I'm reading through the Stand at a breakneck pace. Really. Thanks to books on tape. The version I'm reading is the 1978 trimmed down version. Fans, of course, tend to prefer to uncut edition. In fact, the 1990 version was my introduction to Stephen King.
.
I am finding that the story moves very quickly in this version. It is not as dry as I remembered it being. I'm enjoying it a lot! The original was a favorite of King fans from the beginning. Of course, no one knew Doubleday's dirty little secret, did they? 400 pages had been chopped out!
.
Which edition?
.
In her 1990 rant against the un-cut version of The Stand, Ann Carter gave a rather scathing review of the updates. She make an energetic argument for the book as is! In fact, she says that the 1978 version shows what a good editor King is. That said, I find I like both novels for what they are! One doesn't have to be "better" than the other.
.
King once pointed out that when someone says a movie "ruined" the book, that person is out of their mind (my words). A movie cannot really destroy or mess up a book, because even after the movie is watched -- the book is still there on the shelf. The story can be read again and again. That holds true when a book is updated or revised. You can still go buy the original edition of The Stand for pretty cheap. In fact, you can get book club editions of it for about $5. So if you prefer the original, it's still there!
.
I like The Stand 1978 for the speed at which King moves the story. It is nicely edited. He did not do a hack-job on his own book. If you want to see King hacked up, listen to the abridged version of Thinner on audio tape! That's what happens when King's work falls into the hands of the choppers. However, King himself shows respect for his story, and he gives it a very nice tummy tuck.
.
What The Stand uncut gives us is depth. When Lucas remade the original Star Wars films, he not only added scenes, he opened up existing scenes. For instance, on cloud city windows were added that showed all kinds of things happening outside. The same happens in The Stand. The picture is opened up and we are given a wider view of America and the characters that inhabit the world of The Stand.
.
What Exactly Was Cut?
.
In her complaining about the new edition, Ann Carter actually gave a pretty good explanation of what was cut from the original edition of The Stand. The list below is compiled from quotes by Carter:
.
1. Scenes have been added. The 1990 story begins with a security guard at the germ warfare lab running for safety with his wife and child, hoping to escape the deadly virus that has gotten away from its creators. The 1978 story begins with his death. The new version adds an unpleasant confrontation between Fran and her mother among other story stoppers.
.
.
2. Scenes also have been expanded, putting in dialogue, action, description and recollection that don`t add much to the story, but do a great job of slowing it down. Trash Can Man`s trek across the country is enlarged. A scene in which Stu reminisces has him telling of a pre-flu meeting with someone he could swear was the supposedly late Jim Morrison of the Doors.
.
Brian Schwartz writes at his blog, "Much of what was added improved the book. It added depth to the characters – particularly to the man known as “The Trashcan Man.” http://brianbookreviews.blogspot.com/2010/06/stand-by-stephen-king.html
King told Time Magazine:.
Why The Stand was edited:
It sort of nagged me a lot that those pages had been cut. Doubleday had a physically limiting factor in those days because they used a glue binding instead of a cloth binding, and the way it was explained to me was that they had so much of a thickness they could do before the glue just fell apart. And that meant issuing a book in two volumes, and they didn't want to do that. So my editor came to me and said, "We have to cut this book by 400 pages. And that's the reason why. It doesn't have anything to do with quality."
.
How The Stand Was Rewritten:
I actually sat down and wrote the book again. I had the manuscript on one side of an IBM Selectric typewriter and I had the pages of a book that I had torn out of the binding on the other side. And I started at the beginning and I updated the dates and wrote new material. But when I think about it, I think to myself, "Jesus, that was a lot of work."
.
When Robert Bloch died, the only thing that anybody really remembered about him was that he wrote Psycho, which became the famous Alfred Hitchcock movie. And whenever I'm introduced, I'm the guy that wrote The Stand. When my name comes up in the blogs these days, it's usually in relation to H1N1: "He was the guy who thought about the flu!"
.
About two years ago I found a paperback edition of the 1978 version. I had been looking for awhile and came across it in a local used bookstore. I had a hard time finding it. The one I own was the last printing from 1988. It's amusing to note that when that when it was released in 1980 for the paperback King changed the year from 1980 (which was in the original 78 edition) to 1985.
ReplyDeleteAnyway both versions are interesting. If I had my way I would probably take about half of the restored cuts. Say about 200 pages. I also found it fascinating how characters changed between the two versions. The Kid became a dirty old man in the 78 version for example.
The biggest flaw with the 1990 version would be the fact that the story has a very definite 70's vibe to it. Some of the characters, their attitudes and way of reacting to situations are a reflection of the mid-70's. Not the late 80's. I like the novel, but it's obvious to me that The Stand is a novel that was written by a man in his mid-twenties during a very turbulant time in the United States history.
Jeff Cordell
jefbecco@msn.com
I agree, Jeff, the stolry does retain a 70's vibe.
ReplyDelete