Gaiman's Unabridged Stephen King Article

Neil Gaiman has posted his full article on his interview with Stephen King.  It appears at his blog,  His version is longer than the version printed in the Sunday Times.

Gaiman explains:

I interviewed Stephen King for the UK Sunday Times Magazine. The interview appeared a few weeks ago. The Times keeps its site paywalled, so I thought I'd post the original version of the interview here. (This is the raw copy, and it's somewhat longer than the interview as published.)  
I don't do much journalism any more, and this was mostly an excuse to drive across Florida back in February and spend a day with some very nice people I do not get to see enough. 


  1. I look forward to reading this -- thanks for posting the link!

  2. Well, not bad. A bit more detail, though not enough to go on as to why he'd want to revise the entire Tower series.

    Now that I've had time to reflect on that comment here thoughts and it has to do with King's accident.

    I think King would have written some sort of conclusion to the Tower series yet, and I hope this doesn't come off as morbid, I think his accident gave him the impetus he needed to finish the series not just in terms of "How much time have I got left" but rather it provided an ironic jumping off point for everything he was looking for in the books and in that way the accident fired hiss imagination.

    I'm convinced King inserting himself into the fiction thereby "makes" the fiction, makes it work in other word, or at least it works for me, I know there are others who disagree.

    The irony there is King said he knew he would have a role in the series as far back as 1994, he just didn't know in what capacity that might be. Apparently the accident showed him that capacity, which makes his recent comments all the more strange.

    Unfortunately I still think the Shining sequel is a big mistake and I know that's a minority position and for a time now I wondered why only a handful of other fans felt like I do. Then I remembered a book i read called "An Experiment in Criticism" by C.S. Lewis in wchi he said basically just as there are types of books, so there are types of readers, with most readers liking books just for the recreation, with a small minority who don't just read books for recreation but more like something to lived than just read, with a value and integrity inherent in the text itself.

    Lewis' gist is the great majority is more concerned with real life and living than books, and in that sense may be smarter than the "literary minority such as myself.

    By the way, honk, sorry to here about the refunds, hope your wages weren't docked or anything.


  3. Oh, no; didn't affect me at all. It's a relatively common practice for movie theatres. Although we don't get all that many people who want refunds simply because they think the movie is bad: wanting one due to being offended is actually way more common.

    You'd (maybe) be surprised how many people go to see a movie without having the slightest inkling of what it's about. People with children who are absolutely STUNNED to find out that there is bad language in "Bad Santa" movie, or sex in "Watchmen," or -- I kid you not -- violence in "Hostel." The common-sense solution might seemingly be to warn people with kids about certain movies, but then people get offended that you are "telling them how to raise their kids."

    I always just apologize and give 'em their money back.

    Good times! We'll have a lot of them for "Carrie," too, I'd speculate...

  4. I walked out of Texas Chainsaw remake.

    1. Too late for a refund; we're not even showing it anymore!