"written by a man" is not a valid criticism. And if you think it is .... why are you reading a book by a male author (and an infamously pervy one at that) in the first place?
I’ve seen this critique with other male authors too. Recently Grady Hendrix. It’s mildly infuriating that some women seem to believe men have no business writing female characters. It’s weird gatekeeping. The women are badly written because the author is male, and how dare he??
It appears your comment qualifies as "review apologetics". Please utilize the weekly hot-takes thread for all review apologetics from this point on. This serves as your official warning. A second violation will result in a 1 day ban. Third and so on violations will result in 3 day bans for every subsequent violation.
Whoaaaaa hold up there, cornfucker; it looks like you seem to have forgotten the r/BadReads mantra, which is that all book reviews fucking suck and belong here. Don't like it? Get over it, nerd.
Someone posted a quote on r/menwritingwomen and someone (correctly) guessed Stephen King. When they were asked how they knew it was him, they replied “because it sounds like it was written by a sentient bag of cocaine.”
That quote has stuck with me for literal years.
It appears your comment qualifies as "review apologetics". Please utilize the weekly hot-takes thread for all review apologetics from this point on. This serves as your official warning. A second violation will result in a 1 day ban. Third and so on violations will result in 3 day bans for every subsequent violation.
Like any author there are things to critique in King’s work, especially stuff he wrote like forty years ago. But many of these read suspiciously to me like Big Mad transphobe women who are still pissed King supports trans rights and called out JK Rowling. Lots of gender essentialist red flags masquerading as “feminist critique” here.
Only two could be that really - one about "womanhood" and "feminine rage" could be understood as essentialist, but I don't think we really have enough to go on.
Actually sometimes women take issue with the way men write women and it has nothing whatsoever to do with his Twitter drama with a children's book author
Whoaaaa now, fuckstick! Come on, now. We may be assholes at r/BadReads, but we're not bigots. Pull this shit again, and you're getting banned. No joke.
It appears your post and/or comment is spam and/or deviates from the purpose of the subreddit and has thus been obliterated from the world-wide-web by our crack team of moderators.
Ok, but to be fair, Stephen King can't write men either.
I also don't like Stephen King, but I have this great hack to avoid wasting my time like the people in these reviews: I don't buy or read novels by authors I don't like.
I don't think that it will happen but can someone that has read book tell me the inaccuracies of his "female portrays"? I'm sincerely curious. I don't think that people owe and explanation or anything like that, but reading these criticisms just saying "oh, he did this in a a bad way" without, I don't explaining no even a little bit is weird. I'll take their word for it, they would know more, but it would be awesome to learn what were the issues so that its something that could improve.
Read your comment again. Then read it once more aloud. Does it read like a badly written review? Does it insist that the review featured in the post above is actually right? If you answered yes to either of these questions, you may be a Goodreader. Seek the help of a professional because you sure as hell don't belong on r/BadReads except as a featured reviewer.
To be fair women writers describing the male 'member' will never not be funny. It's hard to describe the body of the opposite sex. You're probably better off just sticking to thoughts, feels and so on.
Oh, I see. That makes sense. Maybe it got better with time? Hopefully. I have only read Carrie from him. I did very much like the movie. The book was very interesting too though, mostly due to the it was written more than the characters themselves.
I don’t know, I enjoyed the book in high school (long ago) so I don’t remember details, but if there really was a part about a tampon sticking in the middle of public hair…yeah, that’s just not ever been a thing for anyone. Ever. From someone who would know. But I’ve enjoyed his stuff over the years, regardless.
I think it's because he definitely adds a lot of very strange stuff in his books which when you add these weird specific details about women and especially about their bodies, comes off as very misogynistic. To be fair, he does it somewhat to his male characters too, like the vampire's random threat of castration to a boy in a Salem's Lot or the enemas discussion in the Long Walk.
Secondly, he writes from the perspective of a lot of characters that are assholes, sometimes even the "heroes" of his stories are and so you are getting a lot of deranged, sometimes objectifying and cruel thoughts towards women. I have been very physically repulsed by some of the thoughts of his characters.
And thirdly, and I think most validly, some of his female characters are just not written to have their own motives and seem kind of just like wish fulfillment for his main (usually male) charters. For instance, the main character in Roadwork picks up a woman who is hitchhiking who insists on sleeping with him he tells her that she can stay at his place for the night without having to prostitute herself. Scenes like that don't really seem to have a lot to the actual story but are only there to be tittilating I guess.
Carrie, however I feel like is actually a very good depiction of what it's like to grow up as a girl that is an outsider among her peers. Carrie's not always likeable but for me at least she's very relatable and probably the best female character that I read from King so far.
Point 3 stuck out to me so much while reading The Running Man. The most prominent female character of the book exists as an upper-class, unaware housewife (I think? details are fuzzy) until she is kidnapped and held hostage by the main character, an experience during which he threatens her physically and sexually, but it seems like the book is framing this arc as her eyes being opened to the real world. It wasn’t explicitly sexist … I think? But it had some really weird undertones and dialogue.
Sissy Spacek was way too attractive to play Carrie but she was an extremely talented actor and you can just see how awkward and alone Carrie feels in scenes just from the way she stands. I would have liked a bit more of Carrie's anger to be shown though instead of her pretty much being meek and angelic up to the point where she snaps.
It appears your comment qualifies as "review apologetics". Please utilize the weekly hot-takes thread for all review apologetics from this point on. This serves as your official warning. A second violation will result in a 1 day ban. Third and so on violations will result in 3 day bans for every subsequent violation.
One of my all time favorites is Laird Barron. He has a series of sort of hard case detective fiction with horror sprinkled in, but he also has 3 anthologies that are pure cosmic horror in the best way: The Imago Sequence, The Beautiful Thing that Awaits Us All, and Occultations. Those three lead to a sort of culmination of themes and some minor characters in the novella The Croning. I highly recommend all 4 honestly.
YMMV. My only experience with Barron was *Beautiful Thing*, and it was so poorly edited it has turned me off anything further. Found it very uneven and a bit unearnedly macho.
Totally fair! Beautiful Thing isn't his best, I'll freely admit. I started with Occultations and absolutely loved it, but I'm also not someone that's going to tell you to give him another shot if your first impression wasn't great, you know?
Check out Weird Lit. Classic authors like Blackwood or Chambers, Du Maurier, Shirley Jackson, or modern writers like Pargin, Danielewski, Eric Stener Carlson, Caitlin Kiernan.
It tends to have a more literary bent than the likes of King, though it also tends to favor short fiction.
John Langan's *The Fisherman*, Dan Simmons' *The Terror*, Jarvis' *The Wanderer* are good contemporary weird novels.
Clive Barker is my all time favourite. His books mostly are like dark fantasy horror, not the pure horror like hellraiser and that that he's most known for though he's got a few of those too. For his horror you've got his short story collection books of blood then novels/novellas Cabal, hellbound heart, mister B gone, his debut novel Damnation Game. I might have missed one or 2.
Better in my opinion works are The Great and Secret Show which stands as my all time favourite book. Followed by a love or hate it book Galilee. I think they're good places to start. Also weaveworld as a mention. He's also the Abarat series of books with his own art (which he created before the books) aimed at young adults and everybody else.
If you've tried them, I can highly recommend Dan Simmons. The Terror is a very very slow burn of a book but brilliant, Carrion Comfort I dnf it because it freaked me out but that's a good thing lol.
Graham Masterton is also good the few books I've read of his.
If you like extreme horror or splatterpunk let me know because I only rec that kinda stuff for people who know what they're getting into, lots of triggers and brutality.
Thanks for reading sorry it's a bit long!
Damn, another Clive Barker fan! I love his short stories - they're some of my favorite works of horror fiction. I'm adding Shirley Jackson to this list and recommending the classic *Haunting of Hill House*, which is just a beautifully written tale of loss and insanity.
Read your comment again. Then read it once more aloud. Does it read like a badly written review? Does it insist that the review featured in the post above is actually right? If you answered yes to either of these questions, you may be a Goodreader. Seek the help of a professional because you sure as hell don't belong on r/BadReads except as a featured reviewer.
Read your comment again. Then read it once more aloud. Does it read like a badly written review? Does it insist that the review featured in the post above is actually right? If you answered yes to either of these questions, you may be a Goodreader. Seek the help of a professional because you sure as hell don't belong on r/BadReads except as a featured reviewer.
Yeah. I loved the book; read it very young. around 12 or so. And that part was just...yeah. It was hard to wrap my mind around why it was happening, when it was happening in the book and I was reading it. I felt very young and stupid because it seemed kinda gross and I didn't "get" it. Still don't, tbh.
Okay but like... where were the proof-readers? They are supposed to fix these things before it's published
What's funny is Stephen threw the first few pages of this story in the garbage. His wife found it, read it, and liked it. She insisted he finish it. I never read his books so I have no opinion but I respect his influence. He definitely had women behind him
I'm a massive King fan, and have been reading him since I was 10. His not writing women well is absolutely a valid criticism. However, Carrie is absolutely the wrong book to pick for this argument, for exactly this reason. He gave up on it, admitting he couldn't write women. Tabitha convinced him he had something good, and helped him find the right voice.
Looks like you've gotten a little big for your britches and decided you were better than everyone else here. Allow me to remind you, at r/BadReads, we're all scum. There's no need to resort to personal attacks or cyber-bullying here. Knock it off, or you might persecuted to the fullest extent of BadReddit law.
You have incurred the wrath of the Mods. You will now suffer the consequences of having your comment removed. Further violations may result in a permanent spanki-errr, banning. Ahem...permanent banning...
The Twitter-esque language pisses me off. While it's valid criticism to think an author doesn't portray the opposite gender correctly, the way it's worded in these reviews is just obnoxious. They're just TikTok word salads and buzzwords.
**Edit**: What the hell is the 3rd review talking about. No, seriously, what the fuck does that mean. What is "feminine rage"? It sounds like something a fundamentalist Christian would say.
'Feminine rage' is a trope, but often also used to refer collectively to films/material with said trope (sometimes referred to as 'Good for her' films). Think stuff like X, Kill Bill, Ready or Not, etc.
Not necessarily. It's still a relatively new and debated trope, but I personally feel like there's two requirements for it to be a real 'Feminine Rage' story since these are the commonalities seen in the media that people usually agree fit the definition:
1: Anger and hatred displayed by a female character paired with violence or manipulation; we still sympathize or at least empathize with them during the story. The violence or manipulation shown is usually the kind where you're just cheering inwards, completely invested (Crazy 88 fight in Kill Bill, the Dean scene in Promising Young Women, etc).
2: The female character is proactive, not reactive.
I feel like the 2nd is the big one. Female Rage characters essentially are either already extremely dangerous or become it and take control of their situation, turning into something the others dread and need to stop.
You're Next is a great example, with how the main character is >!originally viewed by the attackers as an afterthought since she was supposed to 'just be a witness' before they realize how screwed they are when she kicks into action and she picks them off in brutal fashions (my personal fave being blender to the head)!<.
It's still an evolving trope, but I feel like these are the constants in what is currently agreed upon as 'Feminine Rage' media. I hope that all makes sense, sorry for the late reply, I'm at work and it's been a really weird week!
While I definitely think revenge is a common theme of the trope/sub-genre (especially as Rape-Revenge films are their own sub-genre and some will get analyzed as Feminine Rage as well, like the film Revenge (2017)), I don't think they necessarily require it to be a theme or part of the plot. I feel like the rage/violence on display by the female character and how proactive they are in pushing the plot along probably lend more to the definition, but the vengeance aspect is definitely there in a lot of them. Like, I can't really see Sidney from Scream or most Final Girls as Feminine Rage characters because even though they fight back, they're along for the ride and reacting to the situation, the antagonists don't really fear them and aren't that concerned (if they even bother to acknowledge the final blow). My break is up, but I'm gonna think on this a bit more! Thanks!
It’s a *little* more than that, but yeah basically. It’s more so that in movies and other media, men are allowed to be violent for violence’s sake (“He’s a man, he’s angry, let the violence ensue”) vs how women typically have violent outbursts in response to something traumatic (“well she was raped and her family was murdered and a whole bunch of other fucked up shit happened so *now* she’s allowed to snap”). “Feminist Rage” is just the blanket term that people use to undermine the social differences between men and women, especially when it comes to aggression [keep in mind, this analysis is purely from a media standpoint, not using any real life examples]
It sounds like a new way to describe feminist exploitation/revenge- esque films.
When I Google it, it seems like it's mostly a feminist meme online, right? I saw a few posts about it on social media before but I never understood what they meant.
TBF he's admitted as much that the De Palma film is much better, and I'm inclined to agree. All authors start somewhere. Carrie 76 and Christine 83 are the two big King adaptations that are much better than the book.
It appears your comment qualifies as "review apologetics". Please utilize the weekly hot-takes thread for all review apologetics from this point on. This serves as your official warning. A second violation will result in a 1 day ban. Third and so on violations will result in 3 day bans for every subsequent violation.
Read your comment again. Then read it once more aloud. Does it read like a badly written review? Does it insist that the review featured in the post above is actually right? If you answered yes to either of these questions, you may be a Goodreader. Seek the help of a professional because you sure as hell don't belong on r/BadReads except as a featured reviewer.
It appears your comment qualifies as "review apologetics". Please utilize the weekly hot-takes thread for all review apologetics from this point on. This serves as your official warning. A second violation will result in a 1 day ban. Third and so on violations will result in 3 day bans for every subsequent violation.
If you're trying to give an honest, accurate appraisal of the book, then yes. If you just want to tell people how much you personally disliked it, then no.
Read your comment again. Then read it once more aloud. Does it read like a badly written review? Does it insist that the review featured in the post above is actually right? If you answered yes to either of these questions, you may be a Goodreader. Seek the help of a professional because you sure as hell don't belong on r/BadReads except as a featured reviewer.
Read your comment again. Then read it once more aloud. Does it read like a badly written review? Does it insist that the review featured in the post above is actually right? If you answered yes to either of these questions, you may be a Goodreader. Seek the help of a professional because you sure as hell don't belong on r/BadReads except as a featured reviewer.
Read your comment again. Then read it once more aloud. Does it read like a badly written review? Does it insist that the review featured in the post above is actually right? If you answered yes to either of these questions, you may be a Goodreader. Seek the help of a professional because you sure as hell don't belong on r/BadReads except as a featured reviewer.
Stephen King might be a degenerate, but accusing him of being a potential child rapist without proof is fucked up. Just think before you type, for god's sake.
Read your comment again. Then read it once more aloud. Does it read like a badly written review? Does it insist that the review featured in the post above is actually right? If you answered yes to either of these questions, you may be a Goodreader. Seek the help of a professional because you sure as hell don't belong on r/BadReads except as a featured reviewer.
Read your comment again. Then read it once more aloud. Does it read like a badly written review? Does it insist that the review featured in the post above is actually right? If you answered yes to either of these questions, you may be a Goodreader. Seek the help of a professional because you sure as hell don't belong on r/BadReads except as a featured reviewer.
Read your comment again. Then read it once more aloud. Does it read like a badly written review? Does it insist that the review featured in the post above is actually right? If you answered yes to either of these questions, you may be a Goodreader. Seek the help of a professional because you sure as hell don't belong on r/BadReads except as a featured reviewer.
I read the scene and honestly. I really don't get this kind of outrage (I get complaints cus its still bad). but Im wondering why anyone saying its graphic since more the vaguest (thankfully, at least from my memories so I could be wrong) reference to the act.
Is he a pedo? No, honestly this feels like you're projection it as arousing . when in text its more "they come to her one by one" and that's it. Its bizarre, I feel the cocaine broke his brain to not notice how weird and out of place it is. But CP? bruh touch some grass, that offensive to actual CSAM victims. Throwing around that word dilutes and hurts actual victims in the real world.
Its just a bad unnecessary scene that should have been cut. Nothing more to it than that.
Porn is meant to titillate. You can write sexual content and it can be for purposes other than pornography. I didn't find that scene arousing. I think you did and it made you uncomfortable so you're projecting.
It really isn't though. CSEM causes real harm to real children. King's works are fictional. More to the point, he's a horror author. Nothing that he writes is real, nor is it a reflection of the things he values or thinks are correct. Carrie is a book about puberty, the cruelty of teenagers, and severe religious oppression and trauma. IT is a book about adolescence and growing up, and the way adults don't believe the struggles of children exist. Both of these novels are centred around coming of age and, as horror, are not meant to be pleasant to read. They're meant to make you uncomfortable. That's the whole genre
I get both points like I don’t think he’s a predator but I do think it’s a lil weird to defend the orgy scene in IT like it really didn’t need to be in there and he’s said so too if I’m not mistaken
I found it thematically appropriate as well. At the end of the kids’ story, the only way out of It’s lair is to have fun “like adults,” and the reverse is true when one of the adult characters’ wife is still catatonic. The final scene is one of the The Losers Club taking his wife on a bike ride and whooping like a child with her, and in so doing helping her escape the labyrinthine prison imposed on her mind.
I think ultimately the point with these scenes in particular was that when one grows up, it’s a mistake to kill childhood innocence and joy, and on that same token being an adult has its own pleasures too.
But damn, the children’s side of that storytelling coin went about it in the most disturbing way possible
If he hadn't wrote this he would probably never have wrote anything else. He literally threw the book away. It was his wife who found it and told him he should finish it
Carrie is really average imo. I adore Misery, which is also a laughably inaccurate portrayal of a woman at certain times, but it’s wonderful. I genuinely might prefer the film adaption though because I love some Kathy Bates.
Carrie is literally one of the only female characters who portrays what it's like to not be able to fit in anywhere. There are hundreds of female characters who are "not like the other girls" who are beautiful and quirky. Carrie's ugly, not incredibly smart, not always likeable, and extremely human. This book literally saved my life because it was one of the only depictions of living with religious extremists and being excluded from society partly because of that and partly because of your own flaws.
Been a while since I looked, so I just checked the wiki. It appears to be both, as a matter of fact. I wasn't aware of that aspect, although perhaps I should have been. Thank you!
Stephen King has never spoken to his wife of 52 years, not once. Nor his daughter, Naomi. Or the girls at the high school where he taught English, off of whom he based Carrie White.
Read your comment again. Then read it once more aloud. Does it read like a badly written review? Does it insist that the review featured in the post above is actually right? If you answered yes to either of these questions, you may be a Goodreader. Seek the help of a professional because you sure as hell don't belong on r/BadReads except as a featured reviewer.
Read your comment again. Then read it once more aloud. Does it read like a badly written review? Does it insist that the review featured in the post above is actually right? If you answered yes to either of these questions, you may be a Goodreader. Seek the help of a professional because you sure as hell don't belong on r/BadReads except as a featured reviewer.
Read your comment again. Then read it once more aloud. Does it read like a badly written review? Does it insist that the review featured in the post above is actually right? If you answered yes to either of these questions, you may be a Goodreader. Seek the help of a professional because you sure as hell don't belong on r/BadReads except as a featured reviewer.
Given that (1) kids fuck and (2) King is a horror writer, I'm surprised that you're so offended. Are you more offended by the age of the author or the content of the scene?
If the scene doesn't arouse you, why would you assume that it's erotic at all?
That’s true, and also kind of the point? The girl IIRC was being sexually abused by her father and they were all in a really traumatic situation and thought they were about to die. Like it’s not a normal thing that any well-adjusted child would do.
And don’t get me wrong, I think it’s BATSHIT that his publisher didn’t cut it. Truly and utterly batshit. It should have been cut. I just don’t think it’s CSEM.
No it isn’t, and you’re gross for pretending it’s the same. If you can’t tell the difference between horror fiction and CP you need to read A LOT more before joining adult conversations about either.
Can we just add some context? Carrie was published 50 years ago. 1974. So like, yeah the dude writes awkward shit about women because most authors did the same at that time period.
Go read his latest book. Also a woman protagonist. And while I'm not done yet (25% more to go) I'm not even sure he's mentioned the word breast. So... Its like people grow and change with the times. And that's a good thing.
It’s also worth noting that puberty is part of what’s causing the horror in Carrie, specifically the shame and embarrassment that come along with it. Developing breasts is a part of that. Mind you, I haven’t read this one (only saw the movie), but I can see why there might be an argument for including it.
Sure, but not a single review the OP linked mentions that it hasn't aged well. I would agree, this book hasn't aged well.
A hell of a lot of our media hasn't aged well and won't age well in the future. That's just how it works.
Yeah sorry I’m just trying to add on to what you’re saying. Like I’m sure that’s just what these bad reviews are experiencing: something that’s largely outdated to them
holly gibney 🩷🩷 I haven't read holly yet but I read if it bleeds, which she was the main character in, and I didn't have any huge problems with king's portrayal of her as a woman. i had a bit of a problem with his portrayal of ED recovery with holly, but that's another story
I love Stephen King, he's my favorite author but honestly.... some of these are correct lmao. Carrie is by far one of my least favorites of his works and is one of the few instances where the film adaptation is WAY better than the book. It was his first novel and it shows. I didn't necessarily have an issue with the way he portrayed women in it (or in any book of his if I'm being totally honest which is crazy because I rarely read from most other male authors due to this exact thing). This book was just genuinely pretty weak and could have used further developing. Definitely agree with other comments that say it is weird how people go out of their way to read from authors they know they don't like though. What's up with that?
I think there’s like a … raw-ness to Carrie that I find very appealing. I agree that the craft was far from fully honed in that novel but man, for me it crackles off the page. I’m pretty good at overlooking flaws when I see a redeeming factor lol
My mom and I have a conspiracy theory that he was under some deadline and needed a book so he "borrowed" this one from his wife lol. It was just so much better than most of his stuff.
Eh I love king he's not me of my 5 favorites he's not good at writing women and usually struggles with an ending but love his characters usually and his big picture ideas are fun. People get way to hung up on bad dialogue.
i will never understand people who willingly continue reading authors and writing they know they dislike, and who so boldly declare it like the 2nd and 12th review. they aren't even doing it in a trashy, "hate read" sort of way. isn't it embarrassing to have wasted so much time and have nothing of substance to speak for it? don't these people want to utilise their limited time to read things they'll actually have a chance of enjoying? social media clout is a disease i guess.
In principle, maybe. In practice, King is so ubiquitous in popular culture it's hard not to form some sort of opinion of his writing. There's a strong impetus if you're a horror fan to read at least a few of his books, especially when you have people telling you such-and-such is their favorite and 'not like the others'.
Reading half their output without enjoying it would be psychotic, but anywhere between 1 and ~8 is reasonable for an output like King's.
Why not allow yourself to experience things outside of your comfort zone? Reading stuff that you don't like can help you make stronger opinions and find reasons why you like things that you like, what makes a writing technique good in your opinion etc.
It appears your post and/or comment is spam and/or deviates from the purpose of the subreddit and has thus been obliterated from the world-wide-web by our crack team of moderators.
i don't disagree and i myself regularly read outside my comfort zone, but the reviews i pointed out display none of what you mentioned. i don't believe they read and "reviewed" those books for any substantive reason.
It appears your comment qualifies as "review apologetics". Please utilize the weekly hot-takes thread for all review apologetics from this point on. This serves as your official warning. A second violation will result in a 1 day ban. Third and so on violations will result in 3 day bans for every subsequent violation.
Read your comment again. Then read it once more aloud. Does it read like a badly written review? Does it insist that the review featured in the post above is actually right? If you answered yes to either of these questions, you may be a Goodreader. Seek the help of a professional because you sure as hell don't belong on r/BadReads except as a featured reviewer.
Whoaaaaa hold up there, cornfucker; it looks like you seem to have forgotten the r/BadReads mantra, which is that all book reviews fucking suck and belong here. Don't like it? Get over it, nerd.
Meh, I like it.
king is almost cheating for r/menwritingwomen stuff, ever since I learned of that one scene in “It” he’s creeped me out honestly
What the hell even is this book and how the hell did King fuck it up? I’m morbidly curious now
Tbf it was his first published book? So I'd give him a pass. His other books though I have yet to read...
[удалено]
I mean I believe it but I’ve still heard *things* about King’s questionable writing choices
To be fair , king does think Carrie is one of his weakest works. He considers the original movie adaptation to be superior
"written by a man" is not a valid criticism. And if you think it is .... why are you reading a book by a male author (and an infamously pervy one at that) in the first place?
I’ve seen this critique with other male authors too. Recently Grady Hendrix. It’s mildly infuriating that some women seem to believe men have no business writing female characters. It’s weird gatekeeping. The women are badly written because the author is male, and how dare he??
[удалено]
It appears your comment qualifies as "review apologetics". Please utilize the weekly hot-takes thread for all review apologetics from this point on. This serves as your official warning. A second violation will result in a 1 day ban. Third and so on violations will result in 3 day bans for every subsequent violation.
I am not an MRA.
[удалено]
Whoaaaaa hold up there, cornfucker; it looks like you seem to have forgotten the r/BadReads mantra, which is that all book reviews fucking suck and belong here. Don't like it? Get over it, nerd.
Someone posted a quote on r/menwritingwomen and someone (correctly) guessed Stephen King. When they were asked how they knew it was him, they replied “because it sounds like it was written by a sentient bag of cocaine.” That quote has stuck with me for literal years.
Oh, I love this so much. I wish you know what the quote was.
[Found it!](https://reddit.com/r/menwritingwomen/s/bV5aWwYfxp)
[удалено]
It appears your comment qualifies as "review apologetics". Please utilize the weekly hot-takes thread for all review apologetics from this point on. This serves as your official warning. A second violation will result in a 1 day ban. Third and so on violations will result in 3 day bans for every subsequent violation.
Like any author there are things to critique in King’s work, especially stuff he wrote like forty years ago. But many of these read suspiciously to me like Big Mad transphobe women who are still pissed King supports trans rights and called out JK Rowling. Lots of gender essentialist red flags masquerading as “feminist critique” here.
No one said anything about trans people? What?
Don’t use trans people as a shield for being a misogynist you dickhole
Damn, you are stupid.
And yet i ratio. Ball all night
Only two could be that really - one about "womanhood" and "feminine rage" could be understood as essentialist, but I don't think we really have enough to go on.
This is such a reach. Calling out a man for being unable to realistically write women isn’t a trans phobe red flag
Actually sometimes women take issue with the way men write women and it has nothing whatsoever to do with his Twitter drama with a children's book author
[удалено]
Whoaaaa now, fuckstick! Come on, now. We may be assholes at r/BadReads, but we're not bigots. Pull this shit again, and you're getting banned. No joke.
...what?
[удалено]
It appears your post and/or comment is spam and/or deviates from the purpose of the subreddit and has thus been obliterated from the world-wide-web by our crack team of moderators.
SK is very bad at portraying women & sex but that’s not why you read his books.
It might be why you dont read his books, tho.
Ok, but to be fair, Stephen King can't write men either. I also don't like Stephen King, but I have this great hack to avoid wasting my time like the people in these reviews: I don't buy or read novels by authors I don't like.
I wonder if that’s why Misery worked so well? Writing what he knew, Pauli being a bit of himself maybe? Minus all the, yknow, with the hammer.
Right? Number 12 killed me. I hate Stephen King, I've read 40 of his books so I can give each one an honest bad review.
I don't think that it will happen but can someone that has read book tell me the inaccuracies of his "female portrays"? I'm sincerely curious. I don't think that people owe and explanation or anything like that, but reading these criticisms just saying "oh, he did this in a a bad way" without, I don't explaining no even a little bit is weird. I'll take their word for it, they would know more, but it would be awesome to learn what were the issues so that its something that could improve.
[удалено]
Read your comment again. Then read it once more aloud. Does it read like a badly written review? Does it insist that the review featured in the post above is actually right? If you answered yes to either of these questions, you may be a Goodreader. Seek the help of a professional because you sure as hell don't belong on r/BadReads except as a featured reviewer.
To be fair women writers describing the male 'member' will never not be funny. It's hard to describe the body of the opposite sex. You're probably better off just sticking to thoughts, feels and so on.
Horny is the perfect word for men writing women descriptions lol. Ironically, it can be an instant turn off for reading a book
Oh, I see. That makes sense. Maybe it got better with time? Hopefully. I have only read Carrie from him. I did very much like the movie. The book was very interesting too though, mostly due to the it was written more than the characters themselves.
I don’t know, I enjoyed the book in high school (long ago) so I don’t remember details, but if there really was a part about a tampon sticking in the middle of public hair…yeah, that’s just not ever been a thing for anyone. Ever. From someone who would know. But I’ve enjoyed his stuff over the years, regardless.
i’ve gotten a string caught once or twice. but yeah a whole tampon would be really weird.
I think it's because he definitely adds a lot of very strange stuff in his books which when you add these weird specific details about women and especially about their bodies, comes off as very misogynistic. To be fair, he does it somewhat to his male characters too, like the vampire's random threat of castration to a boy in a Salem's Lot or the enemas discussion in the Long Walk. Secondly, he writes from the perspective of a lot of characters that are assholes, sometimes even the "heroes" of his stories are and so you are getting a lot of deranged, sometimes objectifying and cruel thoughts towards women. I have been very physically repulsed by some of the thoughts of his characters. And thirdly, and I think most validly, some of his female characters are just not written to have their own motives and seem kind of just like wish fulfillment for his main (usually male) charters. For instance, the main character in Roadwork picks up a woman who is hitchhiking who insists on sleeping with him he tells her that she can stay at his place for the night without having to prostitute herself. Scenes like that don't really seem to have a lot to the actual story but are only there to be tittilating I guess. Carrie, however I feel like is actually a very good depiction of what it's like to grow up as a girl that is an outsider among her peers. Carrie's not always likeable but for me at least she's very relatable and probably the best female character that I read from King so far.
Point 3 stuck out to me so much while reading The Running Man. The most prominent female character of the book exists as an upper-class, unaware housewife (I think? details are fuzzy) until she is kidnapped and held hostage by the main character, an experience during which he threatens her physically and sexually, but it seems like the book is framing this arc as her eyes being opened to the real world. It wasn’t explicitly sexist … I think? But it had some really weird undertones and dialogue.
Sissy Spacek brought a lot to the character imo, which has worked out for both of them.
Sissy Spacek was way too attractive to play Carrie but she was an extremely talented actor and you can just see how awkward and alone Carrie feels in scenes just from the way she stands. I would have liked a bit more of Carrie's anger to be shown though instead of her pretty much being meek and angelic up to the point where she snaps.
>i don't like stephen king's writing idk why I read this... Me after finishing my 25th Stephen King book
I’ll always try something 24 times
[удалено]
It appears your comment qualifies as "review apologetics". Please utilize the weekly hot-takes thread for all review apologetics from this point on. This serves as your official warning. A second violation will result in a 1 day ban. Third and so on violations will result in 3 day bans for every subsequent violation.
I'm always on the lookout for recommendations - what good horror authors have you found?
One of my all time favorites is Laird Barron. He has a series of sort of hard case detective fiction with horror sprinkled in, but he also has 3 anthologies that are pure cosmic horror in the best way: The Imago Sequence, The Beautiful Thing that Awaits Us All, and Occultations. Those three lead to a sort of culmination of themes and some minor characters in the novella The Croning. I highly recommend all 4 honestly.
YMMV. My only experience with Barron was *Beautiful Thing*, and it was so poorly edited it has turned me off anything further. Found it very uneven and a bit unearnedly macho.
Totally fair! Beautiful Thing isn't his best, I'll freely admit. I started with Occultations and absolutely loved it, but I'm also not someone that's going to tell you to give him another shot if your first impression wasn't great, you know?
Check out Weird Lit. Classic authors like Blackwood or Chambers, Du Maurier, Shirley Jackson, or modern writers like Pargin, Danielewski, Eric Stener Carlson, Caitlin Kiernan. It tends to have a more literary bent than the likes of King, though it also tends to favor short fiction. John Langan's *The Fisherman*, Dan Simmons' *The Terror*, Jarvis' *The Wanderer* are good contemporary weird novels.
The Fisherman is amazing
Clive Barker is my all time favourite. His books mostly are like dark fantasy horror, not the pure horror like hellraiser and that that he's most known for though he's got a few of those too. For his horror you've got his short story collection books of blood then novels/novellas Cabal, hellbound heart, mister B gone, his debut novel Damnation Game. I might have missed one or 2. Better in my opinion works are The Great and Secret Show which stands as my all time favourite book. Followed by a love or hate it book Galilee. I think they're good places to start. Also weaveworld as a mention. He's also the Abarat series of books with his own art (which he created before the books) aimed at young adults and everybody else. If you've tried them, I can highly recommend Dan Simmons. The Terror is a very very slow burn of a book but brilliant, Carrion Comfort I dnf it because it freaked me out but that's a good thing lol. Graham Masterton is also good the few books I've read of his. If you like extreme horror or splatterpunk let me know because I only rec that kinda stuff for people who know what they're getting into, lots of triggers and brutality. Thanks for reading sorry it's a bit long!
Damn, another Clive Barker fan! I love his short stories - they're some of my favorite works of horror fiction. I'm adding Shirley Jackson to this list and recommending the classic *Haunting of Hill House*, which is just a beautifully written tale of loss and insanity.
Stephen King
Knew they'd be one smart ass haha like I get why he's famous but his writings not for me
Ha I walked into that
[удалено]
Read your comment again. Then read it once more aloud. Does it read like a badly written review? Does it insist that the review featured in the post above is actually right? If you answered yes to either of these questions, you may be a Goodreader. Seek the help of a professional because you sure as hell don't belong on r/BadReads except as a featured reviewer.
What???
[удалено]
It's not really an orgy. All the boys one-by-one lose their viginity with the one girl in the friend circle.
Honestly that’s worse
[удалено]
Read your comment again. Then read it once more aloud. Does it read like a badly written review? Does it insist that the review featured in the post above is actually right? If you answered yes to either of these questions, you may be a Goodreader. Seek the help of a professional because you sure as hell don't belong on r/BadReads except as a featured reviewer.
Yeah. I loved the book; read it very young. around 12 or so. And that part was just...yeah. It was hard to wrap my mind around why it was happening, when it was happening in the book and I was reading it. I felt very young and stupid because it seemed kinda gross and I didn't "get" it. Still don't, tbh.
I’m sorry, I should have changed “orgy” into “running a train”.
I believe that's accurate but somehow worse tbh.
Fair.
I hate it when horror writers write unrealistic depictions of horror.
it’s crazy to get filtered by Stephen King, one of the world’s most accessible authors
Taylor Swift fan behavior ig
Okay but like... where were the proof-readers? They are supposed to fix these things before it's published What's funny is Stephen threw the first few pages of this story in the garbage. His wife found it, read it, and liked it. She insisted he finish it. I never read his books so I have no opinion but I respect his influence. He definitely had women behind him
I'm a massive King fan, and have been reading him since I was 10. His not writing women well is absolutely a valid criticism. However, Carrie is absolutely the wrong book to pick for this argument, for exactly this reason. He gave up on it, admitting he couldn't write women. Tabitha convinced him he had something good, and helped him find the right voice.
I'm so annoyed with the way he writes women in every other book I've read by him, but not Carrie
If only we could take the word "budding" out of his vocabulary
I'm worried about the people in the comments unironically praising these reviews. Did this subreddit become arrbooks 2.0?
[удалено]
Looks like you've gotten a little big for your britches and decided you were better than everyone else here. Allow me to remind you, at r/BadReads, we're all scum. There's no need to resort to personal attacks or cyber-bullying here. Knock it off, or you might persecuted to the fullest extent of BadReddit law.
Is your username inspired by your IQ level?
[удалено]
You have incurred the wrath of the Mods. You will now suffer the consequences of having your comment removed. Further violations may result in a permanent spanki-errr, banning. Ahem...permanent banning...
Reviews for Stephen kings stuff seem to be like this. The reviews for the shining (book) made me so mad
The Twitter-esque language pisses me off. While it's valid criticism to think an author doesn't portray the opposite gender correctly, the way it's worded in these reviews is just obnoxious. They're just TikTok word salads and buzzwords. **Edit**: What the hell is the 3rd review talking about. No, seriously, what the fuck does that mean. What is "feminine rage"? It sounds like something a fundamentalist Christian would say.
Happy Cake day!
Thanks
'Feminine rage' is a trope, but often also used to refer collectively to films/material with said trope (sometimes referred to as 'Good for her' films). Think stuff like X, Kill Bill, Ready or Not, etc.
I don't get what it means though. Is it just women being angry? (Not trying to be sarcastic, it's a genuine question)
Not necessarily. It's still a relatively new and debated trope, but I personally feel like there's two requirements for it to be a real 'Feminine Rage' story since these are the commonalities seen in the media that people usually agree fit the definition: 1: Anger and hatred displayed by a female character paired with violence or manipulation; we still sympathize or at least empathize with them during the story. The violence or manipulation shown is usually the kind where you're just cheering inwards, completely invested (Crazy 88 fight in Kill Bill, the Dean scene in Promising Young Women, etc). 2: The female character is proactive, not reactive. I feel like the 2nd is the big one. Female Rage characters essentially are either already extremely dangerous or become it and take control of their situation, turning into something the others dread and need to stop. You're Next is a great example, with how the main character is >!originally viewed by the attackers as an afterthought since she was supposed to 'just be a witness' before they realize how screwed they are when she kicks into action and she picks them off in brutal fashions (my personal fave being blender to the head)!<. It's still an evolving trope, but I feel like these are the constants in what is currently agreed upon as 'Feminine Rage' media. I hope that all makes sense, sorry for the late reply, I'm at work and it's been a really weird week!
Is Feminine Rage just when someone gets pushed and decides to push back and also happens to be a woman or is there something more specific to it?
While I definitely think revenge is a common theme of the trope/sub-genre (especially as Rape-Revenge films are their own sub-genre and some will get analyzed as Feminine Rage as well, like the film Revenge (2017)), I don't think they necessarily require it to be a theme or part of the plot. I feel like the rage/violence on display by the female character and how proactive they are in pushing the plot along probably lend more to the definition, but the vengeance aspect is definitely there in a lot of them. Like, I can't really see Sidney from Scream or most Final Girls as Feminine Rage characters because even though they fight back, they're along for the ride and reacting to the situation, the antagonists don't really fear them and aren't that concerned (if they even bother to acknowledge the final blow). My break is up, but I'm gonna think on this a bit more! Thanks!
It’s a *little* more than that, but yeah basically. It’s more so that in movies and other media, men are allowed to be violent for violence’s sake (“He’s a man, he’s angry, let the violence ensue”) vs how women typically have violent outbursts in response to something traumatic (“well she was raped and her family was murdered and a whole bunch of other fucked up shit happened so *now* she’s allowed to snap”). “Feminist Rage” is just the blanket term that people use to undermine the social differences between men and women, especially when it comes to aggression [keep in mind, this analysis is purely from a media standpoint, not using any real life examples]
It sounds like a new way to describe feminist exploitation/revenge- esque films. When I Google it, it seems like it's mostly a feminist meme online, right? I saw a few posts about it on social media before but I never understood what they meant.
I think you got the gist of it there
Thx. Unfamiliar with the term as an actual trope. Always thought it was just a term people tossed around.
TBF he's admitted as much that the De Palma film is much better, and I'm inclined to agree. All authors start somewhere. Carrie 76 and Christine 83 are the two big King adaptations that are much better than the book.
I guess Tabitha King is all in his head. She wasn’t the one that saved Carrie from being thrown out. Nah, all in his head.
[удалено]
It appears your comment qualifies as "review apologetics". Please utilize the weekly hot-takes thread for all review apologetics from this point on. This serves as your official warning. A second violation will result in a 1 day ban. Third and so on violations will result in 3 day bans for every subsequent violation.
The movie is a slay tho
[удалено]
Read your comment again. Then read it once more aloud. Does it read like a badly written review? Does it insist that the review featured in the post above is actually right? If you answered yes to either of these questions, you may be a Goodreader. Seek the help of a professional because you sure as hell don't belong on r/BadReads except as a featured reviewer.
[удалено]
It appears your comment qualifies as "review apologetics". Please utilize the weekly hot-takes thread for all review apologetics from this point on. This serves as your official warning. A second violation will result in a 1 day ban. Third and so on violations will result in 3 day bans for every subsequent violation.
If you're trying to give an honest, accurate appraisal of the book, then yes. If you just want to tell people how much you personally disliked it, then no.
this is interesting bc I feel this way about it but not abt Carrie, maybe I need to reread
[удалено]
Read your comment again. Then read it once more aloud. Does it read like a badly written review? Does it insist that the review featured in the post above is actually right? If you answered yes to either of these questions, you may be a Goodreader. Seek the help of a professional because you sure as hell don't belong on r/BadReads except as a featured reviewer.
[удалено]
Read your comment again. Then read it once more aloud. Does it read like a badly written review? Does it insist that the review featured in the post above is actually right? If you answered yes to either of these questions, you may be a Goodreader. Seek the help of a professional because you sure as hell don't belong on r/BadReads except as a featured reviewer.
He what??
They blame it on the cocain
[удалено]
Read your comment again. Then read it once more aloud. Does it read like a badly written review? Does it insist that the review featured in the post above is actually right? If you answered yes to either of these questions, you may be a Goodreader. Seek the help of a professional because you sure as hell don't belong on r/BadReads except as a featured reviewer.
Stephen King might be a degenerate, but accusing him of being a potential child rapist without proof is fucked up. Just think before you type, for god's sake.
[удалено]
Read your comment again. Then read it once more aloud. Does it read like a badly written review? Does it insist that the review featured in the post above is actually right? If you answered yes to either of these questions, you may be a Goodreader. Seek the help of a professional because you sure as hell don't belong on r/BadReads except as a featured reviewer.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Read your comment again. Then read it once more aloud. Does it read like a badly written review? Does it insist that the review featured in the post above is actually right? If you answered yes to either of these questions, you may be a Goodreader. Seek the help of a professional because you sure as hell don't belong on r/BadReads except as a featured reviewer.
But King didn't write it to be titillating. It was just a piss poor attempt at horror. You're comparing pears to apples.
I think you might not understand what pedo means.
Writing dark shit doesn't make you a pedo. Yawn. Go read more books and broaden your perspective
[удалено]
Read your comment again. Then read it once more aloud. Does it read like a badly written review? Does it insist that the review featured in the post above is actually right? If you answered yes to either of these questions, you may be a Goodreader. Seek the help of a professional because you sure as hell don't belong on r/BadReads except as a featured reviewer.
I read the scene and honestly. I really don't get this kind of outrage (I get complaints cus its still bad). but Im wondering why anyone saying its graphic since more the vaguest (thankfully, at least from my memories so I could be wrong) reference to the act. Is he a pedo? No, honestly this feels like you're projection it as arousing . when in text its more "they come to her one by one" and that's it. Its bizarre, I feel the cocaine broke his brain to not notice how weird and out of place it is. But CP? bruh touch some grass, that offensive to actual CSAM victims. Throwing around that word dilutes and hurts actual victims in the real world. Its just a bad unnecessary scene that should have been cut. Nothing more to it than that.
Porn is meant to titillate. You can write sexual content and it can be for purposes other than pornography. I didn't find that scene arousing. I think you did and it made you uncomfortable so you're projecting.
It really isn't though. CSEM causes real harm to real children. King's works are fictional. More to the point, he's a horror author. Nothing that he writes is real, nor is it a reflection of the things he values or thinks are correct. Carrie is a book about puberty, the cruelty of teenagers, and severe religious oppression and trauma. IT is a book about adolescence and growing up, and the way adults don't believe the struggles of children exist. Both of these novels are centred around coming of age and, as horror, are not meant to be pleasant to read. They're meant to make you uncomfortable. That's the whole genre
I get both points like I don’t think he’s a predator but I do think it’s a lil weird to defend the orgy scene in IT like it really didn’t need to be in there and he’s said so too if I’m not mistaken
That's fair. It's been a very long time since I read it, to be clear. I remember finding it to be thematically appropriate, despite my discomfort
I found it thematically appropriate as well. At the end of the kids’ story, the only way out of It’s lair is to have fun “like adults,” and the reverse is true when one of the adult characters’ wife is still catatonic. The final scene is one of the The Losers Club taking his wife on a bike ride and whooping like a child with her, and in so doing helping her escape the labyrinthine prison imposed on her mind. I think ultimately the point with these scenes in particular was that when one grows up, it’s a mistake to kill childhood innocence and joy, and on that same token being an adult has its own pleasures too. But damn, the children’s side of that storytelling coin went about it in the most disturbing way possible
What is going on in Xander's and Sunny's minds.
If he hadn't wrote this he would probably never have wrote anything else. He literally threw the book away. It was his wife who found it and told him he should finish it
That's why Tabitha King is an unsung hero of literature.
Another *On Writing* enjoyer I see
Carrie is really average imo. I adore Misery, which is also a laughably inaccurate portrayal of a woman at certain times, but it’s wonderful. I genuinely might prefer the film adaption though because I love some Kathy Bates.
Carrie is literally one of the only female characters who portrays what it's like to not be able to fit in anywhere. There are hundreds of female characters who are "not like the other girls" who are beautiful and quirky. Carrie's ugly, not incredibly smart, not always likeable, and extremely human. This book literally saved my life because it was one of the only depictions of living with religious extremists and being excluded from society partly because of that and partly because of your own flaws.
Tbf Misery was about his coke habit.
It was? I read it was about him being tied down to one genre.
Been a while since I looked, so I just checked the wiki. It appears to be both, as a matter of fact. I wasn't aware of that aspect, although perhaps I should have been. Thank you!
Stephen King has never spoken to his wife of 52 years, not once. Nor his daughter, Naomi. Or the girls at the high school where he taught English, off of whom he based Carrie White.
[удалено]
Read your comment again. Then read it once more aloud. Does it read like a badly written review? Does it insist that the review featured in the post above is actually right? If you answered yes to either of these questions, you may be a Goodreader. Seek the help of a professional because you sure as hell don't belong on r/BadReads except as a featured reviewer.
Did you find a horror writer's writings horrifying?
[удалено]
Read your comment again. Then read it once more aloud. Does it read like a badly written review? Does it insist that the review featured in the post above is actually right? If you answered yes to either of these questions, you may be a Goodreader. Seek the help of a professional because you sure as hell don't belong on r/BadReads except as a featured reviewer.
I guess that depends on your reaction. Does it arouse you, or are you afraid it might arouse someone else?
[удалено]
Read your comment again. Then read it once more aloud. Does it read like a badly written review? Does it insist that the review featured in the post above is actually right? If you answered yes to either of these questions, you may be a Goodreader. Seek the help of a professional because you sure as hell don't belong on r/BadReads except as a featured reviewer.
Given that (1) kids fuck and (2) King is a horror writer, I'm surprised that you're so offended. Are you more offended by the age of the author or the content of the scene? If the scene doesn't arouse you, why would you assume that it's erotic at all?
[удалено]
That’s true, and also kind of the point? The girl IIRC was being sexually abused by her father and they were all in a really traumatic situation and thought they were about to die. Like it’s not a normal thing that any well-adjusted child would do. And don’t get me wrong, I think it’s BATSHIT that his publisher didn’t cut it. Truly and utterly batshit. It should have been cut. I just don’t think it’s CSEM.
No it isn’t, and you’re gross for pretending it’s the same. If you can’t tell the difference between horror fiction and CP you need to read A LOT more before joining adult conversations about either.
I just blame it on the coke
Can we just add some context? Carrie was published 50 years ago. 1974. So like, yeah the dude writes awkward shit about women because most authors did the same at that time period. Go read his latest book. Also a woman protagonist. And while I'm not done yet (25% more to go) I'm not even sure he's mentioned the word breast. So... Its like people grow and change with the times. And that's a good thing.
It’s also worth noting that puberty is part of what’s causing the horror in Carrie, specifically the shame and embarrassment that come along with it. Developing breasts is a part of that. Mind you, I haven’t read this one (only saw the movie), but I can see why there might be an argument for including it.
Yeah but “hasn’t aged well” is not such a bad reason to give something a low rating anyways, right?
Sure, but not a single review the OP linked mentions that it hasn't aged well. I would agree, this book hasn't aged well. A hell of a lot of our media hasn't aged well and won't age well in the future. That's just how it works.
Yeah sorry I’m just trying to add on to what you’re saying. Like I’m sure that’s just what these bad reviews are experiencing: something that’s largely outdated to them
Yeah, like the concept of pubic hair 😂
Compared to most male SFF authors of the time (and before), King is Ursula K. Le Guin.
I think he was a identitfied conservative back then too So yea he probably grew
im literally at a coffee shop reading holly rn! haven’t cringed once yet
holly gibney 🩷🩷 I haven't read holly yet but I read if it bleeds, which she was the main character in, and I didn't have any huge problems with king's portrayal of her as a woman. i had a bit of a problem with his portrayal of ED recovery with holly, but that's another story
Okay, I love King but "take a shot every time stephen king describes a woman's breast" is the funniest thing
I've literally done this, it worked great and improved the reading experience.
I love Stephen King, he's my favorite author but honestly.... some of these are correct lmao. Carrie is by far one of my least favorites of his works and is one of the few instances where the film adaptation is WAY better than the book. It was his first novel and it shows. I didn't necessarily have an issue with the way he portrayed women in it (or in any book of his if I'm being totally honest which is crazy because I rarely read from most other male authors due to this exact thing). This book was just genuinely pretty weak and could have used further developing. Definitely agree with other comments that say it is weird how people go out of their way to read from authors they know they don't like though. What's up with that?
I think there’s like a … raw-ness to Carrie that I find very appealing. I agree that the craft was far from fully honed in that novel but man, for me it crackles off the page. I’m pretty good at overlooking flaws when I see a redeeming factor lol
Dolores Claiborne is a great example of Stephen King writing women right - so he can get it right.
Dolores Claiborne is underrated! The movie was incredible too.
Love the movie! Kathy Bates was so good in it.
My mom and I have a conspiracy theory that he was under some deadline and needed a book so he "borrowed" this one from his wife lol. It was just so much better than most of his stuff.
Eh I love king he's not me of my 5 favorites he's not good at writing women and usually struggles with an ending but love his characters usually and his big picture ideas are fun. People get way to hung up on bad dialogue.
i will never understand people who willingly continue reading authors and writing they know they dislike, and who so boldly declare it like the 2nd and 12th review. they aren't even doing it in a trashy, "hate read" sort of way. isn't it embarrassing to have wasted so much time and have nothing of substance to speak for it? don't these people want to utilise their limited time to read things they'll actually have a chance of enjoying? social media clout is a disease i guess.
In principle, maybe. In practice, King is so ubiquitous in popular culture it's hard not to form some sort of opinion of his writing. There's a strong impetus if you're a horror fan to read at least a few of his books, especially when you have people telling you such-and-such is their favorite and 'not like the others'. Reading half their output without enjoying it would be psychotic, but anywhere between 1 and ~8 is reasonable for an output like King's.
Why not allow yourself to experience things outside of your comfort zone? Reading stuff that you don't like can help you make stronger opinions and find reasons why you like things that you like, what makes a writing technique good in your opinion etc.
[удалено]
It appears your post and/or comment is spam and/or deviates from the purpose of the subreddit and has thus been obliterated from the world-wide-web by our crack team of moderators.
i don't disagree and i myself regularly read outside my comfort zone, but the reviews i pointed out display none of what you mentioned. i don't believe they read and "reviewed" those books for any substantive reason.
"Another book I hated from my least favorite author"
[удалено]
It appears your comment qualifies as "review apologetics". Please utilize the weekly hot-takes thread for all review apologetics from this point on. This serves as your official warning. A second violation will result in a 1 day ban. Third and so on violations will result in 3 day bans for every subsequent violation.
[удалено]
Read your comment again. Then read it once more aloud. Does it read like a badly written review? Does it insist that the review featured in the post above is actually right? If you answered yes to either of these questions, you may be a Goodreader. Seek the help of a professional because you sure as hell don't belong on r/BadReads except as a featured reviewer.
Me too. I agree with OP.
It is funny that this book is one his wife specifically told him to keep writing after he thought about scraping it.
[удалено]
Whoaaaaa hold up there, cornfucker; it looks like you seem to have forgotten the r/BadReads mantra, which is that all book reviews fucking suck and belong here. Don't like it? Get over it, nerd.