Failure of nerve or cheap cop out?

[CarrieJo]

Yeah...King, that spineless pile of goo. How dare he not consult with you before writing an ending to HIS book.

Why criticize and ask so many questions?! It will in no way change how it's written.

Welcome to the board and I hope you can find some more ballsy King novels to read and enjoy!

[Robert Gray]

I was going to let this one go, but after thinking about it I decided that just wouldn't be me. It is one thing to critique a work on technical points. These are always fair. The best writers make errors, and even editors miss them. Even when there are no errors in grammar, a work can be a failure on a technical level, i.e. the author simply doesn't maintain a coherent story however good their spelling and punctuation might be. I think we can all agree that this is NOT the case in Under the Dome. It is, like all of Sai King's works, a technical marvel. This is a testament to him, his editors, or both.

It is quite another thing to critique a work (particularly of fiction) based upon notions of "that ain't how I would have done it." It is clear you don't like the ending. I believe you consider it to lack balls. While colorful, I don't think this is an accurate assessment. We will come back to that in a minute. What books have you written? Everyone is a critic. It is our nature to judge things. It is also our nature to be biased. For us to place any value in your opinion on the outcome, we must place it in context with your credentials. I am willing to take your opinions seriously, but to be fair to you and Sai King, I want to place your work beside his. Am I being unfair in doing this to you? I don't think so.

All that being said, let us return to your commentary. How would you have written the book to give it some balls? Dazzle us. Other people here are simply giving you disdain. I am giving you a chance to show us why you are right. A person of such strong opinions can clearly support them with a demonstration which will leave us all breathless and without doubt that the true ending of the book could not have happened any other way. The proof is in the pudding. Seeing is believing. Knock our socks off.

As an aspiring writer myself (who isn't these days), I can only wonder at people like yourself. I immerse in books and despite my intended profession, don't analyze them like you do. When the story states something in context, I accept the reality given. How someone could enjoy a work of fiction in the effaced way you seem to employ is beyond my humble ken. How are you defining "balls" so I can fathom how you found them lacking. Clearly you and I must define them very differently.

[bobledrew]

I'm afraid I have to be a contrarian here. While I still remain of the opinion that joining a message board like this one and posting like that is akin to entering a cocktail party and letting go a giant fart, CCT is one step ahead of the average troll.

He or she has made several points. That Chester's Mill is special in some way; that hte novel is a Sodom and Gomorrah parable; that the Internet connection issue is a plot weakness; that the ending is a copout.

I think CCT has put forth some interesting points and they're not that far off from some of my issues with UtD. I really don't like this book a whole lot.

But I don't buy the S&G theory. I will go back and read a bit of the book to see whether the Internet connection is a plot hole or not. But let's not chase off someone who has addressed issues more substantive than "On page 422 he says it's a Smith & Wesson .45 when EVERYONE KNOWS Smith & Wesson stopped making .45s in blahdeblahdeblah..."

[SharonC]

I was completely satisfied with the ending actually. Somehow the explanation for what happened was quite ironic, don't you think?

[GNTLGNT]

Soooooooo...here we are again....a new poster that might have some legitimate points, but decides to jump in with both steel-toed feet and start stomping on our favorite writer...I'm all for dissenting opinion...but first and foremost, I'm for manners...and there is certainly a marked lack of same in the OP...it's OK to disagree and not care for something, but it's NOT cool to be dismissive and demeaning...please show yourself to the door and don't let it hit ya where the Good Lord split ya....(What? That was unmannerly? NOW you get it....).....

[Robert Gray]

I'm afraid I have to be a contrarian here. While I still remain of the opinion that joining a message board like this one and posting like that is akin to entering a cocktail party and letting go a giant fart, CCT is one step ahead of the average troll.

I don't use the whole "troll" terminology myself. A person either makes supportable arguments are they do not. While I'm willing to entertain the whole "internet" question, I find whole "doesn't have balls" thing irrelevant. He doesn't define his terms. What does that mean? Blanket statements like that are glittering generalities which don't really say anything except to indicated the negative. In that respect, the original poster is no different to me than anyone else who appears from thin air to launch a series of opinions and often vanishes.

He or she has made several points. That Chester's Mill is special in some way; that hte novel is a Sodom and Gomorrah parable; that the Internet connection issue is a plot weakness; that the ending is a copout.

The problem is that these points are statements without any actual support. I can "say" that Chester's Mill is an homage to the loss of Eden but that doesn't make it true. Allow me to demonstrate how supporting evidence helps an argument. See below:

Statement: Under the Dome is most certainly NOT in anyway a Sodom and Gomorrah parable.

Supporting Evidence-1: God destroys the city for its sins in Sodom and Gomorrah. It is a personal, interested punishment for particular acts. Aliens isolate Chester's Mill as part of a game. It is neither personal nor connected to personal acts. The people within the isolation destroy themselves.

Supporting Evidence-2: The vast majority of people in Sodom and Gomorrah are evil (sinners) with only a tiny handful of good people who are spared (mostly) by following God's instructions. Chester's Mill is made up of normal people with only a tiny handful of evil folk who end up killing everyone else. The handful of survivors do not survive with any help or instruction. They aren't selected. Their ingenuity put them in the right place followed by copious amounts of begging.

Supporting Evidence-3: Sodom and Gomorrah had one of those given instructions by God looking back in defiance of orders also to be killed. As we have already discussed, there were no instructions from Aliens (or whatever) nor was there any group of the would-be survivors who did something defiant or dumb to die with the rest.

*I could go on and on; at least three more supporting statements are coming to mind but that would be overkill. The demonstration above is that I can definitively support the statement I make. Our original poster did no such thing. His argument appears to be based on nothing more than a city is destroyed. Clearly that is vague and no more of a real connection than Glenn Beck uses to connect things. A good point requires more.

I think CCT has put forth some interesting points and they're not that far off from some of my issues with UtD. I really don't like this book a whole lot.

Nobody can argue with the statement, "I don't really like this book a whole lot." The only evidence you need is your fiat opinion. This is a fair opinion to voice. It is not, however, really an argument.

But I don't buy the S&G theory. I will go back and read a bit of the book to see whether the Internet connection is a plot hole or not. But let's not chase off someone who has addressed issues more substantive than "On page 422 he says it's a Smith & Wesson .45 when EVERYONE KNOWS Smith & Wesson stopped making .45s in blahdeblahdeblah..."

The internet, like cellphones, continued to work in Chester's Mill because they work on via satellite. The barrier does not stop certain types of energy transmission (like light for example). Land lines were cut. The internet not tied to land lines continues. Why did the Sheriff's wife not immediately email the Vader file is a matter which is far easier to understand.

1. She is an older woman with likely limited interest in machines. It is not the first thing she thinks to do.
2. She is in mourning.
3. She is in a weird event, i.e. trapped under the dome.
4. She is shocked with the whole Vader thing in the first place.
5. If she sent it to someone under the dome immediately it could mean going to war with a dangerous man she just read about.
6. If she sent it to someone not under the dome it wouldn't really matter either way.

I could go on and on here too. I didn't find her lack of Mission Impossible, Tom Cruise wit surprising. I found it more believable that she reacted more like an ordinary person under stress might react. This is, of course, a digression. What exactly did you find substantial about the original poster's arguments. Did I miss some support for his arguments somewhere? One of the key problems today is that people have blurred the line in debate and discussion so that opinion can be put forth as fact.

[since75]

The 'why Chester's Mill?', is it special? doesn't fly either. I come from a small town, surrounded by other small towns, and if you think that just because we are a small non-important town there is no underbelly here, you would be wrong. I can almost guar-an-dam-tee you that every town has it's secrets. This town had it's own Big Jim Rennie too, different name, different profession, same crazy ego that wanted to own the town.. there are also a whole herd of meth labs around these here rural parts.. so sorry, bub.. SK knew of what he wrote.. just a different state..

[Mojo*mofo]

And here I thought it was pretty good. Not a favorite, but I enjoyed it...

[J.T. Adams]

And here I thought it was pretty good. Not a favorite, but I enjoyed it...

Nothing wrong with that, I actually thoroughly enjoyed this book.

What did I like about it? The story, the whole darned thing.

[Robert Gray]

I didn't address the "why Chester's Mill" problem the original poster had because it is a silly notion in the first place. The book clearly demonstrates that the alien children have no real understanding or even belief in the world they are playing with. We are simply ants to them. Chester's Mill is clearly a random ant hill which was selected for no more reason than a child stomping ant hills chooses one over the other (or notices one in the first place).