Ahriman, Death, and Stephen King

From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Thu Jan 8, 2004 2:29 am
Subject: Ahriman, Death, and Stephen King

At 22:55 07.01.2004, Bradford wrote:

WE find Ahriman given open season to hunt down Job and harasss the hell out of him. God's Point? Well He has served a task for the Gods but really, like the Comets and the Solar system, runs an agenda that counters the human divinity. Yet, without this experience we cannot develop freedom, science and Intellect.

Stephen King's comment about the Book of Job in his novel-made-miniseries "Storm of the Century" (1999) says a lot about the King of Horror's approach the the Bible. When the residents of Little Tall Island are reminded of the Book of Job because the evil they're being subjected to, in addition to the ferocious storm, makes them ask "Why us?" Grocery store owner and part-time constable Michael Anderson (played by Tim Daly) elaborates: Job says to God, "You've killed my livestock, destroyed my crops, killed my wife and kids, and given me all these terrible diseases. Why me?" And then Anderson adds that God's answer to Job is not in the Bible; He says: "Because there is something about you that pisses me off!"

This is the problem with Stephen King's authorship. He is a superb storyteller and knows how to create such excitement and suspense that you can't put the book down, or you can't take your eyes off the screen, until the story is told. But it's all built upon the concept that everything occult and spiritual is something that goes bump in the night and scares the living daylights out of you, sometimes leaving a trail of blood and dead bodies behind. The problem is that in Stephen King's world, there is no counterforce against the sinister powers of darkness except the feeble common sense and decency found in the day-consciousness of very ordinary human beings. For every monster and every demon he introduces, there is not a single Christ-like supersensible being, and no single soul capable of summoning progressive Spirits, no Wizard of Light in sight. The ordinary human being, totally unprepared for any Encounter with the Beyond, is helplessly confronting mighty powers of Darkness who proceed with little or no opposition. And when the nightmare is over, "Heaven" turns out to be the ordinary day-consciousness that will hopefully never again be disturbed by anything spiritual, which is nothing but sinister and murderous and creepy. And interestingly, in "Storm of the Century," the Evil One is completely victorious.

Personally, I've never quite figured out what the story of Job is supposed to mean: God making this bet with the Devil, like a poker game, about Job's loyalty to him. The Book of Job allegedly has an origin that's different from the rest of the Bible; it's an old Hebrew folk tale that went through generations by word of mouth before it was recorded as a Biblical document.

The God who says, "There is something about you that pisses me off!" is a very far cry from the God described by Rudolf Steiner:

"The all-encompassing attribute of the Godhead is not omnipotence, neither is it omniscience, but it is love - the attribute in respect of which no enhancement is possible. God is uttermost love, unalloyed love, is born as it were out of love, is the very substance and essence of love. God is pure love, not supreme wisdom, not supreme might. "

http://www.uncletaz.com/lovemeaning.html

Without this God Who is uttermost, unalloyed Love and the very substance and essence of it, it is no wonder that people are scared out of their pants when they hear about Lucifer and Ahriman and Sorat and the Asuras. Even if they don't live in the world of Stephen King, they're subconsciously being influenced by Hollywood's portrayal of the occult. That's why it is so significant that Tolkien's world is also being portrayed, in addition to wonderful sagas like Star Wars. These are stories where the Good Powers have the potency and the strength and the will to conquer the Darkness and win over Evil. And when that is possible, we have nothing to fear except fear itself.

Christ had no interior karma on the Earth so naturally he was a real alien, to do what he did, which is what every sci-fi reality attempts to say.

Christ was not an alien to humanity, which Ahriman was, but to the physical earth-condition and physical birth and death, which is Ahriman's domain. Ahriman is the alien, to the Hierarcies and to humanity alike. And this is why death is alien to man. Man was created as an immortal being; Ahriman brought death into the world:

"Ahriman is a being who does not belong to our hierarchy. Ahriman comes into the stream of evolution from another direction. If we tolerate Ahriman in the evolution of the Earth, if we allow him a share in it, he brings us death, and with it, the intellect, and we can take up in the human being death and intellect. Ahriman knows death, because he is at one with the Earth and has trodden paths which have brought him into connection with the evolution of the Earth. He is an initiate, a sage of death, and for this reason he is the ruler of the intellect."

http://www.uncletaz.com/exoeso.html

But the threshold of daring and unforgiving coldness that Ahriman represents brings precision into the intellect. But the ramifications of the chill hinder the redemption of the Ahrimanic forces, which are soley due to how humanity chooses to remain unconsious of this potent being.

About Ahriman and chill: Just like the physical counterpart of the spiritual sun is extreme heat and light, so is the opposotion to this, extreme cold and darkness. It raises the question, of course, about whatever happened to the Cold Fusion experiments of the 1980's, which should have provided an opportunity for Ahriman to take up abode in a machine, making artificial intelligence a direct expression of Ahriman himself, in person.

Cheers,

Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/

...................................................................................................................................

From: jgardner
Date: Thu Jan 8, 2004 9:18 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Ahriman, Death, and Stephen King

Dear Tarjei,

I know you used it in illustration of your point, but I have to comment about the content of your illustration. I once read in an interview of Stephen King that he imagines horror and darkness in association with nearly everything--not just the occult. He used something like the example of coming across a beautiful little pond on the countryside. Where others might be wondering what type of happy little fish inhabit it's crystal depths, King would be imagining a slimy green monster lurking beneath the surface, waiting to pull the next hapless victim to a gruesome, underwater death.

Kings' novels do not all end with evil as the victor, however, and an example that comes to mind is The Stand. If you go looking for accurate portrayal of spiritual fact I think you'll be disappointed, but--while I wouldn't want to place any bets on the matter--I would hazard to guess that the good guys ultimately win in most of his stories.

Jerry

This is the problem with Stephen King's authorship. He is a superb storyteller and knows how to create such excitement and suspense that you can't put the book down, or you can't take your eyes off the screen, until the story is told. But it's all built upon the concept that everything occult and spiritual is something that goes bump in the night and scares the living daylights out of you, sometimes leaving a trail of blood and dead bodies behind. The problem is that in Stephen King's world, there is no counterforce against the sinister powers of darkness except the feeble common sense and decency found in the day-consciousness of very ordinary human beings. For every monster and every demon he introduces, there is not a single Christ-like supersensible being, and no single soul capable of summoning progressive Spirits, no Wizard of Light in sight. The ordinary human being, totally unprepared for any Encounter with the Beyond, is helplessly confronting mighty powers of Darkness who proceed with little or no opposition. And when the nightmare is over, "Heaven" turns out to be the ordinary day-consciousness that will hopefully never again be disturbed by anything spiritual, which is nothing but sinister and murderous and creepy. And interestingly, in "Storm of the Century," the Evil One is completely victorious.

...................................................................................................................................

From: bryanmillermail
Date: Thu Jan 8, 2004 1:49 pm
Subject: Re: Ahriman, Death, and Stephen King

Stephen King as I remember from the several novels I read as a teen (haven't read his recent work): the reader is introduced to a regular, very likable guy, who is eventually taken by some evil force and turned into a monster. There's the goofy highschool pal who buys a possessed car and is therefore doomed in Christine, the hardworking family man transformed into a homicidal maniac by mysterious forces in The Shinning, the adorable young toddler in Pet Sematery, whose death has the reader heartbroken, and who then comes back as a terrifying distortion of his former self, and so on and so forth. None of the novels I read had a truly happy ending. Even if the evil-taken person ends up dying in defeat, releasing the other characters from his terrorizing ways, this engendered only a hollow satisfaction. A true happy ending would be getting back the "good guy" from the beginning, who was so painfully lost to the evil powers. This never happened in any novel I read. Stephen King's work is very cruel to the reader. There's no true redemption.
Bryan

--- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, jgardner wrote:

Dear Tarjei,

I know you used it in illustration of your point, but I have to comment about the content of your illustration. I once read in an interview of Stephen King that he imagines horror and darkness in association with nearly everything--not just the occult. He used something like the example of coming across a beautiful little pond on the countryside. Where others might be wondering what type of happy little fish inhabit it's crystal depths, King would be imagining a slimy green monster lurking beneath the surface, waiting to pull the next hapless victim to a gruesome, underwater death.

Kings' novels do not all end with evil as the victor, however, and an example that comes to mind is The Stand. If you go looking for accurate portrayal of spiritual fact I think you'll be disappointed, but--while I wouldn't want to place any bets on the matter--I would hazard to guess that the good guys ultimately win in most of his stories.

Jerry

...................................................................................................................................

From: J. Gardner
Date: Thu Jan 8, 2004 7:57 pm
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Ahriman, Death, and Stephen King

When you put it that way. . . You're right. Although I wouldn't have called the endings "happy", you've reminded me what most of them were really like. I'm not a great Stephen King fan and haven't read any of his books in years, either. But I do remember having a lot of fun with them, odd as it may seem to characterize the experience in that way. Reading King's stories was, to me, kind of like riding a roller coaster. It gives you the opportunity to confront those dark fears in a way that's unlikely to cause you any real harm, but you have to keep reminding yourself as you read.

Jerry

-----Original Message-----
From: bryanmillermail
Date: Thu Jan 8, 2004 1:49 pm
Subject: Re: Ahriman, Death, and Stephen King

Stephen King as I remember from the several novels I read as a teen (haven't read his recent work): the reader is introduced to a regular, very likable guy, who is eventually taken by some evil force and turned into a monster. There's the goofy highschool pal who buys a possessed car and is therefore doomed in Christine, the hardworking family man transformed into a homicidal maniac by mysterious forces in The Shinning, the adorable young toddler in Pet Sematery, whose death has the reader heartbroken, and who then comes back as a terrifying distortion of his former self, and so on and so forth. None of the novels I read had a truly happy ending. Even if the evil-taken person ends up dying in defeat, releasing the other characters from his terrorizing ways, this engendered only a hollow satisfaction. A true happy ending would be getting back the "good guy" from the beginning, who was so painfully lost to the evil powers. This never happened in any novel I read. Stephen King's work is very cruel to the reader. There's no true redemption.
Bryan

...................................................................................................................................

From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Thu Jan 8, 2004 3:38 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Ahriman, Death, and Stephen King

At 18:18 08.01.2004, Jerry wrote:

I know you used it in illustration of your point, but I have to comment about the content of your illustration. I once read in an interview of Stephen King that he imagines horror and darkness in association with nearly everything--not just the occult.

I did not say that Stephen King writes only about the occult. "Misery" is a good example of a non-occult scenario.

If you go looking for accurate portrayal of spiritual fact I think you'll be disappointed, but--while I wouldn't want to place any bets on the matter--I would hazard to guess that the good guys ultimately win in most of his stories.

They don't win. They only survive.

Cheers,

Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/

...................................................................................................................................

From: holderlin66
Date: Thu Jan 8, 2004 6:57 pm
Subject: Re: Ahriman, Death, and Stephen King

--- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com.

Tarjei Straume wrote:

I did not say that Stephen King writes only about the occult. "Misery" is a good example of a non-occult scenario.

Dear friends;

I wonder if you guys in Europe see what we see in America. Just kidding. But unless you missed it, one of the finest Etheric Christ, vision of goodness films, that reveal the new healing forces, in a radical instance...to do with the Christophorous mystery, was that of "The Green Mile". Also a STephen King Story.

Let me assert, that Stephen King - "Harry Potter" and "Lord of the Rings" are all pieces, parts and anti-dotes to lost fragments of the Michael School. Hogwarts, as silly as it seems, kick starts, jump starts in a child, something that they know they are missing in some sort of normal school. Just as the director of "Lord of the Rings" and the entire audience base has something they know is missing but can hardly define what it is. This is the riddle that we share with those of our TIME that seek answers.

Where, as sober as a Waldorf School can be, the insights that carry you from Kindergarden to 12th grade leave the door open for all the lost fragments of the missing Michael School to come alive. Stephen King, bless his heart, and even Spielberg and countless other works are barely keeping the door open so that children and humanity do not suffocate in the Political and Corporate ice fields suburbia.

Spielberg has an issue with an occult area of the soul called "The Spirit of Youth". Here a kind of replicated luciferic double that appears in Initiation as the Spirit of Youth, has darkened some of Spielberg's contributions. That is up to us to understand what people are trying to see with their inner eyes and what they lost when they incarnated out of the Spiritual World. Aliens and E.T.'s are not Angels, but why can't we stunningly visualize the wonders of Angels and our current mighty history. Broken fragments come through Tolkien and indeed, broken fragments of the shattered bridge to the spirit appear in countless ways.

"Fairy Tale a True Story" and specifically "Donnie Darko" should be viewed carefully. "Always" is stunning. My favorite, aside from "The Green Mile" is Robin Williams in "What Dreams May Come".

We wonder about Christ Sciences and fragments of Reality, that Spiritual Science reveals well there are more Michael School members on earth, attempting to visualize and think than carry pink cards from the Anthro Society. In other words it is discernment of thinking that makes one part of progressive human evolution and we have millions of souls who are wondering, just how to visualize and understand the missing parts of the ethical vision that was robbed from them, when the entered the grinding forces of modern education.

Part of the Michael School is to midwife and assist in determining how the many pieces of the puzzle fit. Because as a Waldorf Teacher you stand as filter for the navigating soul. As an active list, topics discussed by us can be reviewed, if people wish to go deeper.

Bradford

...................................................................................................................................

From: J. Gardner
Date: Thu Jan 8, 2004 8:05 pm
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Ahriman, Death, and Stephen King

Tarjei,

I did not say that Stephen King writes only about the occult. "Misery" is a good example of a non-occult scenario.

No, I didn't mean to imply that you said that, and thanks for reminding me that Misery is one of King's stories. I think that one survived translation to film better than most.

If you go looking for accurate portrayal of spiritual fact I think you'll be disappointed, but--while I wouldn't want to place any bets on the matter--I would hazard to guess that the good guys ultimately win in most of his stories.

They don't win. They only survive.

You're right, in most cases the main character barely makes it.

Jerry

...................................................................................................................................

From: Daniel Hindes
Date: Thu Jan 8, 2004 1:45 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Ahriman, Death, and Stephen King

Tarjei,
I liked your exegesis on evil in Stephen King. This is something I have noticed, and not only in Stephen King. Modern fiction writers - whether novel, short story, TV, film or comic book - understand the mechanics of evil extraordinarily well. All the various ways that human beings can transgress against their higher nature is detailed with chilling accuracy. And when the occult is brought in as a plot element, the evil always "comes alive" as it were. Demons have personality, Hell is interesting. Heaven, on the other hand, is boring. It is full of straight laced fundies playing harp. It even seems as if relinquishing freedom is the only way not to sin and therefore to get into heaven. Heaven is for conformists who held to the letter of the law as given in the Bible. There really is no understanding of the sublime role of Good in the world. Good is performed mostly by people who are not inclined to question why they are conforming to the letter of the Bible. This really is a curious phenomenon.

Daniel Hindes

...................................................................................................................................

From: Steinerhead
Date: Thu Jan 8, 2004 8:08 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Ahriman, Death, and Stephen King

In a message dated 1/8/04 9:58:11 PM !!!First Boot!!!, bryanmillermail writes:

Stephen King's work is very cruel to the reader. There's no true redemption.
Bryan

Didn't he write "The Shawshank Redemption"?

Mike

...................................................................................................................................

From: golden3000997
Date: Thu Jan 8, 2004 9:17 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Ahriman, Death, and Stephen King

DID HE? I gotta look that up! One of my favorite movies.

...................................................................................................................................

From: Steinerhead
Date: Thu Jan 8, 2004 11:04 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Ahriman, Death, and Stephen King

In a message dated 1/9/04 4:13:49 AM !!!First Boot!!!, Steinerhead writes:

Stephen King's work is very cruel to the reader. There's no true redemption.
Bryan

Didn't he write "The Shawshank Redemption"?

Mike

Ah HA!!

He did write it!

check this out: http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Estates/2857/literaturelistings.html

So Bryan, your ture to eat crow...come on, say it!....CHAW...CHAW...CHAW

Truth and Redemption

Mike

...................................................................................................................................

From: golden3000997
Date: Thu Jan 8, 2004 8:55 pm
Subject: Early Morning Madness - The Magic in the Making

oooh, let's talk about movies!!! yeah!!

Bradford writes:

Spielberg has an issue with an occult area of the soul called "The Spirit of Youth". Here a kind of replicated luciferic double that appears in Initiation as the Spirit of Youth, has darkened some of Spielberg's contributions. That is up to us to understand what people are trying to see with their inner eyes and what they lost when they incarnated out of the Spiritual World. Aliens and E.T.'s are not Angels, but why can't we stunningly visualize the wonders of Angels and our current mighty history. Broken fragments come through Tolkien and indeed, broken fragments of the shattered bridge to the spirit appear in countless ways.

"Fairy Tale a True Story" and specifically "Donnie Darko" should be viewed carefully. "Always" is stunning. My favorite, aside from "The Green Mile" is Robin Williams in "What Dreams May Come".

We wonder about Christ Sciences and fragments of Reality, that Spiritual Science reveals well there are more Michael School members on earth, attempting to visualize and think than carry pink cards from the Anthro Society. In other words it is discernment of thinking that makes one part of progressive human evolution and we have millions of souls who are wondering, just how to visualize and understand the missing parts of the ethical vision that was robbed from them, when the entered the grinding forces of modern education.

Part of the Michael School is to midwife and assist in determining how the many pieces of the puzzle fit. Because as a Waldorf Teacher you stand as filter for the navigating soul. As an active list, topics discussed by us can be reviewed, if people wish to go deeper.

Bradford

I watch a lot of rentals (I have no life)

I just finished watching "An American Rhapsody" about a young Hungarian girl whose parents fled Communist Hungary and managed to get to America, but had to leave her behind as an infant. She grows up with a foster family until she is five, then she is taken to America. It's based on a true story and was stunningly done!

Yesterday - "The Astronaut's Wife" with Johnny Depp and Charlize Theron. Very good. very different in a way. an "alien" story but with a few twists. Some holes, though, I would have liked to had a little more theory about what was behind the story line.

Before that - re-watched Robin Williams in "Being Human". I LOVE "What Dreams May Come" - I mean, you KNOW this guy has got to at least know about Steiner, right? (Saw him one night on the street in San Francisco with his second wife) didn't say anything, I was cool, dude. But it was him! "Being Human" is not really easy to watch. It takes a lot of thought. I SEEMS simple, really it does, simplistic even, in its approach to reincarnation, but it is actually very complicated and what I really love about it is how FLAWED the individual in it is. And he never really gets un-flawed, just a little more able to love and to see outside himself. I think Robin Williams is one of the most absolutely BRILLIANT men of our time and that his movies are all philosophical, ethical, spiritual and intellectual treatises. I once postulated that Hermann Hesse carried the essence of Anthroposophy in his novels and Kahlil Gibran in his poetry. And don't say no unless YOU HAVE READ "Magister Ludi/ The Glass Bead Game" which I read in four days and gave a two hour dissertation on in college on the fourth day. (long time ago - many dead brain cells since then!)

I have also postulated that movies are today's novels. The kind of creative energy that used to go into novels now goes into film. They are interconnected, but it's really just an extended art form of the novel.

Speaking of novels, I found that they made a movie out of "I Capture the Castle" by Dodie Smith - one of my pre-adolescent favorites. It was really well done and one of the main characters was Henry Thomas (the little boy from ET) all grown up. I knew I recognized him, but it did take me a while to remember from where. Lovely movie. Great chick flick!

A week or two ago I asked everyone about whether or not it was true as I remember, that the Goetheanum always produced "A Midsummer Night's Dream" on the stage at Christmas and if they still do. The reason that I asked was that I rented the recent version with Kevin Kline over the holidays and only afterward remembered about Dornach. And by the way - NO ONE answered my question. : (

One of the things that watching a lot of movies and reading a lot of novels does (besides keeping one from going stark raving mad) is that it makes one more and more aware of how NOT-SIMPLE life really is. Because, if all a person knows is the boundaries of his present day existence, especially if one lives in a rather homogenous social system, it can be as easy as one wants it to be to keep some narrow blinders on and to believe in simple answers to the questions of life. When actually, one begins to suspect that there is nothing at all simple about life - Nothing! And the more we try to reduce any aspect to a simple belief systems, the more life is going to come up and bite us in the ass.

EVERYTHING is complicated - the physical world, the spiritual world, the inner world, everything. The weaver weaves like a mad genius. Threads fly up and down,the shuttle shoots back and forth like lightning. We can get some idea of the bigger picture if we can step back for a minute and try to look at the parts of the tapestry already woven. And maybe, if we are clairvoyant, we can get glimpses into the mind of the weaver and try to discern the patterns that are still to come. But even stopping to look, more fabric is unfolded. Sometimes our thread is carried forward, sometimes it is left behind.

Hey, that all reminds me of Piers Anthony. Has anyone here read his stuff? Besides the Xanth novels (wonderful, punny fantasy), there is the archetype series "Incarnations of Immortality" which I heartily recommend - let's see, "With a Tangled Skein" (Fate), "Bearing an Hourglass" (Time), "On A Pale Horse" (Death), 'Being a Green Mother." (Earth), "Wielding a Red Sword" (War), "For Love of Evil" (guess!) and they culminate in "And Eternity" - which is the one I started with (yup, ass-backward as usual). Each one is about an archetype that is actually embodied by an individual human being. They are mostly all in each other's books, so they all interrelate. "And Eternity" is the Good/Evil thing. Haven't read it in quite a few years, so I can't get too detailed - I guess a re-reading is about due.

THEN, there is his four-book (unless he has added more) series, Shame of Man, Isle of Woman, Hope of Earth, Muse of Art. All really long, really complicated. They are not novels, exactly, more of some sort of fictional? treatise on time and human development. There are certain main "characters" that are more "types" than specific people. The whole work zig zags back and forth in time and criss-crossed the globe innumerable times.

Any one read Dorothy Dunnett's historical series? How about Douglas Adams (Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, et al)? And I already mentioned some time ago about Jitterbug Perfume by Tom Robbins - an absolute fave!

Well, you know books are like cats, one just leads to another.

About "The Green Mile" I have a real problem with anything concerning a prison execution. It looks like a stunning movie, but I was too afraid to rent it. The same with "Dead Man Walking" I just can't stand the subject. I rented one a few years ago called "Dancer in the Dark" the way it was treated in the trailers and on the video cover, it gave no hint of what it was really about and what happened to the main character and I was just appalled. It's not any kind of philosophical thing - it just grosses and creeps me out too much.

I've been really good about trying to lay off the Tolkein thing cause I can really beat it to death, but I have joined two Yahoo groups where I can let off steam. : ) We were just remembering the Beacon Fires scene - just blew me out of my seat!!!!!!! Cried so hard!!!!! (OK, better now) : )

One more (yeah, sure) - I loved the first two Harry Potter novels, but JK may be a little too ambitious. I read #3, but couldn't get going with #4. I heard the 5th is ENORMOUS - I mean, what's up with THAT? The book is bigger than the kids she is supposedly selling it to. I think the kids are a front, like renting someone's kids to go with you to the amusement park so you don't look so dumb on the merry-go-round by yourself! I'm not judging, but it may take me a while to work through them. The movies were fine - wonderful cast - adore Alan Rickman in ANYTHING (remember the Sheriff of Nottingham in Kevin Costner's "Prince of Thieves"?) Anyone see "Dogma" where he is Metatron - THE VOICE OF GOD. Oh yeah, makes my toes curl. Any chicks out here see "Truly, Madly, Deeply?"

Oh yeah, back to old Harry - lovely settings, wonderful actors, right out of the novels, but didn't get me all that excited. Maybe once you didn't have the element of suspense anymore, the story flattened out a little. The novels had a uniqueness to them. Everything seemed new and wonderful the first time around.

Well, this will teach Bradford not to mention movies when I'm within hearing! Come on, what do y'all love?

: ) Christine

...................................................................................................................................

From: b m <bryanmillermail>
Date: Fri Jan 9, 2004 5:39 am
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Ahriman, Death, and Stephen King

Yeah, I hear you. I certainly did enjoy his books for a while. Fact is, Stephen King helped me get through my miserable teenage years. I may owe the guy my sanity. How great it was to dive into a universe where there was more bleakness, angst and horror than my own.Even my young and tortured life seemed better by comparison. What highschool bullshit or romantic rejection doesn't dwarf before a killing vehicle or evil people coming back from the dead? And the man is a fantastic writer. Even today, I sometimes gravitate towards his books in stores. I want to read them and at the same time I suspect it's going to be a painful experience. I guess I don't want to be reminded of the horrors out there, or I get enough of them through the media. Yeah, when I started to enjoy life, somehow his books became a tough read.
Bryan

J. Gardner wrote:

When you put it that way. . . You're right. Although I wouldn't have called the endings "happy", you've reminded me what most of them were really like. I'm not a great Stephen King fan and haven't read any of his books in years, either. But I do remember having a lot of fun with them, odd as it may seem to characterize the experience in that way. Reading King's stories was, to me, kind of like riding a roller coaster. It gives you the opportunity to confront those dark fears in a way that's unlikely to cause you any real harm, but you have to keep reminding yourself as you read.

Jerry

...................................................................................................................................

From: b m <bryanmillermail>
Date: Fri Jan 9, 2004 4:46 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Ahriman, Death, and Stephen King

Well, you see Mike, as I mentioned in my post I haven't read S.K.'s recent work, just the older stuff. And I think it was clear that's what I was referring to, but you can go back to the message and read it slower this time and maybe you'll get it.The Shawshank Redemption may be part of a different approach he took more recently or even the exception that confirms the rule.

Bryan

...................................................................................................................................

From: Steinerhead
Date: Fri Jan 9, 2004 7:33 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Ahriman, Death, and Stephen King

In a message dated 1/9/04 12:48:52 PM !!!First Boot!!!, bryanmillermail writes:

Well, you see Mike, as I mentioned in my post I haven't read S.K.'s recent work, just the older stuff. And I think it was clear that's what I was referring to, but you can go back to the message and read it slower this time and maybe you'll get it.

Thanks Bryan. I do get it now. I was over reacting to your statement, "there is no redemption". I agree that in the older stuff that's true.

And I really liked your post about getting through your teenage tears reading his books. If I had done that, I might have not had to create my own living horror story.

The Shawshank Redemption may be part of a different approach he took more recently or even the exception that

confirms the rule.

Exactly. It is one of my favorite movies and I was amazed to find out that King Wrote it. It is quite a turn for him.

Truth and Love

Mike

...................................................................................................................................

From: b m <bryanmillermail>
Date: Fri Jan 9, 2004 8:54 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Ahriman, Death, and Stephen King

Mike, all this talk about Stephen King and I am getting this uncontrollable itch to read some of his work again. I may try The Shawshank Redemption. I thank you for pointing out this work to me.
Bryan

...................................................................................................................................

From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Sat Jan 10, 2004 7:06 am
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Ahriman, Death, and Stephen King

At 05:05 09.01.2004, Jerry wrote:

No, I didn't mean to imply that you said that, and thanks for reminding me that Misery is one of King's stories. I think that one survived translation to film better than most.

The reason for that, I think, is that extra-sensory experiences of any kind are extremely challenging to translate to a screen. King was very disappointed with the result when "The Shining" had been filmed, not only because the director was an atheist, but because Jack Nicholson was cast in the title role immediately after winning an Oscar for "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest," making the audience assume him to be crazy before the plot began, which took the whole point away from the ominous forces at the Overlook Hotel that possess this innocent, ordinary man.

Interestingly, Stephen King obviously projects himself into some of his leading characters. In "The Shining" he is a struggling writer, and in "Misery" he is a successful writer, encountering his "biggest fan" which turns out to be his worst nightmare. He also uses the settings of extreme snow and ice, hard winter, a lot - in both of these novels, and in "Storm of the Century" as well.

Have you noticed that after Stephen King began to direct his own movies, he's doing an Alfred Hitchcock every time? Hitchcock used to show himself in his movies, as a passer-by on the sidewalk or something like that. He ended up doing this early in the film so people wouldn't spend the whole evening looking for him.

Stephen King is doing the same thing. In "Storm of the Century," for instance, you see him as the newsreading anchor man on the TV set in the background. In "Pet Cemetery," he is the churchyard gatekeeper or gardener. King sometimes takes a small role with a few lines. Hitchcock didn't.

Cheers,

Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/

...................................................................................................................................

From: Joel Wendt
Date: Sun Jan 11, 2004 2:01 pm
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Ahriman, Death, and Stephen King

On Sat, 2004-01-10 at 08:06, Tarjei Straume wrote:

The reason for that, I think, is that extra-sensory experiences of any kind are extremely challenging to translate to a screen. King was very disappointed with the result when "The Shining" had been filmed, not only because the director was an atheist, but because Jack Nicholson was cast in the title role immediately after winning an Oscar for "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest," making the audience assume him to be crazy before the plot began, which took the whole point away from the ominous forces at the Overlook Hotel that possess this innocent, ordinary man.

Why would audiences assume that? McMurphy is clearly representative of the highest sanity in the film, a free man who offers his own well being and life in order to serve others. Did you actually see this movie (One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest)?

j.

...................................................................................................................................

From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Mon Jan 12, 2004 2:38 am
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Ahriman, Death, and Stephen King

At 23:01 11.01.2004, Joel wrote:

On Sat, 2004-01-10 at 08:06, Tarjei Straume wrote:

The reason for that, I think, is that extra-sensory experiences of any kind are extremely challenging to translate to a screen. King was very disappointed with the result when "The Shining" had been filmed, not only because the director was an atheist, but because Jack Nicholson was cast in the title role immediately after winning an Oscar for "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest," making the audience assume him to be crazy before the plot began, which took the whole point away from the ominous forces at the Overlook Hotel that possess this innocent, ordinary man.

Why would audiences assume that?

Ask Stephen King. It was he who said that in an interview.

Did you actually see this movie (One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest)?

I saw it when it was released in 1975, and I've seen several reruns on TV. It was recently done on stage in Bergen (on the west coast of Norway) btw.

Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Click to subscribe to anthroposophy_tomorrow
 

January/February 2004

The Uncle Taz "Anthroposophy Tomorrow" Files

Anthroposophy & Anarchism

Anthroposophy & Scientology

Anthroposophical Morsels

Anthroposophy, Critics, and Controversy

Search this site powered by FreeFind