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 [email protected],
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 [email protected].
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
