The Official Stephen King Thread

[Chairman Kaga]

Stephen King playing in my home state and his adoptive one sounds awesome and perhaps a little over due.

[Lord Voldemoo]

From The Stand GN thread:

ok, i'll bite. i loved the novel (i read the updated version in high school, then re-read it a few times since then) but i've always hated the ending... the literal "hand of god" shit.

i wish they coul fix the ending so it wasn't so lame... but that would piss more people off than if they updated some of the references...

otherwise, it's a brilliant idea... could be really dark... i'd love to see the tunnel sequence done properly.

I would be one of the faithful who would love to see that lame assed,
way-to-end-one-hell-of-a-novel-on-a-giant-thud ending shit canned.
Hated it.
For me, everything preceding the great migration to Mother Abigail's crib was gold. Afterwards? Not so much.

This is a constant refrain from King readers, fan and non-fan. "Great book...ending sucked tho".

I've only read a few. The entire DT series (ending doesn't suck, but i can see why some thought it did), IT (ending sucked) and The Stand (ending sucked), and a few others years ago. In the foreword or afterword (can't remember which) of The Dark Tower, King noted that he has trouble with endings.

I don't know if I agree with this, but I'll throw it out there:

King sucks at endings.

discuss.

[MacCready]

No, that's about it.
What's left?
King can't finish.
Ellison could finish.
Matheson could finish.
Child's Garden of Grass could finish.
King can't.
Dufuss.

[The Vicar]

Arthur C Clarke and the aformentioned Ellison certainly knew how to finish stories, and finsih them well. The Nine Billion Names of God & I Have No Mouth and I Must Scream for example.
I feel like I'd prefer a weak opening and big finish to the opposite.
One type offers a last minute redemption - the other, pages of lingering regret, when Le End is Le Stinko.

[AtomicHyperbole]

OK, this is the SK thread so hopefully this is ok here. I just finished the Salems Lot TV movie and was kinda suprised by how close it was to the book, and how it stumbled. Anyone else checked it out? I've not seen the original movie but my flatmate's dead set against it.

Certainly the ending of the TV movie is a ton different... I think there was a lot they could've handled better and Rob Lowe ws a bit miscast as Ben Mears. I was totally unconvinced by his hair.

Evidently the budget went on the actors... which is kinda a shame as the vamps, although generally pretty spot on, had some awful effects work. Donald Sutherland and Rutger Hauer made up for it though, they were pretty spot-on despite the initial familiarity.

Book itself is rather more taught, shame the movie didn't feel like it...

[Chairman Kaga]

The newer TV movie is much closer to the book than the old TV movie. They still deviate from the text but the new one much less.

[AtomicHyperbole]

I'm not sure it needed to. It needed tightening up and allowing the flab of the extra parts to be let go to allow for more tension at the beginning... if anything it felt like a rush through the town infection just to get to the end.

Still, all in all it was pretty admirable - I think they nailed the nature of the vampires and the general uneasy, queasy feeling of the novel when needed. Nothing beats King's descriptions of bodies and smells though... particularly the description of the corpses in the dare.

[Fievel]

I just finished listening to Duma Key. Not bad. It's definitely not my favorite King story, but it's not the worst thing he's written either.

Regarding King's inability to write a decent ending, I'll say he actually managed to pull one off in Duma Key. It's not a "HOLY SHIT!!!!" ending. Actually, it's really what I expected to happen once the book got to that point. But it's done well and I have no regrets on checking it out.

[Chairman Kaga]

King sucks at endings.

discuss.

I don't agree.

[Fievel]

OK, this is the SK thread so hopefully this is ok here. I just finished the Salems Lot TV movie and was kinda suprised by how close it was to the book, and how it stumbled. Anyone else checked it out? I've not seen the original movie but my flatmate's dead set against it.

Certainly the ending of the TV movie is a ton different... I think there was a lot they could've handled better and Rob Lowe ws a bit miscast as Ben Mears. I was totally unconvinced by his hair.

Evidently the budget went on the actors... which is kinda a shame as the vamps, although generally pretty spot on, had some awful effects work. Donald Sutherland and Rutger Hauer made up for it though, they were pretty spot-on despite the initial familiarity.

Book itself is rather more taught, shame the movie didn't feel like it...

I watched bits and pieces of the new version of the movie. All in all I didn't like what they did with it. Lowe was wrong for the part of Mears, but like you said AH - Sutherland and Hauer are perfectly cast. I thought the ending was horrible though as it killed off Father Callahan! He ends up in the Dark Tower books, so you can't kill HIM off!!!!

The original movie has a special place in my movie heart as it's one of the first films to really scare me. Does it hold up? Not really, but it's still fun to watch.

[Fawst]

I thought the ending was horrible though as it killed off Father Callahan! He ends up in the Dark Tower books, so you can't kill HIM off!!!!

Oh what the flying fuck. That is weak, on SO many levels. The only way to get around that would be to use the excuse that the film version is one of those "other worlds than this." Know what I mean? I guess that's sort of a built in "whoopsy-doodle!" repair kit.

The original movie has a special place in my movie heart as it's one of the first films to really scare me. Does it hold up? Not really, but it's still fun to watch.

Exactly. That movie scared the shit out of me. The kid scraping the window... not a frightening effect by today's standards, but the IDEA of it. That just fucks with me.

Same with his burial, and those mirrored eyes while laying in the coffin. 'salem's Lot is one of my all time favorite King books, I hate that it has never been done all the justice it deserves on film up to this point.

Maybe one day...

Oh yah, I forget who mentioned it previously, but someone said that Joseph Gordon Levitt would make a good Eddie in DT. Now I have inner turmoil! JGL vs. Eion. I dunno, that's a tough call.

[Chairman Kaga]

I thought the ending was horrible though as it killed off Father Callahan!

I don't remember that. I only remember when he couldn't get back in the church and leaves disgraced.

As for Fawst comments in the event of the DT ever making it to film or TV I doubt anything presented in any previous King adaptation will effect it. (though it would be cool as another meta element to the stories by breaking the 4th wall etc.)

[Fawst]

I thought the ending was horrible though as it killed off Father Callahan!

I don't remember that. I only remember when he couldn't get back in the church and leaves disgraced.

As for Fawst comments in the event of the DT ever making it to film or TV I doubt anything presented in any previous King adaptation will effect it. (though it would be cool as another meta element to the stories by breaking the 4th wall etc.)

Yah, that's kinda what I was going with, the fact that if they ever did reference anything of the sort, it could be done in a way that expounds upon the fact that not all of the worlds referenced in DT are the "real" worlds. The Stand's appearance in Wizard and Glass is in question as to whether it was the world of the novel, or just a similar one. Or it could just be that King fucked some continuity detail up. *shrug*

[havocSchultz]

I just finished listening to Duma Key. Not bad. It's definitely not my favorite King story, but it's not the worst thing he's written either.

Regarding King's inability to write a decent ending, I'll say he actually managed to pull one off in Duma Key. It's not a "HOLY SHIT!!!!" ending. Actually, it's really what I expected to happen once the book got to that point. But it's done well and I have no regrets on checking it out.

I just started reading Duma Key...

My girlfriend got it for free from the bookstore she works at...
So I figured I'd give it a slow, rambling attempt at reading...

I'm only like 20 pages in yet...
I am wondering now how many of King's story have an Accident Victim as one of the main characters...?

I'm sure the book will be enjoyable enough...
I've only read some random King here and there, but I've never hated anything of his that I've read...
So I'll keep you posted...

Eventually...

[Vegeta]

Used to be a huge fan of King's back in high school. I've read about 20+ of his books, however none he's written in the past 12 years or so. I think I just got bored with him. My favorites were Salem's Lot, The Stand, and Needful Things.

[Petri]

Salem's Lot is my favorite King book.

[Fievel]

Stephen King Interviews... Himself!

Well written. Honest. Funny. King.

[Chairman Kaga]

I still haven't even read It or The Stand or even The Shining. When I was in the midst of my Stephen King frenzy, I focused on everything Tower related.

Weird since The Stand is extremely Tower related. (IT is also a Tower associated book but to a much smaller degree)

[Chilli]

I gave up on Bag of Bones at about the 400pg mark. Excellent up to then, but... maybe it's just me, but I'm starting to hate the concept of destroying characters happiness so near the end. That and the racist characters (I get that they're racist, but it's like King thinks we keep forgetting it so he has to continually remind us of it.)

[Fievel]

I liked Bag of Bones. I listened to the audiobook a few years ago. King read it himself, and he wasn't as bad as I had assumed he would be (thick Maine accent and all).


I've got his new collection of short stories waiting to be listened to, although I probably won't get to it until sometime next year.

[TheBaxter]

I've got his new collection of short stories waiting to be listened to, although I probably won't get to it until sometime next year.

i'm reading it now, pretty good so far.

[Ribbons]

I've noticed a lot of love for The Stand here and elsewhere. I'm reading it now (about 900 pages in out of 1200) and I have to say I'm really not into it at all.

I was with it in the beginning; the proliferation of the virus, the birth of the Trashcan Man, the chapter devoted exclusively to people who died for various reasons, Larry Underwood's trip through the tunnel... but for the last, like, 400 pages or so it's just seemed tedious as fuck. Larry questioning his goodness while simulatenously being a saint, people observing how "creepy" Harold Lauder's smile is, a humble suggestion at one of those meetings that's followed by peals of applause. Lather, rinse, repeat. I don't think I can stand to see Stu and Frannie tell each other how much they love each other again, but at the rate this book has been going it's probably gonna happen at least another 200 times. I picked it up because the writers of "Lost" said it was one of their biggest inspirations, but if anything it's making me second-guess my opinion of the show. Is it just because I'm reading the un-cut version, or what? I appreciate epic ensemble storytelling, but for the better part of this book, I just don't see the appeal.

[minstrel]

I've noticed a lot of love for The Stand here and elsewhere. I'm reading it now (about 900 pages in out of 1200) and I have to say I'm really not into it at all.

I was with it in the beginning; the proliferation of the virus, the birth of the Trashcan Man, the chapter devoted exclusively to people who died for various reasons, Larry Underwood's trip through the tunnel... but for the last, like, 400 pages or so it's just seemed tedious as fuck. Larry questioning his goodness while simulatenously being a saint, people observing how "creepy" Harold Lauder's smile is, a humble suggestion at one of those meetings that's followed by peals of applause. Lather, rinse, repeat. I don't think I can stand to see Stu and Frannie tell each other how much they love each other again, but at the rate this book has been going it's probably gonna happen another 200 times. I picked it up because the writers of "Lost" said it was one of their biggest inspirations, but if anything it's making me second-guess my opinion of the show. Is it just because I'm reading the un-cut version, or what? I appreciate epic ensemble storytelling, but for the better part of this book, I just don't see the appeal.

I made it through Book 1 of The Stand (maybe about 360 pages or so). Wow. There's an example of an author including WAY more material than he should. I just had to set it aside, because I don't have enough time in my life to read that much non-essential stuff. I admire King, and I like other works of his (Misery, Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption, The Green Mile), but this was just overindulgent.

[Fievel]

The beginning of The Stand is definitely my favorite part, but then I'm a sucker for end-of-the-world scenarios.
The stuff in the middle didn't bother me too badly. Yes, it was tedious as fuck, but I guess I just read it as being a chronicle of every mundane thing that was happening at the time.

The ending was where I definitely rolled my eyes.
Hand of God..... whatever.

I really wish King had intended to connect this with the Dark Tower series from the beginning.
I think both stories would have been a little different.

[Ribbons]

But to me it's not just the mundane chronicles of their routine that makes it tedious; the story is just completely uninvolving. We GET it; Stu Redman is awesome, Harold Lauder is creepy, Larry is repentant, and Franny is in love like no one's ever loved before. You don't have to keep having the narrator and the characters EXPLAIN how awesome/creepy/repentant/in love they are over and over and OVER. To me there's no value in it, and I don't see whatever King did that made him devote so much time to it.

I'm also creeped out by the idea King puts forth -- which seems to be the main 'thesis' of the book imo, although admittedly that statement may be a bit premature -- that people are psychic (the chapter about the real-life study of how most plane crashes are largely empty and have an insane number of cancellations being the centerpiece), therefore feeling hatred/lust/whatever for other people or actively rewarding/punishing them for their existence isn't irrational but your innate psychic sense of how "good" or "evil" they are. And because of that, how we're supposed to feel about each character has been pretty much firmly established the whole time. They're all one-dimensional. There are "arcs" in the sense that characters do things or have things done to them, but unless shit really hits the fan in the next 200 pages or so there's no real development (despite how much the narrator constantly marvels at how much they've changed); they're always awesome/creepy/repentant on some level (and basically "good" or "bad") and probably always will be. I'll finish it just because I hate to not finish stuff, but I can't help but feel like it's just been a gigantic waste of time. One of the most disappointing books I've ever read.

[TheBaxter]

it's been a long time since i read The Stand (maybe 15 years or more) but i remember thinking the premise was awesome, the beginning was awesome (especially the part of them making it out of NYC through the tunnel... if I'm remembering that right), but the old lady they're all going to visit, and the way it devolves into a pretty standard "good against evil" with a really obvious bad guy, it just really didn't live up to the promise of the early chapters. but then, i find a lot of king's books are that way, they start off great, with a really interesting or exciting premise, but either king doesn't know how to come up with a decent ending, or he's thinking too much about the eventual film or tv miniseries version, and it runs out of steam with a boring or conventional ending (like the spider space creature at the end of It... "It" spoiler).

[Chairman Kaga]

Are you talking about the movie or the book there Baxter because the book's description of that particular thing is infinitely more interesting than the mini-series. Of course the mind dueling aspect would have been pretty difficult to pull off visually. Spiders or spider-ish creatures as threats are a running theme through his Dark Tower and associated works.

As for if King runs out of steam thinking about eventual film or tv adaptations that may be true of his work after the late 80's but I highly doubt any of that came into his focus writing The Stand or IT in the late 70's and early 80's respectively. Considering the length of each I don't think King assumed an adaptation was likely of either. Even though it is an oft repeated criticism of his stories endings I have only ever felt that way about a very scant few of his works like The Tommyknockers. I actually enjoyed both the Stand and IT's endings though where 1958 Henry Bowers disappears to after reaching IT's lair I still wonder about.

[TheBaxter]

Are you talking about the movie or the book there Baxter because the book's description of that particular thing is infinitely more interesting than the mini-series. Of course the mind dueling aspect would have been pretty difficult to pull off visually. Spiders or spider-ish creatures as threats are a running theme through his Dark Tower and associated works.

i'm talking about the book, though the movie ending is even worse. it's been even longer ago that i read "It" than the stand, so my memory of the book version of the ending is hazy, but i distinctly remember being disappointed by it well before the crappy miniseries.

[Ribbons]

It's interesting because in my copy of The Stand, King writes a foreword about how he hopes Bruce Springsteen will play Stu Redman in the inevitable film adaptation of his work... the foreword was written in 84, I think, although I'm not sure, so at the very least he had some aspiration/premonition that it would be adapted. It might also help explain the otherwise-nonsensical Bruce Springsteen quotes that litter the beginning of the book.

[so sorry]

I love the Stand, and count it as one of my top 10 books (I guess its worth noting that I don't really read much, so take that into consideration...)
I usually re-read it every 3 years or so.

I can totally see where you're at Ribbons... King is definetly long winded. And the end is a bit hammy. But the beginning is great, the travel stories to Denver are great, so I guess I look past the soft middle parts.

[Chairman Kaga]

It's interesting because in my copy of The Stand, King writes a foreword about how he hopes Bruce Springsteen will play Stu Redman in the inevitable film adaptation of his work... the foreword was written in 84, I think, although I'm not sure, so at the very least he had some aspiration/premonition that it would be adapted. It might also help explain the otherwise-nonsensical Bruce Springsteen quotes that litter the beginning of the book.

Confusing since the original is from '78 and the Uncut from '90. I assume since you mentioned it's the extended version that forward is from the '90 edition. Perhaps he wrote that at some point during his collaboration with Romero in the mid '80s before that fell apart. Of course Springsteen was already big by '78 so maybe that's a hold over from the original version. I'll have to check my version at home to see as I don't remember the forward. Either way I don't think possible screen adaptations bled into his decision making on that book otherwise I'm sure he would have attempted to cut it down himself (if I remember correctly the publisher demanded the cut in '78 due to binding costs).

[Ribbons]

Kaga - just checked and you're right, the foreword is from '90. The thing from '84 are these Bernie Wrightson illustrations that are scattered throughout the book.

[Chairman Kaga]

ahh. I wonder if that was right before Warner Bros dropped the Romero version or he was talking about the ABC miniseries he was offered after? I would guess he means the theatrical version that never happened.

[Fievel]

Romero's "The Stand"...
Romero's "Resident Evil"...

Methinks that Romero's best work since Dawn of the Dead would be the films he never made.

[Bill Cutshaw]

For me at least his best work will always be the early classics Salem's Lot, The Shining and The Stand. Of course he's written many other fine novels, but these three are the greats as far as I'm concerned.

[Fievel]

King gives his opinions on authors including authors of HP, Twilight, etc.

In this article, King is asked his opinion.
He gives it.
Simple enough.

But the best is the absolute scorn he receives from the comments below the article.
Good stuff.

[Chairman Kaga]

King gives his opinions on authors including authors of HP, Twilight, etc.

In this article, King is asked his opinion.
He gives it.
Simple enough.

But the best is the absolute scorn he receives from the comments below the article.
Good stuff.

He's right on about Koontz. I always wondered King's opinion of him since he (Koontz) seemed pushed by publishers as a King clone.

[TheBaxter]

he's right about patterson. i read one book by him. never again.

[so sorry]

to complete the Trilogy, he's right about Stephanie Meyer too.

[The Todd]

King gives his opinions on authors including authors of HP, Twilight, etc.

In this article, King is asked his opinion.
He gives it.
Simple enough.

But the best is the absolute scorn he receives from the comments below the article.
Good stuff.

He's right on about Koontz. I always wondered King's opinion of him since he (Koontz) seemed pushed by publishers as a King clone.

You’ve got Dean Koontz, who can write like hell. And then sometimes he’s just awful. It varies.

NAILED IT-FIVE!!!!!

I'm a big fan of Koontz as well as King, but man...after his first peak in the late 70s-early 80s Koontz really hit rock bottom with his books. One Door Away From Heaven was just atrocious. But he seems to have hit a second peak starting with his Odd Thomas books. The Todd is glad to see he's not the only person who thinks this way about Koontz

[TheBaxter]

to be fair, i think you could say the same about stephen king. sometimes he can write like hell, and sometimes he's terrible.
i've never read koontz, so i can't comment on who has the better hit-miss ratio.

[Fievel]

Synopsis for King's latest novel "Under the Dome", which is clocking in at 1120 pages:

On an entirely normal, beautiful fall day in Chester’s Mills, Maine, the town is inexplicably and suddenly sealed off from the rest of the world by an invisible force field. Planes crash into it and fall from the sky in flaming wreckage, a gardener’s hand is severed as “the dome” comes down on it, people running errands in the neighboring town are divided from their families, and cars explode on impact. No one can fathom what this barrier is, where it came from, and when—or if—it will go away.

Dale Barbara, Iraq vet and now a short-order cook, finds himself teamed with a few intrepid citizens—town newspaper owner Julia Shumway, a physician’s assistant at the hospital, a select-woman, and three brave kids. Against them stands Big Jim Rennie, a politician who will stop at nothing—even murder—to hold the reins of power, and his son, who is keeping a horrible secret in a dark pantry. But their main adversary is the Dome itself. Because time isn’t just short. It’s running out.

King started writing this one over 25 years ago.

I wonder if Julia Shumway is related to Gordon.....?

[spock of the walk]

i have read dragon tears by koontz and a few king stories. i read the girl who loved tom gordon by king and it was ok.

[geekgrrl]

While most readers are familiar with Stephen King less are familiar with his pseudonym Richard Bachman. Or atleast of the books he wrote as Richard Backman. Some of these works include The Running Man, Roadwork, and Rage. However my favorite of the few books he wrote under his pen name is called The Long Walk.

The Long Walk is a fairly simple and straight forward story. A hundred boys take a test and are picked at random to be apart of a competion called The Walk. The last boy standing is granted his every desire. In order to win the competion 99 boys must buy a ticket. The only catch is that when a Walker buys a ticket he is shot by a soldier. The first time I read this book I admit I was more enthralled with the cold and stark violence that is peppered through out almost every page. The scene when a character by the name of Barkovitich rips out his own throat has stayed with me the longest. A close second would be when given up for being one of the "walking dead" Olson climbed one of the halftracks and shot a soldier before being gut shot. I swear the image of Olson trying to pick up his intensines while still walking is one that does not leave the minds eye for quite awhile I assure you.

However it wasnt until I read it for the second and third time that I really began to grasp the hidden depth this story had. The bonds of friendship that were formed. The idea that when faced with certain death the lengths we are willing to push ourselves in order to survive. The fine line between sanity and insanity. The way life continues no matter what the circumstance. The way the simplest act can turn a stranger into a hero or a friend into an enemy.

[magicmonkey]

Welcome geekgrrl, nice first post. I'm sure some of our Stephen King fans will get back to you on this. It's certainly one I'm yet to read.

[travis-dane]

It was one of the first Bachman books I've read back in the day. I really enjoyed it and I have to read it again soon.
That could be a good Darabont adaption, I hope he goes with it.

[geekgrrl]

It was one of the first Bachman books I've read back in the day. I really enjoyed it and I have to read it again soon.
That could be a good Darabont adaption, I hope he goes with it.

I have heard that they are trying to make a movie out of it. I dont know how well it would translate to the screen and i must admit that when it comes to books being made into movies i am a bit of a purist but i digress i hope if they ever do get it made that they do it justice.

[geekgrrl]

Welcome geekgrrl, nice first post. I'm sure some of our Stephen King fans will get back to you on this. It's certainly one I'm yet to read.

thank you. I highly recommend that if you are an avid reader of all genres to give this book a try. by the way love your screen name.

[instant_karma]

I think I actually prefer Bachman to King. The Long Walk is one of my favourite books. I think I've read it about four or five times, while I've read The Running Man three times.

I was kind of bitter when I read that Darabont was working on adapting it, because I had always fantasized that one day I'd make it to Holywood and direct this myself...

[travis-dane]

I think I actually prefer Bachman to King. The Long Walk is one of my favourite books. I think I've read it about four or five times, while I've read The Running Man three times.

I was kind of bitter when I read that Darabont was working on adapting it, because I had always fantasized that one day I'd make it to Holywood and direct this myself...

...with Flavor!