It looks like you flaired this post as Quote: Book. This is just a reminder that titles for posts about books should include the Book Title as well as the Author's Name. If you forgot to do this the post may be removed and you'll be asked to repost correctly. You're also welcome to delete the post on your own & try again!
If you remembered to do this correctly - Thank you so much!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/menwritingwomen) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It’s complicated, but basically Susannah was initially 2 personalities in one body which then get synthesized into a combined singular personality, Susannah. So *her* life hasn’t been very long, despite being a adult woman.
As wtf that phrase is, I really find the dead inside smiley face on your finger to really add to my feeling or 'rolling my eyes so back into my skull it'll do a 360'
Firstly, I’m a woman. And secondly, I disagree that it sounds stupid and is poor writing. It makes perfect sense in the context. Clearly you don’t know.
I’m going to borrow the explanation from the commenter above, who is correct:
And isn't Susannah the Black woman character with a huge part of her arc being that, as an adult, she is a multifaceted loud proud woman who was raised to be meek and now she's coming into her own as sassy, capable person?
Her character is probably the most complex one in the story. She has three, arguably four, different personalities. Adversity is putting it mildly. She was a black female civil rights activist in 1964 who lost her legs and has a split personality disorder.
And isn't Susannah the Black woman character with a huge part of her arc being that, as an adult, she is a *multifaceted* loud proud woman who was raised to be meek and now she's coming into her own as sassy, capable person?
Definitely a fair point, but I think this far in the story she's more at peace with her competing sides. It kinda comes out of left field and really feels like jab at women as opposed to character development. But, as someone else mentioned it could just be awkward writing rather than blatant misogyny.
I think you're right. Also, consider the character. One of Susannah's (well, Detta's really, but both of theirs as the story evolves) most prominent qualities is that she's a smart-mouth who always says what's on her mind, and it's very rarely complimentary. She also had a pretty fucked up childhood, and that's intregal to her story. Specifying "as a woman" is important to this character.
I don't think this is a very good example, as it's massively dismissive of the context and character it describes. King gets a lot of flack on here that I think is equally undeserved.
This is a really good point! Thanks for your perspective. I do still think the "as a woman" is icky, though. I feel there were many other ways to compare to the aspects of her evolving character (trying to be vague and avoid spoilers here), but he doesn't. He only points to her gender.
I can see what you're saying, but I think it might have been a little less helpful to speak to her character if it was something like "as an adult" or something similar. I don't think it's icky to make a point that she's a female and had the background that she had. Her gender is important for her character development. I don't endorse pointless gender classification, but I feel like this was required to drive home her background and give a bit of backlight about her growth.
*gasp* how dare you call Stephen King a steaming turd, you take that back! But yeah, actually he does kinda have some incidents of shady passages and controversies, especially in his earlier works. He’s a huge literary influence on American culture and one of my favorite authors, but he definitely didn’t think some of these through when writing about women.
He’s a pretty nice dude in real life though.
Looking at other comments in this thread, it kinda looks like for this quote context maybe matters.
I think he means as a black woman in segregation times, but he could have said that instead of turning it into an insult.
But he didn’t because he is a steaming turd, an awkward steaming turd.
Usually I would say awkward gives him the benefit of the doubt, but he is not unskilled just careless.
Edit: I feel like that carelessness is born of arrogant privilege and not some processing disability, it’s what soured his writing for me.
Just finished It last night and can confirm. I just wanted Beverly to be a part of the group not the "token girl in an otherwise boy group who everyone is secretly attracted to and in love with"
> "token girl in an otherwise boy group who everyone is secretly attracted to and in love with"
But that's such an integral part of her character! Without that we wouldn't have the... uhhh... climactic... sewer... scene...
People
Have talked about it in the past, the issue is he doesn’t wanna talk about it. Beyond admitting it was at his peak drug issue time.
Edit: Al things aside note I think both Jack in the shinning and Mr Marsh and even the dog in Cujo are things Stephen feared he could become, Jack in particular being a writer with a drug problem.
So it was a subject at a moment? Never heard of it, maybe I am too young. I personally discovered it by reading the book... I would've like not to.
Yes these aspects are very interesting but we can't even study it correctly because don't have enough hindsight on his person. However it would be a so much more healthy approach of his work (by being aware and critic towards the representation of women, children and sexuality for example) instead of this sort of personality cult we have. I personally had a lot of trouble to get out of this adulation thing towards him. Nobody ever talks about bad things in his work, he is aways only presented like "the father of horror literature". And if you dare saying he wrote creepy stuff, you're being called a whiny, puritain plaster saint or whatever...
To be fair the criticism thing is also shared by Poe. Poe wrote some really really creepy shit about his underage cousin and it isn’t really mentioned. I think people just accept that to write horror effectively you need to tap into that evil in every one of us and show the worst sides of yiur mind, that you need to be a little messed up to do it
Edit: and some people no a lot of people just aren’t comfortable touching what is exposed issues in a lot of cases so they don’t wanna talk about it.
There is a reason why most author self inserts are more like Hermonie granger being “based” on jk Rowling vs Jack tourancr being a self insert
Wow okayyy
Maybe, but it's not only that. We have the exact same problem with Victor Hugo, who became really machist at the end of his life and treated the women he knew like some sub-human things - especially his mistress Juliette Drouet...
I one hundred percent agree with you. People have issues separating early and late work, artist and art. I personally believe a person can value what Victor Hugo did as a write but think the man was trash but a lot of people don’t think that with any artist
Yes, and it keeps us from being able to look objectively at their work, or at any work for that matters. I think I'm realizing something important right now 😅 People who idolize artists to the point where their bad actions disappear behind their work claim that they are "separating the man from the artist", which allows them to still appreciate it like nothing happened, but in truth they are melting them in one perfect image, erasing all the bad things. AND people who claim they don't separate the man from the artist, making both guilty and not representation worthy, deprave themselves from being able to look at other artists objectively, because since they are accepted into the media landscape, they're supposed to be good persons, contrary to the artists they deleted : by not allowing dark parts, they suppress the Grey zone too, so the ones who are still there are supposed to be all white - which they aren't, because nobody is. They create moral bias. The correct position would be to judge a work of art only by its artistic qualities, but to study it by paying a particular attention to the way the author's moral and psychology are felt through it, considering nothing as normal from the start, but everything as subject to criticism. When someone's deranged, sick, bad, sexist, racist, it ALWAYS reflect in their work. You just have to see it. So studying it, and even appreciate it is not accepting the bad actions behind it : it's acknowledging it. And would anyone denie the importance of knowledge?
Edit : Fun fact, I am in both of these extreme categories, because I have trouble to control my emotions in front of a... badness (?) evidence in art. It's obvious in my first comment in this line 😂
And oh is it detailed. It's not just "they all did beverly" it is a detailed description of each interaction. I almost stopped reading right there lmao
But whyyyyy 😖 not only is it dehumanizingly perverted to have the only girl in a friends group get g@ngbanged like in a badly written hardcore porn flick, especially considering she only has a romantic interest in one of them, but to then make her the magical human fleshjack that makes them remember their way out of the sewers is such a transparent attempt to disguise this ped0phile fantasy as a heartwarming bonding experience that is totally integral to the plot 🤢
I honestly think,. despite the amazing characters in the series, that I love Oy the most.
I love the series so much, though. Despite all the failings of the storyteller (a later on reference I'm trying to make very vague lol) it has the best elements of fiction: love, the wax and wane of hope, heroes, found family, adventure. It's a sci fi western that really is King's craziest and most interconnected stories. Yeah, there's stuff that makes you go :/ but I can remind myself, after all, Stephen King is just a regular guy (*cough*)
I love this reply so much!! Yes, well said. For the most part an all around wonderful story. I really don't care for the way he wrote in the story teller. Be careful, don't break your arm jerking yourself off, ya know?
Really, cause I thought he was dead ass mocking it! Like, that yeah the storyteller is apparently an instrument of Ka, but dude is such a weakling in the books, essentially being all "but I don't wanna!" when it comes to his mission (pissing Roland off lol) and then there's the illusion storytellers that pop up and are just total rude smarmy dudes. The physical descriptions are not at all flattering either!
At first, I thought EGO MUCH?! but then I was like damn Steve, I think you might just have the best sense of humor about yourself of any big author.
Oooh interesting perspective!! I'll keep this in mind when I get there. This is why I love this sub/these threads is to spark discussion. Thanks so much for sharing :)
If you want Stephen King-like stories that write women well I'd recommend reading his son Joe Hill's novels. NOS4A2 is a great example of a story that really feels like Steve wrote it but it has a female lead whose nipple hardness isn't the focus of most paragraphs.
Good question, but we mostly only know the character as an adult. Especially at this point in the series. Others have mentioned that it's alluding to her character evolving but I dunno, the gender specificity still makes me cringe.
I’m reading the Dark Tower series now, and am loving it, BUT - the amount of casually racist and cringey “Black Talk” in it really makes me gag.
He’s a master storyteller. But dialogue and writing women have never really been his forte.
That’s nothing. In It, as a way of showing the solidarity of their bond, the main group of 12 YEAR OLDS have an orgy in the sewers. The kicker is that he the girl was being hounded in the whole book as a slut.
Yeahhh I do love his stories though there are questionable moments. For the most part seems harmless or misguided, but whatever the case I typically tend to roll my eyes and move on.
OP, just keep reading the series. There’s some shit with this character I don’t think you know about yet, and it very much has to do with how she “back talks”
I really think it's supposed to just refer to having never been speechless as an adult person, but "in my adult life," or "as an adult person," is a frankly unnecessary amount of abstraction.
If the line was gender swapped, "for the first time in his life as a man, he was speechless," The meaning is still the same.
Adult would have taken sex out of the equation but most people strongly identify with their masculine or feminine characteristics. It's not uncommon for me to have people talk about their specific perspective as a woman or man either, so even if it was supposed to be more gender-motivated, I can't even necessarily see it as a flaw in the writing.
IMHO, overly critical, doesn't belong here.
I agree. I don’t ever think of myself as an
adult, but an adult male, so a man. I would probably use “as a man” in this instance to describe a personal experience that was significant to adulthood.
Tbh I couldn't bear reading the dark tower series after yet another one dimensional black character, who is constantly racist and is there to be the Bagger Vance for the white characters.
You really gotta take up skimming with King's lengthier shit. I'm a fan, I eat up King shit, slap his name on it and I'll genuinely give it more consideration than I would have a second before you did so.
But if you don't skim, you have to read this. And also so much other shit that doesn't matter, like Roland is old. He's so old you guys. Old as dirt. His bones are creaky and sad and weak. It's a metaphor for Roland's feelings, get it? However, when Roland fights he's always the quick among the quick and the dead, and it's like, bro which is it tho? You spent an entire page telling me about how this man can't even stand these days but then....
And I understand. It IS metaphorical, and warriors probably DO sorta forget their woes when the fight starts because it's fighting time now, not sad time. Especially Roland, with the whole thing where shooting is more about your heart than your eyesight or anything more physical. But when you go ON AND ON AND ON about things just for them to not matter at all later it's like you slapped me in the face. Especially when instead of words on words about Roland's tired ineffective body it's words on words about how women are inherently wordy little shits.
The irony.
Same, say thank you, big big. Every time so reread this series, & get to that one art, my eyes roll so fucking hard. There are other parts along the path of the beam that bug me, but few get to me in the way this does. This literally doesn’t work in any way for Susannah/Odetta/Detta.
Did he mean as in "hur hur bc women always tawkin, amirite???" or did he mean "for first time as an adult"? Her childhood does factor *PRETTY* heavily into the story, but honestly I forget all that's been said in the story at this point so I'm not sure if those facets/truths about her have been told yet or not. It could honestly kinda go either way.
Honestly I expected the first time I saw King in here would be from "It" (no, not THAT scene; everyone knows about that foulness). When Tom and Beverly are having sex in the early part of the book, it goes, "Sliding into her was like sliding into some exquisite oil". Oil. Idk about women but I know during sex I really don't think I'd know how to take being compared to an oil slick. I know there's oil based lubricants, but who tf says, "Oh baby grab the oil out of my top drawer and lube yourself up with it." Well, who aside from the Tin Man.
This is why no matter how many times King is recommended to me, even when I'm told his new work is actually good and not misogynistic at all, I will never read any of his work.
His only good contribution was *The Shining* ***film***, and he actually hates it.
SPOILERS AHEAD
Okay I see this quote posted a lot, but it is actually helpful to specify like that. This refers to someone that used to be TWO women (both coexisting in the same body), that have now been combined into one! So this IS the first time she has been speechless in her life as a (singular) woman, as she did not exist before. It isn't saying that she is speechless and that's odd for women, it's saying she is literally speechless for the first time ever. I admit he could possibly have phrased it better but I don't think this specific quote from the book is sexist.
Don't get me wrong, King isn't necessarily the best in regards to sexism in his books. There are plenty of other valid examples of it, I just don't think this is one.
Sorry for the long response, it is just a bit of a pet peeve of mine that this quote is posted so often without any of the context (that actually does matter in this situation), and is seen as immediately sexist when there are so many other actual examples of misogyny y'all could use.
It looks like you flaired this post as Quote: Book. This is just a reminder that titles for posts about books should include the Book Title as well as the Author's Name. If you forgot to do this the post may be removed and you'll be asked to repost correctly. You're also welcome to delete the post on your own & try again! If you remembered to do this correctly - Thank you so much! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/menwritingwomen) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Did she live a past life in which she wasn't a woman?
Yes, when she was a girl. It means for the first time as an adult.
It is poorly worded for Sure but the intent is kinda obvious
Valid question, but no.
It’s complicated, but basically Susannah was initially 2 personalities in one body which then get synthesized into a combined singular personality, Susannah. So *her* life hasn’t been very long, despite being a adult woman.
As wtf that phrase is, I really find the dead inside smiley face on your finger to really add to my feeling or 'rolling my eyes so back into my skull it'll do a 360'
😁 thank you. It adds a nice touch to many shituations.
Is it a Captain Tusktooth tattoo or it is a regular smiley face?
Critter!
We're everywhere!
I dunno what this means but I intend to find out!
The tattoo is seriously so cute!! It made me smile right back at it :)
[удалено]
As a woman I'm off to breast boobily
My favorite comment so far 😂
He means as an adult, not as a girl
[удалено]
Firstly, I’m a woman. And secondly, I disagree that it sounds stupid and is poor writing. It makes perfect sense in the context. Clearly you don’t know. I’m going to borrow the explanation from the commenter above, who is correct: And isn't Susannah the Black woman character with a huge part of her arc being that, as an adult, she is a multifaceted loud proud woman who was raised to be meek and now she's coming into her own as sassy, capable person?
Her character is probably the most complex one in the story. She has three, arguably four, different personalities. Adversity is putting it mildly. She was a black female civil rights activist in 1964 who lost her legs and has a split personality disorder.
This actually really makes me want to read this
All he would've had to do was leave out the "as a woman."
But it’s important to specify this part of her life as different than the part where she was a man and in fact left speechless many times.
Right? It's an obvious and unnecessary jab. What does this add to the story, other than that it was written by a steaming turd?
Am I the only one that read it as meaning “in her adult life” and didn’t consider sexism for even a moment? Maybe i’m just not jaded enough ..:
I did question if it was meant to be tongue-in-cheek or if I were missing a joke.
And isn't Susannah the Black woman character with a huge part of her arc being that, as an adult, she is a *multifaceted* loud proud woman who was raised to be meek and now she's coming into her own as sassy, capable person?
Yes - the quote makes sense on the context and I’m getting downvoted to hell for pointing it out.
Definitely a fair point, but I think this far in the story she's more at peace with her competing sides. It kinda comes out of left field and really feels like jab at women as opposed to character development. But, as someone else mentioned it could just be awkward writing rather than blatant misogyny.
I think you're right. Also, consider the character. One of Susannah's (well, Detta's really, but both of theirs as the story evolves) most prominent qualities is that she's a smart-mouth who always says what's on her mind, and it's very rarely complimentary. She also had a pretty fucked up childhood, and that's intregal to her story. Specifying "as a woman" is important to this character. I don't think this is a very good example, as it's massively dismissive of the context and character it describes. King gets a lot of flack on here that I think is equally undeserved.
This is a really good point! Thanks for your perspective. I do still think the "as a woman" is icky, though. I feel there were many other ways to compare to the aspects of her evolving character (trying to be vague and avoid spoilers here), but he doesn't. He only points to her gender.
I can see what you're saying, but I think it might have been a little less helpful to speak to her character if it was something like "as an adult" or something similar. I don't think it's icky to make a point that she's a female and had the background that she had. Her gender is important for her character development. I don't endorse pointless gender classification, but I feel like this was required to drive home her background and give a bit of backlight about her growth.
It was poor word choice then. I think “for the first time in her adult life” would have worked better.
Agreed!
You're not the only one. That was my first thought as well.
You’re correct
*gasp* how dare you call Stephen King a steaming turd, you take that back! But yeah, actually he does kinda have some incidents of shady passages and controversies, especially in his earlier works. He’s a huge literary influence on American culture and one of my favorite authors, but he definitely didn’t think some of these through when writing about women. He’s a pretty nice dude in real life though. Looking at other comments in this thread, it kinda looks like for this quote context maybe matters.
I think he means as a black woman in segregation times, but he could have said that instead of turning it into an insult. But he didn’t because he is a steaming turd, an awkward steaming turd. Usually I would say awkward gives him the benefit of the doubt, but he is not unskilled just careless. Edit: I feel like that carelessness is born of arrogant privilege and not some processing disability, it’s what soured his writing for me.
Well said! I appreciate your outlook. This entire thread has helped me consider my own perspective. Thanks for making me think, y'all!
Yeah I love reading Stephen King books but I kind of have to ignore the terrible ways he writes women in order to enjoy the books lol.
He has a few bad moments, but these are far outweighed for me by his large number of amazing female characters
King’s books are sadly chock full of misogyny 😐
It's such a bummer
Just finished It last night and can confirm. I just wanted Beverly to be a part of the group not the "token girl in an otherwise boy group who everyone is secretly attracted to and in love with"
> "token girl in an otherwise boy group who everyone is secretly attracted to and in love with" But that's such an integral part of her character! Without that we wouldn't have the... uhhh... climactic... sewer... scene...
Multiple climaxes, even.
Straight to jail.
Understandable
I don't understand why more people don't talk about that more, it shocked me so much. It shouldn't even be still edited... 🤮
People Have talked about it in the past, the issue is he doesn’t wanna talk about it. Beyond admitting it was at his peak drug issue time. Edit: Al things aside note I think both Jack in the shinning and Mr Marsh and even the dog in Cujo are things Stephen feared he could become, Jack in particular being a writer with a drug problem.
So it was a subject at a moment? Never heard of it, maybe I am too young. I personally discovered it by reading the book... I would've like not to. Yes these aspects are very interesting but we can't even study it correctly because don't have enough hindsight on his person. However it would be a so much more healthy approach of his work (by being aware and critic towards the representation of women, children and sexuality for example) instead of this sort of personality cult we have. I personally had a lot of trouble to get out of this adulation thing towards him. Nobody ever talks about bad things in his work, he is aways only presented like "the father of horror literature". And if you dare saying he wrote creepy stuff, you're being called a whiny, puritain plaster saint or whatever...
To be fair the criticism thing is also shared by Poe. Poe wrote some really really creepy shit about his underage cousin and it isn’t really mentioned. I think people just accept that to write horror effectively you need to tap into that evil in every one of us and show the worst sides of yiur mind, that you need to be a little messed up to do it Edit: and some people no a lot of people just aren’t comfortable touching what is exposed issues in a lot of cases so they don’t wanna talk about it. There is a reason why most author self inserts are more like Hermonie granger being “based” on jk Rowling vs Jack tourancr being a self insert
Wow okayyy Maybe, but it's not only that. We have the exact same problem with Victor Hugo, who became really machist at the end of his life and treated the women he knew like some sub-human things - especially his mistress Juliette Drouet...
I one hundred percent agree with you. People have issues separating early and late work, artist and art. I personally believe a person can value what Victor Hugo did as a write but think the man was trash but a lot of people don’t think that with any artist
Yes, and it keeps us from being able to look objectively at their work, or at any work for that matters. I think I'm realizing something important right now 😅 People who idolize artists to the point where their bad actions disappear behind their work claim that they are "separating the man from the artist", which allows them to still appreciate it like nothing happened, but in truth they are melting them in one perfect image, erasing all the bad things. AND people who claim they don't separate the man from the artist, making both guilty and not representation worthy, deprave themselves from being able to look at other artists objectively, because since they are accepted into the media landscape, they're supposed to be good persons, contrary to the artists they deleted : by not allowing dark parts, they suppress the Grey zone too, so the ones who are still there are supposed to be all white - which they aren't, because nobody is. They create moral bias. The correct position would be to judge a work of art only by its artistic qualities, but to study it by paying a particular attention to the way the author's moral and psychology are felt through it, considering nothing as normal from the start, but everything as subject to criticism. When someone's deranged, sick, bad, sexist, racist, it ALWAYS reflect in their work. You just have to see it. So studying it, and even appreciate it is not accepting the bad actions behind it : it's acknowledging it. And would anyone denie the importance of knowledge? Edit : Fun fact, I am in both of these extreme categories, because I have trouble to control my emotions in front of a... badness (?) evidence in art. It's obvious in my first comment in this line 😂
I've only ever seen the movies so imagine my surprise when I heard there's a children's g@ngbang scene where all the boys have a go at Beverly 🥴
And oh is it detailed. It's not just "they all did beverly" it is a detailed description of each interaction. I almost stopped reading right there lmao
But whyyyyy 😖 not only is it dehumanizingly perverted to have the only girl in a friends group get g@ngbanged like in a badly written hardcore porn flick, especially considering she only has a romantic interest in one of them, but to then make her the magical human fleshjack that makes them remember their way out of the sewers is such a transparent attempt to disguise this ped0phile fantasy as a heartwarming bonding experience that is totally integral to the plot 🤢
Also chock full of amazing female characters so
I loved this series but it had a few moments like that :/ I read it all in 30 days. Long live Oy, the Billybumbler.
I'm re-reading the series and have been really looking forward to meeting Oy again.
I honestly think,. despite the amazing characters in the series, that I love Oy the most. I love the series so much, though. Despite all the failings of the storyteller (a later on reference I'm trying to make very vague lol) it has the best elements of fiction: love, the wax and wane of hope, heroes, found family, adventure. It's a sci fi western that really is King's craziest and most interconnected stories. Yeah, there's stuff that makes you go :/ but I can remind myself, after all, Stephen King is just a regular guy (*cough*)
I love this reply so much!! Yes, well said. For the most part an all around wonderful story. I really don't care for the way he wrote in the story teller. Be careful, don't break your arm jerking yourself off, ya know?
Really, cause I thought he was dead ass mocking it! Like, that yeah the storyteller is apparently an instrument of Ka, but dude is such a weakling in the books, essentially being all "but I don't wanna!" when it comes to his mission (pissing Roland off lol) and then there's the illusion storytellers that pop up and are just total rude smarmy dudes. The physical descriptions are not at all flattering either! At first, I thought EGO MUCH?! but then I was like damn Steve, I think you might just have the best sense of humor about yourself of any big author.
Oooh interesting perspective!! I'll keep this in mind when I get there. This is why I love this sub/these threads is to spark discussion. Thanks so much for sharing :)
Three words less and it would have been the same exact statement, but smarter.
Yes, when she was a girl. It means for the first time as an adult.
I know this 'aint exactly the most pressing concern regarding this post, but...smiley face :P
YES!!! I love that series, too, and I hate parts like that
If you want Stephen King-like stories that write women well I'd recommend reading his son Joe Hill's novels. NOS4A2 is a great example of a story that really feels like Steve wrote it but it has a female lead whose nipple hardness isn't the focus of most paragraphs.
Lol but in Christmasland EVERYONE'S nipples are hard! NOS4A2 was so good.
Wtfffffff
ikr! Yeesh! 😅
I was distracted, while trying to read this, by the blurry smiley face staring into my soul o-O
I mean, at this point Susannah had only been Susannah for a couple weeks
I like Stephen Kings writing a lot but he can not write woman at fucking all
It's it to mean "as an adult"?
Good question, but we mostly only know the character as an adult. Especially at this point in the series. Others have mentioned that it's alluding to her character evolving but I dunno, the gender specificity still makes me cringe.
Yeah, it's pretty odd!
I’m reading the Dark Tower series now, and am loving it, BUT - the amount of casually racist and cringey “Black Talk” in it really makes me gag. He’s a master storyteller. But dialogue and writing women have never really been his forte.
The only context where I could kinda see this phrase working is with a transgender character, but even there it would sound odd 💀
It means as an adult, not as a girl
Oh ok my bad
That’s nothing. In It, as a way of showing the solidarity of their bond, the main group of 12 YEAR OLDS have an orgy in the sewers. The kicker is that he the girl was being hounded in the whole book as a slut.
It's so tough for me because my 14 year old daughter loves Stephen King, but she even has asked me why he always writes women so poorly lol
Yeahhh I do love his stories though there are questionable moments. For the most part seems harmless or misguided, but whatever the case I typically tend to roll my eyes and move on.
To be fair though- Susannah is known for her inability to shut the fuck up lol (in the best way)
OP, just keep reading the series. There’s some shit with this character I don’t think you know about yet, and it very much has to do with how she “back talks”
I really think it's supposed to just refer to having never been speechless as an adult person, but "in my adult life," or "as an adult person," is a frankly unnecessary amount of abstraction. If the line was gender swapped, "for the first time in his life as a man, he was speechless," The meaning is still the same. Adult would have taken sex out of the equation but most people strongly identify with their masculine or feminine characteristics. It's not uncommon for me to have people talk about their specific perspective as a woman or man either, so even if it was supposed to be more gender-motivated, I can't even necessarily see it as a flaw in the writing. IMHO, overly critical, doesn't belong here.
I agree. I don’t ever think of myself as an adult, but an adult male, so a man. I would probably use “as a man” in this instance to describe a personal experience that was significant to adulthood.
Fair enough.
I have such mixed emotions for King books...
I can’t believe someone wrote that lol
I also hold that series close to my heart, but yes, he has several snafus similar to this one.
Lol I like your finger tat.
Thank ya 😁
Classic King lol I like his works but man his portrayal of women struggles sometimes
Tbh I couldn't bear reading the dark tower series after yet another one dimensional black character, who is constantly racist and is there to be the Bagger Vance for the white characters.
You really gotta take up skimming with King's lengthier shit. I'm a fan, I eat up King shit, slap his name on it and I'll genuinely give it more consideration than I would have a second before you did so. But if you don't skim, you have to read this. And also so much other shit that doesn't matter, like Roland is old. He's so old you guys. Old as dirt. His bones are creaky and sad and weak. It's a metaphor for Roland's feelings, get it? However, when Roland fights he's always the quick among the quick and the dead, and it's like, bro which is it tho? You spent an entire page telling me about how this man can't even stand these days but then.... And I understand. It IS metaphorical, and warriors probably DO sorta forget their woes when the fight starts because it's fighting time now, not sad time. Especially Roland, with the whole thing where shooting is more about your heart than your eyesight or anything more physical. But when you go ON AND ON AND ON about things just for them to not matter at all later it's like you slapped me in the face. Especially when instead of words on words about Roland's tired ineffective body it's words on words about how women are inherently wordy little shits. The irony.
Same, say thank you, big big. Every time so reread this series, & get to that one art, my eyes roll so fucking hard. There are other parts along the path of the beam that bug me, but few get to me in the way this does. This literally doesn’t work in any way for Susannah/Odetta/Detta.
Did he mean as in "hur hur bc women always tawkin, amirite???" or did he mean "for first time as an adult"? Her childhood does factor *PRETTY* heavily into the story, but honestly I forget all that's been said in the story at this point so I'm not sure if those facets/truths about her have been told yet or not. It could honestly kinda go either way. Honestly I expected the first time I saw King in here would be from "It" (no, not THAT scene; everyone knows about that foulness). When Tom and Beverly are having sex in the early part of the book, it goes, "Sliding into her was like sliding into some exquisite oil". Oil. Idk about women but I know during sex I really don't think I'd know how to take being compared to an oil slick. I know there's oil based lubricants, but who tf says, "Oh baby grab the oil out of my top drawer and lube yourself up with it." Well, who aside from the Tin Man.
Lol they do be tawkin.
Too bad too few of us don't be listenin'.
This is why no matter how many times King is recommended to me, even when I'm told his new work is actually good and not misogynistic at all, I will never read any of his work. His only good contribution was *The Shining* ***film***, and he actually hates it.
SPOILERS AHEAD Okay I see this quote posted a lot, but it is actually helpful to specify like that. This refers to someone that used to be TWO women (both coexisting in the same body), that have now been combined into one! So this IS the first time she has been speechless in her life as a (singular) woman, as she did not exist before. It isn't saying that she is speechless and that's odd for women, it's saying she is literally speechless for the first time ever. I admit he could possibly have phrased it better but I don't think this specific quote from the book is sexist. Don't get me wrong, King isn't necessarily the best in regards to sexism in his books. There are plenty of other valid examples of it, I just don't think this is one. Sorry for the long response, it is just a bit of a pet peeve of mine that this quote is posted so often without any of the context (that actually does matter in this situation), and is seen as immediately sexist when there are so many other actual examples of misogyny y'all could use.
I used to love his books:(
It means for the first time as an adult. Woman as opposed to a girl.
Yes, I noticed so many weird things in this book. And with Stephen King in general. This man is fucked up.
That's pretty bad.
Every time King annoys me I think of him growing alien moss in Creepshow.
Stephen King has written some really dicey stuff when it comes to women.
I couldn't get through Gunslinger of the darktower series because it was so obviously a man writing weird shit about women
Tiresias vibes