KING FOR A LIFETIME, FOOL FOR NOT LIKING
355804
Faith No More's 1995 release "King for a Day..." is an amazingly eclectic, or should I say, unbelievable bi-polar audio experience....yes an experience! This album encapsulate everything that is perfect and everything that is down right wrong with the amazing mind of Patton and his cohorts. From thrashing old school metal riffs(Gentle Art of Making enemies) to dubious,smooth, and ethereal grooves(Evidence); the elements of this masterpiece and its complete regard for opposing parallels are executed to perfection. Any style these A.D.D. rockers do are spot on and possess a perpetual hipness that will keep this album in the "timeless" section of rock heaven's record shop. The strongest and most convincing aspect of the "King" is Patton's uncanny, trademark ability to write, sing & scream incredibly catchy hooks no matter the style. Myself and many other Faith fans believe this to be the pinnacle album for the the now De funked masters of crossover. If you are looking for a part 2 to "Epic" it will not be found as these works are not affected by over production and the vision of another. This is what Faith is and will always be......Breaking all the rules while sticking to them better than any better has ever been able to do. BUY THIS ALBUM!!!!
3431021
I found 11/22/63 very enjoyable to read, but difficult in equal measure to swallow.

It wasn't because of the writing, as I like the way King weaves a story, and I've read most of his books over the years and have always enjoyed them, especially this one being such an  endearing love story.  It wasn't because of the mechanics of time travel, as the conundrums time travel creates presents endlessly layered plot shifts to happily mess with our time-limited environment.

What I did have difficulty with was King's premise regarding the killing of John F. Kennedy. 70-80% of Americans believe that JFK was killed by a conspiracy. The House Sub-Committee on Assassinations in 1979 concluded as much. A simple observation of the Zapruder film shows that the Single Bullet Theory, the tortured assumption that one bullet caused the injuries to both JFK and Governor Connally, is easily disproved. A bullet traveling at ~2000 fps did not linger in the air for almost 2 seconds waiting for the governor to assume the correct position to be injured. It did not crush and mangle bones in the Govenor's chest and wrist and then emerge in pristine condition. The SB Theory is the linchpin of the Warren Commission.  When shown that more than one bullet caused the injuries to these two men, its findings disintegrate. Occam's razor demands the simplest explanation based on the facts-more than one bullet for those injuries, more than one shooter caused them. Even Governor Connally and his wife Nellie, sitting beside him in the limousine that sunny Dallas morning, always disagreed with the Single Bullet Theory (aka Magic Bullet Theory).

It was therefore hard to read the aspects of King's book based on the conventional myth presented by the Warren Commission--that Oswald alone killed JFK. And it is too important an issue to let slide as the continued lie slowly leaves people numbed to the truth--our president was killed by our own. An American coup d'etat.

It does not matter what sort of screw-up Oswald was if the laws of physics and common sense show that there was more to the killing of JFK than a lone gunman. Another book,&nbsp;<a data-hook="product-link-linked" class="a-link-normal" href="/The-Memoirs-of-John-F-Kennedy-A-Novel/dp/0982906404/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_rvw_txt?ie=UTF8">The Memoirs of John F. Kennedy: A Novel</a>, covers similar ground as 11/22/63. Released a year before, it comes at the subject from a more nuanced approach than the "Oswald did it" crowd and shows what might have happened had JFK survived the assassination attempt and gone on to a second term. What might have occurred had his real killers and their motives been exposed. The book has won numerous awards. I am the author. I am not a wild-eyed conspiracist. My comments here can be taken as self-promotion, as it is true that I desire more people to read my book. But more importantly, a more vigorous reckoning with the facts is needed.

We Americans want to believe in our government. We want to believe we act morally and follow our best angels. But there are times when we must look behind the curtain and see our dark side. Attributing the death of JFK to Lee Oswald as a lone and independent sociopath is a convenient means of avoiding the hard truths behind the assassination. 50% of the American people disbelieved the findings of the Warren Commission when it was released in 1964. That number has only grown as more information and independent investigations have chipped away at the mis-information presented by that supposed Blue Ribbon panel. Extending the myth via this otherwise intriguing book by Stephen King is unfortunate.
4272635
I don't think this guy sucks completely but he is pretty overrated. I read articles saying that he is the next Elvis Presley. Hahahaha, that's funny. I can see him being the next Richard Marx but he's never gonna be up there with the king.
Triumph The Insult Comic Dog said it best..."Ruben or Clay, which one to pick? It's like choosing what puddle of vomit to lick".
785819
I think king is trying to, in some sick, abstract way, boast that rage was somehow linked to or, at least ever so slightly, be responsible for influencing these earlier maniac shooters. The derranged is his niche isn't it? I am sure that king would truley be saddened any obscure connection with these psychopaths. But, I also truly believe that deeply he hides a sense of pride in that same connection.  Sort of like a father that feels a deep "atta boy" when his son wins his first fight.

Since reading guns I can honestly say that I see king in a different light. He seems to me, smaller, fickle, or maybe even needy.

if it was so important, for the sake of community, to pull rage, then why, after recent tragedies release "guns" and spot light something that was long forgotten.. To voice a sense of concern? I think not. Sounds more like a nice oppurtunity for self promotion. - all hail the king of everything macabre!  $$$$$
3921032
Sad to read about the poor  quality of life this prince had even though all the advantages of privilege. Made me very angry at the queen for her selfish nature, disguised as concern( of which of course there was some).
1229757
I have been a huge SK fan for most of my adult life. In 1978, I picked up an almost brand new copy of his 3rd book (The Shining) at the local library and I have been hooked on the works of this formidable writer ever since. I own all of his books and I read most of them more than two or three times. After all these years, I am still Riding With The King. It is with great anticipation that I picked up Under The Dome. It is lengthy. It is good. Really good. Really really good. But --alas-- not great. Some people have compared UTD with his magnum opus "The Stand", but in my humble opinion, it does not have the consistency and greatness of this absolute masterpiece. There are some parts of UTD that I found very thrilling and which merit 5 stars in and by themselves, but there were also slow and --dare I say it?-- slightly boring sequences here and there. Some of the leading characters in UTD simply lack the warmth and fascination that some of the leading characters from older works have brought, such as Stuart Redman (The Stand), Johnny Smith (The Dead Zone) and Bill Denbrough (It). But as a whole, UTD is a hugely satisfying and rewarding read. I can recommend it to everyone, Constant Readers and people who pick up a King book for the first time alike.
3011973
This book confirms some ideas I had about Tolkien, and disconfirms others.  I always knew he was enormously protective of "his" country: but if this is a fair selection of his letters, "obsessed" would seem to be the word.  One gets the feeling Tolkien would have left this world and gone to that, with maybe a look back, but less sorrow at the leaving, that Bilbo or Frodo.  This is entirely unlike his friend C. S. Lewis, a writer who created when the passion was on, then went on to enjoy other activities -- walking or drinking with friends or lecturing -- seemingly every bit as much.  (Which is why his letters are much more varied.) Tolkien wrote comparatively fewer books, but remained as passionate about Middle Earth and as ready to defend it as he had the mundane England in the 1st World War.

On the other hand, I've often thought that he would never have allowed the Peter Jackson films to be made, if he were alive, but now realize this was wrong.  Tolkien seems to have appreciated money even more than I realized, and was in fact prepared to compromise to obtain it.

It's interesting to read Tolkien's "take" on other people.  His friendship with Lewis was rich and rewarding, but he always felt what they shared was measured and incomplete.  His take on Charles Williams, whom he liked personally but whose writings he seemed to despise, was interesting -- affirming William's deep influence on Lewis' That Hideous Strength, which is indeed bad, though in ways that I have made peace with.  He also seems to have been as impressed as Lewis at Eddison's invention, with the same qualifications. Several of his interesting and low-key dramatic letters to Auden are also included.

Bottom line: you have to be a big fan of Middle Earth to enjoy this book, and even then, no guarantees. I did learn about how Tolkien's religious beliefs related to Middle Earth, which for me as a scholar of religions with an interest in "High Gods," was one of the most fascinating aspects of the book.  I didn't learn that much about Tolkien's personal life.  He seems, somehow, sad, though he was popular, famous, and intellectually razor sharp to the end of his long life.  But I guess you picked up on that, in his sketch of Bilbo in Rivendell, or Frodo after his return to the Shire.

Tolkien was, indeed, an odd duck, living so long in a world of his own "sub-creation." (Do read On Fairy Stories, for a more thorough understanding of what he saw himself as doing.)  Even if such a life seems a little sad, his devotion to that world was a happy reality for the millions of us whose lives have been enriched by his great invention.
1469958
If you really love English royal history, then this book is written just for you. You will be completely steeped the history of the Kings and Queens of England, and the buildings they had built and lived and died in. You will hear stories that you probably didn't know. Mr. Berry uses the history as the main turning point for his plot. This is the only problem that I had with this book. The King's Deception all hangs on Queen Elizabeth I. Mr. Berry proposes that 500 years of laws and property deeds will be destroyed if the truth comes out. So that must be prevented. It just doesn't seem that realistic to me. Maybe I'm wrong, just my opinion.

The action and storyline were good. There was a bit too much of the serial novel feel for my tastes, but if you like this series, then you will like this volume.

I give this book 3 and 1/2 stars out of 5. I recommend it to fans of Cotton Malone, and English history buffs.

I received this book for free through Goodreads First Reads.

I received this Digital Review Copy for free from Edelweiss.com after being approved by Ballantine Books.
1624359
i don't nitpick. i read and enjoy it by how it grabs me and king does not grab me anymore. this book was a mistake in one way and yet it reaffirms to me what has happened to him. sad i am
857851
John of Gaunt is an enigmatic figure to most of us. You cant help but remember his famous speech in Shakespeares Richard II, using a play of words with his name. But by then he was at deaths doorweak and pitiful. We know he was hated by the city of London and lost his fabulous Savoy Palace, burned to the ground during the Peasants Revolt. He has come down to us as an arrogant, unyielding, aristocratic noble, but with the help of this biography we get to see the subtler side of Gaunt. He seems to have started out as all those things we remember, but throughout his career he became a successful and valued statesman, ambassador andmost importantlyprotector of the kings prerogative. Although many assumed that he had designs on the throne for himself, in reality it would have been against his honor to usurp the king, no matter how helpless, deserving, or ungrateful Richard may have seemed. He had his own crown to chase downCastileand though his efforts proved useless, he did manage to marry off two of his daughters to Spanish heirs who begat lines of kings that lasted hundreds of years. If he had been as good a general as he was a negotiator, perhaps history would have been kinder to his memory.

Heres a good representation of Gaunts proficiency (during the Peasants Revolt while he was in Scotland): John of Gaunt was a true Plantagenet; no sign of fear betrayed his secret to the Scottish envoys. While his couriers were riding with orders to the constables of his castles in Yorkshire and on the Welsh marches to garrison them for a siege and admit no one without letters under his seal, the Duke quietly went on with the negotiations, and by the offer of liberal terms persuaded the Scots to prolong the truce. Not till the compact was sealed did the Scots learn that they had lost the golden opportunity of attacking England in the hour of weakness.

Richard, who disliked and feared the power of his uncle, encouraged him to go and claim his crown in Castleonly to discover that once the Duke was gone, he had lost his only protector. The Lords Appellant, intent on removing the kings advisors, stripped Richard of all his powers while Gaunt was overseas. Richard learned his lesson well, and once he was in control again, recalled his uncle and showered him with favors. By then Gaunt had achieved the height of respectability and for the rest of his life he championed the king and strove to secure the future of his heirs. The author gives us a well-rounded depiction of this oft-maligned Duke, and I came to understand his disappointments as well as his accomplishments. I suspect he would have disapproved of his sons usurpation of the throne, but of course Richard waited until he died to commence his scheme of depriving Henry of Gaunts vast patrimony. This was a well-written biography and quite useful to understanding the period.
2299811
There was the Gunslinger, and then, many years later, there was this book. In between were modern tales like Christine, Pet Semetary, The Stand, and It.

At the time, I remember considering The Eyes of the Dragon (1987) as being a kind of interlude. The Gunslinger, which is the novel of King's it most nearly resembles, was still considered as a kind of weird aberration at that time, a thing written when King was still in college, and so not knowing what he was doing (and anyway,  probably as a sort of lark). And not many copies of the Gunslinger had been sold, anyway. So there were no other fantasy novels by King until this one.

And what exactly was this?

Really, it's an adult-oriented fairy-tale: the long-ago kingdom, the beautiful queen, dragons, a Rapunzel-esque tower wherein a prince is imprisoned. But the prince being a man, he doesn't have recourse to Rapunzel's hair. But even down to the evil court magician, which hearkens back to the old Arthurian legends.

And of course it cannot be a coincidence that the king is named Roland, although he is the opposite (personality-wise) of the Roland we will eventually come to know and love.

But the whole fairy tale is here -- just a more explicitly violent one. Nothing you'd want to tell your kids about. The queen dies giving birth, and the King's two sons at the time of his death (or murder) are Thomas, the lazy, slovenly, cowardly, younger brother, and Peter the good (Peter resembles Roland Deschain, by the way, or the Peter from the Narnia books).

But the evil court magician works his magics to murder the old king and install Thomas as his successor, as he seeks power for himself, and sees Peter as an impediment. So he convinces Thomas to have his bother imprisoned in one of the towers of the castle. "Flagg" is the magician, it turns out, a name which is of no little import, as we will learn later on from King that although he is not precisely the same Flagg who opposed the forces of good in the Stand, he is a version of that individual, just as that Flagg is another version of the one who crops up later in the Dark Tower Stories.

That is the plot, but the writing is the story. It's beautifully told and described, with hardly a false step. Is this the same author who wrote It only a year or two before? It's hard to tell. The Eyes of the Dragon is swift, sure, rushing ever on to its inevitable conclusion, and always, always entertaining.

Before were books like Carrie, Cujo, Salem's Lot, and Christine. Pretty straightforward horror-fare. And after would come The Tommyknockers, and other modern-day thrillers. So this is still a pleasant interlude, in my opinion, and very nearly the lost volume in the Dark Tower Series ...
2703969
Yul Brynner is the true King.
One of the most underrated actors of all time, and by far goers over so many classic ones.
2299986
I just guess I am nosey about the Royals!  It did shed some light on Charles for standing up and taking a position regarding his living his life as he chooses. Diana has been gone a long time so he needed to move on to the present.
2760211
Why this movie opened to negative reviews when it first came out is something I will never quite understand.  Sure - this film has almost nothing to do with the King novel.  Yes - at times it doesn't make sense.  And yes - it is a tad bit too long.  But all these complaints can be justified.
First of all - everyone knows that there was simply no way to bring the novel to the screen as King wanted it.  Kubrick knew what he was doing.  To bring the story to the screen as King wanted it would have required six hours perhaps, which was how long the T.V. miniseries was (know anyone who craves to buy that film on DVD?)  For the Shining to work as one film it had to be done the way Kubrick did it.  Thus Nicholson's performance is justified and at times brilliant.  His quick descent into madness is appropriate for (1) film.  A gradual descent would have taken much more then 142 minutes.
Plot - honestly - anyone who complains about the confusion of the plot are the kind of people that complain about taking a plane ride to Hawaii in second class.  WHO CARES?  Style over substance perhaps, but when your heart is pounding during the bathroom scene or the Heeeeeeeere's Johnny moment, do you honestly care if the plot doesnt make a whole lot of sense.  Yes the ghosts aren't given a motive for their making Nicholson kill his wife, nor does the final image make a whole lot of sense, but there is complaining, and then there is nitpicking.
Length - I agree it runs too long, but as I sit here, I honestly cannot think of a single scene that should have been cut.  The doctor scene perhaps, but even that scene is effective, as Wendy's account of Jack's drunkenness give an ominous feel to his mannerisms.
But enough about the cons.  There are so many pros that make this film nothing short of a classic.  The set design of the Overlook, the profoundly creepy and atmospheric score, Kubrick's solid direction, and then the performances, which make the film soar.  Scatman Croethers is naive, wily, and charming as the ill-fated cook who dares to mingle with Jack's "duty".  Duvall's aw-shucks mannerisms wear a bit thin, yes, but they prove a perfect counterpoint to the deranged lunacy of Jack.  Besides, when Jack flips out in the lounge scene, she fake cries as good as any actress as I have ever scene. Danny Lloyd has a hypnotic screen presence as a boy hiding some horrible secret - check out the glare in his eye as Wendy talks to him as he becomes Tony.
And then there is Jack.  What a complete actor this man is!  His performance is campy, over-the-top, out-of-control, and brilliant.  Let the King loyalists praise Steven Weber for turning Jack Torrance into an inconsequential ninny.  When Jack peers through crack in the door and utters his famous line, the horror is palpable.
2265768
This book was not as much fun as I expected it to be, namely because Mr. Theroux (whom I seriously began to dislike here) seemed to take any excuse to disdain the British as a people, a culture, and a nation. He chose to visit the most run-down of locales and then ballishly complained about them, and in so doing presented the image that his experiences were representative of an entire nation as a whole. Imagine someone touring the coastlines of America, especially the rust belt, and then presenting this as a valid exercise in seeing all there was to see of the place. This is just about what happened in The Kingdom By The Sea.

Paul Theroux said straight off "no castles" making this his mantra and meaning he was concerned with discovering Britain of the moment rather than of the past, which is a fine and worthy undertaking, but as I slogged through chapter after chapter of his complaints about damp and dank boardinghouses, slovenly humanity and bad food, I kept wishing he jolly would include the occasional castle, battlefield, cathedral or treasure house. Theroux made his trek by foot, bus, train and sometimes private car (he was brazen enough to hitchhike on occasion) in 1982, the year that gave Britons the Falklands War, a homicidal madman in Yorkshire, a threatened transit strike, and the joyous birth of a presumably future king, Charles and Diana's son, William. It was a year mired in an era that represented both a relative low point in modern British history and a also a stepping stone to present-day recovery. Yes, Thatcher's Britain was a tottering welfare state that had seen better days, but did Paul Theroux, who cuts the Third World every conceivable bit of slack when he visits it, really, truly HAVE to always see England's glass as half empty?

I actually found myself growing depressed as a read his dreary memoir of what could have been a fascinating journey, and that's just not the sort of experience I was looking for. What could have been a travel journal that uplifted and enthralled instead became a melancholy series of bellicose dreariness.

Four stars for a number of introductions to interesting people Theroux met along the way, especially those old-timers born in the nineteenth-century, but without them popping up here an there as they did, this was barely a three-star read.
3478942
William Shakespeare's play "King Lear" is a story that tells us to beware of flatterers. The title character King Lear disinherits his favorite daughter after she fails to flatter him when he asks each of his daughters how much they love him. King Lear is a foolish king who just goes with his first impressions and doesn't look deeper into people's words. The play takes place in England before the time of Merlin. The time period of the setting however is irrelevant to the play and the play could take place in any time period. King Lear is not an actual historical king, he is rather a king of British legend.

The play teaches parents to beware children who love them superficially. Flatterers fool those who love to be flattered.

The character King Lear is according to what I have heard, a rather difficult and demanding character to play for an actor. The Folger edition of this play has lots of explanatory notes to help the reader to understand the play.
1546429
This movie is pretty good, but not for Stephen King fans. Unfortunately I saw this film before I read the book, but I'm smart enough to understand that it extremely bastardized the original story. If you expect to enjoy this film, you have to watch it with the attitude that it's not based on Stephen Kings work at all, but just some really cool horror film that Stanley Kubrick cooked up, otherwise you won't like it at all. That is, if you've read the book, which I have.