Some Stephen King books

moshkito wrote: Zeph wrote: The nice thing about books you don’t remember is that you can read them again. It won’t be an all new experience, but with a decade or more between, a lot must have been forgotten. I just finished Bag of Bones for the second time. I had some suspicions at the start, but managed to read 1/4 of the book before realizing I’d read it before. Hi, There are some that you DON'T want to read again, because they are ... yeah! Try Mathew Gregory Lewis' THE MONK. When you get done you won't be thinking Stephen King at all ... and written in 1796 ... to give you an idea, another monster book also influenced by the bloodshed on the guillotines in France, but it has less blood and more something else! Its horror is ... you can't make a movie of it, it's that strong!

It and Pet Sematary are my favorites. 

To the pretentious person above:

You have no idea about SK's "stories". You may comment on his literary style, but by only reading "few" of his books, you ought to go no further than that. I don't like Neil Gaiman's literary style very much, but I wouldn't comment on his storytelling competence (or the lack thereof) with my very limited knowledge of his stories.

I created a thread about the computer games Baldur's Gate II and Diablo II. You said "neither of them" is among your favourites. I can bet all my fortune on your cluelessness about those games. At least, specifically about Baldur's Gate II. It is nothing like "your" game WoW. Infinitely more sophisticated and demands some serious D&D knowledge to fully grasp it.

For your information, those "some folks" are very much aware of many things here. You cannot get away with "you're misinterpreting my post" type of cheap tricks.

Edited by Shadowyzard - December 11 2021 at 07:49

moshkito wrote: I have really only done 2 games, and have NEVER participated in a thread on other games

Oh really?

Here's the link: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=124484

Here's a part from YOUR post there: "But I have to admit that all of a sudden the simplicity of BG and D2 is much more attractive than the rest of the stuff ..."

"The simplicity of BG"? Can you explain that to me?

moshkito wrote: Hi, I think you are intentionally misinterpreting the whole thing to simply make your point more valid.

Your ego withholds your thinking ability. I'll not read the rest of your post. You're a hopeless case.

As I had said:

Shadowyzard wrote: For your information, those "some folks" are very much aware of many things here. You cannot get away with "you're misinterpreting my post" type of cheap tricks.

Edit: Ah, I've happened to see the ending of your post about my "ego gratification". 

You said you NEVER participated in a thread on other games. That means apart from World of Warcraft and EverQuest. But you did. And I PROVED that. You even pretended to understand Baldur's Gate and its "simplicity". You simply are wrong about Baldur's Gate, and were wrong about your claim of not participating in such a thread on games. It is understandable that you forgot what you wrote. But I showed it to you. All you had to do was admitting that you were wrong. (But you couldn't have compensated for your pretentiousness even then.) Your warped ego is something. Oh boy, it is something!..

Edited by Shadowyzard - December 13 2021 at 07:31

moshkito wrote: What I stated in the thread, did not specify that I played Diablo or BG at all.

I didn't say that you claimed to have played it. Pretentiousness is a broad term. If you denote the "simplicity" of a game without playing it, that is also within the scope of pretentiousness. And you did it. You do the same about Stephen King too. You're indeed an "insufferable prig" like The Dark Elf once said. If we were face to face, I would not be this nice. I would say that you're an "insufferable pri...", "insuccerable pric"... Yes, you guess it right! Priceless!.. "Insufferable prick song in my ears. I'd rather be deaf than hear what you sing!.." Lucky me, I don't have to hear you.

For your information, I'll not read the rest of your post. And if I could achieve that, I'll never interact with you again.

For those that are (relatively) new here, I wanted to say that this "dispute" has some serious antecedents. The above being knows it very well. 

I'm not interacting with the "thing" above, here. That life form even pretends to know how I consider myself, better than me. Not even ludicrous; too "low-level" for me to have fun.

Zeph wrote: moshkito wrote: Get off the right or wrong bs. And again, to me, compared to hundreds of years of literature, Stephen King still is the pulp writer for Hollywood ... as it has been shown by the quantity of films done off his novels, when few have the talent or ability to do a "real" Frankenstein (still not done right), a real "Vampyr", or a really well done "Carmilla" ... stuff that is far better written, and we have not, yet, even mentioned the very good work by Anne Rice, probably the last of the great Gothic writers in literature. SK will never have that distinction in the "horror" or even "Gothic" field. By whose decision? Who decides who gets distinction in those fields?