TheDaywalkersDad
Member
I haven't cared much for his work in the last decade. The Stand was great. The Gunslinger series was pretty good. Everything else is mediocre at best.
While his political views may have become more libertarian, I think he would have been challenged the idea of our contemporary firearms.
Gimli said, "But you speak of him as if he were a friend. I thought Fangorn was dangerous."
"Dangerous!" cried Gandalf. "And so am I, very dangerous: more dangerous than anything you will ever meet, unless you are brought alive before the seat of the Dark Lord. And Aragorn is dangerous, and Legolas is dangerous. You are beset with dangers, Gimli son of Gloin; for you are dangerous yourself, in your own fashion. Certainly the forest of Fangorn is perilous - not least to those that are too ready with their axes; and Fangorn himself, he is perilous too; yet he is wise and kindly nonetheless."
We tend to view being dangerous as a bad thing. But it's entirely natural to be able to defend yourself. And even awesome power is not to be feared in the hands of the good.
"There are no dangerous weapons; there are only dangerous men."
-- Robert Heinlein, Starship Troopers
Now THERE was a real libertarian...
.
"The current near-hysterical preoccupation with safety is at best a waste of resources and a crimp on the human spirit, and at worst an invitation to totalitarianism."
- Michael Crichton A State of Fear
Guys like King are just trying to appeal to the masses - they make money off of being popular.
Well look at it from his perspective. If he wrote guns into his books, they would have really short endings. "Creepy thing jumps out from behind here, Scared person shoots thing. The End."
I ment intellectually. Being a talented storyteller doesn't automatically give one's legislative opinion any credibility, nor does it prove that the person has the slightest idea about how social and criminal problems can and can not be solved. An unfounded opinion is meaningless, totally devoid of any value, regardless of the social status of the person who expressed it.
All statements must be judged and evaluated by their factual content, not by who made them. That, unfortunately, doesn't always apply. Some people abuse their social and financial status as an excuse for lying through their teeth and expect people to believe them only because they're rich or famous. It really ticks me off that more often than not they're right, the majority of people don't question the lack of facts behind their statements at all.
Actually, he portrays human behavior on both sides of the line very well and very accurately. Pulls no punches, glosses nothing over.
So he observes very well, very clearly....and then makes up his own mind on where he stands. If liberal, then with good reason (just like some of the rest of us, lol).
I hadnt read him in nearly 2 decades but The Stand is my favorite book. (Read Under the Dome last fall).