only what you want.

I said, with all respect that I have

" To each their own " - did I not ?

I wasn`t trying to dictate anything ( what am I, Rennie now, all of the sudden? ), it was a suggestion.

Did I say : "STOP writing about that", or did I say " plz do relax ?" - in hopes this doesn`t get into a fight ?

You guys feel free to write about anything you want, who am I to say you cant`, but I certainly can say that the issue about politics in general is boring, cos frankly, that is my opinion and of course, you don`t have to share it.

Cheers.

[Vern Stevens]

It is a form of censorship when one discourages others from posting by making statements that “it is boring”.

That isn't censorship in even the remotest sense of the word. Expressing one's opinion regarding the value of content is that and nothing more. Such expression contains no ability to prevent anyone else from posting their opinion in return. However, by your usage of the word, it sounds like you are censoring this person from expressing their opinion by accusing them of censorship.

[rjt65]

unfortunately what this thread is highlighting is the stereotyping problem a lot of people seem to have ---:oo:

Statements like "all republicans.. all democrats." .. both parties are flawed IMO ..severely...

So get over the us vs them mentalities--- until everyone does the sheep will continue to flock behind puppet leaders and both parties are controlled by the $$ and secret agendas, both parties have had lots of issues.....

Disassociate with the labels and deal just with the actions--- doing that will hold people in both parties accountable--by keeping people in an Us versus them mentality it derails focus on the job done...

[davemelnick]

That's the xact reason why I am cautious of purchasing a book that has the author write comments about epilepsy that they might not know anything about. :sad:

[Vern Stevens]

No, the "truth" is not relative. The "truth" is something that is objectively verifiable. He is expressing his opinion, which should not necessarily be confused with the "truth".

[freud1977]

But the "truth" is relative, isn't it? This IS the truth as he sees it. And it is his JOB to tell us that truth.

Why, pray tell, is it his JOB to tell us His truth? SK is a novelist not a political analyst. I prefer not to get my politics from my favorite athlete, my favorite actor, my favorite comedian nor my favorite author.

[Roland19]

Actually, facts are objectively verifiable. Truth varies, depending on the person. Two people can (and quite often do) see the same set of facts and take away different truths.

[Sigmund]

Everyone has had interesting, if not intelligent, things to say for all sides. SK writes (brilliantly IMO). We, THE PEOPLE, can choose to read his work or not. Quit kickin' the horse-it's dead.

[davemelnick]

xcellent point there TowerGirl. Thanx very much. :grinning:

[M-O-O-N that spells Nikki]

In my opinion that is the beauty of writing a book, you don't need to stress yourself thinking if it's politically correct or racist etc... otherwise they'd be stuck writing about penguins.

[smjohn]

Then don't. I mean, it's not like SK writew his opinions in big BOLD BLACK LETTERS and adds ("here's MY personal opinion") when he writes his novels/stories. He doesn't shove them down anyones throat. He injects whatever is a part of him into his books. You obviously get your political opinions from somewhere, though...

[smjohn]

That most recent post was supposed to be replied to Freud1977...forgot to push the reply w/quote button. lol

[PatInTheHat]

Why, pray tell, is it his JOB to tell us His truth? SK is a novelist not a political analyst. I prefer not to get my politics from my favorite athlete, my favorite actor, my favorite comedian nor my favorite author.

First the question.
Because it's his gig, and he can do whatever he wants to do with it (I'm pretty sure it's in the job description for the self-employed..especially the gainfully ones)...I for one appreciate an authors own personal "truth" to come shining through...honest "truth" beats faking the truth anyday (and I know what your thinking, but it can be done..I know 'cause I was married to the Exalted High Queen of Fakey Truths).

Oh my word, if only Mr. King would become involved in serious political punditry...please don't toy with my emotions like that:biggrin2:.

Now why wouldn't you want to get some of your politics from your favorite...well, anything?
Why I watch folks on the tube all the time who have no business even opening their mouth's, much less pretend they have a real valid opinion instead of a paid endorsement, and they're in the business of talking politics, and as it just so happens, they often turn out to be genuine politicians.
Personally, I'll even mix it up with my favorite mailman over my states corporate pleasing panderer and all around windbag, the honorableless Mitch McConnell, and duly elected (but not too soon enough retiring) doofus Jim Bunning, not to mention our party butt kissin' congressman Jeff Davis.
(I just about got mailboy going over the edge too...he'll be shopping for a stylish berret & wearing a retro grape picker t-shirt by summer:cool2:)

Ohhh, I think i get it, is it because you think you can't actually challenge those opinions in a face to face?
Well if that's the case here's a suggestion, just call your mailman (or dry cleaner, barista, hair stylist....) Stephen and just run with it:wink2:.

[freud1977]

Then don't. I mean, it's not like SK writew his opinions in big BOLD BLACK LETTERS and adds ("here's MY personal opinion") when he writes his novels/stories. He doesn't shove them down anyones throat. He injects whatever is a part of him into his books. You obviously get your political opinions from somewhere, though...

Here is the problem with "then don't". Went to a John Prine concert recently. In the middle of the concert, he stopped singing and started slamming the political philosophy that he did not agree with. Went to listen to him sing not be subjected to his opinions on politics.
People get famous and all of a sudden think other people want to hear their "enlightened" opinion. Most people who have "made it" on natural talent (actors, novelists, musicians, atheletes, etc.) have led a pampered life and have no clue as to what is happening in the real world.

[Tery]

Why, pray tell, is it his JOB to tell us His truth? SK is a novelist not a political analyst. I prefer not to get my politics from my favorite athlete, my favorite actor, my favorite comedian nor my favorite author.

That's right - he's a writer. It is the JOB of the writer to tell us stories about the world as s/he sees it. To populate the story with different characters who represent various viewpoints so that we can have our eyes opened to them. The writer is a truth-teller, even though s/he may be writing fiction.

Once again, if it bothers you so much then don't read SK's books.

[PatInTheHat]

Here is the problem with "then don't". Went to a John Prine concert recently. In the middle of the concert, he stopped singing and started slamming the political philosophy that he did not agree with. Went to listen to him sing not be subjected to his opinions on politics.
People get famous and all of a sudden think other people want to hear their "enlightened" opinion. Most people who have "made it" on natural talent (actors, novelists, musicians, atheletes, etc.) have led a pampered life and have no clue as to what is happening in the real world.

I've just loves me some John Prine, and have for probably goin' on thirty five years.
Seen him play in basements and beer joints, to small upper scale venues that were packed.
A most excellent showman is one Mr. John Prine, I'm so happy you got to see him live:smile2:!

But now here's the rub (you knew there was one comin' huh:biggrin2:?)...you went to a John Prine concert and didn't expect to hear John Prine (John, P-R-I-N-E, Prine right?) to expound upon any of his views:oo:...did you know who he is before you went:eyebrow:?
He's been doing just that since he was playing crusty dives for a burgers, gas money & beer...why hell, even his music does it....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m1qE2vJdDw4

...it's probably one of the prine reasons people go see him:blush:...did he do Dear Abby Dear Abby?

[freud1977]

I've just loves me some John Prine, and have for probably goin' on thirty five years.
Seen him play in basements and beer joints, to small upper scale venues that were packed.
A most excellent showman is one Mr. John Prine, I'm so happy you got to see him live:smile2:!

But now here's the rub (you knew there was one comin' huh:biggrin2:?)...you went to a John Prine concert and didn't expect to hear John Prine (John, P-R-I-N-E, Prine right?) to expound upon any of his views:oo:...did you know who he is before you went:eyebrow:?
He's been doing just that since he was playing crusty dives for a burgers, gas money & beer...why hell, even his music does it....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m1qE2vJdDw4

...it's probably one of the prine reasons people go see him:blush:...did he do Dear Abby Dear Abby?

PitH - Yeah, I knew John Prine was political. Much like Neal Young, The Boss, Steve Earle (Mason Proffit - now there is an obscure protest band for you) and many others. I just don't necessarily want to hear those views when I pay to hear their music.

Been a Prine fan since his first album came out in 1969. Remember seeing him in a little club in Denver in the early 70's.

Her is a change of pace. How about The Little Willies (early Norah Jones) doing a John Prine Cover.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sqSHPsY2bY4

There is no secret meaning to my posting it. Just enjoy.

[JohnDalglish]

Most people who have "made it" on natural talent (actors, novelists, musicians, atheletes, etc.) have led a pampered life and have no clue as to what is happening in the real world.

Hi,

Talkin' from first hand experience, are we?

And it's certainly not the case with Sai King, as any fan would know.

It amazes me that you can be a fan of SK's and John Prine's and not realize that they held different views to yourself.

Who have you been reading/listening to? Pay attention at the back!

Long days and pleasant nights

[freud1977]

John: Since you asked ... I made it on hard work.

Why does it amaze you that I could be a fan of someone that I may or may not agree with? Can you not?

Did not understand your parting comment "Pay attention at the back!"

[JohnDalglish]

John: Since you asked ... I made it on hard work.

Why does it amaze you that I could be a fan of someone that I may or may not agree with? Can you not?

Did not understand your parting comment "Pay attention at the back!"

Hi,

So did Stephen King and John Prine.

So you;re the b*gger who was always talking in class, are you? LOL

Long days and pleasant nights

[staropeace]

What he writes in his stories probably reflects some of his own beliefs. Sorta hard refraining from doing that if one is a writer. The stories are being created by his imigination and not someone elses. He can take all the liberties he wants. If he were giving public announcements about certain topics and expecting folks to listen to his wisdom because he has a halo effect, that would be a different matter altogether. Celebrities acting like they are informed authorities do not appeal to me much,either,and I would reserve the right to tell them to go f themselves.

Stephen is entitled to write whatever he pleases in his novels. They are his creations. If he had to ask everyones permission about what to write and what views to have his characters express, he wouldnt get a tap of work done all the live long day.

If his views annoy you to no end, read another author.

This is Stephen's site. I feel that when folks visit the place,they should be polite and enjoy the conversations taking place. This isnt a Rant and Roar site.( Just the humble opinion of someone who has been part of this online family for years,is all).

[Bryan James]

The "Then Don't" statement (can't call it an argument since most folks who use it are closed to consideration) is pretty much just "I am rubber, you are glue..." and then the kids kick each other on the shins for a while because they are both too scared to throw a punch for want of suspension.

It proves that 'Arguing on the Internet' (do a Google Image Search, you will know which one I'm referencing...it ain't P.C. but is still appropriately funny) is futile.

I know you are, but what am I? Come on, kids!

No one's really talking about the reason behind the intial post. Y'all are focusing on 1st Amendment stuff, and that's cool. We get to do that here, and that's VERY cool.

Stylistically and content-wise there are some parts that detract from the STORY, but y'all aren't even arguing the basics of that premise.

Maybe in a way you've BECOME part of the story?

Intriguing, no?

[bugaboosy]

ok i been reading this thread and keeping an eye on it coz i was also reading the book ...finished it last night and i have a couple of comments ....1) seriously out of all the issues put forth in the book you are worried about a few sentences??? is that all you took from that book? coz i feel sorry for you if you did ..the wider picture of the book was a fantastic idea!! maybe its coz i am not american but i hardly noticed the comments and after i started reading this thread i actually kept an eye out coz i thought it was something that was intergral to the story ..but its not!!!
if you keep an eye out for something you dont like you will always find it ...i say just sit back and enjoy the stories.

[Denise Marsden]

I would be interested to know from where came your statistic of 50% of constant readers feel distracted by the political associations in Mr Kings fiction, <his last 4 books you say?>

[JimmyTheGent]

I would like to point out I just finished reading "Needful Things" For the first time and Sonny Jacket was portrayed as a redneck, racist, ignorant, pro-union DEMOCRAT, of all things. So there ya go, while I do understand what you are talking about in Under the Dome and other King works, its not always that way, he pokes fun at his own side as well.

[Snaggletooth]

Now I REALLY want to read UTD (got it on my i-Phone but haven't started it yet). I can't comment specifically for this reason, but this isn't the 1st time that politics crops up in SK's work (Dark Tower, Hearts in Atlantis have many references) and I assume that it won't be the last. Obviously Mr. King and his editor(s) felt that these allusions were appropriate for the story. Sounds like you just don't agree with his politics, and if so, there are alternatives. Ann Coulter is an excellent fantasy author, Sarah Palin's book is also engrossing and hard to put down. Yes, I actually read it and I've never laughed so hard while reading a fantasy novel. My point is that good fantasy/horror fiction is where one finds it. :biggrin2:

[JohnDalglish]

Hi,

Yet another case where the originial inflammatory poster hasn't been back.

Pass me the Troll spray, please, Staro.

Long days and pleasant nights

[Snaggletooth]

I believe that there is enough arrogance to go around, thank you, from the left and the right. But opinions are like armpits, everybody's got 'em. And why is everybody on the opposite side always described as "extreme " ? I wish folks would go sling their mud on the websites where it belongs, such as Politico, etc. Politics is fun to discuss, but it tends to bring out the worst in people. (oops, now I'm starting to sound like an extreme, arrogant liberal!!) I'm actually a lefty Independent but I throw right-handed. Go Red Sox!!

[RandomMan]

I try not to get Stephen King confused with the likes of Michael Moore or Glenn Beck. (pick your poison) After all, we are talking fiction. There are some great posts in this thread and I think all opinions are to be respected...even if not agreed upon. There have been few times that politics have prevented me from enjoying the arts. (dixie chicks and Michael Moore...I refuse to listen too!) This may be immature on my part but it is my prerogative!!! As is yours. James Cameron's epic movie Avatar is another prime example. That movie was dripping with political agenda. I thought is was a great movie...loved it...made me want to be an ass-kicking blue alien. BUT, it did not make me want to get rid of my guns and go hug a tree!!! Keep on writing SK...and I'll keep on reading!!! Politics aside.

[Bryan James]

If Luke, Leia, Han, or (Good Lord!) Chewie had to go the bathroom every hour, and that assorted piddles and evacuations of a bowellic nature INTERRUPTED THE STORY, would that be accepted as the writer's prerogative?

[Perdissa]

I'm not American, but know a little of the recent elections and some of the prominent/notorious figures from the news. The whole election campaign made for pretty compelling drama, and even now, it appears the campaigning never really stopped.

I don't feel that the book has been overly politicized. Has the author made his political stand clear? Pretty much so. Does it make the book worse than any other book he has written? Not really. When I go through some of this stuff, it's kinda like when I read about Mr. King talk baseball. I kinda know what he's talking about, but it's not too important, and a little abstract to me. (In my part of the world, baseball isn't played much) But if it's important enough to occupy his thoughts in writing a book, I'll read it as it comes.

Seeing Jack Reacher's character mentioned in the book reminds me of Mr Lee Child's latest installment of the Jack Reacher series. In that book, Reacher also espouses some of the author's views against the Iraq war. I recall his boards were also flooded with angry people telling the author to keep his political opinions to himself. This last point is probably irrelevant, but it's interesting to me just how vicious some of these reactions are.

[smjohn]

Here is the problem with "then don't". Went to a John Prine concert recently. In the middle of the concert, he stopped singing and started slamming the political philosophy that he did not agree with. Went to listen to him sing not be subjected to his opinions on politics.
People get famous and all of a sudden think other people want to hear their "enlightened" opinion. Most people who have "made it" on natural talent (actors, novelists, musicians, atheletes, etc.) have led a pampered life and have no clue as to what is happening in the real world.

Ok, you went to listen to this guy (of whom I've never heard) and HE did it. My point was that SK does not.

[smjohn]

Yes it would. Anything the writer chooses to write would be the writers prerogative.

[Bryan James]

Yes it would. Anything the writer chooses to write would be the writers prerogative.

True. But it wouldn't always be a read writer's prerogative.

The artist is free to art at will...but sometimes the audience won't go along for the ride.

[Patricia A]

True. But it wouldn't always be a read writer's prerogative.

The artist is free to art at will...but sometimes the audience won't go along for the ride.

I don't think Stephen King has to worry about filling his bus. :biggrin2:

[mrs.thebus]

i'm not american, but thank god SK does dislike Bush or i would have to write him off as another dumb yank and not the incredibly intellegent man and writer he is. Thanks SK for not being another American Idiot :)

[PatInTheHat]

i'm not american, but thank god SK does dislike Bush or i would have to write him off as another dumb yank and not the incredibly intellegent man and writer he is. Thanks SK for not being another American Idiot :)

Awww shuuucks:blush:...not to cause worry, but as you kindly pointed out, we got such a horn 'o plenty of stupid it's practically just layin' around on the ground, so I'm sure in time, even Mr. King could find a particularly ignorant American moron to love:smile2:.

So uh, where exactly is The Brainiac Republic of Brilliance...you know, like we're pretending I know how to read a map of course:wink2:.

[Bryan James]

I don't think Stephen King has to worry about filling his bus. :biggrin2:

I agree...but, to follow the metaphor, even he gets a flat tire every now and then.

~BJS

[Patricia A]

I agree...but, to follow the metaphor, even he gets a flat tire every now and then.

~BJS
That was a good one! It made me LOL but, I wouldn't worry about Stephen King's bus having a flat tire because he always keeps a spare.

But in all seriousness, I tend to not find the subject of politics distracting to begin with and I actually appreciate it when it occurs in art. I find the whole of politics fascinating, it's a part of life and it affects us whether we like it or not.
I like to read honest writing that comes from the heart and you can't write honestly without leaving a bit of yourself on the page, and if you care about society, politics are bound to come up in one way or the other.
Many of Stephen King's early works were crammed with politics, The Dead Zone and Firestarter for example. If his career would have been crushed due to his progressive thinking it would have happened back then, so obviously he can say what he wants.
Personally I love it when he gets political in his writing, it's like a party for my brain. The wheels on the bus go round and round. You can thank me for the earworm later LOL.

[smjohn]

True. But it wouldn't always be a read writer's prerogative.

The artist is free to art at will...but sometimes the audience won't go along for the ride.

That is where it becomes the readers prerogative whether or not to read it.

[Moderator]

I agree...but, to follow the metaphor, even he gets a flat tire every now and then.

~BJS

Still somewhat subjective, though. One man's flat tire could be another's racing slick. :smile2:

[vslayer]

I find the whole of politics fascinating, it's a part of life and it affects us whether we like it or not.
Personally I love it when he gets political in his writing, it's like a party for my brain. .

Yes Yes, I do too. I live here in the States but grew up in England, where politics and religion aren't really hot button issues. I'm always fascinated by how people can get really bent out of shape over these two issues. I think especially with politics, when you have a differing opinion, it all too easily becomes personal, people think you are attacking them personally when you have differing political views.