Talk:Stephen King/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archive 1 Archive 2 →

amazon.com doesn't have Umney's Last Case, The New Lieutenant's Rap, Secret Windows, or Six Stories in their database. Are these the prose equivalent of vaporware?

Those are listed under his "works" section at stephenking.com, so I doubt it. Koyaanis Qatsi 23:20, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Contents

King's Style

It would be great if somebody more knowledgeable than me could write a bit about King's style, his recurring themes, etc. 82.82.147.82 20:21, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

King's On Writing would be useful as a reference. There's also a list of books in the Books about Stephen King article that might help.

On a side note, there is need for better chronological order in the Biography section, as well as more info on the early and middle points of his career. I also think we should arrange the sections a bit better. Not to brag or anything like that, but I think the article on Chuck Palahniuk that I wrote might serve as a good guideline for how we could better set up this article. Of course, that is just my opinion. -- [[User:LGagnon|LGagnon]] 22:26, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)

Thandeka?

Naomi recently (2000) married her longtime girlfriend Thandeka, who is a school teacher, in Tennessee.

What is this? Is Thandeka male or female? I assume Naomi is female? Are they lesbians? If so how can they be married, particularly in tennesee? Sam [Spade] 11:38, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Thandeka was Naomi's theological professor. Both are both female, and lesbians. They shared a "ceremony of union", not a state-sanctioned wedding.
Wow, thats amazing stuff! What religion was it that conducted the "ceremony of union"? Does Mr. King have any opinions on this? Any extra info whatsoever? Sam [Spade] 15:02, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
And the 'amazing' part is what? mat_x 19:45, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I don't follow, sorry? If you have more info, it will be appreciated :) Sam [Spade] 01:24, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Nor I. I was wondering if you could explain your glee, and then perhaps it will help me to become less hardened and cynical. mat_x 09:27, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Lesbians make me happy, as do embarrassments for celebrities, as does reading wacky stuff about people I pay attention to. I just got done reading the dark tower series by this guy, so finding this out makes me raise an eyebrow. I also want photos, if you know where I can find em. Sam [Spade] 03:01, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
A photo of Thandeka can be found here. A photo of Naomi can be found here. Adalger 13:41, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above comments by Sam Spade are off-topic. Wikipedia:Talk pages says you should talk about the article, not about the subject. Secondly, there is no requirement to have the "they are lesbians" comment in the article just because you like lesbians. Stop reverting it and let it be. After all, readers can understand that through context. -- [[User:LGagnon|LGagnon]] 23:57, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I simply can't see why it isn't on topic. The article read that King's daughter "married" her girlfriend. Because gay marriage is not legal in her state, Sam questioned the wording, and rightly, because as it stood, it is POV in the worst way. The further discussion was to establish the exact facts in the matter and to answer the question Mat posed.
Thats a good summary of my position. I also think a pic of Thandeka and Kings daughter together would make a cool addition to the article. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 15:08, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Off topic convo

I refer you to this article to help increase your understanding of possible uses of talk pages as means to strengthen community. Perhaps you truly feel that deleting someone else's discussion helps further the community spirit. I respectfully suggest that next time you feel someone has veered off topic, you use their talk page to suggest that they withdraw their comments or take them off-page and not seek to impose your views.Dr Zen 03:03, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

First of all, I didn't delete the parts about the article; I deleted the later parts that discussed his love for lesbians. Secondly, I edited the article to better explain it (yes Sam, that many words are needed to make the concept of civil unions understood) and Sam reverted my edit just so he could have his "they are lesbians" line in there. He isn't showing concern for the article, he's showing concern for his opinion.
And you, Dr Zen, should keep in mind that there is a rule that says you can delete flaming on the talk pages. Saying Perhaps you truly feel that deleting someone else's discussion helps further the community spirit to me doesn't sound like you are trying to handle this maturely and without malice. -- [[User:LGagnon|LGagnon]] 03:31, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
Sorry, dude, but if you feel that discussing whether King's daughter is a lesbian is "flaming", we have one more issue we disagree on. I'm content to allow you your opinion and don't see the value in discussing it further.Dr Zen 03:57, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
You are flaming. Saying Perhaps you truly feel that deleting someone else's discussion helps further the community spirit, a comment that attempts to put words in my mouth, is a flame. You have been insulting me for no reason for the last few days while hypocritically claiming to uphold the community spirit of the encyclopedia. I don't know what your problem is with me, but it has to stop. Quit flaming me every time you talk to me or I'm getting an administrator involved. -- [[User:LGagnon|LGagnon]] 04:08, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
Hey guys, chill out. Please take this to your personal talk pages, or refer to Wikipedia:Conflict resolution if needed (I really don't think that is, but whatever). This page is for talking about Stephen King, not to argue about policy and flaming and whatever else. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 15:08, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I tried taking it to the personal talk pages, but he isn't willing to listen. Furthermore, the rules say that flaming is supposed to be deleted from talk pages. However, I didn't want to get yelled at again for deleting something from here, so I decided to discuss it first. Unfortunately, now I'm in a catch-22 that if I discuss it I'm off-topic but if I delete it I'm being too forceful. So I'm open to suggestion as to what I should be doing about Dr Zen harassing me, because I've tried what's been recommended so far and nothing has worked. -- [[User:LGagnon|LGagnon]] 18:12, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
When all else fails, try Wikipedia:Conflict resolution. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 20:34, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Please stop deleting mention of Naomi and Thandeka being lesbians

If you review the talk page, you will clearly see I was so confused by the suggestion of their relationship without clarification that I wasn't even sure of their genders. Naomi is almost always female, but thandeka? It ends in a vowel, but... There is absolutely no reason to cover up info like that, its downright unhelpful. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 15:52, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

In my edit I wrote "a civil union, since they are a lesbian couple". This better explains the situation, since "ceremony of union" does not explicitly stae what the ceremony was (could be assumed to be marriage), and I also mention their sexuality. In my opinion, this better helps a confused reader, who would probably be more confused about the ceremony than the sexuality of the couple. -- [[User:LGagnon|LGagnon]] 18:12, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
I prefered "ceremony of union", since thats what the anon who seemed to know something said. For all I know, he was wrong, and Thandeka is a man ;) (wouldn't that be funny...). Anyhow, in reviewing the edit history just now I saw [1]. Moving right along, does anybody have a reference for any of this Thandeka business? [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 20:38, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
That was an entirely different situation. That person deleted an on-topic comment, not an off-topic one. If he had deleted an off-topic comment, it might have been ok, but he didn't. -- [[User:LGagnon|LGagnon]] 02:11, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)
This [2] seems to verify "ceremony of union", rather than "civil union". [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 20:44, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
"Congratulations to Thandeka and Naomi King, who will be joined in a service of holy union on June 20 in Nashville at the UUA General Assembly"[3].
I think its safe to assume they did not have a civil union, at this point. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 20:52, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Yep, Civil unions arn't legal in Tennessee, from the looks of it. Only a few places allow them, see Civil Union. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 20:54, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I changed the sentence a bit to make it sound better, while still being clear on Thandeka's gender. I didn't like the "(they are lesbians)" phrase; it sounds like something a person would whisper behind their hand. [[User:Lachatdelarue|Lachatdelarue (talk)]] 23:07, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Seems acceptable to me, and if they have any further questions, they can always come to the talk page. Good job Lachatdelarue, [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 01:19, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)


"ceremony of union"

We don't put quotes around other ceremonies, so no need for quotes around "ceremony of union." Rhobite 01:50, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

Other ceremonies are well defined though. Our only knowledge of this one is through a quote. What is a "ceremony of union"? I know they danced down the "aisle"? Was there a church? Was it blessed by a minister? Do you see? It's all very unclear. Without the quotes there is a suggestion that this was a standardised form of ceremony. Do you know that it is? Can you point to a description of its form? I'm replacing the quotes until this can be cleared up.Dr Zen 02:28, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
But with the quotes, the sentence is dismissive and IMO, borderline homophobic. The quotation marks imply sarcasm and derision. Unitarian marriage ceremonies are, as a rule, not standardized. That's no reason for treating them differently from any other ceremony. Rhobite 02:31, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
But you understand that without them the implication is clearly there that this is a civil union? By unquotemarking "union" the suggestion is clearly there that this is broadly an acceptable form of union. My personal view is that it is, but of course, my view is not what I put forward in articles! Could it perhaps just say they were joined in a Universal Unitarian "ceremony"? BTW, my dico has for ceremony "a formal act or series of acts prescribed by ritual, protocol, or convention". If the "marriage ceremonies" of Unitarians are not set out in ritual or protocol, and do not have a conventional form, the word "ceremony" seems entirely misplaced.Dr Zen 03:16, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I agree that the quotations should go. The use of quote does seem to say that it's not a "real" ceremony (see my point?). And yes, there was a church, and yes it was blessed by a minister (a UUA is a church, and whoever officiated was a minister of that church). [[User:Lachatdelarue|Lachatdelarue (talk)]] 03:26, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I've explained why I don't think it was a ceremony and why I believe we should not use the word union naked, as it were. Could you supply details of the ritual concerned? Anyone can invent a church, dude, but that doesn't give them the keys to the concept box. What is wrong with my suggestion of a compromise? I offer you ceremony without quotes but union goes. It's quite reasonable. Personally, I'm all for getting married in whatever form you choose and I have absolutely no problem with lesbians, but I feel that we should encompass both POVs.Dr Zen 03:34, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I agree w Dr Zen, until we have some coherant idea of what a "ceremony of union" is, it needs the quotes. I put the quotes there btw, since I didn't know what the heck a "ceremony of union" was, and still don't What I do know is what its not. Its not a marraige, and its not a civil union. I am assuming it has no legal basis whatsoever, and is probably meaningful only within the unitarian church. Until we can clarify what meaning it has to them for ourselves, we can't very well expect the reader to know what were refering to. How about somebody researches it, and creates a ceremony of union article. Otherwise, standard practice is to put curious or unorthadox terms into quotes, to let the reader know we arn't suggesting that is a proper term for what is being refered to. Taking the UU POV as our own is somethjing I am unwilling to do, and besides, its POV. And leave this "homophobia" (quotes because thats a pseudoscience term) bunk out of this, nobody is being homophobic, were being encyclopedic. Accuracy is our mission, not promoting curious and unexplained rituals. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 11:34, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Image

The photo formerly illustrating this article is being removed as a copyright problem. Below reccomendations from WP:PUI on possible replacements:

    • replace with this its his official uncopyrighted press head shot. Alkivar 03:29, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • or even this its a Fair Use image from a public funded college newspaper. Alkivar 03:32, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Pseudonyms?

Searching in Amazon turned up no books by "George Stark" or "John Swithen."

The bibliography on King's official website mentions one short story ("The Fifth Quarter") as by "John Swithen," and nothing as by "George Stark."

Does anyone have any evidence of books by either, or of anything as by "Stark?"

If not, then I recommend that the sentence:

Stephen King has written a few books or short stories under the names John Swithen and George Stark (the name of the pseudonym in The Dark Half) as well.

be emended to read:

Stephen King has also written at least one short story under the name John Swithen. Sturgeonslawyer 22:29, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Nobody seemed to object so I went ahead and did it. Sturgeonslawyer 15:33, 6 Apr 2005 (PDST)

Political Leanings

Mr. King has donated fairly large sums of money to the Democratic Party. Where would be a good place to mention his politics? --BDD 03:50, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Bryan Smith

We seem to have an inconsistency on Wikipedia. According to this article Bryan Smith committed suicide, yet in the Bryan Smith article itself, "In September 2000, Smith was discovered dead in his trailer. His cause of death was listed as an accidental overdose of the painkiller fentanyl, according to toxicology reports." is the text. Which is correct? Djbrianuk 18:47, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

The Mist

It seems to me that The Mist was dropped from the bibliography. But why? --Targi 15:48, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Because it is a short story, not a book. It appears in one of his anthologies. -- LGagnon 18:27, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
I'm sorry. I have already realized my mistake, thanks. It is in the Skeleton Crew. --Targi 22:31, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Dutch link

Shouldn't the link to the Dutch site be in the Dutch version of the article instead of this one? It isn't much use to someone who speaks only English, and would likely only be used by those who visit the Dutch version of this article. -- LGagnon June 30, 2005 12:51 (UTC)

I don't think so. There are many collectors out there (also for other writers) who are looking for foreign editions of the books from their favorite writer. At least, I often receive mail with that kind of requests.

Popular Culture

Do we really need to list his appearances on Family Guy and The Simpsons? This seems a bit unimportant. -- LGagnon 00:11, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

  • Although the section needs a rewrite, it really should stay. Very few authors get referenced in popular culture at all, really, so it's quite an achievement. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:26, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
    • I actually have a question of my own--was Dean Koontz actually hit by a car, as the section asserts? A quick Google search turned up nothing, though I freely admit that it wasn't all that exhaustive. If not, then that's a pretty glaring error. --XkarlmagneX 04:08, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
      • That appears to be an error, along with the claim that they are both sci-fi writers. -- LGagnon 21:46, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

The section about The Simpsons still mentions sci-fi. Is this accurate or is that still another mistake of the editor's that was left in? -- LGagnon 14:11, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Minor lack of consistency from a certified nitpicker.

I noticed that someone made a comment that "In October of 2005, King has signed up with Marvel Comics and this is his first time in writing for the comic book medium" when the bibliography clearly states the wrote the Creepshow comic [1982 Creepshow (comic book, illustrated by Bernie Wrightson)]. Which is true?