Comments on: What do you mean, Stephen King isn’t considered classic literature?

Comment on What do you mean, Stephen King isn’t considered classic literature? by: tanya

Wed, 10 Aug 2005 16:42:11 +0000

Hmm…i thought Mad magazine was a classic? am i wrong? well if i am Bill Wattersons Calvin & Hobbes is DEFINATELY a classic. all of them are.

i went through that too and checked out The Sun also Rises by Hemingway. I thought he wrote like a ten year old. But i enjoyed the book. he used the word “and” a lot.

your comment on my site was hilarious. i LOVED Fletch. another classic…

Comment on What do you mean, Stephen King isn’t considered classic literature? by: tabitha jane

Wed, 10 Aug 2005 16:05:40 +0000

you could read the lord of the rings, the hobbit and that samarillion (did i spell that right?) and all the other books that tolkein wrote about his made-up lands. i hear they are decent.

Comment on What do you mean, Stephen King isn’t considered classic literature? by: rebecca marie

Fri, 05 Aug 2005 23:08:35 +0000

okay okay, 1984 is subjective. i’m the only one i know who has read it that didn’t like it.

Comment on What do you mean, Stephen King isn’t considered classic literature? by: scrapping dani

Fri, 05 Aug 2005 22:52:22 +0000

I have a great book for you to read about Mormonism. It is called Under the banner of Heaven. It is freaky. It just goes to show how weird that religion is.

Comment on What do you mean, Stephen King isn’t considered classic literature? by: tabitha jane

Fri, 05 Aug 2005 22:26:49 +0000

i dunno rm, my husband LOVED “1984″ . . . i think it really is up to the reader to decide . . . so bill, if you wanna read it, go for it.
if you like sci-fi, try reading cs lewis’ science fiction trillogy. i didin’t care for it much but then again, i don’t like sci-fi.
a great classic (and funny) book is “don quixote”
and another, darker book i had to read for lit class that i ended up really intrigued by was “the underground man” by dostoyevsky.
most of my favorite books are hippie woman books so i’m not sure you’d be interested in my suggestions . . .
kurt vonneget (sp?) is good.

Comment on What do you mean, Stephen King isn’t considered classic literature? by: Bill

Fri, 05 Aug 2005 15:52:06 +0000

I loved Odd Thomas. Dean Koontz at his absolute best. Brother Gabe read that one first, and I borrowed it from him. I read it in a day and a half, staying up super late when I had to get up at 5:00 the next morning. I literally couldn't put it down. The only other book that has been as much a page turner for me is The Mormom Murders, also recommended by Gabe. It's actually a true story, but the book reads more like a suspenseful novel than a documentary. Genuinely riveting.

Comment on What do you mean, Stephen King isn’t considered classic literature? by: rebecca marie

Fri, 05 Aug 2005 15:46:29 +0000

don’t bother with 1984. it was supposed to be this groundbreaking deep thinker that makes you question, well, everything, but seriously, don’t bother. catcher in the rye however, is amazing. also? on a more contemporary note? odd thomas made me cry for about an hour. so the new stuff is JUST as good, and it’s too bad it’s not considered “classic.” some kid makes a nice arm pit fart and someone says “that was CLASSIC.” so i say, the newbies are classics too.