Rating: 
Summary: Publicity Stunt
Review: The book would have seemed so much more clever had Blair Witch not successfully made us ponder the truth or fiction question first. Instead it just seems like a weak publicity ploy for King to squeeze a few more dollars out of his fans. The book itself was a smooth easy read, if rather vague. It really wasn't worth the money, however, for such a short book. I think, too, it could have been more believable if it hadn't been so extreme. I was more likely to roll my eyes than to shiver with fear.As for the question of whether it is a hoax, if there is still anyone unsure: Beaumont University's website is not a '.org', which all institutions are, and it is copywrited by Hyperion, the publisher of the book.
Rating: 
Summary: Stephen King is laughing all the way to the bank
Review: Oh my ... , I couldn't put it down! I felt early on it was a joke, couldn't put my finger on any exact passage, but KNEW and FELT it was a hoax. Somehow the language was not from a woman in that era, it felt like a person from our era was the writer. Later on, one passage in particular screamed out at me "I smelled smoke in the auditorium". That was it for me, total hype. Only someone who grew up in the 60's would catch that one. Ole' Charlie Brown, he's a clown! Anyway, it was fun to read. What really made me laugh is the www.beaumontuniversity.net website. Not an .edu, and for such a place to exist without any other professors. Ha, well, it did entertain me for an evening. Pricey though, cheaper to watch the made for TV movie.
Rating:
Summary: Great Book, Great Imagination
Review: So I read this book over the past few days because i was really interested in the miniseries when i first heard it was coming out. Then I go on to this site and see that people are bickering and complaining about his book. I think that whoever wrote this book ( I can only guess that it was King) did an amazing job of even creating a website for Beaumont University (Where Joyce readon teaches: ...) along with trying as hard as possible to make this piece of fiction come to life. For those of you who are upset to discover that you have been "tricked" into believing that this was a real place and a real occurance...why cant you just enjoy the book instead of trying to catch people in a lie. You werent upset when you found out that "The Quidditch Handbook" was a piece of fiction too, why is this any different. I think that instead of being upset that you were 'fooled', why not stop and realized that in fact, the book WAS so realistic that you WERE almost fooled. I really enjoyed this book, and i must admit that I was searching the web trying to find out if Rose Red was a real place. There was even a documentary on ABCFamily about Rose Red and its inhabitants over the years and they even had interviews with the 'real' Joyce reardon and Stephen Rimbauer. I was very entertained by this book and I know that you will be too.
Rating: 
Summary: THE SCARIEST THING ABOUT ROSE RED
Review: I'm giving the book a 5 star rating for having
pulled the wool over so many people's eyes...but I
haven't actually read the book yet and am now looking
forward to it--the movie has been a lot of fun! At the risk of being as mean-spirited as Maggie in
California, I have to say that the scariest thing
about Rose Red is the way so many people are
unable to tell fact from fiction. This was what
scared me most about The Blair Witch Project.
I wouldn't call myself the most sophisticated (or
even the most jaded) reader in the world. According to
family and friends I'm frighteningly naive...but
come ON, folks...if people are unable to notice a simple
thing like the word "fiction" or if people are going to
be upset because they were "duped"...maybe those people
need to take a couple of classes in literature, particularly
a class that discusses such things as the difference
between fiction and non-fiction, literary style, and the practice of writing novels in the form of diaries and letter.
The practice has been around longer than Stephen King:
check out: "Diary of a Madman", "The Diary of a Young Girl" (by Aickman, not Franke) or Richardson's "Pamela" and "Clarissa."
And if you STILL can't tell the difference between the real and
the unreal, hey, I have got the coolest haunted car to sell you.
Rating:
Summary: Promotional Genius or Scamorama?
Review: What an elaborate marketing strategy for the ABC "Rose Red" mini-series: the timely emergence of the diary of "Ellen Rimbauer"; a fake documentary on ABC about Seattle's supposed Rose Red mansion with the "real" paranormal researcher Dr. Joyce Reardon, Steven Rimbauer, a construction materials expert, a Seattle Historical Society spokewoman, etc.; and a fake website for "Beaumont University," the alleged academic home of Dr. Reardon. (Even Amazon.com is in on it, pronouncing the Rimbauer diary in its "Book Description" as "a rare document...")
Rating: 
Summary: Embarrassing...
Review: I'm starting to feel (a little) better now that I realize Stephen King wrote this book, and not some twerpy professor trying to get a novel passed off as a diary accounting actual paranormal occurances. It would have been a good fictional read, if the book were not posing as an historical account of actual events (which is what I paid ... to read when I bought this book). This simple misrepresentation took me completely OUT of the story every couple of pages, to complain to myself or aloud, how stupid this dumb professor was and that she was embarrassing to science and her university, and as an editor she sorely needed an editor. The "diary" was certainly not a personal account of any woman's life, and all three contributing "voices" (Ellen, Reardon and Steven Rimbauer) were so clearly in the same hand (and voice!). The "facts" that were attempted had no sources. The story stole from Shirley Jackson more than once -- and what's up with the Winchester Mansion ripoff? I very much enjoy Stephen King books -- but that is not what I intended to read. I too caught references to King's work in the book, but was naive and completely confused by them, primarily because I simply did not expect this book was a complete fraud. Now I'm embarrassed I tried to excuse or believe any part of it. I was angry and embarrassed for the "editor" when I finished. Had it simply been marketed appropriately as a King-esque thriller, it would have been a very good, chilling tale which I could've simply enjoyed -- instead of spending the whole time asking questions in annoyance. Nobody likes to be duped.
Rating:
Summary: i have three words for you
Review: blair witch project. same stunt, different year. entertaining read, and entertaining mini-series (so far) but come on, just tell us "hey this is the 'diary' of ellen rimbauer--the fictional character in the miniseries" and let us be entertained for entertainment's sake. don't insult our intelligence by insinuating it's real.
there were several dead give-aways, anyhow. anyone who keeps a diary knows this is not how one writes in their diary (story form). the pics in the book are sooooo NOT from the early 1900's, plus the people in the pics look exactly like the people in the movie (check out ellen and john in their wedding day photo on page 30 and compare it to part one of the miniseries--when they arrive at rose red after their honeymoon). i live in washington state and have never heard of a beaumont university nor the "rose red mansion" in seattle. plus, there are several corny references to "present" and future things/events--boeing airplanes, freud, the lusitania, etc. all took AWAY from the book/diary i think. it would have been more believable if that stuff was left out. oh well, go read it anyways! ha!
Rating:
Summary: Dr. Joyce Reardon Bachman?
Review: No doubt this was written by King or someone who writes in his style. It is excellent. I have been taping the mini-series, but am not sure that I want to ruin the "diary" with another [...bad] rendition of a King story. The mini-series traditionally stink. One note...I found the ... "missing entries" (don't go until you've read the diary). I'm sorry, but the same person did not write those as the one who wrote the diary. There are contradictions many, and the style is completely different. It is like someone just made up a bunch of perverted stuff as filler because it was "promised" in the book. (Addition 2/5/02): I've had dozens of people write to ask me where the missing excerpts can be found. [...] If you want to find it yourself, go to the 5th (last) page of the "diary excerpts" and look at the very bottom of the page for the "missing" ones. All this even though I said the missing stuff was no good!?!?!
Rating:
Summary: Help !! True or Not ??
Review: OK, there was a special I caught the tail end of on ABC about this college professor, I think, that was doing research on Rose Red. I am under the impression it's a real place...if not, who is Stephen Rimbauer? Is this all a hoax? Is this a REAL place? I still will buy the book, of course, but am totally confused by what exactly this is....Fiction? or not....anyone that can shed some light.... Oh, and to Maggie of California...chill out ! Where does it mention FICTION? In the book somewhere? Surely not on this page in the description of the book. thanks!
Rating:
Summary: Familiar Territory For King Fans, But Worth A Look.
Review: I hustled through this book so I could have it finished by the time Part 1 of Rose Red aired. It wasn't too hard to do- at 252 pages, it's one of Stephen king's shortest books in quite some time...and YES, I do think that Stephen king wrote this. He peppers the book with numerous clues that longtime readers will pick right up on, the style and syntax are consistant with his other books, and he even gives himself a cameo appearance as the replacement Postal Worker. The "Diary" itself treads familiar ground- A Haunted House (The Shining), and another subject that King has pretty much done to death- the opression of women (Rose Madder, Dolores Claiborne, Gerald's Game, etc.). Anyone who has read these books will find nothing new here. I think The Shining was pretty much the last word on The Haunted House/Bad Place, and the only innovation here was the Diary format. (The book is beautifully designed to look like a real Diary; Very cool.) The House itself seemed like a larger-scale, live-in version of King's haunted car, Christine. King does do a good job with the Diary's "Author", Ellen Rimbauer; It's hard not to feel sorry for this woman, trapped in a loveless marriage, and prisoner in a house that has no intention of ever letting her leave. All in all, not a bad book, but not one of King's best. I did enjoy seeing some of the events from the diary come to life on Part One of the Rose Red mini-series. As a TV tie-in, the Diary is great; as a book alone, it's pretty standard stuff....
|
