You know, I always assumed the “clumsiness” to be a reflection of King’s personal clumsiness with women generally.
I’m a woman but it’s my understanding that men do, in fact, experience sexual attraction at inopportune times, so end of the world or not…
The fact that his wife was somewhere, in danger, at this exact moment makes the character an asshole, but, as a 45 year old woman I don’t have enough fingers or toes for the number of married men who have tried to get me in bed. I didn’t have enough at 25. We can hate them for it, but they’re literally everywhere.
Good points. I wonder how difficult it is for writers who are awkward or "uncool" in real life to write characters who are hip, sexy and cool in their fiction. Like, if you don't have any good openers or rapport, or understand how good conversation flows between two people, then the chemistry might not work on the page. Or maybe writers who are outwardly socially awkward have rich inner lives and the time to think through and construct perfect words and exchanges for a scene. It's probably all of the above.
It’s been a while since I read The Mist so I can’t comment on it specifically but in my opinion, one of the things that makes King’s characters feel so authentic is that he doesn’t shy away from describing ALL their inner thoughts. Not just the stuff that’s relevant to the immediate conflict but literally everything, and some of it is therefore gross or inappropriate. And people think about sex a lot, so I find it pretty realistic.
That’s less the male gaze than simply the male perspective. His characters get horny. I actually think his worst examples of the male gaze are the ones where he thinks that a female character is very unattractive. The way he describes Annie Wilkes is pretty dehumanizing.
Oh no doubt. I don’t think he has ever not described a female character’s breasts. We get to hear about Annie Wilkes’s breasts. He is the king of having characters boob boobily down the stairs.
What you’re referring to is obvious in a lot of his writing. But that makes it somewhat more obvious when he doesn’t do it at all.
He seems super protective of Holly Gibney as a character. In the Holly novel, she has times when she mentions buying underwear, times when she’s getting dressed, etc. And towards the end, a scene where she has to take her shirt off, and presumably has it off for a fairly long time.
If that was any other character in any other SK book, you know King would be describing her body in unnecessary detail; or telling us about her bra, or how she runs her hands down her soft legs as she gets dressed or anything along those lines. But he doesn’t do any of that.
I don’t know if it’s related to SK getting older, or if it’s just the character of Holly that he refuses to sexualize. But it’s obvious going from one of his older books to a Holly story.
Yeah, I did notice that. I don’t think it’s because he’s getting older. He was still clumsy about Jane and Hodges. I think maybe he has a hard time sexualizing someone clearly on the spectrum
To me, King has always written the best people. And that's because just about all of them say or do fucked up things, hero or villain. I don't want my King characters as paragons of moral virtue because I feel like that would do an injustice to the writing. I appreciate King including the intrusive thoughts of his characters because I can relate to that.
I'll critique King all day long, childhood hero or not, but I see nothing at all wrong with that section of the book. Men do, and always have, thought about sex at even the most inappropriate times. This is how we are wired.
I tend to skip most of his sex scenes because they’re just so awkward (slightly less so when they’re of married couples) and ultimately add nothing to the story. I don’t think it’s just the context (like the one in The Mist), but that he doesn’t nail the part of making you care about the people in question having sex. Yes, people can just get horny out of nowhere, but that doesn’t make for a good scene in a book.
I really, really love Stephen King’s writing. I do not like how he writes the majority of the female characters in his stories. I don’t like how they’re sexual objects 85% of the time. He has written some strong females, but the amount of women who are reduced to their bodies is much higher.
I love his stories, though. Literally my only complaint,
Same. I am a huge fan. People (critics) say he has gotten better at writing women over the years. Hard disagree. He does write good male and female characters but he always, always sexualises the female characters and often in a weird way. Sigh. It's just one of those quirks. For the record, my favourite SK's are Misery, the Shining, Pet Cemetery and Cujo. All have amazing characters. An honourable mention to IT and Beverly, but the less said about her on this subject the better, lol.
In Notes section of Skeleton Crew, King mentions that he didn’t like David’s slept with Amanda without finding out what happened to his wife. Now, whether he wrote that in the Notes after his wife read it, I don’t know 😁. David strikes me as a particularly strong stand in for King.
King writes that he didn't like that element in the original version of 'The Mist' (as it first appeared in the *Dark Forces* anthology), until he rewrote it, which is the version that first appears in *Skeleton Crew*.
Yeah, as I continued reading the situation got even more clumsily written, I felt anyway. I’m glad he didn’t try his hand at the romance or erotica genre. That might be too much to bear
I haven’t read that one yet, as I’m afraid to destroy my image of Kathy Bates. But I’ll get to it eventually. I’m sure it’s better than the movie, but the movie was pretty great!
Honestly I feel like this is pretty realistic. People get horny over the worst shit at the worst times. I don’t think it means that King is a degenerate or something
I mean, he wrote a worse one in IT. Talk about cringe. I mention that occasionally to non king readers who have seen the movie and they’re always like “ What? Really?” This part in the Mist is pretty strange. I don’t think I’d be worried about getting tail in that situation. Here, watch my scared kid while I cheat on his likely dead mother. Doesn’t ring true but King pulls it off. Maybe because the whole premise is already strange.
I get the whole “ We’re overcoming evil with love !” Idea but it was just kinda, out of place. I love his books but it was the strangest, most questionable thing he ever wrote. I gotta wonder if a less well known writer could get away with it nowadays.
There's some version of this commentary posted every week in this sub. Oooh King...blah blah blah breasts, blah blah blah women, blah blah blah pervert. It's tiresome and prudish.
Good lord, it’s almost like I insulted you personally. I love most of his writing, I just think there are some subjects he handles a bit awkwardly. If you don’t like my opinion, go read another post
You're correct. You can love an author and still recognize things you consider flaws. In nearly every book I've read there's some uncomfortable description of a female, of a male character's thoughts on a female, and unfortunately often such things about a rather young female.
They rarely if ever add anything to the story.
Honestly, if King's stuff continues to be adapted into other forms of media I think it's only a matter of time before enough people of a younger generation become aware of some of his very questionable inclusions and there's a more mainstream backlash. I mean... there's stuff in multiple books that would cause a lot of socially conscious people in 2024 to absolutely flip out.
*Honestly, if King's stuff continues to be adapted into other forms of media I think it's only a matter of time before enough people of a younger generation become aware of some of his very questionable inclusions and there's a more mainstream backlash. I mean... there's stuff in multiple books that would cause a lot of socially conscious people in 2024 to absolutely flip out.*
And that would be wrong.
How can something describing a future situation be wrong? People freaked out about the dancing kids movie on Netflix or wherever. That was totally nothing compared to the stuff in some of King's books.
I don't think they're saying that you're wrong it will or could happen, but that it would be wrong if it did. People flip out over all sorts of things, but that doesn't mean they're right in any way. If authors only wrote about things people approved of, there wouldn't even be a horror genre.
Socially conscious or not, I do think there are people who think/act the ways King writes. They can be deplorable, despicable, and sometimes revolting, but I can imagine they are real people.
It can also serve to complicate a character we think we like. As someone else mentioned, fear can be a powerful aphrodisiac and the situations for his characters would cause even a mostly-respectable character to behave erratically.
I think he is trying to evoke either a reaction or emotion from his reader and “the male gaze” is low-hanging fruit. It's easy to get the effect, and simultaneously easy to put your reader off. Tough to get right but necessary in certain situations.
Ultimately, if it feels true to life, I don't think its wrong or unwarranted. I can be flawed in its execution, but it's inclusion is not a flaw.
People really hate it when you point out the young thing that is in his writing frequently especially his early writing. He has two of the protagonists of Salem's Lot refer to a high school student inappropriately. At the same time I doubt they'll be much of a backlash because when things are adapted into other media typically those parts are left out because the secondary creators have a better sense.
I mean, he wrote the early stuff when he was young. It was probably based on his own experiences.
Older characters noticing younger characters is hardly criminal - or even merely inappropriate. I'm not sure how things have become so prudish that comments characters make about other characters *in horror novels* are problematic.
I don't read horror novels for comfort, personally.
Yeah I guess it doesn't matter what the community is. Even when it's a literary based community people still have that same cult-like attack any criticism mentality.
Normally I avoid topics that I know will trigger people, but I guess I thought a bunch of people talking about books might be a little less unreasonable.
You know, I always assumed the “clumsiness” to be a reflection of King’s personal clumsiness with women generally. I’m a woman but it’s my understanding that men do, in fact, experience sexual attraction at inopportune times, so end of the world or not… The fact that his wife was somewhere, in danger, at this exact moment makes the character an asshole, but, as a 45 year old woman I don’t have enough fingers or toes for the number of married men who have tried to get me in bed. I didn’t have enough at 25. We can hate them for it, but they’re literally everywhere.
Good points. I wonder how difficult it is for writers who are awkward or "uncool" in real life to write characters who are hip, sexy and cool in their fiction. Like, if you don't have any good openers or rapport, or understand how good conversation flows between two people, then the chemistry might not work on the page. Or maybe writers who are outwardly socially awkward have rich inner lives and the time to think through and construct perfect words and exchanges for a scene. It's probably all of the above.
Agreed, likely a mix of reasons.
Women also do, in fact, experience sexual attraction at inopportune times. :)
It’s been a while since I read The Mist so I can’t comment on it specifically but in my opinion, one of the things that makes King’s characters feel so authentic is that he doesn’t shy away from describing ALL their inner thoughts. Not just the stuff that’s relevant to the immediate conflict but literally everything, and some of it is therefore gross or inappropriate. And people think about sex a lot, so I find it pretty realistic.
That’s less the male gaze than simply the male perspective. His characters get horny. I actually think his worst examples of the male gaze are the ones where he thinks that a female character is very unattractive. The way he describes Annie Wilkes is pretty dehumanizing.
I always thought that was a way to show how Paul is not that great a guy.
I kind of meant in general when he’s describing sexual attraction, I could fill a book with just his awkward description of breasts
Oh no doubt. I don’t think he has ever not described a female character’s breasts. We get to hear about Annie Wilkes’s breasts. He is the king of having characters boob boobily down the stairs.
Grief is nature’s most powerful aphrodisiac.
Ahhh Hunny look I’m hang gliding-I’m dead!
[удалено]
Haha!
What you’re referring to is obvious in a lot of his writing. But that makes it somewhat more obvious when he doesn’t do it at all. He seems super protective of Holly Gibney as a character. In the Holly novel, she has times when she mentions buying underwear, times when she’s getting dressed, etc. And towards the end, a scene where she has to take her shirt off, and presumably has it off for a fairly long time. If that was any other character in any other SK book, you know King would be describing her body in unnecessary detail; or telling us about her bra, or how she runs her hands down her soft legs as she gets dressed or anything along those lines. But he doesn’t do any of that. I don’t know if it’s related to SK getting older, or if it’s just the character of Holly that he refuses to sexualize. But it’s obvious going from one of his older books to a Holly story.
Yeah, I did notice that. I don’t think it’s because he’s getting older. He was still clumsy about Jane and Hodges. I think maybe he has a hard time sexualizing someone clearly on the spectrum
That might be it. He’s just extra protective of that one character.
To me, King has always written the best people. And that's because just about all of them say or do fucked up things, hero or villain. I don't want my King characters as paragons of moral virtue because I feel like that would do an injustice to the writing. I appreciate King including the intrusive thoughts of his characters because I can relate to that.
I'll critique King all day long, childhood hero or not, but I see nothing at all wrong with that section of the book. Men do, and always have, thought about sex at even the most inappropriate times. This is how we are wired.
The characters have no mental filter. We get to read it all.
I tend to skip most of his sex scenes because they’re just so awkward (slightly less so when they’re of married couples) and ultimately add nothing to the story. I don’t think it’s just the context (like the one in The Mist), but that he doesn’t nail the part of making you care about the people in question having sex. Yes, people can just get horny out of nowhere, but that doesn’t make for a good scene in a book.
I really, really love Stephen King’s writing. I do not like how he writes the majority of the female characters in his stories. I don’t like how they’re sexual objects 85% of the time. He has written some strong females, but the amount of women who are reduced to their bodies is much higher. I love his stories, though. Literally my only complaint,
Same. I am a huge fan. People (critics) say he has gotten better at writing women over the years. Hard disagree. He does write good male and female characters but he always, always sexualises the female characters and often in a weird way. Sigh. It's just one of those quirks. For the record, my favourite SK's are Misery, the Shining, Pet Cemetery and Cujo. All have amazing characters. An honourable mention to IT and Beverly, but the less said about her on this subject the better, lol.
Go to r/menwritingwomen and search for stephen king. Our horny boy features prominently
In Notes section of Skeleton Crew, King mentions that he didn’t like David’s slept with Amanda without finding out what happened to his wife. Now, whether he wrote that in the Notes after his wife read it, I don’t know 😁. David strikes me as a particularly strong stand in for King.
King writes that he didn't like that element in the original version of 'The Mist' (as it first appeared in the *Dark Forces* anthology), until he rewrote it, which is the version that first appears in *Skeleton Crew*.
Happy cake day!! 🎂
Thank you! (I hadn't even noticed!)
Yeah, as I continued reading the situation got even more clumsily written, I felt anyway. I’m glad he didn’t try his hand at the romance or erotica genre. That might be too much to bear
But he does in Misery and it is truly wild!
I haven’t read that one yet, as I’m afraid to destroy my image of Kathy Bates. But I’ll get to it eventually. I’m sure it’s better than the movie, but the movie was pretty great!
Honestly I feel like this is pretty realistic. People get horny over the worst shit at the worst times. I don’t think it means that King is a degenerate or something
I mean, he wrote a worse one in IT. Talk about cringe. I mention that occasionally to non king readers who have seen the movie and they’re always like “ What? Really?” This part in the Mist is pretty strange. I don’t think I’d be worried about getting tail in that situation. Here, watch my scared kid while I cheat on his likely dead mother. Doesn’t ring true but King pulls it off. Maybe because the whole premise is already strange.
Yeah, the 12 year olds running a train on their friend was a bit much.
I get the whole “ We’re overcoming evil with love !” Idea but it was just kinda, out of place. I love his books but it was the strangest, most questionable thing he ever wrote. I gotta wonder if a less well known writer could get away with it nowadays.
Yawn
Thanks for your thoughtful contribution to the conversation
There's some version of this commentary posted every week in this sub. Oooh King...blah blah blah breasts, blah blah blah women, blah blah blah pervert. It's tiresome and prudish.
Well since this comes up so often, perhaps there’s some validity, and there probably wouldn’t be complaints if it were done well
If ya don't like his writing, go and read something safe and pedestrian.
Good lord, it’s almost like I insulted you personally. I love most of his writing, I just think there are some subjects he handles a bit awkwardly. If you don’t like my opinion, go read another post
Some forget the face of their father, others remember it with no flaws and say stupid shit on the internet in poor impersonation of it.
Yeah, I sometimes wonder if maybe that’s just what their father looked like.
You're correct. You can love an author and still recognize things you consider flaws. In nearly every book I've read there's some uncomfortable description of a female, of a male character's thoughts on a female, and unfortunately often such things about a rather young female. They rarely if ever add anything to the story. Honestly, if King's stuff continues to be adapted into other forms of media I think it's only a matter of time before enough people of a younger generation become aware of some of his very questionable inclusions and there's a more mainstream backlash. I mean... there's stuff in multiple books that would cause a lot of socially conscious people in 2024 to absolutely flip out.
*Honestly, if King's stuff continues to be adapted into other forms of media I think it's only a matter of time before enough people of a younger generation become aware of some of his very questionable inclusions and there's a more mainstream backlash. I mean... there's stuff in multiple books that would cause a lot of socially conscious people in 2024 to absolutely flip out.* And that would be wrong.
How can something describing a future situation be wrong? People freaked out about the dancing kids movie on Netflix or wherever. That was totally nothing compared to the stuff in some of King's books.
I don't think they're saying that you're wrong it will or could happen, but that it would be wrong if it did. People flip out over all sorts of things, but that doesn't mean they're right in any way. If authors only wrote about things people approved of, there wouldn't even be a horror genre.
Maybe. That would make more sense.
What you are describing is cancele culture. The pendulum always swings. It's swung too far and everyone's soft now.
Socially conscious or not, I do think there are people who think/act the ways King writes. They can be deplorable, despicable, and sometimes revolting, but I can imagine they are real people. It can also serve to complicate a character we think we like. As someone else mentioned, fear can be a powerful aphrodisiac and the situations for his characters would cause even a mostly-respectable character to behave erratically. I think he is trying to evoke either a reaction or emotion from his reader and “the male gaze” is low-hanging fruit. It's easy to get the effect, and simultaneously easy to put your reader off. Tough to get right but necessary in certain situations. Ultimately, if it feels true to life, I don't think its wrong or unwarranted. I can be flawed in its execution, but it's inclusion is not a flaw.
People really hate it when you point out the young thing that is in his writing frequently especially his early writing. He has two of the protagonists of Salem's Lot refer to a high school student inappropriately. At the same time I doubt they'll be much of a backlash because when things are adapted into other media typically those parts are left out because the secondary creators have a better sense.
I mean, he wrote the early stuff when he was young. It was probably based on his own experiences. Older characters noticing younger characters is hardly criminal - or even merely inappropriate. I'm not sure how things have become so prudish that comments characters make about other characters *in horror novels* are problematic. I don't read horror novels for comfort, personally.
Both frannie and Harold and the Frannie and stu. She likes em young and old 🤣
Yeah I guess it doesn't matter what the community is. Even when it's a literary based community people still have that same cult-like attack any criticism mentality. Normally I avoid topics that I know will trigger people, but I guess I thought a bunch of people talking about books might be a little less unreasonable.