Comments on: The Big Green Monster

By: formerly known as concerned

formerly known as concerned — Mon, 26 Jul 2010 19:56:13 +0000

I know about attribution. Believe me. I also know about good manners and grace. I’m sorry you’re having such a strong reaction to my opinion, so strong that you’ve resorted to name calling. Now, you have a wonderful day.

By: LoGo

LoGo — Mon, 26 Jul 2010 18:51:26 +0000

You are missing the entire flavor of the stone. It is clear that you place more importance on thinking you are “right” than actually learning something about writing guidelines. Stay in your state of ignorant bliss. It is no skin off my back:)

By: formerly known as concerned

formerly known as concerned — Mon, 26 Jul 2010 14:27:48 +0000

I disagree again.
It is a fact that I think it is rude and disrespeful to leave out the author of a book. But as I said before, I am very protective of writers, and particularly of a great one like King is.

I am entitled to my opinion, right or wrong—agree or disagree. I own my opinion, and that’s a fact! I’m not trying to get you to change yours.

Again, the “Misery” film would not have been possible had it not been for King’s talent. That’s a fact!

By: LoGo

LoGo — Mon, 26 Jul 2010 02:08:55 +0000

First of all, you are right, everyone has the right to their opinion and to voice it. That does not negate the fact that the opinion can still be asinine.

Anyway, King wasn’t cited because she didn’t say “the book”. She said “the film.” There are millions of books that have become movies. I don’t know where you went to school, but I learned about author citing in about the 6th grade. If I am using the example of the *movie* Fried Green Tomatoes, it is not necessary to inform the reader that the movie was adapted from a book by Fannie Flagg. Why?…Because I am referencing a movie that is independent from the book.

So, you are entitled to think you are right, but just because you think it does not make it factual.

By: formerly known as concerned.

formerly known as concerned. — Sat, 24 Jul 2010 18:41:06 +0000

I disagree. King wasn’t mentioned, and that’s wrong in my book. Isn’t it great we can agree to disagree. I don’t think your opinion is asinine. I’ll fight tooth and nail for you to be able to voice an opinion.

By: LoGo

LoGo — Sat, 24 Jul 2010 04:39:23 +0000

To formally known as concerned :

The article was not about “Misery” or Steven King or any other author. She used the film “Misery” to introduce the fact that she figuratively felt captive by something, just as the character in the movie was literally captive. It’s okay if you aren’t snapping too fast enough to ‘get it,’ but egad the above rant about the author crediting and movies from books is asinine.

By: formerly known as concerned

formerly known as concerned — Fri, 23 Jul 2010 22:32:39 +0000

Oh. I got the garden thing. But I don’t see what any of this has to do with the King novel. In fact, I didn’t see the writer of this mention or give King credit. Maybe I’m just terrbly protective of writers, especially great ones like King. Sure, “Misery” was a movie. But it couldn’t have been a movie had King not written it.

By: Phill Senters

Phill Senters — Fri, 23 Jul 2010 17:21:43 +0000

I was beginning to think maybe your family was right about the psychiatrist until you mentioned the garden.

By: LoGo

LoGo — Fri, 23 Jul 2010 01:29:21 +0000

Thanks for a good laugh! You had me going. I was wondering what booger was attacking you, little did I know that veggies could be so ruthless lol.

To Formerly known as concerned:

You must have never had a garden my friend. The writer is describing how she is being overtaken by her garden, and as an avid gardener, I can attest to that. Gardens have to have constant attention and can feel like it literally takes over life. She is essentially humorously exaggerating having a garden.

By: formerly known as concerned

formerly known as concerned — Thu, 22 Jul 2010 20:34:35 +0000

Um. I’m sorry, but I just don’t get this one. What am I missing?
Thanks.