You really can't make this stuff up!
Early Monday morning, NewsBusters informed readers about a truly disgraceful comment made last month by famed horror author Stephen King concerning people that can't read having to enter the Army (video embedded right).
Hours later, I mentioned in the comments section that I was receiving a lot of strange e-mail messages.
Well, it turns out King wrote about my piece at his website, and instructed readers to "find Sheppard on the internet" -- please notice the embedded link goes to my NewsBusters blog! -- and write me with text that included "Hi, Noel—Stephen King says to shut up and I agree":
- A message from Stephen
That a right-wing-blog would impugn my patriotism because I said children should learn to read, and could get better jobs by doing so, is beneath contempt. Noel Sheppard says, “Nice sentiment when the nation is at war, Stephen.” I guess he feels ignorance and illiteracy are OK when the country needs cannon-fodder. I guess he also feels that the war in Iraq has nationwide approval. Well, it doesn’t have mine. It is a waste of national resources. . . and that includes the youth and blood of the 4,000 American troops who have lost their lives there and for the tens of thousands who have been wounded. I live in a national guard town, and I support our troops, but I don’t support either the war or educational policies that limit the options of young men and women to any one career—military or otherwise. If you agree, find Sheppard on the internet, and send him an email:
“Hi, Noel—Stephen King says to shut up and I agree.”Steve
- Posted 5 May 200 [sic]
Aside from getting the year wrong, it's some of his best writing in a long time, wouldn't you agree?
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters.
Comments Policy
Isn't he missing the point
May 5, 2008 - 23:12 ET by balboaIsn't he missing the point that he insinuated that the army is made of uneducated people? Not sure that's true, and he seems to be arguing a different point.
I wouldn't worry until the emails simply say "Red Rum."
Liberal tolerance on
May 5, 2008 - 23:15 ET by wiwfLiberal tolerance on parade
The Rocky Mountain Collegian: Illustrating Idiocy
B
May 5, 2008 - 23:16 ET by Noel SheppardB,
LOL!!! Nice, Bal! Very. Bravo! ns
He IS missing the point, just as you say
May 5, 2008 - 23:24 ET by sarcasmoBut further, by obviously missing the point in this way, King's allowing both political sides to keep talking past eachother, which they're both getting very good at doing.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
only one side is talking past the other
May 6, 2008 - 10:52 ET by kdizzydazeI believe one side has had a monopoly on talking past the other for about 8 years or so. The MSM (aka useful idiots) parrot BS talking points and bogus charges given to them by the liberal elite that we on the right, are forced to defend, denounce, or debunk. I mean really, all I ever hear from the left is "Bush lied, kids died", "war for oil", "not in our name", Abu Ghraib under new management", Haliburton evil", Cheney evil", etc. etc.
And anytime an attempt at civil discussion is made, the initial response is typically along the lines of what was written above.
my thought exactly
May 5, 2008 - 23:27 ET by mom_roxVery strange comment from Steven King given that his forte is writing.
A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.
- George Bernard Shaw, 1944
I thought Stephen King...
May 5, 2008 - 23:28 ET by aerovelo...was dead.
Perhaps in some manner he is.
---
Ask yourself: Do I want a good paying job, or do I want a government hand out. Its that simple!
-
May 5, 2008 - 23:17 ET by dahliatraversor educational policies that limit the options of young men and women to any one career
Which policies would those be?
And wasn't it Steven King who was talking about cannon fodder; more specifically, how to become it?
Pretty childish, by the way, to encourage a bunch of people to send negative, pointless e-mails to someone.
Another talentless hack
May 5, 2008 - 23:20 ET by scamoramaStephen King: another example of how one can have a career without possessing a shred of talent.
I know he has sold a lot of books, but, repeat after me: "Popular" does not mean "Good". I've waded through several of his books and short stories, and haven't found anything worthwhile.
Hack.
I have jettisoned...
May 5, 2008 - 23:27 ET by ontheright...Mr. King's once admired works from my house and businesses...it's unfortunate as they were all hard bound, very expensive 1st prints...nonetheless, it will make room for my new passion, albeit somewhat late, Marvel comic's books collection.
That's too bad. I don't
May 5, 2008 - 23:33 ET by balboaThat's too bad. I don't agree with Ted Nugent, but I still like his music. Still watch reruns of Magnum P.I. and Everyone Loves Raymond.
I appreciate your comments and opinions...
May 5, 2008 - 23:47 ET by ontheright...however, my bookshelves are "controlled" by this house's parents, to the extent that my children will be exposed to other, non-America hating artists' works. We choose to filter what is brought in and enjoyed in our home; and Mr. King's works are no longer welcomed here...pretty much like another Mr. King's works, after credible evidence of his plagiarism surfaced...
I'm obviously racist...
May 6, 2008 - 00:05 ET by ontheright...according to all I've seen, heard and read in the MSM lately. Maybe myself, and those who I choose to associate with, have completely missed the mark; but we don't believe PC is a guiding factor any more. And, we will use our "voice" to vote for real change. Not "perceived" change. Unfortunately, this year's presidential election will not bring with it real change, only more of the same bureaucracy. The only answer is a Grassroots answer. All other altnertives have left us, the voting America, in a quandry and poor.
Wow, conservatives really
May 6, 2008 - 10:09 ET by JasonCWow, conservatives really do this? I mean, you liked King's works enough to buy them in the first place, but impolitic (in your mind) remarks that he makes later comepl you to toss them out, even though it has no economic impact on him? I just find this attitude so baffling. I can't bring myself to be sufficiently offended by a person's public remarks to definitively boycott their non-political works.
As to King's specific remarks, they may be completely inaccurate in today's military - no illiterate could probably get into the military even if he/she wanted to, and modern warfare increasingly relies on particularly intelligent and able people - but conscription and voluntary service alike have long had association with lack of education. How did you get out of Vietnam? Student deferment, right? Wasn't that the biggest incentive to maintain at least a 3.0 GPA in the 60s? What is the number one cliche rejoinder of sitcom paternal figures to their progeny when they screw up or get poor grades? Some variation on: "Either buck up, or I'll ship you to the military." It is demonstrable that our culture associates low intelligence with the singular option of military service. And prior to, say, Gulf War I, the association had merit. Not that the military is nothing but people of low intelligence, but that it was a last resort for some people who had little else going for them.
King's comment, I'm afraid, is certainly inaccurate now; but it does not imply that the military is composed of dunces. It strikes me as a comment that was meant to be about literacy and education and simply (unfortunately) employed an obsolete and outdated analogy.
Who can revolt if man has become a simple conglomerate of organs, a person barely free enough to use a remote control to choose his channel? -J. Kristeva
Wow, conservatives really
May 6, 2008 - 10:40 ET by Dan The Man 2Wow, conservatives really do this? I mean, you liked King's works enough to buy them in the first place, but impolitic (in your mind) remarks that he makes later comepl you to toss them out, even though it has no economic impact on him? I just find this attitude so baffling. I can't bring myself to be sufficiently offended by a person's public remarks to definitively boycott their non-political works.
And that is why you are clueless as we dont want to support finacially some idiot who is unpatriotic and does not support the military. BTW those words made it really hard to undertand what you said but the mesasage of what you wanted to say came accross loud and clear.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
A typo in which the E and P
May 6, 2008 - 10:53 ET by JasonCA typo in which the E and P were reversed made it hard to "undertand"?
Impolitic is a word, and an appropriate one.\
And my post said that in the instance at hand, the action did NOT have economic consequence (in that getting rid of already purchased materials will have no effect on King). I agree that refusing to spend money on someone with whom you take issue makes a little sense, though I don't practice that myself. Hell, I own Ann Coulter books.
Wow, being lectured about clarity by DantheMan. Irony is a funny thing.
Who can revolt if man has become a simple conglomerate of organs, a person barely free enough to use a remote control to choose his channel? -J. Kristeva
Furthermore,
May 6, 2008 - 16:25 ET by JasonCFurthermore, notwithstanding the just-plain-wrongness of his initial comment (and I mean this only in the sense that his remark is outdated by about 20 or 30 years, not that he shouldn't have said something that might be deemed offensive to the military), isn't his reaction here, asking his fans to write to Noel, pretty much akin to NB's tendency to provide the e-mail address and phone # of certain administrators who say or do things that do not align with conservative ideals (such as the incident with the flags-on-the-floor art project in Maine) or giving the stock market abbreviations of Time magazine and its affiliates when that magazine publishes a controversial cover? Isn't the addition of these little extra bits of information basically a way of saying "Go get 'em"?
Who can revolt if man has become a simple conglomerate of organs, a person barely free enough to use a remote control to choose his channel? -J. Kristeva
I see nothing wrong with
May 6, 2008 - 17:56 ET by Dan The Man 2I see nothing wrong with publically obtained email adresses or phone numbers to let some idiot or public corporation they are wrong and they might suffer hardships. I really dont think the idea of King getting his panties in a wad is relevant, the relevant part is that King objects to public scrutiny being a public figure. If he is up to making stupid comments then he should not object to the scrutiny.
Basically King is a wuss.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
We support an entertainer
May 6, 2008 - 10:57 ET by ApacheWe support an entertainer by buying their product (movie, music, book, etc.) Thanks to us they now have easier access to be heard than the average American. So when they use it to spew their propaganda that is fine. That is their right. But since we don't have the easy access to a microphone, our ability to talk back about what we think is via our pocketbook and withdrawing our support for them.
Some people seem to think that freedom of speech involves the ability to say whatever you want and not be accountable for it. But freedom of speech works both ways.
This will probably go over your head, but here goes ...
May 6, 2008 - 10:57 ET by EllisWyattYou're right, tossing out someone's works after I have already purchased them has no financial impact on the person who created them. That's not the point. If someone says things or does things that really offend me, I don't want people I know to see their works in my home. If someone sees their works on my shelf, they might just think that I agree with them. I don't want to give that impression.
As for purchasing that person's works in the future, why would I? Why would I give financial support to someone who is actively fighting against my values? Let those who agree with them purchase their works.
I don't take a boycott decision lightly. I always ask an important question: "Is this person just mouthing off, or is this person a True Believer?" Sean Penn is a True Believer, as is Barbra Streisand and Bruce Springsteen. These are the kinds of people I boycott.
If you're not outraged at the media, you haven't been paying attention.
OK, fair enough. I don't
May 6, 2008 - 11:09 ET by JasonCOK, fair enough. I don't buy into this attitude - I wouldn't deprive myself of a book or film I wanted to see because it was created by someone who will get a negligible royalty from my purchase or rental of it - but your post makes some sense.
Who can revolt if man has become a simple conglomerate of organs, a person barely free enough to use a remote control to choose his channel? -J. Kristeva
Ah Grasshopper, one must learn facts first
May 6, 2008 - 12:13 ET by HumblepieJason,
Lets see, first, the military draft has not been in place since the early 70's. All that is required now is that you register for the draft. Second, have you served in the armed forces? If not, what data are you using to prove the intelligence level of serving members? I joined the military in February 1978, not because I had to, but, because I wanted to serve my country. It's a patriotic thing. Although I was not the brightest apple on the tree, not because I had problems, but what was taught did not interest me enough. Entry into the service is actually harder than looking in the classifieds for a job. Most enlisted military members today have actually received their associate degree or better within the first six years of service life. You can check any military site and find the data yourself. As for me, I have associates in Criminal Justice and Geo-Political studies. In addition, BS in Biology.
Three. We don't care about if an actor/actress/author, etc. is liberal or not. But, we do take offense to the individuals who go out of their way to spout nonsense and expect us to take it. To suggest "I supports the troop but don't support the war'" is a oxymoron statement. There is no truth in that statement. Fact. Support the troops, not the war, tells our enemies that the more soldiers they can kill, the more support for the war will decline. In essence, those people who spout these statements are killing our soldiers. Need an example, check out the results of the Vietnam War due to anti-war protest.
If people like King want to continue their rants, please do so as the military gave him that right. At the same time, the military gave me the right to call him a jerk and to not support him or his views by not purchasing/keeping his product. Why don't you check around while your at it and find out the soldiers view of Jane Fonda.
During this time with political correctness at its zenith, I reserve the right to let you know you're an idiot.
Your patronizing sunject
May 6, 2008 - 12:25 ET by JasonCYour patronizing sunject line notwithstanding:
Lets see, first, the military draft has not been in place since the early 70's.
What's your point? My only reference to the draft pertained to Vietnam (and specifically in the 60s).
I joined the military in February 1978, not because I had to, but,
because I wanted to serve my country. It's a patriotic thing.
That's great. But King didn't say that everyone in the military did so because they were failures at everything else. He said that for many who have no other job skills, it's an inevitable place to end up. And granted, he's incorrect. But there is a big semantic difference between what you (and many others) are accusing hinm of implying and what he did imply.
Entry into the service is actually harder than looking in the
classifieds for a job. Most enlisted military members today have
actually received their associate degree or better within the first six
years of service life. You can check any military site and find the
data yourself. As for me, I have associates in Criminal Justice and
Geo-Political studies. In addition, BS in Biology.
OK, I'm almost certain that I said, in no uncertain terms, that being in the military requires lots of specific training and rarefied skills and intelligence. So I don't know why you're saying this like I disagree. My point was that in the popular imagination (and back in Vietnam, in reality) the destination for those who proved unable to do well scholastically or were otherwise deemed unuseful to civilian society, could expect to end up in the military. There's huge, multi-cultural historical basis for this. At the start of WW2 in England, for instance, men imprisoned for rape or assault were given the option of enlisting rather than serving out their sentences. This doesn't excuse King's comments, as he was clearly talking about the modern army, not historical ones.
Three. We don't care about if an actor/actress/author, etc. is liberal
or not. But, we do take offense to the individuals who go out of their
way to spout nonsense and expect us to take it.
Well, fair enough.
To suggest "I supports the troop but don't support the war'" is a
oxymoron statement. There is no truth in that statement. Fact. Support
the troops, not the war, tells our enemies that the more soldiers they
can kill, the more support for the war will decline. In essence, those
people who spout these statements are killing our soldiers. Need an
example, check out the results of the Vietnam War due to anti-war
protest.
I completely disagree. I think this attitude has been propagated to make those who oppose war out to be anti-patriotc, which is utter and unadulterated bullshit. Being patriotic is not about supporting wars that are, in one's opinion, wrong. I've been against this war from day 1. If you want to say that makes me un-American or anti-troop, that's your prerogative. I hope that our soldiers succeed and get home safely, but I am not going to lie and say that I think the invasion was a good idea or that whatever ends up being accomplished was worth the lives of 4,000 Americans and God knows how many Iraqis.
Who can revolt if man has become a simple conglomerate of organs, a person barely free enough to use a remote control to choose his channel? -J. Kristeva
Ah, but see I never called you Un-patriotic
May 6, 2008 - 13:09 ET by HumblepieIt's a fact from the Vietnam War and now ties in with whats happening now in Iraq, that when more dissent is viewed, especially through mainstream media, and "celeb's, the enemy see this as a weakness and as long as they can acquire a body count, the outcome of the war will be in their favor. The more violence and dead bodies I can produce will directly relate to more negative attention received at home. The Vietnam Arc Light and Rolling Thunder mission forced North Vietnam back to the peace table. They were ready to stop the war, but, at home the peace rallies and mass media stated their anti-war campaign in full. North Vietnam realized that the longer they could hold out the more America would quit the war. That is what happened and that is why people like Jane Fonda and John Kerry are hated among the military.
Even During WWI and WWII, a portion of American citizens disapproved of the war and our entry into it. But, they did not openly criticize the government or the troops through the media or as celeb's, did not voice themselves to the masses. Or to simply state, your belief that this war is wrong is great, everyone is entitled to their beliefs. Saying that, it is one's actions on said beliefs that we call into question.
During this time with political correctness at its zenith, I reserve the right to let you know you're an idiot.
Ah. Well, I don't really
May 6, 2008 - 13:12 ET by JasonCAh. Well, I don't really act on it in any way other than writing stuff that nobody really reads; I find war protests so hokey and cliche and filled with people who don't even know why they're protesting, that I pretty much avoid them.
Who can revolt if man has become a simple conglomerate of organs, a person barely free enough to use a remote control to choose his channel? -J. Kristeva
It's a new day
May 6, 2008 - 13:29 ET by HumblepieThats great, discussing issues is the best way for both sides to learn.
The best examples I can give on public opinion and media/Celeb's. Look at Al Gore/media and Global Warming or Media on the Obama and Wright issue.
Most Americans will not subject themselves to learn about an issue, they will in most instances accept the common stance submitted by mass media and accept it as their own. Hence, a cause and effect situation, they said it so it must be true.
During this time with political correctness at its zenith, I reserve the right to let you know you're an idiot.
Wow Jason C
May 6, 2008 - 15:47 ET by well99"I find war protests so hokey and cliche and filled with people who don't even know why they're protesting, that I pretty much avoid them."
We agree on something.Everyone has their right to their opinion.So do I and what King said was moronic.Kids should be encouraged to read but implying if you dont you wind up in the Army was lame.I served and you do need the 3 Rs.I will boycott him...then again I dont read his books.Wrong genre for me.
Hey, I'm not tossing my
May 6, 2008 - 12:52 ET by SarahAnnieHey, I'm not tossing my books out. I'm a capitalist; and those first editions of mine are worth some money! :)
Nebraskans for War: Peace through Strength
I'll patronize a liberal's
May 6, 2008 - 07:35 ET by NewsbusterbrownI'll patronize a liberal's work if the artist is not a jackass about his politics (Tom Hanks, i.e.) However, if an artist is basically calling me a doofus or evil for my views, then that's a different story.
I might still take one of King's books out of the library, but I wouldn't spend money on one any more.
Still watch reruns of Magnum P.I. and Everyone Loves Raymond.
Is Ray Romano a conservative?
“There are no easy answers' but there are simple answers. We must have the courage to do what we know is morally right.” - Ronald Reagan (1964 Republican Convention)
Is Ray Romano a conservative?
May 6, 2008 - 08:43 ET by HypocriteHaterI don't know about Ray, but the woman who plays his wife is.
Yes, and the new series she
May 6, 2008 - 09:15 ET by BDYes, and the new series she (Patricai Heaton?) has with Kelsey Grammer "Back to you" is a very pleasant surprise. Much like the first years of "Frasier".
You're right. I forgot
May 6, 2008 - 09:30 ET by NewsbusterbrownYou're right. I forgot about her.
“There are no easy answers' but there are simple answers. We must have the courage to do what we know is morally right.” - Ronald Reagan (1964 Republican Convention)
If you work hard, learn to read and write kids
May 5, 2008 - 23:35 ET by Defector01You can be a bitter former first rate author whose work has become dull, lifeless and uninteresting after a brief moment of great glory who now inserts himself into political discussions without a shred of knowledge about anything I'm talking about. See kids? Isn't that better then dying in Bushitlerburton's pointless wars and fighting for the US of KKK-A
I have only ever made one prayer to God, a very short one: O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous. And God granted it - Voltaire
Make fun of King all you
May 6, 2008 - 10:14 ET by JasonCMake fun of King all you want, he completely reinvented the gothic novel and in the process became the wealthiest author of all-time. Not too shabby, really.
Every goddamn time someone of public note tries to express a (perceived as liberal) political position, it's the exact same reaction on NB. "He's just a [insert condescending adjective/noun combination indicating lack of respect for person's profession and/or most recent body of work], who cares what he thinks?" In case you've forgotten, celebrities who are American citizens are still, first and foremost, citizens. They have as much of a right to express their views as you or me. That their views are more widely circulated or visible or influential is nothing more than a result of our free market approach to, well, everything.
Who can revolt if man has become a simple conglomerate of organs, a person barely free enough to use a remote control to choose his channel? -J. Kristeva
"...he completely
May 6, 2008 - 10:18 ET by bassndude"...he completely reinvented the gothic novel..." Exactly. His mind works in a twisted realm. He has no real logic or reasoning capabilities. And he is so wraped up in these spirals of thought he thinks everyone thinks like him.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
What does that have to do
May 6, 2008 - 10:23 ET by JasonCWhat does that have to do with reinventing (and making popular and accessible) a 250-year-old genre? You seem to be implying that anybody who works creatively is incapable of concrete thought. I mean, I know most creative artists are just part of the liberal MSM conspiracy, but I didn't realize the nature of their profession was inherently linked to their inability to think rationally...
[sarc off]
Who can revolt if man has become a simple conglomerate of organs, a person barely free enough to use a remote control to choose his channel? -J. Kristeva
Jason, just look at what he
May 6, 2008 - 10:45 ET by bassndudeJason, just look at what he said. Anyone in the Military is dumb and cant read. That type of reasoning is not only void of logic, but also void of intelligent thought.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
1. That's not what he
May 6, 2008 - 10:48 ET by JasonC1. That's not what he said.
2. Though what he said was impolitic and obsolete by about 20 years, arguing that it is linked to his writing (which is, admittedly, in decline) is pretty immaterial.
Who can revolt if man has become a simple conglomerate of organs, a person barely free enough to use a remote control to choose his channel? -J. Kristeva
Jason, look at the last
May 6, 2008 - 10:53 ET by bassndudeJason, look at the last writer that was of the same genre as Steve. That was as successful, in his time. Edgar Allan Poe. Same type of writing and thought processes. Immaterial? Hardly.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
What to criticize first?
May 6, 2008 - 10:58 ET by JasonCWhat to criticize first? Your implication that just because one forebear of a famous author was a drunk who went insane, the apple doesn't fall far from the tree? Your ludicrous statement that Poe was the last successful writer to write fiction like King's (arguable, I know, but I do disagree)? Or that you seem to truly believe that making comments like King's army/intelligence gaffe is rooted in some sort of mental defect, symptomatic of writing neo-gothic novels....?
Who can revolt if man has become a simple conglomerate of organs, a person barely free enough to use a remote control to choose his channel? -J. Kristeva
Jason C, you're kidding, right?
May 6, 2008 - 10:21 ET by Mica the MagnificentEvery goddamn time someone of public note tries to express a (perceived as liberal) political position, it's the exact same reaction on NB. "He's just a [insert condescending adjective/noun combination "He's just a [insert condescending adjective/noun combination indicating lack of respect for person's profession and/or most recent body of work], who cares what he thinks?"
In case you've forgotten, JasonC, NB posters can express opinions too, even if they piss you off.
Did I say they shouldn't,
May 6, 2008 - 10:29 ET by JasonCDid I say they shouldn't, Mica? No. I'm just using my right-to-an-opinion to point out the obvious thought process which goes into these criticisms of King and others. So much of it is a combination of resentment and the sentiment that a person who is famous for one thing must stick to that one thing and leave political and cultural critique to the mythic "regular people." Where did I say you don't have the right to say so? Your post is beyond absurd.
Posters on here critique and codify the posts of those they disagree with all the time (as I have), but never have I seen the poster come back and accuse the critic of telling them they don't have the RIGHT to say it. If the posters on here want to make their opinion that King is washed up or whatever integral to their opinion on the comments in question, they can go right ahead. I simply wanted to point out how typical and basically vapid that is.
Who can revolt if man has become a simple conglomerate of organs, a person barely free enough to use a remote control to choose his channel? -J. Kristeva
It does get old. As soon as
May 6, 2008 - 10:33 ET by balboaIt does get old. As soon as a liberal celebrity says something, people hear immediately attack that celebrity's body of work.
As well as the fact that it
May 6, 2008 - 10:38 ET by JasonCAs well as the fact that it smacks of thinly-veiled envy.
I mean the poster that I originally replied to said something about how schoolkids should learn from King how to be a washed-up has-been author. I mean, he's one of the most successful authors in history. He could buy and sell J.K. Rowling. There are many ways to criticize King's comments, and even his work, but to just go the low-blow route of criticizing his career? All of us would be grateful to have 1/10 of his success. It's no different from criticizing Limbaugh's impolitic remarks from the perspective of "well, he's just a pill-popper"; i.e. stupid.
Who can revolt if man has become a simple conglomerate of organs, a person barely free enough to use a remote control to choose his channel? -J. Kristeva
actually Jason and balboa - your defense of them smacks of envy
May 6, 2008 - 10:52 ET by Dee Bunkand hero worship. Don't criticize Arteeests! They are sacred. Give me a break. They are just people and no matter how much "talent" they have, there will always be people who don't care for their work and have every right to say so when the criticize other people's beliefs.
If there were conservative entertainers who acted like these goofs then liberals would attack with a vengeance. Most (of the few)conservative entertainers don't call liberal politicians and their followers evil and yet the few of them who have merely let their leanings known still get a backlash.
No no, feel free to
May 6, 2008 - 11:06 ET by JasonCNo no, feel free to criticize them. I think iconoclasm is a beautiful thing, believe me. But have a bit of integrity and refrain from cheap shots about what you perceive as their declining career. It's de rigeur on Newsbusters. A celebrity says something you (not you personally, Dee) don't like, and the reaction is three-pronged and inevitable: 1. What a bunch of crap (reasonable reaction, but explain why logically) 2. The person who said it sucks at acting/singing/sports anyway (why does that matter?) and 3. An actor/singer/athlete shouldn't be telling me how to feel about politics anyway...
Number 3 is the fallacy. As I said above, just because a person is known for one particular endeavor, and makes their living from it publicly, doesn't meant they shouldn't be allowed to express an opinion on other matters. And if their opnions are "unfairly" disseminated and influential, we have nothing and no one to blame other than our own free market celebrity culture which has elevated them to that status and made their opnion somehow worth more than anyone else's.
Who can revolt if man has become a simple conglomerate of organs, a person barely free enough to use a remote control to choose his channel? -J. Kristeva
I implied no such thing.
May 6, 2008 - 11:08 ET by balboaI implied no such thing. You know what I'm talking about. The criticism often goes straight to the celebrity's body of work instead of their statements. Not everyone does this, but inevitably someone does.
Like I said, I still watch Magnum P.I. and Everyone Loves Raymond. (what other conservative celebs are out there?) I'll still watch Charlton Heston.
Jason and balboa - all of us here appreciate art by liberals -
May 6, 2008 - 11:29 ET by Dee Bunkwe watch, read, listen and appreciate vasts amounts of works by thousands of liberals. Many celebrities are overrated and no one likes the all the same ones. If a celeb whose work I don't care for anyway makes offensive statements, of course I'm going to criticize their work, who cares?
Patricia Harding and Tom Seleck have not made statements saying that liberals are idiotic and evil. You can't compare that. You can compare those conservatives to the thousands of liberals who keep their mouths shut that we watch read and listen to happily. And by keeping their mouth shut, I don't mean hiding their political persuasion. Take Jack Nickelson for example, almost everyone defended him even though he did an ad for Hillary because he talked about her positives not everyone else's negatives.
He didn't put anyone down who didn't agree with him.
Liberals criticize Sam Walden's "body of work" as well as thousands of others who they deem conservative even when they don't disparage liberals. So get off your high horses.
Celebrities have every right to speak out and we have every right to trash them for it.
Dee -- well yeah. Even if
May 6, 2008 - 12:02 ET by Jack BauerDee -- well yeah.
Even if Jack went off the reservation completely and started ranting against conservatives, I'd still watch all his movies, and think Chinatown was a classic. And The Departed should have gotten him an Oscar.
But then I like his talent. So he fantasizes about Hillary. Big deal.
But when Julia Roberts made the un-original "You'll find Republican in the dictionary between Reptile and Rep.. (some other insult)"
I thought screw you darling, never thought much of you any way, slash mouthed whore, wasn't even you in the poster for Pretty Woman.
(I'm sorry, am I being too judgmental and insenstitive here?)
Exactly right Jack - good comparison- Julia Roberts has little
May 6, 2008 - 17:07 ET by Dee Bunktalent as is the case with most of Hollywood. George Clooney and that whole Oceans 13 crew (aside from Andy Garcia and Don Cheadle) don't have the kind of talent that makes you want to see them no matter what. I could tolerate George Clooney when he was just a pretty face, but lack of class makes him look less and less attractive to me. Beauty is subjective and it changes based on how you see someone. It's not just his politics either he is a cad in every way. I'll still see Clooney when he pairs with the Coen Brothers (Oh brother where art thou was his only outstanding performance IMO), but I've given him chance after chance (Michael Clayton was lame), so I'm done with him unless he's working with a director that I really like.
As far as someone with talent (like Jack Nickleson), if they were to start trashing conservatives then it could go either way. It wouldn't make me trash their previous work but I might not want to see future stuff by them. Sean Penn is a good example. He's very talented, but I can't see him as anything but a moron now. It's like type-casting. When you see someone in a certain role (in this case idiot) it's harder and harder to see them as something else.
He could buy and sell
May 6, 2008 - 11:29 ET by Jack BauerActually, I don't think he could.
She's a multi-BILLIONAIRE. It's the phenomenal merchandizing. Seriously.
Jack
May 6, 2008 - 11:40 ET by candanceRowling is second only to Oprah as the world's wealthiest female entertainer. Forbes magazine has certified her a billionaire.
I also got a laugh out of that "he could buy and sell JK Rowling" remark but didn't feel like making a new post just to mention it.
I was just about to update
May 6, 2008 - 11:45 ET by Jack BauerI was just about to update after a fact check...
The estimated clout of the total Rowling empire is now $15 billion.
11 years ago she was a single-mom, on the dole. I find that FANTASTIC, and inspiring.
Yep, I was off-base on that
May 6, 2008 - 11:50 ET by JasonCYep, I was off-base on that one, for sure.
Though the statistic is a bit misleading because, as you point out, Rowling's is an empire; the $15B didn't come just from the books. Not that King's has either, since at least half of his canon has been made into films, just saying.
Who can revolt if man has become a simple conglomerate of organs, a person barely free enough to use a remote control to choose his channel? -J. Kristeva
This gets old
May 6, 2008 - 10:45 ET by Mica the MagnificentWe may criticize their body of work, but we do not wish them dead as they do on the lib sites.
Wow, do you want a
May 6, 2008 - 11:07 ET by JasonCWow, do you want a medal?
Who can revolt if man has become a simple conglomerate of organs, a person barely free enough to use a remote control to choose his channel? -J. Kristeva
I'm sure it's happened
May 6, 2008 - 11:10 ET by balboaI'm sure it's happened somewhere, by someone, who said he'd teach Stephen King a lesson if he ever came across him, blah blah blah.
This "my
May 6, 2008 - 10:43 ET by Dan The Man 2This "my right-to-an-opinion" is protected by the same military King has pooped on.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
JasonC
May 6, 2008 - 10:38 ET by candanceKing has sold a lot of books, that's true, but most of them are sold to a faithful fanbase. 80% of the people in America will tell you they read one or two because he's so popular but can't stomach reading any more.
And yes he reinvented a genre, good for him, but that doesn't make him a genius. Danielle Steele reinvented the romance novel but no one goes around praising her.
My point is that plenty of people have been criticising King for decades now so naturally when they see something like this it comes out again. People haven't just magically turned against him because of one comment.
And as for him expressing his opinion, if you give a public speech saying stupid people end up being soldiers, the public has a right to cringe in disgust.
I would submit that King is
May 6, 2008 - 11:13 ET by JasonCI would submit that King is a modern literary genius, even if his body of work is mostly associated with airport lit and poorly-executed filmic adaptations. And I am not a fanatical reader; I've read three of his books, and not even the classics (never read The Stand or The Shining). But my reply was to the poster who suggested that King could teach kids, basically, how to be a failure. And that is just absurd, if we are, like good conservatives, measuring success in terms of wealth and volume of output.
Who can revolt if man has become a simple conglomerate of organs, a person barely free enough to use a remote control to choose his channel? -J. Kristeva
Well Jason
May 6, 2008 - 11:24 ET by candanceI simply don't think King is a literary master, and no his volume of sales does not equate to quality or success, even for capitalists. Should we then all agree that Britney Spears and Hannah Montana are musical prodigies since they're both nearly billionaires now?
The problem with a lot of these celebrities is that NBers don't like them in the first place but it never comes up until they make the news. I'm sure if you'd asked that poster six months ago about Stephen King you'd have gotten the same answer.
Even as a capitalist and a freelance writer, I dislike half the people in Hollywood and the best sellers' list. Most people don't buy the best. They buy the most popular or the most entertaining.
If we go strictly by monetary success, Saw is a better movie than August Rush.
That's a tough comparison,
May 6, 2008 - 11:34 ET by balboaThat's a tough comparison, because Britney and Miley perform someone else's compositions. A better comparison would be to the producers of that music.
fair enough Bal
May 6, 2008 - 11:46 ET by candanceBut regardless of who writes the music, do you think it's better music than say, Tom Petty, because it's more profitable?
I don't think Stephen King
May 6, 2008 - 11:53 ET by balboaI don't think Stephen King is great literature in the same vein as Catcher in the Rye, To Kill a Mockingbird, etc. But I think it's genius in it's ability to appeal to such a huge number of people, just like Crichton, Grisham, et al.
I'm not equating King's
May 6, 2008 - 11:48 ET by JasonCI'm not equating King's book sales with my contention that he's a modern literary master. That he revolutionized the gothic novel (IMHO) and that he's a zillionaire are separate yardsticks of success.
I happen to think the first Saw is a brilliant film. I am not kidding. It's sequels are terrible - it's obviously going the way of the mid-80s slasher flick - but I think the first one will come to be regarded as a contemporary horror classic, like Texas Chainsaw Massacre or Seven or Silence of the Lambs: eminently disturbing and graphic horror films (and profitable to boot) that are nonetheless examples of masterful filmmaking and storytelling.
Who can revolt if man has become a simple conglomerate of organs, a person barely free enough to use a remote control to choose his channel? -J. Kristeva
Reinvented? No. Cashed in? Yes
May 6, 2008 - 12:26 ET by CobraMan"Make fun of King all you want, he completely reinvented the gothic
novel and in the process became the wealthiest author of all-time. Not
too shabby, really."
You remind me of my 6th grade English teacher who couldn't contain her enthusiasm for Shakespeare. She kept talking about how he “revolutionized” writing and story telling. She became VERY upset when I pointed out to her that Shakespeare’s only accomplishment was to adapt previous Greek stories and novels into what was then a "new" style of writing and present them to the public as his original works. Most of the populace at the time didn't know his works were all based on old Greek stories, fables, and cautionary tales. In other words, he didn't "revolutionize" anything, he just re-wrote classic Greek novels into the English language and threw in bad poetic prose to boot. Needless to say, I didn't get a good grade in her class.
Just like Shakespeare, King hasn't "reinvented" anything. There are thousands of writers that have used that same genre over the last 100 or so years, and a lot of writers today still use that genre and are doing quite well. King is just using a well known, and popular, genre in order to sell his books. Not that following a genre is a bad thong, but it doesn't me he's "reinvented" it.
Do you remember when King publish non-horror stories under an alas? You don't? That doesn’t surprise me because a lot of those storied didn't sell very well. It’s only when he switched to a popular genre that his career really took off.
That's a pretty reductive
May 6, 2008 - 12:27 ET by JasonCThat's a pretty reductive (though not inaccurate) view of Shakespeare, in my opinion. And OK, so King based his stories on a classic genre; he still came up with the stories and characters and wrote them in a particular style. You make it sound like anyone could do it.
Who can revolt if man has become a simple conglomerate of organs, a person barely free enough to use a remote control to choose his channel? -J. Kristeva
That's not what I'm saying
May 6, 2008 - 12:34 ET by CobraMan"You make it sound like anyone could do it."
That's not what I'm saying. I know that not all people can write good stories like King and other well known writers. I'm saying that he didn't "reinvent" the genre. Like a lot of other writers today, he just using it to his advantage. And, like I said, there's nothing wrong with that.
Cobraman, OK, sorry, I
May 6, 2008 - 13:02 ET by JasonCCobraman, OK, sorry, I misread you there.
I think in some ways, Stephen King is brilliant for having influenced modern narrative through his revisioning of the gothic; surely, we would not have a lot of the postmodern horror stories that we do without King (whether one considers that a compliment or not is surely a matter of taste). But you're right, King trades off of literary tropes that were old news long before he picked up a pen, just as Shakespeare relied on Greek plots (and Chaucer's linguistics).
Who can revolt if man has become a simple conglomerate of organs, a person barely free enough to use a remote control to choose his channel? -J. Kristeva
Scary plot of a Stephan King
May 5, 2008 - 23:25 ET by Chris NormanScary plot of a Stephan King novel: an influential writer orders his "mind-numbed" zombie-like fans to harass someone who merely pointed out what the writer had said publicly.
Chris
May 5, 2008 - 23:26 ET by Noel SheppardChris,
LOL! Another Bravo! :-) ns
Actually, I think it might
May 5, 2008 - 23:31 ET by Chris NormanActually, I think it might make a much better mini-series than his "Rose Red". Of course, you'll play yourself. :)
Rose Red was bad. Wasn't
May 6, 2008 - 03:34 ET by danboRose Red was bad. Wasn't it. Stunk things up a bit.
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
Don't forget where
May 6, 2008 - 08:50 ET by FastEdThe love staved heroine, played by Rosie, becomes a tv head writer, due to her education and cultural/political insight!
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V
KIng
May 5, 2008 - 23:27 ET by ScrapironWhat can we say? You got to him and like a child he strikes back through other idiots he evidently controls. I'll bet it was a pure delight watching him roll on the floor screaming like a 3 YO that didn't get his way.
Old, Retired and glad of it.
Poor Stephen
May 5, 2008 - 23:33 ET by zachlindPoor Stephen. A man way past his prime and angry too.
He had
May 6, 2008 - 08:51 ET by FastEda prime??
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V
Yeah, Stephen King, just
May 5, 2008 - 23:37 ET by jdhawkYeah, Stephen King, just think all those dummies that because of their lack of motivation to get a good education wound up with the keys to tens of thousands our nation's nuclear warheads. Does it sound like the lead in to one of your creeping novels, yet?
By the way, King, you know exactly what you said and what it implied. You, a stupid liberal, impugned our service people as usual. Perhaps, that is why over 70% of our service people vote Republican.
And, King, you can't support the National Guard in your home town and not support their mission. It doesn't work that way. In the case that you think that National Guard unit is there as some sort of decoration, I have news for you. Their mission is to close with and destroy our enemies or support those that do.
It is obvious just by his inane, glossed over response...
May 5, 2008 - 23:41 ET by PrairieSkythat King doesn't get it. He's like all the rest of liberal elitists...He slams and insults the military in one breath, and then when called on it, immediately takes umbrage at the fact that he's being held responsible for his own words. I knew there was a reason I never cared for his work...
Stewpid King, can't even quote his hacked kerrie remark off the
May 5, 2008 - 23:59 ET by upcountrywatervideo.
That a right-wing-blog would impugn my patriotism because I said
children should learn to read, and could get better jobs by doing so,
is beneath contempt
1/2 sentence.???.. what about the remainder, or you get stuk in irak comment?????????
The video record is here to stay watch it AGAIN and AGAIN you're an Apt Pupil, just maybe you learn, right?
The POPE says, GOD BLESS AMERICA!!
IranianUranium<sleep>New/Infrastructure/repair?/ROFLMAO
Stephen King is a brain-dead ignorant troll
May 6, 2008 - 00:05 ET by Free StinkerI'm not surprised.
Stephen King is a brain-dead ignorant troll.
Pledge to not support RINOs ever again!
There's an assuption
May 6, 2008 - 08:52 ET by FastEdhad a brain?
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V
Hmmm...
May 6, 2008 - 00:09 ET by PrairieSkyI thought that sounded familiar...I guess small minds DO think alike!!!
yo, Stevo
May 5, 2008 - 23:45 ET by CobraMan"I don’t support either the war or educational policies that limit the
options of young men and women to any one career—military or otherwise."
Yo, Stevo,
Just like with the military, civilian career choices in America are completely VOLUNTARY. No one is “limiting” anyone to a particular career choice here in America and people are free to change their careers at any time, if they wish. Just what country do you think we live in, anyways?
Stephen King steals material
May 5, 2008 - 23:47 ET by Mearlinefrom John Kerry. old stuff.
Perfect illustration of why it is so hard to debate the Left.
May 5, 2008 - 23:53 ET by Jonah JohansenIt is so hard to have an intellectual debate with these people.
Either they throw a series of ad hominems at you, they beg the
question, they construct a straw man or use some other logical fallacy or
irrational response.
The "series of ad hominems" problem
May 5, 2008 - 23:55 ET by sarcasmoIsn't confined to the political left, as this very site occasionally proves.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.