You don't want my opinion on this hypocrite who makes a living promoting gun violence but wants to dictate "how" I can and will defend myself and my loved ones from characters much like the ones he creates. Shame on you.
No. Just the author.
It opened my eyes to the ignorance of seemingly educated men.
You might be from New ENGLAND sir, but this is AMERICA!
It's so nice to hear an intelligent and knowledgeable opinion on the subject of guns from someone who isn't coming from the extreme right or left. I have been a hardcore Stephen King fan for over 25 years. Now I've found a new level of respect for the man as well as the author. A must read for any SK or gun enthusiast. And for those who are coming from the far right or left. If you can get over yourself and your causes long enough to read this, you may learn something...
Stephen King has been one of my favorite authors since I read Night Shift, shortly after it was published in 1978. This being the case, it would be dishonest of me to suggest that after reading "Guns" I would be less likely to order another one of his books. But it's also true that when I do, it will be with newfound reluctance.
What has always attracted me to Stephen King's novels and short stories is his writing style. I used to tell people that King wrote so well I would enjoy anything he wrote - fiction, nonfiction… even his laundry list. I can't tell them that anymore. In writing. "Guns", King has added his name to the growing list of entertainers (be they singers, actors, athletes, or authors) using success in their primary endeavor as a platform from which to espouse their political views. The problem with doing so is that no matter which side of an issue you support, you alienate half of your audience. Now I should've known better than to listen to this story. Having listened to several of King's recent novels, his political leanings were clear to me. But after listening to the first few minutes (offered as a free sample) I thought his essay might be primarily an indictment of the media (something long overdue, in my opinion). The first few minutes of "Guns" did indeed highlight much of what's wrong with the media today. Following this, King called for a tempering of extremism on both sides of the gun control issue. I began to relax and think that this might not be so bad. Unfortunately, my thinking was premature. As "Guns" continued, King abandoned his moderate stance, and launched into a diatribe against guns. In attempting to persuade his readers/listeners, King relied primarily on emotional arguments rather than facts.. And when he did attempt to provide facts, he often got them wrong.
As the narrator, Christian Rummel turned in a workmanlike performance. Toward the end of "Guns" his tone became somewhat strident and shrill, but he may have just been taking his cue from Mr. King.
If I were King's editor, I would strongly recommend against the publication of this story. After all, why alienate half of your customer base? Of course, as successful as King has become, I suspect he has little concern over the fact that expressing his political opinions may hurt sales. And considering the disdain in which he holds his fans, he may even take pleasure in the idea.
Additional comments? It's clear that in writing "Guns" King is treading unfamiliar ground. "Guns" is rife with inaccuracies, and in at least one instance, the most recent example he could find to support his contentions was from 1959. I wouldn't go so far as to call "Guns" a screed, but In my opinion,calling it an essay is like calling a tabloid a newspaper.
I love how hard hitting this is. Great piece on guns and gun control.
The tone of his voice was appropriate for this piece.
Totally listen to it in one sitting. It has greater impact that way.
Yes I definitely would. It's Stephen King for crying out loud.
Indifference would be the best word.
Meh meh meh.
Stephen King is imaginative but he babbled on about gun control in an illogical manner.
I think Christian Rummel was set up for failure having to narrate this dribble. Mr. Rummel added fiery disdain that was enjoyable but the 'script' doomed his performance. I would read something else he narrated.
No. The narration was good...Mr. Rummel could read a gothic novel or thriller and be amazing. I think Mr. King should have had his "editorial" reviewed prior to publishing. It was not organized and fluid and more of a soap box forum that a critic of gun control and legislation.
Homemaker, married to Dave Bargar, mother of 8, Christian, Seventh-day Adventist, love to read!
Of course Stephen King has a great voice and reading style, but this essay falls very short of being complete. He mentions several things early on that he fails to follow through on. He is misleading in that he draws the reader in by leadng you to believe that it just might be an unbiased essay. It could not be further from the truth. Before you reach the end he shows a very mouthy liberal bias. His essay becomes very foul mouthed and then it becomes hard to really listen to it. Yes, Mr. King, you should stick to your fiction books.......and clean up your potty mouth. The essay was almost worth the 69 cents I paid for it.
Fast pace and fast. Not a wasted word. You will cling to the narrators voice for a fast 45 minute ride.
Stephen King seems one of the first people to simply bring this contemporary issue under the light of logic. It is amazing how most people (attmitingly myself included) hang on or have hung on to at least one incorrect assumptions on this debate. Assumptions that have been spoon fed to us by the media, special interest and politicians on self serving missions that happen to be at odds with fixing the problems.
Mr. King throws abucket of water on this issue in a cool, down to earth prose that show how political polarity and otherwise immature childishness has made BOTH SIDES of the arguement hopelessly divided. How thier lack of accountability and misconceptions have lead to lofty goals that are all but inachievable even with full compromise from the other side.
The writing is superb, as one would expect. No matter your viewpoint, he will anger you, mainly by his insightful description of your self-contradictory opinions. He lambastes each side's wrong headed assertions and assumptions, then encourages individuals to rethink their own views and engage in rational discussion, rather than parroting a party line.
Though I would add, some of this own assertions need a tad rethinking themselves.