The Stand is absurd for the following reasons:
1. The US government would never develop a virus that could wipe-out civilisation
2. The US government would never commit genocide, i.e. releasing the virus behind the Iron Curtain and in the People's Republic of China
3. The US government would never kill journalists
Obviously, Stephen King hates the US government and the US military.
While he seems to come across this way in The Stand, I also should point out that he did do at least one benefit to help the troops after 9/11, so he might have changed his tune a bit. share
The Stand is absurd for the following reasons:
1. The US government would never develop a virus that could wipe-out civilisation
2. The US government would never commit genocide, i.e. releasing the virus behind the Iron Curtain and in the People's Republic of China
3. The US government would never kill journalists
Obviously, Stephen King hates the US government and the US military.
Good point, Gary.
shareGood point, Gary.Thank you. If you don't mind my saying so, I have a novel on kindle that deals with a situation somewhat similar to that of The Stand. And if I say so myself, I treat the US military with a lot more respect. My novel is called The Pale Horse. share
Gary, you've definitely got me interested in this novel. However, I don't know if I could bring myself to read it due to its apocalyptic nature. It is the type of scenario that can cause me to fall deeper into depression. The idea of Western civilisation being wiped out is a nightmare that frightens me.
I'm not ruling out the possibility of reading your novel. You can send me a message on Facebook if you like. My name is Ciarán Masterson. I'm in the Republic of Ireland.
You can send me a message on Facebook if you like. My name is Ciarán Masterson. I'm in the Republic of Ireland.I just sent you friend request, Mr Masterson. share
I find that it helps to look at when the author wrote the novel. King wrote the bulk of the novel in 1973 and 1974. He was in his mid-twenties and the country was going through Watergate and the end of the Vietnam War. The military and the Federal government was about as popular as a case of gonorrhea. When you take that into consideration the plot makes sense. Also I've always gotten the impression that Captain Trips was more than the researchers expected. Almost as if they were pushed along by supernatural forces when they were developing it.
shareJefbecco, you've made some interesting points. I'm aware that King is a prolific author of horror and fantasy novels. Therefore, I understand the supernatural element of the story.
However, even in that period of time, developing a weapon like Captain Trips is a big leap from the US government's actual conduct from 1964 to 1974.
There are a lot of countries who have used bioengineering to create all extraordinary lethal diseases.
shareAgent Orange?
shareGoodness me, you have a rather rose-tinted view of the world!
1. I think you will find that many lethal viruses are worked on in labs around the world so that cures can be created should such a virus mutate (most known viruses either kill too quickly to spread, or are not sufficiently contagious or easily transmissible, otherwise we'd all be dead). Intent is what matters.
2. Really? Hmmmm, Hiroshima, Nagasaki? But, more in the context of the book, how would you know? The world has never been put into that position and people are people, no matter what their ideology. Given the fear of communism, could you really think that some in the West would allow it to be the sole surviving ideology? And vie-versa, of course. Actually, a similar scenario has been used in a novel by Stephen Baxter, I think.
3. Ahem - I think you need to check your history. Many journalists have died in the line of duty for many countries. And not necessarily legitimately. However, in the instances of the book I would refer to my previous comment. How would you know? We have never been put in that position, so how would you or I react?
Now, rather than people seeing this as a finger-pointing exercise or some rant at the US government, it might pay to point out that Western nations have never been afraid in recent history to use things like Mustard Gas, Napalm, Agent Orange and other biological and nerve agents in the course of conflict. All of these are regarded as war crimes today - only some 40-50 years later in some cases.
Jefbecco-1 makes the comment in his final sentence that he's always got the impression that Captain Trips was more than the researchers expected. "Almost as if they were pushed along by supernatural forces....".
That is exactly what should be interpreted as evidenced by the final piece of the book where, after being defeated, Randall Flagg finds himself amongst another primitive tribe and seeks to start directing them on the same path in order to try, again, to achieve Armageddon. Read the Book of Revelation (no, I am not religious). It is an interesting read and many a story has been derived from it and/or influenced by it.
Remember - it is a story. A work of fiction. Not only that, it is a supernatural horror. Nothing about it is real.
1. None of those viruses has the capacity to cause the level of carnage that Captain Trips caused.
2. The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not crimes. The Empire of Japan is to blame for the carnage there because it put its citizens in harm's way by invading China and committing atrocities against Allied civilians and POWs. By the way, there were already US nuclear warheads aimed at the Soviet Union - and vice versa. That made a Captain Trips-type weapon unnecessary.
3. Of course many journalists have been killed in the line of duty but US forces have never intentionally killed journalists. I know that journalists died in a US helicopter air-strike in Iraq, i.e. the Wikileaks video, but the helicopter crew mistook them for insurgents.
Furthermore, mustard gas, napalm, Agent Orange and other biological and chemical weapons that actually have been used did not have the capacity to wipe out 99 per cent of the world's population. No real-life US general would ever do any of the things that Billy Starkey did.
I agree with your points, except Hiroshima and Nagazaki were to stop the war, and by the way it did. You know very little about Japanese culture if you believe otherwise, and actually if the H-bombs had not been dropped, more people would have died in traditional warfare, that is what was originally planned on. You cannot compare dropping the H-bomb to a deadly virus, you cannot control a virus, the H-bomb has after affects, but it doesn't have potential to spread around the world. Also, your cynical view is silly for one more reason, even if your other points are correct. I don't trust the government, but if the US is so bad and evil, then they would have used the bomb around the world to conquer, which they did not. The were the only civilization at that point to not use an advantage like that for the conquest of nations. That is impressive, whatever else you feel about the US.
Good point. In fact, if the Home Islands had been invaded, estimates that I have seen put the resultant Japanese dead at a million, and Allied casualties at approximately half a million.
I agree with your points, except Hiroshima and Nagazaki were to stop the war, and by the way it did. You know very little about Japanese culture if you believe otherwise, and actually if the H-bombs had not been dropped, more people would have died in traditional warfare, that is what was originally planned on. You cannot compare dropping the H-bomb to a deadly virus, you cannot control a virus, the H-bomb has after affects, but it doesn't have potential to spread around the world. Also, your cynical view is silly for one more reason, even if your other points are correct. I don't trust the government, but if the US is so bad and evil, then they would have used the bomb around the world to conquer, which they did not. The were the only civilization at that point to not use an advantage like that for the conquest of nations. That is impressive, whatever else you feel about the US.
1. The US government would never develop a virus that could wipe-out civilisation
2. The US government would never commit genocide, i.e. releasing the virus behind the Iron Curtain and in the People's Republic of China
3. The US government would never kill journalists
Girl Wonder, would you like to elaborate on that statement?
In the novel, students protesting at Kent State against the government cover-up of Captain Trips are shot dead by US soldiers. Presumably,this is a reference to the 1970 Kent State shootings, but the real-life shootings were carried out by national guardsmen, not federal soldiers. Furthermore, the 101st Airborne Division defended black children to enable them to attend Little Rock Central High School.
The National Guard is a federal military force, a component of the U.S. Armed Forces; how are Guardsmen not federal soldiers? And paratroopers protecting black children at the end of segregation means nothing. The U.S. government is utterly corrupt. Edward Snowden is in exile for telling his countrymen and women the truth, while Hillary Clinton, who also disclosed classified information, is running for president. Our politicians are all bought and paid for by lobbyists and special interest groups. JFK was killed by the government - Oswald was a fall guy - the Iraq War was begun under false pretenses and was completely illegal, and there is evidence that 9/11 was not what it seemed. If you think the U.S. government is some noble and trustworthy entity, I can show you some lovely oceanfront land in Iowa I have for sale.
The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those that speak it.
The National Guard is under state command until and unless they are federalized by POTUS.
As far as the popular conspiracy theories about everything from JFK, to 9/11, to Iraq are concerned, I tend not to believe most of them and I am not interested in any oceanfront property you have in Iowa. North Dakota, maybe but not Iowa.
If you think the government cares about you, go right ahead. And believe whatever you'd like. Never said you couldn't. But there is no conspiracy theory about the Iraq War. It was an illegal war, that is indisputable. And it killed an awful lot of innocent people who did absolutely nothing wrong. Hundreds of thousands of them, although I realize that to a lot of Americans, brown people on the other side of the world don't really count. That is not to mention the U.S. soldiers who were killed, maimed, or who succumbed to PTSD after returning home (a friend of mine among those last). That war is indefensible.
The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those that speak it.
Girl Wonder, most of the people who've been killed in Iraq were killed by Sunni and Shia extremists. Whatever the legality of the invasion when it took place, the fact that the present government is recognised by the international community retrospectively legalised it.
shareYeah, tell yourself whatever you need to. Extremists didn't kill half a million Iraqis, although it's a very convenient claim for those who defend that war to make. Kind of like the people who claim that the KKK are a liberal group, or shriek about "black on black crime" when you say cops shouldn't be killing black civilians. And Bush's war and removal of Hussein from power is what opened the door for ISIS to take root. And fúck your "retrospectively legalized" argument. Ask an Iraqi how things are these days. (And we, in our utter arrogance, wonder why some people in the Middle East don't like Westerners). The war was abhorrent and no civilized government would have done it. I know people - a number of them - who are veterans of that war who will tell you we shouldn't have done it. I don't know what country you're from, but perhaps you should stick to idolizing your own government.
The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those that speak it.
Girl Wonder, I acknowledge that some civilians were unintentionally killed in US and British air strikes but these air strikes were targeted only at military and Ba'ath Party buildings. Therefore, it wasn't carpet bombing and so the death toll it caused was not that high.
For Pete's sake, haven't you heard of the massacres that have been perpetrated by Sunni and Shia extremists since 2003?
As for your claim that no civilised goverenment would have done it, do you think that the Saddam regime was civilised? Since when is it illegal to overthrow a perpetrator of genocide, i.e. the gassing of the Kurds?
By the way, I'm Irish.
Girl Wonder, Hillary didn't make confidential info known to unauthorised parties; she simply made a mistake in the means she used to communicate it.
Snowden has caused difficulty to US intelligence in its fight against terrorism.
Girl Wonder, Hillary didn't make confidential info known to unauthorised parties; she simply made a mistake in the means she used to communicate it.Agreed; she should have used the State Department server, which as I understand it, is more secure. Using her own server was an enormous error in judgment on her part.
Snowden has caused difficulty to US intelligence in its fight against terrorism.
Some consider Eric Snowden a hero. I do not. He did his country great harm.
Thank you for the very kind words. I see no reason to be rude even to those with whom I might disagree.
From your other comments on this board, I know you are a thoughtful poster who can have respectful discussions even over points of disagreement. So here we go!
With Snowden, there are these issues:
1) He discovered illegal or evil behavior carried out by the United States government. Is this what you disagree with? Do you think the things he discovered were fine activities?
2) Assuming you agree that item 1 is correct (the US was doing bad stuff) is it that you feel he shouldn't have gone public with the information?
3) The harm he caused
So basically I am asking if you disagree with what he claimed to have found, or if you disagree with his method of revealing it.
Personally, I think what he discovered was vile behavior on the part of a government that likes to present itself as such a beacon for the world. It made me embarrassed to be an American. I do not know how else he could have revealed our misbehavior. As to the harm--if there was any, we deserved it.
I love my country passionately--so much so that I want her to be the best she can. When she does things like this, I feel repercussions are warranted.
Thanks for your thoughtful response, and I don't think we are too far apart in ideology on this. I don't know if I think he's a hero, though I do think that what he did took a lot of courage. I don't know if I would be able to give up my home and go on the run for something I thought was right. That would be scary.
If someone who is cleared for, say, military secrets, decides in the middle of a war, that the cause of his country is not a just one, does that give him or her, the right to reveal what he knows to the world (and to the enemy)?
Thanks for your thoughtful response, and I don't think we are too far apart in ideology on this. I don't know if I think he's a hero, though I do think that what he did took a lot of courage. I don't know if I would be able to give up my home and go on the run for something I thought was right. That would be scary.But the question then becomes, is that enough? Who is Snowden to decide that?If someone who is cleared for, say, military secrets, decides in the middle of a war, that the cause of his country is not a just one, does that give him or her, the right to reveal what he knows to the world (and to the enemy)?
I think this is the key issue, and it relates to the idea of "following orders." If I sign up to "support and defend the Constitution," and then I find out my orders are against that oath, what do I do? I think Snowden felt the US government was going against the Constitution. So what would have been the proper course of action?
Trying to handle it internally seems fruitless--to report a transgression to the very organization carrying it out?
I don't have the answers, and I am not sure what is right, but I do hope that others who witness crimes in our government will stand up for us.
I think this may be tested in the coming 4 years.
Actually, National Guard is a state and federal entity. The Guardsmen were ordered there via the state governor which means that it wasn't at the behest of the federal government. They were under the direction of the state.
shareThat's what I thought...
I'm pretty sure they (US Government) have already at least a couple of them.
And no, I don't have any proof. ;-)
I don't think the book is meant to be anti military/government. It's a common idea in films and novels about rogue military experiments that breed horrific results.
In the case of the book...the a government group created a superweapon (akin to the nuclear bomb) that got out of hand. Then individual, evil people that happened to work with the government made evil decisions to cover their own asses. It's not the "entire government". It's like saying one black guy who does a bad thing in a book means the book is racist
[deleted]
I don't think the book is meant to be anti military/government. It's a common idea in films and novels about rogue military experiments that breed horrific results.Even assuming that SK's intentions were not per se anti-government or anti-military, (which I doubt) that was sure the way the book came out. I can't think of a single commander who restrained his troops. Rather, it was the troops who on a few occasions 'restrained' their commanders, sometimes by killing them.
In the case of the book...the a government group created a superweapon (akin to the nuclear bomb) that got out of hand. Then individual, evil people that happened to work with the government made evil decisions to cover their own asses. It's not the "entire government". It's like saying one black guy who does a bad thing in a book means the book is racist
I'm just going to play devil's advocate here...but they were shooting civilians in a futile attempt to stop the spread of the plague. I'm not defending it, but it WAS a last ditch effort to keep the plague in check. Then it turned into sub groups going rogue and doing their own thing (group who took the talk show hostage and started executing people)
Again, I don't think it was all anti military. It def played on the paranoia the people had at the time that the government was not always going to be on their side but I don't think the message we were supposed to take from the book was "military/government=bad". It was a plot device and it went on to show the actions of individuals, good and bad, in the aftermath.
It has been a common, easy plot choice to have a science experiment gone bad as the crux or root of the dilemma. I think that's what King was doing.
(I'll be honest, I prefer NOT to read into political statements when I can avoid it. What the author's personal thoughts were are irrelevant to a good story. That doesn't mean I am ignorant to a statement when one is made and I just don't feel there is one here)
AND just to play devil's advocate again, for a moment...technically you are right On OUR beam, the government would not do these things (we hope). The Stand took place on another beam, so it obviously DID happen there
share[deleted]
If you are asking me this, then I enjoyed the DT series. Not as much as I liked The Stand, but I still liked it. share
Vary are you excited about the dark tower?
[deleted]
Hi. I'm a big SK fan and when the book came out, it scared me. The CDC and that place in Atlanta, works on all sorts of viruses and diseases (ever seen Outbreak?). And once in a while the flu does mutate into something very deadly, a superflu. I actually believed the world was going to get hit by the flue mentioned in SK's book (silly me, eh?) In the Stand someone got careless and the superflu wiped out a lot of people except for 2 factions that were immune. JMO
shareHi. I'm a big SK fan and when the book came out, it scared me. The CDC and that place in Atlanta, works on all sorts of viruses and diseases (ever seen Outbreak?). And once in a while the flu does mutate into something very deadly, a superflu. I actually believed the world was going to get hit by the flue mentioned in SK's book (silly me, eh?) In the Stand someone got careless and the superflu wiped out a lot of people except for 2 factions that were immune. JMOHope you don't mind a bit of shameless self-promotion here, but my novel on kindle deals with a deadly pandemic as well, but there is no supernatural stuff in it. It is called The Pale Horse. You might want to check it out. share
[deleted]
Thank you, I will. I'm always look for a good read!
Congrats to you
I could pick apart almost every movie ever made with something that makes it absurd. You do know this is a make believe story right? Why is there always someone who thinks every show / movie ever made has to be 100% like reality?
shareAbsurd you say .. lol .. So is the " Twilight " movies .. but it doesn't stop people from watching them .. as with " The Stand " .. I love this mini series .. right along with " Lonesome Dove " ... Your reasons don't mean Jack .
"A man that wouldn't cheat for a poke don't want one bad enough".